CrabHelmet Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I would erase the ruling that Light and Darkness Dragon is affected by Shrink' date=' because it makes no sense whatsoever that Light and Darkness Dragon cannot negate Shrink.[/quote'] I can find no such ruling. He's probably thinking of the one that says LADD can only negate once per chain - which is perfectly reasonably, since the only alternative is to have LADD repeatedly attempt to negate itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 LADD could have had an "except this card" clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 LADD could have had an "except this card" clause. I meant given its current text. Such a clause would require an erratum rather than a ruling change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkillzKill Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 LADD could have had an "except this card" clause. I meant given its current text. Such a clause would require an erratum rather than a ruling change. I can't remember where I found that ruling as well. It might have been from the wikia or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiro Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 The ruling where your limited to 3 copies of each card in your deck? A deck of 40 exodia pieces would be awesome. More like 5 Exodia pieces and 35 Upstart Goblin. NO! 1x Exodia1x Left Leg1x Left Arm1x Right Leg1x Right Arm34x Upstart Goblin1x Mechanical Snail Never forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyosuke Kiryu Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I would erase this ruling: During the turn "Reverse Trap" is activated' date=' "Light and Darkness Dragon's" second effect will only activate 1 time after "Reverse Trap" resolves. When it does, it will gain 500 ATK and DEF instead of losing 500 ATK and DEF. "Light and Darkness Dragon's" second effect will activate normally during following turns, and if it gained 500 ATK and DEF the gained ATK and DEF becomes a loss of 500 ATK and DEF. [/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jericho Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 That Peten the Dark Clown can't be removed to Special Summon another one when I tribute it or discard it for a cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manjoume Thunder Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 The ruling where your limited to 3 copies of each card in your deck? A deck of 40 exodia pieces would be awesome. More like 5 Exodia pieces and 35 Upstart Goblin. NO! 1x Exodia1x Left Leg1x Left Arm1x Right Leg1x Right Arm34x Upstart Goblin1x Shapesnatch Never forget. *cough* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiro Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 The ruling where your limited to 3 copies of each card in your deck? A deck of 40 exodia pieces would be awesome. More like 5 Exodia pieces and 35 Upstart Goblin. NO! 1x Exodia1x Left Leg1x Left Arm1x Right Leg1x Right Arm34x Upstart Goblin1x Boneheimer Never forget. *cough* :\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysty Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I would erase the ruling that says that, if "The Legendary Fisherman" is the only monster you control, your opponent can attack you directly. I also have a question about this card: The errata'd version of TLF says this:As long as "Umi" is face-up on the field, this card is unaffected by any Spell Cards. Monsters on your opponent's side of the field cannot select this card as an attack target. Does that mean that, even if "Umi" isn't on the field, this card still cannot be attacked, or does the "Umi" condition apply to both of his effects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kira the Savior Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I would erase the ruling that says that' date=' if "The Legendary Fisherman" is the only monster you control, your opponent can attack you directly. I also have a question about this card: The errata'd version of TLF says this:As long as "Umi" is face-up on the field, this card is unaffected by any Spell Cards. Monsters on your opponent's side of the field cannot select this card as an attack target. Does that mean that, even if "Umi" isn't on the field, this card still cannot be attacked, or does the "Umi" condition apply to both of his effects?[/quote']I BELIEVE this behaves like Slate Warrior. Slate warrior is a flip effect but the second effect of it that when a monster destroys it that monster gets an attack decrease will actiavte if you dont flip it. Because the erffect is seperated by a peirod. So the Umi needing to be on the field has a peirod inbeetween the other effect SO its a seperate thought. therefore the Umi needing to be on the field dosent apply to the second effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysty Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I would erase the ruling that says that' date=' if "The Legendary Fisherman" is the only monster you control, your opponent can attack you directly. I also have a question about this card: The errata'd version of TLF says this:As long as "Umi" is face-up on the field, this card is unaffected by any Spell Cards. Monsters on your opponent's side of the field cannot select this card as an attack target. Does that mean that, even if "Umi" isn't on the field, this card still cannot be attacked, or does the "Umi" condition apply to both of his effects?[/quote']I BELIEVE this behaves like Slate Warrior. Slate warrior is a flip effect but the second effect of it that when a monster destroys it that monster gets an attack decrease will actiavte if you dont flip it. Because the erffect is seperated by a peirod. So the Umi needing to be on the field has a peirod inbeetween the other effect SO its a seperate thought. therefore the Umi needing to be on the field dosent apply to the second effect In that case, I would probably have to change the card ruling back to needing "Umi" for the second effect, otherwise it would be a one card attack lock except for cards that naturally attack directly. Another good ruling would be to let monsters attack directly if the only monster your opponent controls is an Earthbound Immortal, like in the anime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Mechanical Snail isn't funny, guys. Also, it turns out that it isn't my only card. I found an Ultimate Offering and an Upstart Goblin in my basement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.