Jump to content
Haruki

The Official Goat Format Thread (April 2005 TCG/DB2 pre-NTR/CT2/CRV)

Recommended Posts

IzoristV    1

In 2015 there was a change in determining winner:

 

- Before 2015: A Duel cannot end during the resolution of a card effect, but will end immediately afterwards if the victory condition has still been achieved.

- After 2015: If a player’s Life Points reach 0 during the resolution of a card effect or a player is required to draw and cannot, the Duel immediately ends. If a card’s special victory condition, such as that of Exodia the Forbidden One is achieved during the resolution of a card effect, the Duel does not immediately end. If the victory condition is still true after the current effect on the Chain resolves completely, the Duel ends.

 

Today effect of Morphing Jar cannot be activated if one of players have less than 5 cards in a deck (unless it was force-activated in battle etc.), was it the same in 2005?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandis72    32
1 hour ago, IzoristV said:

In 2015 there was a change in determining winner:

 

- Before 2015: A Duel cannot end during the resolution of a card effect, but will end immediately afterwards if the victory condition has still been achieved.

- After 2015: If a player’s Life Points reach 0 during the resolution of a card effect or a player is required to draw and cannot, the Duel immediately ends. If a card’s special victory condition, such as that of Exodia the Forbidden One is achieved during the resolution of a card effect, the Duel does not immediately end. If the victory condition is still true after the current effect on the Chain resolves completely, the Duel ends.

 

Today effect of Morphing Jar cannot be activated if one of players have less than 5 cards in a deck (unless it was force-activated in battle etc.), was it the same in 2005?

Yup, you can deck people out with jar (check the DGz discord for more details; can't explain why this would work but Protector of the Sanctuary based comboes require COTH to work).

Will post Discord invite shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OD Superman    1122
16 hours ago, IzoristV said:

I wanted to clarify and sum up all the rulings that differ from present ones. Of course there are some of them on @Jazz's website (http://formatlibrary.weebly.com/rulings), but unfortunetelly it's far from complete.

I'll list some, that are missing. It would be great if somebody could help me with it, because I'm only playing since 2008 or sth.

 

- No upper deck limit (Main and Fusion, cannot be simulated on Duelingbook etc.)

- Starting player 1st turn draw (pretty obvious, but worth mentioning)

- Only one Field Spell; also replaced Fields are destroyed (same as above)

- 0 ATK monsters can destroy each other in battle (both Attack position)

- Ignition-like effects of Continuous Trap cards can only be activated if they are already face-up

- There is no "early trigger" rule in SEGOC (rule was in effect in TCG from 2007 until 2017)

- Effects that search deck can be activated even if there are no legal "targets" for them (but I'm not sure how many cards fall into this rule, RotA and Thunder Dragon for sure, but does it applicate to Mystic Tomato and Monster Gate too?)

- Old structure of the Battle Phase (is it different from the one that we had before the change in 2015 or sth?)

0 ATK monsters cannot destroy each other in battle. I'm 100% there's a source for this but can't look it up right now.
You can TD for 0 Thunder Dragon, but I believe if you ROTA with no targets left, it's considered an illegal activation and your deck is shuffled but ROTA goes back to your hand. Not 100% on whether there's a source for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IzoristV    1

0 ATK monsters thing - the line, that they cannot destroy each other was introduced to the rulebook in Zexal era, source:

 

Rulebook 8.0 - Zexal era rulebook

Rulebook 8.0 - updated, p. 44

 

I remember, that writing it in a rulebook was announced in my country as a rule change, but it COULD be wrong (I'm from Poland, btw). Before the "change" I've never had such a situation, but the general rule was "same ATK and attack position - destroy each other".

 

Thunder Dragon etc. thing - found that page with the discussion, RotA and Skilled Magicians are there, so I guess it applies to Tomato too (no ruling though). Monster Gate and Reasoning have ruling that if no monster is found then the deck is shuffled and effect dissapears.

