Talk: The Seal of Orichalcos

This is the talk page for discussing the page, The Seal of Orichalcos.
This page is for discussion about the article, not general talk about its subject. See the Forums for general discussion. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Please try to Be polite Assume good faith Be welcoming

Preview of the effects, as given by Konami

• 1. Gives all your monsters +500 Attack Points.
  • Pretty self-explanatory, really.
• 2. Highly resistant to removal from the field.
  • Sounds like just the thing for decks that require a Field Spell, like Earthbound Immortals or Malefics.
• 3. Allows your stronger monsters to protect your weaker ones.
  • Probably not to the effect of the "use your Spell/Trap Zones as Monster Zones" effect of the anime, but again, sounds useful.

[source]

Wilren (talk • contribs) 02:21, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what the card itself will say? regardless, I have always had this feeling it would eventually come to the card game as a REAL card. I have always wanted to use it!!! --I will Become #1 for everything I do best at! (talk • contribs) 22:28, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

It's not confirmed, but this is what the people on Pojo sussed out would likely be the effect:

All monsters you control gain 500 ATK. Once per turn, this card cannot be destroyed by card effects. While you control 2 or more face-up attack position monsters, your opponent cannot select your monster(s) with the lowest ATK for an attack. When this card is destroyed: destroy all Special Summoned monsters you control. You cannot Special Summon monsters from your Extra Deck. You can only activate “The Seal of Orichalcos” once per duel.

Vorpal Storm Pony (talk • contribs) 22:22, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

Given that the blanks in the unrevealed effects match the lengths of those words, that's about the same conclusion I've come to as well. However, the last line could also state that you can only activate it "from the hand," limiting the viability of cards like Demise of the Land. It could state that you can only activate it "from the Deck," but in all honesty, that seems exceedingly unlikely. All in all though, the "once per Duel" stipulation seems the most likely.

Wilren (talk • contribs) 00:53, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

To be exact "While you control 2 or more face-up attack position monsters, your opponent cannot select your monster(s) with the lowest ATK for an attack." would be written "While you control 2 or more face-up Attack Position monsters, your opponent cannot target your monster(s) with the lowest ATK for an attack." (Target instead of select), its nothing major though. Renard Chase (talk • contribs) 03:09, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed

Why is this page still blocked for editing?
The proper effect has been confirmed on http://shriektcg.twoday.net/stories/100916011/ ---TheGallisMan (talk • contribs) 17:37, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

It's not full confirmed till Oct. --iFredCat 17:40, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

lol, Fred.

Then you would have to do it like that with each new card until it appears in the TCG.

Stupid excuse! ---TheGallisMan (talk • contribs) 17:49, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

That's TCG Extreme card, all other don't do that. --iFredCat 17:54, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

I thought people would know this by now but Shriek isn't official. They just get the info from somewhere else or translate magazine scans. Besides, that's just the effect that's been guessed everywhere, very likely to be true, but still not confirmed. A card's only confirmed when actual pictures show up either through leaks or magazine scans, it appearing on an official vendor site like ideal808's blog, or confirmed by Konami themself on their product page or strategy site. - 魔法師 MoFaatSi (talk • contribs) (talk • contribs)

Yes they arent official but this wikia consider it a reliable source as they have always been right. If you and Fred would go onto that track, delete Cosmo Blazar and Assult of the Flaming King as they are from shriek ----SharkTenjo 01:18, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

No one is always accurate. There is no consensus that says "Shriek is reliable". Personally, I'd trust pretty much any other translator we've used over them. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 01:20, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

SharkTenjo, I never said that shriek wasn't reliable. Shriek is a decent place for leaks and translations of official proxies from scans and leaks, etc. However it is not "official" and cannot be used to "confirm" anything. And the seal's effect is unrelated to Cosmo Blazar and the fire structure since they were confirmed by a Japanese magazine. Regardless if they were on shriek or not, shriek did not confirm them to exist, the magazines scans did. However since no pics of the seal exist and no complete effect has been revealed by Konami, it is still unconfirmed, regardless of what Shriek says. - 魔法師 MoFaatSi (talk • contribs) (talk • contribs) 01:28, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

As far as i can tell it is not from a magazine where they get the infos as it means that they get their information in a certain day in a month which is not as they just have random info. Orly? They got Cosmo Blazar and Fire Structure from a magazine? Which one? Source? ----SharkTenjo 11:41, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Like Cheesy said, each "reliable" sites are semi-official source, while they are at their best, they ain't perfect. I would suggest to not drink down all of it liquid immediately. It's like we used to have "Madolce" before we learned that it was actually "Madolche" in the correct spelling. Again, like I said, wait till Oct date and we will see what it revealing. "Patience is virtue!". --iFredCat 11:44, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

