deck wraith, magus's post supports that sonic shooter would be able to attack.

mariner says that you need at least 1 face down card in the spell/trap zones.

and from the ruling a face down field card does not qualify, which implies that the field spell card zone is not a part of the spell and trap zone.

=================================================

also, as for that car/truck/automobile analogy given earlier, its flawed. a better comparison would be that cars and trucks are both types of automobiles, but that doesn't mean that cars and trucks are the same thing. all cars are automobiles and all trucks are automobiles, but this is a case where the card is talking about cars, and you want that to include all automobiles.

or how about this analogy, destroying a card, tributing a card, or discarding a card all count as sending it to the graveyard, but just sending a card to the graveyard doesn't count as any of those terms, nor do any of those terms count as eachother.

a card in the spell/trap zone counts as being on the field, a card in the field card zone counts as being on the field, but that doesn't mean that being in the field card zone is the same as being in the spell/trap zone.

(and it appears that theres a recent ruling that specifically supports this concept)

Um I misread Mariners effect, well, as woo0 said earlier, I do to consider it an error, or uncoherent with game setup.

or it could just be the way previously mentioned cards like sonic shooter and theban nightmare (that specifically mention the spell/trap zone) are supposed to work.

as i've been trying to point out, until now there have been no rulings that directly affected this detail. and its just been assumed and generally accepted, despite the cards' text and lack of ruling.

there have been many times when a new card gets a ruling that either goes against the assumed rulings, or even against actual rulings. and the new ruling often ends up being correct, and fixing previously misruled cards.

given the fact that the cards specific text, statements in the faq, and this recent ruling i find it strange that you would say that they are all wrong and that a ruling with no official support is a better source.

As far as I can remember Theban Nightmare counts Fields as well, though I can't seem to find the source from it, but im about 90% sure I remember it like that.

Because we have Card Text that either states "Spells and Trap Zone", or, "No Spell or Traps on the field", and as you mentioned, it has not been addressed upon til this point. The question is, why hasnt it been, and is the logic flawed? If it isnt, they there should have been many more rulings that exist to bolster the claim that a Field Spell Card is not considered a Spell Card when it comes to the "Spell and Trap Zone".

I always believed Theban Nightmare wouldn't get an increase if there was a Field Magic as well...and yeah...they probably should, at this point, release some sort of ruling in General rulebooks..

again, i never once said that the field spell card is not a spell card when it comes to the spell and trap zone.

i said that the field card is not placed in the spell and trap zone. that is a fact. there is no denying that. the spell and trap zone are the 5 card slots below the 5 monster card zones. the field spell zone if the slot located above the fusion deck zone and to the left of the monster zones.

and since the field spell card is not placed in the spell and trap zone, then it is not a card in the spell and trap zone. that logic is not difficult to follow at all.

the fact that there are 2 different texts one that states "cards in the spell and trap zones" and another that states "spell and trap cards on the field" suggests that the two statesments mean 2 different things. again that logic is simple enough.

a field spell card that is played is a spell card on the field, but its not in the spell and trap zone so its not a card in the spell and trap zone.

as for why there have been no rulings on this before, i don't know. maybe nobodies bothered to ask before. maybe everyones just assumed the way you all have. maybe it never really came up because field spells were never really widespread and only a handful of cards specifically mentioned "spell and trap zones". maybe kevin and the others at ude also assumed it meant the same thing and never really looked into it. who knows.

the fact remains that when there aren't rulings covering a certain aspect its often because its to be assumed to follow the text/mechanics/rulebook/faq. and as i pointed out, the rulebook and faq both explicitly state the the field spell card zone is not a part of the spell and trap zone, and therefore when the text refers to whether or not cards are in the spell and trap zone then the only place you should look is at the spell and trap zone.

this detail has been overlooked until now, but now there's a ruling, which likely means that konami told ude it that way, and it should overturn any contradictory rulings on similarly worded cards unless specifically stated otherwise, or be extended to cover any similarly worded cards that don't have a ruling. and since there aren't even any rulings stating otherwise, let alone something specifically saying they're different than mariner, cards like theban nightmare and sonic shooter should be ruled like mariner unless they get an errata changing their text, or a ruling of their own saying otherwise.

It's an assumption nevertheless, why should things be different? Heck who knows, Levia and Demise make that a solid point, what would make this any different?

but both levia and demise have specific rulings stating they work in different ways.

this is a situation where 1 card has a ruling and the others do not.

Precisely my point, one doesn't even have a ruling, we can't discard the possibility that it works different if we can build up concrete justifications about it.

but there aren't any concrete justifications that it works differently.

there are plenty of cards that don't have their own individual rulings, but we know how the work because of rulings for similarly worded cards.

part of a judges job is to recognize such things and apply such a ruling to a similar card without its own ruling.

if demise didn't have that ruling that if flipped face down in chain, then every judge worth his certification would rule that it worked the same as levia. why? because it would be a card (demise) without its own ruling that it worded similarly to a card that does (levia).

this is the same situation. because we have several cards (3 at least) that are all worded similarly (refer to the spell and trap zone rather than all spells and traps on the field), and only 1 has a ruling regarding whether or not it counts the field card zone we should apply its ruling to the other 2 and any other cards that have the same text, until/unless any of them get their own ruling stating that they do otherwise.

and of the 2 other cards, theban nightmare is the only one with a ruling that barely even hints that it works differently. its ruling about koriboh is primarily about cards in hand, and the phrase about spells and traps on the field is merely there to show that other requirements for theban's effect are also met. that ruling isn't meant to concern what cards on the field are counted, infact it doesn't even rule out the posibility that the field card doesn't count. since if it doesn't then theban would still get its effect if there was no field card, it wouldn't care.

i'm not saying that i'm 100% correct on this, only that every real piece of evidence supports that cards with text like theban nightmare, sonic shooter, and e-hero mariner do not count the field spell card.

there is no evidence to contradict it, you say that we can't just assume that it works the same as mariner, well when looking at the evidence calling that an assumption would make saying they do count the field card little more than a shot in the dark.

There aren't any concrete rulings that say otherwise either, I know that what Magus posted up is the closest of things until know, im not supporting against it at the moment, but at least IMPO it is a descrepancy and it shouldn't work like that.