iAmNateXero Posted July 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2008 ^That was obviously a bad ruling, and bad examples. Read careful, at no point was any of HIS.HER monsters being sent to his/her graveyard. All of those monsters HE/SHE sacked for were owned by HIS/HER opponent. Brain opponents monster, soul opponents monster, and swap opponents monster. He does slip, and this isn't where i got my ruling from, i pulled the only thing that was posted on the thread i saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tekkaman01 Posted July 25, 2008 Report Share Posted July 25, 2008 ^That was obviously a bad ruling' date=' and bad examples. Read careful, at no point was any of HIS.HER monsters being sent to his/her graveyard. All of those monsters HE/SHE sacked for were owned by HIS/HER opponent. Brain opponents monster, soul opponents monster, and swap opponents monster. He does slip, and this isn't where i got my ruling from, i pulled the only thing that was posted on the thread i saw.[/quote'] Not a bad ruling, Curtis is UDE guru for rulings, what he says goes. Period. If you think he made a bad ruling, It doesn't really matter, because he is pretty much as close as it comes to making up the rulings as anyone in the TCG will get. And the person was asking if they could use it when someone took there monster and used for a tribute, the answer is no. because the last thing to happen is the monster being summoned, not the tribute. And if you are going to quote from a thread from UDE, make sure to re click on the thread once you get in it, because UDE has a messed up forum that sometimes only shows one of the posts, not all of them in a thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iAmNateXero Posted July 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2008 ^Noted for future ude Searches. On topic, fine Even if you cant activate to a tribute summon, i still think its dandy to activate in the damage step. I also think this trap is still worth playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tekkaman01 Posted July 25, 2008 Report Share Posted July 25, 2008 I would just rather a Saku. I can see where some combos would come into play, but If a combo makes me loose a monster, I would want to try and not do it. But that is just me. I just wish it was when a monster was destroyed, because it would be great in a crystal beast deck. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure Posted July 25, 2008 Report Share Posted July 25, 2008 Good question. Mybe the reason is that there is beter cards out there like trap hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted July 25, 2008 Report Share Posted July 25, 2008 ITT: A bad, situational -1 gets praised by Nate12345. >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iAmNateXero Posted July 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2008 ^Yess, just like the useless monster you Support in your avatar (icon) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted July 25, 2008 Report Share Posted July 25, 2008 ^ I only care about Rambunctious Insect 'cause it's artwork is awesome. I didn't even read it's effect or stats. I don't see how you would assume me using Rambunctious Insect as an avy implied I thought anything highly of it, at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharaoh_Atem Posted July 25, 2008 Report Share Posted July 25, 2008 ITT: Nate tries to insult someone's common sense by demeaning their avatar choice, wherein Nate's own avatar isn't anything special either. Rhetoric example #292: The pot calls the kettle black. As it is, Curtis Schultz works for UDE. His word is YGO law for the TCG. Yes, the monsters tributed for a Tribute Summon are tributed as COST for the summon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.