Jack-Wyler
New Member
Can I check my opponent's hand when I use this card? because it's not really written on the text of the card and Netrep only answer me in the case of my opponent has not the card in hand.
Mind Crush
- Thread starter Jack-Wyler
- Start date
DaGuyWitBluGlasses
New Member
Delinquent Duo
Normal Spell
Pay 1000 Life Points. Your opponent randomly selects and discards 1 card from his/her hand and then selects and discards another card from his/her hand.
Nothing in the text of Mind Crush says your opponent is involved in discarding the cards.
Normal Spell
Pay 1000 Life Points. Your opponent randomly selects and discards 1 card from his/her hand and then selects and discards another card from his/her hand.
Nothing in the text of Mind Crush says your opponent is involved in discarding the cards.
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
It doesnt have to. It isnt a Random Discard. Both players know what is being declared. If the opponent of the controller of Mind Crush chooses to not be truthful, their whole hand is shown for not discarding a card.DaGuyWitBluGlasses said:
If they choose to only discard one of two declared cards they have in hand, and you know for sure your opponent has at least two copies in their Deck, you can then ask a Judge to verify. It only takes a second to do once a Judge is present.
Mind Crush does not give you the option to look at your opponents hand if they fulfill the discard portion of the effect to the best of your knowledge.
DaGuyWitBluGlasses
New Member
- Drop Off "¦ Your opponent immediately discards from their hand to the Graveyard the card they drew.
- Gravekeeper's Watcher When your opponent activates a card that includes an effect whereby your opponent discards from his/her hand, send this card from your hand to the Graveyard to negate the activation and the effect of the card and destroy it.
- Hino-Kagu-Tsuchi "¦ If this card inflicts Battle Damage to your opponent's Life Points, your opponent discards all cards in their hand during the next Draw Phase, before they draw.
- Trap of Board Eraser Counter Trap "¦ Negate the Effect Damage you receive and your opponent then selects 1 card from his/her hand and discards it.
And then we have the lack of subject:
-
A Feather of the Phoenix/Back to Square One/Cost Down/Curse of Aging/Cybernetic Magician/Dark Core/Divine Wrath/Forced Ceasefire/Fossil Excavation/Gray Wing/Hallowed Life Barrier/Hysteric Party/Judgment of Anubis/Karma Cut/Lightning Vortex/Magic Jammer/Malice Dispersion/Monster Reincarnation/Non Aggression Area/Phoenix Wing Wind Blast/Raigeki Break/Rising Energy/Special Hurricane/Spell Purification/Spiral Spear Strike/Spiritual Energy Settle Machine/The Dragon's Bead/Treasure Map/Tribe-Infecting Virus/Tribute to The Doomed/XY-Dragon Cannon/XZ-Tank Cannon/YZ-Tank Dragon
Discard 1 card from your hand. "¦
By default a card is talking about YOU the controller, so with that and Verb agreement Mind Crush's Text is:
"If your opponent has a declared card(s) in his/her hand, YOU discard all of the declared card(s) to the Graveyard (from your opponent's hand.)"
The judge list can not jsut make a ruling and say that we should play it differently than that without providing a reason. If you need a reminder of this go back to the Master Monk thread.
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
I dont need a reminder. It was my question, after all, so I was the originator of the controversy.DaGuyWitBluGlasses said:
Yugioh is not perfect English. I dont know how many times I have taken a cards text and placed it in a Grammar Check program and been told to revise the statement. You keep referring to it as if the text is written by English Professor's. It's not. I dont know too many English Professor's who would be interested in dumbing down a text enough to allow even a 5 year old to understand.
So I suppose Morphing Jar's effect allows YOU to discard your opponents cards, and not the effect itself.
Not too mention, Dark Designator. The effect says to add the selected card to your opponents hand. Does that mean you search your opponents Deck and look for the card instead of them? No, it doesn't. But following your logic, you would, and clearly the ruling shows that the player searches his own Deck and adds the card to his hand.
DaGuyWitBluGlasses
New Member
No, because we have official information contrary to that through both general and specific rulings.masterwoo0 said:
But when you're given a text you play it exactly as the text suggests until you're given a reason to play it otherwise. Sometimes that means looking at other cards, but in this case other cards only reinforce that its the controller of Mind Crush that does the checking and discarding.
The Judge's List has not made any claims that the text of Mind Crush is inaccurate. "If the opponent doesn't have the named card, you can check their hand to confirm. " There is no "only" in that sentence. So it is not claiming that you may not check your opponent's hand if s/he discarded 1,2,3 or more copies of the declared card.
