User talk:ATEMVEGETA

For other messages see: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12

Dverg of the Nordic Alfar

Regarding "Dverg of the Nordic Alfar", can you find a way to add a note to the TCG ruling, "If "Dverg’s" effect is being negated, you cannot Normal Summon the extra monster," since the newer TCG ruling both agrees and disagrees with it? (This means "Skill Drain" can negate it if it was already active when "Dverg" was Summoned, but "Fiendish Chain" can't after it was Summoned.) --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 04:23, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

This Ruling was released along with the other out of dated ruling, so probably refers to "Dverg"'s effect being negated even after it's Summon. So, it is better to move it to into the "Out of Date" section. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 23:30, November 17, 2013 (UTC)

Trap Monster rulings

Is it possible to add this as a "current" TCG ruling, seeing as it was posted by the current Konami? Some people might want confirmation that not only UDE confirms it (in the "Embodiment of Apophis" ruling), but also the current Konami as well. Adding the ruling would be similar to the TCG ruling issued for "Constellar Pollux", "Evilswarm Castor", etc. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 05:03, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

Yep, we can add those Rulings. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 07:39, December 6, 2013 (UTC)

"Face-up" rulings

Relevant to your interests: Forum:Plz update rulings for Cyber Phoenix. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 07:54, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, now I saw the message. Somehow I didn't noticed it. From what I see X-Metaman already added the new Ruling. :) ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 22:46, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

Hey. Ep1kk has a very inappropriate signature name. — This unsigned comment was made by Rongneezy (talk • contribs) 23:45, January 19, 2014

What is his signature exactly, I don't see it somewhere. Amd, don't forget to also add your sign with ~~~~ at the end of your posts in forum and talk pages. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 22:46, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

"Mentions in Other Rulings"

Is it okay for me to create an "OCG Rulings" section in Card Rulings:Goblin of Greed and place the 1 ruling from Card Rulings:The Tricky in a subsection called "Mentions in Other Rulings"? --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 00:31, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course! Since "Goblin of Greed" is mentioned in that Ruling you can add it to Card Rulings:Goblin of Greed as well. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 18:49, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

Judge Forum Program Rulings

Ah, I just learned that you're not allowed to share personal details from the forum. You may not even be allowed to share anything from the forum. Please trust me without question when I say you need to censor every article listed on User:ATEMVEGETA/Judge Program Forum Rulings accordingly (removing the personal information). --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 21:26, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

Yea you are right! I stopped editing those pages and I was about to delete them sooner or later. I will post them again later (the rulings only this time, so we will be legal) in a better way to navigate them. Thanks for the note! ;)

I see they are already deleted now though by TwoTailedFox!

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 01:38, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

UDE Rulings

In the "Previously Official Rulings" section, are we allowed to create an "Out of Date" sub-section or no? --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 15:51, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Yes ofc, like in Card Rulings:Doomcaliber Knight page! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 19:48, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Card List Deletion

Hey, I was just wondering why loads of the card lists have been deleted off the booster pack pages - for years I've found them really useful in locating the cards I want, but no I'm not sure where to look. I just found it strange because some of the booster packs had their card lists deleted whereas others still have theirs...

http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Legacy_of_the_Valiant

^above is an example of where the card list for the booster pack has been deleted --LewisHackett (talk • contribs) 21:19, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

Reversal Quiz ruling

Why isn't it out-of-date? The one listed as out-of-date says you can only need to have 1 card in your hand and none on the field to activate it, or just 1 card on your field and none in your hand to activate it, which is incorrect as stated by the e-mail. Can't we just do "..." at the end of the UDE ruling, after the 1st 2 sentences, and place the incorrect sentence as "out-of-date" with "..." at the beginning? --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 14:04, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Also, do you have Skype? Not sure if we asked you before, but we have a Skype room for admins, if you're interested. Just follow this. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 14:06, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, especially given the context of the question being asked. Chaosgodkarl (talk • contribs) 15:37, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's just that the question and answer of the email ruling isn't much clear. By reading it I can get another meaning that not nessasarilly contradict with the old ruling. By the way, since the old Ruling contradicts with the OCG as well, I will change my edit and put it as outdated again.

