spiritualism

W

woltarr

New Member
i would like to know about spiritualism

Spiritualism
Group: Spell Card
Type: Spell
Return 1 Magic or Trap Card on your opponent's side of the field to his/her hand. This card's activation and effect cannot be negated by any other card.

may i activate a counter trap like magic jammer to negate and destroy spiritualism?

it is a legal target for magical jammer?

may i activate horus 8 effct to negate its effct :

it is a legal target for hours 8?

unfortunately netreps files dont say much about this

thank you for your imput

woltarr
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I know that UDE says this, but Spell Canceler's text clearly states that spell cards cannot be activated while it is face up on the field. This is the same thing that happenes with Sonic jammer, expect that the latter only lasts for a limited amount of time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
well, in a sense spell canceller is sorta negating the activation, while Sonic Jammer, you could say, puts a condition on the Player that they cannot activate Spell Cards for the turn.

-chaosruler
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Actually, Spell Canceller's text says "As long as this card remains face up on the field, all Spell Cards cannote be activated. The effects of all face up Spell Cards are also negated."
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DaGuyWitBluGlasses said:
Read this: http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=4686

Don't look too much into the exact wordings of card texts.
Click to expand...
Actually in this case wording is self explanatory (for a change.)

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.

Sonic Jammer
FLIP: Your opponent cannot activate any Spell Cards until the end of the End Phase of the next turn.

Spell Canceller is affecting Spell cards specifically whereas it can't stop Spiritualism due Spiritualism's effect.

Sonic Jammer is on the other hand is affecting the player of spell cards putting the restriction on him and not affecting the Spell Cards themselves.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Actually, Tony should be correct on this, even thought the Official Ruling states otherwise.

- Spell Canceller does not negate activation, it prevents it.
- Spiritualism cannot be negated, activation or effect.

The two never should come in contact with each other. The condition on Spiritualism does not apply to Spell Canceller's effect.

Just my thoughts


DJ, there is no difference in the interpretation of the wording of Spell Canceller and Sonic Jammer.

Sonic Jammer only states "Your opponent" because it is specific to your opponent, whereas Spell Canceller applies to both players. The text on SC is simply being concise instead using unnessessary wording.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I would agree with you on this one, Novastar, but for one thing.

Spell Canceller's effect could indeed be interpreted differently if it in fact said: "Niether player may activate Spell Cards." or "Both players may not activate Spell Cards." In which case, it would prevent both players from activating Spiritualism.

In this case, it could be said that Spell Cards are being specifically affected by Spell Canceller's effect but the players are being affected by Sonic Jammer.

Come on man, I finally find something that makes sense in this game and you want to snatch it out from under me.
Crying.gif

***sniff***
***sniff***
Where is the love.
:p
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said

"I would agree with you on this one, Novastar, but for one thing."

"Spell Canceller's effect could indeed be interpreted differently if it in fact said: "Niether player may activate Spell Cards." or "Both players may not activate Spell Cards." In which case, it would prevent both players from activating Spiritualism."

"In this case, it could be said that Spell Cards are being specifically affected by Spell Canceller's effect but the players are being affected by Sonic Jammer."


Why would this make a difference? Since Spell Canceller said that Spells can't be activated, and that restriction affects both players, why would SC even need to have the words "Neither", or "Both" in its text. Also, since SC prevents spell cards from even being played, Spiritualism would be unable to even be placed face up on the field. Neither player can activate a spell, a restriction upon the player, not the spell card itself.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Not just Neither or Both. Neither player or Both Players. The difference is that one effect would be preventing Spell Cards from activating and the other would be restricting the player or players from activating a Spell Card.

Spell Canceller does not refer to the players, only to the Spells themselves whereas Sonic Jammer specifically restricts the players.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm in agreement with Digital Jedi on this one. The rulings do seem to stem from the fact that "Spell Canceller" is only preventing the cards from being played, while "Sonic Jammer" specifically states the 'opponent' cannot play ANY spell cards.

It seems pretty clear cut on that issue. At least to me anyway.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
Not just Neither or Both. Neither player or Both Players. The difference is that one effect would be preventing Spell Cards from activating and the other would be restricting the player or players from activating a Spell Card.

Spell Canceller does not refer to the players, only to the Spells themselves whereas Sonic Jammer specifically restricts the players.
Click to expand...
You can still activate the effect of WMC when either of these effects is active. They should be exactly the same effect.

Truthfully, this seems more like a case ruling inconsistancy. Either that, or the text on Spell Canceller is too vague to see the difference, which could very well be.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think the issue is more along the lines of 'activating' a spell card, i.e. playing it from your hand, and/or flipping one face up, as opposed to activating the 'effect' of a Spell Card that is already 'active' on the field.

Another sore point in the 'Konami said so' saga.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What is the difference? Spiritualism says nothing that stops its activation from being prevented, only negated. Since SC is preventing it from being played the how can Spiritualism work, since you would be unable to even activate it? Also, doesn't stopping the activation of all Spell cards, prevent either player from in effect playing any spells?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tonylaudat said:
What is the difference? Spiritualism says nothing that stops its activation from being prevented, only negated. Since SC is preventing it from being played the how can Spiritualism work, since you would be unable to even activate it? Also, doesn't stopping the activation of all Spell cards, prevent either player from in effect playing any spells?
Click to expand...
There is a difference.
If your car won't start, you are unable to drive your car.
If your drivers licence has been revoked you are unable to drive your car. In both instances you are unable to drive your car but for two very different reasons.

One is the inability to perform an action, because the tools wont work (Spell Canceller)
The other is the inability to perform an action, because you are not allowed to use the tools (Spiritualism)

It's the difference between negation and prevention.



As far as Wave-Motion goes I agree with Skey23 and think that a face-up spell card sitting on the field is an entirely different story.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's the difference between negation and prevention.
Click to expand...
and both effect state the same thing, they prevent using "cannot" neither negates activation.

The Wave-Motion example was to illustrate the similarity of the 2 effects. I agree not the best of illustrations.

I see your point, it just seems like inconsistancy. Trying to make logical sense as to why the difference is there doesn't seem to be possible here.

LOL, and DJ, just to let you know it's "Kevin Tewart" not "Kevin Stewart" ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top