OCG/PSCT Tutorial: Learn How To Write Your Cards Properly!

[Guest 777c]

I have trouble writing this effect:

• This card can attack twice during each Battle Phase.

Is this the correct way to state that a monster can attack two times in one Battle Phase, in terms of OCG/PSCT?

How would I rewrite this effect to say that the monster can attack three times in one Battle Phase?

[Atypical-Abbie]

I have trouble writing this effect:

• This card can attack twice during each Battle Phase.

Is this the correct way to state that a monster can attack two times in one Battle Phase, in terms of OCG/PSCT?

How would I rewrite this effect to say that the monster can attack three times in one Battle Phase?

It would be more accurate to say "This card can make a second attack during each Battle Phase."

 

For the other question, you would say "This card can make 3 attacks during each Battle Phase."

[Guest 777c]

I have trouble writing this effect:

• Destroy all Set monsters your opponent controls, and if you do, your opponent loses 700 LP for each.

Is this correct OCG/PSCT?

[Atypical-Abbie]

I have trouble writing this effect:

• Destroy all Set monsters your opponent controls, and if you do, your opponent loses 700 LP for each.

Is this correct OCG/PSCT?

You want to say "inflict 700 damage to your opponent for each" instead, losing LP is only used when talking about yourself. Also, I would say "for each card destroyed", though I have seen some cards that omit that too, I just prefer it since it makes it a bit clearer.

[Guest 777c]

I have trouble wording this effect:

• Declare a number from 1 to 10; this card gains ATK and DEF equal to the declared number x 900 until the end of this turn.

This is an effect for my archetype "Lurker".  What it does is that the player declares a number from 1 to 10 inclusive, and the card gains ATK and DEF equal to the declared number x some other number until the end of this turn.

[Azuriena]

I have trouble writing this effect:

• Destroy all Set monsters your opponent controls, and if you do, your opponent loses 700 LP for each.

Is this correct OCG/PSCT?

 

 

When you have an effect that attempts to apply to all cards in a given place and it's followed by "and if you do" or "then", you say "as many [cards] as possible" instead of "all [cards]". This clarifies that you don't have to have destroyed all Set monsters your opponent controls to proceed beyond "and if you do" because some might be unable to be destroyed by card effects. That is, you apply what's functionally identical to "destroy all Set monsters your opponent controls," but proceed beyond "and if you do" even if not every monster it could've affected was destroyed.

 

So in this case it would be "Destroy as many Set monsters your opponent controls as possible."

 

You want to say "inflict 700 damage to your opponent for each" instead, losing LP is only used when talking about yourself. Also, I would say "for each card destroyed", though I have seen some cards that omit that too, I just prefer it since it makes it a bit clearer.

 

Losing LP isn't restricted mechanically or conventionally restricted to something you can only do to yourself. See Contract with Don Thousand.

 

Regardless you should still generally have card effects inflict damage to your opponent instead of making them lose LP. Only have them lose LP instead of taking damage if there's a reason to.

 

I don't know whether Lurkers do or not, but there's too much we don't know about them for me to make a comment on a thread like this. (What's the significance of declaring a number for the ATK-gaining effect below if it's, from what we know, almost always better to declare the highest number, for instance?)

 

I have trouble wording this effect:

• Declare a number from 1 to 10; this card gains ATK and DEF equal to the declared number x 900 until the end of this turn.

This is an effect for my archetype "Lurker".  What it does is that the player declares a number from 1 to 10 inclusive, and the card gains ATK and DEF equal to the declared number x some other number until the end of this turn.

 

 

It's fine.

[Guest 777c]

I have trouble wording the following.  It's a variable effect.

Declare a number from 1 to 10; this card gains ATK and DEF equal to the declared number x 900 until the end of this turn. Apply one of the following, depending on the declared number:

• 4 - Destroy as many Set monsters your opponent controls, and if you do, inflict 400 damage to your opponent for each card destroyed.
• 10 - Your opponent must discard their entire hand. Inflict 700 damage to your opponent for each card discarded.

[Atypical-Abbie]

 Losing LP isn't restricted mechanically or conventionally restricted to something you can only do to yourself. See Contract with Don Thousand.

 

Regardless you should still generally have card effects inflict damage to your opponent instead of making them lose LP. Only have them lose LP instead of taking damage if there's a reason to.

I did remember an exception, but couldn't find it, the reason being that both players lose LP here, you can't say that you inflict damage to yourself, so the opponent would lose it too. Really, you shouldn't be toying around with that as a concept IMO, it's already complicated enough to deal with taking damage and losing it yourself, let's not throw the opponent into the mix.

