Did you guys read the Bottomless Trap HOle ruling?

[krazykidpsx]

thats so outrageous. Only becuase konami didnt think about the ruling on Magical Dimension doesnt mean that BTH had to suffer. talk about inconsistances. man thats wack, BTH has lost ubber power today.

just like Kevin Tewart put it:

it's no longer an uber-destroyer that floats on the field
annihilating all in its path once it resolves.

 

[anthonyj]

I just have to clarify. Are you saying "Targeting" in the blow up a Spirit Reaper way Nova?

 

[HorusMaster]

But "ubber power" is far from a logical reason for changing a ruling.

I agree that it is far from logical, but how many times has Konami made 'logical' sense with a multitude of rulings? Many times card texts and interpretations cause controversy over how the card effect plays out but over time, HOPEFULLY, the rulings will help alleviate those controversies and allow for a more even playing field for all involved. While it doesn't always happen, in order for a game to be enjoyed, there must be some consistency and fairness for all playing. I'm just glad that the ruling change was caught before it got out of hand with numerous interpretations and bad 'Karma'...

 

[Tkwiget]

Just gonna throw this out there in the wind for you guys to look at.

When your opponent Normal Summons or Flip Summons a monster with an ATK of 1000 points or more, destroy the monster.

That's Trap Holes' text.

You can activate this card when a monster with an ATK 2000 or less is Normal Summoned, Flip Summoned or Special Summoned. Destroy all monsters with the same name in the summoning player's hand and Deck. The Deck is then shuffled.

That's Chain Destructions' text.

"a monster" Implies a targetting effect that will affect only one monster. It's singular and not plural. Just because you can activate it against a Special Summoning doesn't mean that it would even initially work against multiple Special Summonings. It doesn't say, "a monster(s)" like Bottomless Trap Hole says.

I suppose you guys can swim around with that for the time being. Just something to think about since I was looking at sentence structure.

 

[krazykidpsx]

I just have to clarify. Are you saying "Targeting" in the blow up a Spirit Reaper way Nova?

Spirit Reaper dies, its his job. lol

 

[novastar]

I just have to clarify. Are you saying "Targeting" in the blow up a Spirit Reaper way Nova?

Yes, specifically designating.

 

[Digital Jedi]

But "ubber power" is far from a logical reason for changing a ruling.

"über"

In a TCG, it's always the reason for changing the ruling on a card. Most card games don't have to do it that often, cause they have a little thing called play testers. Yu-Gi-Oh! has to do it all the time because effects are seldom put through any kind of rigor.

 

[Tiso]

"über"

In a TCG, it's always the reason for changing the ruling on a card. Most card games don't have to do it that often, cause they have a little thing called play testers. Yu-Gi-Oh! has to do it all the time because effects are seldom put through any kind of rigor.

But if that was the case, cards that are uber broken would have just had their texts changed long ago. Erratas should be for cards that have been printed with the wrong text or just have to an updated text that clarify the terminology of the card more in my opinion. Not to have erratas that just change how the card works. Which goes back to why the needs this stuff. Konami made the game under the assumption after awhile the craze for it would be over and they would move onto the next market for their schemes. I am fine with this card being less uber than it was before, but am not happy that this is just going to be a trend that Konami will do to change cards around and their rulings. It is already hard enough to keep up with rulings as is for the average player, but now we have to deal with established rulings being changed and accept it? Nothing will be alleviated in that fashion, just add more frustration, more confusion, and more people declaring they are quitting the game.

 

[Digital Jedi]

But if that was the case, cards that are uber broken would have just had their texts changed long ago. Erratas should be for cards that have been printed with the wrong text or just have to an updated text that clarify the terminology of the card more in my opinion. Not to have erratas that just change how the card works. Which goes back to why the needs this stuff. Konami made the game under the assumption after awhile the craze for it would be over and they would move onto the next market for their schemes. I am fine with this card being less uber than it was before, but am not happy that this is just going to be a trend that Konami will do to change cards around and their rulings. It is already hard enough to keep up with rulings as is for the average player, but now we have to deal with established rulings being changed and accept it? Nothing will be alleviated in that fashion, just add more frustration, more confusion, and more people declaring they are quitting the game.

Well, it isn't really a recent trend. It's been the case for a long time. Konami has been flip flopping on their rulings and Game Mechanics for years, before even I played the game.

For years there was no such thing as an Equip Trap Card, even though it was always the case in the OCG. That changed last year. For years a monster that changed it's battle position through an effect "burned" it's manula position change for the turn. That also changed last year (although alot of us were playing it that way to begin with). When I started, Ignition Effects were called Cost Effects and didn't include half of the stuf that they include now. Then there as Lord of D. and the way it used to be abused.

