User talk:Deus Ex Machina/Archive3

Also see Archives 1, 2, 4, and 5.

Dark Eradicator Warlock

Do you think this is a trigger effect or a continuous? It says that it is a trigger, and if trigger then it is activated when the normal spell card's chain resolves, starting a new chain? It seems to me continuous, like Chain Burst, and it inflicts damage when the normal spell card resolves. What do you think? ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 07:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• It makes seance now. Thanks! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 19:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

It's clear to me now, I misunderstood the effects. Thanks for your reply.

Thank you.

Thanks for clearing up the whole Shrink thing. I didn't quite believe it at first since I do use shrink and its one of my favorite cards. So...Thanks :O!--Takuma. 22:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Turbo Warrior

My friend used Levia dragons effect while Turbo warrior was face up is Turbo warrior destroyed? Since it can't be by monsters of lvl 6 or lower but the levia dragon was 6 when its effect was used so does it stay or go? —This unsigned comment was made by 76.181.159.227 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 21 February 2009

TCG rulings... tcg rulings....

Looks like it's just going to be the one set of rulings now. Since Konami won the dispute with UDE, the UDE yugioh website has been replaced with a Konami one. Now all former TCG ruling references are broken. -- Deltaneos (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

KURIBOH, DOOMCALIBER KNIGHT, DIVINE WRATH

Something's wrong here. In Breakdown of the Battle Phase (TCG) says that if a monster is destroyed by Divine Wrath (during damage calculation) the damage calculation stops and no battle damage is inflicted. Which means (I guess) if a battling monster leaves the field, the damage calculation stops. But in (new) Doomcaliber Knight's rulings says: "If "Kuriboh's" effect is activated to negate the Battle Damage from "Doomcaliber Knight", "Doomcaliber Knight" is Tributed to negate "Kuriboh's" effect. Damage has already been calculated, so if "Doomcaliber Knight" was attacking a monster with equal or lower ATK that monster will be destroyed, and Battle Damage will be inflicted as normal". Since Doomcaliber Knight leaves the field how is that possible to continue the damage calculation and infliction damage to player's LP as normal?
1) Is that a difference to OCG with TCG rulings again?
2) Is that a BKSS ruling?
As Deltaneos said above, it's just going to be the one set of rulings now (OCG). So I think it's better to delete the TCG rulings. What do you think?
Also, where did you find Doomcaliber Knight's rulings?
ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 21:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I understand. Well, if you find something, keep me also up-to-date. I want to know. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 23:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tongue Twister

What's the big idea with Tongue Twister. In it's OCG rulings says: The "Draw" and "Remove from Play" effects are not considered to resolve simultaneously. Since those effects are combined with "and", why they are not considered to resolve simultaneously?
1) Is the Japanese Wiki wrong again?
2) Is a BKSS ruling?
3) Is it's Japanese lore different from the English lore?
4) Does something happens with those "Draw" effects again?
ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 08:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• AH! OK! Now it makes seance. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 05:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It was?

Whoops. Thanks for the heads up. Dreamcoat 11:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

hey

Where do you guys keep up with new rulings and stuff like that? Picasso 81189 07:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

well i thought it was cool...and funny...so yea....but i deleted it now so whatever...and thanks for the link. Picasso 81189 01:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

UDE deleted forums

Do you know if UDE's deleted forums of Yu-Gi-Oh are somewhere else saved in the internet? Or if you know someone that has saved them in his/her PC? I mean the official forums answered by Curtis. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I've already tried COGOnline but i figured out that it hasn't all the forums. I tried also to find the cached pages on google, but I failed to find them all. :S. I only found Curtis's Metagame posts. Anyway, thanks for your help! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 15:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lost

• Are you a LOST fan? I am... --bewk 22:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Netrep

Do you think it should be better to add the ruling source (Netrep) next of the "==TCG Rulings==", as it is in Black Garden's ruling page (but Netrep instead of UDE), instead next of every TCG ruling of the card? ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 16:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strange! Well, ok then! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 22:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OCG Rulings

Why are you deleting almost all the OCG rulings of the cards? Are all those wrong? ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 06:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Painful Choice, Wulf Problem Report

Can you check this? If it is ture shouldn't it have been mentioned in the this ruling for "Despair from the Dark"?:

When you discard "Despair from the Dark" with "Painful Choice", "Despair from the Dark"'s effect does not activate because it was your own card effect that caused it.

