Forum:DO PIERCING EFFECTS STACK?
|Forums:||Index → Yu-Gi-Oh! Ruling Queries → DO PIERCING EFFECTS STACK?|
|Please sign your comments with ~~~~. See Help:Signatures and Help:Talk pages for further information.|
|This forum thread has been unedited for 2760 days and is considered archived. Please don't add to the discussion, unless absolutely necessary.|
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)
- 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 220.127.116.11 (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 18.104.22.168 (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 22.214.171.124 (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)
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 126.96.36.199 (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.
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. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:00, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
omg what a idiot. allow me to explain something to you. the equip spell card does not simply augment the ability to the monster. any non nube player will tell you that. instead they have the effect all on there own. so if i were to equip fairy meteor crush to my monster and attack a def position monster the spell card will be inflicting the damage not the monster. also my double piercing will work simply because there are two different cards that are the source of the damage. for an example if i have a neo-parshath http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Neo-Parshath,_the_Sky_Paladin equipped with a fairy meteor crush, and attack a def position monster with 0 def. the result will be 4600 damage because when my neo-parshath is inflicting 2300 points of effect damage(that is treated as battle damage) my fairy meteor crush will also be dealing another 2300 in effect damage(that is treated as battle damage) Also to prove to you that equip spell cards do not augment the equipped monster and that the equip spell card is the actual source of the effect check out the last paragraph on http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Piercing here is a quote ("An interesting side-effect of Equip Spell Cards that give Piercing, is that you can inflict damage to your opponent by equipping them to your opponent's monster(s). Then, when your opponent attacks one of your Defense Position monsters with an ATK greater than your monsters DEF, he/she will take the difference. After all, even though it's your opponent's monster, it's your Spell Card, and thus it's your opponent — not you — who takes the extra damage, due to the wording on the cards.") oh and by the way. about the thing you said about the Athena's. you are also dead wrong about that as well simply because the effect of the Athena activate at the exact same time resulting in a effect damage stack of 1200.
- 2 Athena don't infict damage at the same time. Their eff form a chain and resolve step-by-step.--Lê (talk • contribs) 08:44, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Just leave him be. He's either a troll, an idiot or an awful player. Probably some combination of all three. If explaining to him time and time again, and if showing him rulings pages and other sources which prove your point doesn't work, nothing will. If he tries this in a game, he'll get smacked down. No point trying to convince him here.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 13:55, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed with YamiWheeler. Obviously he'll never listen. I showed him a ruling directly from Card Rulings:Fairy Meteor Crush, Falzar showed him at least 10 places talking about a ruling about Enraged Battle Ox, and 3-4 other people told him how wrong he is but it's not good enough for him. --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 18:53, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
The best way I can think to put is is: The effect says that it deals Piercing damega, the other says the same. That is the same as if 2 DNA surgeries were active, and you say that machine king would get a double bonus because all monsters become machines twice. Effects like that are redundant. If you were to use secret pass to the treasure on ooguchi, it doesn't get to attack directly twice. Tyrantglider (talk • contribs) 18:59, March 9, 2012 (UTC) Tyrantglider
- That's a really good comparison, but I'm sure he still won't listen/keep trolling. --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 19:01, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
actually that's not a good comparison. a more accurate one would be like having 2 Athens's(represents the 2 cards with piercing damage) on the field when a fairy is summoned which will deal 1200 damage even do only 1 monster has been summoned(represents the single attack). the only thing this example lacks is the transaction from being treated as effect damage to being treated as battle damage. which is the exact opposite of gravekeepers vassal effect(http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Gravekeeper%27s_Vassal)(Battle Damage this card inflicts to your opponent is treated as Effect damage instead.) also on the yugioh piercing page(http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Piercing) IN THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE IT SAYS THAT IT IS "TREATED AS BATTLE DAMAGE"(and because it is not natural battle damage it means that it was originally treated as effect damage). here is the philosophy on battle damage: the only known natural battle damage (just monster vs monster with no text or effect involved in the battle) is when a monster attacks another attack position monster with a atk that is less or higher than the other monsters atk. or when a monster attacks a defense position monster with an atk that is lower than the monsters def. also when a monster attacks a player directly. those are the only original and natural battle damage(as in they did not start out as an effect). also the only known unnatural battle damage needs an effect to be treated as battle damage (piercing effects), and because they originate as effects they will act like effects(which means they will stack like the Athena's in my example) except the only difference is that they are treated as battle damage(which only means that they can only be negated by effects that target battle damage). which is the exact opposite of gravekeepers vassal effect(Battle Damage this card inflicts to your opponent is treated as Effect damage instead.) who's battle damage is treated as effect damage. now one last thing that i need to say. RULINGS CAN BE WRONG. simply because they are the makers of the game and they created the cards does not mean that they are gods that never make mistakes. i mean come on a long time ago we believed the world was round. which proves just because an idea is common it does not have to be true. also i know people are not reading my entire report which is resulting in unfriendly comments and stupid reply's. SO READ THE ENTIRE THING INSTEAD OF JUST GETTING SCARED BECAUSE ITS TOO LARGE FOR YOUR LITTLE BRAINS (WHATS THE MATTER NO PICTURES).