The list goes on, but the fact remains that it's general practice for a TCG to try to balance the game as they go along by redifining things here and there. It isn't always an errata. It can be a mechanical change. It can be a reversal of a ruling on a card effect/interaction. But it shoudln't happen that often if your play testing and have a solid Mechanical Structure in place.

Konami's problem is that they didn't ty to create a balanced preset structure when they saw the game going on for more then a year. They just don't care about the game the way we as players do. We've tried petitioning them. We've implored to the people who do have their "ear" for some stability. And they simply want to do things the way they always have.

The funny thing is, there is still potential to "fix" this game. There is still a way to bring a fixed template and structure to the existing templating and by rearangin a few things. Sure, some established stuff would have to be changed again. But this time it would be for the long term, not for arbitrary reasons. But will Konami do that? Of course not. This is like a way to make money on th side for them. If it could fall into the hands of someone who did care about the templating of a good card game, then that would be different. But I don't see that happening short of an all out asault on Konami. (Which is already partially planned out in the Writer's Section )

 

[Tkwiget]

But if that was the case, cards that are uber broken would have just had their texts changed long ago. Erratas should be for cards that have been printed with the wrong text or just have to an updated text that clarify the terminology of the card more in my opinion. Not to have erratas that just change how the card works. Which goes back to why the needs this stuff. Konami made the game under the assumption after awhile the craze for it would be over and they would move onto the next market for their schemes. I am fine with this card being less uber than it was before, but am not happy that this is just going to be a trend that Konami will do to change cards around and their rulings. It is already hard enough to keep up with rulings as is for the average player, but now we have to deal with established rulings being changed and accept it? Nothing will be alleviated in that fashion, just add more frustration, more confusion, and more people declaring they are quitting the game.

Ruling changes occur when new game mechanics are created. This ruling change is more of a tiny step that Konami is taking to the long road to consistancy. Erratas have been mostly used for fixing card text and errors printed on cards. Such as the Ocean Neo Lord issue that came up.

I honestly am giving Konami some credit with this change. They must have some guys butting heads together to try and resolve all these problems that seem to be floating to their doorstep.

<scratches his head cause he just realized no one seemed to pay any attention to his previous post....> @_@

 

[masterwoo0]

Why wouldnt they be trying to fix the game now that Yugioh, the Cartoon, is about to end?

Everyone knows that until GX came out, the game wasnt getting much love. The corny commercials they came out with werent adding much to help promote the game.

They know that unless they start making this game mean something before its biggest advertisement goes away is important since its going to have to self promote.

 

[krazykidpsx]

do you strongly belive Konami cares about the game?

 

[Raijinili]

Whose to say I don't have logical proof? This is some kind of logical fallacy, I'm sure.

Nope, simple fact: We the readers do not have the logical proof of you the proponent. I.e., you gave a statement without logical proof.

When your opponent makes an argument, that argument is considered valid until:

1) You find some flaw in their logic.

2) You provide a counter-argument which disproves the argument.

Valid, perhaps, but not necessarily right.

I did find a flaw in your logic. You said that it was an error, therefore the making of another error to correct it was wrong.
P="it (Magical Dimension ruling) was an error"
Q="the making of another change to correct it is wrong"

P therefore Q. Your stance is Q. You prove Q by assuming P to be true.

But I said that P is not necessarily true, and that you have not shown P to be true. The flaw in your logic was making assumption P. Since P was a fact that could be proven or disproven, assuming it was true would be an error in logic.

The second one being what novastar just did. You telling me my argument was invalid without a valid counter-argument is pointless. And bordering on flaming, since criticism that isn't constructive is basically a flame.

I didn't say that your stance was invalid. I accused you of using language meant to sway opinion by applying a negative word to a certain point of view.

Therefore, I'm not bordering on flaming because I didn't do what you said I did.

 

[Jason_C]

I gave Reasoning as per why the ruling was an error.

Other members disproved my Reasoning with a counter-argument.

You simply claimed I never presented Reasoning. Which is not only false, it is also a flame.

DJ: I put "ubber" in quotations because I was making fun of the person I was quoting. Poking, I mean. *poke*

 

[krazykidpsx]

oh Crud... Now i know why BTH wasnt working with it, becuase the way Magical Dimension Resolves.

see originally if you were to use Magical Dimension the last thing to happen isnt a summon its the destruction of a creature becuase MD is actually resolving hence forth BTH couldnt legally activate.

Unless im completly incorrect and you can now add stuff to the chain while it is resolving.

 

[Raijinili]

I gave Reasoning as per why the ruling was an error.

Other members disproved my Reasoning with a counter-argument.

You simply claimed I never presented Reasoning. Which is not only false, it is also a flame.

DJ: I put "ubber" in quotations because I was making fun of the person I was quoting. Poking, I mean. *poke*

I gave Reasoning as per why the ruling was an error.

You gave your reasoning as to why the ruling was illogical, between your first attempt to "poison the well" and your second attempt to "poison the well". You did NOT prove that Konami made an error with the second ruling.

