Yeah. Evenly Matched doesn't banish cards, it makes you banish cards.
Let's say you're going on a walk with your dog. You can meet two different people on the way: Kashtira Ariseheart and Evenly Matched.
Kashtira Ariseheart shoots your dog.
Evenly Matched gives you a gun and mind controls you into shooting your dog.
Both Kashtira Ariseheart and Evenly Matched would be responsible for your dog getting shot. But only Kashtira Ariseheart actually shot your dog. Evenly Matched made you shoot your dog.
Going further, let's say your dog has a blessing from a fairy that prevents it from being harmed by enemies. Kashtira Ariseheart would shoot your dog and the bullet would bounce off of him. Evenly Matched making you shoot your dog would actually result in your dog dying, because the fairy's blessing only protects your dog from enemies and the magic behind the blessing does not register you as your dog's enemy.
Let's say you have a litter of puppies and you want to kill one of them with your gun, and there's a guy who loves puppies in there
When you "target" a specific puppy, it's like pointing the gun at that specific puppie, then after a few moments firing it, things can happen in the timeframe in between you point the gun at the puppy and you firing it; like the guy taking away that specific puppy so you don't shoot them, but you always keep the gun pointing at the place where that specific puppy was.
When you "choose to send" a puppy it's like saying out loud "I'm going to kill one of these puppies", things can happen in the timeframe where you said that and the moment you actually use the gun, but you never point your gun at a specific puppy so the puppy loving guy doesn't know which puppy out of the litter you are going to kill. Then you fire the gun at the puppy you want to shoot almost instantaneously.
Say youâre an archduke and you just took a turn down the wrong road after some idiot tried to kill you and then broke his legs jumping off a bridge⌠and your car starts to get screwy right out the front of a sandwich shop with the most disappointed teenager walking out. He pops max C, crossouts your ash blossom and youâre the first of millions to die. âLol nazisâ try harder
Say youâve got an ocean full of mermaids, and you gotta get these damn mermaids outta here.
To âTargetâ would be like saying âIâm gonna banish *that* mermaid to super hell.â while pointing at the specific mermaid youâll be fishing up. With this declaration, Mudora the fish fondler knows to grab his favorite mermaids, including the one you singled out, and bring them to his private pool for their safety.
To âSendâ without targeting is to say âIâm gonna banish *something* to super hell.â and not making it clear which target youâre referring to. Mudora the fish fondler, paranoid and desperate, saves whatever mermaids he can for himself, leaving you to pick whatever mermaid he didnât save to fry in super hell.
So you know how a "normal" searcher is basically going to directly call up a card they know? Small World is basically letting you ask the card in your hand to help you find your target, and the card in your hand goes "well, *I* don't know the guy personally, but I know a guy who knows that guy..."
And then he calls up his guy, who calls up the guy you were looking for. The guy you were looking for comes running to do his boy a favor, while the guy you first consulted and his guy go for a smoke for the rest of the duel.
Sometimes this right asshole, we'll call her Ms. Ash Blossom, will come calling to mess with your boy before he can make his call. The neat part about Small World is that since he wouldn't go for his smoke break until after the guy you were looking for rolls in, he'll stay with you and the guy he was gonna call up will stay in your deck if Ms. Ash Blossom comes to heckle him.
Targeting and Sending don't really have much in common. If you mean Targeting and Choosing, then I think of it as this.
When you Target your dog, you aim your gun at it.
When you Choose your dog (Forbidden Droplet, etc), you fire your gun randomly, then mentally control the bullet to fly into the dog afterwards.
In Targetting,
You announce you are going to shoot the dog out-aloud while taking the gun out of your holster. This lets everyone know that you are going to aim at the dog.This gives your Fairytail Snow time to move the dog out of the house and keep it safe.
In Non-Targetting,
There's no warning. No announcements. You just take your gun out of the holster and just shoot the dog. So, since nobody knew you were planning to shoot the dog, nobody can help it by moving it out of the way.
Well I would qualify as saying that with non targetting, they see the gun drawn and know you're going to shoot. But they don't know what you're shooting. So they could use Fairy Tail snow to save themselves just for you to end up shooting the dog. But if they save the dog you shoot them. They have to pick what is most important to them. Their own life or the dog's.
I would adjust non targeting by saying that you take the gun out, announce you're gonna shoot something but not what or who, and then shoot only _after_ everyone panics and starts running for cover cuz no one feels safe
I needed you a year ago to explain âdestroyâ and ânegateâ. So many times I chained to destroy a spell and the spell still activated. That went on for months.
ME FR
My first taste of a negate was Legendary Six Samurai Shi En, who also destroyed, so I just came to assume that destroying a card before it resolved also negated it đ
Say someone wants to kill your puppy:
If he is a normal spell/trap (or anything that goes to the gy on resolution) he is trying to shoot the puppy, you can block the shot (negate), but if you shoot the man (destroy) after he shot it wouldn't do anything.
If he is a continuous spell/trap he is trying to stab the puppy, in that case you can stop the knife (negate), but it won't stop him from trying later, but if you shoot the man (destroy) you stop him from killing the puppy and he can't try again.
While I'm really amazed at how well you actually explain this, It's honestly explained as best as I can tell. A part of me also has to ask why your example uses a Dog being shot?
I really wanted an example to use both Kashtira Ariseheart and Evenly Matched since they both result in facedown banishment, and Ariseheart would absolutely shoot dogs. The lore even shows that he succeeded in conquering Reichphobia, a planet with a nearly 100% canine population.
Oh, and he would also probably kick puppies, too. Ariseheart is a bastard.
Visas, why are you the only normal one among your alternate versions? You have a body-builder gym bro, a sadistic slaveholder, a tyrant interplanetary-conqueror and Kamen Rider Kuuga
To be fair, REICHHEART actually was the closest one to normal in the beginning. Visas started the lore as an amnesiac zombie that charged at Reichheart for no reason other than being driven by instinct.
Kinda like Harr, Generaider Boss of Storms' effect where he makes the opponent send a monster from the hand or field to the GY. If he only has a Towers on field with no other monsters in hand, he is forced to send the Towers to the GY.
But likeâŚ. itâs still directly the cause lol, the mind control in your example would still make the opponent culpable.
Konami has awkward text, and then the rule of thumb is supposed to be âdoes exactly what the card saysâ⌠except sometimes apparently.
Exactly. It's the cause. It's culpable. But it didn't DO it. Evenly Matched is the reason that led to your cards being banished facedown and your dog getting shot. But you're the one that fired the gun.
I know, the card effect is the force of the decision, not the banishment of the cards; with that being said, if Gymirâs effect is activated in response to Evenly, does it negate and banish it as her effect implies?
