1

The setup is this:

Field spell: Defense Zone
Column 1: Any trap monster / Field Barrier
Column 2: Any trap monster / Imperial Custom
Column 3: EMPTY / Reserved zone for trap monster
Column 4: EMPTY / Reserved zone for trap monster
Column 5: (Anything, preferably something that can prevent battle damage)

The logic goes that Field Barrier protects Defense Zone, The trap monsters combined with Defense Zone protect themselves AND Field Barrier / Imperial Custom from destruction and Imperial Custom protects the monsters from battle.

Save for field-wide bounce or sending, it looks like a perfect lock, but is it rules-legal?

3
  • 1
    Please add links if you mention cards (or even better write their card texts); it makes it a whole lot easier
    – Xetrov
    Commented Apr 18, 2018 at 16:59
  • Also please state what a field lock is
    – Xetrov
    Commented Apr 18, 2018 at 16:59
  • Interesting question, I'll add links to the cards you mention for completeness
    – DarkCygnus
    Commented Apr 18, 2018 at 19:31

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

A thorough check on several rulings seems that indeed this combo is Legal, although quite hard to actually pull or be realistic to play.

I had my doubts with the monster trap, as they are both trap and monster (except Paleozoic cards), but found a ruling that states that if imperial custom is up then the trap monster is indestructible:

If “Embodiment of Apophis” is being treated as a monster while “Imperial Custom” is active, it cannot be destroyed by effects or battle.

Now, as others mention, this combo is not a flawless lock; your trap monsters are still exposed.

You can get rid of those trap monsters by banishing them, sending them to GY, returning to hand/deck, flip face-down (which sets the card as Trap again, as explained here), change control with other monster, tributing them, attach as XYZ material (with Number 101: Silent Honor ARK for example), or negate their effects (which returns them to the Trap zone, negated).

6
  • Silent honor DARK is good
    – Xetrov
    Commented Apr 18, 2018 at 22:18
  • @VortexYT yes, one of the best XYZ monsters out there IMO :) it was also really expensive when it came out (about $50 each). I still got mine, which is 1st edition, and I use in almost all decks I build that have lvl 4 monsters.
    – DarkCygnus
    Commented Apr 18, 2018 at 22:38
  • @VortexYT also, combine it with Rank Up Magic: The seventh it's a killer draw.
    – DarkCygnus
    Commented Apr 19, 2018 at 0:15
  • Yes. Shame I don't have it... The RUMs aren't that good tbh because ranking up largely require them, and without a lot of CXyz or CXX(X) in the Extra Deck, and the right cards on the field, well, they are pretty unreliable.
    – Xetrov
    Commented Apr 19, 2018 at 6:28
  • Neither do I have any 10X / C10X
    – Xetrov
    Commented Apr 19, 2018 at 6:28
2

Yes, this is valid, and your logic is correct. However, it is not invincible. They can always be returned to the hand, or they can be banished, unless of course you have monsters or spells/traps to prevent this.

The most important part of a Trap Monster that concerns this is the part that says: "This card is also treated as a Trap Card" This means that even though it is a Monster, it is also treated as a trap, hence being indestructible.

Anything that the rulebook doesn't state makes it valid.

Now... a card that stops it affects from being negated

2
  • Correct, this is valid setup. Although adding some backup reference to justify why it is valid would help your answer. Added an answer myself with some other details and relevant rulings.
    – DarkCygnus
    Commented Apr 18, 2018 at 19:34
  • @DarkCygnus I have already said why it is valid. There are also no other flaws that are caused by card effects being incorrectly interpreted.
    – Xetrov
    Commented Apr 18, 2018 at 20:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .