User talk:ATEMVEGETA

For other messages see: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10

The Winged Dragon of Ra
Dear admin of the yugioh wiki

i have a concern about the ruling on the winged dragon of ra it dosn't make much sense why would ra be less powerfull then Obalisk who can't be targeted by effects of effect monsters spells or traps it dosn't make much sense sure it can have 7900 attack points but that wont help if you take any damage to the life points you loos and if ra can be destroyed by effects spells or traps then why is it a god im just asking you doubble check your sorces witch are an FAQ run by whoever dosn't mean it is right and you or whoever wrote the OCG rulling might have mistranslated the japanese text into english i use ra in real life and this ruling really upsets the whole points of having a god card. Ra is a GOD CARD it just doesn't seem logical that Ra king of the gods would be destroyed so easily. and also the English yugioh ruling page doesn't say anything about a ruling for Ra just a Konami FAQ a fact question answer run by some random guy its a form page for crying out loud just double check the sources and why is the same source Konami FAQ listed over and over like 10+ times one form of source doesn't make a ruling non of the sources are an official Japanese ruling on the card.

if your can't or won't do anything contact me at dark_dragon_fury@yahoo.com and tell me i plan to ask these questions at the next tournament in my area but i might not be able to if you could ask an official at a tournament, I know going an extra mile I and many other ra users would be very great full thank you and good bye.-

--24.19.192.211 (talk) 04:00, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

New "Missing the Timing" confirm..
I just want to be sure if that's confirmed or not. Also I have other questions but that's not complete related to the situation... -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  21:02, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, then explain why "Kuraz the Light Monarch" had "When...you can..." in his lore? Is it not similar to "Fortune Lady Light" or "Lightpulsar Dragon"? They also have "When...you can..." in their line. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  21:42, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, Chain 2 or higher, that does making sense. Thank you.
 * So for next question; I need to covering all the Option Effect that have "When...you can..." (Such as Lighty, which was hardest card for me to deal with) How can I understand that way, is that same way as you mentioned; Chain 2 or higher and resolved difference? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  21:53, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the reason. Do you believe it or not? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  11:12, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just it - I only need to know the reason why that option effect was existing for. No more than one chain, or else they are broken. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  21:27, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Related video module coming soon
I just wanted to make sure you had seen the post about the upcoming related video module, please let me know if you have any questions. http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Related_videos_module_coming_soon Sena 16:39, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

"You can only control 1 Card name."
Is that possible to replacing "Grandmaster of the Six Samurai" with second copy of himself? If not, then should I put it up on my Judge Rulings? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  03:13, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, is this phantom call? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  20:49, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's what I thought. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  13:24, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Helping Robo For Combat Outdated Ruling
So that's fake and no longer useful, right? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  23:50, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, to make it clearly, Helping Robo required the monster to be destroyed and sent to the Graveyard, yes? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  00:07, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Email Ruling: Please take a look at this
Hello, I've been away from this Wikia for such a long time. I not sure with how you guys decided on dealing with unverified email rulings.

A few days ago, this thread was created Forum:Earthbound Immortal Email ruling. I was expecting others to look at it but there still haven't been any other comments. HHTurtle Talk  13:31, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Nice to be back. I see you've also got yourself adminship. Congrats to you on that. The YGO Wikia has improved a lot. Keep up the good work! HHT  - (Talk to the Turtle) 16:15, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Sea Dragon Lord Gishilnodon
can sea dragon lord gishilnodon effect work with monsters treated as equip spell cards? For example, the dragunity decks?!?! as you know sea serpents effect is when a lvl 3 monster on the field is sent to the graveyard, it gains the attack. well with dragunities, monsters become equip cards quite frequently... well when the card is somehow destroyed or sent to the graveyard by effect, does gishilnodon effect go into play since it comes back to a monster that was lvl 3. please help out. if so, it would be a great combo. sooner the better! thanks!


