Jump to content


~The Organization~
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1013 Legendary

About ness00

  • Rank
    Number VII

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

710 profile views
  1. The (2) effect is both an Ignition Effect and can be treated as a Quick Effect if you meet the right conditions. This does indeed mean that if you do not meet the conditions, it is a Spell Speed 1 effect that you can only activate during your Main Phases, and if you do meet the right conditions, it is a Spell Speed 2 effect that you can activate in any phase of either player's turn, except during the Damage Step. This is how the Super Quantal Xyz Monsters work, too. Cards don't talk about Ignition or Quick Effects, they just talk about activation requirements and timings, so this type of effect that "becomes" a Quick Effect is written as "this can be activated during the opponent's turn", and at the same time it implies that you can activate it during your turn as a SS2 effect.
  2. The relevant part is that Titanic only negates the effects and not activations. If a Spell Card can only be activated "once per turn", since Titanic does not negate its activation, you cannot activate a second copy of that card.
  3. Deflector only negates the effects of Spell Cards of the right type. Pendulums are not Continuous, Field, Equip or Quick-Play Spells, so no.
  4. I think the rule of thumb was that the turn player's applies first, and if the turn player controls multiple effects, they choose.
  5. Ehther / Escalation

    There are three groups of cards that give you more Normal Summons: 1) Those that increase the max number of NS you can perform (Double Summon, Chain Summoning). 2) Those that give you a NS in addition to your NS (Constellar Pollux, Evilswarm Castor). 3) Those effects that perform a NS during resolution (Ether, Ultimate Offering). For group #1, the max number of NS you can perform is the max number mentioned by the effects. For group #2, you only get 1 additional NS. For group #3, you get any number of NS, as if they were Special Summons. Escalation and Ether fall into group #3. You can activate Ether any number of times as long as you can pay the cost. You can activate the effect of 1 copy of Escalation per turn, but if you have more copies, you can activate the effects of each of them once per turn.
  6. No, why you do this to yourself, man.   I don't think Enemy Controller is even applying at this point.   Player A has control of the Jam until Change of Heart expires, and when it does, since Mark's effect is negated, Jam would return to player B.   There sure are, but you were already stretching the available information with your first scenario. At this point I'm mostly giving you my opinions.   That's why I tell you not to come up with new terminology, let alone use 4 control-switching cards. Player B owns Frog the Jam. Unless some effect says that Player A can control it, Player B controls it. Mark of the Rose has an effect that gives Player A control of Frog the Jam, but during the End Phase, that control is reverted to Player B, essentially turning itself off as a result.   It's not common for Continuous Trap Cards to be able to activate their effects in the same chain link in which they are activated, and in the cases that you can, it's rare to have Trigger-like effects as well. It's a rare mechanic overall. It's easier that you ask if X card can activate its effect or not than to check for all of them. Another example of a Trigger-like effect that works very similarly to Lose 1 Turn that comes to mind is Einsbahn, and it's not a very popular card. What you need to remember is Spell Speeds. If you are activating a Trap Card, that's a Spell Speed 2 effect. If you are activating its effect in the same chain link, the result is the same. If only the effect of the Trap Card is being activated, and it's a trigger-like effect, it follows the rules of SEGOC, and SEGOC piles all effects together according to turn player/opponent player and mandatory/optional regardless of Spell Speed, in earlier chain links than Spell Speed 2 (fast) effects.
  7. No, don't compare ATK/DEF modifiers to anything. They are their own problem.   It would reset to "take control of the equipped monster".       Yes. Otherwise, if L1T is already active, its effect activates before Fast Effects can be activated, at the time Trigger Effects do.   SEGOC ignores Spell Speed. You also aren't changing the Spell Speed to 2, you are making the effect resolve in the same chain link in which you activate the card, and the card's activation, being a Continuous Trap Card, is a Spell Speed 2 effect.
  8. 1) It does not start a chain and it is not an effect. 2) Think of it as a Snatch Steal that overwrites itself. It has a continuous effect like Snatch Steal that takes control of the monster, and when the effect activates, control changes to the opponent. Since control-changing effects override each other with the most recent one, Mark of the Rose overrides itself each time the effect activates. 3) It depends on the card. Abnormalities like you mention may happen. Lose 1 Turn is a common example.