- Instead of telling us that, go Email the people at Konami. Their contact info can be found on YGO-Card.com, then just go to the country in which you live. We've given you that we know and think. If you don't believe us or even care about what we say, go email them, and stop bumping this thing up. And I did read everything before I posted, and the fact is your wrong, go email Konami, and have them tell you. ---Dark Ace SP (Talk) 02:10, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
oh and by the way have u noticed how my post are 10 times larger that yours. that's because i am actually proving my statements.
- Maybe if you didn't write a giant wall of text of nonsense, used paragraphs and punctuation, then people'd find it easier to read your drivel. What's the matter, grammar too complex for your peamush of a brain? And by the way, it's not the size that matters, it's the content, and your content is trash. Finally, obvious troll is obvious.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 02:12, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Everyone just ignore him. If he tries to pull this crap at a regionals, a Judge will explain to him how wrong he is. If he argues with the Judge, he'll get thrown out. --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 02:31, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
I think his major issue was he saw that in the ruling as to how it can be summed up as saying "This cards effect chooses who takes the damage", and mentally took it as saying this cards effect is what deals the damage, but when I see the guys who answer nearly any question I see on the forum all contradict him it just makes me think less of him for trying to argue past that point...
As for stacking that to me would not have crossed my mind as it would make a card as common as Dragon's Rage quite abusable if you managed to get more than one out in disaster dragon.
Shinkirou 02:35, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
i have sent a email to konami and i am waiting for a reply. however until i get the reply i would very much like to have fun debating with you gyz. also can u stop doing lousy reply's and prove your statements without relying on an official ruling unless you can explain how the official ruling makes sense. for an example i will prove how machine king b. cant inflict damage even with the help of fairy meteor crush(http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Card_Rulings:Beast_Machine_King_Barbaros_%C3%9Cr) the spell card fairy meteor crush will not inflict effect damage (treated as battle damage) because when the timing of the effect damage takes place machine kings effect also takes place.(When this card battles, any Battle Damage to your opponent becomes 0.) and because fairy meteor crush's effect damage is treated as battle damage, and activates when the monster battles. It is negated.
also about the dragons rage. that is a perfect example of double piercing(triple if the dragon already has piercing as its own effect. hmmmmmm how about this from now on instead of us calling it stacked piercing or double piercing. lets call it multi piercing. as there are multiple cards inflicting effect damage treated as battle damage.
- We've tried to explain how the rules work, but you just ignore our explanations and post a bunch of tl;dr nonsense. You yourself just referred to Piercing damage as Battle damage, yet you insist that it works like effect damage, and your reasoning is just something you came up with rather than something from the actual rulebook or from a judge. Piercing damage is not "effect damage treated as Battle damage". That's why it is called Piercing Battle Damage. You have been very stubborn and if you keep acting like that, no one will ever want to help you if you ever have a legitimate question. And, if you keep necrobumping forums like you did last night, you will make a lot of enemies on here. --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 02:45, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
- What kind of legitimate player argues a mechanic by saying "Let's ignore the official ruling on the matter and use some sort of twisted logic to decide how it works instead." There is no opinion to this. There is only fact. The rulings are right, you are wrong. Like I said, obvious troll is obvious. Seriously, let's all just stop engaging him. And as for making enemies, I think I can safely say that ship has definitely sailed far away.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 02:49, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
enemies. i don't care how many. look dude it is treated as battle damage. but it does not originate as battle damage. it originates as effect damage. then with another effect it is treated as battle damage which is a very similar effect as gravekeepers vassal http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Gravekeeper%27s_Vassal. also (even do i already said this) in the very first sentence of piercing http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Piercing. it states Piercing is TREATED as battle damage. but you see piercing damage originates as an effect that causes damage(effect damage) it is then put thru a transaction from effect damage to battle damage. this is absolutely a VERY SIMILAR transaction like gravekeepers vassal http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Gravekeeper%27s_Vassal.
the only known damages are battle damage and effect damage. a transaction between the two can take place but how it originally acts stays exactly the same.