 * I answered the above guy for you at the forum post he necroed. -- - Dark Ace SP ( Talk )  00:16, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Arcanite Magician Round 2
One user from GameFAQs argued that "Arcanite Magician" do NOT gain two counters during her Synchro Summon Window, but after her Summon Window closed. Is that true? You said that she gained two counters during the Synchro Summon Window - which is opposite to what he said. Link here, you have to scroll down till you find my Username "FredCat07" and a user named "BrainDamageEclipse". -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  16:48, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're following the same way as BrainDamageEclipse do? Alright, I get it. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  21:35, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Confusing ruling
Can you please take a look at this thread: Forum:Greed + Barrel Behind the Door. HHT  - (Talk to the Turtle) 16:06, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Fabled Dianaira Rulings
I checked the ruling that "Fabled Dianaira" have an line (You can tribute 1 "Fabled" Monster to Summon this card), is it just normal way to make it work that way? Or is it just like all other Monsters, like "Red-Eyes Darkness Metal Dragon", that can be Normal Summon in the normal way? (Such as tribute two non-Fabled Monsters to Normal Summon it, instead of sacrifice 1 "Fabled" monster) -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  11:44, June 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, then why does the Ruling article said that "You can Tribute 1 "Fabled" Monster to Normal Summon this card..." is not effect? To me, it sound like it's requirement and must doing what it was saying. Similar to "Quickdraw Synchron". -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  11:56, June 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting - I always forgot that all other Special Summon-only and NOMI monsters have "Must first Special Summon blah" and "Cannot be Special Summon by other ways", respective, in their lores. "Dianaira" have neither lines. Thank you for smooth it out. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  17:21, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Could I get your help with something?
I'm trying to move the old page from "Card Tips:Madolche Mille-feuille" to "Card Tips:Madolche Mew-feuille", since the pun is now more obvious, but for some reason it won't let me move it, even though I moved Trivia, Rulings, etc. with no problem. Could I get this manually moved over? Thanks for the help. The Pope 23:38, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

Deadline
There is an article that you maybe have to reading, as Konami cut all tie to general connect and updating all the rulings into single site. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  18:58, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

OCG Rulings List
I mentioned generating this for you at Forum:OCG Ruling Sources if I could get a full list, now that I have, here it is: version 1 version 2 Version 1 contains cards which are currently available in the TCG. Version 2 contains every number but with ??? for non-TCG cards (I can't seem to automatically get OCG data, but at least you get links). -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 09:14, August 17, 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Rulings
I need to clarify something. If an incorrect ruling is posted on Konami's official Q&A site, do we represent that ruling in its incorrect form on our Card Rulings page? I'm asking because we have this user who has changed this page based on card text alone, because the ruling is incorrect (or at least omits the "half" part). I was under the impression that we always abide by what the Q&A site reads and add a [sic] to show an error.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 13:38, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Broken Link
Um, the link you put in that Earthbound God Ruling Article is broken... Can you get it straight up? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  14:47, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, you had a sharp pair of eyes... like an eagle on the hunting. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  14:50, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

RE: WCPP Pack
It's a transcluded page, so you need to edit it by going to the original page, (Set Card Lists:World Championship 2010 Card Pack (TCG-EN)). Fixed. By the way, according to Yu-Gi-Oh!:Manual of style, you should use "etc" not "ect". -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 00:41, August 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * I was checking that it was not deliberate, since there was quite a few. I've caught the rest.
 * -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 12:06, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

Just keep practice to break that "diehard" habit. It took me while to get over with the error of "to" (as ot, often). So if I can do that, why not you too? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  15:26, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll keep that in mind! ATEMVEGETA  (Talk) 15:35, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * In future reference, please be sure to read the yellow box, like Dino have in his own talk page, in my talk page before post the comment. I moved your comment here instead of delete it. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  15:41, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok! ATEMVEGETA  (Talk) 16:51, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

Yubel(s) and "Thunder Crash"
(Please respond here instead of commenting on my Talk Page) Lemme check this again as of in this article before I changed it: Do "Yubel" and "Yubel - Terror Incarnate" still triggered to Special Summon the advanced forms; "Yubel - Terror Incarnate" and "Yubel - Ultimate Nightmare", respective when they were destroyed by the effect of "Thunder Crash"? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  01:18, September 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes they can! The "destruction" and "burn" effects of "Thunder Crash" are considered to resolve simultaneously. So "Yubel" and "Yubel - Terror Incarnate" do not miss the timing. ATEMVEGETA  (Talk) 07:20, September 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's funny, both have "When...(it owner) you can..." in their lore, if they were destroying, then they should missing the timing. But oh well. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  10:16, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