-- Deltaneos (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Deltaneos (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Card Tips:Dark Archetype

Someone added this as a tip for "Dark Archetype" in Tag Force. Do you know would its effect require that you must actually take Battle Damage to be used? -- Deltaneos (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:Card Rulings:Ancient Lamp

I took them from the yu-judges page. I think it is official, since it has also the other card's official rulings. (Tell me if you disagree). It has also some rulings given by judges ("RULING FROM JUDGE FORUM"). Do you think we should put them on card's rulings of this wikia also? ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• As I search that site, it has the same rulings as Netrep has (with few differences). Also I remember a ruling given by Curtis in UDE forums which says that Phantom of Chaos's copied ATK is treated as it's original ATK, which is also said here at SHRINK's "RULING FROM JUDGE FORUM"'s rulings. Such rulings are very important and my opinion is that duelists have to know them. I think the yu-judges page is pretty confidential in order to put those rulings to that wikia also. Or not? ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 21:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok! Should we at least put only the missed rulings like ANCIENT LAMP's or "ARCANA FORCE EX - THE LIGHT RULER's? Or those also not? ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 20:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • OK! Could you do it only for 1 card to see what to put in <ref>? Should we put also the Judge's rulings or only the TCG? ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 20:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok thanks! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Like this?

P.S. Hey! I'm not lazy! :S ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 22:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:P ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 16:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Some Problems

Some "RULING FROM JUDGE FORUM"'s rulings are exactly the same with the official. Should I skip them them and keep only the interesting rulings? Or leave them as they are now?

Also, in Plasma's rulings, it has a ruling with Ryu Kokki (probably taken from here), but it doesn't explains exactly the scenario. (That Plasma destroys Ryu Kokki in battle). Should I keep it as it is now? Should I put also this as source? Should I skip that ruling and keep only the other IMPORTANT rulings? What?

Also, in Alien Infiltrator's rulings, it has two IMPORTANT semi-official rulings, but they don't have any source (<ref>). Should I keep them?

Also how about Penguin Soldier's rulings: Divine Wrath: The Flip Effect is still activated even if you don't choose to use it, so "Divine Wrath" can be chained. This isn't correct right? Should I remove it?

Those for now! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 16:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So what will I do? Should I keep only the correct and interesting rulings (absolutely necessary), or should I remove them all? If the second then how about Ancient Lamp's and Arcana Force Ex - the Light Ruler's rulings? Should I keep only them? (I think the first is better!)

I stopped trusting the judges when I saw a LV3 judge (the higher level) saying that a Field Spell card can be set in the S/T card zone. Ιnadmissible!

Those rulings for Alien Infiltrator was posted by Deltaneos. They are not from the "yu-judges" page. I'm asking for these because they seems important for players to know.

Oh! I didn't knew that Flip Effects are all mandatory. I thought some, like Penguin Soldier, were optional and they won't start chain (if you choose not to activate them). Interesting!

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 20:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 20:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Crimson Crisis Rulings

Why you didn't put directly that page for source, as I did in Turret Warrior's rulings, and you're punting this? ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 22:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

LaDD vs. Exodia

Hey there was a debate about whether Light and Darkness Dragon could negate Exodia's automatic win condition. I don't think it can, but I thought it would be best to check with you. Dmaster (Talk • Contribs • Count) 04:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Dmaster (Talk • Contribs • Count) 04:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Card Rulings:Ancient Lamp Again!