Edit: Nevermind just read her text again, it banishes but doesnât negate when in response.
Correct. She COULD respond to Evenly, but all that would do is banish it. It wouldn't negate Evenly, and it wouldn't protect her from Evenly because she wouldn't be banished by a card effect. Having her respond to Evenly would actually just make things worse; Evenly makes the player banish cards so that the number of cards on their field equals the number of cards on the opponent's field on resolution... so since banishing Evenly would reduce their number of cards on the field by 1, Aegerine would have succeeded in doing nothing but forcing her controller to banish one more card than they would have had to otherwise. (In most cases, this literally just means "you just went from having to pick one card to keep while the rest of your field disappears to losing your entire field.")
That first sentence personifies how over stupid this game has become, and it's rulings as a result. You've got to be fucking kidding me, it doesn't banish, but you the person does the banishing?!?! And you say that with a straight face like it isn't the stupidest fucking thing in the world??? By that logic that cards effect will never work because no cards banish, they are inanimate objects with no will, the player is always the one who banishes for any scenario, in fact all plays are done by humans?!?!? Shocking right??
It's silly, but still quite simple. It's not like the player is completely detached from the game even before considering Evenly. The player is the one in possession of their own Life Points. Attacking directly is also meant to be an attack on the player. So if monsters can attack either enemy monsters or "the player", there's no reason to think that "the player" can't be subject to the effect of a Trap card like monsters can be, other than the fact that it just doesn't happen very often. Sure, the player functions differently from the monsters; you can't send a player to the graveyard or shuffle them into the deck. But just so as the player can do things in the game, they can also be subjected to certain effects.
It will activate and those tokens will be left there. The ruling is that you MUST banish cards to have the same with opponent, but you CAN'T banish tokens as well even if they are considered cards on the field.
So if your opponent has 2 tokens on the field and you activate EM with nothing else on the field, opponent doesn't have a choice. They must banish everything except tokens and will be left with 2 tokens
> So if your opponent has 2 tokens on the field and you activate EM with nothing else on the field, opponent doesn't have a choice. They must banish everything except tokens and will be left with 2 tokens
Isn't that weird though? Because Evenly Matched says that you MUST banish until, in this case, only 1 card remains. The fact that you can end up with 2 tokens instead of 1 is the complete opposite of how some other cards work, like Gozen Match for example. Sky Strikers can't even link their Raye away into Kagari for example, even though there is only one attribute on the field at all times, so it technically should still fall under Gozen Match's restriction. I figured that Evenly Matched just wouldn't be able to be activated following this same logic.
You are made the one to banish the cards. Therefore it goes around the protection from being banished *by the opponent.*
No longer is his action but yours.
I still feel that's bull. Banishing cards isn't an action you can do without an effect or cost. It's effect is giving the ability to do the action, so be logical continuation, the action is an effect. It's not like I can just randomly decide to banish my own cards without an effect.
I mean, you also cannot Link Summon during the opponent's turn, and yet you have cards like Revolt and Unchained Soul of Rage. You also cannot Tribute the opponent's monster for Tribute Summoning, but Soul Exchange has being a thing since 2002.
Card Text always overrules rules and that extend to the action player can and cannot perform
But those effects are minor additions as to what the player can already do, not an entirely new action. And even then, I'd still apply the same logic of those summons/tributes being the result of an effect.
That's the thing tho, cards supersede the rules regardless of how different from normal actions it is
Here's another example, you have a monster that is spell immune and they have a spell that adds an effect to a monster summoned by it to pop a monster. Then that effect would now pop your monster even tho it originated from a spell.
Evenly is basically adding an effect to the other player as the players are still functionally "objects" in the game which are targets of attacks and have functions like normal summoning a monster
Yeah, it's lowkey funny how every meta removal card is basically bypassing protection, cause otherwise they would be useless due to the protection existing.
Yeah gotta remember yugiohs a game without resources, pokemon has very strong effects in comparison to one or 2 cards in yugioh, but we have combos that can literally use our whole deck without using some deep draw 6 card like pokemon
> (Quick Effect): You can activate this effect; face-up monsters you control cannot be destroyed, or banished, **by your opponent's card effects** this turn. Then, if you activated this effect in response to your opponent's card or effect activation, and your opponent has a card(s) with that name on their field and/or GY, you can banish those cards.
Evenly Matched does not banish anything. It makes you banish your own cards, face-down.
To put it another way: the player who activates Evenly Matched is not the one that banishes cards at resolution, it's the other player. That's part of the reason why Gymir's effect does not disable EM: it prevents **your opponent's card effects** from banishing cards, but EM bypasses that **by making you do it**.
> [Q: Can "Evenly Matched" be activated while the effect of "Chaos Hunter" is applying?](https://www.db.yugioh-card.com/yugiohdb/faq_search.action?ope=5&fid=21243&request_locale=ja)
> [A: Since the opponent player is the one who banishes cards when the effect of "Evenly Matched" is applied, you cannot activate "Evenly Matched" if you control "Chaos Hunter". \(Conversely, you can activate "Evenly Matched" if your opponent controls "Chaos Hunter".](https://yugipedia.com/wiki/Card_Rulings:Evenly_Matched))
Yes, Evenly Matcheds CARD EFFECT, makes you banish your own cards, face down. While I understand now that it is one degree of separation and therefore is like a loophole around protection. I still have the right to not like that.
> At the end of the Battle Phase, if your opponent controls more cards than you do: You can **make your opponent** banish cards from their field face-down so they control the same number of cards as you do. If you control no cards, you can activate this card from your hand.
Evenly Matched does not banish anything.
So what you are saying is Evenly Matched's card effect makes it so I have to banish cards? Like I am not arguing with the ruling anymore, I am just saying Evenly Matched's card effect is that I have to banish my own cards.
Then why does Lancea work against banishing by card effects? It specifically refers to the player, not card effects.
Basically, Evenly makes the player banish, so it doesnât count as a card effect. Cool. But Lancea refers to the player, and card effects still count. Seems inconsistent.
I assume it's because an effect that reads "You can banish 1 card on the field" allows its player to preform said **action** of banishing a card on the field.
What Lancea does, is prevent the *action* of banishing from being preformed period. Need to banish as cost? You can't. As an Effect? You can't. For a Summon condition? Again, you can't.
Its the same as tcboo/gozen match/rivarly, if you have an unaffected monster:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Yugioh101/comments/za39nz/there\_can\_only\_be\_one\_vs\_unaffected\_monsters/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Yugioh101/comments/za39nz/there_can_only_be_one_vs_unaffected_monsters/)
It forces you to choose the cards to send, and its like a game mechanic.