Rescue Rabbit a turn later
I just witnessed the duel that Joey summoned "Rescue Rabbit" and his opponent played "Effect Veiler" on it. But on his next turn, he was able to activate "Rescue Rabbit" without allowing his opponent to playing the second "Effect Veiler" at the start of Main Phase 1. Is that legal for Joey to play that way? Or should he leaving Rabbit on the field with his opponent discarded the second Veiler? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  14:37, September 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * My stance is that I had turn priority to activate Rabbit's effect as the first thing I did in my Main Phase 1. Therefore, he had no opportunity to activate Effect Veiler. He can't declare it as the first thing he does in my Main Phase 1, since as the turn player, I have the ability to activate the first effect.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 14:49, September 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * Read this, Joey. You should have give your opponent an opportunity to play his second Effect Veiler. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  14:56, September 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * Read your own link. It says clearly that the TURN PLAYER decides which action to take first. This clearly states that as the turn player, I have the opportunity to activate a card or card effect that starts a chain, of any Spell Speed. My opponent can THEN respond. Since Rabbit was already face-up on the field, I chose to use its effect, it was banished, NOW my opponent has a chance to respond, but since Rabbit is now banished (for its cost), it can no longer be affected by Veiler.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 15:05, September 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * YamiWheeler is correct, "Effect Veiler" cannot negate the effect of "Rescue Rabbit". When the player who controls "Rescue Rabbit" enters his Main Phase 1, he has first priority to activate an effect/card. So he can activate "Rescue Rabbit"'s effect now, and since "Rescue Rabbit" is banished when the effect is activated (Cost), "Effect Veiler" cannot be chained and target it. ATEMVEGETA  (Talk) 16:14, September 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, just to be sure - as of change of the rulings, Usually first turn Rescue Rabbit would not succeed. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  16:17, September 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * "First turn" Rabbit (or any Rabbit that is Normal Summoned, or Special Summoned) can be negated by Effect Veiler because the opponent is responding to the summon, but in this situation, since Rabbit was already on the field, the opponent had no opportunity to use Veiler. It's depicted clearly on that chart.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 16:30, September 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * My Rulings (Unofficial) base on "Rescue Rabbit" has updating, so to make it fairly for you, Joey. I am only to be sure to know why that is difference - I just don't know that it still workable ever on the field for a while. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  16:37, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Maestroke vs. Bottomless Trap Hole
I just had an argument with one poster in YouTube, which said that Maestroke should be banishing reckless the result of the Bottomless Trap Hole activation. He said that Maestroke can't chain to the effect of Bottomless Trap Hole, which has Destruction AND Banish in same line. I only disagreed to him because Maestroke has an effect that can defending himself from being destroying (his line said "Djinn") therefore BTH can't banishing him since it required "destruction then banish" in a process. Which one do you think is right? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  17:18, September 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * "Maestroke the Symphony Djinn" can apply his protection effect against "Bottomless Trap Hole" and survive the destruction since it is a Continuous Effect. Since "Bottomless Trap Hole" didn't destroyed "Maestroke the Symphony Djinn", it cannot banish him. ATEMVEGETA  (Talk) 18:13, September 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thought so, which mean that the user who think different was wrong. He said that I can't stop in middle of "Bottomless Trap Hole" effect. You know, like "Graceful Charity" while your hand's full of Exodia's pieces (after draw last three cards). -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  22:39, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

King being demoted
Oh gee, thank you for spot that - I must forgot to add that in. There are other two cards that was not confirming in the rarity yet. It won't be hard to find, 1 being "Dragging Down to the Grave". -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  11:44, September 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * "Dragged Down into the Grave" is Super Rare. ATEMVEGETA  (Talk) 11:47, September 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, "Union Attack"? "Collected Power"? "Guardian Kay'est"? "My Body as a Shield"? How about this dude; "Green Baboon, Defender of the Forest"? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  11:51, September 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * These are Commons. ATEMVEGETA  (Talk) 11:54, September 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Great, thank you - that covered up the whole lists of name and rarity. Glad to have you around! -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  12:08, September 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! ATEMVEGETA  (Talk) 12:16, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the legendary collection 3 is out. I live in North America and have 2 boxes already opened and categorized. I was able to get one from a Target at 7pm central time. 9/28/12. Sirgusa (talk • contribs) 03:46, September 29, 2012 (UTC)Sirgusa

