2 players using final countdown, 1 uses a pyro clock....

[roadhouse007]

Ok here is the situation:

Player A activates final countdown in turn 5 and it is not negated.
Player B activates final countdown in turn 6 and it is not negated.
In turn 11 (count 13 left for A and 14 left for B), player B uses 2 pyro clock of destinys. Would this change the turn count to :
: 13 for A and 12 for B
: 11 for A and 12 for B
?????????????????????????????????

 

[skey23]

And, there is more than these 3 cards...

Swords of Revealing Light
Lightforce Sword
Final Countdown

and

"Swords of Concealing Light"

"Swords of Concealing Light" doesn't count turns. It's counts Standby Phases. Similar to "Wave-Motion Cannon". NOTE: I said 'similar to', NOT 'just like' cause we all know that "Wave-Motion Cannon" doesn't count anything.

 

[masterwoo0]

Okay, technicality... But Pyro Clock of Destiny still affects both players if they have an effect that counts turns.

 

[skey23]

I posted this to the Judge's List asking for clarification on exactly how it would work. If it would increase the turn count for both cards, or if the person who activated it would only increase the turn count for 1 card they choose.

 

[Cropz]

ok, here's something to clarify all the mess.
I checked the japanese text of the card and this is what it says:

運命の火時計
通常罠

カード１枚のターンカウントを１ターン進める。

Translation:

Pyro Clock of Destiny
Normal Trap

Move the turn count of 1 card forward by 1.

now THIS makes sense.
meaning, 'Pyro Clock of Destiny' is a targeting card, that can only affect one selected turn-counting effect.
also, these are the six cards that can be affected by it:

'Swords of Revealing Light'
'Nightmare's Steelcage'
'Deck Destruction Virus of Death' (OCG, I know)
'Deck Devastation Virus'
'Lightforce Sword'
'Final Countdown'

also novastar, how is the JERP text not useable, since it's how Konami worded the text and it's how the card is supposed to work?
this is not the first and won't be the last time a card is worded one way and works the other.

 

[Digital Jedi]

In the sense that Konami flip flops on the way a card is used when a card makes it move from Japanese to English. I think I mentioned in this thread about how for years Blast with Chain always became an Equip Spell Card while in Japan it always remained a Trap, an Equip Trap. For some reason Konami left this as our ruling for years and then only last year decided that our ruling on Equip Cards shoud be the same as Japan.

Same can be said for quite a few cards. The rulings and card text are not consistant between the two languages for any kind of reasonable comparisons to be made. Especially when Konami arbitrarily decides what is and what isn't going to be the same between the OCG and the TCG.

 

[squid]

In the absence of an official response from the TCG formal officiating body, and seeing as there is nothing in the TCG contradicting it, why couldn't the JERP ruling be applied until further notice? It does make sense.

 

[novastar]

also novastar, how is the JERP text not useable, since it's how Konami worded the text and it's how the card is supposed to work?
this is not the first and won't be the last time a card is worded one way and works the other.

Maybe "useable" is the wrong word...

All i'm suggesting is that a common mistake is to assume that the JPN text is ultimately correct...Dice Jar comes to mind... It is highly possible that Konami errata'd it in English and simply followed up with rulings in JPN.

On top of that, we are using translators to decode this stuff, and that is not entirely accurate, unless you are fluent in Japanese, you will never know that exact translation...and even with perfect Japanese, to compare it to English is tough.

All we really have to go by is the version that Konami supplied UDE with, plus the rulings they were given. They directly conflict with the JPN text and JERP rulings.

So which is correct?

 

[Digital Jedi]

Maybe "useable" is the wrong word...

All i'm suggesting is that a common mistake is to assume that the JPN text is ultimately correct...Dice Jar comes to mind... It is highly possible that Konami errata'd it in English and simply followed up with rulings in JPN.

On top of that, we are using translators to decode this stuff, and that is not entirely accurate, unless you are fluent in Japanese, you will never know that exact translation...and even with perfect Japanese, to compare it to English is tough.