UltimateKuriboh, I will try to make it similar with Doomcaliber Knight's outdating ruling with grey colors on the correct part. About Skype, I have Skype but I don't use it much. Btw, I didn't knew we have an admin room there. xD I will check it sometime.

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 18:25, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Bujingi Turtle

That's alright, you don't have to be online on Skype all the time. Would you mind adding a TCG/OCG ruling difference template for this card's ruling page? In the OCG, only cards that negate activations of cards/effects can be used during the Damage Step, and not cards that negate effects (due to their new rulebook). --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 15:25, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

UDE FAQ

A little bit confused by a slight inconsistency in your recent edits. Should the UDE FAQ section go above or below "Mentions in Other Rulings"? --SnorlaxMonster 10:40, June 27, 2014 (UTC)

It is better to go below of the "Mentions in Other Rulings" since "Mentions in Other Rulings" are also rulings from UDE's ruling database so they should't be "seperated" from the individual ones. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 07:07, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

Edit Problem

Hi there,

I'm having a problem editing because suddenly a very old-looking, hard-to-understand version of the wiki editor has been running when I try to edit.

I'm used to one with white buttons and a drop-down search box for links; I don't know if this one appeared because I'm editing an archived article. I'll send you a screenshot when I can if required and until we sort out the problem my edits will have no links within the text.

Best regards, ThefabledDavid

ThefabledDavid (talk • contribs) 06:17, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Hey ThefabledDavid! I am not really sure what exactly the problem is. A screenshot would be helpful.

By the way, you may try this: At the top-right corner of the page go to "Preferences" and then where it says "Layout:" make it "MonoBook". Then hit "Save". This changes your Wikia view to the old-style Wikia. I hope it'll help!

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 06:30, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Jackfrost rule question

morning man, im here to ask about the Jackfrost rule ins this page ( http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Card_Rulings:Ghostrick_Jackfrost ) dont says if his effect target or not, i think its not target because you can read "monster´s" on the description you can help-me and answer, if possible? ty great job here Karkoski (talk • contribs) 14:29, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Solemn Warning ruling

I'm not sure what to do about this new addition. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 17:13, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Fixed! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 17:23, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason "Solemn Warning" negates the Pendulum Summon of "exactly" 3 monsters? --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 21:53, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

The question asked was about a spesific situation where the opponent wanted to pendulum summon 3 monsters. So it was answered as "Can Solemn Warning be used to negate a Pendulum Summon of 3 monsters?", unlike Horn of Heaver which was asked if it can negate the Pendulum Summon of 2 or more monsters. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 07:45, October 1, 2014 (UTC)

Enemy Controller vs Mirror force on 1 card

Hello, I was recently dueling my friend for fun and I stumbled across a problem. When i was dueling my opponent had no cards on the field except one trap card, "enemy controller". That card is used to take control of my card, the "blue eyes white dragon", and use it as his own in battle as you already know but i had a "mirror force" card that i had face down. So he attacks me with my card under the "enemy controller" and i used "mirror force". In this case would my Blue eyes be destroyed, destroy my life points, or made into a stalemate? Thank you — This unsigned comment was made by Funkywynd20 (talk • contribs) 04:17, December 17, 2014‎

Hello! After your posts make sure you sign your name with: ~~~~

In this situation Blue-Eyes White Dragon is destroyed by Mirror Force. Then the attack stops, and no player takes any battle damage. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 10:08, December 17, 2014 (UTC)

Snyffus

Why'd you delete the "Snyffus" ruling? --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 13:10, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Sry, I got it confused with an old Snyffus Ruling posted by Kevin Tewart on pojo stating exactly the same thing. I thought you meant that that thread got deleted, thus it would be making the ruling invalid and unofficial. But now I noticed that the link of that Ruling was changed from Kevin's post to an email Ruling (since Kevin's post was also deleted and the link was reverted by SnorlaxMonster on 07:58, March 9, 2014‎).

