Last Will errata

J

John Danker

Administrator
Many of you may have seen the errata on Last Will...likely giving insight as to why they're allowing only 1 in this new list.
One problem though is that they haven't updated the FAQ to reflect what the errata seems to imply. At this point I wouldn't blame a judge for ruling it either way. You'd think if they're going to make an errata ona card they'd change the FAQ to reflect the errata....assuming the errata text is actually changing the way the card can be played as the new text infers.

I guess until the FAQ is updated I'll rule it as the FAQ currently states <shrug>
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Tiso said:
No I meant, I use that as an example of how horrible Konami is at managing their own card game and I use Mystical Moon as an example of that. That needs to be errata to include Beast-Types. How does Silver Fang, a card Yugi used with Mystical Moon, not able to use Mystical Moon in the TCG? It is both illogical and stupid. He is a wolf, howling at the moon in his artwork, THE Mystical Moon.
Click to expand...

Why does it need to include beast-type?

The beast-type already has an equip-card version of Mystical Moon from LOB: Beast Fangs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tiso said:
Who cares what another card does? Mystical Moon should work for Beast-Types as well. What part of Wolf + Moon = WRONG ANSWER in your world?
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that for every type in LOB there was a different equip-card. Why would beast be different and have two equips instead of one?

And yu-gi-oh! isn't very logical in more cards than only this one:

Dark Witch = Light Fairy
Goblin Elite Attack Force = Fiend instead of Warrior, like its older "brother"
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Chillout1984 said:
I'm just saying that for every type in LOB there was a different equip-card. Why would beast be different and have two equips instead of one?

And yu-gi-oh! isn't very logical in more cards than only this one:

Dark Witch = Light Fairy
Goblin Elite Attack Force = Fiend instead of Warrior, like its older "brother"
Click to expand...

I attribute that to how badly Konami managed their game. In reality there would have been or should have been more sub-types to clearly represent what each where better, even furthered twisted because Konami felt the "Americans" would like the changes they made from the OCG to the TCG with culture changes, names, and so on. Talk about illogical, we just got some erratas not too long ago for some of the VtoZ monsters, and yet outside of XYZ-Dragon Cannon the others are still NOMI.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Chillout1984 said:
I'm just saying that for every type in LOB there was a different equip-card.
Click to expand...
You forget Sea Serpent, Pyro, Fish and Rock there. Poor guys.

And I thought it was errata'd so that all possible VWXYZ combos were not Nomi anymore. Is that right?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Maruno said:
You forget Sea Serpent, Pyro, Fish and Rock there. Poor guys.

And I thought it was errata'd so that all possible VWXYZ combos were not Nomi anymore. Is that right?
Click to expand...

Nope. Only the 2 new VW monsters and XYZ were. The rest got the shaft. Talk about illogical.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tiso said:
Nope. Only the 2 new VW monsters and XYZ were. The rest got the shaft. Talk about illogical.
Click to expand...

Not true. They have all been changed. You still can't Special Summon XY/XYZ/XZ/YZ from the Graveyard, but you can Special Summon them from RFP now. I typed in all those changes back on March 6th.

For Example:

XY-Dragon Cannon
Fusion Monster (Machine / LIGHT / 6 Stars / ATK 2200 / DEF 1900)

"X-Head Cannon" + "Y-Dragon Head"
This card can only be Special Summoned from your Fusion Deck by removing from play the above cards on your side of the field. (You do not use "Polymerization"). This card cannot be Special Summoned from the Graveyard. Discard 1 card from your hand to destroy 1 face-up Spell or Trap Card on your opponent's side of the field.

Note that "except" is gone now.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
actually all konami had to do is make the types like they do in magic.

If a creature is magic is a Beast Warrior, it is both a Beast and a Warrior. Unlike in YUgi were a Beast-Warrior is seperate from Beast and Warriors.

So all possible combinations would be

Fish-Warrior
Fish-Plant
Fish-Beast
Fish-Spellcaster

and they all would be seperate from each other which i think its kind of dumb becuase then you make WAYYYY to many types and then you would need to make support for them.

which is the big reason why alot of the tops dont have much support becuase they werent thinking when they went into the Double Types.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If there is this much confusion over wording of text it shows that Konami really need to sit down and think about how they word cards. Personally, their wording is far too vague and doing a straight translation is just not enough. All langauges are different and are spoke in a particular way. Translating that to another language ends up confusing people because the translation comes out different.

