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.

PREVIOUSLY OFFICIAL rulings = They are offical until Konami specfically deny them.--Lê (talk • contribs) 10:22, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

To make clear for future reference; all Piercing Damage on 1 monster does NOT stacking - they are treated as "Battle Damage" (due to them being the one back before they were change into Problem Solved lore) therefore that you only inflicted to your opponent once per monster that have "Piercing Damage" equipped or actually using it (such as "Enraged Battle Ox").

Of course, they are unofficial in Konami's sight, but they can still stand true - such as "Van'Dalgyon the Dark Dragon Lord" can't be negated by "Solemn Judgment" (parried to be previous official rulings) while he can be negated by "Solemn Warning". --FredCat 12:38, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they can be used as the rules of the game until konami actually agrees or contradicts the ruling. However even if it is an official ruling it can still be wrong. Knowing that. It is absolutly logical to contradict something that has not been proven right. The reasone why i contradict on this matter is simply because i belive people are misinterpreting what the effects actually do. This is the card lore for fairy meteor crush (" When a monster equipped with this card attacks with an ATK that is higher than the DEF of a Defense Position monster, inflict the difference as Battle Damage to your opponent.".). What i keep saying is that the effect is actually effect damage that is ultimatly treated as battle damage. Now what it means by "as Battle Damage" in the card lore is that the effect damage will be treated as battle damage not effect damage. This only means that if a player were to activate a effect that would negate effect damage it would do nothing because the Actual effect damage is treated as battle damage and as such it can not be effected by something that would target effect damage even if it is effect damage( this is exacly the same as on monster card that said that its attribute was treated as another, and as such would no longer be treated as the original printed attribute unless it said that its attribute is also treated as(example odark) like in light and darkness dragon). Now if the card lore was this " When a monster equipped with this card attacks with an ATK that is higher than the DEF of a Defense Position monster, inflict the difference to your opponent". The words (as battle damage) have been removed and as such any logical person would easily say that the effect of the card lore is effect damage. However with the words back it would still be effect damage only it would now be considerd battle damage. Now knowing all that. As well as knowing effect damage stacks. Any logical person would easily state that piercing damage will stack simply because it is actually effect damage that is treated as battle damage. Also battle damage does not necessarily have to originate in a battle. For an example if i had a card that were to state that "any time a monster is summoned inflict 1000 points as battle damage to your opponent". Then it would esentially prove that battle damage does not have to come from a battle.

I also appoligize for any spelling errors gramer errors and typos. I was speed typing and as such those were unavoidable

You have 3 people of this wikia telling you:'It's an apple',and you keep saying,'no it's clearly a volcano'....it's battle dmg treated as battle dmg except a few situations where it is actually treated as battle dmg. deal with it.you are wrong.This is not a conspiracy to hide the truth from the public..S4suk3g13 (talk • contribs) 03:44, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it in really easy words:

• Piercing is treated as BATTLE DAMAGE, and not effect damage, Piercing is not considered part of effect damage, so guess what? Battle Damage does not stack, and cards that Pierce don't inflict any effect damage at all, just battle damage (Like it says on the actual cards, for people who don't read the actual cards.)
• We aren't removing any words from the effects,because that creates more confusion, so Effect Damage is not equal to Battle Damage, even with cards that Pierce. Leave it at that. So listen to the other 3 people who answered your thread, and let it go.

---Dark Ace SP (Talk) 04:09, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

And if you really want, go email Konami's ruling department, they'll tell you the exact same thing we did. ---Dark Ace SP (Talk) 04:13, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

• Konami's ruling department, any judge anywhere, any half-decent player whose been in the game for longer than 15 seconds will tell you that. Just to clarify.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 04:14, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

This time read all of this instead of just making assumptions. What i am trying to say is that piercing is actually effect damage that is treated as battle damage, and because effect damage stacks up piercing damage will as well. except it will not be counted as effect damage. Instead it will be counted as battle damage. Also the reason why i took words out of the card text was to show what the effect was actually doing. when people think of battle damage most people would think it to be originated in a battle. this is true in many cases. however battle damage can also come from things outside of a battle. In these cases it is effect damage that is treated as battle damage. But because the damage originated as effect damage and effect damage can stack. The result would be double piercing damage(or more depending on how many piercing effect are in your control). This effect of being effect damage that's treated as battle damage is also exactly the same as battle damage being treated as effect damage as seen in the monster gravekeeper's vassal. check it out for your self on http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Gravekeeper%27s_Vassal. THERE i proved that effect damage can be treated as battle damage by comparing it to gravekeeper's vassal. Also to prove that effect damage can stack up(which i doubt i need to). Here is a little scenario if i have 2 Athena(http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Athena on the field) on the field and a fairy-type is summoned then the effect damage would stack up resulting in 1200 damage, and not 600. well prove me wrong now

That's your logic, not Yu-Gi-Oh! logic. In YGO!, "As Battle Damage" = "This was not Effect Damage, this is not Effect Damage, this will be not Effect Damage".--Lê (talk • contribs) 05:18, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Look if you really want to prove me wrong then you will have to prove me wrong like how i am trying to prove me right. In other words stop talking and prove your theory. Thay is if you can.

Indeed. YGO! is an undebatable game. Just like we cannot discusss about "Why a WATER mons with 100 ATK cannot beat a FIRE mons with 3000 ATK?"--Lê (talk • contribs) 06:45, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

wow kid. i applaud your stubbornness. haha. but no. piercing do not stack. the equip cards and any other effects which allows a monster to inflict piercing damage is simply added onto the monster. for example, equipping a monster with fairy meteor crush. imagine as if the ability to pierce was written right on the monster card itself. that's what equipping does. think of it as giving the monster more effects. so if the monster already has the ability to pierce, then it would be redundant to state it twice on the card. as for your example of the two athenas, it's 1200 because it is two separate cards, and they don't add onto each other. the effects are independent of eachother. 108.237.240.107 (talk) 07:00, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Actually the equip spell cards do not give there effects to there equiped monster. Instead what they do is that they activate an effect that is based on the equiped monster.