Hi and welcome to the Yu-Gi-Oh! wiki! Thank you for your edit to the Surrender page.

If you need help, you can consult these pages:

If you would like to make a suggestion or ask for assistance, feel free start a topic at the forums or contact an administrator.

Changes with Contradict

There are cards with have different ruling in TCG and OCG. Your changes i reverted, would break it for all existing cards. --hanmac (talkcontribs) 07:15, April 3, 2018 (UTC)

Most of these cards do not function differently between the two CGs. The notices are thus not only incorrect, they are spreading misinformation. The wikia has no business dictating how cards do or not function (especially when its incorrect). Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 12:42, April 3, 2018 (UTC)

the Category says there are 137 cards with different rules in TCG and OCG. You self said "MOST" that means there are some of them. For this the tempate and the Category stays. if the difference on some cards are cleared, then it should be updated on the specific cards --hanmac (talkcontribs) 13:36, April 3, 2018 (UTC)

The actual number of cards which function differently across the two CGs is miniscule. It's counter productive to go through and manually edit ~100+ pages when they can be erased as a whole. Furthermore, wikia should not be interpreting text and deciding for itself how a card functions. These notices are a big part of the "don't trust the wikia" problem.Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 03:33, April 4, 2018 (UTC)

the actual ruling of the cards ARE different in TCG and OCG. We don't interpret it ourselves show but what judges say. That's why the template stays and if something has changed for ONE of the cards, it need to be only changed for THIS card only --hanmac (talkcontribs) 04:27, April 4, 2018 (UTC)

The very first card on this list <> (A Hero Emerges!) is wrong, and shows how you are interpreting things yourselves, incorrectly. This card's interaction with Vanity's Emptiness is functionally no different to something like Reasoning's. Then the second card's (Against the Wind) notice is enforcing an old ruling that is no longer official nor correct, which is also what a lot of these notices are doing (e.g., see also Fortune Lady Light). Just picking out things from that list without even clicking on anything: Re-Qliate, Spell Reactor・RE, Steelswarm Genome, Tongue Twister, Kumongous, the Sticky String Kaiju, Attack of the Cornered Rat!, Attack the Moon! are all displaying incorrect notices. I could go on and on. Also, lol Eatgaboon. Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 06:38, April 4, 2018 (UTC)

You do realize that each ruling, even the contradicting ones, was cited by an outside source, right? That's also why they were reverted. ChaosGallade (talkcontribs) 08:11, April 4, 2018 (UTC)

There is no source for the notice on A Hero Emerges! This is one person's incorrect interpretation of the card text. The card is written the same way as Reasoning, which functions as per its OCG ruling as per instructions from TCG R&D. The source for Against the Wind, Fortune Lady Light, et al have been removed from Konami's website and are no longer correct nor binding. Steelswarm Genome's and Tongue Twister's source is not official, blatently wrong, and contradicts the rulebook. Attack of the Cornered Rat! is wrong as per Konami's damage step rules. Attack the Moon! has no source; the interpretation of the card text is incorrect. Kumongous is incorrect and has no source. Spell Reactor・RE is not even mechanically possible (also see earlier point re: Fortune Lady Light). And again, Eatgaboon is just lol; this card's last print was 2002. Please explain why these notices should be kept up? Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 08:23, April 4, 2018 (UTC)

You didn't even bother to look at the sources included with the rulings. A Hero Emerges is among them: --MasterMarik (talkcontribs) 11:42, April 4, 2018 (UTC)

There is no ruling there that says what happens if Vanity's Emptiness is chained to A Hero Emerges! Even if there were, it wouldn't be correct anymore anyway. Again, why are you keeping up incorrect notices and spreading misinformation? You are not helping the wikia here; and frankly I grow tired of having to inform players that these notices are incorrect. Please take a closer look at some of the examples I've listed and allow me to remove them. The wikia is supposed to be a collection of rulings only, it isn't supposed to take it upon itself to decide how cards work; it doesn't have the authority to do this, only a judge at an event does. And you make like difficult for judges when I and my colleagues have to constantly correct players when they ask questions based on these notices, or worse, prepare themselves for an event based off of them. Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 12:10, April 4, 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you claim no such ruling exists when it clearly does proves you can't be bothered to read the references at the bottom of the page. If you had, you'd find this found right in Konami's Japanese Database: The wiki isn't making judgments, they are posting the rulings that were official at the time and are still important now because of how Japan rules the cards. --MasterMarik (talkcontribs) 14:52, April 4, 2018 (UTC)


You've completely missed the point. Did you actually read my posts? That ruling is correct. And the ruling is the SAME for the TCG, which is NOT what it says at the top of the page.

