Fairy Dust

[The Nyx Avatar]

 

LORE:If a card(s) you control would leave the field by a card effect while this card is in your hand, you can discard this card instead of 1 of those cards leaving the field.

[Sleepy]

It needs to make a distinction for if it prevents exactly 1 card from leaving the field or if it prevents a card(s) from leaving the field.

Also, "removed from the field" was changed to "leaves the field" since 2012 when Problem Solving Card Text was incorporated into the game. This clause was for the sake of having people stop mixing up removing from the field with removing from play and with removing counters from cards. That's why they are now "banish" and "leaves the field" and only the counters on cards get "removed" anymore.

 

Considering the effect is super broad and it is a hand trap that can be set in emergencies, I think protecting only 1 of the would-be gone cards is good enough.

[Darj]

For the overkill, one thing it is missing is being a Tuner so it becomes searchable by Sage with Eyes of Blue, in addition to that Cyber Angel Ritual monster. But seriously, I agree it should only protect 1 card. Anyway, if updated with the "leave the field" PSCT, then the "it is not removed" effect would have to be changed as well. In that case, how about going for a "it is unaffected by that effect" effect instead?

[The Nyx Avatar]

It needs to make a distinction for if it prevents exactly 1 card from leaving the field or if it prevents a card(s) from leaving the field.

Also, "removed from the field" was changed to "leaves the field" since 2012 when Problem Solving Card Text was incorporated into the game. This clause was for the sake of having people stop mixing up removing from the field with removing from play and with removing counters from cards. That's why they are now "banish" and "leaves the field" and only the counters on cards get "removed" anymore.

 

Considering the effect is super broad and it is a hand trap that can be set in emergencies, I think protecting only 1 of the would-be gone cards is good enough.

Alrighty; how about now?

For the overkill, one thing it is missing is being a Tuner so it becomes searchable by Sage with Eyes of Blue, in addition to that Cyber Angel Ritual monster. But seriously, I agree it should only protect 1 card. Anyway, if updated with the "leave the field" PSCT, then the "it is not removed" effect would have to be changed as well. In that case, how about going for a "it is unaffected by that effect" effect instead?

Yeah; I was considering making it a Tuner monster, but with Yuki Usagi and Effect Veiler, it would seem redundant.

[Sleepy]

For the overkill, one thing it is missing is being a Tuner so it becomes searchable by Sage with Eyes of Blue, in addition to that Cyber Angel Ritual monster. But seriously, I agree it should only protect 1 card. Anyway, if updated with the "leave the field" PSCT, then the "it is not removed" effect would have to be changed as well. In that case, how about going for a "it is unaffected by that effect" effect instead?

 

The card as I imagine my suggestions would be something like this

 

If a card(s) you control would leave the field by a card's effect: You can discard this card from your hand to target 1 card affected; it does not leave the field.

 

Using "instead" somewhere to shorten the sentence would be ideal but don't know how it'd quite be worded under the suggestion that it can trigger its effect no matter how many cards would result affected, but it can regardless still only protect 1 card. It also has the option of protecting an opponent's card if the same effect would result in cards from both sides leaving the field, since it'd still fulfill the activation condition.

Not sure if something like "during either player's turn" or the "(this is a quick effect)" is really necessary, since this card has a distinct timing for activation anyways.

 

Though as long as the details about the way it works are clear, it doesn't really have to follow a strict pattern to be written as. Even Konami has said in the past that they'd like to not be tied to a standard way of strictly wording cards. Only technical improvements such as PSCT, so I wouldn't be too worried or be nitpicky about details after this.

 

EDIT:

About being a Tuner or not. It does something different than other hand traps so even if there are now quite a few good hand traps that happen to be Tuners, it wouldn't feel like it is copying anything or stealing a niche from another card. In fact, I think the game could use more Tuners, especially generic ones because I'm having trouble finding enough that are compatible with my highlander decks. Some of the ones we currently have are arguably for the side deck, and I'd like to see the pool expand more.

you can never have enough tuners xD

[The Nyx Avatar]

The card as I imagine my suggestions would be something like this

 

If a card(s) you control would leave the field by a card's effect: You can discard this card from your hand to target 1 card affected; it does not leave the field.

 

Using "instead" somewhere to shorten the sentence would be ideal but don't know how it'd quite be worded under the suggestion that it can trigger its effect no matter how many cards would result affected, but it can regardless still only protect 1 card. It also has the option of protecting an opponent's card if the same effect would result in cards from both sides leaving the field, since it'd still fulfill the activation condition.

