Forum:Baby Tiragon's effect on a monster that changes Level

Okay, I have a Level 1 monster, such as "King of the Skull Servants", and "Baby Tiragon" on the field. I use the effect of "Baby Tiragon" on "King". Later, an effect is activated that causes my "King" to not be Level 1. Can it still attack Directly? If not, when it returns to Level 1, can it now attack Directly? (without using the effect of "Baby Tiragon" again). --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 13:14, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Dang stupid spelling error... Is there any way to fix "Baby Tiragon"'s name in this question's title? --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 13:22, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

"target 1 face-up Level 1 monster you control" is part of the activation condition. The effect doesn't care afterwards.

-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 13:26, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Falzar, however that causes a bit of confusion for me. "Opti-Camouflage Armor" says that it can only be "equipped to a Level 1 Monster" however if it is already equipped and that monster has its level changed it then is destroyed. This is the same for "Secret Pass to the Treasures" but this is not true for "Overpowering Eye". Why doe this card follow "Overpowering Eye" and not "Secret Pass to the Treasures" or "Opti-Camouflage Armor". And why is there a difference between "Secret Pass to the Treasures" and "Overpowering Eye"? --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 13:38, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

"Opti-Camouflage Armor": that's how Equip Spells work. It continuously checks. (except "Dragonic Attack", UDE failed, that card does not destroy itself right away)

"Overpowering Eye": New ruling from Konami. "Secret Pass to the Treasures": Old unofficial ruling from UDE. Konami has spoken, so that ruling is now also incorrect.

-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 13:45, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I always avoided those two cards because of the confusion. Should a note be placed on "Secret Pass to the Treasures"'s Ruling page that can help avoid such confusion in the future? It is a sort of indirect ruling on that card.

How exactly is "Dragonic Attack" messed up? I do not recall ever hearing that there was a problem with that card.

Thanks for the rename of the page. --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 13:49, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

It changes the monster to a Dragon-Type, but it can only be equipped to an Warrior-Type. So under normal conditions from how Equip Spells work, it would destroy itself there. The wording needs to be changed to say the printed type needs to be Warrior-Type, so it clearly won't destroy itself.

-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 13:55, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I see your point. Maybe Konami is ignoring it because that would prevent players from changing a non-Warrior into a Warrior in order to be equipped by it? Pure circular logic. Thanks for answering all my questions. --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 14:01, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and about those notes on showing which UDE rulings are now incorrect. I think it's on ATEM's to do list. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 14:06, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

For the one with "Dragonic Attack", it only target the monster that is normal to be Warrior-Type, then "I don't care" for remind of it timing spend equipping to that target monster, since it changed (or added [sic]) into Dragon-Type. At least ATEM come and hauling my undergarment up to correct my answer, I would be wrong or right, reckless. --FredCat 14:24, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you both. Even if FredCat's answer made me go crosseyed. :P --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 14:42, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I used my grammar in some funny way... If you wish; I can rearrange my word around to make it sense for you. And you're welcome. --FredCat 14:48, March 23, 2012 (UTC)