Man, I don't know what happens with Ancient Lamp's rulings. I found the same rulings again here. The weird thing is that both sites are Italian! Also in Skill Drain's rulings there is a ruling (in Mentions in Other Rulings) about Ancient Lamp. By searching the page's history, someone can see that the ruling has been posted very long ago (by "Huajun Chen" August 2007), which means that the rulings were official once. What's your thoughts? Should I add Ancient Lamp's rulings again, or should I remove the ruling from "Skill Drain"'s ruling page? The same also for Divine Wrath's rulings. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 08:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think these rulings was posted by UDE long ago and then UDE deletes them. (Unknown reason!). The same also for Archfiend of Gilfer's rulings. I'll delete the rulings from "Skill Drain"'s and "Divine Wrath"'s ruling pages since they're unofficial now. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 20:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OCG Rulings update

Are you correcting/updating the OCG rulings by a category (sets, alphabetically, ect), or by random cards?
Also, are you knowledgeable about the Japanese language, or you are translating the Japanese wiki somehow? If the first: are you from Japan (optional answer)? If the second: How can you do that? ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 19:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Impressive!

P.S. Have you got MSN so we can talk more easily? ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 21:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. We can always talk here! :) ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 22:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

B.E.S Monsters and Big Core

I didn't know that.Sorry.I posted that up b/c a lot of people were I'm from deny the fact that Skill Drain negates the effect of Big Core and B.E.S. monsters therefore removing their Counter(s).How can I prove this to them? —This unsigned comment was made by H-E-R-O HERO!! (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 April 2009

R.E. B.E.S. Monsters and Big Core

I know that, but the person I played against doesn't think that is true.I know a lot of the rulings on cards.I just need to find a way to prove it to him since UDE has no more rulings.Do you know a site that I can show him?

Template:Sic

Yes. Content from Wikipedia can be copied under the GFDL. Although more often left out, {{Wikipedia}} might need to be placed on the template page. -- Deltaneos (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

i does not understand the reason of these templates... can you explain it to me? --hanmac

idea for Card Rulings

for the Mentions in Other Rulings look at my user-page, its included the ruling. is this a good idea? --hanmac

next from Deltaneos: You're suggesting we transclude rulings into the "Mentions in other Rulings" section from their original rulings page. It seems like a good idea, although the coding is kinda messy.

{{#switch: {{{1|}}} 
	| A = If "[[Peten the Dark Clown]]" is [[Tribute]]d for a [[Tribute Summon]], the last thing that happened was that a [[Monster Cards|monster]] was [[Summon]]ed, so the effect of "[[Peten the Dark Clown|Peten]]" does not [[activate]].
	| B = If "[[Peten the Dark Clown]]" is [[Tribute]]d for "[[Mystik Wok]]" or "[[Cannon Soldier]]", the last thing that happened was that those effects [[resolve]]d, so the effect of "[[Peten the Dark Clown|Peten]]" does not [[activate]].
	| C = If "[[Peten the Dark Clown]]" is [[destroy]]ed in a [[chain]] and not as [[Chain Link]] 1, his effect does not [[activate]]. (Example: "[[Pot of Greed]]" is [[activate]]d and "[[Ring of Destruction]]" is [[chain]]ed, [[target]]ing "[[Peten the Dark Clown|Peten]]".)
}}<noinclude>{{Navigation}}

* {{:Card Rulings:Peten the Dark Clown|A}}
* {{:Card Rulings:Peten the Dark Clown|B}}
* {{:Card Rulings:Peten the Dark Clown|C}}</noinclude>

The above would be another way... although still kinda messy. I'm sure there's a much more efficient way.

I understand the advantages of your suggestion; The rulings would always be the same, which is particularly helpful when changing OCG rulings after an English name has been confirmed. However there are disadvantages... The mentions in other rulings aren't always an exact copy of the original. Unnecessary parts are sometimes cut out and replaced with elipses (...) It would mean effectively turning a vast amount of Card Rulings pages into templates... that doesn't seem advisable. -- Deltaneos (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

what say you to this? --hanmac

Card Rulings:Doomcaliber Knight

Sorry, I'm kind of dumping this on you, but ATEMVEGETA says the Doomcaliber Knight TCG rulings are incorrect and that UDE must have erased them from their site, before it was taken down, since the Doomcalibur rulings don't appear here. Can you offer any insight? -- Deltaneos (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Doomcaliber Knight's 9th ruling in example 3 is completely wrong. Green Baboon, Defender of the Forest cannot activate his effect during the Damage Step in both TCG and OCG. That's the reason why I'm telling that Doomcaliber Knight's TCG rulings are wrong.

