What do you guys feel about BKSS's? (Because Konami Said So)

[Slinky]

So, today, Konami issued a BKSS regarding Caligula the Eidolon Beast

 

 

Q: Caligula the Eidolon Beast is face-up on my field, and its effect that allows each player to activate only 1 monster effect per turn is applying. In this situation, my opponent activates a monster effect, but I chain Divine Wrath to negate the activation and destroy that monster. Afterward, can my opponent activate another monster effect this turn?
A: As in this scenario, if your opponent activated a monster effect, but the activation was negated by Divine Wrath, the effect of Caligula the Eidolon Beast will still prevent your opponent from activating a monster effect again that turn.

 

http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Caligula_the_Eidolon_Beast

http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Divine_Wrath

 

Why is this a BKSS? It's really simple.

Activate Vs. Use.

 

If a card uses the wording "Use", then even if the activation of the card is negated, you are not allowed to activate another copy of that card, or another effect of that card if you can only use 1 effect per turn (See Gold/Silver Gadget for an example).

However, if the card uses the word "Activate", then you are allowed to use another copy of that card if the activation is negated (See Pot of Desires for an example).

 

This scenario though, is comparable to Great Shogun Shi'en and Legendary Six Samurai - Shi'en. Even if Legendary Shi'en negates the activation of a spell/trap card, Shogun Shi'en's doesn't apply because the activation was negated. Naturally, this is the exact same scenario as listed above, but instead of spell/traps, its monster effects, yet the ruling is completely contradictory. This is why it is a BKSS.

 

http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Gold_Gadget

http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Pot_of_Desires

http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Great_Shogun_Shien

http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Legendary_Six_Samurai_-_Shi_En

 

 

Guess what I'm trying to say is. What do you guys feel about BKSS's? Should they be a part of a game? Are the contradictions making things harder than they should be, or are they a necessary part of the game to maintain diversity?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I mean they have something similar with Winda

 

If you get Solemn'd under Winda, that still counts as your SS attempt for the turn

[Darj]

I don't like BKSS rulings, and yeah, I feel they make the game more complicated because they are exceptions to rules that you have to memorize in order to have a proper duel, and that shouldn't be necessary IMO; if only they were consistent with their own game rules.

Heck, I dislike them because, among other things, they keep Fotress SKY FIRE unplayable through Dark Flattop: by BKSS rulings, despite Flattop's "ignoring its summoning conditions" clause, you have to Special Summon SKY FIRE properly first anyway; good luck with that. Meanwhile, Ultimate Ancient Gear Golem has no problems with Special Summoning a monster that normally cannot be Special Summoned at all.

[Slinky]

Attempting to special summon is different from attempting to activate something Winter.

 

If your Monster Reborn is negated, you can't use Pot of Duality that turn.

 

But if Pot of Duality has its activation negated, you're allowed to use Monster Reborn.

[Premier Alexander Romanov]

...This is making my brain hurt.
Can't Koomy go back and edit some of these conflicting rulings?

[Mysty]

There are two types of BKSS: straight-up contradictions (like in the first post) and hidden rules, both of which I despise.

 

I mean they have something similar with Winda

 

If you get Solemn'd under Winda, that still counts as your SS attempt for the turn

Was the summon an "inherent special summon" (a special summon that doesn't start a chain) such as a Pendulum Summon, or was it an effect summon, such as a fusion summon or Macro Cosmos? As far as i know, if you negate the activation of a Fusion Summon or Macro Cosmos, that doesn't count as actually Special Summoning, while inherent summoning still counts as attempting to summon even if it is negated.

 

Heck, I dislike them because, among other things, they keep Fotress SKY FIRE unplayable through Dark Flattop: by BKSS rulings, despite Flattop's "ignoring its summoning conditions" clause, you have to Special Summon SKY FIRE properly first anyway; good luck with that. Meanwhile, Ultimate Ancient Gear Golem has no problems with Special Summoning a monster that normally cannot be Special Summoned at all.

