Spell Shield Type-8 resolving in a chain

E

EAMetheny

CoG iTrader
The Field:
Player A: Necrovalley, Gravekeeper's Assailant
Player B: Several Monsters including Drillago

The Play: Player A enters Battle Phase, and declares an attack from Gravekeeper's Assailant against Drillago. Player A immediately activates Gravekeeper's Assailant and indicates that the position of another of Player B's monsters change battle position. Player B chains with Spell Shield Type-8.

Since it is before damage step, and Necrovally's effect does not boost the attack, Gravekeeper's Assailant is destroyed and inflicts 100 points of damage to Player A's life points. Does this order of events still allow for the effect of Gravekeeper's Assailant to occur since Necrovalley was on the field at time of activation? Is the order of play listed above correct?

Thanks in advance......

EAMetheny:)
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Well, I read the question just fine, but that's because I wrote it:(. I'll try to add further text.

The Field:
Player A: Necrovalley, Gravekeeper's Assailant
Player B: Several Monsters including Drillago

The Play: Player A enters Battle Phase, and declares an attack from Gravekeeper's Assailant against Drillago. Player A immediately activates Gravekeeper's Assailant effect and indicates that the position of another of Player B's monsters change battle position Gravekeeper's Assailant effect. Player B chains (plays?) with Spell Shield Type-8.

Since it is before damage step, and Necrovally's effect does not boost the attack, Gravekeeper's Assailant is destroyed and inflicts 100 points of damage to Player A's life points when the game phase gets to damage step. Does this order of events still allow for the effect of Gravekeeper's Assailant to occur since Necrovalley was on the field at time of activation? Is the order of play (and terminology used) listed above correct?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I still fail to see what Spell Shield is chaining to. It can only negate spells. GK's Assailant is a monster. I really have no clue where Type 8 comes in here... What it is negating?

-pssvr
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Perhaps you meant Mystical Space Typhoon, which would in fact be able to destroy the the Necrovalley you seem to be attempting to get rid of. In this case follow rule #6 which states
If "Necrovalley" is on the field, an attack is declared with "Gravekeeper's Assailant", and the effect of "Gravekeeper's Assailant" is activated, and "Mystical Space Typhoon" is chained to the effect to destroy "Necrovalley", the effect of "Gravekeeper's Assailant" is still applied because "Necrovalley" only had to be on the field to activate the effect.
Click to expand...

Spell Shield Type-8 can only be activated when a spell card is activated so it could be used when Necrovalley was initially played but would not have correct timing in the scenario you suggested.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks,

I mis-read SST-8 card to be like MST. Some how the word 'activation' got tied to the activation of the effect monster's effect, and not the activation of a spell card as it should have. My casual dueling opponent made the same interpretation. Next time, I'll read the text.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It isn't about the text of Type 8, it's about the mechanics of the game. Spell Speed 3 cards by definition cannot be activated under any circumstances except in a direct chain to the card they are attempting to negate. The rounded arrow in the upper right corner...

-pssvr
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
pssvr said:
It isn't about the text of Type 8, it's about the mechanics of the game. Spell Speed 3 cards by definition cannot be activated under any circumstances except in a direct chain to the card they are attempting to negate. The rounded arrow in the upper right corner...

-pssvr
Click to expand...

Rounded or curved
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Bent. :D

Though I wouldn't neccessarily put that restriction upon them. In almost every case, it is true, that your going to have to chain a Counter Trap directly to the effect it's responding to. But this is not neccessarily an inherent ability of Spell Speed 3's. That kind of timing can be found in Normal Traps like Magic Jammer or in the Spell Speed 2 effect of some monsters. Negate Attack, for example, doesn't have that kind of timing. I feel like the timing requirements for the grand majority of Counter Traps is happenstance. In the future we may see more Counter Traps that have differnt timing requirements.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Did I say Magic Jammer? I meant....nevermind.

The point is that the rule doesn't apply to ALL Counter Traps, hence the three exceptions you noted. The are all designed to Counter Something. It would be more accurate to say that they can only be activated in RESPONSE to the effects they are attempting to counter, not chained.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
Did I say Magic Jammer? I meant....nevermind.

The point is that the rule doesn't apply to ALL Counter Traps, hence the three exceptions you noted. The are all designed to Counter Something. It would be more accurate to say that they can only be activated in RESPONSE to the effects they are attempting to counter, not chained.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Any number of cards can all be activated in response to an event, hence the whole ordeal with bottomless being chained to Mobius: Both cards are responding to the summon.

On the other hand, only one card can ever be chained to exactly one other card. Which is how Counter Traps work. Two different Magic Jammers can't be used to negate the same spell.

The three I mentioned are simply examples of a flawed game, not different mechanics.

-pssvr
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The nature of the Counters is to counter something. The issue I have is the use of the word "chain" as opposed to "response", which woiuld be entirely more accurate. This doesn't alter the mechanics of the cards in any way. But there are plenty of negation effects out there that are not Spell Speed 3 and that must directly follow the event they are attempting to negate. This doesn't make them counters any more then Counters who do not chain to an effect are exceptions to the rule. The rule is that Counters must immediatly respond to the event there attempting to counter. That sums up their ability more neatly then saying "they all chain to the effects their attempting to negate with the exception of these three."
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
The nature of the Counters is to counter something. The issue I have is the use of the word "chain" as opposed to "response", which woiuld be entirely more accurate. This doesn't alter the mechanics of the cards in any way. But there are plenty of negation effects out there that are not Spell Speed 3 and that must directly follow the event they are attempting to negate. This doesn't make them counters any more then Counters who do not chain to an effect are exceptions to the rule. The rule is that Counters must immediatly respond to the event there attempting to counter. That sums up their ability more neatly then saying "they all chain to the effects their attempting to negate with the exception of these three."
Click to expand...
I wasn't giving a method of defining whether or not a card was a SS3. I was giving a method of defining what exactly a SS3 is. So if there are other cards which also fall into the category I mentioned, that's not a problem. If a card is SS3, it behaves in such-and-such manner. This doesn't mean that other cards can't also behave in that manner.

SS3 cards chain to the card they are attempting to negate, with the exception of those rare few who negate events instead of effects. Hence, the inaccurate term is "respond", the accurate one being "chain". They chain. All SS3's must be directly chained to what they attempt to negate, period. The only exceptions are Horn, Solemn, and Attack. All others behave in the way described by the started deck rule book, and in the way depicted by the show, and in the way most rulings describe.

-pssvr
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yet that is all contrary to the way the mechaincs of the card works. "Respond" has always been the more accurate definition. The Starter Deck Rule Book has many inacuracies that we've covered here before. It's not all inclusive. The cartoon isn't even accurate enough to include in this discussion.

Think about it. Insisting that they only chain exlcudes three cards from the rule and makes them exception that defy the mechanics. Saying that they respond groups them together in a single category that doesn't modify their funtion in any way shape or form.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
Yet that is all contrary to the way the mechaincs of the card works. "Respond" has always been the more accurate definition. The Starter Deck Rule Book has many inacuracies that we've covered here before. It's not all inclusive. The cartoon isn't even accurate enough to include in this discussion.

Think about it. Insisting that they only chain exlcudes three cards from the rule and makes them exception that defy the mechanics. Saying that they respond groups them together in a single category that doesn't modify their funtion in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...
...but saying that they respond leaves open the enormous, gaping, glaring hole that it allows multiple negators to be used against the same card, which is utterly impossible and misses the concept behind negators. Correct?

-pssvr
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top