Forum:Battle Mania + An Unfortunate Report

If you activate An Unfortunate Report and Battle Mania on your opponent, will all the opponent's face-up monsters be forced to attack twice since they have two battle phases now?

If they are forced to attack twice, think about this combo: An Unfortunate Report + Battle Mania + Rainbow Life. — This unsigned comment was made by 68.98.24.24 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• All face-up opponent's monsters must attack twice. (One attack per monster for each battle phase). Good combo! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 09:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Links provided by Duelist33 17:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the combo is still under debate. I'm not really sure if it would work or not. --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Why do you think that it may not work? ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 07:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The monster already attacked in Battle Phase 1, so the effect of "Battle Mania" might be satisfied, so the monster might not be forced to attack again. --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 18:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • Battle Mania's affect applies until the end of the turn it is activated. So it applies to both Battle Phases. I think it works, and is a very good combo. A similar example also appeared in An Unfortunate Report's Tip Page with Yubel. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 18:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, there is no ruling on how "Battle Mania" works against multiple attacks.

The monster must attack this turn, so it declares the first attack. The monster has attacked this turn, so "Battle Mania" might be satisfied (since the monster attacked this turn). Even though the monster can attack again, "Battle Mania" might not do anything else.

And, the "if able" clause in "Battle Mania" might only refer to the monster against "Swords of Revealing Light" etc.

--Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Then another problem is born. How Battle Mania works with monsters like Asura Priest? Asura Priest must attack all the opponent's monsters (because of Battle Mania), or not? ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 18:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked, and there's nothing on that either. Nor "Berserk Gorilla" + "Twin Swords of Flashing Light - Tryce". --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 19:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Had to add the links

Just so that I could check out the cards in rapid succession, that is one sweet combo, best used against your opponent, when they have 2000 or more attack monsters on the field. But, would your monsters still be destroyed, and if you added Waboku to that combo, would you still gain the life points.

Duelist33 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Your monsters are destroyed by battle normally. You can prevent that by activating Waboku, but then Rainbow Life will have no use since you don't take any battle damage because of Waboku. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 21:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! what a nice combo, it is best when you activated this combo if you don't have any monster and your opponent's attacking monsters are very high. If you have this card after that turn you may inflict a high damage to your opponent:

• Sanctuary in the Sky
• The Agent of Judgment - Saturn

and a card that can special summon a fairy type from hand I don't remember the name of that card. Your combo is really perfect. — This unsigned comment was made by Kirho (talk • contribs) 04:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, just be careful though, your opponent probably won't stop An Unfortunate Report or Battle Mania, but they will try to stop Rainbow Life if they can figure out what this combo would do.

Also, the card you're thinking of is either Celestial Transformation or Valhalla, Hall of the Fallen, both of those cards would allow you to special summon a fairy monster from your hand. DivineSorcerer 06:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC), I just created the account

• If you have Sanctuary in the Sky and fairy type monsters on the field, you will not take battle damage from battles involving them, so Rainbow Life will have no use to those battles since you don't take damage. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 07:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)