This is the talk page for discussing the page, Judgment of the Light.
Please try to
Jumped the gun
- There isn't anything after I opened the link.. It says the post is not available.. Themaster1915 (talk • contribs) 12:31, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
- Seems the topic was deleted between me posting that and you replying. I'm lazy, though; I'm not gonna delete this page and remove the references until tomorrow or so (unless someone else wants to instead), and hope in the meantime that it'll get confirmed by actual info. =3 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 12:50, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
İt's Judgment of Light, source here: http://neoarkcradle.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2409 --Clock God (talk • contribs) 13:52, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
- Any chance you can screencap that thread for those of us without a NAC login? Shamus (talk • contribs) 12:14, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Bah, you beat me to it. =) 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 12:22, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I totally yoinked your skin choice - I didn't even know there were themes other than the default installed on NAC, and it never occured to me to look since I usually don't bother with that stuff. =D 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 12:27, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
Is there any confirm on there being Number card(s) in this set because the reveal info on both Neo Arcadia and Shriek doesn't list any specifics in terms of features Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 20:24, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
- It's a press release from Konami; they're the ones saying JOTL will have "Hope Ray Victory":
Rounding-out the summer will be an August introduction of another booster set, Judgment of the Light, This new 100-card set brings back Synchro Monsters that are stronger than ever! This set also introduces Number 39: Utopia Ray Victory and is offered at MSRP: $3.99 per pack.
- 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:08, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
- I saw that announcement too, but that cant be right when Hope Ray V has been confirmed as one of the cards in the Super Starter set alongside Limited Barian's Force, and ZW - Eagle Claw. Now if they are doing like they did with Pearl, I could understand, but I dont see them sticking a Starter Deck card in a booster pack to fill space when they already have plenty of promos left for OCG slots. Right now, I'd rather wait for the official announcment and ad campaign for the set to say that over a source that I dont think many people have heard of or actually treat as reliable. Especially with said source for the announcement being a local news affiliate with people that have little to no clue what they are actually talking about. - Axel Shiokawa (talk • contribs) 08:26, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Again: it's a press release from Konami. It was written by Konami; the "local news affiliate" did nothing more than simply publish the press release they received from Konami. This is an official statement/announcement, regardless of whether what it states makes any particular amount of sense in light of other known product details. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 20:18, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
- It's not about "shut[ting] up and be[ing] lied to", it's about us having no choice but to take official sources at their word, until they are obviated by newer official sources. We're not Konami, and, nice as it'd be, we don't have anyone that works in Konami and can (/always will) confirm and correct these things as soon as they appear.
- That being said, there is "semi-official" (no, I don't really know what that's supposed to mean, either) confirmation that "No. 39: Utopia Ray Victory" and "CNo. 39: Utopia Ray V" are actually different monsters, and the Organization (principally Ark and Atem, who are the only two members to have really commented on it) is treating this as all being correct. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 22:21, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Hope Ray V is a CNo. All of the Rank Up based Exceeds/XYZ (whatever term you prefer) have all been Chaos XYZ or Chaos Numbers. I find it incredibly hard to believe that a card that has been already announced to be in Starter Deck 2013, aka Super Starter. Especially when its part of the main selling point of the product in the first place. Considering that there is clearly conflicting information from differing sources, one that has been notably trustworthy (Shriek), I would have thought that caution would have been showed and nothing posted until it was actually verified that one of the main cards being pushed in the Starter Deck for the year was also being crammed into a set that is going to release afterwards. Then again, I'm used to ignored and overridden around here. It happens too often for me to be surprised any more. - Axel Shiokawa (talk • contribs) 22:31, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Considering the name of the card is CNo 39: Hope Ray V and a direct from Konami announcement says its in the 2013 Starter Deck as a mandatory pull from the packs that come with the deck, I'd stick to the latter and wait for something that wasnt posted by the local CBS station to post anything in regards to JOTL on here. - Axel Shiokawa (talk • contribs) 22:41, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
(arbitrary indent reset) If the sources conflict, we document the fact that they conflict. That's it. "Two conflicting sources" is not unconfirmed info. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 22:57, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
- (e/c) The press release *is* direct from Konami. I already explained, Konami wrote the press release, and the website simply posted it as they received it. That's how press releases work, it's how press releases have always worked. Konami themselves have said that "CNo. 39: Utopia Ray V" will be in Starter Deck 2013, and they've said that "No. 39: Utopia Ray Victory" will be in JOTL. Furthermore, we have confirmation that these monsters are different from each other. No, this doesn't make any sense to anyone with half a brain, but this is all straight from Konami, so arguing that the information must be wrong is arguing that Konami has no effing idea what they're doing with their own merchandise (which itself could be true, but going down that route is just as bad as going down the "let's all second-guess official sources" path). You want to know what's really going on? Either try to wrangle more information out of a Konami rep (good luck with that one), or wait and see what future product announcements have to say, like the rest of us have to do. Until then, we have to use the information we have, and this is what the information we have says. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 22:58, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
- And as I already explained, the sources don't conflict. The only conflict here is your expectations of what Konami will do with their own product, versus what Konami actually will do with it. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 22:59, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
- I respect that, Cheesy, but I only confirmed of what Axel was thinking - "WTF, Y U NO PUT IN CHAOS IN UTOPIA RAY VICTORY'S NAME?". Something like that. --iFredCat 23:10, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
- And I'm going to say again: according to the information we have, "No. 39" and "CNo. 39" are two separate monsters. The image you posted confirms "CNo. 39" in the Starter Deck, something I was not disputing and something that still does not contradict the press release. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:49, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
- You havent even posted anything to prove that there is going to be two separate monsters in the first place if you have something to actually give any credibility to that claim then post it. Otherwise its rumored and doesnt have a place being posted until its confirmed. - Axel Shiokawa (talk • contribs) 09:19, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
- It was posted on NAC. I didn't post a link because you need an account to view posts, and I don't know if you have an account. The post is here, though, and I'll copy it here for your convenience:
It has been "semi-confirmed" by a staff-member of the German fanpage etcg.de, that CNo.39 Hope Ray V and No.39 Hope Ray V are actually two different cards. That guy knows TCG-spoiler before anyone else (even vendors).
