Question's question

[FiendMaster]

What if I have a monster card says, "black luster soldier - envoy of the beginning" in the graveyard and my opponent call " black luster soldier". Can I say that its the wrong monster and special summon BLS-envoy to the field (assume he was summoned properly in the beginning)

Question

 

[masterwoo0]

That would defeat the purpose of Question. Everything else in this game is extremley precise about when and where you can perform effects and how they should be carried out and the order in which they should occur. Even where an effect is activated and where it resloves is the subject of mile long threads on many forums. It shold be just as precise when dealing with Question. It should make no difference with asking a card name. I think the judge ruled correctly.

Incidently, accusing people of being dishonest because they want to play the card this way is unfounded. It's a difference of opinion (and isn't any cheaper then the direct effect of The Warrior Returning Alive.) Any one making acusatons like this should be more careful with making statements like that. No one is attempting to be dishonest here. If anything we are attempting to be more precise with the card's gameplay. Much like we are with every other card discussed in this forum.

Taking advantage of a rare opportunity where I and Digital Jedi actually AGREE on a cards effect , I have to say that the intent is NOT to make it easier for your oppoonent to succeed in guessing correctly, but rather the opposite.

This game is really all about attention to detail. From the test we Judges take, to sitting across from your opponent in a heated Match.

Sure, we all know that no one actually plays the Starter Deck BLS, but we DO know that there is one.

Sure, there's 2 Luster Dragons, but we DO know that there is one that is 2400 and the other 1900 (and even I forget which one is #2 from time to time...)

And yes, it "seems" cheap that a technicality would cause a monster to be summoned to the field, but tell me which of you would sit back and say to yourself "I'll let it go" in the situation below:


Player A needs a win to make it to Top 8 and receive a invite to Nationals.

Player B is ahead by 2500 life points with 7:00 remaining in the Match.

Both players have 1 win each.


Player A plays a face-down monster card on his turn, goes to End Phase, and ends his turn.

Player B removes a light and dark from his Graveyard and Special Summons Black Luster Soldier - Envoy to the field and attempts to remove Player A's face-down monster.

Player A ask to look in Player B's Graveyard and notices a SECOND copy of Black Luster Soldier - Envoy, about 3 cards down from the bottom that was sent by the effect of Needle Worm.

Player B claims that the card must have been stuck in his deck box from another deck, even though it has the same color sleeve, and offers to remove it from the game.


If you were Player A, would you

A) Take advantage of the opportunity to hand your opponent a Game/Match Loss

or,

B) Allow your opponent to continue play by removing the illegal card, to which you subsequently lose the game, taking you out of Top 8, and effectively costing you an invite to Nationals.


If you just decide to "let it go" because you arbitrairily believe that your opponent didnt really mean to have 2 BLS's in his deck, well, you dont really know what could happen after that, but complaining about it afterwards if you lose IMO is more wrong.


I think that Question is that one card that you have to be implicit in your guess, or its wrong. If you start giving "wiggle room" around the effect, then dont complain when it comes back to haunt in the end, when you try it with the "ambiguity factor" and you get ruled against.

 

[Raijinili]

I didn't say "dishonest". I said "dishonorable". You know about honor, don't you?

You claim to know the intention of Question. For that, we will have to wait for an official answer. For now, I not-so-politely disagree with your idea of playing nice. (And before you say that this game is not about being kind, I said "nice", not "let your opponent win. Thank you.)

That would defeat the purpose of Question. Everything else in this game is extremley precise about when and where you can perform effects and how they should be carried out and the order in which they should occur. Even where an effect is activated and where it resloves is the subject of mile long threads on many forums. It shold be just as precise when dealing with Question. It should make no difference with asking a card name. I think the judge ruled correctly.

Those rulings are to clarify the play so that it would be easier to standardize games.

Incidently, accusing people of being dishonest because they want to play the card this way is unfounded. It's a difference of opinion (and isn't any cheaper then the direct effect of The Warrior Returning Alive.)
Once again, "dishonorable".

