Here's another good one..lol.

[skey23]

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.

 

[Digital Jedi]

How do we come to the determination that the Spell Card isn't affecting the monster? Let's look at the examples posted so far, (bear in mind, I'm not neccessarily replying to your posts):

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.

But even in this instance, we're not quite looking at the same or similar card effects. Snatch Steal is looking at nothing else but the opponent's Life Points to see if it has been increased or not. The monster it is eqipped to is not even part of the equation. The only thing Snatch Steal is interested in is the opponent's Life Points.

Raregold Armor, on the other hand, is looking directly at the monster it is equipped to and marking it as an attack target. This is why Staunch Defender cannot mark it as an attack target, because it is unmarkable. The spell is directly affecting the monster as it has everything to do with the overall effect.

I see it more like Gravity Axe - Grarl, the Equip Spell card is still equipped and on the field, but one of it's effects still applies regardless of which monster it is equipped to.

Another effect that is distict from Raregold Armor. Gravity Axe - Grarl is only going to be looking at the oppnonent's side of the field. It looks directlt at battle positions and stands independent of the monster it is equipped to. Raregold Armor on the other hand, is looking directly at the monster it is equipped to.

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*

Again, what is balck pendant looking at? It's looking to see if it was sent from the field to the Graveyard. It doesn't even have to be activated to get this effect. This is an effect that is truley independat of anything it's equipped to. Ring of Magnetism, however, is a trump card. It overides the effect of anything that effectively says "attack me". It's special in that case.



Look at Raregold Armor's text more closely:

"As long as you control the monster equipped with this card, your opponent cannot attack other monsters other than the equipped monster."

This effect is designating an attack target. It's looking at nothing else but the monster it is equipped to and saying "attack me". There are no effects here that are independant of the monster. Everything hinges on the ability of Raregold Armor to make the equipped monster a legal attack target.

All of this has to do with legal attack targets. Making an illegal attack target legal has never been possible. There is no affecting of the player. What we're trying to determin is the legalizing of an attack target.

 

[Jason_C]

"As long as you control the monster equipped with this card, your opponent cannot attack other monsters other than the equipped monster."

I dare you to name the subject of the independent clause of that sentence. That, or I'll name it for you: "Opponent".

 

[Digital Jedi]

I dare you to name the subject of the independent clause of that sentence. That, or I'll name it for you: "Opponent".

Now you should you know better then to ty to use grammer when explaing the mechanics behind a Yu-Gi-Oh! Card. Clause and independance have no bearing on it. What the card is doing is trying to make the monster it's equipped to the only legal target on your side of the field. There is no other way to express that as clearly as the text currently does and in the style Konami like there effect text written. The card cares about the monster and the monster only.

 

[squid]

eww, but the argument there can always be made that the "opponent", in so many cases of text vs. effect, is indeed targetting monsters, not players.

oops, Butt in by DJ. I meant to respond to Jason_C.

 

[Jason_C]

Now you should you know better then to ty to use grammer when explaing the mechanics behind a Yu-Gi-Oh! Card. Clause and independance have no bearing on it. What the card is doing is trying to make the monster it's equipped to the only legal target on your side of the field. There is no other way to express that as clearly as the text currently does and in the style Konami like there effect text written. The card cares about the monster and the monster only.

How do you know that for certain? Shouldn't we at least TRY to go by card text unless we have a specific argument why we SHOULDN'T? I don't see a tag being put on the monster. I see a funnel being put around the opponent that leads to the monster.

 

[Digital Jedi]

How do you know that for certain? Shouldn't we at least TRY to go by card text unless we have a specific argument why we SHOULDN'T? I don't see a tag being put on the monster. I see a funnel being put around the opponent that leads to the monster.

By going by the basic themeatics that Konami uses. Konami has a certain style to the way they want things to work, and after you look over there cards for a few years you begin to see the themes. And one of those themes is text effect saying one thing and meaning what Konami says. So far I've never seen an instance where an illegal attack target can be made legal. Nor have I ever see a single monster create an attack lock. There is no precedence for it.

 

[Jason_C]

So far I've never seen an instance where an illegal attack target can be made legal

When did I suggest THAT?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

Nor have I ever see a single monster create an attack lock. There is no precedence for it.