- Explain to me how Gravekeeper's Vassal is relevant. He treats his own battle damage as effect damage through his effect. Piercing Battle damage effects are just effects that modify the rules of Battle damage. I have no idea where you are getting these ridiculous notions. --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 03:03, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
there are only 2 types of damage . the first is damage that does not originate as an effect this is battle damage. the second is damage that originates as an effect this is effect damage. now the thing about piercing is it is an effect that inflicts damage(effect damage) when a specific monster attacks with an atk that is higher than the def of a defending monster. it is then given another effect that changes what damage it is treated as (effect or battle damage). this effect of changing what damage it is considered to be is exactly the same as gravekeepers vassal http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Gravekeeper%27s_Vassal and all effect that do this will usually have the text "as Battle Damage" or "as effect damage". in piercing the card text is "inflict the difference AS BATTLE DAMAGE". in the text of gravekeeper's vassal (http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Gravekeeper%27s_Vassal) the text states "Battle Damage this card inflicts to your opponent is TREATED AS EFFECT DAMAGE INSTEAD instead." there that is my prove as why gravekeeper's vassal is a logical comparison.
also someone(i don't know who. WAS NOT ME, could be konami) has updated the text on the first paragraph of piercing http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Piercing. this is what they said ----> "PIERCING IS BATTLE DAMAGE THAT ORIGINATES FROM A CARD EFFECT and is characterized by the following card lore: During battle between this attacking card and a Defense Position monster whose DEF is lower than the ATK of this card, inflict the difference AS BATTLE DAMAGE to your opponent. This lore has now changed to If this card attacks a Defense Position monster, inflict piercing Battle Damage to your opponent. after the release of Problem-Solving Card Text."
- Done. I can't do it anymore. You will never understand. --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 04:31, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
look dude piercing damage is not a change to the original battle damage rules. its a effect that deals effect damage then transacts the effect damage to battle damage. if i were to equip a monster with piercing with a equip spell card that has piercing. the result will be multi piercing as both the monster and the spell card will be dealing two copies of the same effect damage that is then treated AS BATTLE DAMAGE. the spell card does not give the effect to the monster. instead what it does is it inflicts effect damage when the attacking monster battles with a defense position monster, and then changes what the type of damage it is treated as. and when a monster with the piercing damage attacks it is also dealing effect damage when it battle, and then the type of damage it deals is changed to battle damage. when it changes what type of damage it deals it only means that it can no longer can be targeted by effects that target effect damage, and that it now can be targeted by effects that target battle damage. this is exactly the same as a monster with the effect to change what attribute it is considered to be. so for a example if the monster was light and now dark: it can no longer be targeted by effects that target light monsters, and it can be targeted by effects that target dark monsters.
- Bonus points for misuse of the word "transact". --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 05:05, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
look at least tell me this if my opponent has a cyber end dragon equipped with a fairy meteor crush that i control, and i have a def position monster with a def of 0. what will happen if he attacks
- I will when you learn how to use proper grammar/spelling/punctuation. --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 05:14, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
seriously what will happen. come on tell me and explain. prove that you have a brain
- 1) In English, "treated as" = immedially become. There is no "then change" here.
- 2) And even if "treated as" is "then change", they erased it and replaced it with "Piercing Battle Damage".
- 3) And follow your theory, Piercing is the Effect Damage ---> the Battle Damage, then it cannot keep any Effect Damage's property, which means it cannot stack.--Lê (talk • contribs) 05:25, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
look at least tell me this if my opponent has a cyber end dragon equipped with a fairy meteor crush that i control, and i have a def position monster with a def of 0. what will happen if he attacks. if you can explain what will happen then i stop talking—This unsigned comment was made by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 05:32, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
- There is no official ruling on the Cyber End scenario. In this situation, I'd say Fairy Meteor would take precedence and cancel out Cyber's effect, but I have no idea. --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo
piercing is the effect of being able to deal the difference in atk and def not an effect of adding damage to extra damage to someone. besides people dont need to write a lot if they have enough evidence such as RULINGS to back them up220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:40, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
look just answer my question : if my opponent has a cyber end dragon equipped with a fairy meteor crush that i control, and i have a def position monster with a def of 0. what will happen if he attacks. oh and explain it
- The same as with Enraged Battle Ox, weren't you paying attention? --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 05:49, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
this is far different than your example of enraged battle ox because instead of my opponent controlling a fairy meteor crush equipped to his monster. i control a fairy meteor crush equipped to my opponents monster. so in other words you do not know how to read. the question is if my opponent has a cyber end dragon equipped to a fairy meteor crush i control, and i have a def position monster with a def of 0 . what will happen if he attacks.
