Diabolical new hand trap idea

[NoHopeForMe]

's probably already been thought of but I'll post it anyway.

its effect would basically be,

"you can activate this card by banishing it from your hand if your opponent negates a card or effect you control or if a card or effect you control does not resolve because of an opponents card. draw one card and for the rest of this turn, if the activation or effect of a card is negated or does not resolve because of an opponents card effect, draw one card."

just built out of pure spite for excessive negation in this game.

[Astrallight]

Looks good going sec but I would rather say that every card that says ''negate and destroy'' should reprinted to only negate. Negate and destroy basically force a going second player to have less and less cards to play with.

[G3]

Originally posted by NoHopeForMe:

.. or does not resolve because of an opponents card effect, draw one card."

Are you a Branded player upset that someone has had their Fallen of Albaz shuffled back into the deck one too many times? Or, are you a Tearlament player with the same issue?

[Papa Shekels]

There is no real way to qualify "does not resolve because of an opponent's card effect" in this game. Sure, ashing branded fusion is a pretty clear-cut case. But what if your opponent imperms your monster and you chain something that removes that monster from the field, do they suddenly get a consolation prize for getting outplayed? Or what if you activate mirrorjade while your opponent only controls one monster and they chain something that removes it, forcing you to banish one of your own? Does it count to force an effect to resolve differently than you intended? How does the game state know what was intended versus what ends up resolving? Never mind the fact that "did not resolve" is not even a state of existence in this game, a card effect is either negated or it resolves or it resolves without effect if it can no longer resolve properly. Hell, what about cards like cosmic slicer zer'oll that prevent you from activating effects rather than negating them? What about non-opt effects you can infinitely attempt to activate under skill drain? Or an effect that only resolves partially, such as a bottomless trap hole under the opponent's imperial iron wall? Or an effect that forces the opponent to make an action, such as evenly matched or daruma karma cannon?

Regardless of the technicalities, I think it's too vague and tunnel visioned at the same time. Punishing your opponent for interacting with you in any way other than completely stopping you from even attempting to activate cards is both toxic and counter productive. There is no need for consolation prizes like this, especially ones where the prize so heavily outweighs the initial loss

[NoHopeForMe]

-"But what if your opponent imperms your monster and you chain something that removes that monster from the field, do they suddenly get a consolation prize for getting outplayed?"

No? only the player who activated the hand trap initially gets the benefit. your opponent doesn't draw if you activate your own Maxx C and you special summon. if you remove your monster and the imperm whiffs you don't get to draw because you prevented the effect from resolving yourself, not your opponent.

-"Or what if you activate mirrorjade while your opponent only controls one monster and they chain something that removes it, forcing you to banish one of your own? Does it count to force an effect to resolve differently than you intended?"

because you still banish a monster with mirrorjade's effect you don't get to draw because the effect wasn't negated or fizzled.

-"I think it's too vague and tunnel visioned at the same time. Punishing your opponent for interacting with you in any way other than completely stopping you from even attempting to activate cards is both toxic and counter productive. There is no need for consolation prizes like this, especially ones where the prize so heavily outweighs the initial loss"

I can agree the idea is nebulous but there needs to be more punishment for -preventing your opponent from playing the game- it's far to easy to snuff out your opponent with endless negates and still get a full board of omni-negates afterward because cards now do everything in one.
Duels are fun when there's a back and forth push between the two. not when one stamps the other out and forced them to watch them gloat their endless advantage.

[HeraldOfOpera]

Originally posted by Papa Shekels:

There is no real way to qualify "does not resolve because of an opponent's card effect" in this game.

MtG would say the same thing about "unaffected", and specifically cite the dumb edge cases that you can in fact use to affect such Yugioh cards despite it. This would similarly work until it didn't and be dumb but well within what I believe Konami would print (this is absolutely calling Konami incompetent).