legendary fisherman rulings

R

ramoths_fury

Guest
i regularly compete in tournaments here in vegas and i have recently consturcted a water deck. i am frequently told that there is a ruling regarding the legendary fisherman which states that if he and Umi or Legendary Ocean are on the feild together and he is the only monster on your side of the feild, that your opponent can attack your life points directly instead. Where does this come from? i have searched a number of yugioh sites and cannot find ANY rulings on fisherman at all. and Konami only has a text change on him. Can someone clarify this for me!?!?! i compete in advance fomat sanctioned tournaments and this is distressing b/c there is never an agreement even between judges.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
You can find the answer here in the 'old' Netrepâ„¢ rulings files:
http://www.netrep.net/component/option,com_docman/task,view_category/Itemid,88/subcat,1/catid,12/limitstart,0/limit,5/

Version 6.0 has the ruling for "The Legendary Fisherman". Remember, it starts with the word "The", so it's in the Ts.

[edit] Understand these rulings are not 'official', but I don't think I've run into too many that were flat out wrong. Also, if I'm not mistaken, most of these were compiled from the Judge's List and other 'official' sources, so you can take them as being as close to 'official' as possible.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This situation occurs because since they cannot even select The Legendary Fisherman as a target for battle, they can attack direct, because TLF doesn't stop attacks from occuring, just prevents them from ever taking place aimed at him

hope that helps
-chaosruler
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This is one of a collection of rulings that seem to contradict each other.

The Legendary Fisherman says it cannot be targetted, so your opponent can target your life points directly as long as there isn't another monster on your side of the field. This despite the fact that the manual says you cannot do damage to the opponent's life points if there is a monster on the opponents side of the field (unless a card specifically overrides it, and this card does not specifically override that, it just overrides the ability to select a certain monster).

And then there's Command Knight, whose text is similar (using the words "cannot select") but add a condition of another monster on the field. So if there's two Command Knights, you cannot target either. Yet, this is somehow different from TLF, because you also cannot target Life Points (unless you have a card effect that allows you to). And it is also somehow different than Solar Flare Dragon.

Solar Flare Dragon says it cannot be attacked (nothing about targetting) if there is another pyro type monster on the field. And if there are two Solar Flare Dragons, then the opponent cannot attack but can still declare battle and can still, apparently, target but cannot attack) Does it help to target but not attack? I'm not sure, I couldn't think of any cards that let you destroy the monster without going through damage calculation.

And then there's Marauding Captain. Your opponent can ONLY target him, unless there are two of them on your side of the field, and then suddenly you can't target either one of them. But somehow the Ring of Magnetism overrides this, even though the ring forces attacks to the MC. Somehow you were able to target the other MC, even though supposedly you can't, and the ring redirected the attack to the equipped MC. That just doesn't make sense.

The group of rulings is inconsistent. But who cares: "Konami Says So".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JOls said:
This is one of a collection of rulings that seem to contradict each other.

The Legendary Fisherman says it cannot be targetted, so your opponent can target your life points directly as long as there isn't another monster on your side of the field. This despite the fact that the manual says you cannot do damage to the opponent's life points if there is a monster on the opponents side of the field (unless a card specifically overrides it, and this card does not specifically override that, it just overrides the ability to select a certain monster).

This pretty much states that because he cant be selected as a target for attacks, he essentially becomes invisible to the field if he is the controllers only monster, allowing for a direct attack.

And then there's Command Knight, whose text is similar (using the words "cannot select") but add a condition of another monster on the field. So if there's two Command Knights, you cannot target either. Yet, this is somehow different from TLF, because you also cannot target Life Points (unless you have a card effect that allows you to). And it is also somehow different than Solar Flare Dragon.

Command Knight follows the "You cant attack me If there is another monster, so you have to attack him" attitude, and because you have 2 of them together, the other one says "Hey you can't attack me either!" Because of the fact that Command Knight must have another monster present to exclude him from being a target, that essentially prevents a direct attack on life points, even if that other monster is "Command Knight" by bouncing you back in forth between the two of them.

Solar Flare Dragon says it cannot be attacked (nothing about targetting) if there is another pyro type monster on the field. And if there are two Solar Flare Dragons, then the opponent cannot attack but can still declare battle and can still, apparently, target but cannot attack) Does it help to target but not attack? I'm not sure, I couldn't think of any cards that let you destroy the monster without going through damage calculation.

Solar Flare Dragon basically does the same thing as Command Knight. "Dont attack me, attack him!"

And then there's Marauding Captain. Your opponent can ONLY target him, unless there are two of them on your side of the field, and then suddenly you can't target either one of them. But somehow the Ring of Magnetism overrides this, even though the ring forces attacks to the MC. Somehow you were able to target the other MC, even though supposedly you can't, and the ring redirected the attack to the equipped MC. That just doesn't make sense.

Marauding Captain is different from the above group as he designates a type monster that can't be attacked (Warriors), with the main exception being he is not protected by his own effect. "Hey, you cant attack him cause he's a Warrior! Attack me!" Having another one on the field means that the 2nd one says, "Wait, He's a Warrior also, so I'll protect him as well!" With both of them saying "Don't attack him, attack me", your opponent cannot choose to attack directly since you must attack either monster if you would attack, but you are prevented from doing so.