So, just insult me then. I'm pretty sure I read better than you. It's the only ruling for this kind of thing, therefore we must apply it to this situation. --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 06:00, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
wtf look dude just answer the question and i will gladly shut up. if not well i will be talking for a while. so i will ask again if my opponent has a cyber end dragon equipped with a fairy meteor crush that i control, and i have a def position monster with a def of 0. what will happen if he attacks?—This unsigned comment was made by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 06:02, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Fairy Meteor Crush is on your side of the field... (equipped to your opponent's Enraged Battle Ox). -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 06:07, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
I am asking you to tell me who will take the battle damage ,how much damage will be taken, and to explain why
hay this is a little video that i made that should tell the story's of both sides. if i need to put in anything else just let me know by posting in the comments of the video My Thoughts on this topic --Raadashio 10:07, March 10, 2012 (UTC) 10:06, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
- To make it clearly; Any cards that say "When the equipped monster attacks a Defense Position monster whose DEF is lower than the equipped monster's ATK, inflict the difference as Battle Damage to your opponent." can only add one line to the equipped monster's lore "This card inflict Piercing Damage." and that's it - if there are more effect like the one that already equip, it do NOT stacking - since it was already "added" into the lore. In the old written print like "Fairy Meteor Crush", it was referring as "Battle Damage", not Effect Damage - so is Piercing Damage. It's like Gemini Summon is still Normal Summon, not Special Summon. --FredCat 11:37, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, Raadashio. I watched your video, and while you said the IP was "proving his points", we gave him rulings. You were also biased, never even meaning the rulings we gave him. But I'll try not to attack you, so sorry if I hurt your feelings, just giving you feedback.
- Sure they differ slightly from what his question was, but the double Fairy Meteor Crush ruling should have ended it. Sure a monster with Piercing is treated as battle damage, sure you argue that it's supposedly treated as effect damage, but the card says "treated as battle damage..", so it should work exactly like the Crush ruling. Also, Raadashio, I put your link in the proper format, I was getting confused trying to copy the actual link...too many A's. ---Dark Ace SP (Talk) 14:25, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this helps at all, but take a look at the card Dimension Wall. It changes who the battle damage of a card is inflicted to, just like if you equipt YOUR Fairy Meteor Crush to your OPPONENT's monster. However, it is still treated as battle damage. There is a ruling on Dimensional Wall that states that if your opponent has activated Waboku, then they do not take battle damage from this card, even though it is a trap card.--S1L3N7 N1GH7S (talk • contribs) 22:22, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, if you control that "Fairy Meteor Crush" which is equipping to your opponent therefore making it your Battle Damage to your opponent's. And it still affected by "Waboku". If it was an Effect Damage, then that ruling is void. --FredCat 22:47, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
Obvious troll is obvious.
I'm done here.
Shinkirou 23:58, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
hay its raadashio i thank you for watching my video but sadly i need more info. all i got is info from the unknown poster or what id like to call "THE UNDER DOG". also i made a 3 part video. but it wont have a lot of info on the guys that are against the stacking and that's why i need info from you guys. SO KEEP IT COMING. i will post the video links when i finish uploading them should take 30 mins.--Raadashio 02:02, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
also don't just give up on this just because its hard. lets keep at it. that way when we prove him wrong or he proves us wrong it wont matter because we both will be right in the end.--Raadashio 02:04, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
hay its "the underdog". haha damn am i getting a kick out of that. anyway raadashio i am waiting for the video that you will post so that i can make sure that you get my side exactly. also i completely agree with you about getting info from the other side because quite literally they have not given me any info at all to prove there points. all they are doing is giving me rulings without the slightest thought of ether the ruling is right or not. i ruling can be wrong. in fact it has happened before where tcg and ocg were arguing over whether or not xyz materials were considered on the field, and as such give me doubt as to if any side is right all the time. even if they make the rules.
oh hay it nice to meet ya "underdog". i have to say i totally agree with you simply because it is absolutely impossible to know what is right and what is wrong. even if you think what is right is right you may have another thing coming. anyway i will post the video links when i am finished uploading the video's. i thank you and everyone for there patience and hope that together we can solve this confusion. adashio out. --Raadashio 02:22, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
this is part 1 this is part 2 this is part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG2Bh90r6QQ&feature=g-upl&context=G2240e6bAUAAAAAAAAAA --Raadashio 02:29, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
If piercing damage is calculated as Battle Damage - which means the difference between ATK and DEF - then common sense should dictate that it cannot stack. After all, Effect Damage =/= Battle Damage via a piercing effect, as the old lores of cards like FMC wouldd dictate.
