Ok, I have recently been told that Monstro + Parasite cage stealing one of your friends means that you are now more or less limited to having 2 friends out on the field.

I don't see how this could have been ruled this way, granted Monstro lvl 1 specifically refers to friend area, and Parasite Cage exists solely on World Cards (World Area) and in your opponent's friend area if against a dark deck.

Can someone please elaborate on this ruling or confirm that it has been ruled that way?

It would seem to me that a 3rd friend could be played, and upon freeing the 4th (if Monstro lvl 1's text is still in effect) then one of the 4 friends valid to enter your friend area would need to be discarded.

Thank you for anyone's and everyone's attention to this matter.

- dut

it's not a matter of explaining the judgement for this rule, it's merely a matter of "that's how it is" passed down form the higher ups

The deal with it is Monstro limits you to three friend zones. The captured friend still takes up that zone making it unplayable.

That makes no sense...I understand why you can't play a Friend of the same name as said Friend is still in existance.

But that Friend isn't techinicly taking up it's slot any more, so in theory you should get to play another Friend, but once Parasite has been destroyed you'll have to discard another Friend as long as Monstro is still in play.

I dont know, that's how I'm come to understand it because while it is supposed to take up the zone, the effect of Pot Spider still goes off with it so ...how it works, my guess at explaining it is what i posted

Taking from the Comprehensive Rules and Ruling Thread:

Q: When using Parasite Cage's effect as a Friend, does your opponent still control that card?
a.) Yes, your opponent still controls that card and thus cannot play a Friend of the same name until the Parasite Cage is defeated. The only compensation is that Parasite Cage is a Level 7 Dark Friend and is thus difficult to play.

When played as a Dark/Friend, it's impossible to get the captured Friend back. In order to get the Friend, you have to defeat the Paracite in battle . Seeing as you cannot battle an opponent's Friend cards, only challenge them, the friend never has a chance to return. Unless they rule that killing a Dark Card by Magic counts as battle, in which case (because you can use Magic on your opponent's Dark Cards during a challenge) you can technically defeat a Paracite. But it's highly unlikely

I was wondering about this particular tactic as well.

In a dark deck, using a Monstro Lv 1 plus 3 Parasite Cage as friends with 3 of your opponent's friends captured limits your opponent's friend slots down to zero. It's interesting, and I was wondering if this tactic is still officially valid?

Fate said:

wow. Yes, that would be valid. And the most evil thing a dark deck could pull off.

You couldn't have three parasite cages out with a dark deck because of the unique rule.

In a dark deck the unique rule still applies because the dark cards are friend cards as well and not on a world.

You couldn't have three parasite cages out with a dark deck because of the unique rule.

In a dark deck the unique rule still applies because the dark cards are friend cards as well and not on a world.

JJman505 said:

You probably hadn't experienced using a dark deck and a dark player card yet.

The key sentence of Dark/Player cards:

" You may put your Dark Cards into your Friend Area as if they were Friend Cards. You may play Dark Cards of the same name in this manner ."

Meaning, the Dark/Player cards do not follow the unique card rule, unless it's card text says otherwise.

Fate said:

Fate is correct, unique friend rule ONLY applies to Light Player Cards. Dark decks can, and usually do, play more than one heartless on the field at a time with Dark Swarm style, which means flood your friend zone with Dark Friends

hmm..

With monstro lvl 1 and parasite cage holding 1 of your friends, could you play a 4th friend and choose to discard the one inside parasite page? Or do you have to discard a friend that wasn't captured?

I do not beleive you can do that either, because the friend is equipped to parastie cage so it becomes your opponents choice to discard it, if anyone does have a say about it at all.

Thank you Trothael, that is the way I see it too.

My main problem here is that a player who is unfamiliar with the 'higher ups' commands are at a complete loss in this situation.

Parasite Cage specifically refers to the physical movement of the captured card from the friend area and onto the Parasite cage Card until the latter is defeated. "place it on this card"

Monstro specifically refers to the area from which the friend has been removed - i.e. the friend zone.

