Hi everyone, I have a question that has been bothering me a lot regarding this interaction. The question is: can I tribute a set Fusilier Dragon that was not Tribute Summoned in order to activate Deck Devastation Virus?
Now, there are multiple sources that state yes, it is indeed possible. For example: https://db.ygoresources.com/qa#6403 (Konami FAQ)
The issue is that far too often, while playing on Duelingbook, this exact scenario happens: a judge is called, and they say it is not possible to tribute Fusilier Dragon. You might think it was just a mistake and that it won’t happen again, but as of the day I’m writing this post, it has already happened three times. Three different judges plus one head judge were called, and all of them gave the same negative answer. The last time, I was quite annoyed—after providing my sources, I asked for theirs. They sent me this document, which (as they wrote) is “a popular ruling timeline for retro formats” that they apparently use as their main reference for ruling disputes (even though, at the very start of the document, it is clearly stated that it’s still unfinished). Here’s the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19lgGXbrRTKfGwCtBrPaIYE3M1ByyjMFtb2uaVy7niSg/edit?tab=t.0
According to them, the situation is as follows: they agree that yes, in the current format this interaction is legal; however, before 2008 (including Goat Format), it was not possible.
While it is true that the first documented ruling on this exact topic is dated 2008 (as confirmed by the Wayback Machine on Upper Deck Entertainment’s website), the document states that in 2008 there was an “update,” and that the previous ruling was “changed” to the current one. The problem is that there is absolutely no source for this supposed “change,” and no earlier ruling explicitly stating that this interaction was invalid.
Based on all this information, here’s my interpretation: up until 2008 there was no clear ruling on the matter, which caused confusion among players. Upper Deck Entertainment then issued the ruling that is still applied today—not as a change from a previously different interpretation, but as a clarification of how the interaction should always have been ruled. Therefore, the interaction should be considered valid in Goat Format as well.
Am I wrong in this reasoning? Is there any source I may have overlooked? If my interpretation is correct, is there any way to update this document and/or notify the judges about the ruling? Thanks for your attention.
