It's begun

branas said:
what about Gren Maju Da Eiza + Megamorph?
say i have 5 monsters RFP and i equip it with Megamorph.
then i play Soul Release, removing 3 more monsters.
his attack is :confused:

please make the Megamorph rulings page several pages long.
because now,so many things are unclear...

include ?ATK and 0ATK monsters.
It looks to me that the original ruling is going to stand:

If "Gren Maju Da Eiza" is equipped with "Megamorph", its ATK is zero, but if "Megamorph" leaves play, recalculate its ATK using its effect.

Since the original ATK for Gren is not modified by her effect, just added onto.
 
densetsu_x said:
Editing based on the ruling:

"Megamorph" changes the original ATK of the monster it is equipped to. Having multiple "Megamorphs" equipped to a monster is the same as having one.

So yes, it does redefine it.

The only problem with that is that, toward the end of that Judge's List post, he kind of alludes to the possibility that multiple Megamorphs will further redefine the Original ATK:

The oddball ruling, at this time, is ?Inferno Fire Blast?, which inflicts 2400
damage to the opponent even if the original ATK of ?Red-Eyes B. Dragon? is 4800
because of ?Megamorph?. (Or even 9600 ATK, or 19200?.)

The 19200 I think was a mis-count on how many Megamorphs were affecting Red-Eyes B. Dragon (unless he used DNA Surgery and Limiter Removal, but he never mentioned Limiter Removal).

HOWEVER, 3 Megamorphs equipped to Red-Eyes B. Dragon COULD give Red-Eyes B. Dragon 9600 ATK (2400 x 3) IF each Megamorph "re-defines" the original ATK. Then each Megamorph that follows would double/halve whatever the subsequent Megamorph(s) doubled/halved.
 
novastar said:
Well we knew that already, you just use timestamp resolution. They don't and never will "stack".
Yes we knew taht.. but we didn't know that what we knew was what we will know when UDE knows what Konami didn't always want them to know, and just says a "no" to...

When the rulings change, we can't be completely sure anymore: sure we "knew" that Magician of Faith's effect should go to the controller of the time it was flipped.. but with End of Anubis rulings flying around we couldn't be sure until John posted the reply he got..

Anyway, new post is up
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=5231
 
Megamorphs not stacking is nothing new but it does leave me feeling that someone messed up in putting that as a card which redefines the original attack since that would allow them to stack, since you'd now be referencing the redefined original attack for the second Megamorph.
"Megamorph" changes the original (printed) ATK of the monster it is equipped to. Having multiple "Megamorphs" equipped to a monster is the same as having one."
Just seems contradictory to me... :confused:
 
novastar said:
Spell Canceller changes the number of objects Level Limit's effect applies to, so it is dependant on Spell Canceller. Level Limit in no way affects Spell Canceller's effect so Spell Canceller effect is independant.

In the case of one effect depending on another, you always determine the final outcome by applying all independant continuous effects first (in timestamp order) and then apply the dependant effects afterwords (in timestamp order).

Hmmm... at 1 point I get it, and some point I don't.

At first, I could see where this ruling was going, but, then again I thought what makes it any different?

*Going back in time with my time machine

[past]
TimeStamp1: Level Limit - Area B
TimeStamp2: Spell Canceller [recently summoned]
...
1: Spell Canceller is placed in Defense
2: Level Limit - Area B is negated

[present]
As of now, Level Limit - Area B would be negated by Spell Canceller being that it's independent and dependent effects are applied afterwards of an independent effect, so Spell Canceller would remain in Attack Mode, going by TimeStamp order.

This is what I don't get, what makes an effect an independent effect?

I can understand Jinzo Vs. Skill Drain, being that both affect each other, but what makes Spell Canceller Vs. Level Limit - Area B any different just because Level Area - Limit B doesn't negate and doesn't affect Spell Canceller's effect?

Level Limit - Area B is dependent on Spell Canceller because it's a Level 5 monster, which I think is what it means, but, why would that make Spell Canceller an independent effect just because Level Limit - Area B doesn't affect Spell Canceller's effect?
 
densetsu_x said:
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=5197

The short jist of this 1st change is this:

Say you have your Attack Position "Magician of Faith" (you flipped her Last Turn and so this is a new turn). You play "Book of Moon" to put her into face-down defense. You may now Flip-Summon her.

Have fun with this. Apparently, Class is now in session.

I've been gone for so long... been taking a break from Yu-Gi-Oh! tourney for a couple of weeks since vacation, and alot has changed.

*Runs through the door and takes a seat

Sorry teach' I am late for class, [presents LCP and places on desk] but this all too much to take in, but maybe my homework could make up for it.