I revert my edits back, so the ruling is there again! Thanks for the note, I wouldn't have notice it! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 16:59, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

U.A. Stadium

Could you create the rulings page for "U.A. Stadium" please? http://i.imgur.com/iib873Y.jpg --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 17:10, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Done! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 17:44, May 18, 2015 (UTC)

Coming Soon/Release Dates

Hi, I was just curious on what happened to the release date section of this wikia where it had all the dates of what was coming to the OCG and the TCG BlueDuelist (talk • contribs) 17:09, May 31, 2015 (UTC)

You can find the news portal here: Portal:TCGOCG ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 11:15, June 1, 2015 (UTC)

Out of Date Ruling

After making many edit on card rulings pages I found that some rules have part of them "out of date" but not the whole rule. So I come to an idea of making the "out of date" part with strikethrough line instead of moving the whole rule to "Out of Date" section. see Card Rulings:Last Resort for example. --Dlamash (talk • contribs) 10:15, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Well, slashed rulings are not easy to read that's why we are using the Out of Date section for those rulings so the whole Ruling can be read without problem. If I'm not mistaken this had been discussed in the past and it had beed decided to use it that way, and we were doing it like that since then. Also, if there is only a small change in the ruling we have also the underline note [sic] so we can point out the change without having to move the whole ruling into the Out of Date section. Just like we do with the "Elemental HERO", "Leaves the field", and "Banish" term changes. Ofc, those changes about Field Spell Cards were mostly Ruling changes rather than term changes. But I don't think they are many of them, so I guess we can add them to the Out of Date section is the whole Ruling is invalid, or simply add the underline note if a small part of the Ruling is invalid. I'll try it with Last Resort's Rulings. If you can find more of such Rulings of Field Spell Cards let me know. Thanks! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 15:09, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

I changed the ruling page but I'm not sure if that's the best way to have it. Lets leave it like that for now until we come up with something else for those small-part-out of-date rulings. Maybe we can have the slash-line after all but only for such Rulings. For all the other Out of Date Rulings use the Out of Date section instead of the slash line, and if you can find other such rulings please let me know. Thanks! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 15:45, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't like the section method because it will lead us to make subsections for it, it's like a small ruling page inside a big one. we don't need to gather all rulings in single section just to point out that they are Out of Date. I agree, slashed rulings are not easy to read, however we have the highlight method, and this in my opinion the best way that work in both small-part and all-part "Out of Date" rulings. --Dlamash (talk • contribs) 18:17, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Where is the problem with having those rulings in seperate section (Out of Date Rulings)? Having them seperated from the valid ones make it easier for someone browsing the Ruling Page to find out how the card works. Also there is no need to make any other subsections besides "Out of Date". If a Ruling becomes outdated it is moved there, simple as that. About those Field Spell Card Rulings that are part wrong, we can add the slash line to those parts only with a note. Since there wont be many of them it doesn't matter much. Or at least we find a better way in the future. The highlight method wont be good since it just brings more attention of the reader and it's something we don't want for the out of date rulings of course.

I'll try to make Last Resort's Rulings with the slash line and tell me your opinion on it. It will be pretty much as you had made it before.

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 21:20, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

If we assume there is TCG, OCG and Previously Out of Date rulings, will we put all of them in one "out of date" section? The current Card Rulings:Last Resort page will make readers confuse if they compare it with Card Rulings:Sacred Phoenix of Nephthys page for example, The reason way the ruling is out of date must be mention in "Notes" section so no one get confuse. --Dlamash (talk • contribs) 23:12, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

No, each section will have its own Out of Date category of course.

Like this?