  9. Not exactly. A better way to look at it is after you disrupt the card with some effect, ask youself what did that effect do, and you can determine if the card is treated as being on the field or not. A set monster is on the field. A Flip Summoned monster is on the field. If you negate the Flip Summon, the monster is not treated as being sent from the field to wherever. A set S/T card is on the field. An activated S/T card is on the field (and then is sent to the GY in most cases). A S/T card that is destroyed on the field is treated as being destroyed on the field and sent to the GY. A S/T card that has its activation negated is not treated as being on the field. Rather than asking yourself "is this card in limbo atm", look at the result.   In your example, Vortex negates the activation of Kozmotown. Kozmotown was on the field, and then is destroyed (and sent to the Graveyard). It never explicitly enters a "limbo", but it is not treated as being on the field, let alone on the Field Zone, so its effect cannot be activated.   It's not legal, but I'm not sure where you could find this info. I believe it was asked at one of the judge forums, if it's not in the policies.
  10. You'll have to excuse me if I believe Konami doesn't read my e-mails, so I'll just post here. Anyone feel free to copypaste it amd send it. There are at least two immediate problems I see with this decision of an adjusted Forbidden/Limited List, and they have nothing to do with the contents of the list, as opposed to most of the feedback Konami will receive. The first problem lies in how it is executed: You have some events using one format, and other events using a different format. This substracts usefulness to the cards people already own, as a player cannot use the same Deck in a Local tournament as well as a Regional tournament, or a YCS. A potential counterargument to this is that if some cards become less useful (or are forbidden altogether), then other cards become more useful, but this is not the case in a split format, as these newly useful cards only gain value in some events. These two tiers of events are not equal. We are not getting an Advanced Format YCS, or an Adjusted format OTS. This effectively stops players that follow one format to access the other without modifying their Deck, and while this might seem like an inevitable consequence of having more than one format, the prohibition of holding a tier of events in one format or the other detracts people from playing either format altogether. Why play at Local tournaments if it is not good practice for tier 2 events? Why play at tier 2 events if you cannot use the Deck you are familiar with from Local tournaments? It creates an unnecessary rift between the players who can't agree on which one is the "real" format. Which brings me to the next point: The lack of communication with the players from Konami. Konami said that the last two formats will not have a finishing date in order to gain more flexibility. Very well, what has Konami done with this flexibility? First, they stretched the July format for over a month, into November. Then the November format, which was expected to finish at January extends across that month and into early Febraury. Then we get an announcement that the format does keep extending "for a month or two", but only for some events. "A month or two" of delay is not only a significantly large gap for an otherwise quarterly format change, but also does not tell the players when will this divide end. Just "sometime", you figure out what to do until then The reason multiple formats work is because they are supported parallelly, as opposed to one format taking from the other. And even if one of them is unsupported, players need to know when the format will change. Right now, players need to build one Deck to play one format, rebuild it to play at a tier 2 event, de-build it to go back to playing tier 1 events, and even if they stick to only one format, they still have no idea for how long this will last.   This will be most of the feedback: "I'm glad/pissed that this Deck is not viable".   They have been playing Monarch Equalizer in the OCG for a few months. It was a lot less viable last format, because Juggler was a card. Then Juggler was banned, and it became viable again, even if there are still a number of counters. It hasn't exactly been dominating, but it's a thing.
  11. PSA: Wavering Eyes

    Rule sharking is indeed stipulated in the penalty guidelines as unsportive conduct. However...   Pointing out that your opponent resolved an effect in a way that favors you and/or undermines them as they try to fix their mistake is not rule sharking. "Baiting" someone is a lot grayer, but once the player does make a mistake on their intended play while the effect resolution is still perfectly valid, then that mistake is the player's fault and it does not backfire on the opponent at all.   This is a much more important question. "Putting the Deck down" isn't necessarily an accurate indicator that the player has finished searching for one card and not two of them, but the concept still stands: Did the player communicate that they were applying the 4th effect of Wavering Eyes, at least implicitly? If so, the player has unadvertedly skipped the ability to apply the other effects and is unable to backtrack. This is not rulesharking, it's how the card works.
  12. Why would it be illegal? If anything it would be encouraged if you are somehow unable to get dice or coins.
  13.   Ye, as mentioned before, you show your opponent that the cards are appropriate, but then you have to agree on a random method (die, coin, choose face-down, etc.) I have seen JP players doing really weird things like targeting for Trishula. Don't believe every OCG video is too competitive.
  14. This was my bad, there was an open italics tag, but couldn't fix it myself.   :^)   It's like 3/4ths of the book.