- That was posted by Nimrod Hellfire (no idea if they have a wiki account), though no link to a first-hand source was proffered. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 10:11, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
- That really doesnt mean much when all there is their word. As much as people harp on Satoshi when he posts the ban list, it still doesnt change that its still a rumor until its actually confirmed. As for link from NAC, it might as well be a screen since not everyone will have an account there. - Axel Shiokawa (talk • contribs) 19:22, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
- In all honestly, does it really matter what Axel Shiokawa thinks? Dinoguy and various others have made valid points, and Axel's only argument is "I don't think there's enough evidence." If we can't trust an official press release from Konami, which by the way, is also on their official website, then who can we trust? I think we've entertained Axel long enough.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 21:24, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
- @Dino - Something about seeing someone having to use quotes makes me think that something isnt completely legitimate about the info. Cant prove it one way or the other because its hearsay, but it should still illicit some sort of caution about what is posted.
- @Yami - That sort of talk can go out the window. Its insulting to tell anyone that because they have a concern about information because it conflicts with another source or because its completely unsubstantiated to begin with to 'shut up and take it.' You wonder why I'm getting pissed over it? Its because there is stuff being called fact when they are nothing more than rumors. Unless definitive proof comes up, stuff should not be posted here. Wikis are not rumor mills. They are for posting facts. - Axel Shiokawa (talk • contribs) 23:12, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
- This info is far more substantiated than some of the stuff we've presented as fact in the past. However uncouth Yami may have been when he said it, he still has a point: you're the only one still making a fuss over this, in spite of every concern of yours being directly addressed with an official source. Concern for the validity of information is one thing, but this has been dragged out entirely too long. The wiki's purpose is not to satisfy you or anyone else, it is to document the franchise, using official sources wherever possible, and we have an official source here. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 01:18, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
Oh lay it off people. We can't prove that it's right OR wrong, and the info seems to be accurate enough. They took the effort to make a distinction; the "V" in Hope Ray V never meant anything even in the Anime (did they say "Hope Ray Victory? No;even with T.G. they made sure to pronounce it "Tech Genus"), and so Hope Ray Victory, if it exists, HAS to be a different card.
We don't enough to prove or disprove the validity of this, so everybody (pardon my language) SHUT UP and WAIT FOR MORE INFO. This set is going to be released in APRIL. It's still 2 months away. We don't need to be 100% correct right now; hopefully we are, but who can blame us for being wrong with such limited info? The way I see it, anybody who keeps trying to dig around looking for nonexistent information is plainly wasting their time when they could be helping with more meaningful things like episode summaries. The most recent episodes are completely lacking summaries, and I'm pretty sure that some if not all of them have been subbed. I, as a high school senior, don't have time to edit them, or I would have done them already. Until Konami cares to enlighten us as to more of the contents of Judgement of the Light, we should leave it be.
- We don't need to "prove it's right or wrong". As I keep saying, this info is straight from Konami. That makes it right unless and until they decide to change their minds and contradict it in a newer source. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 00:09, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Dino, you're missing the point. I DON'T CARE WHETHER IT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, VALID OR INVALID. Obviously I need to dumb down what I'm saying for everybody:
- QUIT TRYING TO INTERPRET WHAT IS BEING SAID, AND STOP TRYING TO FIND MORE DETAILS WHERE THERE ARE NONE TO BE FOUND. What they said is what they said, we don't need to cross-reference it, examine it under a microscope, beat it with a hose until it's beyond dead, blah blah blah. Who ever said we NEEDED to prove it's right or wrong? I certainly didn't say we needed to. I looked at what was being said, and came to the conclusion that certain people were whining "is this right? I don't think it's right because of x, y, z, theta, lambda ~!@#$%^", and tried to help by asking them to quit it. I agree; there's no need to do anything regarding judgment of the light until somebody blabs more details. Till then, enough with this debate. Get on with your lives, and get on with helping the wiki. Dino, that mean you too. The fact that you took the time to isolate one little flaw in my previous post means that you also have too much time to waste. Use it on more appropriate things than arguing on this pointless debate. Aeron Solo wuz here (If you wanna talk) 00:42, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
- You may not care, but the wiki does - it has to. Unconfirmed info has no place on the wiki, and if this info was unconfirmed, it wouldn't be here. It is, however; the info is directly from Konami (funny how no one seems to get this no matter how many times I say it). Also, look at what the source says, versus what the article claims the source says. There's no discrepancy, no "trying to find more details where there are none to be found". The article shows exactly what the source says and nothing more.