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 23:19, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Yes

Regarding the highlight, we can just use LightGray, and it will not make that much attention, if that better. --Dlamash (talk • contribs) 23:30, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to use highlight at all. Slash line for such rulings is just fine, and for the whole outated ones the Out of Date section is the best choice. It doesn't matter that it is a seperate category from the other rulings at all. Seperating rulings in categories is rather helpful than confusing. Check for example Card Rulings:Book of Moon. If it didn't had the rulings seperated in different categories (ofc all in the correct section) it would be really messy and hard for readers to find the Rulings they want. On the other hand, any color on highlited text brings attention over the other normal written rulings. That's the purpose of highliting anyway! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 23:40, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Quoting Judge Forum

Unless you're quoting the forum posts verbatim, I don't see why you can't make them grammatically correct. If not, it will cause some viewers to question the validity of the Wiki ruling, if it has grammar errors in it. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 22:02, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

Those Rulings you tried to correct were actually written verbatim as I wrote them! xD

For example in the Mind Crush one, the exact responce is this:

You are correct. When "Reinforcement of the Army" resolves, turn player may start a Chain with a Spell Speed 2+ card or effect or pass Priority. This means that the opponent will have the opportunity to activate a Spell Speed 2+ card ("Mind Crush", etc) before the turn player will have the opportunity to Normal Summon a Monster.
By Franklin Debrito

There are Rulings of cource that can't be written exactly as they are posted. For example if someone is asking of an answer of a chain proccedure, then the answer of the Konami's Official can be something like: "In your scenario ____ will miss the timing because it is an optional effect and the last thing that happened is..."

In these cases when I make the Ruling here for the Wiki I convert it to a ruling-style (like we do with the OCG Rulings) and I have to include the whole scanario in the question in the Ruling, so I can correct there any grammar mistakes it can have in the question made by the Judge (since the Judge's question is not "official"). But I avoid correcting much things from the Konami Official's answer (because those words are "official").

And when an answer is itself written as ruling-style I leave it as it is even though it may have grammar mistakes or capital/lower case letters in official terms (like Damage Calculation).

The best for us is to leave them exactly as in the official source. If the official source have errors then it's not our fault to correct them. If an official Ruling like this exist: "Kuriboh is asfsfhdasfsfgdfsafdsfhdftgefsldgkajlfkwneflnglrg", we have to add it in Kuriboh's Ruling Page reagrdless it it doesn't make sence at all, as long as it is official.

Also, if the viewers have doubts about the the validity of the Wiki's ruling, then the can always go and check it themselves in the official source, in which they will see it is written exactly the same. :)

Besides, in order to point out such grammar mistakes, out of date parts, typos, etc in official rulings pages, we can simple add a note or [sic], etc to point ot the mistake and we write what it was supposed to say/mean in the note.

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 08:18, June 9, 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the average viewer can't, since only judges can view the forums. Otherwise you wouldn't have been forced to delete your copy/pasted rulings. But [sic] is ok I guess. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 21:36, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's better to leave them as they are written with [sic] or a Note rather than trying to correct them. By the way, this Debrito guy seems to have made a lot of grammar mistakes in his answers, shihh! In this one for example he nailed it Card Rulings:Chain Disappearance ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 21:43, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

TCG text conflicts with OCG ruling

After X-Metaman creates the Card Rulings:Jinzo - Jector page, would you mind explaining there how the TCG text conflicts with the JP ruling? It's basically "your opponent must control a Set card in order for you to activate" vs. "they don't have to control a Set card". --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 19:13, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

Done! I'm sorry for the late respond! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 22:21, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

Flip a monster face-down, then face-up during the same Battle Phase

If that monster already attacked during the Battle Phase, can it attack again during the same Battle Phase? Would like a source for the ruling, if any. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 13:08, July 2, 2015 (UTC)

Generally, a monster is considered to be "the same monster" as long as it stays on the field regardless if it changes control or flipped face-down. So if a monster on the field attacks, it cannot declare a second attack even if it switch control twice or flipped face-down and again face-up in the same Battle Phase. Only if it leaves the field (goes to the Graveyard and back to the field again, etc) is considered a "different monster" and can declare a second attack in the same Battle Phase. I tried to find an official Ruling for that but I didn't find any yet. If I find something I will write it here. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 20:39, July 2, 2015 (UTC)

Central of yu-gi-oh communities

Hi , I 'm a big fan of the wiki and ADM of Portuguese wiki. I recently had an idea, which was create a wikia and / or pages on social networks , where all yugioh communities in all countries and languages, with all variants (per example the wiki decks and the wiki yugioh questions) for wikis can communicate more easily with each other , for projects together , to help each other .... etc .