For the TCG, I think they should stick to particular words and phrases. That means you are less likely to make any mistakes if a card is worded differently but has a similar effect. Discard 1 card from your hand to the graveyard is simple enough, follow examples like that and you can't go wrong. Also, why not list words in the rulings and explain their meanings. Sent, Destroyed, Tributed are perfect examples there.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's a well known fault of Konami's that they allow only exact text translation of the Japanesse text. This often makes for highly misleading text in English, it's something that people have been being critical of them on for years, yet they insist on this standard. Konami listens to few if anyone outside their own country it would seem.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jack Of All Decks said:
If there is this much confusion over wording of text it shows that Konami really need to sit down and think about how they word cards. Personally, their wording is far too vague and doing a straight translation is just not enough. All langauges are different and are spoke in a particular way. Translating that to another language ends up confusing people because the translation comes out different.

For the TCG, I think they should stick to particular words and phrases. That means you are less likely to make any mistakes if a card is worded differently but has a similar effect. Discard 1 card from your hand to the graveyard is simple enough, follow examples like that and you can't go wrong. Also, why not list words in the rulings and explain their meanings. Sent, Destroyed, Tributed are perfect examples there.
Click to expand...
It's hard to be any more specific with the word, "sent", as it basically covers every action that occurs. A card Discarded to the Graveyard would be included in any effect that requires a card to be sent to the Graveyard. Same thing applies to a card Tributed.

If a card just needs to be sent "somewhere" other than the field, you can include all three, yet the only one that really matters is "sent", unless the sent must end up somewhere specific, AS something specific, ie, "destroyed-sent".

Tribute-Sent, Pick up-Sent, Swap-Sent, and Discard-Sent are the ones that need clear definitions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DISCLAIMER: I KNOW NOT TO USE GAMES FOR RULINGS

This change to Last Will is very interesting. The new wording (and presumably the way the effect will now work) is exactly the way it works in YuGiOh Online. Being able to use Last Will before or after a monster goes to the Graveyard makes it a very powerful card in the online game.

So, now I will put on my Fearless Predictor hat and predict that we will soon(er or later) be seeing an errata to Michizure that allows it to be activated when a monster is destroyed in battle. That's how it plays online and I think that is how Konami always intended the card to be played.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Just something to chew on.

"is sent" and "was sent" couple mean two different things.

"is sent" appears to mean more of a present tense meaning that would imply the future.

"was sent" might mean a past tense action that would imply the past.

It might have been easier of they said "is or was sent" instead of just "was sent" as that would most likely clear up the meaning of what the card does and ask for a couple ruling errata.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As far as i last remember, Last Will is ruled in JPN as being able to trigger off of a monster that was sent either before or after it was activated.

It was when they changed the Soul Exchange rulings that the NA side decided to change Last Will to "after card activation only" and as far as i know the JPN side never changed along with NA.

So there is definately some issues here, hopefully we can get 1 consistant ruling across the board.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That would help if they did. Wording it to still make it seem like it works after the monster goes to the graveyard rather than imply both before and after is annoying.

"was" usually references to after something has occured and "is" usually references to before something has occured. Either they screwed up in how they wanted the errata to be worded or something. I still think they could have just simply said, "is or was sent" to clear up that confusion and include that you could activate it before or after the monster was sent to the graveyard and still get the effect of Last Will.

Pretty retarded to me. =/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've posted a message to the judge's list requesting clarification on the errata, hopefully we'll see that clarification before this weekend's regional tournament here.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Although I don't see an answer on the Judge List, have you per chance happened to learn if we can now play Last Will after a monster has already been sent to the Graveyard or not? (Of course we CAN, I mean how will it be ruled)

Unless I hear otherwise, that's how I'll be playing it this weekend.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I guess as John has mentioned before in other places, its really going to be up to the Head Judge to determine how to rule it. If they are privy to the goings on around here and other places online, they've probabaly seen the discussions and would rule it with the new "past tense" context.

If they haven't, or decide to stick to the "official" rulings as posted online or through RONIN, then you'll be stuck using the old ways.

I broght up the same issue regarding Wildheart before the SJC LB and Dan ruled it as not able to attack. So that's what we stuck with even though the arguments are pretty solid on both sides of the coin.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top