Not sure if something like "during either player's turn" or the "(this is a quick effect)" is really necessary, since this card has a distinct timing for activation anyways.

 

Though as long as the details about the way it works are clear, it doesn't really have to follow a strict pattern to be written as. Even Konami has said in the past that they'd like to not be tied to a standard way of strictly wording cards. Only technical improvements such as PSCT, so I wouldn't be too worried or be nitpicky about details after this.

 

EDIT:

About being a Tuner or not. It does something different than other hand traps so even if there are now quite a few good hand traps that happen to be Tuners, it wouldn't feel like it is copying anything or stealing a niche from another card. In fact, I think the game could use more Tuners, especially generic ones because I'm having trouble finding enough that are compatible with my highlander decks. Some of the ones we currently have are arguably for the side deck, and I'd like to see the pool expand more.

you can never have enough tuners xD

Yeah; in your initial post, you didn't give an example or clear up that last bit for the card's effect. But at least now I've a bit more clarity on it.

 

And sure; I can make it a Tuner monster.

[Darj]

Oh, I was thinking of an effect more on these lines:

 

During either player's turn, when a card(s) you control would leave the field by a card's effect: You can discard this card, then target/choose 1 of those cards; it is unaffected by that effect it does not leave the field.

 

I'm suggesting "choose" as alternative in case you want to play around or protect cards that are immune to targeting.

 

And, you know... I wasn't fully serious with the comment about making it a Tuner since it is already searchable by that Cyber Angel, hence why I said it would be an overkill, but IDK, I guess it wouldn't hurt to make it a Tuner after all. Although definitely I would dislike Blue Eyes playing this in addition to their Gospel/Return of Dragon Lord Spell.

 

 

EDIT:

Actually, scratch that last part since I realized that version may conflict with effects that do something else in addition to, or before, removing the card. For instance, Starlight Road, which negate the card's effect and destroy it: with the version I suggest I'm not sure if the card you want to protect will have its effect negated or not; most likely it wouldn't be negated.

Thus, Sleepy's version of "it does not leave the field" should be more accurate.

 

Another alternative is going for a continuous-like effect like Darklord Tezcatlipoca or Gospel of Revival/Return of the Dragon Lords. The main issue I see with this is that it will be able to protect your cards from being removed even by Counter Traps, and that could be problematic. Regardless, if you want to take this route, I suppose the effect could be written like this:

 

If a card(s) you control would leave the field by a card effect while this card is in your hand, you can discard this card instead of 1 of those cards leaving the field.

[The Nyx Avatar]

Oh, I was thinking of an effect more on these lines:

 

During either player's turn, when a card(s) you control would leave the field by a card's effect: You can discard this card, then target/choose 1 of those cards; it is unaffected by that effect it does not leave the field.

 

I'm suggesting "choose" as alternative in case you want to play around or protect cards that are immune to targeting.

 

And, you know... I wasn't fully serious with the comment about making it a Tuner since it is already searchable by that Cyber Angel, hence why I said it would be an overkill, but IDK, I guess it wouldn't hurt to make it a Tuner after all. Although definitely I would dislike Blue Eyes playing this in addition to their Gospel/Return of Dragon Lord Spell.

 

 

EDIT:

Actually, scratch that last part since I realized that version may conflict with effects that do something else in addition to, or before, removing the card. For instance, Starlight Road, which negate the card's effect and destroy it: with the version I suggest I'm not sure if the card you want to protect will have its effect negated or not; most likely it wouldn't be negated.

Thus, Sleepy's version of "it does not leave the field" should be more accurate.

 

Another alternative is going for a continuous-like effect like Darklord Tezcatlipoca or Gospel of Revival/Return of the Dragon Lords. The main issue I see with this is that it will be able to protect your cards from being removed even by Counter Traps, and that could be problematic. Regardless, if you want to take this route, I suppose the effect could be written like this:

 

If a card(s) you control would leave the field by a card effect while this card is in your hand, you can discard this card instead of 1 of those cards leaving the field.

Alright; I'll see what to do. Though, you both have left me rather confused.

[Black D'Sceptyr]

Sweet card nonetheless, and I'm sure you're tired of hearing corrections on so clear an effect, but if the trigger is not meant to be chainable (as most removal protection is wont to be) may I humbly suggest:

 

 

During either player's turn, If exactly 1 card on the field (and no other cards) would leave the field, you can discard this card instead.