[Reset indent]

Shark, all the translators, NeoArk, Pojo's, Shriek, Wikia's etc. get their info from either weekly jumps, v-jumps or other Japanese magazines or Konami flyers and advertisements and it's always leaked on Japanese imageboards. There's a person on those imageboards that always leaks stuff from magazines early (sometimes he just writes the effect w/o pictures) and the translators then translate it into English. The info always shows up around the middle of each month too, because that's when V-Jump comes out. That's how we get future set info and product information and even the banlists. Look at his post for the Sept. Banlist: http://shriek.twoday.net/stories/129655023/ See? Magazine scans and look at the post date for the post at the bottom, 8/17/12. If you haven't noticed, major news is always released around the middle of the month. These scans always originate from JP imageboards, not from Shriek. He just finds them, translates them, and puts them on his site. If you haven't noticed NeoArk also posts info around the same time because they get it from the same source, the imageboards. They don't confirm anything themself. The info is always confirmed to be true from the Jump Magazines/official advertisements or releases. They simply translate the info for English-speaking audiences.

So yeah just leave the page as it is, until Konami releases the effect or pictures start showing up. - 魔法師 MoFaatSi (talk • contribs) (talk • contribs) 20:19, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Japanese magazine leaked, seal is in Extra Pack 2012 and its effect is now confirmed. It's the one that's been guessed all around and is confirmed to be once per duel.

http://img170.poco.cn/mypoco/myphoto/20120918/11/558749282012091811301205.jpg

- 魔法師 MoFaatSi (talk • contribs) (talk • contribs) 06:36, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

I translated the OCG Lore provided, and it comes out as the card effect we all know, that the seal can only be used once per duel and that if you control 2 or more attack position monsters, your opponent cannot attack the one with the lowest atk. So, now is it ok to put the english lore there? Neos01 (talk • contribs) 12:30, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Standardization of card lore

This is how the lore should go people *shakes head*:

All monsters you control gain 500 ATK. Once per turn, this card cannot be destroyed by card effects. While you control 2 or more face-up Attack Position monsters, your opponent cannot target your monster(s) with the lowest ATK as an attack target. When this card is activated: Destroy all Special Summoned monsters you control. You cannot Special Summon monsters from your Extra Deck. You can only activate the "The Seal of Orichalcos" once per Duel.

--UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 01:33, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the current lore is translated directly from the Japanese version of the card. You can find it in a link if you scroll a little up. The format it is in now is how the effect is written on the Japanese version of the card. And they don't usually change the format between OCG and TCG releases do they? - 魔法師 MoFaatSi (talk • contribs) (talk • contribs) 02:19, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

The format of the text had already been outlined on Konami's previews of the TCG version of the card, with each word of text replaced with an appropriately-sized underscoring. (source) As such, the layout UltimateKuriboh gave is how the text should appear once the TCG effects have been fully revealed by Konami. Until then, though, the translated OCG text ought to suffice. (Better than unlocking it and allowing another endless rampage of edits, at any rate!)

Wilren (talk • contribs) 06:47, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know of the Konami article, but how often does the formatting of card lores change between OCG and TCG releases? To my knowledge, they have always just translated the text, sentence by sentence, in the same order. They've never bothered to reorder the text between releases have they? - 魔法師 MoFaatSi (talk • contribs) (talk • contribs) 19:24, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Full TCG text revealed

Card 100% fully and officially revealed by Konami. Source

All monsters you control gain 500 ATK.

Once per turn, this card cannot be destroyed by card effects.

While you control 2 or more face-up Attack Position monsters, your opponent cannot target your monster(s) with the lowest ATK for an attack.

When this card is activated: Destroy all Special Summoned monsters you control.

You cannot Special Summon monsters from your Extra Deck.

You can only activate “The Seal of Orichalcos” once per Duel.

Wilren (talk • contribs) 02:26, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Why isn't the lore updated now? XD Xerdek! (talk • contribs) 04:35, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

Seriously emphasizing this... We need to get the lore corrected... Xerdek! (talk • contribs) 07:45, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

I added that lore yesterday. I just checked through it again, I don't see any errors. What specifically needs to be changed? Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 14:01, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of anime lore

