Digital Jedi's Erratas That Make Sense

Whup. Mybad. But even then, isn't the negating portion of the effect optional? (as in, the controller gets to choose which spell card to negate)?
 
jpnuar1 said:
Well, I see two problems with that.
  • If a card effect like, say, Tailor of the Fickle or collective power were to be played, the card's target couldn't be changes to a non-machine (although I'm not sure if the original card could...)
  • Digital Jedi's card allows for unlimited (and I would imagine mandatory) negation of spells.
Click to expand...
In addition, rare metalmoph is not an equip nor does it become one after activation. Collected Power and Tailor of the Fickle only affect equip cards and not continuous traps.
 
a.)Well the original text says "only once" so maybe it is optional regarding which spell to negate... you can only negate ONE though. No timeframe on when its effect had to be used. Good question on that one.
b.)Since it is not an equip can it still be "attached" if it goes face-down due to card effect or does it get destroyed like regular "equips"?
 
This has already been adressed on the judges list. It is the next spell card. It was just translated badly.
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=3418#3418
QUESTION:
My other question is about Rare Metalmorph, I would like to know if it's
ability to negate one spell card that targets the monster Rare Metalmorph
is equipped to, is an optional effect or mandatory and negates the first
spell that is used. Also is it possible to chain Rare Metalmorph to a spell
card that targets a Machine-type monster and equip it to that monster to
negate the spell card?

Thanks for your help

Rob Atkinson
==============================================================================
ANSWER:
It's mandatory. You MUST negate the effect.

When we translated Rise of Destiny, my suggested text for the 2nd sentence of
"Rare Metalmorph" was this:
"Negate the effect of the next Spell Card that targets the monster."

But Konami wouldn't go for it because that's not what the Japanese text says,
even though it's what the Japanese text means. They get really hung up on their
"only once" phrasing, and such, and don't understand that "the next..." not only
means the same thing, but is much clearer.

Kevin Tewart
Game Developer
UDE Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG R&D Lead
Upper Deck Entertainment
Click to expand...

In addition, continuous cards do not work like equips and are never treated as equips. The situation will always be different depending on the continuous card itself.
Official FAQ said:
If a monster targeted by "Rare Metalmorph" is flipped face-down, it is no longer targeted by "Rare Metalmorph" and "Rare Metalmorph" remains on the field meaninglessly.
Click to expand...
Which is why my errata specifies that the monster has to be face up.
 
Archfiend Cards

Here's a few cards that are long overdue for a name change. Before everyone goes nuts wondering what I was thinking, check the official FAQ here first and you'll see why I did this. http://www.upperdeckentertainment.com/yugioh/en/faq_archfiend.aspx This will especially help to clarify what can be on the field before Falling Down can be destroyed by it's own effect.

 
Digital Jedi said:
Here's a few cards that are long overdue for a name change. Before everyone goes nuts wondering what I was thinking, check the official FAQ here first and you'll see why I did this. http://www.upperdeckentertainment.com/yugioh/en/faq_archfiend.aspx This will especially help to clarify what can be on the field before Falling Down can be destroyed by it's own effect.
Click to expand...

That is redundant, the problem witht he Archfiend's is that the original translation team translated De-M-O-N too many different ways:
of Despair = Demon's
Skull = Demon
Fiend = Demon
Shadow = Demon
 
DaGuyWitBluGlasses said:
That is redundant, the problem witht he Archfiend's is that the original translation team translated De-M-O-N too many different ways:
of Despair = Demon's
Skull = Demon
Fiend = Demon
Shadow = Demon
Click to expand...
This is similar to the way "Hades" and "Sheol" were translated in some bible translations. The correct translation is "hell", but it was inconsistantly translated as other words instead af "hell". Sometimes they used the word "pit" or "grave" and a few times mistranslated the word "Gehenna" as "hell".

You would think after thousands of years of goofs we would get how important transliteration is.
 
UDE/ KOnami doesn't understand grammar, sometimes all it takes is to change one very little thing to make it clear:

Example:
Mind Control
Normal Spell
Take control of 1 monster on your opponent's side of the field until the End Phase. This monster cannot declare an attack or be Tributed.

Now if we take the grammar literally the card would mean that, if a player attacks with that monster, it cannot be tributed later in the game. And that it could be tributed later in the game, or the turn its under the non-owner's control as long as it didn't attack. The reson for this is that to satisfy "Or" only one side needs to be true:
"This monster cannot declare an attack or be Tributed" mean (choose one:) this monster cannot attack, or this monster cannot be tributed.

Also the second sentence is not attached to the first, so we would grammatically assume that the cannot condition would last indefinitely.

But that's not the case: The monster can neither attack Nor be tributed. And the condition only lasts as long as the control changing effect.

A semi-colon is used when to sentences are to close to use a conjunction, therefore if we use a semi-colon it would suggest that the 2 sentences are related.

So the proper text should read:

Take control of 1 monster on your opponent's side of the field until the End Phase; this monster cannot declare an attack nor be Tributed.

Such a simple change, i can't see Konami having any objections to it.
 
As time passes I'm getting the imperssion that the Japanese language must carry a structure with it that doesn't lend itself well to literal translation. Keep in mind I'm completely unfamiliar with Japanese other than my close proximity to it through anime and this card game.

I wonder if there is a genuine misunderstanding on Konami's part that leads them to belive that a transliterating of their card text is less true then a word for word translation. Or are they being genuienly stubborn?
 
And we have another confusing Archfiend which in fact is a normal beast monster from the TP6 set

TP6-EN016 Archfiend Marmot of Nefariousness

I think Konami should just be blunt and go for a simple easy to read translation that makes sense as I said in an earlier post.

Cost - Whatever the cost is
Effect - Effect of the card
Restriction - Generally what the card can't do

Easy enough and no long confusing grammatical errors.
 
OKShadow said:
Here's my version of the list... I think it's a little more succinct on the first three.
Click to expand...

That sounds great, but if you look at the DCR Skull Archfiend of Lightning I would say the last two should be called like this:

Summoned Skull to Skull Archfiend
Toon Summoned Skull to Toon Skull Archfiend
 
Except that you don't know anything about the Japanese names, so no.

It would be "Summoned Archfiend" and "Toon Archfiend".

Also, "Demon Summon" is NOT "Summoned Demon". It's literally translated as "Demon's Summon". So it SHOULD be "Archfiend's Summon".

Skull Archfiend of Lightning is "Skull Archfiend" because the words on the Japanese card are "Skull Demon".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top