 

 

Edited by IzoristV
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OD Superman    1122
On 8/21/2017 at 9:46 AM, IzoristV said:

0 ATK monsters thing - the line, that they cannot destroy each other was introduced to the rulebook in Zexal era, source:

 

Rulebook 8.0 - Zexal era rulebook

Rulebook 8.0 - updated, p. 44

 

I remember, that writing it in a rulebook was announced in my country as a rule change, but it COULD be wrong (I'm from Poland, btw). Before the "change" I've never had such a situation, but the general rule was "same ATK and attack position - destroy each other".

 

Thunder Dragon etc. thing - found that page with the discussion, RotA and Skilled Magicians are there, so I guess it applies to Tomato too (no ruling though). Monster Gate and Reasoning have ruling that if no monster is found then the deck is shuffled and effect dissapears.

 

Re: 0 ATK monsters,

 

In 2005, this was one of those rulings where you might have been at the mercy of your head judge because there was some ambiguity surrounding rulings at the time. However, there was a clearly defined OCG ruling long before Goat Format that said 0 ATK vs. 0 ATK wouldn't destroy either monster and almost everyone played that way. Or at least, I can confirm that's how it was played in my area and at every SJC I went to during the era, and Allen can confirm that judges in his area as early or earlier than 2008 also ruled it this way. So I think any disagreement about this ruling was just because there wasn't any official confirmation one way or another until it was addressed in the 2011 TCG Rulebook update.

 

It's also worth mentioning there was a Netrep post a long time ago where the question first came up of what would happen if Player A attacked Player B's monster of equal ATK after Player B used Waboku. The ruling was basically that although Waboku said "...no battle damage..." what that really meant was that the battle damage done to Player B's monster was reduced to 0 and it wouldn't be destroyed because Player A's monster would need to do "some" damage to destroy it. This ruling established how battle damage works in YGO, and Waboku continued to work this way in 2005, so for the exact same reason that Player B's monster would survive in this example, two monsters with 0 ATK wouldn't be able to destroy each other since neither can inflict any damage to the other.


I can't find that ruling now (though I'm sure others remember it too) but in as early as 2006 (and perhaps earlier examples), you could have also extrapolated this relationship of battle damage done to cards as something separate from battle damage inflicted to players by reading Five Headed Dragon, whose text at the time said (bolded for emphasis):

Quote

The Fusion Material Monsters for this card are any 5 Dragon-Type monsters. This monster cannot be Special Summoned except by Fusion Summon. This card does not take any Battle Damage, and cannot be destroyed by battle with an EARTH, WATER, FIRE, WIND, or DARK monster. (Battle Damage is still inflicted to players.)

 

Finally, in 2009 (2 years before the update to the TCG rulebook), a GameFAQs user emailed US Card Support and got a direct answer that "A monster with 0 ATK cannot destroy anything by battle," which essentially removed all ambiguity surrounding the issue. Source: https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/955057-yu-gi-oh-5ds-stardust-accelerator-world-championship-2009/52309741

Hope that helps.

Edited by OD Superman
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandis72    32
1 hour ago, OD Superman said:

Also, came here to share this:

 

http://yugioh.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=8246&writer=Johnny+Li&articledate=8-23-2017

I find a lot to disagree with here, but it's an article about Goat Format so I guess it's worth sharing here.

I do agree that goat has less ''potential'' skill than modern, combo-oriented formats, but that was never what made it good in the first place: what truly makes goat a great format, in my opinion, is that:

1) It REWARDS skill more than modern YGO formats, due to the incredibly fast and often uninteractive nature of the latter.

2) It has far more interactive skill than modern YGO formats do, and this makes it far less repetitive, and thus more fun to play.

