Advanced Ritual Art

C

CraniumX

New Member
Advanced Ritual Art
Ritual Spell

Select 1 Ritual Monster in your hand. Send Normal Monsters from your Deck to the Graveyard whose total Levels are equal to that Ritual Monster's. Ritual Summon a card with the name of the selected Ritual Monster from your hand.


Well, my question is about the wording on this vs. the wording on all the other specific ritual cards under the sun that effectively say:

You must also offer monsters whose total Level Stars equal X or more as a Tribute from the field or your hand.

Basically, with Advanced Ritual Art, must you send the exact number of stars total from your deck to the graveyard, like two 4-stars for and 8-star like Zorc or Masked Beast, but not a 4-star and a 6-star? Or more importantly, not anything over 1-star for Relinquished? (Though I do suppose that might give a reason to use Exodia pieces.)

I'm guessing because of the wording there's no leeway at all, but I didn't see anything official anywhere on it. I'd love to be able to abuse Relinquished with this, for sure, if it's possible, but my gut's telling me no.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
This card is effectively equal to Earth Chant, End of the World, and Contract with the Abyss, in that you can ONLY Tribute the exact Star Level. No more and no less (of course).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Advanced Ritual Art
Ritual Spell

Select 1 Ritual Monster in your hand. Send Normal Monsters from your Deck to the Graveyard whose total Levels are equal to that Ritual Monster's. Ritual Summon a card with the name of the selected Ritual Monster from your hand.


So yes, it is considered Ritual Summoned ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's better than Fusion cards, in that it doesn't redundantly say, "This Special Summon is treated as a whatever", and goes straight for the logical wording instead.

Who knows? Perhaps they might even change that, to simply tell people to Fusion Summon things instead of treating it as such. After all, they have told people Cyberdark Horn does Piercing damage (i.e. written it on the card). I really hope this year is the year they start bringing proper order and structure to the game.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Maruno said:
It's better than Fusion cards, in that it doesn't redundantly say, "This Special Summon is treated as a whatever", and goes straight for the logical wording instead.

Who knows? Perhaps they might even change that, to simply tell people to Fusion Summon things instead of treating it as such. After all, they have told people Cyberdark Horn does Piercing damage (i.e. written it on the card). I really hope this year is the year they start bringing proper order and structure to the game.
Click to expand...
So, what is "piercing damage" exactly? Is it effect damage, or battle damage? Since there is no previous term to compare it to, this is going to be the exact type of question that will logically be asked, since Waboku doesnt stop "Piercing Damage".

I really don't see what the need was to change it, if you don't immediately define it as well. Should the assumption be that anything that doesnt say "Effect Damage", isnt?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"When this card attacks a Defence Position monster whose DEF is lower than the ATK of this card, inflict the difference as Battle Damage to your opponent."

"Piercing damage."

Same thing. Sometimes called "Trample".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Maruno said:
"When this card attacks a Defence Position monster whose DEF is lower than the ATK of this card, inflict the difference as Battle Damage to your opponent."

"Piercing damage."

Same thing. Sometimes called "Trample".
Click to expand...
It's not the same thing, or they wouldnt have changed it. That is the argument you will hear, and if that is the best answer you have, then it isnt going to satisfy anyone who continues to argue it.

There is no "Piercing Damage" or "Trample" in the Rule Book.

There is only

Direct Damage
Battle Damage
Effect Damage

Which are the references for all damage. If (and I dont need to be reminded that it IS Battle Damage), it falls under Battle Damage, then why did it need to be changed?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'd like to give them a chance to define it in the official rules first before arguing this. We all know what it means. It was changed for convenience.

I don't have time for people who come up with this kind of argument trying desperately to make "Piercing damage" something different, especially when they've been told what it means (by the rulebook, eventually, hopefully). It's just like people looking at Tribute Summon and claiming it to be different to a Normal Summon instead of a specific subset of it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Maruno said:
It's just like people looking at Tribute Summon and claiming it to be different to a Normal Summon instead of a specific subset of it.
Click to expand...
However, it list that Tribute Summon and Normal Summon are the same IN the Rule Book, so that is just a ignorant argument to begin with.

Piercing Damage doesnt clarify anything, and is just a colorful word that needs a description to explain it, whereas every card that does Battle Damage based upon having higher ATK versus lower DEF, has been perfectly fine, and didnt need to be changed, and the best reason to do it was.....?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
masterwoo0 said:
However, it list that Tribute Summon and Normal Summon are the same IN the Rule Book, so that is just a ignorant argument to begin with.
Click to expand...
My point exactly. People who can't do a tiny amount of research to find out what "Piercing damage" means (and the definition is out there, albeit not widely so) don't rankly highly in my eyes.

masterwoo0 said:
Piercing Damage doesnt clarify anything, and is just a colorful word that needs a description to explain it, whereas every card that does Battle Damage based upon having higher ATK versus lower DEF, has been perfectly fine, and didnt need to be changed, and the best reason to do it was.....?
Click to expand...
...To shorten card text length, to make the effect clearer and more standardised.

The reason the term "Piercing damage" hasn't been defined yet is because the rules haven't been updated yet. From what I can tell they've acquired an amount of competence recently, so I don't believe they won't add in a section to explain "Piercing damage". Why not give them a chance?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Maruno said:
My point exactly. People who can't do a tiny amount of research to find out what "Piercing damage" means (and the definition is out there, albeit not widely so) don't rankly highly in my eyes.

...To shorten card text length, to make the effect clearer and more standardised.

The reason the term "Piercing damage" hasn't been defined yet is because the rules haven't been updated yet. From what I can tell they've acquired an amount of competence recently, so I don't believe they won't add in a section to explain "Piercing damage". Why not give them a chance?
Click to expand...
You misunderstand my objection. If they wish to call it something new, at least CHANGE how it affects the text. Don't leave everything basically the same, and replace "Battle" with "Piercing". If its the same thing, it didnt shorten it. It just replaced a word everyone already knows, with a new term (Remember the Exchange of the Spirit thread, with "Send versus Swap"?!?!), that will only cause some unwarranted confusion.

As I stated in the other thread announcing the change, if you just state that a Monster can do Piercing Damage in its effect text (like they did with Cyberdark Horn), rather than replace Battle with Piercing, it will be much better, but you are now assuming that all players know what it is, which makes it a inferior change.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Didn't you notice the length of the sentence that was replaced with, what was it, 5 words? They didn't swap one word for another; they drastically shortened the whole effect.

Not to mention the big phrase was unwieldy at times. That's why it was replaced. Explain it once, and have a keyword for every other time it comes up. Sounds sensible to me. Obviously they didn't change what the effect actually DOES, but it's still a change for the better.

I think it's worth it, and much overdue. You may think differently. You're entitled to.


Now that I read your post about 5 times, I think I get what you're on about. But what they did with the text of Cyberdark Horn, they did because it's the newest card to be reprinted (with Piercing). I'm sure they'll print all new cards from now on with this new 5-word phrase instead of the longwinded old one (with or without changing the word "battle" to "piercing"). They're still getting to grips with turning this into a proper game.

It's neater, it's better. Of course they're going to formally define "piercing" in the rulebook and all over the place soon. Give them a chance, eh?

And frankly, if and when the definition appears in the rulebook and everywhere, only the players are to blame if they don't keep up to date with things and know what it means. The company (UDE, is it? I can never remember which does what.) can only do so much, you know?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top