Or, looking at it from my point of view, you HAVE, but you don't acknowledge it.

Considering that you were just talking about how "you" refers to the controller ALWAYS, I'm surprised you would say "opponent" refers to the monster.

 

[slither]

How do we come to the determination that the Spell Card isn't affecting the monster? Let's look at the examples posted so far, (bear in mind, I'm not neccessarily replying to your posts):

But even in this instance, we're not quite looking at the same or similar card effects. Snatch Steal is looking at nothing else but the opponent's Life Points to see if it has been increased or not. The monster it is eqipped to is not even part of the equation. The only thing Snatch Steal is interested in is the opponent's Life Points.

Raregold Armor, on the other hand, is looking directly at the monster it is equipped to and marking it as an attack target. This is why Staunch Defender cannot mark it as an attack target, because it is unmarkable. The spell is directly affecting the monster as it has everything to do with the overall effect.

Another effect that is distict from Raregold Armor. Gravity Axe - Grarl is only going to be looking at the oppnonent's side of the field. It looks directlt at battle positions and stands independent of the monster it is equipped to. Raregold Armor on the other hand, is looking directly at the monster it is equipped to.

Again, what is balck pendant looking at? It's looking to see if it was sent from the field to the Graveyard. It doesn't even have to be activated to get this effect. This is an effect that is truley independat of anything it's equipped to. Ring of Magnetism, however, is a trump card. It overides the effect of anything that effectively says "attack me". It's special in that case.



Look at Raregold Armor's text more closely:

"As long as you control the monster equipped with this card, your opponent cannot attack other monsters other than the equipped monster."

This effect is designating an attack target. It's looking at nothing else but the monster it is equipped to and saying "attack me". There are no effects here that are independant of the monster. Everything hinges on the ability of Raregold Armor to make the equipped monster a legal attack target.

All of this has to do with legal attack targets. Making an illegal attack target legal has never been possible. There is no affecting of the player. What we're trying to determin is the legalizing of an attack target.

As all of this might be true, we have to take into consideration that all these cards need to be equipped to a monster regardless of anything.

 

[skey23]

Nor have I ever see a single monster create an attack lock. There is no precedence for it.

"Arcane Archer of the Forest" when he's been changed to a Plant-type monster. :duel_yes_

I'll post this to the Judge's List just for the fun of it!..lol.

 

[squid]

I have a question that may put things in a different perspective.

Its aGreed that if a face up Guardian Kay'est is the only monster on your side of the field that the opponent can attack directly, right? This ruling holds consistent with The Legendary Fisherman.

Raregold Armor's effect prevents the opponent from attacking other monsters too, right?

So....if the monster equipped with Raregold Armor is the only legal attack target, and that target itself cannot be a legal attack target, then wouldn't it simply allow the opponent to attack directly, no matter how many monsters are on your side of the field?

 

[slither]

I don't quite get your question there squid?? Are you saying that if Raregold Armor were equipped for instance to a Warrior type monster on the field and you had aMarauding Captain??

If so, your opponent cannot attack.

 

[Jason_C]

squid, that's just plain philosophical. Dude, you're evil for even bringing that up

What he's saying is this: When there are no monsters on your field other than Kay'est, your opponent can attack directly. So if there were many monsters on your field including a Kay'est equipped with Raregold, couldn't the opponent attack directly then, too?

 

[slither]

Ahhh I get it, id still say your opponent could not attack. Why? It would make sort of a condition or soft lock for that matter, if there were other monster Ka'yest can simply not be attacked (for the sake of it put 2 Ka'yest's on the field, your opponent cannot attack), with Raregold Armor if there was another monster on the field it would still check to see if there were more monsters, by the time the monster wanted to attack he would see that the selected target cannot be attacked.

It would then procede for the next monster but RArmor would prevent it leaving the attack impossible to be completed.

 

[Digital Jedi]

"Arcane Archer of the Forest" when he's been changed to a Plant-type monster. :duel_yes_

I'll post this to the Judge's List just for the fun of it!..lol.

The ruling not withstanding, based on previous precedence, wouldn't your opponent now be able to attack you directly?