This project would have the name given in the title and would only serve to communicate , not as an encyclopedia of yugioh

Right now, I'm also contact the other wikis.

For more details , leave a message on my wall .

waiting , goncasdio (talk • contribs) 14:01, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Needs correcting and upset how I've been treated

I am really upset on how I've been treated on here when trying to give accurate information and would really like if an admin could please here what I have to say and help correct something, I have proof and official source of said info and would like to talk about it please? Jerrboy31 (talk • contribs) 06:44, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to tell me what happened! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 11:19, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

Desperate Tag

Can the rulings for "Desperate Tag" (regarding the card itself being activated) be extrapolated to make stuff like the ruling of "Damage = Reptile" obsolete? Keep in mind that "Howl of the Wild" has a ruling that was issued at the same time as "Desperate Tag"... is that ruling vague enough for "Desperate Tag"'s ruling to apply to it? --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 21:02, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

Oh! How did I missed this post? Big sorry for the late respond!

It seems like Trap Cards with optional Trigger-like effects that activate during the Damage Step (inflict Battle Damage, send to the Graveyard as a result of battle, etc), can activate the card and the effect in the same chain link during the Damage Step when it meets its trigger condition. Cards with mandatory trigger-like effect cannot be activated that way. For example cards like "Howl of the Wild", "Robbin' Goblin", "Robbin' Zombie" and "Xyz Tribalrivals" cannot be activated during the Damage Step and they all have OCG Rulings about that. "Hard-sellin' Goblin", "Hard-sellin' Zombie", "Begone, Knave!", and "Madolche Waltz" have similar effects but they don't have a specific ruling for that, but they should work the same. On the other hand, cards with optional effects have all rulings that say they can be activated (card + effect) in the same chain link: "U.A. Penalty Box", "Damage = Reptile", "Desperate Tag", "Yang Zing Creation". The only weird card in this category is "Unpossessed" which has a ruling that says it can be activated only from the "start of the Damage Step" up to "before damage calculation" (probably because of its second effect) but it says nothing if you can activate the card and use its 3rd effect in the same chain link when the monster is destroyed by battle and send to the Graveyard.

This issue is bugging many judges until now sinse there isn't any official statement about how these Trap Cards work exactly. I will ask this as a question in the TCG Judge Forum hoping to get an official definition on this. I will reply here if I get an answer. So, to answer your question, I would say that a judge can extrapolate the OCG ruling for "Desperate Tag" to "Damage = Reptile" since both fall into the same effect category, and consider UDE's old ruling as outdated.

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 23:41, December 22, 2015 (UTC)

Card/Hand Verification

Regarding the Judge Program Forum Rulings for cards like "Mind Crush" and other cards that might involve revealing the hand for confirmation, can we make some of them "official" now? As of this message, in the bottom-right hand corner here, you can see some Tournament Policy Documents. In the one specifically named "KDE Official Yu-Gi-Oh! TRADING CARD GAME Tournament Policy" which have been officially published by Konami and can be publicly accessed, you can see a "Card/Hand Verification" section there which deals with some of the issues the Judge Program Forum Rulings cover. I can't view the forum, so would you mind changing some of the rulings to be outside of the green "unverified" box? --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 20:40, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we can do that, no problem! I did it already in "Card Rulings:Mind Crush". ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 16:53, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

Wall of Revealing Light

Regarding this edit, do you remember the source where it was stated that you can't pay your LP to 0 (in the TCG)? --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 01:45, February 13, 2016 (UTC)

I doubt there is a source for that! I think it is a general Ruling rather than an individual one, which is extrapolated from the fact that "you cannot pay the cost if your LP would become 0"! Similar situation is when paying LP for a mandatory Mainenance Cost. In the OCG it is stated that if you have exactly the LP amount to be paid then you must pay it and lose the Duel. In the TCG there is no ruling for this so "normally" you go with the "you can't pay the cost". Much like you can't activate Premature Burial with only 800 LP left. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 10:03, February 17, 2016 (UTC)