*Raises hand


1. So effect battle changes from other card effects will not "burn up" for a manual position change during that turn? Mind blowing really... can you explain why it was changed this way?

2. I declare an attack, my opponent activates Enemy Controller, places in defense, the battle position could not be changed right? Hope I atleast get this right.

Eh... I don't think I'll like the answer for #1... :(
 
StRiKe_NiNjA said:
2. I declare an attack, my opponent activates Enemy Controller, places in defense, the battle position could not be changed right? Hope I atleast get this right.
Just remember that manual battle position changes can only occur during a main phase so you'd have to finish your Battle Phase in order to switch the monster back to attack position.
 
StRiKe_NiNjA said:
1. So effect battle changes from other card effects will not "burn up" for a manual position change during that turn? Mind blowing really... can you explain why it was changed this way?

The reason for this is that it's been played this way in Japan since the start. We were the ones that screwed that up with effect changes making a manual change impossible.

I know I'll get ragged on for this one, but it's the way every single Yu-Gi-Oh video game has been since the start as well. Yes, yes, video games are not sources for rulings, but when every game does the position changes the exact same way, you know there's something fishy right there.

A couple of months back, I actually wrote to Konami of Japan, half of the higher level judges that had e-mail addresses available, and UDE themselves about this issue. I doubt they listened to me, but if they did, it'd be highly cool, to me anyway.

If you look at it from a standpoint about video games not being a rules source, if there was a problem with a ruling in a previous game, the new game would have that fixed. (Although even on the new games, you can't activate Ceasefire unless there's a card face-down, so I figure there's either a rulings dispute there, or the game is wrong, obviously.) The battle position change issue has been there for at least 3 years though, plenty of time to fix it, if it was wrong. That's one of my takes on it, but I had heard for a long time that's how it was played in Japan.


Now, as for issue #2, as densetsu_x said, they wouldn't be able to change back battle position in Main Phase 2 if effected by Enemy Controller when it attacked. A manual change is allowed once per turn, unless the creature has been summoned that turn, or has attacked that turn. I'll give some examples here to help:

With only one creature out:
If the creature declares attack and Enemy Controller, Book of Moon, Zero Gravity, Windstorm of Etaqua, etc. is used to switch their position, the attack is stopped, and the creature cannot change battle positions manually in Main Phase 2 because it declared attack. In other words, don't Book of Moon in Main Phase 1.

With multiple creatures out:
Enemy Controller, Book of Moon, and other single target cards apply the same to the creature you use it on if said creature declared attack.

Zero Gravity, Windstorm of Etaqua, and other multi-target cards; the creature that declared attack and was switched to defense position cannot be switched back to attack position in MP2, any others Shifted from attack to defense can switch back in MP2 as long as they weren't just summoned that turn, and any others Shifted from defense to attack could Shift back to defense in MP2 as long as they weren't summoned that turn, nor attacked that turn.

I hope this might help clear up the problems for anyone having them. I know there's quite a few, but once you remember the key facts of not summoned and didn't attack this turn, it should be simple to remember that 1 manual position change is allowed.
 
The funny thing is I showed the new ruling reversals/clarifications to a frind of mine who hasn't judged Yu-Gi-Oh! in a while, nor does he have internet access. Of paticular interest was the Battle vs Manual Position changes and the uling on D. D. Warrior Lady. His comment was "this is a reversal?" because this is the way we had been playing them from early on. As I recall the Battle Position change thing was never actually a ruling, just an interpretation of the Advance Rules at yugioh-card and one that I never thought made any sense.

Another change I was paticularly fond of is the revision made that only prevents you from manually changeing the Battle Position of a monster if YOU were the one who summoned it this turn. Not if your opponent summoned it and you took control of it this turn.

EDIT: Hmmm... Maybe I misread that . . .
 
Chillout1984 said:
But that face-up monster has to be an effect monster, right?
Yes, the face-up monster has to be an effect monster.

"Ceasefire" can be activated in any of these situations, A: There is a face-down monster, B: There is a face-up effect monster, C: There is a face-up effect monster and a face-down monster.
 
Raijinili said:
As far as I know, there is no dispute.

Such as I said that the game was wrong. Those things do happen, and most likely it's something that would be fixed in the next game they release.

I never take any rulings from the games themselves, but when I do notice a difference in them, I tend to make note of it and do some research just to see what the problem is. Probably because I did programming in high school and I was always hunting for bugs.

Ceasefire is one of those cards that has been out long enough, there should be adequate programming for it, and there shouldn't be any bugs with it, unless they just let it slip through the cracks. Sloppy programming can and does happen when you're milking that cash cow, but overall, they do a generally good job.
 
Back
Top