[Azuriena]

I did remember an exception, but couldn't find it, the reason being that both players lose LP here, you can't say that you inflict damage to yourself, so the opponent would lose it too.

 

You can inflict damage to yourself, although it's written as you taking damage, or in this case, each player taking damage.

 

Really, you shouldn't be toying around with that as a concept IMO, it's already complicated enough to deal with taking damage and losing it yourself, let's not throw the opponent into the mix.

 

Yes.

 

I don't condone it, but I'm not going to speak out against such an effect in a thread like this any more than I would an effect that says "Declare a number from 1 to 10; this card gains ATK and DEF equal to the declared number x 900 until the end of this turn."

 

(I'm not saying you shouldn't have. I'm just explaining why I didn't even though this is something I'm generally opposed to as well.)

[Guest 777c]

ATK and DEF cannot become lower than 0, if they would become a negative number they just become 0 instead.

Thanks.

[Guest 777c]

Wording is technically fine (but it's the older style). New style is simply "gain 1000 LP."

Thanks.

I have trouble writing a variable effect.  I sent a private message to you at 12:35 PM through a conversation.  I saw that you read it at 3:24 PM.

I accidentally deleted the conversation, which contained the variable effect I was about to show you.

What should I do now?

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

 

Declare a number from 1 to 10; this card gains ATK and DEF equal to that number x 780 until the end of this turn, then if the declared number was 5 or 9, apply the appropriate effect.

• 5 - Destroy all Spell/Trap Cards your opponent controls, then your opponent takes 700 damage for each card destroyed.
• 9 - Your opponent's monsters lose ATK and DEF equal to their own Level/Rank x 350.

 

Here's the fix. (I didn't reply right away because I had to leave for work shortly after reading)

[Guest 777c]

Here's the fix. (I didn't reply right away because I had to leave for work shortly after reading)

Is there anything wrong with the following effect?

Declare a number from 1 to 10; this card gains ATK and DEF equal to that number x 780 until the end of this turn, then if the declared number was 5 or 9, apply the appropriate effect.

• 5 - Destroy all Spell/Trap Cards your opponent controls, and if you do, your opponent takes 700 damage for each card destroyed.
• 9 - Your opponent's monsters lose ATK and DEF equal to their own Level/Rank x 350.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

The fix I gave you was already sufficient; only thing that got added is "and if you do", which I replaced with "then" because it should be implied that you need to destroy stuff first before the stat drop can occur. Think the "and if you do" wording applies mostly to negation effects like the Solemn Traps, etc. (I'll need to check it)

 

But new one is still fine.

[Azuriena]

Is there anything wrong with the following effect?

Declare a number from 1 to 10; this card gains ATK and DEF equal to that number x 780 until the end of this turn, then if the declared number was 5 or 9, apply the appropriate effect.

• 5 - Destroy all Spell/Trap Cards your opponent controls, and if you do, your opponent takes 700 damage for each card destroyed.
• 9 - Your opponent's monsters lose ATK and DEF equal to their own Level/Rank x 350.

 

You can use "the declared number" instead of "that number", as you have done before.

 

Use a colon (":") instead of a hyphen ("-") after variable effects.

 

Use "as many as possible" before "and if you do" and "then". You can refer to your opponent as "they" instead of "your opponent" again. (I neglected to mention this before.)

 

"All monsters your opponent controls." Note that you only use "all" when dealing with effects like those that involve ATK/DEF change. (You don't have to specify face-up.)

 

This isn't everything but I can't cover everything at this time.

 

The fix I gave you was already sufficient; only thing that got added is "and if you do", which I replaced with "then" because it should be implied that you need to destroy stuff first before the stat drop can occur. Think the "and if you do" wording applies mostly to negation effects like the Solemn Traps, etc. (I'll need to check it)

 

But new one is still fine.

 

"A, and if you do, B", where B has different outcomes dependent on A, is absolutely possible. In fact, it's less common to see "then" in effects like these. Many effects, if not most effects, use "and if you do", not just negation effects.

 

It's not incorrect for effects to be worded like "A, and if you do, B" where B is "do things based on the things you did (past tense)" even though A and B are considered to happen at the same time. For example, see the True Kings.

[Azuriena]

Here are the changes to PSCT seen on Galaxy-Eyes Cipher Blade Dragon's proxy.

