[Ruling] Q&A Updates 24/5/2024 Ukko, Nume, Guilmon, Leviamon (Judge: Samuel)


Hello Digimon fans, this might have come a bit late, but since there have been some requests, I guess it’s better late than never. Today we will talk about some notable updates which came in alongside the EX7 Q&As. Not all of them are rule changes, but some are just pretty notable, so we should all take note of it.


  1. BT17-008 Guilmon & BT17-010 Growmon

Guilmon’s inherited effect adds 2000 to its DP-based deletion effects. The new Q&A update states that it can only increase the upper limit of effects that state the upper limit in numerical values. Pretty straightforward, but it is good to remember if you’re playing the Guilmon line or cards with similar effects.


2. BT16-082 Ukkomon

Another pretty straightforward one, but I think it’s important, as this addition complements its previous Q&A. In one of the previous tournaments I judged in, there was a player who pushed out his Ukkomon from the breeding area while the -5000 DP of ShineGreymon: Ruin Mode was active, and wanted to activate the [Your Turn] effect of Ukkomon despite it being deleted. His argument? The Q&A said so. After reading the Q&A (Q3 of the Ukkomon Q&A), it turns out that the player misunderstood and thought that Ukkomon was the Digimon that got deleted after moving out of the breeding area. It was supposed to be another Digimon that moved out from the breeding area while Ukkomon was already in the battle area. They did not specifically mention “another Digimon” (They just mentioned “I move my Digimon from the breeding area to the battle area”), but adding the following update clearly shows that Ukkomon’s [Your Turn] effect will not activate if Ukkomon itself is moved out and gets deleted.

3. EX5-063 Leviamon

This is seen by a lot of Leviamon players as a nerf. Previously, if the target Digimon has an immediate-type effect that prevents deletion, it would only be able to prevent deletion once, while the second deletion would delete it (assuming there is only one Digimon on Leviamon’s opponent’s side). The reason was because immediate-type effects will not trigger until the effect that they previously interrupted has been resolved. In this case, if you only have a Digimon which can prevent deletion, and your opponent tries to delete it with Leviamon’s effect, it will not be able to prevent deletion for the second time, as the original effect which it interrupted has not finished resolving yet.

That said, Bandai removed the rule (previously 14-8-5-4 in version 2.0 the Comprehensive Rules), so now you will be able to prevent deletion for a second time. In my opinion, it seems more intuitive, however I can sympathize with Leviamon players who feels like their decks have been nerfed.

4. BT13-065 PlatinumSukamon/BT13-069 KingSukamon

This is by far the most confusing Q&A. Basically the question goes on like this:

So as the question goes, the scenario looks like this: I have 1 Sukamon, let’s call it Sukamon A. You have 1 Sukamon as well, let’s call it Sukamon B. Sukamon A is going to be deleted. So I use the inherited effect to delete Sukamon B. Sukamon B then tries to delete Sukamon A in response. The answer?





So it starts with “相手のこのカードの進化元効果はそれ以上誘発しなくなります。” which translates to “the inherited effect of your opponent’s card will no longer be triggered”. Eh? So if A is about to be deleted, and it deletes B, then B cannot save itself? Seems kinda restrictive doesn’t it? It is followed by the sentence “「するとき」効果のような、割り込んで発揮する効果は、「ことで」に一度割り込んで発揮した時点で、割り込んだ元の処理が解決するまで「ことで」によって誘発しません。”, which says “Once an interruptive effect (when…would effects) with an optional processing condition is activated, it will not be triggered by optional processing conditions until the original action that was interrupted is resolved.” This reflects the newly added rule in the Comprehensive Rulings version 2.1, where at 14-8-5-4 (replacing the rule which prevented the effect of EX1 Mugendramon from activating twice during EX5 Leviamon’s effect), they mentioned “即時型効果 1 つが任意処理条件に割り込んだ場合、 割り込んだ元の効果が解決するまで、それ以降、そ の即時型効果 1 つは任意処理条件では誘発しませ ん。” which is translated to “If an immediate-type effect interrupts an optional processing condition, that immediate-type effect will not trigger until the original effect that was interrupted resolves.” However, this does not tally with the EX7 Lilithmon (X-Antibody) Q&A, which says:

Whoa whoa whoa. Sukamon A is going to be deleted, attempts to delete Sukamon B and Sukamon B cannot delete Sukamon A in response to save itself. But when Lilithmon X A is going to be deleted and attempts to delete Lilithmon X B, Lilithmon X B can choose to delete Lilithmon X A in response, and Lilithmon X A will be deleted? What’s this double standard? Is the Q&A wrong?

Well we’ve got different perspectives from different judges. Some feel that the question of Lilithmon X’s Q&A is poorly written, pointing out that rule 14-8-5-4 only affects immediate-type effects with optional processing conditions, so the answer is correct but the question needs to be reworded. However, after some discussion, I’ve come to the conclusion that it could be Sukamon’s Q&A that was poorly written. Mainly because of the last sentence in the answer: この場合、再度自分がこのカードの進化元効果で相手の「スカモン」を消滅させようとした場合、相手のこのカードの進化元効果が誘発せず、相手の「スカモン」はそのまま消滅します。

It gets translated to “In this case, if you try to delete your opponent’s Sukamon again with this card’s inherited effect, the opponent’s inherited effect will not trigger, and your opponent’s Sukamon will be deleted as it is”. Yes, this seems to solve the mystery. Apparently the actual scenario could be this:

  1. Sukamon A is about to be deleted, select Sukamon B to delete to save itself.
  2. Sukamon B selects Sukamon A to be deleted in response so it can save itself.
  3. This triggers Sukamon A’s effect again, which attempts to delete Sukamon B.
  4. Sukamon B’s effect does not trigger and gets deleted.

So apparently the question was poorly written, and made it seem like Sukamon B was only deleted once. It also makes sense, because if Lilithmon (X-Antibody) wasn’t limited by the [Once Per Turn], they would end up in the same scenario.


But wait, if the reason Sukamon B’s effect cannot trigger again is because the effect has yet to finish resolving, how could Sukamon A trigger its effect again, when the effect hasn’t finished resolving as well? Apparently the consensus is that it was triggered by a different situation – the first time Sukamon A’s effect triggered was from another deletion, while the second time it triggered was from Sukamon B’s effect. Meanwhile for Sukamon B, it was triggered by the same effect twice. That said, this is just a hypothesis. Currently, I am still awaiting an answer from Carddass (both EN and JP). But for now, this explanation seems to be the most convincing one (I also have very limited Japanese, so it would help if someone proficient enough in the language can share their thoughts). So folks, what do you all think about this rule?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PHP Code Snippets Powered By : XYZScripts.com

Contact Us