And Raad, while I appreciate that you can argue much better than the anonymous user who thought necroing threads was a good idea, the "absolutely impossible to know what is right and what is wrong" is, quite frankly, a load. The game's rules clearly dictate what can and cannot be done, as do Konami's rulings on that point. While I'm aware that wording has created legitimate issues with rulings and that they are not always right sometimes, this really doesn't strike me as one of those times. Lord Grammaticus (talk • contribs) 02:56, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
actually any ruling only dictates what will be the outcome of a duel in tournament rules. also if i am not mistaken. are you guess only disagreeing because the battle damage being inflicted can not be counted twice --Raadashio 03:07, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
also just because this guy is not agreeing with you does not mean that you can call him a troll. really any of that stuff is just stupid bullshit on your part, and if you cant prove your point or anyone else s point then you really don't got any shit to stand on.--Raadashio 03:12, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
so don't just be a total weakling and give up on proving your point when you really have not contributed any info that could better the understanding of the situation. really that to me just proves how week and pathetic another persons intelligence is.--Raadashio 03:16, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
Rulings also apply to non-tournament duels as well. :B
And I haven't even called him a troll yet. You seem to be mistaking me for another user. Plus, people have given proof of their side of the argument several times above my two posts.
Furthermore, I see no instance where I'm giving up on proving a point; in fact, this is only my second time contributing to this thread. Throwing around labels like 'weak' and 'pathetic' don't help your argument and only serves to make you look bad, if the term 'ad hominem' is remotely familiar to you. Lord Grammaticus (talk • contribs) 03:21, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
they were not meant for you directly. instead they were meant for the ones that are calling other people trolls and going on there Mary way. also i have looked at the posts of the people above me. but sadly i would not classify that as prove rather statements made by upper deck entertainment and konami. and i agree that saying those thing will not help me. however i will not just sit back and watch as 5 guys gang up on one rebellious player, call him a troll, and be off on there Mary way without a few words from me--Raadashio 03:27, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
also i think i have the opinion of the "underdog" down. but sadly i do not have any definite opinions from "the mob" that would represent the entire side.--Raadashio 03:35, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
how about this Lord Grammaticus. can you give me your opinion of why or why not the piercing stack will work. and can you explain why you think that. so far i have not seen anyone actually explain themselves. all they do is state there opinion then try to back it up with statements from konami and upper deck entertainment. as well as not proving why the statements from the rulings are true.--Raadashio 03:40, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
this is my latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w9BcFQfsps&feature=g-upl&context=G2240e6bAUAAAAAAAAAA --Raadashio 06:51, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
my explanation is that Piercing-enabling cards give monsters the ability to deal battle damage to a Defence Position monster.The Piercing card doesn't do the damage.It is dealt by the battle of the 2 monsters.so it's not effect damage it's battle damage.also the stupid thing the troll said about "Rulings aren't always right". Well mistakes can be made but they correct them almost immediately with Rulings.Has happened many times.Piercing enabling cards have been around since almost the start of the game.If this needed a ruling to set it straight they would have made it.S4suk3g13 (talk • contribs) 07:16, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
I hightly doubt the anonymous user is a troll; there's a difference between attempts to make people mad and having what's regarded as an "uneducated opinion". Besides, that'd mean the people above were feeding it, even though they claimed the user to be a troll - and that's just bad form.
Anyway, in response to Raad:
Basically, the "piercing damage" term is a shorthand for the old lore of cards that granted the effect; I recall the term originating from Magic: The Gathering, which Yu-Gi-Oh! was likely based off of.
Anyhow, piercing effects in the old lore dictated that when attacking a weaker Defense Position monster, the difference was inflicted as Battle Damge to the opponent's life points. With the advent of the problem-solving text, they shortened this to "piercing", which is the same exact thing; the shortening was done for the sake of reducing wordiness. The reason I believe it doesn't stack is because it is basically asking you to calculate the difference as Battle Damage, meaning that, during the Damage Step, you would calculate as you normally would with two Attack Position monsters.
The reason that I feel the ruling on Fairy Meteor Crush that was cited most during this argument would be correct is because equipping it to another card with the same effect (let's go with Cyber End Dragon) would mean that those two effects would ask you to do one task (i.e. calculating Battle Damage); said task is done once per attack. In short, even though they're two seperate cards, they're basically asking you to perform the same one task, and it does not need to be repeated for each card; after all, the effect asks you specifically to calculate unstackable Battle Damage in a slightly different manner, and does not do the damage itself. It's a ontinuous effect that just asks you to do something diferently.