Any one making acusatons like this should be more careful with making statements like that.

Meaning what?

No one is attempting to be dishonest here. If anything we are attempting to be more precise with the card's gameplay. Much like we are with every other card discussed in this forum.

Being more precise? You once again assume the intentions of Konami. Let's wait for the answer before jumping to conclusions.

 

[Digital Jedi]

I didn't say "dishonest". I said "dishonorable". You know about honor, don't you?

Dishonarable. Dishonest. You know what a synonym is, don't you? Don't try to weasel out of a negative statement after you've been called out.

You claim to know the intention of Question. For that, we will have to wait for an official answer. For now, I not-so-politely disagree with your idea of playing nice. (And before you say that this game is not about being kind, I said "nice", not "let your opponent win. Thank you.)

I didn't claim to know. I stated I think this is the way it should be played. Remember when I said we were simply having a difference of opinion? And when did I ever say anything about playing nice? I'm talking about playing fairly.

Those rulings are to clarify the play so that it would be easier to standardize games.

And that is different in what way?

Once again, "dishonorable".

Once again, "synonym."

Meaning what?

What do you think I mean? Don't call people dishonarable because you disagree with them. It's wrong. Or were you trying to glean a threat out of my statement?

Being more precise? You once again assume the intentions of Konami. Let's wait for the answer before jumping to conclusions.

Not a clue as to what your talking about here. I said "we" were attempting to be more precise. Didn't say a thing about Konami. And let me reiterate, I said this was my opinion. Jumping to conclusions? You do know what "the pot calling the kettle black" means, don't you?

 

[daivahataka]

Dishonourable is not a synonym for dishonest, people just tend to equate the two, you can be honest but dishonourable, e.g. a bully doesn't necessarily have to be a liar. Bit more difficult to be dishonest yet honourable though.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Dishonourable is not a synonym for dishonest, people just tend to equate the two, you can be honest but dishonourable, e.g. a bully doesn't necessarily have to be a liar. Bit more difficult to be dishonest yet honourable though.

I'm afraid your mistaken there Dia. But I see I need to back myself up when I make grammatical statements of this kind. From Answers.com:

The adjective dishonorable has 5 meanings: Meaning #2: deceptive or fraudulent; disposed to cheat or defraud or deceive
Synonym: dishonest

And just to verify, from Dicitionary.com:

dishonorable
2: deceptive or fraudulent; disposed to cheat or defraud or deceive [syn: dishonest] [ant: honest]

And how many bullies will tell the truth to thier parent's or school faculty that they regularly harass their schoolmates for thier lunch money or just to torment them? While you may attribute one or the other depending on the circumstances, the two go hand in hand.

I'm not really sure how one can be dishonarable but honest at the same time. But, even so, I dont think Rai was attributing such a complex dichotomy to those he said "emmanate dishonerableness."

 

[JOls]

Ha ha ha! I know the answer, I know the answer. I can't believe you all missed this.

The answer is NO. You cannot special summon BLS-EotB back from the graveyard with any card. He's a NOMI monster.

Aside from that point, what if the card at the bottom is "The Fiend Megacyber" and your opponent calls out "I think it's The Fiend Megacyber card."

Grammatically, they didn't include "The" as part of the name because if it was considered part of the name, then the statement is grammatically incorrect. So surely the opponent did not mean to include the word "The" as part of the card name. But how many judges are going to rule "Oh no, it's not 'Fiend Megacyber Card', 'The Fiend Megacyber Card', or 'Fiend Megacyber', which are the only grammatically correct versions we can get out of your statement."

So with regards to the other scenarios -- You know what was meant. If there is a possibility that the other person meant a different card, then you would be justified in being technical (ie, you called out Luster Dragon when there are both Luster Dragon and Luster Dragon #2 in the graveyard).

