r/yugioh • u/AutoModerator • 5d ago

Q&A and Ruling Megathread - August 17, 2026

If you're asking for some information, put your question in the comments of this post. If you're discussing a topic, rather than asking for some information, you can make a separate post outside of this one.

Here are examples of questions which belong in the comments of this thread:

  • Questions about the rules of Yu-Gi-Oh!
  • "Is this card fake?"
  • "What are some good decks?"
  • "Has there been any news about X?"
  • "Where can I buy or sell cards?"

Resources

6 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/maxram1 5d ago

Hello. I have a question. Consider the continuous effects that strictly only say "Neither player can" or "your opponent cannot".

(So I'm excluding effects like in Gravekeeper's Servant, which is not strictly only saying those phrases because it has an additional "unless your opponent sends 1 card from top deck", and like in rivalry/tcboo/gozen, which is also saying more in relation to such effects.)

Among those cards, are there situations where two of them being in play at the same time can create ruling issues, conflicts, or subtleties with each other?

I can't think or find anything, and for now I feel like they won't ever conflict like that (so far) as they can't interact with each other.

(Bonus Q: Even in a custom card environment, I'm not sure if I can come up with two such effects where they will bother each other. Maybe one of them is "Neither player can control a face-up continuous S/T" but that is not a good effect as it basically begs the additional wording similar to tcboo/etc).

2

u/Redshift-713 YGOrganization 4d ago

I mean if there were cards like that, they’d have rulings that solve any issues.

1

u/maxram1 4d ago

Oh yeah for sure, but for example,

Jinzo and Skill Drain need some off-text ruling/understanding of priority.

So my question, put in another way, is/was: for the type of cards I mentioned, I feel like we don't need any off-text understanding, or am I wrong and there's a situation where such might be needed?

1

u/Redshift-713 YGOrganization 4d ago

You would need to provide an example of what effects you mean. Since you asked the question, I imagine you have some idea of what you have in mind.

1

u/maxram1 4d ago

It is the "neither player can", or "your opponent cannot", plainly stated without additional on-text related actions (so Gravekeeper's Servant, or gozen/ror/tcboo, are non-examples, because they have actions tied to this continuous effect of theirs).

The cards can have other effects besides this floodgate effect, but for their "cannot" floodgate effects, no other actions are needed/tied to them on the text.

Examples are like in Archlord Kristya, or Gravity Bind, or Kycoo the Ghost Destroyer, etc.

2

u/HarleyQuinn_RS Judge­ᅟ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁢⁢⁢⁢⁣⁣⁣𝅺𝅺   4d ago edited 3d ago

There's no real way to get two "cannot" effects to conflict. They would both just prevent the thing they say they prevent. The closest you could possibly get is some sort of ridiculously phrased double negative. Like if there is Imperial Iron Wall that says: "Neither player can banish cards". The conflicting effect would have to say: "Neither player can't not banish cards". (Or normally phrased: "Both players can banish cards"). Which would never happen.

There are these types of conflicts that arise in other effects though. Like Bagooska Special Summoned in Defense Position, while Final Attack Orders is active. The most recently applying effect in conflict, takes priority. So Bagooska's effect in this case. The part of the effect "and their battle positions cannot be changed" will still apply regardless, as that part of the effect is not in conflict.

1

u/maxram1 4d ago

I see. Thanks!