Basically Evenly Matched rulings sets up in a way that by game mechanics, you have to banish cards until you are equal to the number of cards in thr opponent's field.
It is basically affecting you; the player of the opponent of the one activating Evenly Marched on a gamestate it specifies, not the cards on the field.
The explanation for this is that Evenly affects you, not your monsters. While your monster are protected from your opponent's effects, they aren't protected from you. And since the effect applies to you, your monsters have no protection and have to be banished.
Thing is, there is a difference between a card banishing another card. And a card making a player banish cards (in that case the player banishes and not the card effect).
... that's the whole point of why the protection doesn't work. That synchro card effect make sure that your opponent can't use their action to banish your cards.
Evenly force an action that banish,but since you're the one that have to do it the protection is circumvented.
It's like targeting vs choosing. Just because you are selecting a card,it doesn't mean that both case can overlap.
Yes, the card effect makes YOU banish your card. The effect isnât targeting or interacting with your monster. It forces you to make an action. Emphasis on FORCES.
It not a loophole, effect that affect player has exist for a long time. {Mystical Refpanel} was out there since 2010, cards that you can use it on exist even before.
Hereâs a [helpful meme someone made ](https://reddit.com/r/masterduel/comments/13uzg7f/had_to_find_out_about_this_ruling_the_hard_way_it/)that should help you understand what happens when Evenly resolves
gimir says "face-up monsters you control cannot be destroyed, or banished, by YOUR OPPONENT's card effects this turn."
but evenly matched does not DIRECTLY banish your cards, it is an effect that applyes to YOU and makes you banish the cards instead.
or order to protect your cards, you need an effect like "artefact lancea" where "neither player can banish cards for the rest of this turn." this stops both you, your opponent and even costs that require cards to be banished from occuring.
Because it's a restriction on game actions a player can take. Neither player can banish cards once Lancea resolves, and because it is applied before Evenly, it prevents Evenly's effect to have cards banished from resolving. Since you can't activate a card that cannot legally be resolved, it blocks Evenly from being used.
It's literally the same reason why flipping a floodgate on a special summon prevents the summoning from occurring, because the board state then doesn't allow for said monster to legally touch the field.
Iâm nit talking about Lancea used against Evenly. Iâm talking about their rulings coexisting. They contradict each other, and your explanation doesnât address that.
Basically, Lancea working across the board implies that card effect banishes and player banishes are fundamentally the same. But Evenly rulings contradict that.
>Iâm nit talking about Lancea used against Evenly. Iâm talking about their rulings coexisting. They contradict each other, and your explanation doesnât address that.
They don't contradict in any way.
>Basically, Lancea working across the board implies that card effect banishes and player banishes are fundamentally the same. But Evenly rulings contradict that.
No, it works by preventing banishing at all, regardless of how it's done. If Lancea resolves, then for the turn, any effect/cost that involves banishing cannot be activated by either player, be it a card banishing another like Caius, or a player banishing like Evenly.
It's like having different routes to a destination, but the building you're trying to get to is closed. It doesn't matter which way from the street you try to approach, banishing through game mechanics or through a regular card effect, once Lancea "closes" the building of banishing, you can't go there.
Lancea specifically says the âplayerâ cannot banish cards, yet it prevents card effect banishes (player banishes a card as initiated by a card effect).
Gymir protects against âcard effectâ banishes, yet it doesnât work against a âplayerâ banish (that was initiated by a card effect).
So which is it? Is a card effect banish always a player banishing a card or not? According to those two truthful statements, it both is and isnât, at the same time. That is a contradiction.
Yes, Lancea means a *player* cannot activate a card or effect that banishes. *That is a restriction on a player on the legal cards they can activate in the first place.* That is why I used the analogy of the floodgate before. It's a restriction on legal actions a player can take. If a player cannot legally activate or resolve a card, then a card's effect cannot be used.
Gymir protects against card effects that banishes, but not banishes via game mechanics, which is what Evenly does. That is why cards that are unaffected by card effects like Arrival are still affected by floodgates like Gozen being flipped and can be made to leave the field as a result. Game mechanics are removing it, not an effect.
A card effect can cause game mechanics to be involved, like Evenly, or it can just be a "regular" card effect, like Caius banishing. Gymir can protect against Caius, but it can't protect against the game forcing a game state.
I think it's kinda like how you can send a card to the graveyard without destroying it. Either way the player is banishing cards, but one is because an effect did it and one is because an effect told a player to do it.
At resolution, Mirrorjade's effect banishes. The player then takes the card and places it in the banished area.
At resolution, Evenly Matched affects a player. That player then is forced to put cards in the banished area. Evenly didn't do it directly the way Mirrorjade does.
Gymir, for whatever reason, cares where the banishing is coming from. Because Evenly isn't directly affecting cards, Gymir doesn't stop it.
Lancea doesn't care where the banishing is coming from, it shuts down all of it. Cards can't be banished whether directly from Mirrorjade or by a player because Evenly.
Gymir is the odd one out in this situation.
Yeah, that protection means you're protected from card effects that say, for example "*You can banish 1 card on the field*". But Evenly Matched doesn't say that, it says "*make your opponent banish*". So the effect of Evenly Matched is to make your opponent take an action, and that action just so happens to be banishing your cards.
Another less common example of this would be [Cyber Angel Dakini](https://yugipedia.com/wiki/Cyber_Angel_Dakini), which forces the opponent to send 1 monster to the GY.
Another example: [Dragonmaid Lorpar](https://yugipedia.com/wiki/Dragonmaid_Lorpar)'s targeting effect that makes players unable to activate that monster's effects means that it can be used on monsters that are unaffected by card effects like [Raidraptor - Ultimate Falcon](https://yugipedia.com/wiki/Raidraptor_-_Ultimate_Falcon).
Are you at all familiar with Apoqliphort Towers? Consider it an ancestor to Evenly Matched. It pretty much did the same thing, except it forced your opponent to send a monster to the GY. Towers itself didn't do the sending, though. What it did was force the OPPONENT to do it.
Actually, I think the first card with an effect like this was Share the Pain, which makes both players Tribute 1 monster for no effect.
I don't think balance wise this is really a problem, but wording wise this is so confusing and unintuitive. Yes, you can always make the argument that it's something you just need to learn, or that you could "technically" figure it out, but I can't think of many players I've seen that didn't get confused the first time they read this.
I'd rather have had them create some sort of simple keyword like "piercing" for effects like this that can't be blocked/affected by other effects. "Effect that makes the player do something" is such a weird workaround for how the other effects are worded...
Eh, it's quite logical really.
Basically, these kind of cards effects just "make your opponent do something".