This is because "ignoring the summoning conditions" doesn't let you ignore game rules, of which there is a hidden rule for this, which I call the Special-Summon-only rule. This rule applies to all "Special Summon only"-subtype monsters in OCG, but in TCG, this is identified on monsters that "Cannot be Normal Summoned/Set". This rules applies to Ritual, Fusion, Synchro, and Xyz monsters as well.
A SSO monster cannot be Special Summoned from the Graveyard if it hasn't been Special Summoned through the method listed on its card UNLESS that method can Special Summon it from the Graveyard. (To make this even more confusing for you, Summon Reactor SK can special summon a SKY FIRE discarded by Trade-In [i,e, not properly summoned] because Summon Reactor SK is listed as SKY FIRE's summon method.)

 

Attempting to special summon is different from attempting to activate something Winter.

 

If your Monster Reborn is negated, you can't use Pot of Duality that turn.

 

But if Pot of Duality has its activation negated, you're allowed to use Monster Reborn.

Is that true even if the activation of Monster reborn is negated? Rulings on Gravekeeper's Spy vs Pot of Duality would suggest otherwise. It is true that Monster reborn only having its EFFECT negated or rendered unable to do anything (such as Vanity's Emptiness) will still stop you from activating PoD. Source: http://www.pojo.biz/board/showthread.php?t=921680
 

Conclusion:
Straight-up contradictions obviously shouldn't happen because it makes a judge's role even more difficult and makes the rulings themselves somewhat arbitrary. If the card is intended to work differently, it should be worded differently.
As for hidden rules, ideally, all of the rules to the game should be available in one readily available comprehensive document, but the cards should also be clear enough on their own such that you never have to reference it. However, given there is a plethora of these hidden rules, it would be very difficult to track them all down or have them all explained on the cards that are relevant to them.

[Darj]

This is because "ignoring the summoning conditions" doesn't let you ignore game rules, of which there is a hidden rule for this, which I call the Special-Summon-only rule. This rule applies to all "Special Summon only"-subtype monsters in OCG, but in TCG, this is identified on monsters that "Cannot be Normal Summoned/Set". This rules applies to Ritual, Fusion, Synchro, and Xyz monsters as well.

A SSO monster cannot be Special Summoned from the Graveyard if it hasn't been Special Summoned through the method listed on its card UNLESS that method can Special Summon it from the Graveyard. (To make this even more confusing for you, Summon Reactor SK can special summon a SKY FIRE discarded by Trade-In [i,e, not properly summoned] because Summon Reactor SK is listed as SKY FIRE's summon method.)

 

Yes, I was aware of this special rule they made for these "Special Summon only" subtypes, but isn't that effectively a BKSS ruling as well? That's why I brought the case of Flattop to this thread anyway.

[Mysty]

Yes, I was aware of this special rule they made for these "Special Summon only" subtypes, but isn't that effectively a BKSS ruling as well? That's why I brought the case of Flattop to this thread anyway.

Sure, in the same way I consider all "hidden rules" a type of BKSS. However, Dark Flattop's ruling isn't discordant with the game's "common sense" but is in fact harmonious with it.

The SSO rule doesn't prohibit incorrectly summoning the monsters from the hand/Deck/Extra Deck - it just provides the penalty that if you do, you can't incorrectly summon them from the grave later. It was designed to prohibit the abuse of powerful monsters that couldn't be easily summoned (SSOs, Rituals, Fusions, and eventually Synchros and Xyz) and has been around since practically the beginning of the game for good reason.

 

Semi-Nomis and Nomis preferred to add their own restrictions to their summonability as well ("summoning conditions") - without those, they would function exactly like regular SSO monsters. The phrase "ignoring the summoning conditions", therefore, just lets you treat a Semi-Nomi or Nomi as a regular SSO, which means incorrectly summoning them from the hand/Deck/Extra Deck is fine, but incorrectly summoning them from the grave if they weren't properly summoned first is still a no-go, as per the conditions of the SSO rule.

 

Overall, the big offender isn't the SSO rule, but rather the phrase "ignoring the summoning conditions", and it should probably be re-written to show that it doesn't allow breaking the SSO rule.

[Darj]

Sure, in the same way I consider all "hidden rules" a type of BKSS. However, Dark Flattop's ruling isn't discordant with the game's "common sense" but is in fact harmonious with it.

The SSO rule doesn't prohibit incorrectly summoning the monsters from the hand/Deck/Extra Deck - it just provides the penalty that if you do, you can't incorrectly summon them from the grave later. It was designed to prohibit the abuse of powerful monsters that couldn't be easily summoned (SSOs, Rituals, Fusions, and eventually Synchros and Xyz) and has been around since practically the beginning of the game for good reason.

