megamorph
- Thread starter squid
- Start date
Belgian Blue
New Member
Digital Jedi said:
But these do not :
All three of these examples refer to the adjusted value as being ORIGINAL ATTACK. No way to interpret that wrong.
Sorry DJ, but your explanation makes no sense. The new value after megamorph is original value, by UDE's own admittance.
"¢ If "Red-Eyes B. Dragon" equipped with "Megamorph" is selected for "Inferno Fire Blast", you inflict 2400 damage to the opponent.
I wouldnt use this ruling to extrapolate anything about original ATK because of this post by KT:
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=5223#5223
At the end you can read:
I wouldnt use this ruling to extrapolate anything about original ATK because of this post by KT:
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=5223#5223
At the end you can read:
Kevin Tewart said:
Belgian Blue
New Member
Even better, Kevin Tewart himself says that the original ATK is 4800 with megamorph, proving that megamorphs new attack value is indeed ORIGINAL.
Back to the topic at hand, GMG looks at the original attack value, and the attack value of cydra at that point would be 4200.
Back to the topic at hand, GMG looks at the original attack value, and the attack value of cydra at that point would be 4200.
Dunno why no one posted it yet, but the question has already been answered on the Judge List:
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=6577#6577
Just replace Sasuke by CD and that's it
GMG checks the original ATK of the tributed monster after GMG is summoned. At this point, the tributed monster is in the graveyard. The original ATK that GMG's effect is referring to is the original ATK in the graveyard (by default; of course this can change, for example if Cosmos is on the field).
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=9386#9386
Btw, Megamorph creates a state where the original ATK of the equipped monster will be doubled/halved based on the LPs. But Megamorph still "remembers" the old original ATK, because this is needed in case the LPs change (else it would not have any point of reference, and it cannot divide or multiply by 4 to compensate that). A 2nd copy of Megamorph will also refer to the old original ATK. This is why multiple Megamorphs cannot stack.
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=6577#6577
Just replace Sasuke by CD and that's it
GMG checks the original ATK of the tributed monster after GMG is summoned. At this point, the tributed monster is in the graveyard. The original ATK that GMG's effect is referring to is the original ATK in the graveyard (by default; of course this can change, for example if Cosmos is on the field).
The effect of Catapult Turtle will check the ATK of the tributed monster in the graveyard, just like GMG or Ectoplasmer:densetsu_x said:
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=9386#9386
Btw, Megamorph creates a state where the original ATK of the equipped monster will be doubled/halved based on the LPs. But Megamorph still "remembers" the old original ATK, because this is needed in case the LPs change (else it would not have any point of reference, and it cannot divide or multiply by 4 to compensate that). A 2nd copy of Megamorph will also refer to the old original ATK. This is why multiple Megamorphs cannot stack.
And see, this is why I believe the rulings are trying to say something, that even UDE isn't quite seeing. Think about this guys. If Megamorph creates a new Original ATK value, thereby erasing the old one and writing in a new, then wouldn't a a second Megamorph modify the new newly adjusted ATK value? But it doesn't. Two Megamorphs are the same as one. Each Megamorph is looking at the Original ATK. So why would GMG, or Inferno Fire Blast look at the adjusted ATK when looking for the monster's Original ATK, when a second Megamorph does not?
This also wouldn't be the first time Kevin and the gang didn't fully understand a ruling. Remember, this stuff is handed down from Konami, often without an explanation as to why. Its not inconceivable that they simply didn't completely understand, so couldn't properly explain it.
This also wouldn't be the first time Kevin and the gang didn't fully understand a ruling. Remember, this stuff is handed down from Konami, often without an explanation as to why. Its not inconceivable that they simply didn't completely understand, so couldn't properly explain it.
All three refer to it, but is it saying that ATK value is rewritten, or is it just poorly phrased sentences? After all, how can Megamorph acknowledge their effect, but ignore its own?Belgian Blue said:
Ok, this needs to stop.
"Megamorph" is the most convoluted card in this game. It has rulings that say it re-defines the original ATK and it has rulings that say it only modifies the original ATK.
Because of this, it makes it all but impossible to extrapolate how it will work in situations outside of what's been given in the UDE FAQs.
Densetsu, I'm sorry, but you are wrong about "Tyranno Infinity" and "Great Maju Garzett". If you offer a "Tyranno Infinity" that has an ATK of 3000, then "Great Maju Garzett" will have an ATK of 6000. This is because "Tyranno Infinity" re-defines it's original ATK to a new value OTHER than '?'. The ruling you keep referring to does not apply. The ruling you keep referring to only applies to those monsters that simply modify their ATK value to a new number without re-defining it (like "Gren Maju Da Eiza" and "Maju Garzett").
I have put in numerous requests to UDE to get things straightened out with "Megamorph" and it's rulings over the past 2 years. I have yet to get any of my requests acknowledged or returned.
