Pharaoh Atem

┬╗Retired Staff
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15827 RAWR means ilu in dinosaur

About Pharaoh Atem

  • Rank
    The Ruler of Benevolence - Your Translator
  • Birthday 07/05/88

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Ohio. Huffman Prairie.
  • Interests Hanging out with my friends and family.

Recent Profile Visitors

7797 profile views
  1. I've been tinkering with this sort of thing for a while via Darkwurm + Zero in an Astrograph deck, because we full well know series villain jokes are key. That aside, this is a card that repetitively searches a Pendulum Scale compatible with nearly any monster in the game, while also paying for itself in all of the most likely cases of its being Summoned. (No one's Flip Summoning this damn thing.) I appreciate looking at it in terms of remembering old good low-scales like Monkeyboard, and also the "lol R4 pls" shenanigans possible, but there're other options to be had here too. If you ever wanted to be able to repeatedly Pendulum Summon free materials for Vortex, this is a good way to make sure your low scale is low enough to summon some sort of Odd-Eyes material for repeat reuse. Whether or not Vortex spam appeals to people remains to be seen, but Trump Girl did make me start clamoring for Scale 1s and Scale 0s as something to watch out for. This also looks like it'd be a good way to easily and repeatedly play the no-Poly-necessary version of Starving Venom for free, which has its own merits. If you're ever playing anything that wants to make Crystal Wing easily, let's just find you some Lvwhatever tuners and have Zero drop some Synchros for you.
  2. once a "Virus" card that works like Full Force or Crush Card has resolved, it destroys cards in your hand that you've drawn, but it doesn't do so while a Chain Link is resolving. It can do so between resolving two different Chain Links, however. So, if you draw something while resolving a Chain Link (while resolving Vendor's first effect), you need to finish resolving that Chain Link (after drawing while resolving Vendor, discard the drawn card if it isn't right, or make a choice between Special Summoning or not if the drawn card is right) before the "Virus" like Full Force does anything to the drawn card. The judge ruled correctly, as once you chose to Special Summon the drawn card, there was no way for the Virus to recognize it as the drawn card, thus no way to destroy it. The only way for a card drawn by the effect of Toy Vendor to be destroyed by a "Virus" like Full Force would be for the drawn card to be a Fluffal monster that you choose not to Special Summon via Vendor's effect.
  3. You know, in my day we considered users of this nature toxic enough to remove.
  4. Atem pays dividends over time. compound interest is somehow involved.
  5. exactly why it damned a generation it was a thing that actually happened, and it set me on the path of becoming a judge now the game has to deal with the consequences
  6. the phrase that damned a generation
  7. I live to serve
  8. @.ben. your king has gotchu, fam
  9. It falls flat given that nothing about the game's rules stipulates player choice-to-not-use-a-non-mandatory-aid can corrupt the gamestate or otherwise violate procedures. That being SAID: nothing's stopping policy from changing to denote something like this as an unfair advantage, EXCEPT the whims of the policy's makers. so while your angle falls flat now, ask me again in 10 years.
  10. No, because the game rules permit Desires. If you're gonna be glib, be glib competently.
  11. we will return you to the black&white yet
  12. If it is indeed a probability equation, sure, but it would be on him to make that argument to us when we investigate, and he would be expected to calculate and make a play decision as promptly as we find appropriate regardless of whether or not he is using a probability equation. How relevant a calculation is does not dictate how necessary one is: necessity is dictated by game rules, not by player desires and wishes. Players *want* to make optimal plays, but I *must* enforce policy in a way that knows when to accomodate those wants and when to say "you're still not going fast enough, and I think the calculator is slowing you down this time". (If one cannot consistently make optimal plays without machine aid, and/or cannot consistently use that machine aid quickly enough to evade all potential SP-Minors, then one is not entitled to make optimal plays consistently: policy comes before entitlement to consistent-perfection-in-defiance-of-policy-enforcement.) Playing well within the bounds established by adjudication is what it means to be good as far as the game's runners are concerned: not just optimum play, but optimum play within the bounds set by policy. This means that it is possible for him to compute and decide as quickly as he physically can and STILL commit SP-Minor. This also means it is possible for him to compute and decide slightly slower than that and NOT commit SP-Minor. It is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and the beholders are the judges patrolling your event aisles. SP-Minor doesn't care for whether or not you "play slower than you would otherwise", it cares solely for whether or not your present speed is unacceptable to an eventrunning observer. It is our perception as observer who feels "that was a little slow" or not that sanctions our writing the circumstance down as SP-Minor or not. It's why SP-Minor merits a Warning on the first offense. The OP asks if there are any restrictions on what one may calculate. The restrictions are "don't earn SP-Minor or UC-Cheating in doing so".
  13. not quite, ash intentionally doing it means we DQ you on the first intentional offense and throw you out of the venue: intentionally doing it is UC-Cheating SP-Minor, as allen said above, is only for unintentional cases
  14. When talking about things players can control regarding their interaction with adjudication and policy enforcement, many things boil to perceived intentions. What I can say is that I can't think of any reason eventrunners would consider use of calculators for any mathematical purpose to be the interest of the event. For some purposes, of course, like making sure you deduct the correct amounts of damage and calculate ATK and DEF stats properly. There's a difference between using a calculator to verify a calculation-that-has-to-be-right-to-preserve-the-gamestate's-integrity and using a calculator to help-you-make-a-gameplay-choice-that-doesn't-have-to-be-optimal-to-preserve-the-gamestate's-integrity. Eventrunners care about the event's health first and foremost, prioritizing safety first, fairness second, and enjoyability third. This means that if the enjoyability interests of someone using a calculator to help them make a choice 1) isn't necessary to preserve the gamestate's health, and 2) doesn't look like it's actually helping make a choice, but is just burning time then we reserve the right to say "put it away and get on with it, you are playing too slowly and the calculator crutch isn't helping." Let's say someone's attacking you - then if you use a calc to make sure damage values are right, you're probably fine b/c that's necessary for gamestate integrity. You'd have to be REALLY slow in that particular case for us to think "he's being slow on purpose, print the paperwork." Let's say you're just crunching numbers via the equation in the OP. Nothing in gameplay SEEMS to be going on that requires mathematical calculation, but you're doing it anyway. If you're even the slightest bit slow about it, we may well ask "what's going on here" and investigate - and depending on whether or not your investigation finds intentional stalling or unintentional slow play or nothing wrong at all, the infraction could be anything from UC-Cheating or SP-Minor or nothing at all.
  15. It would be on you to explain how you aren't wasting my event's time - adding up monster ATKs in order to make a play decision is something I would consider a potentially acceptable use, though I would confer with my superiors for more info on how much or little leeway we're interested in giving for the sake of letting you use tool assistance and extra time on that decision as opposed to saying "you should be able and willing to do this in your head." Hell, we may even surmise that a possible answer of "we insist you do it mentally" might come down b/c losing the game via misplay that was conducted after incorrectly adding values together might be a DESIRABLE form of loss via misplay. It depends on whether or not we want addition to BE one of the ways you can be worse or better at ygo. However, that's just a side tangent example. The equation in the OP is not adding up ATKs, it is something else. It will require a different explanation. I am listening, and I will be happy to say if I find it satisfactory or not.