 

Semi-Nomis and Nomis preferred to add their own restrictions to their summonability as well ("summoning conditions") - without those, they would function exactly like regular SSO monsters. The phrase "ignoring the summoning conditions", therefore, just lets you treat a Semi-Nomi or Nomi as a regular SSO, which means incorrectly summoning them from the hand/Deck/Extra Deck is fine, but incorrectly summoning them from the grave if they weren't properly summoned first is still a no-go, as per the conditions of the SSO rule.

 

Overall, the big offender isn't the SSO rule, but rather the phrase "ignoring the summoning conditions", and it should probably be re-written to show that it doesn't allow breaking the SSO rule.

 

I like the way you explained it, and I agree with the last line: if, in Dark Flattop's case, it cannot actually fully ignore the summoning conditions of SKY FIRE, then the effect should be written in another way.

Still, I find the "you can Special Summon SSO monsters from the hand, Deck or Extra Deck with effects that ignore summoning conditions, but still not from the grave" rule as contradictory and even a bit nonsensical: I'm putting it really simply here, but in a way it's like saying "the effect ignores the summoning conditions, but not really", and I very much wish it wasn't a thing.

[Mysty]

I like the way you explained it, and I agree with the last line: if, in Dark Flattop's case, it cannot actually fully ignore the summoning conditions of SKY FIRE, then the effect should be written in another way.

Still, I find the "you can Special Summon SSO monsters from the hand, Deck or Extra Deck with effects that ignore summoning conditions, but still not from the grave" rule as contradictory and even a bit nonsensical: I'm putting it really simply here, but in a way it's like saying "the effect ignores the summoning conditions, but not really", and I very much wish it wasn't a thing.

Monsters in nonpublic zones can't have a "memory" of if they were properly summoned and monsters that return there will lose such memory. It uses the same logic as Metamorphosis allowing you to Special Summon a Fusion monster without Fusion Summoning it: the SSO rule allows you to do it, but you won't be able to incorrectly summon it afterward. Overall, "ignoring the summoning conditions" was only created to allow Konami to circumvent the restrictions on their own boss cards, which is why almost all cards that reference "ignoring the summoning conditions" reference one semi-nomi/nomi or an archetype of them.

 

I think the wording is fine, if a little broad. It doesn't help that neither the SSO rule nor the definition of the term "summoning conditions" are written down, causing this confusion.

EDIT: "Fine" might be a strong word. The wording isn't exemplary, but it could work if the rules of the game were presented better, is my point. That seems like a pipe dream, though, so a reword would work better.

[Darj]

Yeah, that is true. But then you have cases like Ultimate Ancient Gear Golem being able to Summon Gear Golem, which cannot be Special Summoned at all. At least I find contradictory how the "ignoring summoning conditions" clause is able to Summon a monster that normally cannot be Special Summoned under any circumstance (by the way, isn't this kind of ignoring a game rule? I know it's not exactly a SSO case since Gear Golem isn't a SSO-subtype monster, but still), and yet won't "bypass", so to speak, this SSO rule for summoning the monster from the Graveyard, despite the monster being actually Special-Summonable through its own and/or other means.

[Mysty]

Yeah, that is true. But then you have cases like Ultimate Ancient Gear Golem being able to Summon Gear Golem, which cannot be Special Summoned at all. At least I find contradictory how the "ignoring summoning conditions" clause is able to Summon a monster that normally cannot be Special Summoned under any circumstance (by the way, isn't this effectively ignoring a game rule?), and yet won't "bypass", so to speak, this SSO rule for summoning the monster from the Graveyard, despite the monster being actually Special-Summonable through its own and/or other means.

AGG isn't an SSO monster, so the SSO rule doesn't apply to it. The only thing that prohibits its resurrection is its own summoning condition, which UAGG ignores.

[Darj]

Right. I made an edit on my previous post but had already quoted my original thoughts. So pretty much what gets in the way are these rules on summoning SSO-Subtype monsters from the grave, which I believe we can agree are an annoyance than a necessity. I mean, if they don't want Rituals and other SSO-Subtype monsters being Summoned through other means, they shouldn't make effects that ignore their summoning conditions in the first place, so there shouldn't be need of such ruling; all it leads to is hindering cards that otherwise would be better, namely Flattop.