All we really have to go by is the version that Konami supplied UDE with, plus the rulings they were given. They directly conflict with the JPN text and JERP rulings.

So which is correct?

Or more acurately, which is correct for us?

The OCG is such a markedly different Meta, that's it might as well be another game entirely. It's dubious at best to aplly the rules of one TCG to the TCG of an entirely differnt language. We have a set of text and rulings already. In my mind, reaching into the Japnese version of the game is going in the opposite direction of where Konami was going with it.

 

[novastar]

I disagree, the OCG is a quite a useful resource.

However, to take a straight Babelfish translation of card text and try to compare grammer and sentence structure to english and use that as an arguement for why the english text and rulings are incorrect... is premature to say the least.

In the end, only the guys who created the cards know there true intention, and that is uually outlined through ruling.

JPN text is fine, but i'd like to definately see strong ruling to back it up.

 

[Cropz]

In the sense that Konami flip flops on the way a card is used when a card makes it move from Japanese to English. I think I mentioned in this thread about how for years Blast with Chain always became an Equip Spell Card while in Japan it always remained a Trap, an Equip Trap. For some reason Konami left this as our ruling for years and then only last year decided that our ruling on Equip Cards shoud be the same as Japan.

Same can be said for quite a few cards. The rulings and card text are not consistant between the two languages for any kind of reasonable comparisons to be made. Especially when Konami arbitrarily decides what is and what isn't going to be the same between the OCG and the TCG.

name one card that, nowadays, works differently on the OCG/TCG.

Maybe "useable" is the wrong word...

All i'm suggesting is that a common mistake is to assume that the JPN text is ultimately correct...Dice Jar comes to mind... It is highly possible that Konami errata'd it in English and simply followed up with rulings in JPN.

On top of that, we are using translators to decode this stuff, and that is not entirely accurate, unless you are fluent in Japanese, you will never know that exact translation...and even with perfect Japanese, to compare it to English is tough.

All we really have to go by is the version that Konami supplied UDE with, plus the rulings they were given. They directly conflict with the JPN text and JERP rulings.

So which is correct?

how does it conflict?
the UDE ruling states that you move the turn count of only one 'Final Countdown', and that's exactly what the japanese text says, and all other rulings pertaining 'Pyro Clock of Destiny' loosely imply that the card can only be used for one effect.

 

[novastar]

how does it conflict?
the UDE ruling states that you move the turn count of only one 'Final Countdown', and that's exactly what the japanese text says, and all other rulings pertaining 'Pyro Clock of Destiny' loosely imply that the card can only be used for one effect.

No it doesn't exactly say that, which is what the arguement was.

When you activate "Final Countdown", and your opponent activates "Final Countdown" during his next turn, and then uses "Pyro Clock of Destiny" to advance his "Final Countdown" by 1, both "Final Countdowns" win at the same time and the Duel is a DRAW.

It's being nitpicky, but that doesn't neccessarily mean that 1, and only 1 card is affected. It just could mean that only the effects of the player who activated Pyro Clock are affected, when you use this in conjuction with the english text, that was the arguement.

All the ruling says is that only the OP's FC is advanced, which no one was disputing, and the english text suggests that in general all of your own "turn counting" effects would be advanced all at the same time when using 1 Pyro Clock.

Move the turn count forward by 1 turn. The turn in which this card is activated continues as normal.

But in the end, i personally believe that the JPN text is correct. We just need UDE to change the NA one.

 

[masterwoo0]

Basically what is happening is the Turn Player went from 18 to 19 with Pyro Clock of Destiny, and the opponent was already on 19 when he starts his turn, and when he ends his turn, both players will have 20 turns on Final Countdown.

So, in the case of only one like card, that both players own, only one is affected. If one player has similar cards that count turns, I dont see why multiple cards would not be affected unless it strictly targets one card and only affects that one card.