 

Short, sweet, and to the point-especially for the sake of a One-for-One summonable, Where Arf Thou tutorable, IGNIIIIIIIIISTER flaunting, Monarch laugh-at-ting, all-purpose hand trap to end all hand traps. And it's LIGHT, so the Blue-Eyes deck ESPECIALLY will lap this up. And not once per turn too, so its able to do this for effects and have one left to handle the battle? 9.5/10, matey.

 

#youdeserveit (clap clap clapclapclap)

#youdeserveit (clap clap clapclapclap)

#youdeserveit (clap clap clapc....)

#you get the idea

[Darj]

Basically:

 

If you want the effect to be an Spell Speed 2 Quick effect that starts a chain and protect from any removal effect, be it a single or multiple removal, go for:

During either player's turn, when a card(s) you control would leave the field by a card's effect: You can discard this card, then target/choose 1 of those cards; it does not leave the field.

 

 

If you want it to be more like a continuous effect that doesn't start a chain, protects from both single and multiple removal effects, and is capable of protecting in response to even Spell Speed 3 effects (it shouldn't save your cards from negation of Spell/Trap activations, nor Summon negations since technically, in those instances the cards never made it into the field), then go for:

If a card(s) you control would leave the field by a card effect while this card is in your hand, you can discard this card instead of 1 of those cards leaving the field.

 

 

If you want it to to be continuous but only protect from effects that would remove 1 (only) card, then go for something close to Sceptyr's suggestion:

If exactly 1 card you control (and no other cards) would leave the field by a card effect while this card is in your hand, you can discard this card instead.

 

I added that condition in bold there because then it would be a ruling nightmare if you could, let's say, discard this in place of card being used for a Tribute/Synchro/Ritual/etc. Summon, as well as maintenance costs. Also I cut the "during either player's turn" condition since it is not needed, taking as example Darklord Tezcatlipoca, as well as made it only affect cards you control to remain loyal to the current effect in the OP.

 

 

If you want something else that is between those 3 examples, one could just mix & match the condition and effect. For instance, if you want it to be a Spell Speed 2 quick effect that only protects from effects that would remove 1 (only) card, then match the 1st effect in this post with the 3rd one:

During either player's turn, if exactly 1 card you control (and no other cards) would leave the field by a card effect: You can discard this card; it does not leave the field.

 

 

In short, the version you choose depends on what you personally want.

[The Nyx Avatar]

Basically:

 

If you want the effect to be an Spell Speed 2 Quick effect that starts a chain and protect from any removal effect, be it a single or multiple removal, go for:

During either player's turn, when a card(s) you control would leave the field by a card's effect: You can discard this card, then target/choose 1 of those cards; it does not leave the field.

 

 

If you want it to be more like a continuous effect that doesn't start a chain, protects from both single and multiple removal effects, and is capable of protecting in response to even Spell Speed 3 effects (it shouldn't save your cards from negation of Spell/Trap activations, nor Summon negations since technically, in those instances the cards never made it into the field), then go for:

If a card(s) you control would leave the field by a card effect while this card is in your hand, you can discard this card instead of 1 of those cards leaving the field.

 

 

If you want it to to be continuous but only protect from effects that would remove 1 (only) card, then go for something close to Sceptyr's suggestion:

If exactly 1 card you control (and no other cards) would leave the field by a card effect while this card is in your hand, you can discard this card instead.

 

I added that condition in bold there because then it would be a ruling nightmare if you could, let's say, discard this in place of card being used for a Tribute/Synchro/Ritual/etc. Summon, as well as maintenance costs. Also I cut the "during either player's turn" condition since it is not needed, taking as example Darklord Tezcatlipoca, as well as made it only affect cards you control to remain loyal to the current effect in the OP.

 

 

If you want something else that is between those 3 examples, one could just mix & match the condition and effect. For instance, if you want it to be a Spell Speed 2 quick effect that only protects from effects that would remove 1 (only) card, then match the 1st effect in this post with the 3rd one:

During either player's turn, if exactly 1 card you control (and no other cards) would leave the field by a card effect: You can discard this card; it does not leave the field.

 

 

In short, the version you choose depends on what you personally want.

And would all of these be able to protect or respond to non-targeting removal?

[Darj]

Not exactly.

#2, #3 and #4 can, but in the case of #1, since you have to choose/target the card, then the opponent can simply decide to remove another appropriate target instead. Of course, if there isn't any other target, then yes, #1 will be able to protect that card.