The lock is not really a lock "from attack", its actually a lock "to attack", but you are "locked into" attacking a monster that can't be attacked.

The group of rulings is inconsistent. But who cares: "Konami Says So".
Click to expand...
That's my take on things....
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Uhm, fine, but that doesn't explain it in terms of game mechanics. There is no such thing as a monster being "invisible" in game mechanics. And monsters don't say "hey, attack me not him" to another monster in game mechanics. I know you are trying to bring this to a level of realism, but in realism, my "Dark Ruler Ha Des" isn't going to suddenly stop, dumbfounded, just because a "Command Knight" says "oh, don't attack me, attack someone else". The cards effect forces him to target someone else. Game mechanics prevent life point damage if there is a monster on your side of the field, and whether or not you can target TLF is inconsequential. It's still a monster on the field, even if "invisible" and its card effect says nothing about it not being considered to be on the field anymore, nor being able to have damage done directly to the controller if no other monsters are present.

Command Knight doesn't say you have to target the other monster, it just says you can't target Command Knight if there is another monster on the field. Since you can't target Command Knight, why can't you target LP? Because there's still a monster on the field, and according to the manual, you can't do damage to LP if there's a monster on the opponents side of the field. But why is that different than TLF? He, too, is stilll a monster on the opponent's side of the field, despite the fact that you can't target him. It is the rulings alone that make it so. Like Novastar said, there isn't any logic, it really is just a ruling.

These are contradictory rulings, and someone familiar with all the game mechanics and the card texts would have a difficult time coming up with the identical rulings if they didn't already know them. That was my point. This is just a rant. This is one of my hot buttons, so I had to say something.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The difference between the 3 "locks" and TLF is simple.

Their effect relies upon another monster to be on the field. Thus, since there is a monster on the field, game mechanics state that you cannot attack directly, except by a monster that has that ability.

With these 3 locks, you are stuck in a loop of simultaneous effects. Game mechanics prevent you from entering into an action that would put you in a loop with no end. Even the infinite lp and damage loops have to have an end declared, because you have to state how many times you will repeat the loop.

In TLF's situation, TLF is not a valid target when Umi is on the field. If there is no monster to target your attack at, then you may attack your opponents lps. That is a simple game mechanic.

And, yes I agree, there should be a ruling on UDE website added for TLF to clear up these types of situations.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well Like I posted, there IS a ruling for Guardian Kay'est and her text is virtually identical to The Legendary Fisherman's exept she doesn't require Umi to be face-up on the field to get her effect.

Guardian Kay'est
This card can only be Normal Summoned, Flip Summoned, or Special Summoned when there is a "Rod of Silence - Kay'est" on your side of the field. This card is unaffected by any Spell Cards. Also, this card cannot be an attack target of your opponent's monsters.

The Legendary Fisherman
As long as "Umi" is face-up on the field, this card is unaffected by any Spell Cards. Monsters on your opponent's side of the field cannot select this card as an attack target.

It's a fact of the matter that when cards have similar effects UDE does not post the same ruling for each card. They usualy only post for one given card and then expect you to extrapolate from there. It's not a great system but it's about the only one you can rely on from them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JOls said:
This is one of a collection of rulings that seem to contradict each other.

The Legendary Fisherman says it cannot be targetted, so your opponent can target your life points directly as long as there isn't another monster on your side of the field. This despite the fact that the manual says you cannot do damage to the opponent's life points if there is a monster on the opponents side of the field (unless a card specifically overrides it, and this card does not specifically override that, it just overrides the ability to select a certain monster).

And then there's Command Knight, whose text is similar (using the words "cannot select") but add a condition of another monster on the field. So if there's two Command Knights, you cannot target either. Yet, this is somehow different from TLF, because you also cannot target Life Points (unless you have a card effect that allows you to). And it is also somehow different than Solar Flare Dragon.

Solar Flare Dragon says it cannot be attacked (nothing about targetting) if there is another pyro type monster on the field. And if there are two Solar Flare Dragons, then the opponent cannot attack but can still declare battle and can still, apparently, target but cannot attack) Does it help to target but not attack? I'm not sure, I couldn't think of any cards that let you destroy the monster without going through damage calculation.

And then there's Marauding Captain. Your opponent can ONLY target him, unless there are two of them on your side of the field, and then suddenly you can't target either one of them. But somehow the Ring of Magnetism overrides this, even though the ring forces attacks to the MC. Somehow you were able to target the other MC, even though supposedly you can't, and the ring redirected the attack to the equipped MC. That just doesn't make sense.

The group of rulings is inconsistent. But who cares: "Konami Says So".
Click to expand...
The Ring of Magnetism overrides all of those other effects. Always.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
papewaio said:
In TLF's situation, TLF is not a valid target when Umi is on the field. If there is no monster to target your attack at, then you may attack your opponents lps. That is a simple game mechanic.
Click to expand...