In short, the effect specifies that Battle Damage be calculated even if the monster is in Defense, and multiple piercing effects would not change the fact that you only need to calculte damage once when battling another monster, unless a card effect specifically says to inflict damage more than once in the same battle or something of that sort. Lord Grammaticus (talk • contribs) 07:32, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
i do not believe that you are grasping what the other side is saying.
S4suk3g13 your explanation is "that Piercing-enabling cards give monsters the ability to deal battle damage to a Defence Position monster." the other side of this is saying that is not true because what the Piercing-enabling cards are doing is inflicting damage to the opponent of the controlled Piercing-enabling cards equal to the difference of the attack and def of the battling monsters. this would be called effect damage. but sadly there is more to the text. it states that the difference in attack and def would be treated as battle damage. but because there are multiple Piercing-enabling cards this would result in multiple effects of dealing damage to the opponent of the controlled Piercing-enabling cards each equal to the difference of the attack and def of the battling monsters.
Lord Grammaticus your explanation is that "Fairy Meteor Crush's ruling that was cited most during this argument would be correct because equipping it to another card with the same effect (let's go with Cyber End Dragon) would mean that those two effects would ask you to do one task (i.e. calculating Battle Damage); said task is done once per attack." this is not true because cards like Athena (2 on the field) would stack up even if those two effects would ask you to do one task. this is because each Athena is inflicting its own original damage. this is exactly the same as each of the Piercing-enabling cards are inflicting there own original damage. i will post a new video soon with almost everyone's comments and ideas. so keep the ideas and comments coming.
i do not believe that you are grasping what the other side is saying. S4suk3g13 your explanation is "that Piercing-enabling cards give monsters the ability to deal battle damage to a Defence Position monster." the other side of this is saying that is not true because what the Piercing-enabling cards are doing is inflicting damage to the opponent of the controlled Piercing-enabling cards equal to the difference of the attack and def of the battling monsters. this would be called effect damage. but sadly there is more to the text. it states that the difference in attack and def would be treated as battle damage. but because there are multiple Piercing-enabling cards this would result in multiple effects of dealing damage to the opponent of the controlled Piercing-enabling cards each equal to the difference of the attack and def of the battling monsters. Lord Grammaticus your explanation is that "Fairy Meteor Crush's ruling that was cited most during this argument would be correct because equipping it to another card with the same effect (let's go with Cyber End Dragon) would mean that those two effects would ask you to do one task (i.e. calculating Battle Damage); said task is done once per attack." this is not true because cards like Athena (2 on the field) would stack up even if those two effects would ask you to do one task. this is because each Athena is inflicting its own original damage. this is exactly the same as each of the Piercing-enabling cards are inflicting there own original damage. i will post a new video soon with almost everyone's comments and ideas. so keep the ideas and comments coming.--Raadashio 08:09, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
p.s. i am new to the wikia so i am having a little trouble posting lol .--Raadashio 08:11, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
i make videos not speeches. lol --Raadashio 08:13, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you misread. When I stated that "said task is only completed once", I was referring to the calculation of Battle Damage (which I'd hoped was clear, but somehow it wasn't). The situation involving two copies of Athena is too different from the Cyber End-FMC to be comparable. Both situations have two cards asking you to do the same thing. The similarities more or less end there.
Cyber End and FMC use a condition that inflict Battle Damage in a different way, and due to how condition effects work, it cannot be stacked; even though you'd have to negate Cyber End's effect and FMC's effect to stop piercing, it doesn't change the fact that even though said condition changes the method of a calculation (since "task" is apparently confusing people), it doesn't change the fact that the monsters' battle inflicts the damage, and that calculation of said damage is still done once for each battle, unless - as stated previously - another card effect specifically states otherwise.
The Athena situation has 2 copies of the card with effects that do the task of inflicting damage themselves; the effects (and not the monsters) do the damage, and there are two instances of the same effect, which is specificially a Trigger Effect. Since each Athena has its own trigger - as opposed to Cyber End and FMC enforcing one continuous "condition" - the effect is applied for each copy of the card, meaning that summoning a Fairy "pulls" both triggers and does 1200 damage.
Fairy Meteor Crush does not "trigger" during battle, nor does Cyber End Dragon's; their conditions are "on" while they are face-up, and both enforce the "condition" of treating the difference between a Defense Position monster's DEF and the equipped monster's ATK (remember that in this hypothetical situation, FMC is equipped to Cyber End) as Battle Damage. And Battle Damage is only calculated once per battle.
