[DISC] Fairy Archer

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Also' date=' Konami issued an official ruling on the matter. So, unless the TCG screws it up (which it could), the case is closed.

 

http://yugioh-wiki.net/index.php?cmd=read&page=%A1%D4%A5%D5%A5%A7%A5%A2%A5%EA%A1%BC%A1%A6%A5%A2%A1%BC%A5%C1%A5%E3%A1%BC%A1%D5&word=%09%20%A5%D5%A5%A7%A5%A2%A5%EA%A1%BC%A1%A6%A5%A2%A1%BC%A5%C1%A5%E3%A1%BC

 

Second to the bottom.

[/quote']

 

The card still says it can. There's the silly ruling I predicted.

 

lolwut? I already proved that it doesn't work that way, and any rulings to the contrary are BKSS rulings. Konami, in this instance, just issued a ruling for clarity.

[darkwolf777]

I always thought Atlantis was a special case since it would be useless otherwise.

 

I guess the question is though, would IFS allow you to Special Summon more "Proto-Cyber Dragons" from the GY and Deck when you activate IFS on a "Proto-Cyber Dragon" who's name is currently "Cyber Dragon", or can you only just Special Summon "Cyber Dragons"? If you can only just Special Summon "Cyber Dragons" wouldn't that mean it doesn't keep both names, but only the name it currently has?

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Also' date=' Konami issued an official ruling on the matter. So, unless the TCG screws it up (which it could), the case is closed.

 

http://yugioh-wiki.net/index.php?cmd=read&page=%A1%D4%A5%D5%A5%A7%A5%A2%A5%EA%A1%BC%A1%A6%A5%A2%A1%BC%A5%C1%A5%E3%A1%BC%A1%D5&word=%09%20%A5%D5%A5%A7%A5%A2%A5%EA%A1%BC%A1%A6%A5%A2%A1%BC%A5%C1%A5%E3%A1%BC

 

Second to the bottom.

[/quote']

 

The card still says it can. There's the silly ruling I predicted.

 

lolwut? I already proved that it doesn't work that way, and any rulings to the contrary are BKSS rulings. Konami, in this instance, just issued a ruling for clarity.

Except, the case of WoA fetching A Legendary Ocean doesn't sense either.

[burnpsy]

Could someone kindly explain what a "BKSS Ruling" is?

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Also' date=' Konami issued an official ruling on the matter. So, unless the TCG screws it up (which it could), the case is closed.

 

http://yugioh-wiki.net/index.php?cmd=read&page=%A1%D4%A5%D5%A5%A7%A5%A2%A5%EA%A1%BC%A1%A6%A5%A2%A1%BC%A5%C1%A5%E3%A1%BC%A1%D5&word=%09%20%A5%D5%A5%A7%A5%A2%A5%EA%A1%BC%A1%A6%A5%A2%A1%BC%A5%C1%A5%E3%A1%BC

 

Second to the bottom.

[/quote']

 

The card still says it can. There's the silly ruling I predicted.

 

lolwut? I already proved that it doesn't work that way, and any rulings to the contrary are BKSS rulings. Konami, in this instance, just issued a ruling for clarity.

Except, the case of WoA fetching A Legendary Ocean doesn't sense either.

 

What do you mean it doesn't make sense? If A Legendary Ocean's name ceased to exist, then Warrior of Atlantis would not be able to search for it, because it isn't named A Legendary Ocean. Warrior of Atlantis clearly can and does search for A Legendary Ocean, and there are no rulings on the matter, therefor the game MUST operate this way.

 

And a BKSS ruling is a ruling that is ruled Because Konami Said So.

[darkwolf777]

What do you mean it doesn't make sense? If A Legendary Ocean's name ceased to exist' date=' then Warrior of Atlantis would not be able to search for it, because it isn't named A Legendary Ocean. Warrior of Atlantis clearly can and does search for A Legendary Ocean, and there are no rulings on the matter, therefor the game MUST operate this way.

 

And a BKSS ruling is a ruling that is ruled Because Konami Said So.