 

• "Material" (alone) -> "material"

• "(Xyz Materials attached to that monster also become Xyz Materials on this card.)" -> "(Transfer its materials to this card.)"

• "Cannot be used as an Xyz Material for an Xyz Summon." -> "Cannot be used as material for an Xyz Summon."

• "You can detach 1 Xyz Material from this card" -> "You can detach 1 material from this card"

 

There's also a peculiar comma in its Trigger Effect, but this game has never been consistent with its comma use so we'll see if that kind of usage sticks around (as further departure from the English language).

[Atypical-Abbie]

Here are the changes to PSCT seen on Galaxy-Eyes Cipher Blade Dragon's proxy.

 

• "Material" (alone) -> "material"

• "(Xyz Materials attached to that monster also become Xyz Materials on this card.)" -> "(Transfer its materials to this card.)"

• "Cannot be used as an Xyz Material for an Xyz Summon." -> "Cannot be used as material for an Xyz Summon."

• "You can detach 1 Xyz Material from this card" -> "You can detach 1 material from this card"

 

There's also a peculiar comma in its Trigger Effect, but this game has never been consistent with its comma use so we'll see if that kind of usage sticks around (as further departure from the English language).

You mean that it reads as though it was placed in between the two sentences? It's kind of odd, though I get what they are trying to do, make it so it's clearer that it must be Xyz Summoned first for both parts, as some may misunderstand the sentence so that the first part reads that it needed to be Xyz Summoned, but the second part it did not need to be Xyz Summoned. As for the other changes, I am sure more are to come, oh boy, I'll have to re-write a lot of things it seems, but hey, at least this thread will be kept alive.

[Azuriena]

You mean that it reads as though it was placed in between the two sentences? It's kind of odd, though I get what they are trying to do, make it so it's clearer that it must be Xyz Summoned first for both parts, as some may misunderstand the sentence so that the first part reads that it needed to be Xyz Summoned, but the second part it did not need to be Xyz Summoned. As for the other changes, I am sure more are to come, oh boy, I'll have to re-write a lot of things it seems, but hey, at least this thread will be kept alive.

 

There's no way to interpret it that way because both refer to "this Xyz Summoned card". There's no way you can parse it incorrectly like you could, say, Toadally Awesome without its comma or Number 24.

 

Toadally Awesome:

"when your opponent activates a Spell/Trap Card, or monster effect" (original)

"when your opponent activates a Spell/Trap Card or monster effect" (no comma)

"[when your opponent activates] [a Spell/Trap Card] [or monster effect]" (correct)

"[when your opponent activates] [a Spell/Trap Card or monster] [effect]" (incorrect)

 

Number 24:

"If this face-up card in its owner's control is sent to your Graveyard or banished by your opponent's card effect" (original)

"[if this face-up card in its owner's control] [is sent to your Graveyard or banished] [by your opponent's card effect]" (correct)

"[if this face-up card in its owner's control] [is sent to your Graveyard] [or banished by your opponent's card effect]" (incorrect)

 

Cipher Blade:

"If this Xyz Summoned card you control, is destroyed by battle with an opponent's attacking monster, or destroyed by an opponent's card effect, and sent to your GY" (original)

"If this Xyz Summoned card you control is destroyed by battle with an opponent's attacking monster or destroyed by an opponent's card effect and sent to your GY" (no commas)

"[if this Xyz Summoned card you control] [is destroyed by battle with an opponent's attacking monster or destroyed by an opponent's card effect] [and sent to your GY]" (correct)

"[if this Xyz Summoned card you control is destroyed by battle with an opponent's attacking monster] [or destroyed by an opponent's card effect] [and sent to your GY]" (incorrect, but cannot be parsed like this)

"[if this Xyz Summoned card you control] [is destroyed by battle with an opponent's attacking monster] [or destroyed by an opponent's card effect and sent to your GY]" (incorrect, but doesn't have to do with the loss of the first comma, rather the second and third ones)

 

I feel like they're just using the comma to clearly define the different activation timings written in the same space of activation conditions. Or it could just be standard inconsistency. We'll see.

 

To make it clearer when it's already clear at the cost of better reading flow doesn't seem like a good idea. Can't ascertain the reason why they've done this yet, though. Might not have to do with clarity at all.

[Atypical-Abbie]

 

There's no way to interpret it that way because both refer to "this Xyz Summoned card". There's no way you can parse it incorrectly like you could, say, Toadally Awesome without its comma or Number 24.