Saying that it was an error (i.e. without even the possibility of it not being an error) is about as bad as just calling it "wrong".

You simply claimed I never presented Reasoning. Which is not only false, it is also a flame.

"How can you judge that it was an error in the first place, without logical proof?"

Also, calling me a flamer would imply that I've directly insulted you. I try not to do that, as I would fail any flame war.

 

[Jason_C]

I try not to do that, as I would fail any flame war.

YOU CRAZY SPAMMER!

Mmmm... Hmm....



n00b! <--kidding

You gave your Reasoning as to why the ruling was illogical, between your first attempt to "poison the well" and your second attempt to "poison the well".

In case you missed it, THIS is my Reasoning:



http://www.cogonline.net/showpost.php?p=120873&postcount=13



THAT was valid Reasoning. Which other debaters disproved. As opposed to you, who made a comment suggesting (albeit not blatantly stating) that I had failed to present such Reasoning.

 

[Raijinili]

Mmmm... Hmm....



n00b! <--kidding

"Crazy Spammer" would be considered more an accusation than an insult.

In case you missed it, THIS is my Reasoning:
http://www.cogonline.net/showpost.p...73&postcount=13

I referred to that. It was between your first attempt at poisoning the well and your second attempt.

THAT was valid Reasoning. Which other debaters disproved. As opposed to you, who made a comment suggesting (albeit not blatantly stating) that I had failed to present such Reasoning.

I didn't ask for Reasoning.

To reiterate:
"How can you judge that it was an error in the first place, without logical proof?"

 

[Jason_C]

And I reiterate with: An argument is valid until it is countered. For a long time, people believed the world was made up of 4 different elements, and those 4 alone. They were wrong. But they had some decent Reasoning for their theory, and it was many centuries before their Reasoning was disproven. Until that time, everyone followed that belief because of the Reasoning behind it. And again, I say, "an argument is considered valid until it is countered." So if you had countered my argument in ADDITION to your question at the end, we wouldn't be arguing. But you didn't. You basically told me my Reasoning was invalid, without showing why. You said I had no logical proof, but didn't explain why.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

And I reiterate with: An argument is valid until it is countered. For a long time, people believed the world was made up of 4 different elements, and those 4 alone. They were wrong. But they had some decent Reasoning for their theory, and it was many centuries before their Reasoning was disproven. Until that time, everyone followed that belief because of the Reasoning behind it. And again, I say, "an argument is considered valid until it is countered." So if you had countered my argument in ADDITION to your question at the end, we wouldn't be arguing. But you didn't. You basically told me my Reasoning was invalid, without showing why. You said I had no logical proof, but didn't explain why.

No, only the simplest argument is valid until proven wrong.

And the 4 element theory still holds some validity today.

(Air= Gaseous properties, Water = Liquid Properties Earth = Solid Properties, Heat= Energy.)

Solids still have some gaseous properties (ice will sublime in your frost free freezer). There fore many solids contain the element of "Air"

Most liquids can also exists as a gas at the same temperature and pressure. So most liquids have that "Air" element too.

Everything has energy, "Fire."

Some solids have liquid properties too.



At any rate there was never any error with the Bottomless Trap Hole.

The change has simply been in how Bottomless Trap Hole works.

Previously it destroyed monster summoned from "here to there"
(here being the time it resolved, there being the point in time it responds to)

Now they've decided that Bottomless Trap Hole destroys monsters "there" only.

There is nothing wrong mechanically about either case. It is simply a change in a card effect. If you can grasp the concept of time being a dimension than its simple.

Konami believes in printing the general idea of the effect, and not printing exactly how it works.

 

[Jason_C]

No, only the simplest argument is valid until proven wrong.

Define "simplest", please.

And the 4 element theory still holds some validity today.

(Air= Gaseous properties, Water = Liquid Properties Earth = Solid Properties, Heat= Energy.)

Solids still have some gaseous properties (ice will sublime in your frost free freezer). There fore many solids contain the element of "Air"

Most liquids can also exists as a gas at the same temperature and pressure. So most liquids have that "Air" element too.

Everything has energy, "Fire."

Some solids have liquid properties too.

True, but you know what my point was. That people believe false things until they are proven to be false. That a statement presented with Reasoning behind it is a valid statement until such time as it is proven invalid. If I say 2 + 2 = 5, and come equipped with a mathematical proof involving denominators of value 0, I'm wrong, but you shouldn't tell me I'm wrong unless you're prepared to prove that 2 + 2 =/= 5 because my logic involved mathematical impossibilities.

At any rate there was never any error with the Bottomless Trap Hole.

I'm not arguing with that. I admit that my previous argument was wrong. This is about whether Raijinili was right to say I was poisoning the well with my statements, without a decent counter-argument.