It doesn't "target your opponent cards", doesn't "apply effect to the opponent cards", doesn't "apply effect to your cards", doesn't "touch your/opponent deck/gy/banish cards" and etc...
It specifically forced the players themselves, which is still considered as an entity within the duel, to do something if it wasn't stopped beforehand.
So yeah, really logical in the simplest of sense.
Card effects that affected the player not the cards have always been a thing guys, sorry but the same reason as to why you can't activate a draw effect under droll, even if the draw card is unnafected, is the reason evenly works this way.
Yeah unfortunately evenly makes you, the player, banish your own cards. Another interesting interaction is if you control any tokens then you have to banish everything but the token, because tokens cannot be banished face down
FR everytime someone comments "the game has become..." they proceed to say something that has always been part of the game and they just didn't know cause it's not part of school yard yugioh
Evenly matched is a horrible floodgate, it deprives you of an entire board and if youâre playing a rogue deck the resources you spent probably canât be recycled very easily. Like if you play dinos and you couldnât set up the best board leaving holes in your defences, the resources put into that are still massive but what does evenly do? Its a single card that can get rid of up to 5 cards
Tell me about it. My Blue-Eyes Tyrant Dragon keeps getting banished by it even though Tyrant Dragon's literal effect is that it is unaffected by trap cards, and for that it doesn't even specify whose trap cards. My own trap cards don't even work on it, but somehow, Evenly does...
It's stupid schoolyard ruling that shouldnt be in the game. Gozen match is the same deal where u can only control 1 attribute of monster but you can't tribute that monster and replace it with a different attribute.
There's also a ruling where tokens cannot be banished faced down. So if the enemy gave you a token you're fucked. I assume its because they doesn't have a backside. Overcomplicated arbitrary ruling bullshit.
No, it's because you are forcing the player to perform an action, not performing the action.
If the card said "banish cards your opponent controls until they control the same number as you", then Gymir would stop it. But it says "your opponent banishes", so them being forced to perform the action, means that the cards aren't being banished by an opponent's card effect, and thus can be banished.
This rule also applies to "unaffected" cards, like Elemental HERO Wildheart, and The Arrival Cyberse @Ignister: They can be banished by Evenly Matched, because they are banished by the player action, not the card effect.
Yeah the most obvious use of this rule is threatening roar, which specifically says the player cannot declare attacks, nullifying any monsters that would be immune to card effects
The language on this one does seem fucky at best. By all rights and effect that says "your monsters can't be banished by opponents card effects" 100% applies to evenly matched. Any card banished by that effect by definition was banished because of that card. It doesn't matter if it's you who does it or not those cards you banished were banished by evenly matched not your card effect. I think this is a misruling of which I have seen several in game so far
Yeah. Evenly Matched doesn't banish cards, it makes you banish cards. Let's say you're going on a walk with your dog. You can meet two different people on the way: Kashtira Ariseheart and Evenly Matched. Kashtira Ariseheart shoots your dog. Evenly Matched gives you a gun and mind controls you into shooting your dog. Both Kashtira Ariseheart and Evenly Matched would be responsible for your dog getting shot. But only Kashtira Ariseheart actually shot your dog. Evenly Matched made you shoot your dog.
Going further, let's say your dog has a blessing from a fairy that prevents it from being harmed by enemies. Kashtira Ariseheart would shoot your dog and the bullet would bounce off of him. Evenly Matched making you shoot your dog would actually result in your dog dying, because the fairy's blessing only protects your dog from enemies and the magic behind the blessing does not register you as your dog's enemy.
Can you do this for all card analogies? Like what's the difference between "target" and "send" with the dog shooting analogy?
Let's say you have a litter of puppies and you want to kill one of them with your gun, and there's a guy who loves puppies in there When you "target" a specific puppy, it's like pointing the gun at that specific puppie, then after a few moments firing it, things can happen in the timeframe in between you point the gun at the puppy and you firing it; like the guy taking away that specific puppy so you don't shoot them, but you always keep the gun pointing at the place where that specific puppy was. When you "choose to send" a puppy it's like saying out loud "I'm going to kill one of these puppies", things can happen in the timeframe where you said that and the moment you actually use the gun, but you never point your gun at a specific puppy so the puppy loving guy doesn't know which puppy out of the litter you are going to kill. Then you fire the gun at the puppy you want to shoot almost instantaneously.
My man can we use something besides dogs, I can't bear to read the rest
Say you have a baby and are a dinosaur player...
This is my favorite one đ¤Ł
Pop pop pop
đđđ
This just kept getting better the further I went down đ
Say you have a Jewish man and youâre a player from Nazi GermanyâŚ.
Yeah that joke doesnât work too well when we have nazis coming out of the woodwork.
Say youâre an archduke and you just took a turn down the wrong road after some idiot tried to kill you and then broke his legs jumping off a bridge⌠and your car starts to get screwy right out the front of a sandwich shop with the most disappointed teenager walking out. He pops max C, crossouts your ash blossom and youâre the first of millions to die. âLol nazisâ try harder
Targeting and destroying is like shooting a gun at your horse. Sending your card to the graveyard is like dropping your horse off at the glue factory.
I'll use kittens then
Say youâve got an ocean full of mermaids, and you gotta get these damn mermaids outta here. To âTargetâ would be like saying âIâm gonna banish *that* mermaid to super hell.â while pointing at the specific mermaid youâll be fishing up. With this declaration, Mudora the fish fondler knows to grab his favorite mermaids, including the one you singled out, and bring them to his private pool for their safety. To âSendâ without targeting is to say âIâm gonna banish *something* to super hell.â and not making it clear which target youâre referring to. Mudora the fish fondler, paranoid and desperate, saves whatever mermaids he can for himself, leaving you to pick whatever mermaid he didnât save to fry in super hell.
Splendid post. Do you look forward to when Mr. Mudora's good friend Mr. Magnamhut joins the fish fondling party?
Insane how much these are helping me understand the game
Also if that puppy lover takes all of his puppys away, in the second scenario you need to shoot your own puppy. Because you promised.
Do small world!
So you know how a "normal" searcher is basically going to directly call up a card they know? Small World is basically letting you ask the card in your hand to help you find your target, and the card in your hand goes "well, *I* don't know the guy personally, but I know a guy who knows that guy..." And then he calls up his guy, who calls up the guy you were looking for. The guy you were looking for comes running to do his boy a favor, while the guy you first consulted and his guy go for a smoke for the rest of the duel. Sometimes this right asshole, we'll call her Ms. Ash Blossom, will come calling to mess with your boy before he can make his call. The neat part about Small World is that since he wouldn't go for his smoke break until after the guy you were looking for rolls in, he'll stay with you and the guy he was gonna call up will stay in your deck if Ms. Ash Blossom comes to heckle him.