 

[daivahataka]

I'm afraid your mistaken there Dia. But I see I need to back myself up when I make grammatical statements of this kind. From Answers.com:

The adjective dishonorable has 5 meanings: Meaning #2: deceptive or fraudulent; disposed to cheat or defraud or deceive
Synonym: dishonest

And just to verify, from Dicitionary.com:

dishonorable
2: deceptive or fraudulent; disposed to cheat or defraud or deceive [syn: dishonest] [ant: honest]

This is an example of them simplifying the english language for the more stupid people out there, check some of the better regarded dictionaries, e.g. Oxford, and I severely doubt you'll find them claiming that dishonourable is a synonym for dishonest.

And how many bullies will tell the truth to thier parent's or school faculty that they regularly harass their schoolmates for thier lunch money or just to torment them? While you may attribute one or the other depending on the circumstances, the two go hand in hand.

I'm not really sure how one can be dishonarable but honest at the same time. But, even so, I dont think Rai was attributing such a complex dichotomy to those he said "emmanate dishonerableness."

As I said just because someone is a bully doesn't mean that they're a liar, I've actually known a few who were quite proud of their thuggish behaviour and stupid acts.
A bully lacks honour, as they only pick on and fight those weaker than them, yet they don't necessarily lack honesty.

 

[JOls]

As I look at this again, I'm thinking that the question card asks for the name of the card. And therefore you would be justified in requiring the person to name the exact name on the card. I don't think I could ever prevent Mikazukinoyaiba from coming back onto the field unless it was staring me in the face! But that's part of the game. "Oh, I said penguin king, but i really meant Penguin Knight." Nope, sorry, you said Penguin King, and it doesn't matter that there is no such card. You are required to name the card.

I guess I'm on the fence on this one, but right now I'm leaning toward this direction.

 

[daivahataka]

The answer is NO. You cannot special summon BLS-EotB back from the graveyard with any card. He's a NOMI monster.

Actually he's not, once he was special summoned to the field correctly and not sent back to the hand before being sent to the Graveyard/removed from play you can bring him back with an Appropriate card, e.g. Premature Burial/Call of the Haunted for if he went to the Graveyard, Return from Different Dimension if he was removed from play.

 

[JOls]

Actually he's not, once he was special summoned to the field correctly and not sent back to the hand before being sent to the Graveyard/removed from play you can bring him back with an Appropriate card, e.g. Premature Burial/Call of the Haunted for if he went to the Graveyard, Return from Different Dimension if he was removed from play.

Why yes, that is egg all over my face. Only is the not the same as Except. oops.

 

[daivahataka]

Why yes, that is egg all over my face. Only is the not the same as Except. oops.

Everyone makes the odd blooper, no worries (Please don't go and count mine ).

 

[Digital Jedi]

As I said just because someone is a bully doesn't mean that they're a liar, I've actually known a few who were quite proud of their thuggish behaviour and stupid acts.
A bully lacks honour, as they only pick on and fight those weaker than them, yet they don't necessarily lack honesty.

And when the time comes for them to own up to thier thuggish behavior and pay the penalty for thier misdeeds, is honesty going to make them burst out a confesion of how bad they are. That's a little Perry Mason-ish if you know what I mean. I

This is an example of them simplifying the english language for the more stupid people out there, check some of the better regarded dictionaries, e.g. Oxford, and I severely doubt you'll find them claiming that dishonourable is a synonym for dishonest.

Dictionary.com and Answers.com are dumbed down for stupid people? Thanks a lot.

 

[masterwoo0]

And when the time comes for them to own up to thier thuggish behavior and pay the penalty for thier misdeeds, is honesty going to make them burst out a confesion of how bad they are. That's a little Perry Mason-ish if you know what I mean. I

Dictionary.com and Answers.com are dumbed down for stupid people? Thanks a lot.

While I myself like to argue a point more than most people, this particular issue has seriously digressed to less than "informational" and I think its probably better to get back on topic about Question than what a particular word actually means as anytime you use the word "dis", it never really means anything positive, and that's pretty much what I think you BOTH can come to a consensus on.

Dis-agreement
Dis-appoint
Dis-Harmony
Dis-Loyal
Dis-Approve

 

[John Danker]

Agreed...now everyone....in with the good and constructive comments....out with the bad and negative comments....<Mr. Roger's voice> Sure....I knew you could do it

 

[squid]

Theoretically..