I am well aware of the sources on the topic.Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 17:32, April 4, 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't. If you actually bothered to read the rulings, you'd know that. I read what you wrote and you're wrong on all accounts. --MasterMarik (talkcontribs) 17:51, April 4, 2018 (UTC)

UDE issued 3 rulings for the card A Hero Emerges! The first discusses special summoning level 5+ monsters, and Special Summon monsters. The second discusses Guardian Elma, who can only be special summoned whilst certain conditions are met. The third relates to activation legality. None of these provide guidance on what happens if an outside source (such as Vanity's Emptiness) is chained that prevents the player from special summoning, and when I challenged you, you then went and quoted the OCG Q&A database, so what exactly am I not bothering to read here?

Please do explain how you think I am wrong on the other points.Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 08:58, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

You said there was no ruling for A Hero Emerges vs Vanity's Emptiness. You were wrong. You said that the rulings were contradictory. You were wrong. You said the wiki is making judgments regarding card rulings. You were wrong. I sense a pattern here. You've been wrong about everything you've said here and refuse to accept it. --MasterMarik (talkcontribs) 12:57, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

You're going to need to actually explain yourself rather than writing "you're wrong" over and over again so that I can properly explain to you how the TCG actually functions.

You keep claiming there's a ruling that contradicts the OCG ruling for A Hero Emerges vs Vanity's Emptiness. How about citing it.

The wiki IS making judgements about card rulings, and it's one of the reasons people are now using Yugipedia instead. In the public interest of ending misinformation, they must be removed from here also. The wiki is supposed to be somewhere that collects rulings, nothing more. Examples:

You have an incorrect notice on Attack the Moon! and many many other cards based on an errornous interpretation of PSCT. PSCT does not consistently use "(except during the damage step)", and its absence does not result in a CG difference. Attack the Moon! and Kumongous, the Sticky String Kaiju to name two of them. There are plenty more.

Re-Qliate's notice is incorrect, at the time of this card's printing Konami ceased using "(even if this card leaves the field)". Re-Qliate, Earthshattering Event, and the original printing of U.A. Stadium were all printed without it, but still function as intended. The author of this notice (UltimateKuriboh) has also agreed that they should be removed, as has SnorlaxMonster. Not sure why you all refuse to listen to reason.Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 13:35, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

I've already tried to explain myself. You won't listen. You don't read either so I'm done here. --MasterMarik (talkcontribs) 18:51, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

You tried to explain yourself by telling me to read something that doesn't exist, then saying "you're wrong" repeatedly. That's not an explanation.Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 16:03, April 6, 2018 (UTC)

Uh no. You don't bother to read what I gave you. You've provided ZERO supporting evidence to any of your claims. You've even claimed that the reason for the admins to leaving this wiki was for the rulings yet there is no evidence of this in the discussion that was made before they left, nor on their talk pages. You're just talking nonsense. --MasterMarik (talkcontribs) 17:23, April 6, 2018 (UTC)

You linked the card's UDE rulings, I explained why they weren't relevant, and then you linked the OCG ruling for some reason.

On the contrary, I've cited the rulebook, Konami's damage step chart, and explained that TCG pdf rulings are no longer official nor binding.

I never said they left because of this, I said this is a reason why Yugipedia is superior.

You're the one talking nonesense by not responding to the evidence. Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 04:17, April 7, 2018 (UTC)

Fusion Tag as long there is a difference and there IS, the template stays --hanmac (talkcontribs) 16:54, April 6, 2018 (UTC)

As I said originally, there are a few cards who's PSCT does directly conflict with the OCG rulings (e.g., LADD, Beast Soul Swap). This is evidence from the text though and a notice isn't necessary, especially considering the wiki has no way of knowing when to and when not to use them (e.g. Vylon Prism, and Maxx "C"). This is a job for us in the judge corps, not for the wiki.

So because of these few cards, you want to keep the notices up all the other dozens and dozens of cards where they are incorrect?Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 04:17, April 7, 2018 (UTC)

YES you said it yourself that Fusion Tag is different in TCG and OCG, thats why the template need to stay. THIS wiki does shows the difference. IF the wiki wouldnt show the difference then User would play the cards wrong and get banns from judges. THAT is what YOU want right? --hanmac (talkcontribs) 08:46, April 8, 2018 (UTC)

If you are willing to keep the notices up on pages where they are incorrect (which you just said yes to) then you should refrain from having anything to do with ruling pages, period.

