Forum:DO PIERCING EFFECTS STACK?

Say you have a Piercing monster, like Saber Beetle or Bitelon. If you activate a card that gives it Piercing, like Slash Strike, does your opponent take double the Piercing damage? It seems to me like they would, because each Pierce says your opponent "takes battle damage equal to the difference", so after both effects activate, would your opponent take double the Piercing damage?

• I don't believe so because you can only take battle damage once, if that was burn damage it may be different. Dmaster (Talk • Contribs • Count) 18:31, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
  • Dmaster is right; piercing damage is considered Battle Damage, not Effect Damage. As such, it only happens once during Damage Calculation regardless of how many piercing effects the monster would have. Danny Lilithborne 20:07, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
• actually it would work. Simply because the spell card is inflicting damage not the monster. So if you were to equip a spell that gives piercing damage to a monster that already has piercing damage. The result would be double piercing damage. Because your opponent will be taking damage from the effect of your monster as well as from your equip spell card. For an example if i have neo parshath with a equiped fairy meateor crush and my opponent has a def of 0. If i attacked the def position monster then the result would be a total of 4600 damage to your opponent. Simply because your opponent would be taking 2300 from your parshath as well as another 2300 from your spell card.—This unsigned comment was made by 72.130.225.198 (talk • contribs) 06:55, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

No they don't and stop trying to say they do. --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 06:57, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Actually it would work. For an example if i Were to equip fairy meateor crush to my opponents monster and he were to atk my defense position monster. Then my opponent would take the piercing damage not me. Knowing that official ruling i can say that the monster equiped with the spell card does not gain pircing damage but rather the equip spell card is inflicting effect damage(treated as battle damage) equal to the difference of the atk and defence of the monsters. So in other words ANY EQUIP SPELL CARD THAT HAS THE EFFECT OF PIERCING DAMAGE IS INFLICTING THE DAMAGE NOT THE CARD ITS EQUIPED TO.So if i have a monster that has piercing damage with an equip spell card that has the effect of piercing damage. Then the result would be double piercing damage because the monster and the spell card are both giving effect damage(that is treated as battle damage) equal to the difference between the atk of the attacking monster and the def of the deffending monster. Also as a little fun example if my opponent has a cyber end dragon that is equiped to a fairy meateor crush i controle and i have a defence position monster with a def of 0. If my opponent were to atk the result would be both of us would take 4000 battle damage because i would be taking 4000 effect damage(treated as battle damage) from his monster, and he would be taking 4000 effect damage (treated as battle damage) from my spell card—This unsigned comment was made by 72.130.225.198 (talk • contribs) 07:40, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just being stubborn. I provided a rulings page for this and you persist. Stop making things up. --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 08:20, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

There is a ruling that says if you equip an opponent's Enraged Battle Ox with Fairy Meteor Crush, then ONLY the effect of Enraged Battle Ox will apply.

There will never be double pierce. Ever.

-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 08:22, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

if there is a ruling can u give me the link. because i cant seem to find the one you mentioned. also if you cant come up with an official ruling then can you at least prove why they do not stack up—This unsigned comment was made by 72.130.225.198 (talk • contribs) 02:03, March 8, 2012

"You cannot double the effect of "Fairy Meteor Crush" by equipping two copies to the same monster" --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 09:07, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Any of these

-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 09:17, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

just out of curiosity are these official rulings from konami or are they from upper deck entertainment. because if they are not from konami then i do not think they can be considered official rulings—This unsigned comment was made by 72.130.225.198 (talk • contribs) 09:19, March 8, 2012

Unless Konami says something contradictory, UDE rulings can be used. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 09:22, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

also just in-case you cant read the page said that those were PREVIOUSLY OFFICIAL rulings and as such they are no longer treated as official rulings. which ultimately makes this topic up for debate.