 

[Cropz]

It's being nitpicky, but that doesn't neccessarily mean that 1, and only 1 card is affected. It just could mean that only the effects of the player who activated Pyro Clock are affected, when you use this in conjuction with the english text, that was the arguement.

that's why I said "loosely", it doesn't specify, but it doesn't deny either.

So, in the case of only one like card, that both players own, only one is affected. If one player has similar cards that count turns, I dont see why multiple cards would not be affected unless it strictly targets one card and only affects that one card.

and that's exactly what the Japanese Text states.

 

[Digital Jedi]

name one card that, nowadays, works differently on the OCG/TCG.

I belive I mentioned one in the post you responded to. That was only changed in 2005. Others wold be the myriad cards that the OCG has had long before us. They don't always work the same way theirs do, which is why so many people get upset when the cards get translated. We've discussed several cards on this board in the past where the OCG ruling stated the exact opposite of what's been presented on the Judges List or in the FAQ. SOmetimes Konami alligns us with them, sometimes they don't. It's just entirely too arbitray a process for me to use the OCG as basis for clarification based simply on the fact that "it might be, it might not be". It leaves me feeling insecure and nowhere near closer to understanding then I was when I started.

 

[Cropz]

I belive I mentioned one in the post you responded to. That was only changed in 2005. Others wold be the myriad cards that the OCG has had long before us. They don't always work the same way theirs do, which is why so many people get upset when the cards get translated. We've discussed several cards on this board in the past where the OCG ruling stated the exact opposite of what's been presented on the Judges List or in the FAQ. SOmetimes Konami alligns us with them, sometimes they don't. It's just entirely too arbitray a process for me to use the OCG as basis for clarification based simply on the fact that "it might be, it might not be". It leaves me feeling insecure and nowhere near closer to understanding then I was when I started.

I know about 'Blast with Chain', I'm talking about NOW.
as of this very moment, name one that doesn't work like the OCG.
and anyways, I'm not telling you to go by JERP rulings, this is not the issue, the thing is that the japanese TEXT is clearer.

 

[skey23]

Doesn't the OCG play "BLS - EotB" 'correctly'? Meaning they have to choose which effect they will be using during Main Phase 1. So if they wish to attack twice, they must declare they will be using that effect during Main Phase 1 and not during the Battle Phase like we do?

 

[Cropz]

Doesn't the OCG play "BLS - EotB" 'correctly'? Meaning they have to choose which effect they will be using during Main Phase 1. So if they wish to attack twice, they must declare they will be using that effect during Main Phase 1 and not during the Battle Phase like we do?

no, that's a wrong thing put on a game
(proof is that the new GX Duel Academy is correct now).

 

[skey23]

I know we've had discussions about that in the past before...lol. I've never played him in any of the games so I don't know how he works...lol.

 

[Digital Jedi]

I know about 'Blast with Chain', I'm talking about NOW.
as of this very moment, name one that doesn't work like the OCG.
and anyways, I'm not telling you to go by JERP rulings, this is not the issue, the thing is that the japanese TEXT is clearer.

Off the top of my head I can't. I don't have the time at the moment to do a search of the many times we've discussed it. Your welcome to. And even if its all consiatant NOW, there are no gauranties that it will all be consitant tomorrow. If anything, Konami has been consistant at being inconsistant with their comparative rulings. It took them years to bing Equip Traps into our game. There recod is not reliable enough for me, even if it matches at the moment.

Add to that what novastar mentioned with regard to translation accuracy being dubious at best, and my confidence in it is all but completely diminished. Konami can't even have their own cards mean what they say in their own language unless it "sounds cool". I'm expected to use that and possibly inacurate translation of that as a basis for understanding? I just can't.

 

[masterwoo0]

no, that's a wrong thing put on a game
(proof is that the new GX Duel Academy is correct now).

We all know you cant use games as a burden of proof, although they do mention that GX is using "Expert Rules", whatever that means (bought the game, but haven't taken it out of the plastic!!)....