You just need to understand the difference between Continuous Effects and Trigger Effects. Think of it like guns - with 2 Athenas, summoning a Fairy is like firing two bullets; with Cyber End equipped with FMC, you're firing a gun that gives a property to the bullets that they already head, so even though you think you've "stacked" this property, in the end you're still firing one bullet, and you're only going to hit and damage your target once. Lord Grammaticus (talk • contribs) 08:52, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
thanks i will put that in to my next video. i do not like to argue with text as it can just get more confusing. so will make a video involving all of the info i have gathered so far. but it may be in 2-3 parts. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:58, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
i am sorry. but i really am not good at putting my thoughts in to text. instead i use my videos to do the talking for me. --Raadashio 09:20, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
something went wrong with my camera. so i will have to do the video again :( --Raadashio 09:27, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
hay can i get your opinion on what the underdog said. he said that if it did not say battle damage any where on a card with piercing. it would be effect damage. whats your thoughts on that.--Raadashio 09:49, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
any way its 11:50 so i got to go --Raadashio 09:50, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
Wow... did you even read his argument?
He basically said "Let's throw out the unofficial rulings just because they prove me wrong so I can keep arguing" That's kinda being a trololol. U mad bro?
Shinkirou 10:57, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
Raadashio, you seem to be missing a few things. This wasn't 5 guys "gaining up on" one "underdog". It was many long-time users of this site, including an admin, trying to explain why he is wrong. You also said we didn't prove anything, when we actually did. I provided UDE's Double FMC ruling, Falzar provided the FMC + Enraged Battle Ox ruling, and many other explanations were offered. Problem Solving Card Text was even brought up. Yes, a few people were calling him a troll, but most people were very patient with him, yet he remained stubborn. At the same time, his argument seemed to be something he just spontaneously thought up without consulting any sort of rulings whatsoever. He claimed Piercing damage is effect damage, which is false. He never came up with any more arguments that made sense beyond that. --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 02:13, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I've been reading this for the last two days, and I agree completely with "Skullvarnish". Shardsilver (talk • contribs) 02:16, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe...
- ...this is still going on. Can you people not recognize a troll when you see one?--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 02:19, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I guess people aren't willing to rule out the possibility that he might just be very misinformed. I've met players in real life who were that bad with rules. Personally, I think it's very likely he's a troll, and only responded again just now in response to what Raadashio was trying to say. I felt it was inappropriate that he's trying so hard to defend this anon and accusing others of gaining up on the guy. But, that's just my take on this. --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 02:24, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
yes YamiWheeler. just because you turn a blind eye to things does not make them disappear. any way this is my new video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yiv-TQl2OM- -Raadashio 12:30, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
my video info is steadily changing and growing. so keep the opinions and what you think is proof coming.--Raadashio 12:30, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Raadashio, please, the anon hasn't even posted in a while. You're the one keeping this going. --> Summoned Skull 2: Electric Boogaloo 18:21, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
Why not try it on an official console game? Playstation Game Boy PSP PC i don't care.1 monster with double piercing on one side.1 defense position monster with less def than the piercing monster's atk and a Prime material Dragon an the other side.See what happens and accept it.S4suk3g13 (talk • contribs) 22:07, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
Edit:silly me...you could simply put 2 Fairy Meteor Crush on a monster and see what happens.Also since Fairy Meteor Crush's ruling points out that when double piercing is in play you deal damage once i don't know why you keep on with your claims.True rulings can be changed but since that specific ruling is in effect for at least 6 years i don't see how KONAMI would have "missed" it.And 1 last thing.This is a game,not a force of nature or a universal truth.My point being is that Konami can show you a potato and tell you this is treated as dog.If you want to play this game you will take that potato for a walk.S4suk3g13 (talk • contribs) 23:23, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