 

Reading #4 carefully, its interaction with non-targeting removal may look unclear or confusing, because it would be protecting the next single card to be removed but without specifying which one, but it still should be able to protect the card successfully. For instance, vs. Artifact Moralltach destruction effect:

Chain Link 1: Artifact Moralltach

Chain Link 2: Fairy Dust

 

Moralltach has in its effect that it destroys 1 card you control, so it fulfills the activation condition of this card, allowing you to activate it in response. Then, since Fairy Dust's effect doesn't choose or target any card at all, then the conclusion should be that it protects whichever the next card is that will be removed; think of it as a sort of lingering protection over all of your cards, or rather your board. Moralltach's effect then resolves, but whatever it chooses won't be destroyed, as it will be covered by Fairy Dust's effect.

Hmm... in this sense, and to put things on another perspective, I guess this effect card could be classified as a lingering effect.

[Sleepy]

Make it simple. I think #2 would be the best option.

 

You need something that can protect a single card but still be used when more than one card would be affected (like when you get Raigeki'd).

 

You also need something that comes off as a continuous effect preventing the action of destruction, rather than a trigger/quick effect that'd start a chain and therefore miss its chance to protect a card in the middle of a resolving chain. In other words, something with the timing of 101, Maestroke, or Zenmaines, instead of something like Stardust Spark Dragon.

There are few instances when it'll really matter, but it'll happen regardless.

[Darj]

Also, to clear it up, I gave these a bit more thought and realized that the wording of  #1 and #4 as quick effects actually conflict with actions that have not happened yet, or effects that have not resolved yet (e.g. "when a card would be X" condition). It is related to what Sleepy already explained on how they cannot respond properly to removal effect in the middle of a chain.

 

Instead, for #1 and #4 to work as intended, they should be responding to the effect that will be doing the removal. For instance, Starlight Road responds to an effect that would destroy 2 cards or more, not directly to the destruction.

So, in case you want something like #1 or #4, I suggest to write them like this:

 

#1

During either player's turn, when a card or effect is activated that would make a card(s) you control leave the field: You can discard this card; once during this turn, 1 of the cards you control cannot leave the field by a card effect.

 

#4

During either player's turn, when a card or effect is activated that would make exactly 1 card you control (and no other cards) leave the field: You can discard this card; once during this turn, 1 of the cards you control cannot leave the field by a card effect.

 

Basically, I made this effect taking tips from Starlight Road, in that it responds to the effect that would do the removal, and Stardust Spark Dragon, in that it places a only-once lingering protection effect.

 

 

But really, I also support going for #2: it's a continuous-like effect, protects from single or multiple target removal, from non-targeting removal, and can also save cards from being removed by Counter Traps.

[The Nyx Avatar]

Make it simple. I think #2 would be the best option.

 

You need something that can protect a single card but still be used when more than one card would be affected (like when you get Raigeki'd).

 

You also need something that comes off as a continuous effect preventing the action of destruction, rather than a trigger/quick effect that'd start a chain and therefore miss its chance to protect a card in the middle of a resolving chain. In other words, something with the timing of 101, Maestroke, or Zenmaines, instead of something like Stardust Spark Dragon.

There are few instances when it'll really matter, but it'll happen regardless.

Thank you Sleepy. I think that's more of what I was aiming for.

Also, to clear it up, I gave these a bit more thought and realized that the wording of #1 and #4 as quick effects actually conflict with actions that have not happened yet, or effects that have not resolved yet (e.g. "when a card would be X" condition). It is related to what Sleepy already explained on how they cannot respond properly to removal effect in the middle of a chain.

 

Instead, for #1 and #4 to work as intended, they should be responding to the effect that will be doing the removal. For instance, Starlight Road responds to an effect that would destroy 2 cards or more, not directly to the destruction.

So, in case you want something like #1 or #4, I suggest to write them like this:

 

#1

During either player's turn, when a card or effect is activated that would make a card(s) you control leave the field: You can discard this card; once during this turn, 1 of the cards you control cannot leave the field by a card effect.

 

#4

During either player's turn, when a card or effect is activated that would make exactly 1 card you control (and no other cards) leave the field: You can discard this card; once during this turn, 1 of the cards you control cannot leave the field by a card effect.

 

Basically, I made this effect taking tips from Starlight Road, in that it responds to the effect that would do the removal, and Stardust Spark Dragon, in that it places a only-once lingering protection effect.

 

 

But really, I also support going for #2: it's a continuous-like effect, protects from single or multiple target removal, from non-targeting removal, and can also save cards from being removed by Counter Traps.

Thank yiu Darj.

[The Nyx Avatar]

Alright; I've edit it now.

[The Nyx Avatar]

Bump.

[The Nyx Avatar]

Bump?

[The Nyx Avatar]

Bump.