Forum:Prevent Player vs Prevent Monster

Hi, I have some questions about a rule that I found in Problem-Solving Card Text which says "Monsters that cannot be targeted for attacks cannot prevent your opponent from attacking directly (e.g. "Guardian Kay'est")". First of all, I have to say that I find it illogical, since according to the monster effect you cant attack to it, and accord to the basic rules you cant direct attack if there is a monster on the opponent's side. Now my questions:

1)What's the difference between "prevent your opponent from attacking" and "prevent your opponent's monsters from attacking" (for me is the same since in both cases is impossible to attack) but in this Forum:Earthbound Imortals ruling a user say this: But we have cards like Swords of Revealing Light and Spellbinding Circle that prevent the monsters from attacking not the player so the above example is wrong So tell me, what's the difference between "prevent your opponent from attacking" and "prevent your opponent's monsters from attacking" and whats your opinion about the example and this weird theory?
 * There is a difference between a monster declaring an attack and a player declaring an attack. For example, "Threatening Roar" (Your opponent cannot declare an attack this turn) prevents "Elemental Hero Wildheart" from attacking because it affects the player, not the monster. If "Threatening Roar" read "Your opponent's monsters cannot declare an attack this turn.", then "Elemental Hero Wildheart" could attack.
 * For some obscure reason:
 * Preventing your opponent's monsters from attacking "removes" the monster from the field for the purposes of attack target selection, so "The Legendary Fisherman" is "removed" from the field and the field is considered open for direct attacks.
 * Preventing your opponent from attacking has the monster "remain" on the field for the purposes of attack target selection, so that the "Earthbound Immortal" monster is still on the field, but as an illegal target.

2)According to the Earthbound Immortals Rulings, if you have an E.I. as your only monster then your opponent cant attack, their effect is "Your opponent cannot select this card as an attack target", but The Legendary Fisherman has the same effect "your opponent cannot select it as an attack target" so why they say that if you have fisherman your opponent can attack directly(also the ruling from Problem-Solving Card Text which i mentioned in the introduction is against the E.I. Rulings), so what is right, we can attack directly in the case of Fisherman and what applies in the case of E.I.?

3)For Guardian Kay'est it seems that its effect which states "cannot be targeted for attacks" could prevent a direct attack cause now the effect also states "but does not prevent your opponent from attacking you directly", cause the previous effect was the same as Solar Flare Dragon's effect which states "this card cannot be attacked"(but since it needs a pyro if you have a 2nd sfdragon we have exactly the same result) and dont forget Geomancer of the Ice Barrier which has this effect "This card cannot be selected as an attack target by monsters", i think that these 3 monsters have the same effect but why only sfdragon can protect you from direct attacks, what you think?

Thanks for your timeDark Magician Vampire (talk • contribs) 13:32, July 7, 2013 (UTC)