Forum:Infinite Impermanence vs. Trickstar

Infinite Impermanence versus Trickstar

At YCS New Jersey, when someone normal summoned Trickstar Candina and used her effect to search, and the opponent chained Impermanence targeting Candina, Candina's effect would still be negated even if the Trickstar player chained Lycoris' effect to the Impermanence, removing the targeted Candina from the field. To me and some of the people I talked with, this does make sense since the wording on Impermanence is different from the one on Veiler (Veiler reads "that face-up monster your opponent controls has its effects negated" whereas Impermanence reads "negate its effects"), but other people say that the effect would not be negated because removing the card from the field dodges the targeting effect. I think that, if a card says "it" instead of "that target/monster", the conditions don't have to be fulfilled anymore upon the effects resolution, but we have not been able to find any clear rulings online, so I just wanted to ask somewhere. So, here I am.

Thanks in advance Gargelwarx (talk • contribs) 11:42, June 18, 2018 (UTC)