If you negate the activation, then of course they can attempt to cast another spell. To put it in yugioh terms, great shogun shien says "Your opponent can only activate 1 Spell/Trap Card each turn." If something never existed, that's vastly different then say something that remains unharmed in a fire because it was locked in a safe. If you negate the activation, the effect never occurs, meaning it just never existed in the first place. Think of it as using a bow, Magical Meltdown makes it so nothing can stop you from shooting an arrow, but it doesn't guarantee that you'll hit the target. That is a core game mechanic, and cards interact with it as intended. Ash and Imperm don't care about activation.
The reason why Magical Meltdown interacts with cards like Ash or Imperm in the way it does is because it only prevents card from having their activation negated, so for example, your opponent can't use the Solemn cards to stop you from fusion summoning, or any other card that negates activations. Say I chain Polymerization, you chain Maxx "C", I chain Ash and you chain Called By The Grave, the first card to use it's effect is CBTG instead of Polymerization? That's because a card doesn't use it's effect when it's activated, it uses it's effect when it resolves. Have you noticed that in a chain, cards use their effect backswards? I just fundamentally disagree with that rule. When your Invocation got negated by the Imperm'd slot, that's also intentional because Imperm prevented it from resolving, not preventing you from activating. Ash beat Shaddoll because Shaddoll's text allows Ash to interfere with it's resolution. In fact, Ash Blossom versus Shaddoll Fusion under Meltdown's influence is specifically brought up in an article on Car♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ (Yugioh/Insight/Articles/Rulings-To-Know-Magical-Meltdown, Steam flags direct link for whatever reason, sorry.)īoth of those examples you listed in the opening post are intentional. Activation and Effect Resolution are entirely different things, for monsters, traps and spells alike. Originally posted by Blunette:That is incorrect.
0 kommentar(er)
