Forum:Why does Konami does Change the effect of old cards?

Konami and their change are seriously pissing me off at certain point. When people are so used to old cards and they don't look if there is an update version of it, it's hard to know if they did change. An example would be like Ultimate offering. The old version we were so use to it was: "At the cost of 500 Life Points per monster, a player is allowed an extra Normal Summon, Tribute Summon, or Set."
[1] But now today, it is totally a different version and even the rules of it had so change. It's not making any sense. That is what I call, changing the rules.— This unsigned comment was made by KingPharaohAtem (talk • contribs)

If they have to learn the rulings, they have to understand the current lores. If they like old one, then stay out. --iFredCat 16:58, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Ultimate Offering and many older cards had Errata changes. Konami originally wanted the cards to work in a certain way, but players misread or misunderstood what the card was supposed to do, and misused it. In the case of Offering, it was originally:

"At the cost of 500 Life Points per monster, a player is allowed an extra Normal Summon or Set."

But the problem was that players thought that the card worked for BOTH players, but it only worked for the controller of Offering. So that's why Konami reprinted the card with the text:

"During your Main Phase or your opponent's Battle Phase: You can pay 500 Life Points; Normal Summon or Set 1 extra monster."

Now it's clear when you can use Offering, i.e., Main Phase or Battle Phase, and who gets to use the effect of Offering.

It's not really changing the rules, but more like making sure people follow the rules, and actually understand what their cards can do, plus with the 1 year old Problem-Solving Card Text, it's also easier to understand your cards.

--Dark Ace SP (Talk) 17:01, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Errata is used to make sure that people interpret the effect in the way they intended. Editing is required if the effect gets confused very often. --Gadjiltron (talk • contribs) 10:49, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

That's the case for most cards. In a very few cases, though, they did in fact change the rules of the card by changing the interpretation. For example, for a some time Twin-Headed Behemoth's effect was interpreted as allowing you to use it 3 times per duel, one for each copy of the card you had in your Deck, and tournaments allowed it. But back then, this was OP, so eventually the judges decided on a ruling that that would no longer be the case, and you could only use Twin-Headed Behemoth's effect once per duel regardless of the number of copies you had. Then some time later the card was reprinted with the different card text to solidify that ruling in print.

So I guess the moral of the story is that nobody's perfect, and sometimes Konami makes mistakes or doesn't consider a corner case when designing their cards. Then they learn from reality and make adjustments. They've certainly gotten better over time - all of the new cards have much clearer wording and there's a lot more extra text regarding limitations than back in the day. --Eps01 (talk • contribs) 12:25, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Yep, and many of the old cards are also being reprinted in Legendary Collection 2: The Duel Academy Years and Legendary Collection 3: Yugi's World. All the old cards are being printed with the new text and the new card layout where the title bar is higher up and text is printed bigger where space allows for it. --Dark Ace SP (Talk) 15:29, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Spirit Reaper and Mirror Force. Those WERE changed. Which sucks. 108.225.162.19 (talk) 03:45, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any change to Spirit Reaper's or Mirror Force's effects. In the case of Spirit Reaper's self-kill-when-targeted effect, the rulings always said that Spirit Reaper self-destructs only after resolution. --Gadjiltron (talk • contribs) 06:17, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

Well that is completely wrong. Spirit Reaper's first TWO lores read destroy this card IMMEDIATELY. The next THREE said to destroy it once it is TARGETED. So FIVE lores definitely said that. You can argue whatever and it may be a case of BKSS but it certainly NOT what the card said. Also Mirror Force used to negate the attack. It no longer does. Which you may not think matters but I alone have found myself in a duel where it matter FOUR times. So yea. Mirror Force AND Spirit Reaper changed. 108.225.162.19 (talk) 02:39, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

I agreed with this ranting IP-Addressed User, though they changed, they still had same rulings. And I don't think "Mirror Force" is targeting the attacking monster... it's just stop the attack and kicking the glowball back to the Attack Position monsters, that's all. --iFredCat 02:41, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

And I see where the rulings tab has that but it still doesn't justify the cards wording. But I'll concede, if it was a matter of faulty wording it really wasn't changed either. However, Mirror Force was changed. Lets not forget Ocean Lord either. I know they say they "accidentally" forgot that part of the lore but I personally think they didn't realize how broken he would be without a restriction like that. 108.225.162.19 (talk) 02:43, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

"Mirror Force" was errata'd because the effect was wrong. The card was never supposed to negate the attack. As for "Spirit Reaper", it was not changed. Game mechanics always meant that it would be destroyed after the resolution of the card that targeted it. If you play any of the old video games, you'll see that it was always like that. It was errata'd so these game mechanics are more clear to players. There have been a few cards whose effects were changed, though, including "Green Baboon, Defender of the Forest". Previously, you could use its effect during the Damage Step. Rulings later prevented this.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 02:47, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Like for "Ultimate Offering" up above, it was normally anytime and any players, but now it's only to it owner and in certain Phase (owner's Main Phase 1 and opponent's Battle Phase) instead. Konami just got sober up and went to fixing them into correct lore in the way they wanted us to playing. --iFredCat 02:57, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

It probably was always meant to be used as it was errata'd. You have to remember, the game was still in its infancy when a lot of these cards were released. A few mistakes or lack of foresight into how players will perceive effects is to be expected.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 02:59, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Also, a card that was undoubtedly changed in a drastic-way was the original OCG printing of "Toon World".--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 03:01, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Either way, we can all agree that cards HAVE been changed. For whatever reason lol 108.225.162.19 (talk) 03:36, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly approve of problem solving card text.

== I wholeheartedly approve of problem solving card text. ==

I myself completely misinterpreted "can only be special summoned by....." as a restriction for special summoning with external effects like monster reborn but allows normal summoning, and not as an ability that lets it special summon itself but forbids normal summoning.

I'm completely flummoxed by how different the original lore and current lore for waboku are.

I'm also confused as to why the current lore of ultimate offering allows you to normal summon during your opponent's turn. summoning during the opponent's battle phase just *feels* like a special summon to me. 74.78.1.129 (talk) 03:53, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

That is because Waboku's original text of "preventing damage from monsters" no longer has any meaning whatsoever. Back then it was a metaphor for "preventing battle". But as the rules got more and more formalized, it was dropped, hence the old wording stopped making any sense and only served to confuse players. As for Ultimate Offering, it does make sense since it allows you to summon monsters on your opponent's turn that cannot be Special Summoned at all. --Eps01 (talk • contribs) 09:01, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Monsters being unable to take Battle Damage isn't unique to Waboku. Check Charm of Shabti or Rocket Warrior as well. When reading old cards, think of that text as the old equivalent of "cannot be destroyed by battle". Battlemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:01, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

And "Five-Headed Dragon" (Card Errata:Five-Headed Dragon), but nobody care if a monster with 5000 ATK/DEF can't be destroyed by battle :D --Missign0 (talk • contribs) 13:54, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

*thumbed at the HERO with same effect* --iFredCat 14:01, January 10, 2013 (UTC)