Potential image policy change
Hello, there is currently a discussion about changing our image policy at Forum:Potential image policy change. Because such changes are accompanied by a huge amount of work (renaming thousands of files, and updating thousands of pages), we want to make as few of them as possible. Therefore, your input is requested on the proposed change, as well as any comments on other possible changes you have in mind. If you have any questions about the image policy, now is also a good time to ask. Thanks! Delivered by FZ - Bot. You are receiving this bot-delivered message because you are a mover, an active administrator, or recently moved/uploaded a large number of files affected by this discussion. To opt out of potential future bot-delivered messages, please let Falzar FZ know. 07:14, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Orichalcos Question
If I activate the seal of orichalcos (which destroys all special summoned monster when activated) while I control a face-up stardust dragon, if I use stardust dragon's effect, would the seal of orichalcos be negated and destroyed, or will only the effect be negated and I can use the seal's effect to protect itself? 2.126.180.53 (talk) 16:45, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

To further the explanation, "Stardust Dragon" negated the action but not effect that destroying the card(s). So if I was in ATEM's shoe, I would say that "Stardust Dragon" would have nulling the entire effect of "Seal of Orichalcos" before it resolved to be on the field, am I right? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  17:00, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know, which is why I'm asking him; I heard he's one of the best when it comes to rulings. 2.126.180.53 (talk) 17:02, October 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * Which is why I was making sure if I get it right - as of timing; "Seal of Orichalcos" triggered when it is played onto the field, try to destroying the monsters but if you used "Stardust Dragon" effect, it will be nulling and resolved with no effect, therefore send to the Graveyard instead. It's like you're playing the counter trap on the spell, such as "Magic Jammer" against the "Heavy Storm", negated and destroy it. If that's not what he thought, he would maybe referring to "Red Nova Dragon", which is beast against the destruction card. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  17:09, October 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * Fredcat is correct. "The Seal of Orichalcos" needs to resolve in order to apply its Continous Effect that protects itself. Stardust destroys it before it resolves so "The Seal of Orichalcos" will be destroyed and sent to the graveyard normally. ATEMVEGETA  (Talk) 08:15, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

"7" and "7 Completed"
Can I activated the effect of "7" by using "7 Completed"? "7" Japanese lore only mentions 「」 and "7 Completed" name fulfill this requirement exactly. Are there any official rulings that states you can or cannot use the effect of "7" on other cards except itself? Blackwings0605 (talk) 03:29, October 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sure that "7" only work on itself, like "Dark Magic Curtain" with "Dark Magician" situation. So just "7" for it own effect, "7 Completed" is just an equip card that had nothing to do with that card. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  21:20, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Sishunder Question
Just to check this out, does she still allow you to reviving the banished monster on that turn she was summoning then leaving the field later on? I don't think it's impossible because it don't have "You must control this face-up card to activate and to resolve this effect." crap to do that way. So I just make sure if that is confirmed to be true. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  21:20, October 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * Even if "Sishunder" is removed from the field, you still add the banished card to your hand. ATEMVEGETA  (Talk) 21:37, October 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's great and it's "leaving" the field, not "remove" from t3h field... adapt your habit if you want. So thank you for confirming it. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  22:00, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Effect Veiler's Eff
I had enough of smacking my head on the wall about "Effect Veiler". Her effect said that the target monster's effect is negated until the End Phase. So that mean if I just happened to Special Summoned "Infernity Archfiend" from my hand when I drew him and my opponent activated her to negating my Archfiend's effect - would I be able to reusing his effect after sending him to the Graveyard (by Xyz Summon then detached or sacrificed him for higher level monster, etc.) then Special Summoned him from the Graveyard via the effect of "Infernity Necromancer"? Or is Archfiend just complete powerless (in same process) ever after removed from the field and returned? -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  21:16, November 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * If a monster affected by "Effect Veiler" is removed from the field and returned again, its effects are no longer negated by "Effect Veiler". ATEMVEGETA  (Talk) 23:53, November 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting, "Effect Veiler" said "until the End Phase", not "until it hit the Graveyard" or something. Konami need to continue learning their affection lesson. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  00:13, November 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's always the same for every Lingering Effect... -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 00:16, November 8, 2012 (UTC)