[/quote']

 

Then can you choose to Special Summon more "Proto-Cyber Dragons" (who's name is considered to be Cyber Dragon while face-up on the field) when using Inferno Reckless Summon or can you only Special Summon more "Cyber Dragons" or a mix of both since it has both names? I don't believe you can and can only summon more "Cyber Dragons".

 

Cards that have their names changed are considered to be called by that name and only that name. Warrior of Atlantis being able to search out A Legendary Ocean has to be a Special Case that breaks all other rulings.

 

I just need more evidence to consider WOA and ALO to mean "All cards that are considered to be called under an alias are also considered to be called by their original names at all times".

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Also' date=' Konami issued an official ruling on the matter. So, unless the TCG screws it up (which it could), the case is closed.

 

http://yugioh-wiki.net/index.php?cmd=read&page=%A1%D4%A5%D5%A5%A7%A5%A2%A5%EA%A1%BC%A1%A6%A5%A2%A1%BC%A5%C1%A5%E3%A1%BC%A1%D5&word=%09%20%A5%D5%A5%A7%A5%A2%A5%EA%A1%BC%A1%A6%A5%A2%A1%BC%A5%C1%A5%E3%A1%BC

 

Second to the bottom.

[/quote']

 

The card still says it can. There's the silly ruling I predicted.

 

lolwut? I already proved that it doesn't work that way, and any rulings to the contrary are BKSS rulings. Konami, in this instance, just issued a ruling for clarity.

Except, the case of WoA fetching A Legendary Ocean doesn't sense either.

 

What do you mean it doesn't make sense? If A Legendary Ocean's name ceased to exist, then Warrior of Atlantis would not be able to search for it, because it isn't named A Legendary Ocean. Warrior of Atlantis clearly can and does search for A Legendary Ocean, and there are no rulings on the matter, therefor the game MUST operate this way.

The cards themselves are flawed, you're missing that.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Actually, looking back, I'm starting to think that Warrior of Atlantis (and therefor Fairy Archer) are the BKSS rulings, and Prohibition treats them the way they're supposed to be treated.

[Tronta]

focus dark wolf! focus!

my potential combo was a direct response to this:

 

...

 

the reason konami put the text this way is to avoid a potential otk. they couldnt envision how letting a player activate multiples per turn would result in an otk' date=' but they still assumed it was possible. right off the top of my head, the inferno reckless + celestial transformation combo seems to fit pretty well. as well as cycling athena's with a superbia and this chick. so we can see that letting it activate multiple times per turn could cause some problems, yes? thus they wrote it so that it could not be done.

 

...

/topic

[/quote']

Only controlling 3 of these and no other LIGHT monsters would be (3*400)*3=3600 Points of damage. For every other LIGHT monster you add you inflict another 1200 points of damage making a maximum of 6000 points of damage if you control 5 LIGHT monsters. I don't see how you could make an OTK with it being once per turn instead of 1 Fairy Archer per turn.

[darkwolf777]

focus dark wolf! focus!

my potential combo was a direct response to this:

 

...

 

the reason konami put the text this way is to avoid a potential otk. they couldnt envision how letting a player activate multiples per turn would result in an otk' date=' but they still assumed it was possible. right off the top of my head, the inferno reckless + celestial transformation combo seems to fit pretty well. as well as cycling athena's with a superbia and this chick. so we can see that letting it activate multiple times per turn could cause some problems, yes? thus they wrote it so that it could not be done.

 

...

/topic

[/quote']

Only controlling 3 of these and no other LIGHT monsters would be (3*400)*3=3600 Points of damage. For every other LIGHT monster you add you inflict another 1200 points of damage making a maximum of 6000 points of damage if you control 5 LIGHT monsters. I don't see how you could make an OTK with it being once per turn instead of 1 Fairy Archer per turn.

 

Ah gotcha, it was only a theory~ my bad.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Actually' date=' looking back, I'm starting to think that Warrior of Atlantis (and therefor Fairy Archer) are the BKSS rulings, and Prohibition treats them the way they're supposed to be treated.

[/quote']

 

Bing-badda-bing, you got it. I thought I'd have to go off explaining this, but this is a much better outcome than predicted.

[Tronta]

yar.