I also obviously have a problem with the relative strength of Parasite Cage and it's influence on the meta, as it stands the world racer is at a loss against this card as it is (really, if you ask me, Parasite Cage is the sole reason why world racers are subpar to control and straight up high end dark card decks at the moment), and a ruling like the one with monstro does not help the situation at all. Keep in mind that a deck with 3 parasite cages and 2 aquatanks is almost always going to have a (or more) Parasite Cage(s) on your world once you hit lvl 5+ (keeping in mind average Jack use). Compare this to other cards that have [limit 1] on them and the degree to which they are staple, and compare them to decks that will use Parasite Cage to the same degree and you have a very unbalanced dark card here.

We already have the Hercules and Parasite Cage interaction, whereby there is a strong selective discard option in place against world racers. I think the addition of Monstro to this mix is severely deadly.

The only time Parasite Cage is not useful is in the world racer deck, consider that other limit 1s like oblivion and ultima weapon, and hundred acres all have times when they are not useful and the volume of use of these cards (nix Mickey, but do consider Parasite will be in Dark decks too whereas Mickey will not) is easily on par with Parasite Cage...

The game is not broken by any means, so please do not take my comments to be any position to that extent. It is the most balanced game I have ever played, and I love it. But I have found through some serious playtesting that Monstro lvl 1's ruling in conjunction with Parasite Cage greatly sways the balance of power I have grown to love about kingdom hearts

I do understand that Jaffer has made this ruling, as posted by Mr. Dawn in the old forums (Dawn, did you get a detailed response from Jaffer to this extent?). I would appreciate support for this ruling in light of the wording on the two cards. Placing something somewhere other than it's current zone to me means it is now in a different zone. In the case where I do not get a formal response I will simply contact Jaffer for an explanation but a more public response is always best if it already exists and can avoid us having to bug Jaffer again.

Thanx.

- dut

well here's where I'm at after reviewing the Comprehensive Rules and Rulings Thread.

On one hand:

Q: Does Parasite Cage's effect remove the Friend from the field in terms of use for Pot Spider and Clayton?
A: Yes it does. The friend is technically removed from play while captured.

and then there was the one that I posted earlier

Q: When using Parasite Cage's effect as a Friend, does your opponent still control that card?
a.) Yes, your opponent still controls that card and thus cannot play a Friend of the same name until the Parasite Cage is defeated. The only compensation is that Parasite Cage is a Level 7 Dark Friend and is thus difficult to play.

So the best way to explain this is that he is off the field as far as selecting for effects but he still voids a friend zone.

Friend capped by PARA:

So he's not in the friend area (friend under your control) with respect to POT and CLAY... but he is in the friend area with respect to MNT...

As indicated, and thank you for your research/comments Roxas, I am still at a loss for understanding the MNT ruling.

- dut

That is just how I would rule it, though it makes no sense. If you want to get a better ruling for that I'd ask one of the Moogles.

I agree with Devilmonkey, it's just one of those things you need to accept. I personally asked Jaffer and while he didn't elaborate too greatly, he did clarify that you cannot play more than 2 friends if you have a friend under PC + Monstro.

I would normally not have a problem accepting a rule. But in this case it appears to a) contradict the text of the cards, and b) seriously strengthen an already very powerful card... It also occurs often, as I can tell you Monstro lvl 1 and Parasite Cage will be two cards in many people's deck regardless of the ruling becuase they are both very good at what they would appear to be intended to do per card text.

The reason this is a problem is becuase, without strictly referencing the forums any judge would look at these two cards and be forced to rule based on the nstruction booklet's description of zones and the text on the cards that you are indeed allowed to play a 3rd firend into your friend zone, becuase there are only 2 friends in your friend zone once one is captured by cage as is evidenced by the Pot ruling and the Clayton Ruling...

So I am simply asking for an explanation. I'm actually surprised the sole answers so far are - accept it, and by two well respected individuals from which I would hope for a quality answer from.

If it is a Japanese ruling, or something determined in order to balance the game (which would contradict my statement and playtesting, alas I would still be alright with this answer), or if it was designed to act like this by the game designer but there was a problem with printing/translation: either of these are valid reasons that I would accept.

- dut

I haven't read this entire thread so pardon me if I'm just repeating what someone else has said.

But the email says, "Only two. They are still in control of the friend inside Parasite Cage".

Now, I think this is worded a little poorly, but it still works. Because they're in "control" of the friend because when in PC, they can't play another friend of the same name. But it's not "in control" because they can't do anything with it because it's paralyzed so to speak.

I dunno, it's a little weird, yet it still makes sense to me.

