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.

 

[Cropz]

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.

you're pushing it...
it doesn't matter if there's one or five 'Guardian Kay'est'/'The Legendary Fisherman', if there are no legal targets, the opponent can attack directly.

 

[Digital Jedi]

you're pushing it...
it doesn't matter if there's one or five 'Guardian Kay'est'/'The Legendary Fisherman', if there are no legal targets, the opponent can attack directly.

Since when can an opponent attack directly if there are two Guardian Kay'ests on the field? The ruling only applies to one stand alone Kay'est. Not two.

If "Guardian Kay'est" is your only monster on the field, your opponent can attack your Life Points directly.

"Only" monster. Not "if you control several copies of Guardian Kay'est..."


http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=2659#2659

If Player 1 has a face-up "Legendary Fisherman" and "Umi" on the field,
with no other monsters in play, can Player 2 attack Player 1 directly?



Answer:

Player 2 would be able to attack directly.

---------------------------------------
Curtis Schultz
Official UDE Netrepâ„¢
CurtisSchultz_netrep@Hotmail.com

Again, "no other monsters in play." The ruling always refered to them as stand alones. It NEVER refered to multiple copies.

 

[Cropz]

that should be implied, really.
and they never said 2 of them create a lock, like ALL other monsters do ('Command Knight', 'Marauding Captain' and such).

 

[Digital Jedi]

Honesty, I cannot see how that is implied. The only implication of the ruling is that they don't want a monster to be a stand alone wall of defense with no drawbacks. There is no ruling that states that no legal attack targets creates an open window to attack your opponent directly. (Other wise all the attack locks would work this way)

They never really said that ALL other monster do. For the most part THAT is what's implied.

 

[slither]

A lonely Ka'yest makes sense that you can attack directly since the other only attack target would be the "player" in this case, but another one, the attack would look around and see that they is another target.

Then the monster would be back and forth saying something like "Umm this is Ka'yest I can't attack him, but there's another monster", he would look for the other monster and repeat "Umm this is Ka'yest, I can't attack him, but there's another monster".

Ending in a neverending back and forth between the two monsters making an impossible attack.

 

[squid]

hehe. I think I stepped in a pile of poo. I would be really interested to see if this question could be specifically worded to the Judge's List to see what the answer is.

I understand what Digital Jedi and slither are saying, but I honestly just dont agree.

 

[novastar]

No doubt...1 or more LF's and UMI, no matter the number of LF's, would always allow for direct attacks. The guardian as well.

Have multiples doesn't change anything, as they all hidden in the same fasion.

If "Guardian Kay'est" is your only monster on the field, your opponent can attack your Life Points directly.

"Only" monster. Not "if you control several copies of Guardian Kay'est..."

That is the wrong interpretation of the ruling.

They are talking about that "card" itself. They mean only cards with the name Guardian Kay'est and that have the same effect. People have to stop taking UDE's rulings so literally and realize that there is a lot of hidden generalization here, throughout the entire rules database.

Also, a point to remember here with LF and GK, is that their respective effects only affect the actual card generating the effect. That is probably a major part of why multiples don't change the outcome, because they don't affect each other in any way.

The most of others all seem to have a kind of overlapping effect, that when 2 or more are active creates a stalemate, or lock. I have to admit though Command Knight is a weird one.