This is another card that must be ruled exactly how the rulings tell you to for each individual situation even though they clearly contradict each other.
Every time a discussion arises about this card I have to do exactly what I'm doing now.
I would think that the higher level Judges involved in this discussion would know the issues involved with getting into ANY discussion about this card, and I'm surprised you would even consider doing so.
"Megamorph" is the most convoluted card in this game. It has rulings that say it re-defines the original ATK and it has rulings that say it only modifies the original ATK.
Because of this, it makes it all but impossible to extrapolate how it will work in situations outside of what's been given in the UDE FAQs.
Densetsu, I'm sorry, but you are wrong about "Tyranno Infinity" and "Great Maju Garzett". If you offer a "Tyranno Infinity" that has an ATK of 3000, then "Great Maju Garzett" will have an ATK of 6000. This is because "Tyranno Infinity" re-defines it's original ATK to a new value OTHER than '?'. The ruling you keep referring to does not apply. The ruling you keep referring to only applies to those monsters that simply modify their ATK value to a new number without re-defining it (like "Gren Maju Da Eiza" and "Maju Garzett").
I have put in numerous requests to UDE to get things straightened out with "Megamorph" and it's rulings over the past 2 years. I have yet to get any of my requests acknowledged or returned.
This is another card that must be ruled exactly how the rulings tell you to for each individual situation even though they clearly contradict each other.
Every time a discussion arises about this card I have to do exactly what I'm doing now.
I would think that the higher level Judges involved in this discussion would know the issues involved with getting into ANY discussion about this card, and I'm surprised you would even consider doing so.
Belgian Blue
New Member
Martok said:Dunno why no one posted it yet, but the question has already been answered on the Judge List:
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=6577#6577
Just replace Sasuke by CD and that's it
GMG checks the original ATK of the tributed monster after GMG is summoned. At this point, the tributed monster is in the graveyard. The original ATK that GMG's effect is referring to is the original ATK in the graveyard (by default; of course this can change, for example if Cosmos is on the field).
The effect of Catapult Turtle will check the ATK of the tributed monster in the graveyard, just like GMG or Ectoplasmer:
But we know that's not the case for the garzetts. The ruling in the original post in regard to fusilier dragon shows that for GMG, since fusilier's attack would have been 2800 if it was off the field. Its effect is only valid if it is on the field. So GMG took the attack on the field.
Same for maju garzett, where the rulings show it can use tokens as tributes for its attack. A token only exists, and hence only has an attack value, when it is on the field.
Again, your explanation makes no sense
Belgian Blue
New Member
Digital Jedi said:
That seems to be the only explanation for me.
If indeed it doesn't work (which still wasn't actually verified since no one at UDE was confronted with all these facts at once and then explained why it didn't work) then the most logical reasons is that UDE has been gravely misleading us with what megamorph actually does. In which case they need to change the rulings on megamorph, promptly.
Either that, or they have to declare this combo legit.
It's one or the other. I hope everyone sees that. It can't be both ways. Rulings clearly show that UDE interprets megamorphs effect as redefining original attack, and that the attack value for GMG is taken on the field. By all counts this combo is valid.
If it is not, then it is an error on UDE's part ...
With the FAQ, sometimes our rulings are both ways. We still have some old rulings on the books that contradict each other, and the best we can do is go with majority rule and precedent, partiuclary when judging. Like Skey said, this question has been presented to UDE many times. Sadly, with them, we'll get clarification only when their good and ready to give it to us.
Belgian Blue
New Member
We need to know the reason though. Either solution opens up a world of new possibilities.
Either megamorph changes original attack or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it also lifts a lot of the restrictions on megamorph.
If its because the attack value for GMG is somehow taken off the field, then they need to reppeal the rulings on fusilier dragon and tokens.
The "why" really matters here. Is there no one who can supply an answer for us ?
Either megamorph changes original attack or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it also lifts a lot of the restrictions on megamorph.
If its because the attack value for GMG is somehow taken off the field, then they need to reppeal the rulings on fusilier dragon and tokens.
The "why" really matters here. Is there no one who can supply an answer for us ?
DaGuyWitBluGlasses
New Member
Equip cards don't apply one after the other. They are continuously trying to modify the attack. So when a 2nd megamorph is equipped, they're effects are the same as one, because there is no time stamping involved.
E.G.
Equip one Axe of Despair, to Don Zaloog:
1400 + 1000 = 2400
Equip an aditional one:
Incorrect:
1400 + 1000 = 2400
2400 + 1000 = 3400
Correct:
1400 + (1000 + 1000) = 3400
E.G.
