Book of Moon

Been a while since a commented on a card, so here goes:
Book of moon (BOM):

- First, the obvious that many new players argue with: BOM doesn't oblige a monster to stay in defense, unless that monster was summoned during the same turn.
- Book of moon targetting an attacking monster can protect that monster from destruction by mirror force. That's easy, as mirror force affects attack position monsters and BOM flips a monster into defense.
- However, BOM can also stop the effects of Sakuretsu armor or Dimensional prison, as both of these target an attacking monster and BOM flips the monster, hence it's not attacking anymore.
- But monsters declaring an attack that are flipped by BOM cannot be flipped back during the same turn because they DID declare an attack.
- If a monster is supposed to be destroyed or removed from play say at end phase (example: return from different dimesion), and BOM flips him face down, that monster won't be destroyed/removed anymore.
- Finally, (i'm not sure but i think some video games got this one wrong), BOM also can cancel the destruction effects of bottomless and traphole, as BOM "hides" the monster being summoned, so bottomless/trap hole resolve with no target. If bottomless is affecting many monsters, BOM can only save one of them.

Yes. BOM can stop just about anything from destroying a monster and some games did get it wrong but few people understand that!

lulz here are some wonderful ways to use book


you have book of moon set:

you attack and they mirror force, chain book of moon save a monster(works with dimensional prison, sakuretsu armor etc)


you have book of moon set:
your opponent summons judgment dragon and blows up the field; chain book of moon judgment and judgment gets blown up by its own effect

Spirit_Of_Sun wrote:

you have book of moon set:
your opponent summons judgment dragon and blows up the field; chain book of moon judgment and judgment gets blown up by its own effect

I don't see how this works; surely BoM resolves first meaning that JD's effect cannot be activated at all...? Why would it itself get blown up?

It's a chain, JD calls for his eff, BOM is chained, chain resolves backwards as you said. So,
BOM flips JD, then JD's effect resolves nuking the field. But then, as JD is face down, he's not protected anymore from his own effect.
It's actually a smart move; the idea never occured to me.

your welcome people

oh wow that is a good idea D=

yep it is ^^

Actually, on further research, it seems there is quite a bit of debate about whether it still destroys itself or not...

http://www.pojo.biz/board/showthread.php?t=695310&page=2

Could someone find me a good source saying that it doesn't?

it does. judgment face down deff isnt considered judgment. thats how it is simply put its completely tournament legal

coolchemist2001 wrote:

It's a chain, JD calls for his eff, BOM is chained, chain resolves backwards as you said. So,
BOM flips JD, then JD's effect resolves nuking the field. But then, as JD is face down, he's not protected anymore from his own effect.
It's actually a smart move; the idea never occured to me.

i swear you people need to make me an avenging knight xD

I said a "good" source, not just you repeating your own assertion...

Spirit_Of_Sun wrote:

i swear you people need to make me an avenging knight xD

LOL, not so fast spirit_of_sun; i was wrong. Although the chain does make sense, rulings have the final say:
Quoting wikia for JD rulings:

"If an effect is chained that flips "Judgment Dragon" face-down, it is not destroyed by its effect"

frankly all i know is either way this may have never happened to me before, but isw nice to know because anything happens in future. And frankly i dont think it's eff should go off at all but it does and it does live while everything else goes boom. Had to look this up too.

coolchemist2001 wrote:

Spirit_Of_Sun wrote:

i swear you people need to make me an avenging knight xD

LOL, not so fast spirit_of_sun; i was wrong. Although the chain does make sense, rulings have the final say:
Quoting wikia for JD rulings:

"If an effect is chained that flips "Judgment Dragon" face-down, it is not destroyed by its effect"

yugioh wiki is wrong on that ruling. ive entered dozens of official tournaments and asked many judges about it. just because its on yugioh wikia (which any one can edit) doesnt mean its official

But the official tcg ruling also sais the same thing JD will not be destroyed.

Actually, I read many forums and they all agree: JD doesn't kill himself. Actually, wikia had it wrong for a while till they corrected it to what it is right now.
Not that i don't respect judges' opinions, but even they can get these rulings wrong sometimes.

Now, please don't post anymore on this topic unless you provide hard evidence against wikia rulings.

My evidence, besides wikia and the many forums, is:

TCG FAQ's: "If an effect is chained to "Levia-Dragon Daedalus" effect to flip ìLevia-Dragon Daedalus" face-down, it is still not destroyed by its effect".
Daedalus, JD, and demise share the same ruling.

EDIT: the FAQ quote i got from a forum, so kinda cheating. But Netrep also agrees.

On a completely different note...

"- However, BOM can also stop the effects of Sakuretsu armor or Dimensional prison, as both of these target an attacking monster and BOM flips the monster, hence it's not attacking anymore.
- But monsters declaring an attack that are flipped by BOM cannot be flipped back during the same turn because they DID declare an attack."

Now, I'm in no way doubting the validity of these two statements (I'm sure they're entirely true), but I feel they're almost somewhat... hypocritical. I mean, if monsters can't be flipped back during the same turn because they "did" declare an attack - well if we've agreed they did declare an attack, why should BOM stop the effects of DPrsion of SArmor? Both cards' texts concern when a monster "declares" an attack, not when a "monster attacks". Hence, the logic that after BOM flips the monster, it's "not attacking anymore" doesn't really seem to work as we've already agreed that it "did" declare an attack... Thoughts?