[Mysty]

e

Right. I made an edit on my previous post but had already quoted my original thoughts. So pretty much what gets in the way are these rules on the summon of SSO-Subtype monsters, which I believe we can agree are more of an annoyance than a necessity. I mean, if they don't want Rituals and other SSO-Subtype monsters being Summoned through other means, they shouldn't make effects that ignore their summoning conditions in the first place, so there shouldn't be need of such ruling; all it leads to is hindering cards that otherwise would be better, namely Flattop.

 A few points:
• "Ignoring the summoning condition' is only written for cards that summon semi-nomis and nomis - cards that improperly summon SSOs are for the most part written the same way as special summoning a regular monster. Not to mention that these types of cards are already in the game by the droves. These cards are often either as hard to use as the regular condition for summoning and/or place heavy restrictions on the summoned monster.
• I realize that I've made quite an error in previous explanations as well - it isn't summoning it improperly that disqualifies it from later resurrection, but rather, failing to summon it properly. The distinction comes up if the monster is just put into the graveyard without being summoned, which is quite easy to do for some decks. Prohibiting them from being summoned in such a case IS a good thing, otherwise it just bypasses the difficulty of summoning the monster in the first place and greatly reduces boss monster design space.

The SSO rule can sometimes be annoying, but it is necessary. However, "ignoring the summoning conditions" effects are the offenders in this situation and ideally wouldn't need to exist, but again, konami has already printed them (one of them being "Dark Flattop"), so it's better to figure out how to word the cards better.

EDIT: It might be better if we take the rest of this discussion to the messaging system. While we're not particularly off-topic, now we're just debating a very narrow topic within the large scope of the original topic.

[kevintriedge]

 

The phrase "ignoring the summoning conditions", therefore, just lets you treat a Semi-Nomi or Nomi as a regular SSO, which means incorrectly summoning them from the hand/Deck/Extra Deck is fine, but incorrectly summoning them from the grave if they weren't properly summoned first is still a no-go, as per the conditions of the SSO rule.

 

Nice explanation.

 

In that case, wouldn't it be relatively simpler for Konami to change the phrase "ignoring the summoning conditions" into "ignoring that card's summoning conditions" ?

 

Maybe they should do that. Correct me if I miss something.

[Darj]

• I realize that I've made quite an error in previous explanations as well - it isn't summoning it improperly that disqualifies it from later resurrection, but rather, failing to summon it properly. The distinction comes up if the monster is just put into the graveyard without being summoned, which is quite easy to do for some decks. Prohibiting them from being summoned in such a case IS a good thing, otherwise it just bypasses the difficulty of summoning the monster in the first place and greatly reduces boss monster design space.

 

Unless the card is designed to summon the boss monster in such way. For example, taking Flattop again, I don't think that it would be terribly broken or unfair if it could straight out revive a SKY FIRE that was previously milled or discarded, because of the dedication the play would require (Synchro Summoning Flattop, and getting SKY FIRE into the grave). In fact, I suspect Flattop was actually intended and designed to revive SKY FIRE in such way, but then the BKSS rule on the "ignoring summoning conditions" clause was issued.

This is why I consider the ruling of "the 'ignore summoning conditions' clause cannot summon Nomi and semi-nomi monsters from the grave if they were not properly summoned first" as a hindrance; it makes it more difficult for good monsters held back by their impractical summoning conditions to see more play through alternate summoning methods. Even with the rule on SSO monsters, it would be nice if the "ignoring its summoning conditions" clause on summon effects were allowed to go past said rule and summon the monster from the grave as if it had been properly summoned already.

Then again, those effects can resort to summoning them practically from the Graveyard by adding the monster to the hand/Deck/Extra Deck first and Summoning it from there, to bypass this "memory" ruling.

 

I'm fine with the "ignoring summoning conditions" clause existing, as it opens the possibility of giving life to monsters that otherwise are unplayable because of their impractical summoning conditions, as long as the clause isn't taken too far by summoning overwhelming bosses and/or making it too easy to summon (the summoning effect is easy to access).

 

 

P.D. I considered continuing in a PM, but I decided to keep on going here since I think that whatever we post ought to be helpful to readers for understanding better these "hidden" rules.