 

[skey23]

The ruling not withstanding, based on previous precedence, wouldn't your opponent now be able to attack you directly?

I thought that as well, but I posted something about it to the Judge's List about a year ago and don't think I ever got a response back...lol.

 

[squid]

Ahhh I get it, id still say your opponent could not attack. Why? It would make sort of a condition or soft lock for that matter, if there were other monster Ka'yest can simply not be attacked (for the sake of it put 2 Ka'yest's on the field, your opponent cannot attack), with Raregold Armor if there was another monster on the field it would still check to see if there were more monsters, by the time the monster wanted to attack he would see that the selected target cannot be attacked.

It would then procede for the next monster but RArmor would prevent it leaving the attack impossible to be completed.

ahh, but is it checking for monsters only, or for legal attack targets?

If Kay'est is the only monster, your opponent can attack directly.

If Kay'est and another monster (unkay'est-like) is on the field, then the only legal attack target is the other monster

If 2 Kay'est exist, the opponent can still attack directly.

If Kay'est is the only monster on the Field and is equipped with Raregold Armor, then the opponent can attack directly, because the effect of Raregold Armor is a moot point. There are no other monsters to even attempt to target.

Therefore, if Kay'est is on the Field equipped with Raregold Armor, and other monsters also exist, the only legal attack target is still Kay'est, so refer to the statement above; ie: attack directly.


there is nothing similar about Kay'est and Maurauding Captain. Maurauding Captain forces an opponent to look at it when choosing an attack target. Kay'est forces them to look away and NOT consider it.

Oh, and what Digital Jedi said concerning the Arcane Archer of the Forest is how I would view it too (so long as the Archer is the only monster on the field)

 

[Digital Jedi]

I thought that as well, but I posted something about it to the Judge's List about a year ago and don't think I ever got a response back...lol.

Keep an eye on the ruling. They'll try to change when they think no one is looking and then say that's the way it's always been, we just didn't read our own language properly.

 

[Digital Jedi]

ahh, but is it checking for monsters only, or for legal attack targets?

If Kay'est is the only monster, your opponent can attack directly.

If Kay'est and another monster (unkay'est-like) is on the field, then the only legal attack target is the other monster

If 2 Kay'est exist, the opponent can still attack directly.

If Kay'est is the only monster on the Field and is equipped with Raregold Armor, then the opponent can attack directly, because the effect of Raregold Armor is a moot point. There are no other monsters to even attempt to target.

Therefore, if Kay'est is on the Field equipped with Raregold Armor, and other monsters also exist, the only legal attack target is still Kay'est, so refer to the statement above; ie: attack directly.


there is nothing similar about Kay'est and Maurauding Captain. Maurauding Captain forces an opponent to look at it when choosing an attack target. Kay'est forces them to look away and NOT consider it.

Oh, and what Digital Jedi said concerning the Arcane Archer of the Forest is how I would view it too (so long as the Archer is the only monster on the field)

Only problem here is that Gaurdian Kay'est and The Legendary Fisherman/Umi issue is simply an unsubstabtiated ruling, with no efect text or mechanics to justify it. It is a true BKSS in every sense of the word. It would be a mistake to try to extend the ruling to another situation thats entierly different. If there's other monster on the field, a raegold armor isn't going to circumvent mechanics without a true BKSS to say otherwise.

 

[squid]

And would that surprise you? If the ruling is a BKSS, its still the basis for how you interpret that monster in other situations, no? Only another BKSS would be able to create a different ruling that separates one portion of the ruled effect from all others.

 

[Digital Jedi]

And would that surprise you? If the ruling is a BKSS, its still the basis for how you interpret that monster in other situations, no? Only another BKSS would be able to create a different ruling that separates one portion of the ruled effect from all others.

But where are you getting the precedence that because Kay'est is the only monster on the field that can be attacked, but cannot be attacked becaue of her effect that you can attack directly? Kay'est's ruling applies to her when she is by herself and only by herself. This isn't anymore of an excuse to allow a direct attack then two mirauding captains would allow for a direct attack. Or two soalr flare dragons. Two Command Knights. There is no precedence for it.