It's begun

Sort by date Sort by votes
skey23 said:
Yes, that answered several questions that were floating around here.

Like the whole "Creature Swap" thing.

Did you also happen to notice that I can activate "Snatch Steal" and attempt to take an "SSLV5" or "Horus LV6", but won't get the monster, but my opponent WILL STILL GET 1000 LPs each turn?!

If that's not messed up!
Click to expand...

As Digital Jedi says, Mystic Swordsman is not AFFECTED by spell cards, that doesn't mean that you can't equip him with them, he just doesn't use their effects that alter his attack/defense/abilities.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Chillout1984 said:
As Digital Jedi says, Mystic Swordsman is not AFFECTED by spell cards, that doesn't mean that you can't equip him with them, he just doesn't use their effects that alter his attack/defense/abilities.
Click to expand...
Yes, it seems that they've differentiated the effect an equip has as a game mechanic that has nothing to do with what kind of card it is and if that card type will have an effect on the equipped monster or not. This doens't mean the card type cant be negated at activation by an proper effect, it just means that it's target will have to specifically mention equip in it card text to have any affect on the equip aspect.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I would assume that as well. That's quite interesting, I'll have to remember that if I'm playing those cards, and people try to equip it with Snatch Steal, I get life, they get nothing. ;)

Does this mean you can equip a Nitro Unit from TLM to Horus 6 or Silent 5 and it will work?


P.S. Chaosruler: Are you masterchaosruler on eBay? If so, I don't think I like you anymore, you're bidding on a lot of stuff I was looking at. ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Explanation of "missing the timing"

Here's another one

http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=5207

This particular ogre has been with us for some time but we've never explained
it comprehensively.

As a side note, we've tweaked the rulings for "Butterfly Dagger - Elma", "Pinch
Hopper", and "Dark Magician of Chaos" to specifically call out the "missing the
timing" examples. We've also added rulings for "Heart of the Underdog" (as well
as an errata that was badly needed... note that our card text now differs from the
Japanese text) and rulings for "Peten" in all his glory.

The section on "missing the timing" itself is on the advanced FAQ.

MISSING THE TIMING
Sometimes a Trigger Effect says that “when” a condition happens, you “can”
activate its effect. In this case, you are only allowed to activate the effect
when the condition being met was the last thing to happen in the game (activating
cards & effects that haven’t resolved yet doesn’t count).

If the triggering condition happened for an optional Trigger Effect, but something
else has happened after that, then you have “missed the timing” and you cannot
activate it. For example, this can happen if the optional Trigger Effect monster
was Tributed for a Tribute Summon or to activate a card effect, or if the
triggering condition happened in a chain and wasn’t Chain Link 1, or if another
card effect or game effect has happened since then. The triggering condition has
to be the very last thing that happened in order for a “when… you can” optional
Trigger Effect to activate.

Note that Trigger Effects can be found on Spell & Trap Cards as well as Monster
Cards.

For some good specific examples of “missing the timing”, see the rulings for
“Pinch Hopper”, “Butterfly Dagger – Elma”, “Heart of the Underdog”, “Peten the
Dark Clown”, or “Dark Magician of Chaos”.



Kevin Tewart
Game Designer
UDE Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG R&D Lead
Upper Deck Entertainment
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
yea i dont get it either...

Jinzo vs Skill Drain thats ok with me, because Skill Drain is activated prior to Jinzo and it negates effects

whereas even if LLAB is activated before Spell cancellor, it doesnt negate SC's effect...

so are u saying if there was a trap that chages to defense instantaneouly when summoned, Jinzo would be?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chaosruler said:
Cranium - I don't use eBay, I have an account, but I haven't used it in years.

-chaosruler
Click to expand...

Okay, forgiven then. ;)
Name was just too coincidental. When you live in hicksville, you gotta get your cards the best way you can.
Though I'm happy, I sold an Amazoness Chain Master for about $15 profit to someone in Italy.

I'm rather happy they elaborated on the "miss the timing" issue. Looks like Kevin did a bang-up job over there in Japan.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
No, they need to be face-up as well.

The simple fact that it is Continuous indicates that is required to be face-up. In general effect text is blank while a monster is face-down.

Why is this relevent? Well if you have a BEWD in your Hand and the only monster you have on the field is a face-down Kaiser Seahorse, you cannot determine the proper requirements to Tribute Summon based on that information.

You must have 2 legal tributes prior to declaring a Tribute Summon.
Click to expand...
The JERP classifies it as a "rule effect".

Also remember that only the player needs to know whether or not he can pay the costs. Just because your opponent doesn't know...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The Spell Canceller vs. LLAB ruling was incorrect from the beginning. It is not a Timestamp resolution, it is a Dependancy resolution.

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).

So:

[event] Spell Canceller is summoned

Timestamp 1: Spell Canceller (independant)
Timestamp 2: Level Limit (dependant)

So apply them in order and determine the final outcome:

- Spell Canceller negates Level Limit
- Level Limit is negated and not applied

So the final outcome is Spell Canceller negates Level Limit, and then apply that outcome.

The Jinzo vs. Skill Drain scenario is different, since both effects affect each other. That is an example 2 co-dependant continuous effects, so when 2 or more depend on each other, they are resolved in a Timestamp order.

That is what Kevin was eluding to when stating that "LLAB does not negate Spell Canceller" as the explaination.

I know it can be hard to grasp.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mikoal said:
yea i dont get it either...

Jinzo vs Skill Drain thats ok with me, because Skill Drain is activated prior to Jinzo and it negates effects

whereas even if LLAB is activated before Spell cancellor, it doesnt negate SC's effect...

so are u saying if there was a trap that chages to defense instantaneouly when summoned, Jinzo would be?
Click to expand...
It would seem that based on the current rulings, Jinzo would not be switched into defense, as the trap card "would not be trying to negate Jinzo's effect". Of course, this ruling seems pretty inconsistent with Skill Drain, but at least for the time being, it's what we are stuck with...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Raijinili said:
The JERP classifies it as a "rule effect".

Also remember that only the player needs to know whether or not he can pay the costs. Just because your opponent doesn't know...
Click to expand...
Yes, i thought about this, and it would seem you are correct.

Whats making me scratch my head a bit, is that it seems that tributing a face-down monster follows a different mechanic than tributing a face-up monster.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Dude, Nova, you GOTTA come out to Vegas and head judge an event out here. I would pick your brain so much!!! I can throw in dinner and a show....8^D

Seriously, I gotta go back and read that Spell Canceller analysis again. Well thought out.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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”."

Does anybody else have an issue with this statement?!!!!

Since when does "Megamorph" 're-define' the original ATK/DEF of a monster!??? It only doubles or halves it!!

If they are gonna consider "Megamorph"s effect a 're-definer' then they need to errata the card text to state "the original ATK/DEF becomes.." or something similar!

I'm going nuts here!
[/font]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top