Here's another good one..lol.

S

skey23

Council of Heroes
Ok, we know that even monsters that are unaffected by Spell Cards can still be equipped with Equip Spell Cards, but the monster will not be affected by them.

What would happen in this scenario?

"Guardian Kay'est" equipped with "Raregold Armor".

Does that still work since "Raregold Armor" is affecting the opponent and not "Guardian Kay'est"?


Thanks.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
From the looks of it, this would still work, a simple way of explaining it is, that Raregold Armor is only looking for the controller of the monster and not the monster which it is equipped to.

There is no effect involving the monster, it is just overriding the opponents choice for an attack target.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I recall getting the reply on this that it would not work, way back in the day when Raregold first got released. Understanding of mechanics has changed though, so I can't be sure anymore.

I remember being told (by Kenjiblade, at one point) that even though the equip is speaking of the opponent not being able to attack other monsters, it is still affecting Kay'est and therefore the monster's own effect would prevent the effect from working.

However, when I look at the rulings under Guardian Kay'est which say:
"¢ Your opponent cannot select "Guardian Kay'est" as the target of an attack.

"¢ As long as "Guardian Kay'est" cannot be selected as the target of an attack, it cannot be targeted by the effect of "Staunch Defender", either.

"¢ [Re: Staunch Defender] You cannot select "Guardian Kay'est" or "The Legendary Fisherman" for "Staunch Defender" if they cannot be attacked.
Click to expand...

it makes me think that the contradiction that would be put into place by equipping Raregold Armor on Kay'est would be similar to the situation with Staunch Defender.

In other words, is it even legal to equip Kay'est?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
that is how I understood it from before, as well. This time around the Staunch Defender ruling caught my eye and had me considering further possibilities.

btw, 3 posts in order from Honduras, Guatemala, and Brazil. I love multiculturalism.:)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok...speculation only, but:

The effect of Raregold Armor is targetting the monster it is equipped to, making it so that the equipped monster is the only monster that an opponent can select as an attack target.

did that make sense?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, that made perfect sense, but here's my issue.

"Snatch Steal" equipped to my opponent's "Silent Swordsman LV5". I don't get control of the monster but they still gain the 1000 LPs per turn. The part of the effect that affects the monster is negated but the part that affects the player isn't.

Going soley off the text of "Raregold Armor", I don't see anything that affects the equipped monster, only the effect that affects the opposing player.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jason_C said:
Huh? Did I miss something? I never mentioned you vs opponent, did I?
Click to expand...
Ok, I just natrually assumed you meant the opponent equipping "Silent Swordsman LV5" with either "Ring of Magnetism" or "Raregold Armor". If that's not what you were referring to, then I apologize..lol.

However! If you were referring to equipping your own "Silent Swordsman LV5" with "Ring of Magnetism", then you are still incorrect...lol. "Silent Swordsman LV5" is still affected by your own Spell Cards, so it would indeed lose the ATK and DEF points while equipped..lol.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
Ok, I just natrually assumed you meant the opponent equipping "Silent Swordsman LV5" with either "Ring of Magnetism" or "Raregold Armor". If that's not what you were referring to, then I apologize..lol.

However! If you were referring to equipping your own "Silent Swordsman LV5" with "Ring of Magnetism", then you are still incorrect...lol. "Silent Swordsman LV5" is still affected by your own Spell Cards, so it would indeed lose the ATK and DEF points while equipped..lol.
Click to expand...
ROFLOL! I wasn't even thinking about the technical effect! I was just pulling some random monster that wasn't affected by spells!

Ok, go back. Read my post again. But this time, where it says "Silent Swordsman LV5", insert the words "Horus LV6". Does it work now?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey,
perhaps rather than Silent Swordsman L.5 which remains unaffected, Gora Turtle of Illusion would be an a.p.propriate example, because, as you pointed out, there is a portion of the effect that affects players directly, not the monster.

I have to admit, I always wanted Raregold to work with Kay'est. But, I do remember getting an emphatic no from more than one person on this.


I cannot think of any equip card in which the effect is not targetting the monster it is equipped to (except that of Snatch Steal which specifically mentiones the player's LP). Now, maybe Raregold Armor could be an exception, but based on the fact that all other equips, traps, spells, and monster ->spells, work under the basic mechanic that their effect IS affecting the monster it is attached to, I still see how it could be construed in this manner.

oddly enough, Im seeing the vague connection to the dispute that occurred over how to view Threatening Roar. *prays this doesn't come to the same conclusion? *
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I stand by what I said. And to further my point, I bring into the equation Black Pendant. If it's equipped to Kay'est, she will gain no ATK. If it's destroyed, LP will be lost. The effect after the destruction has NOTHING to do with a monster, after all, the card is already unequipped by the time this occurs.

Raregold armour has no effect on the monster it's equipped to.

Again, and I say: The ruling they (the people squid talked to) are thinking of regards Ring of Magnetism. With Ring, no ATK or DEF is lost, but the monster is still the only legal attack target. This is because the ATK / DEF modification affects the monster, while the target modification affects the player.

*stands firm*
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top