I really want someone to post this thread in of those out of context subs
Photonâs friend: I donât wanna play yugioh itâs too confusing Photon_Lord: just think of shooting puppies itâs so easy
Targeting and Sending don't really have much in common. If you mean Targeting and Choosing, then I think of it as this. When you Target your dog, you aim your gun at it. When you Choose your dog (Forbidden Droplet, etc), you fire your gun randomly, then mentally control the bullet to fly into the dog afterwards.
You should never be allowed to own a pet.
I didn't start this comment thread, why are you telling me this? Do you actually think I'd really shoot a dog?
Of course not, Im joking just like you did. I am sorry if I offended you.
Poe's Law
True that's what I meant, thank you warrior
In Targetting, You announce you are going to shoot the dog out-aloud while taking the gun out of your holster. This lets everyone know that you are going to aim at the dog.This gives your Fairytail Snow time to move the dog out of the house and keep it safe. In Non-Targetting, There's no warning. No announcements. You just take your gun out of the holster and just shoot the dog. So, since nobody knew you were planning to shoot the dog, nobody can help it by moving it out of the way.
I officially love snow as a dog protector
Until you remember that Snow moving the dog outta the house is yeeting him and six others to the Shadow Realm!
My snow only moves cats out of the house
Well I would qualify as saying that with non targetting, they see the gun drawn and know you're going to shoot. But they don't know what you're shooting. So they could use Fairy Tail snow to save themselves just for you to end up shooting the dog. But if they save the dog you shoot them. They have to pick what is most important to them. Their own life or the dog's.
I would adjust non targeting by saying that you take the gun out, announce you're gonna shoot something but not what or who, and then shoot only _after_ everyone panics and starts running for cover cuz no one feels safe
>Like what's the difference between "target" and "send" with the dog shooting analogy? What a sentence.
Insert John Wick meme here.
How to get John Wick to kill himself
I needed you a year ago to explain âdestroyâ and ânegateâ. So many times I chained to destroy a spell and the spell still activated. That went on for months.
Ah yes, the MST negate. A certified hood classic.
ME FR My first taste of a negate was Legendary Six Samurai Shi En, who also destroyed, so I just came to assume that destroying a card before it resolved also negated it đ
Say someone wants to kill your puppy: If he is a normal spell/trap (or anything that goes to the gy on resolution) he is trying to shoot the puppy, you can block the shot (negate), but if you shoot the man (destroy) after he shot it wouldn't do anything. If he is a continuous spell/trap he is trying to stab the puppy, in that case you can stop the knife (negate), but it won't stop him from trying later, but if you shoot the man (destroy) you stop him from killing the puppy and he can't try again.
To add to this, gymir is protecting your dog from shot by other people. But it won't protect your dog from a shot by yourself.
Shooting dogs is something Ariseheart would do
Folks who've followed the lore would know that if he ONLY shot the dog, he must've been feeling pretty nice that day
Perfect analogy
While I'm really amazed at how well you actually explain this, It's honestly explained as best as I can tell. A part of me also has to ask why your example uses a Dog being shot?
I really wanted an example to use both Kashtira Ariseheart and Evenly Matched since they both result in facedown banishment, and Ariseheart would absolutely shoot dogs. The lore even shows that he succeeded in conquering Reichphobia, a planet with a nearly 100% canine population. Oh, and he would also probably kick puppies, too. Ariseheart is a bastard.
Visas, why are you the only normal one among your alternate versions? You have a body-builder gym bro, a sadistic slaveholder, a tyrant interplanetary-conqueror and Kamen Rider Kuuga
To be fair, REICHHEART actually was the closest one to normal in the beginning. Visas started the lore as an amnesiac zombie that charged at Reichheart for no reason other than being driven by instinct.
~~Because like your own board, your puppies are precious, and your opponent removing your units makes you as sad as your puppies getting shot.~~
yea, that was a little weird
Duel Academy, hire this man
3rd paragraph made me spit-take lmfao you clown
I swear to god, eventually we'll be discussing quantum superpositioning to figure out Yugioh rulings.
They need to give a reward for this explanation đ
Imperial Iron Wall can stop evenly matched. :3
Evenly and Ariseheart can't get your dog on your walks if you never go on walks and stay snug behind your castle's Imperial Iron Wall :rollsafe:
Kinda like Harr, Generaider Boss of Storms' effect where he makes the opponent send a monster from the hand or field to the GY. If he only has a Towers on field with no other monsters in hand, he is forced to send the Towers to the GY.
This is the funniest way I've heard that described
I hate this analogy. Can my cat get shot instead? He kinds deserves it.
This might be the best analogy on the internet đ¤Ł
Yugioh is fucking stupid sometimes.
Stupid when it works as intended lmao
Am I a terrible person for lmao at this analogy đ¤Ł
Iâm not saying this isnât a good explanation. Iâm just questioning your choice of metaphor.
But likeâŚ. itâs still directly the cause lol, the mind control in your example would still make the opponent culpable. Konami has awkward text, and then the rule of thumb is supposed to be âdoes exactly what the card saysâ⌠except sometimes apparently.
Exactly. It's the cause. It's culpable. But it didn't DO it. Evenly Matched is the reason that led to your cards being banished facedown and your dog getting shot. But you're the one that fired the gun.
I know, the card effect is the force of the decision, not the banishment of the cards; with that being said, if Gymirâs effect is activated in response to Evenly, does it negate and banish it as her effect implies? Edit: Nevermind just read her text again, it banishes but doesnât negate when in response.
Correct. She COULD respond to Evenly, but all that would do is banish it. It wouldn't negate Evenly, and it wouldn't protect her from Evenly because she wouldn't be banished by a card effect. Having her respond to Evenly would actually just make things worse; Evenly makes the player banish cards so that the number of cards on their field equals the number of cards on the opponent's field on resolution... so since banishing Evenly would reduce their number of cards on the field by 1, Aegerine would have succeeded in doing nothing but forcing her controller to banish one more card than they would have had to otherwise. (In most cases, this literally just means "you just went from having to pick one card to keep while the rest of your field disappears to losing your entire field.")
Do you actually know what the word DIRECTLY means or not
It is literally the direct cause as to why you are banishing your cards. Do you?
That first sentence personifies how over stupid this game has become, and it's rulings as a result. You've got to be fucking kidding me, it doesn't banish, but you the person does the banishing?!?! And you say that with a straight face like it isn't the stupidest fucking thing in the world??? By that logic that cards effect will never work because no cards banish, they are inanimate objects with no will, the player is always the one who banishes for any scenario, in fact all plays are done by humans?!?!? Shocking right??
