Talk:Byakuya, "Shiroyasha Mode"/@comment-26290163-20170313232132/@comment-26290163-20170316020741

I think I get what you're saying. The whole "face down" soul issue and who gets to look at it, etc...

My understanding, according to the Advaced Rules (which needs an update) is that the face down soul is treated like the players cards in his hand. So, face up, both see,face down, only the player can look and if it's a thing like take "cards from the top of your deck and put them face down", even the player who is using the ability can't look until they've been placed under, so no glancing and then sliding under.

The reason I believe that this would work is from past rulings, like Ultimate Buddy!, which was one of the first cards other than Assassin Demons that I thought of putting into the soul of my Assassin Buddy from my hand. They've ruled that if you're Buddy just happens to get Ultimate Buddy! under the card during the call because it says to put the top card of your deck into the soul, he still gets the benefits.

Now, granted, it's face-up, unlike this situation. But when you look at cards like Shinobi Scrolls, Lethal Formation or Hades Fall which specifically tell you to place the card face-down under them, the cards abilities are still ready to be activated when the condition comes.

Taking that as a precedent, I would think Byakuya's ability would still count, but I don't recall a situation like this being ruled on in the English Q&A. They have stated the typical answer to whether an opponent may look at the face-down soul, but I haven't seen someone ask if the player can show the face down soul to the opponent.

This will give me a good reason to email my contact at Bushiroad, since I'm assuming this wouldn't be an every day type of question. If they approve it, they may need to make a specific ruling on stating that players can show face-down soul to the opponent to prove an ability...

I haven't seen the floor rules address this either, so I'll shoot out an email and start researching the Japanese Q&A. Thanks for bringing it up. If anyone else knows of a precedent, feel free to answer!