Saynt Posted June 24, 2013 Report Share Posted June 24, 2013 During the End Phase of the turn this card is Summoned or flipped face-up: Return it to the hand. You can Special Summon this card (from your hand) by banishing 1 Level 5 or higher Spirit monster you control. When a Chain of 2 or more Links resolves, you can discard 1 Spirit monster from your hand: Negate the effect of 1 of those cards (in the Chain), and destroy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therrion Posted June 24, 2013 Report Share Posted June 24, 2013 I don't believe this is worded right due to if the chain resolved, to negate an effect that partook in the chain would be to essentially reverse time in a way. Like "When an effect destroys a card you control, negate that effect." That would be odd, as it already destroyed the card, but then you negate the effect. I get what you're trying to say, which is pretty cool. A guarenteed BP savior, but nothing more. That's really all I can see it as, unless your packing Compulsory/MST (and saving it for this card to be face-up), in which case you can randomly negate any card like your opponent's Compulsory/Bottomless. Decent card. I like that it works with Chain Links, and is Thunder (Lightning Punisher is similar, working with Chain Links and is Thunder, which makes this guy feel flavorful and the effect "in the right place"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saynt Posted June 24, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2013 I don't believe this is worded right due to if the chain resolved, to negate an effect that partook in the chain would be to essentially reverse time in a way. I intended it to be able to do this, as instead of only being able to negate the last effect in a chain, that it could negate any effect in that chain (this effect itself also starts a new chain). I don't think there would be any problems with this, as it would not be able to interfere with counter traps. Would the wording be correct in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therrion Posted June 25, 2013 Report Share Posted June 25, 2013 The thing is you can't negate what has resolved. That is the major conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saynt Posted June 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2013 What of ZW - Eagle Claw, and Abyss-scale of Cetus? Both allow for a trap effect to be negated when it resolves. I'd imagine the same would apply to the resolution of a chain, as one of those effects could be negated while the rest of the chain is being resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therrion Posted June 25, 2013 Report Share Posted June 25, 2013 Well then my arguement is invalid and you have yourself a good, creative card. I guess I need to catch up on the fairly new wording some cards have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.