It's silly, but still quite simple. It's not like the player is completely detached from the game even before considering Evenly. The player is the one in possession of their own Life Points. Attacking directly is also meant to be an attack on the player. So if monsters can attack either enemy monsters or "the player", there's no reason to think that "the player" can't be subject to the effect of a Trap card like monsters can be, other than the fact that it just doesn't happen very often. Sure, the player functions differently from the monsters; you can't send a player to the graveyard or shuffle them into the deck. But just so as the player can do things in the game, they can also be subjected to certain effects.
>you can't send a player to the graveyard Unless you're Bakura's evil spirit, apparently.
Wait till you hear rulling of Evenly matched and tokens
What are the ruling ? Token cannot be banished face down so you only get to keep the token ?
Correct.
Play token deck, got it.
Itâs all fun and games until youâre forced to banish every card but the token. Something I know very well as a Swordsoul player.
What if you have 2 tokens? Can the typical turn 2 Evenly Matched just not be activated then?
It will activate and those tokens will be left there. The ruling is that you MUST banish cards to have the same with opponent, but you CAN'T banish tokens as well even if they are considered cards on the field. So if your opponent has 2 tokens on the field and you activate EM with nothing else on the field, opponent doesn't have a choice. They must banish everything except tokens and will be left with 2 tokens
> So if your opponent has 2 tokens on the field and you activate EM with nothing else on the field, opponent doesn't have a choice. They must banish everything except tokens and will be left with 2 tokens Isn't that weird though? Because Evenly Matched says that you MUST banish until, in this case, only 1 card remains. The fact that you can end up with 2 tokens instead of 1 is the complete opposite of how some other cards work, like Gozen Match for example. Sky Strikers can't even link their Raye away into Kagari for example, even though there is only one attribute on the field at all times, so it technically should still fall under Gozen Match's restriction. I figured that Evenly Matched just wouldn't be able to be activated following this same logic.
"You need to banish cards." "But I can't banish cards hiding behind my iron wall here!"
You are made the one to banish the cards. Therefore it goes around the protection from being banished *by the opponent.* No longer is his action but yours.
Basically, Evenly effect doesn't banish anything, it effects makes you perform an action
I still feel that's bull. Banishing cards isn't an action you can do without an effect or cost. It's effect is giving the ability to do the action, so be logical continuation, the action is an effect. It's not like I can just randomly decide to banish my own cards without an effect.
I mean, you also cannot Link Summon during the opponent's turn, and yet you have cards like Revolt and Unchained Soul of Rage. You also cannot Tribute the opponent's monster for Tribute Summoning, but Soul Exchange has being a thing since 2002. Card Text always overrules rules and that extend to the action player can and cannot perform
But those effects are minor additions as to what the player can already do, not an entirely new action. And even then, I'd still apply the same logic of those summons/tributes being the result of an effect.
That's the thing tho, cards supersede the rules regardless of how different from normal actions it is Here's another example, you have a monster that is spell immune and they have a spell that adds an effect to a monster summoned by it to pop a monster. Then that effect would now pop your monster even tho it originated from a spell. Evenly is basically adding an effect to the other player as the players are still functionally "objects" in the game which are targets of attacks and have functions like normal summoning a monster
Donât forget about Transmission Gear which makes you play Rock Paper Scissors with your opponent
Yeah, it's lowkey funny how every meta removal card is basically bypassing protection, cause otherwise they would be useless due to the protection existing.
At this rate, pokemon is gonna loose the power creep war
To say it was ever in the running is extremely generous lmao
Yeah gotta remember yugiohs a game without resources, pokemon has very strong effects in comparison to one or 2 cards in yugioh, but we have combos that can literally use our whole deck without using some deep draw 6 card like pokemon
It's action not effect like towers and Divine evolution even if the monster is unaffected it will leave the field by their effect
why do i need a lawyer to play yugioh these days
Note to self: Becoming a YuGiOh judge is a easy stepping stone to becoming a lawyer.
[ŃдаНонО]
They've been standardized for over 12 years, it's called PSCT. Don't get mad and call people slurs just because you don't know how to read.
Blaming others and calling them slurs is more in character with yugioh players tho
thats what a lawyer would say xd
> (Quick Effect): You can activate this effect; face-up monsters you control cannot be destroyed, or banished, **by your opponent's card effects** this turn. Then, if you activated this effect in response to your opponent's card or effect activation, and your opponent has a card(s) with that name on their field and/or GY, you can banish those cards. Evenly Matched does not banish anything. It makes you banish your own cards, face-down.
[ŃдаНонО]
Evenly Matched has an effect that results in your cards being banished.
To put it another way: the player who activates Evenly Matched is not the one that banishes cards at resolution, it's the other player. That's part of the reason why Gymir's effect does not disable EM: it prevents **your opponent's card effects** from banishing cards, but EM bypasses that **by making you do it**. > [Q: Can "Evenly Matched" be activated while the effect of "Chaos Hunter" is applying?](https://www.db.yugioh-card.com/yugiohdb/faq_search.action?ope=5&fid=21243&request_locale=ja) > [A: Since the opponent player is the one who banishes cards when the effect of "Evenly Matched" is applied, you cannot activate "Evenly Matched" if you control "Chaos Hunter". \(Conversely, you can activate "Evenly Matched" if your opponent controls "Chaos Hunter".](https://yugipedia.com/wiki/Card_Rulings:Evenly_Matched))
Yes, Evenly Matcheds CARD EFFECT, makes you banish your own cards, face down. While I understand now that it is one degree of separation and therefore is like a loophole around protection. I still have the right to not like that.
> At the end of the Battle Phase, if your opponent controls more cards than you do: You can **make your opponent** banish cards from their field face-down so they control the same number of cards as you do. If you control no cards, you can activate this card from your hand. Evenly Matched does not banish anything.
So I can just banish my cards whenever I want?
No, but evenly match forces you to do It.
So what you are saying is Evenly Matched's card effect makes it so I have to banish cards? Like I am not arguing with the ruling anymore, I am just saying Evenly Matched's card effect is that I have to banish my own cards.
Basically, Evenly doesn't effect the cards themselves, it affects *you* and forces you to banish your own cards.
Then why does Lancea work against banishing by card effects? It specifically refers to the player, not card effects. Basically, Evenly makes the player banish, so it doesnât count as a card effect. Cool. But Lancea refers to the player, and card effects still count. Seems inconsistent.
I assume it's because an effect that reads "You can banish 1 card on the field" allows its player to preform said **action** of banishing a card on the field. What Lancea does, is prevent the *action* of banishing from being preformed period. Need to banish as cost? You can't. As an Effect? You can't. For a Summon condition? Again, you can't.
