Malfunction question

S

skey23

Council of Heroes
Is the Trap Card negated by "Malfunction" considered to have been set? Meaning, the opponent would not be able to activate that Trap Card again the turn it is negated by "Malfunction" correct?


Thanks.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
skey23 said:
Is the Trap Card negated by "Malfunction" considered to have been set? Meaning, the opponent would not be able to activate that Trap Card again the turn it is negated by "Malfunction" correct?


Thanks.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that since the activation was negated and then returned to it's original position, it's as if it was never activated at all and is still "set". There is some precedent for this with cards like Armed Ninja, De-Spell, etc, where as far as I know if a Trap or Quick-Play Spell Card was "returned to it's original position" it can still be activated later that turn.

Just an opinion.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
My issue with those cards is they don't activate the card. All they do is let you look at them. Since they were never activated, they can still be activated later that same turn.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
My issue with those cards is they don't activate the card. All they do is let you look at them. Since they were never activated, they can still be activated later that same turn.
Click to expand...

Good point :D

This appears to be one of only 4 cards that "negate the activation" of a Spell/Trap and don't specifically state "and destroy it". The others are Goblin Out of the Frying Pan, Big Shield Gardna, and Mid Shield Gardna. Not much help there for parallel rulings, though.

I'm still of the mindset that if you negate the activation of a Trap Card, it's as if you never activated it in the first place. The fact that it is not destroyed almost makes it seem like the effect is designed as a "rewind" mechanism.

If that turns out not to be the case, would it be important to note that Malfunction does not include "and effect" in it? Hmmm... that could be interesting ...

(OK, I'll go to bed now .. I'm just typing for the sake of typing here)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Think about it this way:

During Player A's turn, Player B activates Gravity Bind. Player A activates Malfunction in a chain to negate and reset Gravity Bind. The resetting is akin to placing the trap card on the field. In the case of Gravity Bind, it is flipped face down and is considered to have been set in that turn (Player A's turn). Player B cannot activate Gravity Bind until the next turn, i.e. Player B's turn.

Edit: The Goblin Out of the Frying Pan may seem like a useless card, but it's actually quite an annoying and damaging card. Anyone want to take a stab at what I'm hinting at?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If Malfunction really doesn't do anything to the basic mechanic of having to wait 1 turn before a trap can be activated, then it is a really weak counter trap (other than making some traps miss their proper activation windows). I would doubt Konami would make it so, but this should be asked in the Judges' list to make sure.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Would there be any sense if you could activate the trap card later that turn? IMO the card can't be activated that same turn, if not then, I would say that Malfuction would be the upmost useless card in all of the game.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
First off, Mid Shield Gardna and Big Shield Gardna don't need to "negate and destroy" a Spell card that targets them while face down. The nature of targetting effects that get negated simply will go to the Graveyard after they're done. There isn't any need to have the word "destroy" in their card text.

Goblin Out of the Frying Pan is to counter Quick-Play cards. That's pretty much it.

Malfunction resets Trap Cards that it negates. There isn't any reason why it shouldn't. Like others have said, having the Trap card that was negated be able to activate later in the turn wouldn't make any sense. Negation doesn't immediately undo the activation of a card, such as a trap, completely and consider it to never have activated in the first place. That isn't what negation is.

Malfunction resets the Trap card and that Trap card can't activate during that turn, unless a card effect allows it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tkwiget said:
First off, Mid Shield Gardna and Big Shield Gardna don't need to "negate and destroy" a Spell card that targets them while face down. The nature of targetting effects that get negated simply will go to the Graveyard after they're done. There isn't any need to have the word "destroy" in their card text.

Goblin Out of the Frying Pan is to counter Quick-Play cards. That's pretty much it.

Malfunction resets Trap Cards that it negates. There isn't any reason why it shouldn't. Like others have said, having the Trap card that was negated be able to activate later in the turn wouldn't make any sense. Negation doesn't immediately undo the activation of a card, such as a trap, completely and consider it to never have activated in the first place. That isn't what negation is.

Malfunction resets the Trap card and that Trap card can't activate during that turn, unless a card effect allows it.
Click to expand...
Both Mid Shield Gardna and Big Shield Gardna are Ignition Effects when it comes to negating Spells that target them face-down, so yes, you do NOT have to activate them if you have a better option on the field, or you just simply want them destroyed by your opponents effect.

You need the word "Destroy" because not all effects are "activate and send to Graveyard at resolution". As an example, Ectoplasmer (not that it can target face-down)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tkwiget said:
The example wasn't very good to illustrate what you're getting at. Ectoplasmer never has destroyed anything ever. It Tributes monsters. It isn't a scenario when the card itself disagrees with what you're mentioning it for.

Swords of Revealing Light was a better "example."

Because with cards like Imperial Order and Spell Canceller, it works for what you're trying to explain.
Click to expand...
Im talking about cards that target and effects that negate a card that targets what happens to be a Continuous Spell Card, versus a Normal Spell Card.

This isnt about a Spell Card that destroys. Its about showing why you have an effect that negates and destroys, instead of just negate.

This is what I'm referring too

Tkwiget said:
First off, Mid Shield Gardna and Big Shield Gardna don't need to "negate and destroy" a Spell card that targets them while face down. The nature of targetting effects that get negated simply will go to the Graveyard after they're done. There isn't any need to have the word "destroy" in their card text.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top