Based directly on what the characters in the anime say, and what Konami has said officially, I would like to bring up the following:
● No one in the anime has ever tried to negate the Seal or otherwise make it leave the field besides destroying it.
● No one has ever tried to flip the Seal face-down. (Is there even a real card that flips a face-up Spell/Trap face-down?)
● My memory is a little fuzzy on this, but I think Gurimo said that it made all his monsters "dark monsters", as in evil monsters. He did not say that it made them "DARK monsters", as in their Attribute. Not even the UDE promo stated this.
● According to Konami, other Field Spells (presumably beyond "Orichalcos" Field Spells) can be played when the Seal is out, and will destroy it by game mechanics. No one in the anime has contradicted this.
● This one's a little oblique, but when the Legendary Dragon Fusions are destroyed, I don't think their Materials should be "Special Summoned", but instead "returned to the field". It would seem pretty strange if something like Dark Magician Girl The Dragon Knight behaved differently when the Seal was played depending on whether or not Jowgen the Spiritualist was on the field.
● (Probably very controversial) Konami has officially stated that even the anime Seal has the effect "Once per turn, this card cannot be destroyed by card effects." Unlike some of Konami's other claims, this one actually holds true.
● Even if you disagree with that previous bullet point, no one has ever stated that the Seal can or cannot be removed from the field without being destroyed. I recall Valon's exact dialogue as "The Seal is too powerful to be destroyed by a measly Trap Card". No one ever said anything else about removing the Seal from the field.
● (Probably very controversial) According to Konami, the anime Seal can also only be activated once per Duel. This is not directly stated, but it's as official as it's ever going to be.

Here's the section of the anime lore that I'm talking about:
This card's activation and effects cannot be negated, except by the effect of "Legend of Heart". This card cannot be removed from the field, except when you activate an "Orichalcos" Field Spell Card with a different name. This card gains these effects while face-up on the field:
● Destroy all cards you control that list "The Eye of Timaeus", "The Claw of Hermos", or "The Fang of Critias" in their card texts, and immediately Special Summon any monsters from your Graveyard written in the card texts of those cards.
● This card cannot be flipped face-down.
● Neither player can activate or Set Field Spell Cards, except for your "Orichalcos" Field Spell Cards.
● All face-up monsters you control gain 500 ATK and are also treated as DARK monsters.

I'm proposing that the above five sentences be at least partially reduced to match the following, where controversial parts are written in ((double parentheses)):
● Destroy all cards you control that list "The Eye of Timaeus", "The Claw of Hermos", or "The Fang of Critias" in their card texts, and return any other cards written in their card texts to the field in the same position as they originally were.
● All face-up monsters you control gain 500 ATK.
● ((Once per turn,)) this card cannot be destroyed by card effects.
● ((You can only activate "The Seal of Orichalcos" once per Duel.))
Note that the sections on having a back row of monsters remains unchanged. This text more closely follows exactly what the anime says and what Konami has said about it.Blueapple128 (talk • contribs) 02:21, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

This is a believable claim. I agree. (On a side not, Konami should have said that Gurimo was "too far gone to know what he was talking about" instead of merely calling him a crook.) But, yeah, what you say is true. Xerdek! (talk • contribs) 02:45, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how an article written by someone that works for the English TCG has any bearing whatsoever on the Japanese anime. At all. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 02:47, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

I believe he also used examples for the anime. (Also, I especially see where he's coming from on the "Evil v. DARK" scenario.)

Yes, he did. Just because no one tried to do certain things does not mean they would have worked if they tried. It also doesn't mean it wouldn't have worked. The point is, we don't know, so we should not speculate either way. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 02:58, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Which is why those parts are in parentheses, because they're arguably controversial. But everything else is based directly off the Japanese anime, and what the characters have said about it.

Here's something to think about. Pretend that there's a real card with the following effect: "If you control a "Red-Eyes B. Dragon": Gain 1000 Life Points. If you control a "Blue-Eyes White Dragon": Gain 2000 Life Points." However, say this card was used in the anime only once, and that time, the controller only had a BEWD out, and gained 2500 Life Points. Obviously the game and anime lore would be different on the page, but should the anime lore completely omit the REBD sentence just because it was never used when REBD was out in the anime? In my opinion, unless clear Japanese text is visible on the card when it is played, the anime lore should match the game lore as closely as possible. The Seal of Orichalcos is one of those cards where no clear Japanese text was ever seen. Blueapple128 (talk • contribs) 03:03, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

If a written card effect shown in the anime is blatantly wrong based on how it was used, yes, we should document that. In my opinion, the lore, "wrong" or not, should be in the card article. The episode article can note the error that was made in regards to the effect (obviously this doesn't apply to early DM though). An example of that can be seen here.