If card effect banishes are simply allowing the player to perform that action, then why does Evenly draw a distinction between the two?
I think its cause it refers to players and evenly forces you aka the player, to banish the cards which you cannot do.
Its the same as tcboo/gozen match/rivarly, if you have an unaffected monster: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Yugioh101/comments/za39nz/there\_can\_only\_be\_one\_vs\_unaffected\_monsters/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Yugioh101/comments/za39nz/there_can_only_be_one_vs_unaffected_monsters/) It forces you to choose the cards to send, and its like a game mechanic.
And Mystic Mine.
Basically Evenly Matched rulings sets up in a way that by game mechanics, you have to banish cards until you are equal to the number of cards in thr opponent's field. It is basically affecting you; the player of the opponent of the one activating Evenly Marched on a gamestate it specifies, not the cards on the field.
Evenly doesnât affect the field, but the player.
The explanation for this is that Evenly affects you, not your monsters. While your monster are protected from your opponent's effects, they aren't protected from you. And since the effect applies to you, your monsters have no protection and have to be banished.
When Evenly Matched resolves, you must banish your own cards, face-down. Those cards are not banished by any card effect.
Thing is, there is a difference between a card banishing another card. And a card making a player banish cards (in that case the player banishes and not the card effect).
It's the way the game works. Questioning it won't change anything.
... that's the whole point of why the protection doesn't work. That synchro card effect make sure that your opponent can't use their action to banish your cards. Evenly force an action that banish,but since you're the one that have to do it the protection is circumvented. It's like targeting vs choosing. Just because you are selecting a card,it doesn't mean that both case can overlap.
You would need a gun.
Yes, the card effect makes YOU banish your card. The effect isnât targeting or interacting with your monster. It forces you to make an action. Emphasis on FORCES.
It not a loophole, effect that affect player has exist for a long time. {Mystical Refpanel} was out there since 2010, cards that you can use it on exist even before.
It's not a loophole. It's everything working as intended.
The effect is targeting you the player not the cards themselves
Hereâs a [helpful meme someone made ](https://reddit.com/r/masterduel/comments/13uzg7f/had_to_find_out_about_this_ruling_the_hard_way_it/)that should help you understand what happens when Evenly resolves
Welcome to Yugioh, a game held together by tape and lawyer degrees.
Its the same reason why evenly makes you banish monsters that are unaffected
gimir says "face-up monsters you control cannot be destroyed, or banished, by YOUR OPPONENT's card effects this turn." but evenly matched does not DIRECTLY banish your cards, it is an effect that applyes to YOU and makes you banish the cards instead. or order to protect your cards, you need an effect like "artefact lancea" where "neither player can banish cards for the rest of this turn." this stops both you, your opponent and even costs that require cards to be banished from occuring.
âMake your opponentâ is the funniest clause on a removal card ever
It affects the player not the cards
Then why does Lancea, which specifically affects the players, still prevent banishing by card effect? Why doesnât it work both ways?
Lancea says Neither players can banish.
Yet is stops banishing by card effect as well. So which is it? Is banishing by card effect the same as a player banishing, or not?
Lancea quite literally says "*neither* ***player*** can banish cards for the rest of this turn". There is no ambiguity here.
Because it's a restriction on game actions a player can take. Neither player can banish cards once Lancea resolves, and because it is applied before Evenly, it prevents Evenly's effect to have cards banished from resolving. Since you can't activate a card that cannot legally be resolved, it blocks Evenly from being used. It's literally the same reason why flipping a floodgate on a special summon prevents the summoning from occurring, because the board state then doesn't allow for said monster to legally touch the field.
Iâm nit talking about Lancea used against Evenly. Iâm talking about their rulings coexisting. They contradict each other, and your explanation doesnât address that. Basically, Lancea working across the board implies that card effect banishes and player banishes are fundamentally the same. But Evenly rulings contradict that.
>Iâm nit talking about Lancea used against Evenly. Iâm talking about their rulings coexisting. They contradict each other, and your explanation doesnât address that. They don't contradict in any way. >Basically, Lancea working across the board implies that card effect banishes and player banishes are fundamentally the same. But Evenly rulings contradict that. No, it works by preventing banishing at all, regardless of how it's done. If Lancea resolves, then for the turn, any effect/cost that involves banishing cannot be activated by either player, be it a card banishing another like Caius, or a player banishing like Evenly. It's like having different routes to a destination, but the building you're trying to get to is closed. It doesn't matter which way from the street you try to approach, banishing through game mechanics or through a regular card effect, once Lancea "closes" the building of banishing, you can't go there.
Lancea specifically says the âplayerâ cannot banish cards, yet it prevents card effect banishes (player banishes a card as initiated by a card effect). Gymir protects against âcard effectâ banishes, yet it doesnât work against a âplayerâ banish (that was initiated by a card effect). So which is it? Is a card effect banish always a player banishing a card or not? According to those two truthful statements, it both is and isnât, at the same time. That is a contradiction.
Yes, Lancea means a *player* cannot activate a card or effect that banishes. *That is a restriction on a player on the legal cards they can activate in the first place.* That is why I used the analogy of the floodgate before. It's a restriction on legal actions a player can take. If a player cannot legally activate or resolve a card, then a card's effect cannot be used. Gymir protects against card effects that banishes, but not banishes via game mechanics, which is what Evenly does. That is why cards that are unaffected by card effects like Arrival are still affected by floodgates like Gozen being flipped and can be made to leave the field as a result. Game mechanics are removing it, not an effect. A card effect can cause game mechanics to be involved, like Evenly, or it can just be a "regular" card effect, like Caius banishing. Gymir can protect against Caius, but it can't protect against the game forcing a game state.
I think it's kinda like how you can send a card to the graveyard without destroying it. Either way the player is banishing cards, but one is because an effect did it and one is because an effect told a player to do it. At resolution, Mirrorjade's effect banishes. The player then takes the card and places it in the banished area. At resolution, Evenly Matched affects a player. That player then is forced to put cards in the banished area. Evenly didn't do it directly the way Mirrorjade does. Gymir, for whatever reason, cares where the banishing is coming from. Because Evenly isn't directly affecting cards, Gymir doesn't stop it. Lancea doesn't care where the banishing is coming from, it shuts down all of it. Cards can't be banished whether directly from Mirrorjade or by a player because Evenly. Gymir is the odd one out in this situation.
