Yeah, I remember seeing this in the old Netrepâ„¢ files, but I thought maybe something hand changed in it since then... hmm....
Here's what we know courtesy of RONIN...
"¢ If "
Bait Doll" is activated and targets an "
Imperial Order" the opponent may chain the "
Imperial Order" which will negate the effect of "
Bait Doll" and it will not be returned to your Deck. Or the opponent can allow "
Bait Doll" to force the activation of "
Imperial Order", and "
Bait Doll" will be shuffled into the Deck and "
Imperial Order" will remain active on the field because the timing of its activation was legitimate.
"¢ If "
Bait Doll" is activated and targets "
Magic Jammer", "
Magic Drain", etc. the opponent may chain the Trap Card to negate and destroy "
Bait Doll". If he / she does not, the Trap Card will be destroyed since the activation timing is incorrect, and "
Bait Doll" will be shuffled into your Deck.
"¢ You cannot chain to a Trap Card that was forced to activate by the effect of "
Bait Doll" since an existing Chain is in the middle of resolving.
"¢ If "
Jinzo" is face-up on the field and the effect of "
Bait Doll" forces the activation of a Normal or Counter Trap Card, that Trap Card's effect is negated and the Trap Card is destroyed. If a Continuous Trap Card is forced to activate by the effect of "
Bait Doll" it will remain face-up on the field meaninglessly until "
Jinzo" is destroyed.
"¢ If the target of "
Bait Doll" is no longer on the field (if it was sent to the Graveyard with "
Emergency Provisions", or destroyed by "
Mystical Space Typhoon", as a chain to the activation of "
Bait Doll"), then "
Bait Doll" is still shuffled back into the Deck. As long as the activation and effect of "
Bait Doll" are not negated, the effect of "
Bait Doll" that shuffles it back into the Deck still resolves.
"¢ [Re:
Judgment of Anubis] You can activate "
Judgment of Anubis" and select a Spell Card that negates the activation of a card and destroys it, like "
My Body as a Shield" or "
Bait Doll".
"¢ [Re:
Serial Spell] If you chain "
Serial Spell" to "
Bait Doll", the entire effect of "
Bait Doll" is applied and "
Serial Spell" is also shuffled back into your Deck.
"¢ [Re:
Tornado Wall] "
Tornado Wall" may be Set on the field if "Umi" is not on the field, but it cannot be activated. If targeted by "
Bait Doll" when face-down and "Umi" is not on the field, it is destroyed.
The thing to notice in particular is that
Imperial Order goes through the baiting fine becuase it doesn't have any activation conditions.
Magic Jammer can't go through because its required to be activated in response to the activation of a trap card. When we resolve
Bait Doll's effect, the time has passed. Unfortunately this particular ruling doens't take costs into account.
<digs up some UDE lists>
OOOH! here's some juice...
If Bait Doll targets a face-down Wall of Revealing Light, would that mean that the wall would:
A. Potentially be able to block an infinitely high attacker, since one wouldn't have to pay however much they designated.
B. Since zero lifepoints were payed, Wall of Revealing Light would remain on the field meaninglessly, and all monsters with over zero attack would be able to.
C. Since Wall of Revealing Light Requires at leat 1000 lifepoints to be payed in order to play it, Wall would be destroyed if the cost was not payed.
All scenarios are assuming that the player who controlls Wall of Revealing Light does not chain it in activation to Bait Doll.
I would imagine that C. would be the correct ruling. Is this correct?
Answer:
C is close, but still not quite there.
"Wall of Revealing Light" remains in play meaninglessly because no cost was paid. (nor could be paid in this case)
aww man...I think I found our answer...
Does a player have to pay the cost for the activation of a Trap Card that is forced to activate from Bait Doll?
Thanks
Answer:
You do not pay the activation cost of Traps "Bait Doll" forces to activate.
That would seem to indicate you don't have to pay the activation costs...but wait, doesn't that conflict with the whole Wall of Reveling light thing? Maybe not, its just that Wall is a special case where the amount paid also affects the resolution. So in this case you'd have 0 cost, 0 benefit.
Okay, the server guy should be calling me now, I should get back to work 8^D