Luna Diviner 7 said:

Actually this is a good way of explaining, but if you dont mind I'm going to try explaining what you mean.

They are not directly "in control" of the friend because he is trapped, so effect of Pot Spider go off, however because of Parasite Cage's text, the friend viods a spot because they can not place another friend with the same name, meaning they have control of the name of the card and nothing more.

dutpotd said:

and as one who has questioned other official rulings before, I sadly say that the only explanation is "accept it". I horridly dislike it and completely disagree with the ruling, but that's simply how it is. the Japanese ruling on it was, as Way has said before, that Parasites effect didn't work when played as a Friend. so the two rulings now contrdict by saying "well it's considered yours for when it doesn't benefit you. but for when it could, we ruled that it doesn't"

bottom line is it makes no sense, and unless you are adept in convincing higher officials of the nonsensical jargon of it then we'll just have to accept the ruling and explain it (in all it's nonsense) to anyone that asks

If you read the past few posts, it really does make sense.

Luna, I get what you are trying to say. You are evidencing that there is 'partial' control - and the naming thing is absolutely not an issue for me.

The problem I have is with the zones of play that are referenced by both cards. i.e. the ruling does not make sense unless you simply accept that you are in control of it AND that assumes it is in a friend zone? in some circumstances but not others (does it say this anywhere on the card(s) - answer, no.)

THE BIG PROBLEM WITH THE PARTIAL ARGUMENT IS: where do you draw the line?

If you are in control of it for the purposes of counting monstro's effect, my question becomes are you in control of it enough to be able to discard the card under parasite cage when you play a third friend while under the effects of Monstro. Monstro says, when a fourth is there you must discard down to 3... Well, since one of the 4 is under Parasite Cage it makes sense you might be 'partially' in control of it enough to decide to discard it...

= the partial control stuff is silly.

Now, if we want to talk about making sense. The reason I like KH is becuase it mostly makes sense and follows the game. For instance, Wonderland has a fire doubling effect, the dark enemies and them of wonderland (and the magic you get for finishing it in the game) is FIRE magic. Monstro has an effect that limits friends, this makes sense becuase he is a whale and there is limited space inside a whale... Parasite Cage steals a friend (a really cool battle if you ask me) and 'put's him in the cage. Now, for the sake of sense, limited space in monstro, Parasite Cage is in Monstro, something goes in the Cage, there is now an equal amount of space for another friend outstide the Cage, granted the Cage is open space before a friend is captured there.

Ok - that's wonky, but in my mind a Cage takes up a set amount of space regardless of it something is in it or not (unless it is a cage that grows and shrinks, Parasite Cage, it is a very 'bulbous' Heartless) and it only makes sense that something in it, that was out of it (but still in the whale) frees up relative space within the whale and outside of the cage where friends could be now be put in it's place.

Now, we don't go ruling cards like this, but we also shouldn't have rules that demand partial amounts of control and under different circumstances. Of course you can't play a friend of the same name, it practically says it on the Parasite Cage card byalluding to it heavily. Of course you should be able to play a third friend of different name, the zone reference on Monstro and the placing reference on Parasite Cage allude to it.

If Monstro said 3 friends in 'play' it would be a different story. A card placed on Parasite is still in play, sure, becuas Parasite Cage is in play, but he is on the World Card Zone, where dark cards can be played. It says on Monstro 'friend zone', which is the biggest problem with this ruling and the place that no one has addressed yet.

"But the email says, "Only two. They are still in control of the friend inside Parasite Cage". "

??? If they are still in control of it, what does that have to do with friend zones or monstro for that matter. Monstro does not say, you may not be in control of more than 3 friends, it says you may only have 3 friends in the friend zone...

??? If they are still in control of it for the purpose of Monstro than they 'should' be able to play a 3rd friend and discard the card the they control for the purposes of Monstro inside the Parasite Cage? 'Should' they be able to discard it when simba is played becuase they control it? The email alone opens up all sorts of problems if that is what it says, in fact it more or less contradicts the way I have always seen the Cage... I have seen it is as, you lose control of the friend, but the name remains in play for the purposes of preventing cloning issues, i.e. the unique name rule.

Where do we draw the line of control ? And is control even an issue here? According to Monstro it isn't, it is friend zone alone that is the referencing factor.

-dut