Couple of questions I've been meaning to ask.

[CraniumX]

1. Simple enough question, but chaosruler the other day le me to asking it. Is My Body as a Shield, Spell Economics friendly? Basically, will its 1500 activation cost be negated? I said yes, he thought no, so it made me question it. If they don't work together, it's a simple enough change to make to my deck, but it's a very useful combo.

2. This one's a bit tricky, and a little on the immoral side, but I felt it needed asking. For Abyssal Designator, which I really like, can you name, for instance, an Earth / Pyro creature, of which none exist in the game, just to be able to take a look at your opponent's hand and deck to verify they don't have one. Or for instance, something like a Dark / Fairy, in which the only one is Doma The Angel of Silence, for the same reason? This is something I've been thinking about for a while.

 

[Mazera DeVille]

1. My Body as a Shield can be activated and the 1500 reduced since it is the cost of using the card. So essentially it will be free to use the effect of My Body as a Shield.

2. Abyssal Designator does not state if you can look at your opponents hand and/or deck only that you can state a type and attribute, the opponent can then look in their deck for a monster of that type. It's nmot specific to a particular monster.

 

[CraniumX]

Mazera DeVille[/ycard]]2. Abyssal Designator does not state if you can look at your opponents hand and/or deck only that you can state a type and attribute, the opponent can then look in their deck for a monster of that type. It's nmot specific to a particular monster.

Yes, but in the official rulings it states that if your opponent says they have none, you can verify it yourself by checking their hand and deck to see that they aren't lying/cheating. That's why I brought this question up.

Thanks for confirming the My Body as a Shield question, though I'd definitely like a lot more confirmation, just to make sure I'm not screwy or missing something like I thought I might be.

 

[Digital Jedi]

1. As I understand it My Body as a Shield is not a cost to activate it. Mearly part of the effect. I havent looked this one up in awhile though

2. Slight correction there Mazera. If your opponent finds and discards a monster of the declared Type and Attribute you don't get to see his deck. But if he claims that he doesn't have the declared Type and Attribute, then he has to show you his deck to prove it. This is in the FAQ.

I see no reason why you would have to only decalre a combination that exists, since most people are unaware of most of the Type Attribute combos.

 

[ancient_duelist]

1. As I understand it My Body as a Shield is not a cost to activate it. Mearly part of the effect. I havent looked this one up in awhile though

". . . pay 1500 Life Points to negate the activation of the card and destroy it." How can this be anything but a cost to activate My Body as a Shield? I can not find anything that would lead anyone to believe otherwise.

 

[CraniumX]

1. As I understand it My Body as a Shield is not a cost to activate it. Mearly part of the effect. I havent looked this one up in awhile though.

Hmmm, I guess it might be ruled this way since the "pay 1500" isn't the first line on the card? It's the only card I can find like that though, and there isn't any ruling for it with Spell Economics I can find, might be one for the List if there is a difference of opinion here. Just my thoughts though, seeing as how it does say "pay 1500" right after the "condition", it seems more like a cost rather than part of the effect.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

There is only ONE sentence on My Body as a Shield.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Well, the only reason I think that, is because its not a seperate sentence, nor does it say "Pay 1500 life point to activate this card." Generally, the cost will be distinct from teh effect. Even a "cost to negate" may not be a "cost to activate." But as I said it's been awhile since I've looked this up. I'm going on my somewhat age ridden memory here.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Seven Tools of the Bandit

Pay 1000 of your Life Points to negate the activation of a Trap Card and destroy it. (it is a cost, and it's attached to the effect)

 

[ancient_duelist]

There is only ONE sentence on My Body as a Shield.

There is only ONE sentence on Seven Tools of the Bandit.

"Pay 1000 of your Life Points to negate the activation of a Trap Card and destroy it."

"When your opponent activates a card that has the effect that destroys 1 or more monsters on the field, pay 1500 Life Points to negate the activation of the card and destroy it."

Look pretty darn similar to me.

<edit> So, are you saying My Body as a Shield is a cost or not? I'm confused.

<edit> <edit> Okay, I guess you are saying that. Whew.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Well like I said, cost to activate a card are not necassarily the same thing as costs to negate.

 

[densetsu_x]

I asked that question on the mailing list. Never received an answer yet.

 

[novastar]

Regardless of the text.

All of the cost mentioned are both "Card Activation" and "Effect Activation" costs, because these are all non-continuous cards, you are paying the Life Points to play the card as well as activate the effect.

An example of pure "Effect Activation" cost would be Ultimate Offering.

 

[krazykidpsx]

actually because of Dimension Fusion i would prolly think other wise.

because its effect states, Pay 2000lp thats the activation cost of the card. because if you play Serial Spell the payment doesnt pass over.

then again you cant play Serial Spell with My Body as a Shield.

 

[CraniumX]

Wow, looks like my question was more troublesome than I thought. Would be nice if the judge's list had an answer, but if they hadn't replied yet, seems to me like they may not even know, themselves.

Thinking ahead of things, if we ever get the spell card over here, the one that says pay half your life points to basically special summon a Dark Magician from your deck, would also have the cost negated by Spell Economics, wouldn't it, even though it's not a set amount of LP?

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Or it could mean that there are still some more rule clarifications to work out (as they aren't posting anything else until all those changes are made)