If two players were in the Worlds Championship Officially Sanctioned Ruler of the Universe Tournament and one was from Japan, the other from the United States, ok?

Would it be fair, or technically accurate, to force the Japanese player to call the exact English name when anwering Question? Or, for the American player to call the name for the Japanese card?

And if we are being sticklers about it all, would pronunciation count?

Im going a little overboard with the pronunciation, of course. However, in such a case, it would almost assuredly by judged by the intent, or knowledge of what the card is, not by the specific name.

In the case of 2 US players in which (once again, theoretically) the player activating Question has both the Black Luster Soldier Ritual and Black Luster Soldier-Envoy of the Beginning in their Graveyard, I would not consider it fair for the player to have to ask their opponent which one they meant. You might as well give them 2 guesses.

The player deciding must take the responsibility for being as accurate to the effect/intention of the card as possible.

If I were judging this call (more theory, Im not a judge), and the player knew that their opponent was playing with multiple Harpy Ladies or Sasuke cards, then I would call it against them for simply calling the generic name. It just seems like they are trying to take advantage of the odds, by hitting one of multiple cards with similar names.


Unless there is a dictum handed down by God and Konami, I cant think of how this can be resolved outside of the suggestion by John Danker. Leave it to the individual Judge.

*shrugs*

All that typing for an ambiguous answer...I just disillusioned myself.

 

[densetsu_x]

Thing is... in the US version "Sasuki Samurai" is a card and is not the same as #2, 3, or 4. So you can not just name "Sasuki Samurai" as a generic for all 4.

HOWEVER

"Harpie Lady", "Harpie Lady 1", "Harpie Lady 2", "Harpie Lady 3", and "Cyber Harpie Lady" are ALL considered to have the name "Harpie Lady" for not only the purpose of deck building but for anything that requires a "Harpie Lady" to trigger an effect. So in that case there really ISN'T a specific card. Naming "Harpie Lady" IS the correct name of ALL of those cards.

 

[masterwoo0]

All that typing for an ambiguous answer...I just disillusioned myself.

I think my day has started now that I have my first good laugh of the morning!!! And no, it wasnt laughin AT you squid!!! lol

It's kind of like watching a Baseball Player hit a Home Run, watches the ball sail over the fence, excitedly takes off running, rounds second, Third Base, stomps on Home Plate, then finds out he did it all for nothing cause he ran out of the Baseline at First....

Hey, another "Dis" word!!!!!!

 

[krazykidpsx]

i think i stoped reading half way though, around Digital jedi's post and then i just started to type this up.

D_X is correct. monsters whos cards name = 1 name, all have the same name, its the reason why you can only use upto 3 of the harpies but upto 3 Black Luster Soldiers and if not limited upto 3 of Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beggining.

not to mention EOTB sounds rediculous in the English translation so i will refer it to Messenger of Creation.


ooo, look at that its easier to remember to, wow i wonder why the OCG doesnt have these rediculous problems. (must be the Konami Translators)

anywho, the Sasuke's are all different, somebody just happend to be beyond lazy and decided to give them numbers instead of their original names.

Severing Samurai, Samurai with Odd behavior, etc... were all different and should be different.

if im using Severing Samurai in the OCG it would be alot easier to guess it since they cant get confused by a number. Numbers hurt alot more than card names.

the Luster Dragons, they both have numbers in the TCG but in the OCG they both have different Names, i think its Emerald and Saphire dragon or something like that.

either way. when the opponent were to guess they better have a very good guess if they are calling the Luster soldier since we do know for a fact that a ritual version exists and is considered a completly different card. they shouldnt even be allowed to say BLS because thats an assumption... and most of the time we do play by assumptions.

sometimes i dont want to kill my opponent in that turn, so i end my turns. but any other person would just pick up and preaty much to me it says they forfeit.

if we assume, that our opponent will do 1 move, then we are basically giving them more than a hint of what we have and so forth.