 

Current can create amazing gamestate sometimes, where player interaction is extremely important, but those are often quite rare (although I will agree that some current formats do this far more than others; today's current being one of the best in this regard) and I would argue that game quality is lower as a result.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IzoristV    1
6 hours ago, OD Superman said:

Re: 0 ATK monsters,

 

In 2005, this was one of those rulings where you might have been at the mercy of your head judge because there was some ambiguity surrounding rulings at the time. However, there was a clearly defined OCG ruling long before Goat Format that said 0 ATK vs. 0 ATK wouldn't destroy either monster and almost everyone played that way. Or at least, I can confirm that's how it was played in my area and at every SJC I went to during the era, and Allen can confirm that judges in his area as early or earlier than 2008 also ruled it this way. So I think any disagreement about this ruling was just because there wasn't any official confirmation one way or another until it was addressed in the 2011 TCG Rulebook update.

It's also worth mentioning there was a Netrep post a long time ago where the question first came up of what would happen if Player A attacked Player B's monster of equal ATK after Player B used Waboku. The ruling was basically that although Waboku said "...no battle damage..." what that really meant was that the battle damage done to Player B's monster was reduced to 0 and it wouldn't be destroyed because Player A's monster would need to do "some" damage to destroy it. This ruling established how battle damage works in YGO, and Waboku continued to work this way in 2005, so for the exact same reason that Player B's monster would survive in this example, two monsters with 0 ATK wouldn't be able to destroy each other since neither can inflict any damage to the other.

 

I can't find that ruling now (though I'm sure others remember it too) but in as early as 2006 (and perhaps earlier examples), you could have also extrapolated this relationship of battle damage done to cards as something separate from battle damage inflicted to players by reading Five Headed Dragon, whose text at the time said (

bolded for emphasis):

 

Finally, in 2009 (2 years before the update to the TCG rulebook), a GameFAQs user emailed US Card Support and got a direct answer that "A monster with 0 ATK cannot destroy anything by battle," which essentially removed all ambiguity surrounding the issue. Source: https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/955057-yu-gi-oh-5ds-stardust-accelerator-world-championship-2009/52309741

Hope that helps.

 

Waboku ruling (even though you can't find it) is everything that it needs. Thank you.

Edited by IzoristV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something ain't right here. What's this phrase, "You win!" mean? 

KnkNze6kR3WR5PqUyj2vEA.png?width=272&hei

@Dick van Dyke any idea?

Edited by TheGoldenTyranno
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IzoristV    1

I know most of you probably went through this already, but... Breaker vs RoD aka how exactly Priority on Ignition Effects works.

I know very well how Fast Effect Timings work today.

 

Most essential questions:
1. When can Ignition Effect be activated using Priority? ONLY during Summon Response Window, or at any point in Main Phase (after resolving chain)?
2. Is Breaker's effect an exception to this? (Because, IDK, whole Priority on Ignitions is kinda made-up.)

 

I'm asking, because I got mixed answers from Pro DGz guys. I lurked into old topics and it's also divided there. Cameron and ACP say that it works only during Summon Response Window (so RoD controller can "choose" if he wants to deal 1600 or 1900). Jazz, Kris and MMF say that Priority on Ignition Effect can be used even in "after chain/effect is resolved" window (so RoD controller can really only deal 1900, if Breaker player wants to attack with it).

 

I was looking through some old UDE forums, but the only thing I ever found about "Priority on Ignition Effects" was about "Summon Response Priority on Ignition Effects".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2K18    255

ya u can only deal 1600 with ring on breaker unless they pass priority

 

either chain ring to the token eff (ring is cl2 and it does before the token is created) or they have priority to activate breaker's igniton effect on open gamestate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2K18    255

prio definitely doesnt only work in the summon resp window

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Danissgar    69

Consider the following scenario:

 

My opponent activates Premature Burial, Targeting Jinzo.

In response to the activation of Premature Burial, I activate Ring of Destruction targeting my own Chaos Sorcerer.

My opponent then, in response to my activation of ROD, activates Royal Decree.

