2 Questions

I have 2 questions for you guys...mainly for John I guess because I already discussed one of them with Vongy and we disagree. But if you can prove your answer, anyone can answer.

1: Relinquished's original card text states that when you use his monster equipping effect, "A facedown monster results in an ATK and DEF of 0". However, the latest errata'd text does not include this phrase, it only says that Relinquished gains the ATK and DEF of the equipped monster. There is not a specific ruling regarding that "ATK and DEF of 0" effect on YugiohWikia. So my question is: does this errata change mean that Relinquished gains the ATK and DEF of a facedown monster instead of being 0? Or is it simply implied as a game mechanic now? I doubt it's a game mechanic because errata usually tries to make the card text LESS confusing instead of MORE confusing, and I have seen no game mechanic ruling regarding this with effects like Relinquished and Destiny Hero - Plasma. But I don't know.

2: Can the summon of monsters that cannot be destroyed by cards effects be negated and destroyed by, say, Solemn Warning? I know what you're thinking: "Dur, of course it can." That's what I thought too, but there are a few things that make me think more otherwise. If the card says "This card cannot be destroyed by card effects," that is a condition of the card itself, not an actual effect, therefore it can't be negated by stuff like Veiler or Skill Drain. So wouldn't that effect still apply in the extra deck/deck/hand/graveyard? Conditions like "This card cannot be special summoned" obviously still apply in the deck/hand/graveyard. The thing that really makes me believe it is the fact that Scrap Dragon can special summon a non-synchro Scrap from your graveyard when he is Solemn Warning'd. He was destroyed in the extra deck, but he was still destroyed and sent to the graveyard. So my question is: is it impossible for cards such as Tiras, Keeper of Genesis and Red Nova Dragon to be destroyed while still in the extra deck?

Well Scrap dragon can get it's effect since it says, when this card is destroyed regardless of where, so using that logic, I guess monsters that cannot be destroyed by card effects can't be negated, BUT on the other hand, those cards may not get their effect or even condition while in the hand, it might help if u gave us an example of a monster with that condition, as for the first one I dunno since i haven't really seen the old relinquished card errata.

I gave 2 examples: Tiras, Keeper of Genesis, and Red Nova Dragon

I meant one where the monster has "this card cannot be destroyed by card effects" as a condition

Well yeah I guess Tiras isn't a condition when in the extra deck come to think of it bc it needs xyz materials. But Red Nova Dragon does have that as a condition

Re Relinquished: I don't see why the ruling should change. I even looked at a topic on DN forum and Detonator (who i consider DN's God of rulings) said relinquished gained 0 with face down monsters.

Re Red nova and cards alike: Those mosnters' immunity to getting destroyed is part of their effect, not a condition. That's why skill drain was mentioned in many forums as a way to counter Red Nova (back when red nova was an actual scare) or Neos Wiseman. Those cards can be solemned for sure.
You might be confusing continuous effects with conditions.

1: facedown monsters are looked at by the game state to have no name, attack, defense, type, etc. so relinquished also sees it that way. and with the errata, it was taken out because the original had such a long text haha. and i guess they just thought that it was "common sense" that since the game state doesn't know how much attack it has then we'll just say that it's zero. =b

2: there's a lot to this question haha
coolchemist is right about them being continuous effects and not conditions so they can be negated by skill drain and all the stuff.

when scrap dragon is negated by solemn it isn't destroyed in the extra deck. it is destroyed in a sort of "limbo" that's not on the field but also not in the extra deck. but too my knowledge, cards can only be destroyed on the field and in the hand, the only exceptions being the virus cards and chain destruction. so i guess the answer is: it is plausible for them to be destroyed while still in the extra deck but not for the reason that you were thinking. those monsters have continuous effects that would only apply when they are successfully summoned.

did i miss anything? i just got back from work and i'm pretty tired so let me know if i messed up somewhere haha

relinquished: TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!

Relinquished: I do remember hearing several times for several different players that any face-down monster has an understood 0 att, 0 def, no name, no attribute, no type until the monster itself is flipped face-up by either battle, card effect, or plain summon. So I agree with everyone else and say that it gains nothing.

Negating: It's always been understood when we play and when that question comes up that the monsters effect to keep it from being destroyed is not put into play until it actually touches the field. If you are using solemn to negate the summon, the monster is only in the process of moving to the field so it does not have the effect to keep it from being destroyed by card effects.

If this post is a little late, I'm sorry. Just putting in my two cents

Thanks, though I still am missing why. To me "This card cannot be destroyed by card effects" is just as much a condition as "This card cannot be special summoned". "This card cannot be special summoned" applies in the deck, ie, you can't use Summoner Monk's effect to summon Doomcaliber Knight. The wording is almost exactly the same. So why the difference?

I don't really know why conditions are conditions and effects are effects. It's more like that: "it is because it was decided to be so". Sometimes for the good of the game mechanics (doomcaliber), sometimes just randomly .

Example: Why is vayu not being able to tune considered an effect whereas debris dragon's restrictions a condition?
Might have to do with the wording idk, but the way i look at it is: It's because they said it is so.
Another example that might have to do with text but to me is a case of "because they said so": Chaos Sorcerer (inherent summon) vs Dark Simorgh (effect summon).

to be honest i can't really give you an answer for that one lol

i have asked other judges and they don't know either haha

if i find something i'll let you guys know =b

Yeah, because Konami said so.