novastar said:
Skill Drain in relation to Monster Effects should always be viewed differently than
Imperial Order/
Royal Decree/
Jinzo/
Spell Canceller in relation to Spell/Trap Effects.
Why?
Skill Drain negates monster effects. The other cards negate Spell/Trap effects. It's plain and simple, at least in my mind. So why are they treated differently? (I know, I know...Konami said so...lol)
novastar said:
Just to put it plainly,
Skill Drain must actually "see" the Effect Monster that is generating the effect face-up when the effect starts to resolve in order for it to negate the effect.
That makes PERFECT SENSE
because of the text on
Skill Drain that states "...the effects of all face-up Effect Monsters on the field are negated." Not only do they have to be face-up, but they also have to be
on the field, so if either condition is not met, "
Skill Drain"s effect does not work. Makes absolute perfect sense to me!...now for the big one...
novastar said:
Wording on
Skill Drain is actually a lot more specific than the others, which is why it makes more sense.
Let's look at that statement
and the card texts shall we...Yes, let's...
"
Skill Drain" - "As long as this card remains on the field, the effects of all face-up Effect Monsters on the field are negated." You are definitely correct on the
clarity of wording on this card. No argument here.
"
Imperial Order" - "As long as this card remains face-up on the field, negate the effects of all Spell Cards on the field." This too seems pretty clear. The Spell card must be
on the field in order for this effect to work. The
only difference in wording is the fact that 'face-up' is missing from this effect. Now that may be the
key to this entire thing. Since you're saying the effect of Spell cards have a 'lingering' ability even if the Spell card is removed from the field, the
effect is still 'on the field' if you will, then that also makes sense, but only if that
is the case here.
"
Jinzo" - "As long as this card remains face-up on the field, Trap Cards cannot be activated. The effects of all face-up Trap Cards are negated." Again, we see the
face-up restriction; however, there is no mention of them having to be on the field. Face-up to me implies it must be face up at resolution, or already face-up to be negated by "
Jinzo". So the "
Waboku" example John gave earlier surprises me to be correct.
"
Royal Decree" - "As long as this card remains face-up on the field, negate the effects of all Trap Cards except this card on the field." Ah, now if that's not clear, I don't know what is. There is no field restriction on this one.
All trap card effects are negated. It doesn't matter where the trap card is. Now if "
Royal Decree" was mixed into the "
Waboku" example John gave, I'd agree that "
Waboku"s effect is negated. No question about it.
"
Spell Canceller" - "As long as this card remains face-up on the field, Spell Cards cannot be activated. The effects of all Spell Cards are also negated." Again, no issues with this card. It has the
all Spell Cards clause. No field restrictions, or face-up restrictions, simply
all Spell Cards, just like "
Royal Decree"s effect.
Ok, does anybody see a pattern here? There's two for each right, two for Trap and two for Spell. One set negates
ALL of the card type. The other set negates
ONLY those that are
face-up on the field. I don't think this is a coincidence. Also the fact that the cards are mixed as well. You have a monster that negates ALL Spell Card effects and a Trap card that negates ALL Trap Card effects. You have a monster that negates ONLY the Trap Card effects for Traps on the field, and a Trap Card that ONLY negates the Spell Card effects for Spell Cards on the field. It looks to me that it was 'designed' that way.
Forgive me, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm just stating the way I see things and what makes sense to me. I can argue with the rulings til I'm blue in the face, but it won't make a difference unless the rulings get changed.
I think I'm done for the night now...lol.