Recent content by kansashoops

I know that costs are always paid when it's a cost to activate the card, but this is a cost to activate an effect, and Spell Shield negated the activation and the effect of Enemy Controller. It's not as clear cut as Brain Control, for example, and we came up with good arguments on both sides.

Here's an issue that came up today that we had trouble with. Player B has a face up Bazoo, a face down monster, and a face down spell/trap. Player A special summons Cyber Dragon, then plays Enemy Controller, selecting its second effect to tribute Cyber Dragon and take control of Bazoo. Player B...

Here are a couple of relevant articles on Metagame: http://www.metagame.com/yugioh.aspx?tabid=33&ArticleId=7898 http://www.metagame.com/yugioh.aspx?tabid=33&ArticleId=7905

Cool, got it. Thanks.

Do the Gadgets get their effect if they are special summoned by Giant Rat, or do they miss their timing? I've seen conflicting answers on this one.

I'm really sorry I brought this up. If you are distinguishing between negating the activation of an effect and negating its resolution, then you are not "clearing your mind of complexities." Exiled Force is face up on the field. Skill Drain negates its effect while it is face up. If the effect...

Oh, I understand the reasoning on Exiled Force/Skill Drain. I just think the Skill Drain rulings make it unnecessarily complicated and dilute its value. Wipe your mind of all the complexities you are used to dealing with in this game, and just read the card text. To me, that card says that while...

Ah, that explains it, although it does reinforce my belief that Exiled Force should not work when Skill Drain is on the field. :)

I can't seem to find any rulings/posts on this, so I thought I'd ask. The ruling for Skill Drain that allows Exiled Force's effect to work when Skill Drain is on the field says that Exiled Force's effect activates in the graveyard. If that's the case, wouldn't Exiled Force's effect be negated by...

Ah, well, if that's the ruling, that's the ruling. But the card text is misleading.

In that case, what is the point of "on your side of the field"? Why include that phrase if it is going to come back to the owner's side of the field regardless of which side it was on when it was removed from play? That makes no sense.

I just don't see any reason to include the bolded phrase in the card text if it is going to come back regardless.

Here's the scenario. I'm playing a Macrocosmos deck. I have D.D. Survivor in face up attack, Macrocosmos is face up in my S/T zone, and I have one face down S/T (Sakuretsu Armor). On my opponent's turn, he plays Snatch Steal to take control of my D.D. Survivor and declares an attack. I respond...

Never mind. I think I found my answer by looking at the rulings for Gren Maju Da Eiza, since Megamorph also goes by original attack, and Gren Maju Da Eiza's attack goes to 0 when it is equipped with Megamorph. So much for that deck idea...

What is the "original attack" of a monster like Gren Maju Da Eiza that has "?" ATK? I'm trying to determine whether he is a reasonable target for Spiritual Fire Art "“ Kurenai, or whether his attack would be considered 0 for this purpose.