I disagree with matching the lore as closely as possible if the text isn't shown. In cases like that, we should simply try to get the effect right based on what the card did (this is what {{Reconstructed effect}} is for. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 03:10, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

In that case, can you replace the five sentences I've highlighted above with the three sentences below them, after removing the parts that I had in double parentheses? The sentences that I've removed/changed were speculation to begin with (cannot be flipped face-down, etc.), and probably shouldn't be in the anime lore. Only the parts in double parentheses were controversial and taken from the game card. Blueapple128 (talk • contribs) 03:29, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Done. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 03:56, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

I personally believe "Dark Magician Girl" getting Special Summoned was an effect of "Dark Magician Girl the Dragon Knight" after it was destroyed, not "The Seal", and that she was Special Summoned the second time that monster was destroyed due to it being equipped with "Orichalcos Sword of Sealing". --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 04:23, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "Dark Magician Girl" got Special Summoned after "The Seal of Orichalcos" was played. I don't think she ever left the field. I see it as "Dark Magician Girl the Dragon Knight" was not a card. It was just "Dark Magician Girl" affected by "The Eye of Timaeus", like how "Thousand Dragon" was "Baby Dragon" affected by "Time Wizard" and "Heavy Metal King" was simply "Musician King" equipped with "Metalmorph". When "The Seal of Oirchalcos" was played, either "Timeaus" or his effect got removed, returning "Dark Magician Girl" to her original form. -- Deltaneos (talk) 15:44, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Literal "translation" of Enochian text on the card as seen in the Japanese anime

Title text:
ORICHALCON

Middle text:
CUUCANMAIUTU [Field Spell symbol]

Card lore:
UAGATICARAUOMOTOMEIOSASUREZA
OOINARUTICARANANZINZINIIADORU
IADORUDAROU
UARENINIEUOSASAGEIOSASUREZAUA
REHAHUCCATUSURUDAROU

That is, character for character, what the Enochian text says. The card lore in particular alternate vowels and consonants a lot, which makes me think it just might say something coherent in Japanese. Any help here? Blueapple128 (talk • contribs) 03:26, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

The lore is actually a tweaked romanization. Let me see what I can make out...

Middle text reads would translate to "空間魔術(kuukan majutsu)", which vaguely translates to "Field Spell".

Card lore romanization reads like this, if I'm correct...

waga chikara wo motome yo sasure ja
ooi naru chikara nanjin jini yadoru
yadoru darou
ware ni nie wo sasage yo sasure ja wa
re ha fukkatsu suru darou

And if I'm correct with my kana selection...

我が力を求めよさすれじゃ
多いなる力何じん時に宿る
宿るだろう
我ににえを奉げよさすれじゃわ
れは復活するだろう

Do help correct the writing before this actually gets translated. --Gadjiltron (talk • contribs) 02:15, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

How does this compare?

ORICHALCON
CUUCANMAIUTU
Kuukan Majutsu
空間魔術
Dimension Magic (Field Spell)
UAGATICARAUOMOTOMEIOSASUREBA
Waga chikara wo motome yo sasureba
我が力を求めよさすれば
If thou would seek our power
OOINARUTICARANANZINZINIIADORU
Ooinaru chikara nanji ni yadoru
大いなる力汝に宿る
A great power dwells within thyself
IADORUDAROU
Yadoru darou
宿るだろう
It shall dwell within
UARENINIEUOSASAGEIOSASUREBA
Ware ni nie wo sasage yo sasureba
我に贄を捧げよさすれば
Offer unto us a sacrifice
UAREHAHUCCATUSURUDAROU
Ware wa fukkatsu suru darou
我は復活するだろう
And we shall be resurrected
--UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 15:41, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Please remembered to using <br /> to keep your list in that way. --iFredCat 15:54, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's very good. You did well, UltiKuri. --Gadjiltron (talk • contribs) 03:15, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

Wish I could translate... no, this was the work of Ryusui. —This unsigned comment was made by UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 04:25, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

For long lists,
the poem tags
are much more
efficient and less
confusing.

-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 05:53, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks for the tip. --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 15:14, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Lul, Falzar, are we doing the discussion or are we singing the poem? --iFredCat 15:17, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Image

Is it just me, or is there no period at the end of the last sentence? --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 01:56, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the sentences there don't have periods. I guess it's just a bad quality image. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 01:59, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Can the Seal be negated in the anime?

Earlier, it was said that the Seal must be immune to negation, since Alister played Spell Canceller while it was out and it wasn't negated. However, I just watched that episode, and Alister clearly says something along the lines of "This negates all your Magic Cards" or "You can't play any Magic Cards", implying that in the anime, Spell Canceller only negates the opponent's Spells. Neither duelist played any more Spells for the rest of the duel, and I believe the physical Spell Canceller card wasn't shown on screen, so the only evidence we have is Alister's speech.
My request is, could someone who knows Japanese proficiently watch the original Japanese episode and quote what Amelda (Alister) says? As usual, the subtitled version of that episode is very unclear. If Amelda says in the original episode that Spell Canceller negates only the opponent's Spells, then we can probably remove the anime text here that says the Seal can't be negated, and also add an Anime lore section to Spell Canceller. Blueapple128 (talk • contribs) 02:47, January 26, 2013 (UTC)