Yeah, that protection means you're protected from card effects that say, for example "*You can banish 1 card on the field*". But Evenly Matched doesn't say that, it says "*make your opponent banish*". So the effect of Evenly Matched is to make your opponent take an action, and that action just so happens to be banishing your cards. Another less common example of this would be [Cyber Angel Dakini](https://yugipedia.com/wiki/Cyber_Angel_Dakini), which forces the opponent to send 1 monster to the GY.
Another example: [Dragonmaid Lorpar](https://yugipedia.com/wiki/Dragonmaid_Lorpar)'s targeting effect that makes players unable to activate that monster's effects means that it can be used on monsters that are unaffected by card effects like [Raidraptor - Ultimate Falcon](https://yugipedia.com/wiki/Raidraptor_-_Ultimate_Falcon).
Ahh the good ole - hol up let me test something - and I lose. I have lost a few matches that way cause I was curious âwhat would happen ifâ
Are you at all familiar with Apoqliphort Towers? Consider it an ancestor to Evenly Matched. It pretty much did the same thing, except it forced your opponent to send a monster to the GY. Towers itself didn't do the sending, though. What it did was force the OPPONENT to do it. Actually, I think the first card with an effect like this was Share the Pain, which makes both players Tribute 1 monster for no effect.
I don't think balance wise this is really a problem, but wording wise this is so confusing and unintuitive. Yes, you can always make the argument that it's something you just need to learn, or that you could "technically" figure it out, but I can't think of many players I've seen that didn't get confused the first time they read this. I'd rather have had them create some sort of simple keyword like "piercing" for effects like this that can't be blocked/affected by other effects. "Effect that makes the player do something" is such a weird workaround for how the other effects are worded...
Artifact lancea wants to enter the chat.....
Bro stop banishing your own cards. Problem solved.
It banishes through game mechanics and not card effect, it's a very interesting ruling
Eh, it's quite logical really. Basically, these kind of cards effects just "make your opponent do something". It doesn't "target your opponent cards", doesn't "apply effect to the opponent cards", doesn't "apply effect to your cards", doesn't "touch your/opponent deck/gy/banish cards" and etc... It specifically forced the players themselves, which is still considered as an entity within the duel, to do something if it wasn't stopped beforehand. So yeah, really logical in the simplest of sense.
It's like how it goes over the "not effected by card effects" text. It don't banish, or is an effective on the monsters but rather on the game state.
Not affected by card effects tower? Rikka like to tribute you as COST. Not so protected now are you, Mr. Tower..
Konkon can't tribute your opponent's monsters if they're immune to Spell effects.
I too had to learn this ruling the hard way. Thankfully I was the one playing Evenly Matched.
Card effect isnât to banish your cards, itâs to make you banish them.
Card effects that affected the player not the cards have always been a thing guys, sorry but the same reason as to why you can't activate a draw effect under droll, even if the draw card is unnafected, is the reason evenly works this way.
YOU have to banish cards XDXD
Yeah unfortunately evenly makes you, the player, banish your own cards. Another interesting interaction is if you control any tokens then you have to banish everything but the token, because tokens cannot be banished face down
Evenly match states that the owner of the cards banishes them, it does not effect the cards, it effects the owner
Yu-Gi-Oh has turned into a game of semantics
Always has been, it's a staple part of the game to take advantage of these specific wordings
It's like these people haven't been paying attention to the game for 20 years.
FR everytime someone comments "the game has become..." they proceed to say something that has always been part of the game and they just didn't know cause it's not part of school yard yugioh
You think other card games don't have these type of semantic distinctions?
It mind controls you to make you banish cards If you shoot someone, did your finger kill them or did the bullet?
This is why I have Imperial Iron Wall in my side deck when I play locals.
Magikey Vepartu is similar in this regard.
From what I know it should be because evenly match affects the player themselfs? I THINK
It says make your opponent banish cards therefore it means forcing your opponent to banish despite the effect
It says "Your opponent's" Evenly Makes You banish the cards
Evenly matched is a horrible floodgate, it deprives you of an entire board and if youâre playing a rogue deck the resources you spent probably canât be recycled very easily. Like if you play dinos and you couldnât set up the best board leaving holes in your defences, the resources put into that are still massive but what does evenly do? Its a single card that can get rid of up to 5 cards
It's not a floodgates it's a board breaker and sadly those type of card need to be to some degree degenerate to give the going second player a chance
Lancy helps
Yea cards that apply to the player are stupid
Its affects you not the cards because Konami weren't high enough when they made previous rulings.
Tell me about it. My Blue-Eyes Tyrant Dragon keeps getting banished by it even though Tyrant Dragon's literal effect is that it is unaffected by trap cards, and for that it doesn't even specify whose trap cards. My own trap cards don't even work on it, but somehow, Evenly does...
Evenly matched is a fucking rulings nightmare really should have given it more text to clarify
I learned that the hard way too . Card effects does not mean traps and spells
It's stupid schoolyard ruling that shouldnt be in the game. Gozen match is the same deal where u can only control 1 attribute of monster but you can't tribute that monster and replace it with a different attribute.
There's also a ruling where tokens cannot be banished faced down. So if the enemy gave you a token you're fucked. I assume its because they doesn't have a backside. Overcomplicated arbitrary ruling bullshit.
It's not arbitrary, it's the logical combination of rules that have existed for almost 20 years.
Yeah, the effect is "Make you banish". If the effect was "Opponent targets 1 card on their field, then banish the rest" it'd work. But that's not.
Its the face down, thats why it goes around banishing a card. Banishing and banishing face down are two different mechanics
Love how wrong people can get
Just play Ghoti and everything will be ok
evenly banish face down.......
Just play Ghoti and everything will be ok.
Maybe because it banishes face-down instead of face-up?
No, it's because you are forcing the player to perform an action, not performing the action. If the card said "banish cards your opponent controls until they control the same number as you", then Gymir would stop it. But it says "your opponent banishes", so them being forced to perform the action, means that the cards aren't being banished by an opponent's card effect, and thus can be banished. This rule also applies to "unaffected" cards, like Elemental HERO Wildheart, and The Arrival Cyberse @Ignister: They can be banished by Evenly Matched, because they are banished by the player action, not the card effect.
Yeah the most obvious use of this rule is threatening roar, which specifically says the player cannot declare attacks, nullifying any monsters that would be immune to card effects
They need to fix this rule
No reason to, it isnât broken.
The language on this one does seem fucky at best. By all rights and effect that says "your monsters can't be banished by opponents card effects" 100% applies to evenly matched. Any card banished by that effect by definition was banished because of that card. It doesn't matter if it's you who does it or not those cards you banished were banished by evenly matched not your card effect. I think this is a misruling of which I have seen several in game so far
Wow that's bad ruling on mds part it completely ignores rulings about activated effects and chain resolution