My Body as a Shield & Spell Economics

K

kansashoops

New Member
Was there ever an official ruling on the question of whether Spell Economics waived the life point cost for My Body as a Shield?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
3-Hump Lacooda and Amazoness Chain Master, however, don't really compare to my body as shield. These are igntion and optional trigger effects respectivly. They are effectsof face-up cards with an activation requirement for the effect. Not the activation of the card itself (Something not really possible for monsters anyway)

Spell and Traps generally have the activation cost printed first, similar to the way Magic Jammer is written. Just because Magic Jammer states that you discard a card in one sentence and you negate a Spell Card's activation in the other doesn't mean that we might mistake it for a Continuous Trap Card. If My Body as a Shield were to templated as a cost effect then they would have templated it that way to begin with. This is one of the few areas where Konami appears to have been consistant.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If My Body as a Shield were to templated as a cost effect then they would have templated it that way to begin with.
Click to expand...
Technically, Spells and Traps can never be "cost effects". Even more technically, there is no such thing as a cost effect. Crazy game.

This is the list of possible effect types.

Continuous
Continuous applied (like Jinzo)
Continuous tripped (like Fire Princess)

Conditionally activated
Optional Triggered
Mandatory Triggered

Manually activated
Manually activated speed 1
Manually activated speed 2
Manually activated speed 3

The only difference between the so-called "cost effect" and Multi-trigger is the speed. And the only differences between a monster's manual effect and a Spell or Trap's manual effect is in the nature of the cards themselves (i.e. monster effects are attached to the card).

In other words, I don't actually understand your point enough to counter it completely, so I just started spewing words. I probably don't understand because I just got back from going through the EEN spoiler with a rulings-guided mind, and I found about three different ways to indicate a cost within the same set. So yeah, I don't see template as a deciding factor when cost is concerned.

And for some reason, I think the last Rulings PDF file had it listed as "not a cost". Might be my crazyanity.

If it makes you feel any better/worse (whatever), the JERP has the 1500 listed as a cost.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Mainly what I was tring to say was I see the activation costs (cost effect was a bad choice of words) of Spell and Trap Cards generally being put in a sentence by temselves. And then a second sentance describing what you just paid for. I say generally becasue I'm sure thier is an exception or two, but I dont think My Body as a Shield is one of them. I dont question it being a cost, I just question it being a cost for activation (and therby ineliglble for Spell Economics).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
out of curiosity, then, would it be legal to activate My Body as a Shield, not pay the cost and simply let the effect Disappear? (This, assuming that the first part of the text requirement was satisfied)

Im asking because, if the card cannot be activated without the intention of paying the cost, then it would indeed suggest that the cost is a viable subject to Spell Economics.

Raijinili:
Mind if I ask what those 3 formats for indicating costs, from EEN are? I have yet to see the completed EEN spoiler.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Delinquent Duo was not meant as an example for the ruling. It was meant as an example of an effect that has different parts to it. But you can't choose to skip a part of the effect to make the whole thing resolve without effect.

As part of the effect of My Body as a Shield, you couldn't choose to not pay the 1500 to make it resolve without effect.

Any card in the game that has more then one part to it could have been used as an examole.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
But you'll notice that wasn't a choice of either player. This is usually the only time an effect will fizzle. Because that portion of the effect coudn't resolve. Not because either player choice not to resolve it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
No, you'd still have to pay. As part of the effect's resolution the card would be making you pay. Just like you couldn't choose to resolve only a portion Delinquent Duo so that it would fizzle.
Click to expand...

Im not sure I like that thinking either, though. Maybe Im misreading you, but it sounds like you are making the payment part of the resolution, since its an effect.

I would still think that the payment is "Cash On Delivery", and that would make it more of a cost than an effect.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As mentioned, the wording was just templated differently. The first sentance just set up the condition of activation where as that sentence in other cards was included after the cost in other cards. Surprise surprise, another poorly worded card from the maker.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So the card 'should' have been worded something like this:

Pay 1500 Life Points to negate the activation of a card, activated by your opponent, that has the effect that destroys 1 or more monsters on the field, and destroy it.

That would fit the 'profile' better, I believe.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
So the card 'should' have been worded something like this:

Pay 1500 Life Points to negate the activation of a card, activated by your opponent, that has the effect that destroys 1 or more monsters on the field, and destroy it.

That would fit the 'profile' better, I believe.
Click to expand...

Now if we can only get them to fix My Body as a Shield to that. Well, at least I know it is a cost even if it is worded differently.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top