burnpsy Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 [center][img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081221191207/yugioh/images/a/ad/MorphtronicAcceleratorCSOC-EN-R-1E.jpg[/img] [quote name='Morphtronic Accelerator']Return 1 "Morphtronic" [color="#FF0000"]monster[/color] from your hand to the Deck. Destroy 1 card on the field, and draw 1 card.[/quote][/center] For some strange reason, this is the only card I've ever run that gets ruling disputes. It seems a bit ridiculous that an effect of just 20 words ends up needing 7 rulings to explain things that (except for one) would me made clear if the card's read slowly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ieyasu Tokugawa Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Just read the rulings, and I agree, with the cost one being the only confusing one. Pro card is pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkwolf777 Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Blame Konami with confusion vs Cost and Effects. They aren't consistent with the card text. For example, Cards of Consonance states "Discard 1 Dragon-Type monster with 1000 ATK or less [b]to[/b] draw 2 cards". From this example, Discarding 1 Dragon-Type monster is a cost. The easiest way we recognize costs vs effect is when it is written this way. Let's say a card simply says to "Discard 1 card. Draw 2 cards." with a period there. Many times it means that its an effect. You "Discard 1 card" as an effect, then you "Draw 2 cards" as an effect, neither being a cost. If it said "Discard 1 card to Draw 2 cards" then its more clear that it is a cost. Then you have a card like Lightning Vortex that says "Discard 1 card. Destroy all face-up monsters your opponent controls", where it also does the period. This is a cost according to rulings. Since it is, it should probably have written "Discard 1 card [b]to[/b] destroy all face-up monsters your opponent controls". If they were all just written in the same format across the board, there wouldn't be confusion. Even a simple "<insert cost here> to activate this card." can work too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnpsy Posted March 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 [quote name='darkwolf777' timestamp='1301084254' post='5095982'] If they were all just written in the same format across the board, there wouldn't be confusion. Even a simple "<insert cost here> to activate this card." can work too. [/quote] They actually used to do that, back when the game started, IIRC. I dunno what possessed them to make them stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilfusion Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 My assumption is it got too wordy to keep saying that. I've actually started reading the cost as the first line of the card, unless it's very clearly a condition or effect. This card is completely contrary to almost every other card I can think of, in that it's NOT a cost, and there's no real way to determine that by the text. In fact, from my usual "ruling read", returning the Morph to the deck is the cost, and the effect is to destroy a card and draw. But it's not a cost at all, but all part of the effect. So annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkwolf777 Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 [quote name='evilfusion' timestamp='1301085494' post='5096011'] My assumption is it got too wordy to keep saying that. I've actually started reading the cost as the first line of the card, unless it's very clearly a condition or effect. This card is completely contrary to almost every other card I can think of, in that it's NOT a cost, and there's no real way to determine that by the text. In fact, from my usual "ruling read", returning the Morph to the deck is the cost, and the effect is to destroy a card and draw. But it's not a cost at all, but all part of the effect. So annoying. [/quote] How is it more wordy to say what Lightning Vortex currently says vs "Discard 1 card [b]to[/b] destroy all face-up monsters your opponent controls". You remove a period, add the word "to" and now there's 100% clarity that its a cost. Unless you were referring to "[perform this action] to activate this card.". I'm not saying that's necessary, but its better than just saying "[perform this action]" and be dumbfounded when figuring out if its a cost or an effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilfusion Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 The latter. It would be wordy, but it'd solve a lot of confusion. And if they were worried about ink, they could just start saying "inflicts piercing damage" and make "Piercing" part of the game terminology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeppeli Gyro Supreme Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 I think the only reason it isn't a cost is because usually returning a card is part of the effect. Like with Pot of Avarice, returning is not the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.