 

Toadally Awesome:

"when your opponent activates a Spell/Trap Card, or monster effect" (original)

"when your opponent activates a Spell/Trap Card or monster effect" (no comma)

"[when your opponent activates] [a Spell/Trap Card] [or monster effect]" (correct)

"[when your opponent activates] [a Spell/Trap Card or monster] [effect]" (incorrect)

 

Number 24:

"If this face-up card in its owner's control is sent to your Graveyard or banished by your opponent's card effect" (original)

"[if this face-up card in its owner's control] [is sent to your Graveyard or banished] [by your opponent's card effect]" (correct)

"[if this face-up card in its owner's control] [is sent to your Graveyard] [or banished by your opponent's card effect]" (incorrect)

 

Cipher Blade:

"If this Xyz Summoned card you control, is destroyed by battle with an opponent's attacking monster, or destroyed by an opponent's card effect, and sent to your GY" (original)

"If this Xyz Summoned card you control is destroyed by battle with an opponent's attacking monster or destroyed by an opponent's card effect and sent to your GY" (no commas)

"[if this Xyz Summoned card you control] [is destroyed by battle with an opponent's attacking monster or destroyed by an opponent's card effect] [and sent to your GY]" (correct)

"[if this Xyz Summoned card you control is destroyed by battle with an opponent's attacking monster] [or destroyed by an opponent's card effect] [and sent to your GY]" (incorrect, but cannot be parsed like this)

"[if this Xyz Summoned card you control] [is destroyed by battle with an opponent's attacking monster] [or destroyed by an opponent's card effect and sent to your GY]" (incorrect, but doesn't have to do with the loss of the first comma, rather the second and third ones)

 

I feel like they're just using the comma to clearly define the different activation timings written in the same space of activation conditions. Or it could just be standard inconsistency. We'll see.

 

To make it clearer when it's already clear at the cost of better reading flow doesn't seem like a good idea. Can't ascertain the reason why they've done this yet, though. Might not have to do with clarity at all.

I'm sorry, but what on earth is all of this? What's with the brackets? How are they suppose to be any different, and what are you even trying to say?

[Azuriena]

I'm sorry, but what on earth is all of this? What's with the brackets? How are they suppose to be any different, and what are you even trying to say?

 

They're meant to represent different ways of parsing the effects. For example:

 

"[when your opponent activates] [a Spell/Trap Card] [or monster effect]" (correct). This can be read as both "when your opponent activates a Spell/Trap Card" or "when your opponent activates a monster effect" being valid activation timings.

 

"[when your opponent activates] [a Spell/Trap Card or monster] [effect]" (incorrect). This can be read as both "when your opponent activates a Spell/Trap Card effect" or "when your opponent activates a monster effect" being valid activation timings.

 

The way I split them up is probably less than perfect. I'm just trying to illustrate the point that the parsing problems Toadally Awesome has without its comma, or that Number 24 has, shouldn't apply to Cipher Blade's Trigger Effect's activation conditions without its first comma.

 

There's no room to misinterpret Cipher Blade's Trigger Effect's activation conditions without its first comma.

[Guest 777c]

I have trouble wording this effect.  Recently according to the Starter Deck Link Strike, Graveyard has been changed to GY. 

• Send the top 5 cards of your opponent's Deck to the GY.

Should I use Graveyard or GY?

I would like my cards to be up to the latest standards.

[Guest 777c]

Wording is technically fine (but it's the older style). New style is simply "gain 1000 LP."

Thanks for helping me earlier.  Please ignore the message I sent you two days ago regarding a message about the usage of the word Graveyard.  It was a mistake.

 

I deleted the conversation instead. Ignore the message I sent on June 2, 2017, latest edition is at 5:24 PM that time.

[Guest 777c]

Should I use the term GY when referring to the Graveyard when making my Yu-Gi-Oh Cards?

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Should I use the term GY when referring to the Graveyard when making my Yu-Gi-Oh Cards?

 

Considering the proxy pictures we've gotten of newer cards does say GY in place of Graveyard (and game mat did come out), yes.

Though, you can still write out Graveyard / use Series 9 (ARC-V) grammar if you want to. Only differences so far is the shortening of certain keywords.

 

Personally, I would wait until we get a new set with the Series 10 grammar fixes printed on them before modifying to that standard.

[Guest 777c]

I have trouble wording this effect:

• Draw 1 card, and if that card is a monster card, you can Summon it to your side of the field.

This is a card effect that allows me to draw a card, and Summon that card to my side of the field if the drawn card is a monster.

What is wrong with my statement?