Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
|Forums:||Index → Yu-Gi-Oh! Ruling Queries → Soul Taker vs. Stardust Dragon|
|Please sign your comments with ~~~~. See Help:Signature and Help:Talk pages for further information.|
|This forum thread has been unedited for 2769 days and is considered archived. Please don't add to the discussion, unless absolutely necessary.|
~Specter (cow_pi) 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Right but would that matter because Stardust can negate any card that destroys a card on the field so I don't quite see where your going with this. The reason I bring this up is because if you look at the rulings page for Prime Material Dragon (which is basically the same thing as stardust) Prime Material Dragon can negate soul taker so I don't believe that stardust would miss the timing.126.96.36.199 20:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
yes, but Stardust Dragon only negates the effect, correct? My point is that Soul Taker contains two effects that resolve sequentially, and the destroying effect is not the last effect to resolve when the opportunity to activate Stardust Dragon arrives.
~Specter (cow_pi) 21:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
however, I do see your point about Prime Material Dragon.
~Specter (cow_pi) 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- The effect of "Stardust Dragon" only cares that the effect is going to destroy a monster at resolution. It does not care about what else the effect does.
- "Stardust Dragon" can negate the effect of "Soul Taker". The entire effect will be negated, so no monster will be destroyed and the opponent's Life Points will not increase.
- Also, you activate the effect of "Stardust Dragon" in chain to the other effect's activation, before it starts resolving.
- --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 21:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
okay, thanks. I knew from the rulings' page that it worked. I just wanted to know why it worked. thanks again.
~Specter (cow_pi) 22:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)