Where do you find this "simple game mechanic" that allow you to attack your opponent's lps if there is no monster at which to target your attack?

The rules say:
The attacking player chooses 1 of their monsters and designates 1 of the opponent's monster as a target. Play then proceeds immediately to the Damage Step, returning to the Battle Step if the attacking player wishes to attack again with another monster. If the opposing player has no monsters on the field, the selected monster's attack will inflict Direct Damage on the opposing player's Life Points (Direct Damage).
Click to expand...
That text above, straight from the UDE website, very specifically says it will inflict direct damage only if the opposing player has NO MONSTERS on the field. It doesn't say you can do direct damage if there is only one monster on the field (TLF is a monster, no?). And it does not say what to do if you can't designate the opponent's monster as a target. By your own reasoning, the "endless loops" created by the other situations, which are illegal, means you can't designate a target for them either and therefore the others should be ruled the same way as TLF. So I don't get what your "difference between them" was.

Card text can override the game mechanics allowing direct LP attack. TLF/Guardian Kay'est has no such card text. There are no game mechanics behind it. If there were, you could quote them to me. It's the way Konami/UDE wanted it to be, and they did so without doing an errata enabling the opposing player to attack LP directly -- they decided to issue a ruling instead. My point stands -- a judge who understood the rulebook, had all the errata and card text, but did not know the rulings of those situations would not likely come up with the exact same rulings that are published because they are contradictory. That's what my complaint is all about. The game mechanics don't allow it and the only way I'll be convinced otherwise is if you can show me where in the manual or where on the card text it says that you can attack LP directly if TLF or Guardian Kay'est are the only monsters on the field. It takes a ruling to make it so. It isn't game mechanics, it's "Konami says so."
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I hate "Konami says so". I hate that people use it every time they don't understand a ruling. I hate that people can't change their own views to fit the rules of the game.

It's like saying Pikachu would evolve into Pikablu. There IS no Pikablu. No matter what you think, there's no code for Pikablu in any of the Pokemon games. Dang it, I forgot where I was going with this. Something about no matter how much you believe something about the game, it doesn't change the game. Or something.

ANYways, just say that Command Knight's effect lets another monster protect it, while Marauding Captain is protected by other monsters. The Legendary Fisherman protects itself, which is its problem.

You know who we need? Dlannan. He pretended to understand this, and convinced everyone else. :p

Or maybe two The Legendary Fisherman's will create a lock. I KNOW that Steve said it didn't way back when, but I never fully believed it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B.K.S.S.

I know you hate the term. But is it really because it's used by people that don't understand the rulings? Or is it the ruling that makes no sensce that you truly hate.

The simple fact of the matter is that many, many rulings have no logic or game mechanic behind them. They have simply made rulings, probably in their minds, to prevent brokeness (made-up word.) Sometimes. Not always. Ach!

For this reason I'm updating my "Erratas that make sense" link in my signature and posting it here at IGC Forums. The Realms seems all clogged up nowadays anyway and it was always difficult to post. Guardian Kay'est and TLF will both be added to the list. Maybe we can prove to Konami and/or UDE that comprehensive errata updates is not all that difficult an endevour.

Maybe not. :(
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Bottom Line: Konami predetermines and order of resolution and creates a preset precedence of how they wish the scenario to be worked out.

Here's a thought... if Konami would actually explain "why" they make a ruling, then maybe people wouldn't say "Konami said so" and start saying "Konami explained so"

I've heard all the theories, and none seem reasonable.

Why does Marauding Captain create a lock?...because they want it to.

Why does Legendary Fisherman + UMI/ALO allow you to attack directly? ...because they want it to.

Why does Ring of Magnetism take precedence over all of these? ...because they want it to.

Everything else, while a good exercise, is just theory.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
B.K.S.S.

I know you hate the term. But is it really because it's used by people that don't understand the rulings? Or is it the ruling that makes no sensce that you truly hate.

The simple fact of the matter is that many, many rulings have no logic or game mechanic behind them. They have simply made rulings, probably in their minds, to prevent brokeness (made-up word.) Sometimes. Not always. Ach!

For this reason I'm updating my "Erratas that make sense" link in my signature and posting it here at IGC Forums. The Realms seems all clogged up nowadays anyway and it was always difficult to post. Guardian Kay'est and TLF will both be added to the list. Maybe we can prove to Konami and/or UDE that comprehensive errata updates is not all that difficult an endevour.

Maybe not. :(
Click to expand...
I hate that term because half the time I can actually spell out the logic for them, and in the other half, the people are comparing two effects that don't have the same text. While they may look like they have similar effects, a single word may make the difference.

And the THIRD half, the people don't know what they're talking about.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Raijinili said:
I hate that term because half the time I can actually spell out the logic for them, and in the other half, the people are comparing two effects that don't have the same text. While they may look like they have similar effects, a single word may make the difference.

And the THIRD half, the people don't know what they're talking about.
Click to expand...
Three Halves, huh?

Then Konami is never, ever wrong and 150% of the people who dont undestand their rulings are either illogical, illiterate or ignorant? Well, at least you didn't just outright call us stupid.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top