Search results

if you're lucky 3. But more likely 4. Step 1: weight 17 and 17 on the scale, if they are equal, then its in the remaining 16. Step 2 Weigh 6/5 on each scale then if they are equal its in the remaining 5/6. Step 3: 2 on each side, if they are equal it is the remaining 2 or one. Step 4...

"Normal Summon or Set" should be considered one inseparable term. When we say "You are allowed one normal summon or set per turn" it is not saying "you are allowed only one normal summon, or else one set per turn."

Gibberish Shmibberish Effect. Dark/Fiend 1500/1500 When your opponent activates Hieroglyph Lithograph, you may discard this card to activate its effect. For the remainder of the duel, your opponent's hand size limit becomes 0. next Cerycis (means: heralds)

Lightning COnger: no ~ Dragon: No Flying FIsh: No Beelze Frog: No "above (the) fireplace" is just as significant as, and inseparable from "eel" ;)

how do you know whether you're supposed to round to the ones, or 10s, or 1000s etc?

There's no rounding in real math. Its only the application of it that involves rounding, and so it's the application that decides the rounding rules.

Because the way it works, a special summon face-down will always count as a special summon for referencing any card effect. (but normal/tribute set needs to make a distinction, like for scapegoat, or Array of Revealing Light) Playing a monster face-down is considered to 'set' it, no matter...

King of Skull Servants says nothing about adding. All cards with a ? stat, except Parasitic Ticky, use the word "become" (or "becomes"... Parasitic Ticky uses "are equal to") The only one that increases a stat is Helios Duo Megistus, but that's an additional ATK/DEF increasing effect, i.e...

UOF: No HLS: No Is that an anguilliform above your fireplace?

Chosen One: No Monarchs: No JQK's Knights: No Silpheed: No United Resistance: No Ojama Trio: No. What's in a name"¦ Only 3/4 of a mixed rose. Three are the largest crowds. "Are" (crowd's') wasn't a mistake. It's not supposed to be "is" in this case.

Referencing only one monster doesn't require targetting. E.G. Bottomless Trap Hole doesn't target, but it won't remove from play a different monster of the same name on the field. I'm not sure if there's any continuous examples of that, though.

Most likely a case of "overregularization," When monster are sent to the graveyard as a cost, usually it was because it was tributed. When a monster is sent to the graveyard by an effect usually it was because it was destroyed. WHen we make a word past tense we usually add "ed" Saying...

But the "select" part comes after the "send cards to the graveyard", i.e. You begin resolving the effect before selecting the fusion mosnter, so it does not target at activation. Although i would believe that it targets the Fusion monster after resolving and before summoning, I don't know of...

The intellectual content is the intent of the message. It doesn't matter how BIG a mistake is, if its an error being corrected its not changing the actual ruling. In other situations a single letter can completely change the meaning of a sentence. Doesn't make it any less of a mistake. Or if a...

They fixed a mistake, the physical characters. They did not edit the intellectual content.

-"Does communicate with konami" does not mean he "checks with konami for every single issue raised on the Judge List." -There's no evidence to assume that Dan, Steve or Curtis do the same. (my insertion) When Kevin alerts us to a mistake, then he's alerted us to a mistake. It doesn't mean...

We can't, so then it becomes the Judge List burden of Proof to say so. Before it was errata'd to nomi Kevin mentioned the XYZ ruling is in a book in tokyo. (So something written by Konami and not a compilation of things handed down.) Just a reminder: There's a link to ww.yugioh-card.com...

How about the fact that UDE cannot edit the FAQ, their own website, without approval by Konami. Surely if UDE had the power to present rulings then they would have that ability. A) Errata /= Ruling. B) They claimed specificallly to have information on how it works. There's a huge difference...

Tell me where exactly is there a statement that says we are bound by the rules on the Judge List?

"False Dilemma," not non-sequitur