[Mysty]

Nice explanation.

 

In that case, wouldn't it be relatively simpler for Konami to change the phrase "ignoring the summoning conditions" into "ignoring that card's summoning conditions" ?

 

Maybe they should do that. Correct me if I miss something.

It's certainly better, since it gives a slight hint that there may be other restrictions on summoning, which there often are.

 

 

Unless the card is designed to summon the boss monster in such way. For example, taking Flattop again, I don't think that it would be terribly broken or unfair if it could straight out revive a SKY FIRE that was previously milled or discarded, because of the dedication the play would require (Synchro Summoning Flattop, and getting SKY FIRE into the grave). In fact, I suspect Flattop was actually intended and designed to revive SKY FIRE in such way, but then the BKSS rule on the "ignoring summoning conditions" clause was issued.

This is why I consider the ruling of "the 'ignore summoning conditions' clause cannot summon Nomi and semi-nomi monsters from the grave if they were not properly summoned first" as a hindrance; it makes it more difficult for good monsters held back by their impractical summoning conditions to see more play through alternate summoning methods. Even with the rule on SSO monsters, it would be nice if the "ignoring its summoning conditions" clause on summon effects were allowed to go past said rule and summon the monster from the grave as if it had been properly summoned already.

Then again, those effects can resort to summoning them practically from the Graveyard by adding the monster to the hand/Deck/Extra Deck first and Summoning it from there, to bypass this "memory" ruling.

 

I'm fine with the "ignoring summoning conditions" clause existing, as it opens the possibility of giving life to monsters that otherwise are unplayable because of their impractical summoning conditions, as long as the clause isn't taken too far by summoning overwhelming bosses and/or making it too easy to summon (the summoning effect is easy to access).

 

 

P.D. I considered continuing in a PM, but I decided to keep on going here since I think that whatever we post ought to be helpful to readers for understanding better these "hidden" rules.

• For the record, i consider "resurrecting" as "Special Summoning from the Graveyard other than by the proper method of summoning it". (If you're summoning it with its proper method, I just call that "properly summoning it", whether that happens to be from the graveyard or not.)

• IMO, that play would have actually been quite broken at the time if legal, but maybe that's my nostalgia goggles. More to the point, however, power level shouldn't even be relevant in rulings because that suggests rulings may change as power level changes (and rules changes, particularly those that completely contradict earlier rules, are often annoying for judges, tournament players, and casual players alike).

• Rainbow Gravity was out well before Dark Flattop, and even back then Rainbow Gravity didn't allow resurrecting Rainbow Dragons that weren't first summoned properly. If they wanted to fix this issue, they would/should have done that long before Flattop.

• If they really wanted Flattop to be able to summon SKY FIRE even if it wasn't properly summoned, they could have written "(this is treated as a Special Summon by Summon Reactor • SK)" on it. While this logic would make a difference for semi-nomis since they'd afterward be able to be summoned by anything, Nomis can use this logic perfectly well since even being properly summoned still doesn't regularly allow Nomis to be resurrected by just anything due to how their conditions are written. Or again, they could have used that "put back into the deck and summon from there" tactic you mentioned. However, Flattop says neither, so it is my assumption that Flattop was designed to resurrect defeated SKY FIREs. (To be fair, that SKY FIRE was probably destroyed by a card effect as opposed to by battle, and it's likely that the opponent doesn't have infinite removal spells, so the idea does make sense.)

 

I think you misunderstand a core tenet of game design: it is not the game designer's job to make the game easy for the players - it's actually their job to make the game hard for the players.

 

Note this is not to justify making rules overly complicated, but rather to increase limitations in an intuitive and an easy-to-understand way. (Unfortunately, Konami hasn't done much for this game in an easy-to-understand way outside of the base ruleset, and even then, the rulebook included in starter decks is terrible at that.) If Konami really wanted to remove the SSO Rule for Nomis and/or word their effects specifically to circumvent the rule, they certainly could, but they haven't. That suggests that they keep that limitation there for a reason. Is it a "hindrance"? Sure, but then again, so are "1 Normal Summon/Set per turn" and the "5 monster card zones on each side" field structure. Restrictions are mostly good in game design because they breed creativity.