Hay I was looking at this and went wow. What a long talk lol. Anyway I can see that there is a lot of anger in this topic. Which shows that some people have not grown up. Lol anyway I would like to post on this topic my thoughts on this matter. But first let me just start off by sayin that a video game has very little to do with this card game. So by sayin that the piercing stack would not work in a game proves that it would not work in real life is completely hilarious, and silly on your part. Good joke with the patato and the dog though. Anyway I have come across a anomaly involving piercing effects that I believe would prove that piercing effects could stack, and that the official ruling about piercing is not exactly fair or right. My theory does not involve the idea that the damage that the piercing effect inflict is actually battle damage and that is what makes piercing effects the ability to stack.. Lol that theory is wrong however whoever posted the comment sayin that is very intelligent as he was compleatly right. Piercing effects are simply effects that inflict damage(effect damage) that is then treated as battle damage equivalent to the atk and def of the battling monsters. However the idea that this is what gives the piercing effects the ability to stack is compleatly wrong. Sorry but it does not prove any anything exempt of a interesting fact. But anyway getting on to my theory and prove of why piercing effects stack. Well where to start. Hmmmmm. Oh I got it. I will give you 3 examples. the first 2 are different but similar. And the last one is a combination of the first 2.1) For the first example my opponent controls a monster with a piercing effect(cyber end dragon example). And I control a def position monster with 0 def. if my opponent attacks my defense position monster I will take 4000 damage(cyber end dragon has 4000 atk). As you can see nothing new here. 2) for the second example my opponent controls a normal monster with 4000 atk. I control a def position monster with 0 def. BUT I also control a fairy meteor crush that is equipped to my opponents monster. If my opponent attacks my def position monster MY OPPONENT will take 4000 damage. If you are confused by this allow me to explain. Due to the wording on the equip spell card damage will be dealt equal to the difference of the atk and def of the battling monsters to the opponent. BUT it means the opponent of the controller of the equip spell card not the monster. Lol if you don't believe me on this go research it yourself it is a very interesting fact.3) now for the third example. It is a anomaly involving the piercing effects, and is one I believe disproves the ruling stating that piercing effects do not stack. The situation goes like this. My opponent controls a monster with 4000 atk and a piercing effect(cyber end dragon). I control a def position monster with 0 def. BUT I also control a fairy meteor crush equipped to his cyber end dragon. If my opponent attacks my defense position monster wtf will happen. This has happened once to me during a tournament over in my region. I have talked to many judges but after showing them this example the are dumb struck. What I believe would happen is that I would take 4000 damage due to his piercing effect, and he would take 4000 damage due to my piercing effect. But this cannot happen due to the ruling involving piercing effects because this would essentially count as piercing effects that have stacked. Also it could go another way. If I control a normal monster with 4000 atk which is equipped with A fairy meteor crush I control, and my opponent controls a def position monster with 0 def. BUT he also control a fairy meteor crush equipped to my monster. If I attack his defense position monster wtf would happen. Both of the fairy meteor crush has a perfectly even right to inflict its damage to its opponent but if both of them inflict damage then it would stack and go directly against the ruling involving piercing effects. It would also interfere with the specific ruling on fairy meteor crush on that if 2 copies are equipped to a monster the effect would not be doubled. And yet in this situation it specifically shows this. I believe that konamI made the piercing effects so they could give the battles a uniquely new angle in which it would show some monsters poking throu the shields of other monsters. But when they discovered that piercing effects could stack based on the wording they put on the cards. They made a ruling on it so that the effects would not stack out of fear that it would become a strategy that would be unfair. Well that's my thought. Again read everything I had to say and understand it. Also please do not mention the idea that if it can't work in a video game. Then it can't work in real life. Lol must we remember yugioh forbidden memories lol. Also I would appreciate that you you look at this intellectually and not become angry fools like the ones above that believe calling someone a troll will splolve the problem at hand. Thank you . Please post your thought on the situation and thoughts I have posted on this matter. Also I am perfectly aware that there is a ruling involving this. However I have been struck with the idea that the ruling is incorrect and as such should be removed. But even so I will follow the ruling during public event and tournaments as should you. But even so this is a very interesting topic and should be given calm intellectual thought.—This unsigned comment was made by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 01:33, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
- 1) Stop being a graverobber.
- 2) This game doesn't work on your opinion or your sense, it works on Konami's decision. That's it.--Lê (talk • contribs) 05:13, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
1) I really don't know what you mean by "graverobber". Really I don't get that.........
2) I know that the game goes by the official rules of konami, and I will follow those rules while playing the game. However the rule that piercing effects do not stack was not created by konami. It was created by upper deck entertainment.
But even so. it will be the official ruling until konamI makes its own official ruling.
3) it is a interesting subject. The argument is would piercing effects stack. Regardless of the ruling. It will not change much.
4) can you actually read the things you are replying to. —This unsigned comment was made by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 04:15, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Official or not by Konami, it still approved. So shut the fricking up, dammit! --iFredCat 04:18, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Then it's time to shut this thread down for good. TwoTailedFox managed to lock one Forum a while ago, so why not? I don't mind "Who win the duel - Yugi, Judai or Yusei! Vote this sh*t here!" forum, but here... that's just a loser thread. Y th3y w33p 4b0u7 rulings? --iFredCat 04:38, December 11, 2012 (UTC)