You can quite clearly see the difference by reading the cards. The problem is that THIS wiki shows differences that do not exist, which you don't seem to want to address. Those that do exist are evident from the card's text, so removing the notices alltogether solves the problem. Players know that PSCT trumps a Japanese ruling, but when you incorrectly label cards as having mechanical differences players have no way of knowing this.

And no, that's not how infractions and penalties work. An unintentional error is a Procedural Error - Minor infraction, the penalty for which is a warning. Only Konami's penalty committee has the authority to suspend players from Organised Play. You clearly do not have an understanding of how rulings and policy work; leave it to those who have held leadership positions at premier events. Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 08:57, April 8, 2018 (UTC)

  • IF the Ruling page for ONE card is wrong, THEN ONLY change THIS ONE CARD in updating that ONE page. not the Template which is included in many other places.
  • BUT if there is only ONE card where the ruling is different between TCG and OCQ like the template says, then the template itself should STAY.
  • What if player wants to play with OCG rules? like ygopro for example use OCG rules. the player might not know what the OCG rules are, so he might check this wiki for info. WITH YOUR CHANGE the wiki would say there is no difference when there clearly are one.

--hanmac (talkcontribs) 09:13, April 8, 2018 (UTC)

I am not manually going through 137 pages to take off probably 100 notices when they can all be removed at once. No one is going to maintain them either when things change either, so yes they should all be removed. It is not one card that is wrong, it is almost all of them.

If a player wants to play with the OCG rules, then they can look at the OCG rulings, which are very clearly listed. TCG players will know, for example, that Light and Darkness Dragon's effect is simultaneous, not sequential, because their card uses the "also" conjunction. OCG players will know it is sequential because that is what the OCG ruling says.Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 09:33, April 8, 2018 (UTC)

  • IF you want to change the pages, then yes you need to check all of them. I already see you change all pages in the other wiki
  • If a new player wants to play OCG rules, and don't know there is a difference, how else should he know? --hanmac (talkcontribs) 10:05, April 8, 2018 (UTC)

Yugipedia is reformatting the entire ruling page, so a page-by-page edit is required there. Further, I have no intention of actively maintaining any notices that remain, so no one will remove them when they become out of date.

Will you go through them all, find the few that are correct, and then actively maintaim them as the OCG updates their rulings, or the TCG reprints the cards? If so, then you can go back and add them to the few pages where there is a difference. That is much less work than manually removing the hundred odd that aren't correct.

Removing the notices completely ends the misinformation, and still allows the wiki to present both the card's TCG PSCT and the OCG rulings. This is win-win. Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 10:37, April 8, 2018 (UTC)

You seems to NOT UNDERSTAND how templates work. If you broke the template then NO ONE will be able to add difference to the pages where it is needed. This is not a win but a LOSE. --hanmac (talkcontribs) 11:05, April 8, 2018 (UTC)

It isn't needed, and is wrong for almost everywhere that it is currently used. Get rid of it. If you really want one for the small number of cards that have a CG difference, and want to maintain them, copy/paste the content from the edit history and make a new template. Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 11:07, April 8, 2018 (UTC)

Not that you're going to read ut but since you claim there were no rulings on Attack of the Cornered Rat: --MasterMarik (talkcontribs) 21:07, April 9, 2018 (UTC)

You're the one who isn't reading. I didn't say Attack of the Cornered Rat! didn't have rulings, I said the pdf rulings are outdated, and no longer available via Konami's website. Go to the main page of Konami's website and try to navigate to those rulings; they've been removed. The ruling you've cited for this card is from 2009; it is no longer correct as of 2015, when Konami overhauled the damage step and published the damage step chart on their website. This chart does not allow cards such as Honest and Attack of the Cornered Rat to activate their effects during damage calculation, in line with the OCG reversal. No TCG is event is going to allow these effects to be activated during damage calculation, and haven't since October 2015, because the cards don't work this way anymore.Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 01:06, April 12, 2018 (UTC)