Equip one Axe of Despair, to Don Zaloog:
1400 + 1000 = 2400
Equip an aditional one:
Incorrect:
1400 + 1000 = 2400
2400 + 1000 = 3400
Correct:
1400 + (1000 + 1000) = 3400
You forgot to compare the card effects. Fusilier Dragon has its own effect which is different from Megamorph. Although both effects are somewhat similar, it's still not enough to assume that they share the same game mechanics.Belgian Blue said:
On the opposite, ruling #6577 directly refers to Megamorph, with Sasuke's effect being unproblematic in this case, since it can't affect its ATK in any way. Thus, it is safe to apply this ruling to any other (megamorphed and tributed) monster that doesn't have an effect that could somehow interfere with MM and/or GMG. Like Cyber Dragon.
While you can try and ignore this ruling, it's most probable that the responsible judges won't ignore it
As for GMG's effect, if you re-read my previous posting, you'll find a remark that says "by default", which should exclude tokens, monsters that don't go to the graveyard and Fusilier (whose original ATK is reset when it hits the graveyard). This was because I don't feel like going in-depth here about things that happen between the field and the graveyard. Like "Simon says", it's a redundant discussion and won't lead to anything.
Just look at the Netrepâ„¢ rulings for MG. You'll find a ruling that says that its ATK will be zero if you tribute Mirage Tokens for it, so it's not as clear as you maybe thought.Belgian Blue said:
If you stick to reading YGO rulings and FAQs, you'll probably find a lot more rulings/explanations which seem to "make no sense" to you. Get used to it. This is a game with inconsistent rulings and unpublished game mechanics, and I don't think this will change soon ^^
You know, the explanation from DaGuy does actually make a lot of sense in regards to solving that situation though. I never thought about it as continuously reevaluating. I was thinking of the time stamp, which is (I guess) how I would have gotten confused.
An old ruling perhaps? Because that's not what it says at the moment:Martok said:
When you Tribute Monster Tokens to Tribute Summon "Maju Garzett", the sum of their ATK's will be the ATK of "Maju Garzett".
No mention of Mirage Tokens in tandem with Garzett. Preexisting rulings indicate that tributing a token is fine for any effect that doesn't specifically require the monster to go to the Graveyard, and when referencing it, will not reference it off the field.Hand of Nephthys
You can Tribute a Monster Token as part of this card's cost.
Lava Golem
You can Tribute "Sheep Tokens" to Special Summon "Lava Golem" because it is not a Tribute Summon.
Maju Garzett
When you Tribute Monster Tokens to Tribute Summon "Maju Garzett", the sum of their ATK's will be the ATK of "Maju Garzett".
Metamorphosis
You can Tribute a Monster Token (including a Sheep Token from "Scapegoat").
Scapegoat
You may offer Sheep Tokens as Tributes for Toon Monsters, since they are Special Summoned and not Tribute Summoned.
Statue of the Wicked
You can Tribute a "Wicked Token".
Tribute Doll
You can use Monster Tokens as a cost for "Tribute Doll".
The evidence is still leaning towards the idea that Megamorph does not redefine the original ATK. The Judges list messages seem to be pointing in that direction without UDE even realizing it. Even when you suggest that Megamorph is reevaluating the ATK when a second one is a equipped, if it were reevaluating the Original ATK of the monster and the Original ATK is now something else due to a previous Megamorph, then there's no mechanical reason it would ignore that value.You can Tribute a Monster Token as part of this card's cost.
Lava Golem
You can Tribute "Sheep Tokens" to Special Summon "Lava Golem" because it is not a Tribute Summon.
Maju Garzett
When you Tribute Monster Tokens to Tribute Summon "Maju Garzett", the sum of their ATK's will be the ATK of "Maju Garzett".
Metamorphosis
You can Tribute a Monster Token (including a Sheep Token from "Scapegoat").
Scapegoat
You may offer Sheep Tokens as Tributes for Toon Monsters, since they are Special Summoned and not Tribute Summoned.
Statue of the Wicked
You can Tribute a "Wicked Token".
Tribute Doll
You can use Monster Tokens as a cost for "Tribute Doll".
Ah, okay. I see it now. And when you think about it, it does make sense. The Original ATK of a Mirage Token is undefined. Physical Double doesn't create a state that modifies the Mirage Token's Original ATK. It's ATK and DEF are more akin to "?" then anything else. Garzette would have nothing to reference, just as when you tribute a "?" monster, who's original stats remian unchanged, for him.
DaGuyWitBluGlasses
New Member
Digital Jedi said:
But there's not a "previous" megamorph.
Once you equip the second one, it's exactly the same as equipping two at the exact same time.
Remember, time stamping is only for problem solving out of necessity. We do not apply it unless necessary.
I'm not time-stamping, per se. But I'm not ignoring a previous modifier, either. I understand that it continuously recalculates. But with regard to whether the recalculated ATK value is now the monsters new original ATK, then it still cannot be. If dueling Megamorphs did halve/double in that manner, then you'd have two effects vying for the recalculation, each one saying the Original ATK is this or that. It's not sound to have it actual be redefining the attack, and have the ruling it does have placed on it. For continuous recalculation, it needs to be seeing a fixed number. If that fixed number is constantly being altered by another card, then how can the two possibly gel?