I'm not trying to clear Kuriboh's rulings. I'm just saying that, since that ruling contradicts with the others, it may be wrong too.

See: User talk:Deltaneos for details!

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 19:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK! We can keep them for now. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Autoblocked??

   * Sperrgrund: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "AnyDeckSuitsMe". 

The reason given for AnyDeckSuitsMe's block is: ""

   * Beginn der Sperre: 17:55, 10. Apr. 2009
   * Sperr-Ende: 17:55, 11. Apr. 2009
   * IP-Adresse: 10.8.2.158
   * Sperre betrifft: 10.8.2.158
   * Sperr-ID: #16768 

but this is not my IP...

why I'm Blocked???? --hanmac

autoadd navigation to new pages?

i have the idea to add automatic {{Navigation}} to pages from the Sub Namespaces ala Card Rulings oder Card Tips ... is this possible? --hanmac

i dont think that they will hear to me ... its the same if i report bugs in template(as sample CardTable2 has many bugs) ... i think sometimes that they ignore me ... --hanmac

can you correct the bugs in the CardTable2? --hanmac

Mind Master ruling in its text

Is it necessary to note the "You cannot Tribute this card for his own effect." OCG ruling for Mind Master, since it is already explicitly stated in the card's text? -- Deltaneos (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue it's removal, but so's I'm clear, is the Konami FAQ a place where people post questions that are answered by officials or are they specific Q&A issued by Konami. -- Deltaneos (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Linear Accelerator Cannon

Thanks, it is been a long time since I played so I wasn't sure, and I forgot about the tildes, and I was in a hurry. ~ Dr j 26 23:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC) ~

Bottomless Trap Hole/Solemn Judgment vs. Future Fusion

• ' "Solemn Judgment" cannot negate a Special Summon if it results from the activated effect of a monster card, like "Mystic Tomato", "Light and Darkness Dragon", "Van'Dalgyon the Dark Dragon Lord", "Marauding Captain", "Lonefire Blossom", etc. ' I've noticed that on WC08, but could Bottomless Trap Hole kill a monster summoned by Future Fusion (Note: I know Solemn can't. Additional Note: Thanks again for all the rulings questions you have answered for me.) Dmaster (Talk • Contribs • Count) 23:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Elemental Hero Divine Neos Fusion Materials

• I know this question has been asked before, but i want to just make sure im understanding it right, can I use 1 Neos Monster, 1 Neo-Spacian Monster and 1 Hero Monster for his Fusion Materials because its says at least 1 Hero Monster or does it have to be 5 monsters total?Basically can i use 3 monsters being that 1 of them is a Neos Monster Neo-Spacian and at least 1 Hero monster or does it have to be 5?--H-E-R-O HERO!! 17:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks. that was confusing me

Thunder King Rai-oh

It's me again I'm sorry for the ruling posts.I'm just sick of people saying I'm wrong when I know I'm right, and have no proof to show them.Anyways I know the answer to this but can Thunder King Rai-Oh negate the summon of a monster summoned by the effect of another card? --H-E-R-O HERO!! 05:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:Thunder King Rai-oh

i knew it thank u.and again im sorry for the posts.the guy i was playing said that Thunder King Rai-Oh can negate monsters summoned by card effects. i even showed him the ruling and everything and he still denied it.do u have any advice for me on how to deal with stupidity LOL? --H-E-R-O HERO!! 01:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Certain Rulings