 

As Mark Rosewater (highly distinguished designer of MtG) once explained, let's say you are put in charge of making a float for a holiday festivity. Which situation would you rather have?

• A low budget and what you happen to have around the house?

• essentially infinite funds to design the float however you want?

He was in each situation for designing a school float. The first year, he had a lot of fun, having to work out how to maximize the impact of the small budget, working it like a puzzle, playing the situation like a game.

The second year, he was bored out of his mind - there was no challenge to it, no game to play, no puzzle to solve. If he wanted to do it, he could do it, no questions asked.

 

The SSO Rule is a well-designed rule to prevent "dump and resurrect". "Ignoring the summoning conditions" is just a victim of poor wording and lack of clarity in rules.

[Darj]

You are right, Flattop could have had that clause of treating the summon as Reactor SK's in order to resurrect SKY FIREs. Also I didn't know (or forgot) about Rainbow Gravity's case, and I agree they could have changed that rule back then if they really wanted to.

 

I want to clear up that I'm not against the SSO rule itself; that one I do find necessary because otherwise you would be able to use, let's say, Monster Reborn, on semi nomis and nomis. My gripe is more on the "ignoring summoning conditions" clause not being able to bypass that rule in order to give a play-ability push to bosses with impractical summoning conditions. But I realize now that is not actually a problem: as you implied above with the example in Flattop, if Konami wanted to make an effect that resurrects a nomi monster, it can always make the effect be treated as if it was the proper summoning method.

[~~~~]

Q: Crystal Vanguard is in my opponent’s Pendulum Zone, and Crystal Beast Sapphire Pegasus is face-up in my opponent’s Spell & Trap Zone treated as a Continuous Spell Card. In this situation, if I Ritual Summon a Shinobaron Peacock and activate its effect, how does it resolve?

A: When resolving the effect of Shinobaron Peacock and returning up to 3 monsters on your opponent’s field to the hand, you can select monsters on your opponent’s field treated as Spell Cards. In this case, Crystal Vanguard and Crystal Beast Sapphire Pegasus return to the Deck. Afterward, you can apply the part of the effect that Special Summons a Level 4 or lower Spirit monster from your Deck normally.

https://ygorganization.com/ocg-112416-rulings/

 

WTF??? I think there is some mistake here. Why would it return them to the deck? Since when are Pendulums in the Pendulum Zone also monsters?

[zirnon]

I thought that if a card said "Special Summon ... ignoring its summoning conditions", then that meant you can Special Summon the listed monster(s) even if you had not previously summoned the listed monster(s) via their summoning conditions. If you always have to Special Summon a monster via its summoning conditions first even if the effect reads "Special Summon ... ignoring its summoning conditions", then how would you ever Special Summon a monster from your hand ignoring its summoning conditions? For example, "A Wild Monster Appears" lets you "Special Summon... from the hand ignoring its summoning conditions". I believe that the card should allow you to Special Summon a monster like any of the Sacred Beasts even if you haven't summoned them via summoning conditions. Is this correct?

[Mysty]

I thought that if a card said "Special Summon ... ignoring its summoning conditions", then that meant you can Special Summon the listed monster(s) even if you had not previously summoned the listed monster(s) via their summoning conditions. If you always have to Special Summon a monster via its summoning conditions first even if the effect reads "Special Summon ... ignoring its summoning conditions", then how would you ever Special Summon a monster from your hand ignoring its summoning conditions? For example, "A Wild Monster Appears" lets you "Special Summon... from the hand ignoring its summoning conditions". I believe that the card should allow you to Special Summon a monster like any of the Sacred Beasts even if you haven't summoned them via summoning conditions. Is this correct?

The "Special Summon only" rule, which prohibits improperly Special Summoning a SSO (Special Summon Only) monster from a public zone if it wasn't properly summoned first previously, ONLY applies in the Graveyard, Banish, and the face-up part of the Extra Deck. The hand, Deck, and face-down part of the Extra Deck are exempt from this because the monsters in those locations could have never been properly summoned previously (since their "memory" gets erased if they return to a non-public zone).

Again, "ignoring the Summoning Conditions" only lets you treat Semi-Nomis and Nomis ("Special Summon Only" monsters with additional conditions on their summoning) as a regular SSO monster.

 

EDIT: Edited to include specifiying between the face-up and face-down sections of the Extra Deck.