 

Now, It seems to me that things work like this: Decree resolves first,  negating all traps. Then ROD resolves without effect, meaning Chaos Sorcerer is not destroyed and no player takes any damage. Finally, Premature Burial resolves, summoning Jinzo.

 

Is this mistaken? I encountered a player who "has been playing for 13 years, so they would know" that ROD has a 'Cost' which is that the Monster targeted by it must be destroyed even under Royal Decree. I've never heard this before. What's the deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Danissgar said:

Consider the following scenario:

 

My opponent activates Premature Burial, Targeting Jinzo.

In response to the activation of Premature Burial, I activate Ring of Destruction targeting my own Chaos Sorcerer.

My opponent then, in response to my activation of ROD, activates Royal Decree.

 

Now, It seems to me that things work like this: Decree resolves first,  negating all traps. Then ROD resolves without effect, meaning Chaos Sorcerer is not destroyed and no player takes any damage. Finally, Premature Burial resolves, summoning Jinzo.

 

Is this mistaken? I encountered a player who "has been playing for 13 years, so they would know" that ROD has a 'Cost' which is that the Monster targeted by it must be destroyed even under Royal Decree. I've never heard this before. What's the deal?

Not a cost. It survives. It most definitely isn't a cost as of current errata and I asked and was told this has never been the case. Ignore and disregard old version of response where I considered the possibility it could have formally read/been ruled as a cost. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tautou    4
On 6/3/2012 at 9:55 PM, ACP said:

Gay Deck #2 (I'd take a DN screen but half of the deck is proxies)

Monsters: 17
1 Jinzo
3 Mechanicalchaser
3 Dekoichi
1 Tribe
1 Sinister
2 Strike Ninja
1 Mystic LV2
1 Exiled Force
1 D.D. Warrior Lady
1 Don Zaloog
1 Sangan
1 Tsukuyomi

Spells: 16
3 Limiter Removal
2 Dimension Fusion
2 Reinforcement of the Army
2 Nobleman of Crossout
1 Mystical Space Typhoon
1 Heavy Storm
1 Graceful Charity
1 Pot of Greed
1 Delinquent Duo
1 Book of Moon
1 Premature Burial

Traps: 7
3 Sakuretsu Armor
1 Mirror Force
1 Torrential Tribute
1 Ring of Destruction
1 Call of the Haunted
1 Ring of Destruction

Randomly kills people out of nowhere. Only game I've lost so far is when I get t1 Duo'd and then Don got Snatched.

Maybe find room for a Giant Trunade or 2? Nothing would suck more than having all the tools needed for the big attack but they have something set in their backrow that's probably Scapegoat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tautou said:

Maybe find room for a Giant Trunade or 2? Nothing would suck more than having all the tools needed for the big attack but they have something set in their backrow that's probably Scapegoat.

Lol, you do realize the post you quoted is 5 years and some odd months old and as it happens that user isn't even active anymore?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34637

And that you can chain scapegoat to trunade

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazz    5322
1 hour ago, BuildTheWalia said:

hi jazz

 

son of a 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haruki    9172
21 hours ago, Jazz said:

 

son of a 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazz    5322

oh nice we redid the OP

 

good work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carbon    1874

How often do people play Goats on Duelingbook? This is the first time I've signed up for Book and the new ygo is gay. I might wanna play goats from time to time 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Carbon said:

How often do people play Goats on Duelingbook? This is the first time I've signed up for Book and the new ygo is gay. I might wanna play goats from time to time 

Are u on the Official Discord Channel? We have a place(#findyugiohgames ) there to request Goat Format(Or current if that was ur thing) matches with fellow DGz users and I personally lead a goat format warring team if u wanted to jump in deep and war the format. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
siwski    7
On 27. 4. 2017 at 5:27 AM, Jazz said:

DGZ warring meta >>> random DB opponents meta

 

There will be a lot more goat control, some aggro decks, and some burn I expect. We really are too good.

I'm new here. What is this warrinh thing and where can I join, if it's still a thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×