I know I can't do that and I apologize, the only reason why I edit other rulings is because they don't have rulings for certain things even though they should.For example they don't have the ruling that B.E.S Monsters and Big Core lose their counters while Skill Drain or any effect negating card is on the field.Also they don't show the ruling that Crush Card Virus doesn't destroy monsters on the field for 3 turns it only does that at the moment of activation.Another one is that they don't have the ruling that you are allowed to chain a Trap Card to the effect of Royal Decree because the chain resolves backwards.People don't believe rulings if they don't see it even though I'm right. For example you are allowed to chain a trap card to Royal Decree but my opponent doesn't think you can, well there is no ruling on it saying you can so how can I prove it to him? Another example is a guy I dueled 5 weeks ago, he said that B.E.S. Monsters and Big Core don't lose their counters while Skill Drain is on the field, even though the ruling on Skilled Dark Magician, Clock Tower Prison etc. says all counters are removed while their effects are negated, their is no ruling on the B.E.S. Monsters and Big Core saying that they lose their counters.So he told me that sense the B.E.S. Monsters and Big Core ruling doesn't mention that then it doesn't include them.Another situation was Crush Card Virus I was playing someone on KCVDS and they used Crush Card on me.After I destroyed the monsters with 1500 or more I use E - Emergency Call and added Elemental Hero Prisma to my hand then I summoned him and my opponent said it destroys monsters on the field for 3 turns.Well there is no ruling saying that it doesn't, so I showed him the Deck Devastation Virus ruling since its similar to Crush Card.After he saw the ruling he said "that ruling is for Deck Devastation Virus not Crush Card so it does destroy monsters on the field for 3 turns. After that i just quit the duel.So I'm sorry for that but they need to post the complete rulings to clear things up. —This unsigned comment was made by H-E-R-O HERO!! (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 May 2009

Thanks!LOL ill do that and see how they like it.lol

Light End Dragon

I have a question for a ruling regarding the above card. If I control a Light End Dragon and I attack with another monster I control other than Light End Dragon, can I still use Light End Dragon's effect to decrease my opponents monsters attack even though Light End Dragon isn't the one attacking? Please answer back, I'd appreciate it. :) --Sky Scourge God 23:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks alot man! One more question though, which ruling should I follow, the OCG or the TCG? I ask because I don't want to be accused of cheating during a tourney or anything like that. --Sky Scourge God 05:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Forum:Metaphysical Regeneration vs Trap Reactoy y fi

Thanks, Deus. I appreciate your intervention. (Not just because I was right, however, but because it was getting annoying.) Anyways, thanks again. Sabre Knight 18:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• If it really was that annoying, you'd have stopped earlier. The Horror'^{Speak if you dare} 18:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Hello are you a Filipino?

• Kaiser Jaren
• Supreme Leader - Ancient Archaeus Empire Yu-Gi-Oh! Club
• Kaiser-kun

---

Light End Dragon Text change

Whats up? I found some proof that the text was changed on Light end Dragon, ending the dispute about if it can lower the attack of another monster even if it doens't attack. Here's the sight to prove it: http://www.yugioh-card.com/en/gameplay/rulings/RGBT_Rules_v1-1.pdf

The new rules for the card are highlighted in blue. I thought you might want this for your rulings page. See you later! :) --Sky Scourge God 15:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. ^_^ --Sky Scourge God 02:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

you are wrong about sacred phoenix and ring of destruction

Oh no, its SkyScourgeGod with another question... :P

I have a question regarding Koa'ki Meiru Drago. Can this card be used as a Synchro or Fusion Material Monster while it is on the field if the Fusion/Synchro Monster in question has a Light or Dark Attribute? Also, can I special summon Red-Eyes Darkness Metal Dragon if I were to remove this card from play with it first? I don't know if there's a forum page for this, so thats why I'm asking you. --Sky Scourge God 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I just notice there's a discussion part in every page lol. Are users allowed to type a comment about a card? Or start a discussion about the card with a question? Things like that :P I wanted to say some things like how awesome the card is and what combos it can pull off and what not.--Xsamuraizx 06:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)