D. D. Designator asks for a card name but is ruled that if it goes against a number, the person that used it better give the description of which they mean, this will mean it is no longer an assumption but they are basing on status on a card whos name may not be clear.

Take UMI for example.

i designate and call A Legendary Ocean. i look at my opponents hand, I see one, but by card ruling the cards official name is UMI and A Legendary Ocean doesnt exitst. I would then lose a card.

what i should have stated, since i couldnt recal that ALO is considered Umi, was " A Legendary Ocean, The field card that downgrades water type monsters. "

is that specific or what?

no not quite, huh, well guess what a guess like that is deamed legal and if a card exists that is like that then you opponents loses it. and i belive D. D. Designator contains rules like this aswell but then again Designator is a bit different.

but either way, the sasuke's and the soldier should be easy names to remember.

its not like you will be playing againt 12 sasukes and 3 Black Luster Soldier's and 1 Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beggining. (I hate this cards name with a passion)

 

[squid]

Thing is... in the US version "Sasuki Samurai" is a card and is not the same as #2, 3, or 4. So you can not just name "Sasuki Samurai" as a generic for all 4.

HOWEVER

"Harpie Lady", "Harpie Lady 1", "Harpie Lady 2", "Harpie Lady 3", and "Cyber Harpie Lady" are ALL considered to have the name "Harpie Lady" for not only the purpose of deck building but for anything that requires a "Harpie Lady" to trigger an effect. So in that case there really ISN'T a specific card. Naming "Harpie Lady" IS the correct name of ALL of those cards.

And the Umi/ALO example that krazykidpsx mentioned:

D. D. Designator asks for a card name but is ruled that if it goes against a number, the person that used it better give the description of which they mean, this will mean it is no longer an assumption but they are basing on status on a card whos name may not be clear.

Take UMI for example.

i designate and call A Legendary Ocean. i look at my opponents hand, I see one, but by card ruling the cards official name is UMI and A Legendary Ocean doesnt exitst. I would then lose a card.

what i should have stated, since i couldnt recal that ALO is considered Umi, was " A Legendary Ocean, The field card that downgrades water type monsters. "

is that specific or what?

no not quite, huh, well guess what a guess like that is deamed legal and if a card exists that is like that then you opponents loses it. and i belive D. D. Designator contains rules like this aswell but then again Designator is a bit different.

I didnt know about those rulings referred to, concerning DD Designator. I can see how it might fit in with Question. But I dont know if I personally agree with it. If the card name is present for DD Designator's effect, then I would have thought it counted.

if the card Harpy Lady exists in multilple in the Grave (which it likely can) I would have thought the exact numeral would have been required as well.

I can see going of the the "this card is treated as.." text as a unifier, for consistency's sake. for effects such as DD Designator and Question, I would have preferred if the the understanding of the card,( by name, effect, description of picture, serial number, whatever) were used to clarify the closest possible meaning.

this matter seems to be more about splitting hairs than it does mechanics of the game. It doesnt feel like other conversations that deal with topics like "send", "destroy", "to" vs "and" (cost vs effect) and so on.

I think my day has started now that I have my first good laugh of the morning!!! And no, it wasnt laughin AT you squid!!! lol

It's kind of like watching a Baseball Player hit a Home Run, watches the ball sail over the fence, excitedly takes off running, rounds second, Third Base, stomps on Home Plate, then finds out he did it all for nothing cause he ran out of the Baseline at First....

Hey, another "Dis" word!!!!!!

Isnt it disgusting?

Agreed...now everyone....in with the good and constructive comments....out with the bad and negative comments....<Mr. Roger's voice> Sure....I knew you could do it

Couldn't we just lather them up in oil and let them wrestle for a little bit?

Please?

 

[densetsu_x]

One thing that should have been mentioned is that you are not allowed to name a card that "doesn't exist". This would include not just making something up but banned cards too (since they "don't exist" in an advanced format). So technically you can't say "A Legendary Ocean" since in the game mechanics, no such card exists. It's called "Umi".