- Also, please don't try to tell me how to spend my time. I appreciate that you mean all the best, but I'm more than capable of seeing when I'm ultimately just wasting it, and if I choose to do so even after seeing that, it's my own prerogative. =) 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 01:06, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry Dino had no idea it was closed also had a bad day with people totally driving me up the wall, saw a repeated case of people complaining about (in my own words) x y z \\|~<%€£¥• or something like that, which drove me crazy to no end...which leads to me summing up my rambling:
Sorry for taking out my frustration out on you. But I really do think that while correct info is important, being wrong due to so little info was ok. Not encouraged, but ok because it couldn't be helped. He goal is to be as accurate as possible with the information given, which at the time of my post was quite limited. Besides, we got some more info now. We can piece the puzzle together more effectively now, no? My points were more directed toward the people who were complaining about x y z, not you. I realize now that maybe I shoulda shut up at a time when my mood was stormy, so I apologize for my lapse in judgement. I hope u aren't too mad at me, and I hope u forgive my mistakes; I'm using my iPhone to apologize (too long w/o laptop >.<). Good day (night where I am) and I hope I am more amiable in the future. Aeron Solo wuz here (If you wanna talk) 05:30, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
I know that there has been a overly prolonged argueement over wheather it is C39 or not but I have found a source that refers to it as such but I'm not 100% sure weather it is legit but its a comment from the International Toy Fair 2013.
There is the link for the site its on it is about half way down beneath the section about Battle Pack 2 so if someone could have a look just to see weather it's credible it may help to settle things.
- Some cards have been revealed. Why is there no card list or why is the Set List page locked? --TheGallisMan 03:05, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
"ALSO: (lolagain) this: http://kugatsu.exteen.com/20130107/yu-g ... t-of-light do u notivce Victory Chaos Number 39: Hope Laios the Chaos Emperor do u notice ... CHAOS 2x maybe the aforementioned was correct..." Somebody mentioned on Neo Ark Cradle. So the card is "Number V39: Utopia Ray Victory"? I'm not sure, check it out: http://neoarkcradle.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2409 --Shadowdarkone1Shadowdarkone1 (talk • contribs) 21:19, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
Last Xyz Monster in this set
I believe "Number C107: Neo Galaxy-Eyes Tachyon Dragon" is the last Xyz Monster in this set for sure since Kite will be fighting against Misael between Yu-Gi-Oh! ZEXAL Episode 96-98. This set contain cards used in these following episodes as well.
- It wont be as it would be listed before the War God Xyz, the spot open in the Xyz part of the set is either a OCG archtype monster or a yuma/astralspell Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 01:52, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
English-look of it
New Deck Concept..?
"More support cards to help you Xyz Summon, along with a new Deck concept, and support for existing themes and archetypes." - specifically "new Deck concept"; is this actually in there and i haven't seen it... Or is this the usual case of a company exaggerating what it has done..? (As i believe there are only 15 unseen cards left...) I raise this just because if it is just an exaggeration; then perhaps move that line elsewhere (or just delete it)? Did not want to do anything myself as I have a feeling that that comes directly from Konami... 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:21, April 3, 2013 (UTC) (I am not registered; it won't let me... for some reason :( )
- New Deck concepts usually refer to a new archtype, in this case its the War Gods. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 15:33, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely nothing. I misclicked and hit rollback by mistake, is all. I didn't realize it went through. I've reverted myself. Sorry. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 00:57, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
What's the deal with the rarities? I highly doubt C39 and C104 could be super or ultimate, and star eater could be secret/ultimate/ghost rare.--Computer Bug (talk • contribs) 22:19, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
- It would appear that the TCG sets are going back to the old 'anything and everything' can be an ultimate. Like it was around the time Crystal Beast Topaz Tiger when it was first released who was Rare/Ultimate. Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 22:27, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
- Confirmed as Ultimate here: http://i.imgur.com/B8p22Lp.jpg
The super is from etcg which is being accepted as credible, as additions from there haven't been reverted, also the OP from a poster had shown C39 to have white lettering.Photonkrios99 (talk • contribs) 23:22, July 30, 2013 (UTC)