Not every card has been PSCT'd so it's unnecessary to remove all the contents just because of a handlful that are updated with new text. I think the cards that have not been PSCT'd should still have the rulings because at the present time, there's no evidence that the rulings are wrong other than your words. --MasterMarik (talkcontribs) 16:18, April 12, 2018 (UTC)
Again, I'm not telling you to remove the rulings. Remove the big banner at the top of the page that wrongly inform people how cards work. I've provided plenty of reasons why the notices should be removed, and cited some examples, none of which have been properly responded to.
This also goes beyond simple PSCT updates. Game mechanics as a whole have changed. Is there citable evidence for all of it? No, but I'm not going to get into a discussion about receiving information from Konami R&D when you still have notices up that contradict the rulebook, not to mention also treating card text from 2002 as though it is PSCT (Eatgaboon). Please go back to the start and read through my posts here again, and actually provide a response to the examples and explanations I've posted.Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 16:36, April 12, 2018 (UTC)

You seems to NOT UNDERSTAND how templates work. If you broke the template then NO ONE will be able to add difference to the pages where it is needed. This is not a win but a LOSE. IF YOU WANT TO UPDATE THE PAGES WHERE THE RULES IS WRONG THEN JUST DO IT, BUT DON'T CHANGE THIS TEMPLATE! --hanmac (talkcontribs) 13:03, April 16, 2018 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well, you seem to actually not understand how the game really works, as you haven't responded to anything above. If you want the template to remain for cards such as LADD, Beast Soul Swap, etc., then you can re-create a new template and add it. This way removes it from all the other pages where it is incorrect, which is most pages.Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 13:12, April 16, 2018 (UTC)
You are the problem! you could just remove the wrong notes. But you don't do it. you just remove it wrong all pages and you do not care about breaking pages where the note is for a reason. so WHY WE NEED TO CREATE A NEW TEMPLATE WHEN THIS ONE ALREADY EXIST? --hanmac (talkcontribs) 13:16, April 16, 2018 (UTC)
I am removing the incorrect notes. And I'm not breaking any pages. You are the one who wants to keep the template, so you make a new one (just copy/paste the original) and go through everything. I've already explained that my only intent here is to end misinformation; I have no intention of actively maintaing these notices. If you want to take on that responsibility, then you need also need to take on the work load.Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 13:30, April 16, 2018 (UTC)
YOU DON'T, the pages still has the wrong info, it just isn't shown. and the pages WHERE THE INFO NEED TO BE SHOWN are broken too. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY INTENTION TO CHECK THE NOTICES, THEN STOP BREAKING IT FOR THE PAGES WHERE THE INFO IS IMPORTANT! --hanmac (talkcontribs) 13:42, April 16, 2018 (UTC)
It's more important to have the information removed where it is incorrect than leave it up for the few cards you can make a case for it. Reading the card will tell you LADD is simultaneous and not sequential. Reading the card won't help you with all the notices that incorrectly state mechanics, which I've listed many of above. You will ruin people's events by having incorrect information plastered at the top of ruling pages, and you only continue to hurt your own reputation by keeping them up.Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 04:53, April 17, 2018 (UTC)
Plus, removing all contents on a page just to correct a few seemingly outdated rulings is just laziness. Besides, just because the rulings are outdated doesn't mean they can't still be used. --MasterMarik (talkcontribs) 15:06, April 16, 2018 (UTC)
You have it the wrong way around. There are currently 137 notices, and I'd estimate close to, if not more than, 100 of them are incorrect. Cards such as LADD and Beast Soul Swap, which have differences between the CGs, are not very common, and can easily be identified by reading the card.

You can still list TCG rulings, just as you still list UDE rulings despite them not being official anymore. However, you cannot use an old, outdated ruling to incorrectly inform the public what game mechanics are and how the cards work. Or worse, incorrectly interpret text and put unsupported notices up, such as you have on Attack the Moon!, Re-Qliate, A Hero Emerges!, and Vylon Prism.Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 04:53, April 17, 2018 (UTC)

You're still being lazy by blanking the entire page. You obviously know which ones are right. Not that difficult to go through the pages listed and remove them individually. --MasterMarik (talkcontribs) 11:33, April 17, 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to half-arse a job. My only interest is ensuring the misinformation is removed. I won't be actively maintaining the pages, so any difference that is corrected will end up being an error. If someone else wants that responsibility, that is their call. Skulblaka98 (talkcontribs) 13:22, April 17, 2018 (UTC)
I've protected the template to stop the edit war. I'm not necessarily siding with the version I've locked it on. I've continued the discussion at the template's talk page.
Can you guys let me know if my compromise suggestion is okay or if we need to look into removing the template completely or if I've missed anything else? Thanks. -- Deltaneos (talk) 14:42, April 22, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.