So there is really only one logical way to rule the card at this time.
"Check your opponent's hand, discard any cards of that card name".
If you simply make an assumption that the card text is inaccurate, there is no reason for it to point to only one alternate interpretations. i.e. Assuming that the text is inaccurate does not support the Judge's List ruling.
Or even simpler look at it this way:
You declare Gemini Elf:
Your opponent claims not to have any, then
you get to check your opponent's hand as per the ruling.
or
Your opponent discards Gemini Elf, then
Your opponent claims not to have any (more)
You get to check your opponent's hand as per the ruling
Your opponent discards Gemini Elf, then
Your opponent discards Gemini Elf, then
Your opponent claims not to have any (more)
You get to check your opponent's hand as per the ruling
Your opponent discards Gemini Elf, then
Your opponent discards Gemini Elf, then
Your opponent discards Gemini Elf, then
Your opponent claims not to have any (more)
You get to check your opponent's hand as per the ruling
So no matter how many cards your opponent has discarded, they have to claim they are finished by claiming they have none. And so you get to check his/her hand.
Professors. The apostrophe isn't necessary because you are only pluralizing a word, not making it possessive.
I fail to understand the point made by this argument. Are you saying it is impossible to make text that is both accurate and simple? Or are you admitting it is possible, but denying that it is easy?
If the former: I accept your challenge.
If the latter: I will not attempt to argue whether it is easy, as I see that as a point of opinion and, moreover, not particularly relevant, because I can counter the argument without proving it to be easy. The counter: Even if it is hard to make text both simple and accurate, people will still play a card as it is written until they are given some clear and official reason to do otherwise. More importantly, as DaGuy already pointed out, claiming that text cannot be interpreted literally does NOT prove or even suggest that there is one particular alternate. Quite the contrary: It suggests there are many alternate interpretations of the card text. If you are willing to say "This text may not mean exactly what it says" then how can you be sure of what it DOES mean?
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
Jason_C.... I'm saying that you are succeeding in helping to prove my point. It is both anal and pointless to try to make a "perfect text". Someone, as yourself, will attempt to breakdown and point out every error in spelling and grammar, just for something to do when your TV doesn't have anything decent to watch (as well as make some other comment about TV, etc...).
If the goal of Konami was to make well written English Text as well as Japanese Text, then it would be so. But it isnt. This game wasnt created yesterday. They have had at least 5 years to think about "grammar", yet we still are trying to apply something such as "first person" and "possessive", and blah, blah.
There is nothing in the Rule Book that points to either of daguys (yes, I didn't use an appostrophe, just so you could have something else to be anal about) assertions that "grammar" is the way to breakdown text. This was exactly the same argument that I had with another "English Major" about Celestial Transformation, and I was equally adamant about my point of view, which in the end, was correct.
Comma's and Period's have little to do with the outcome. It just separates the beginning from the end of the sentence.
If you can explain why I dont get to search my opponents Deck for
Dark Designator
Text
Declare 1 Monster Card name. If the declared card is in your opponent's Deck, add 1 of that card to your opponent's hand.
When the effect is activated, then I would gladly try to see your claim that you can look at your opponents hand and discard the declared card(s).
If the goal of Konami was to make well written English Text as well as Japanese Text, then it would be so. But it isnt. This game wasnt created yesterday. They have had at least 5 years to think about "grammar", yet we still are trying to apply something such as "first person" and "possessive", and blah, blah.
There is nothing in the Rule Book that points to either of daguys (yes, I didn't use an appostrophe, just so you could have something else to be anal about) assertions that "grammar" is the way to breakdown text. This was exactly the same argument that I had with another "English Major" about Celestial Transformation, and I was equally adamant about my point of view, which in the end, was correct.
Comma's and Period's have little to do with the outcome. It just separates the beginning from the end of the sentence.
If you can explain why I dont get to search my opponents Deck for
Dark Designator
Text
Declare 1 Monster Card name. If the declared card is in your opponent's Deck, add 1 of that card to your opponent's hand.
When the effect is activated, then I would gladly try to see your claim that you can look at your opponents hand and discard the declared card(s).
Woo0, am I correct in saying that this is your general point:
1. Konami isn't making card text grammatically accurately.
2. Therefore, the meaning of the card text should NOT be determined to be EXACTLY as written.
3. Therefore, the meaning of the card text is: [insert answer from Judge's List here]
If this is your argument, I find no coherency between step 2 and step 3. Again, proving the potential falseness of one meaning of a card's text does not necessarily directly lead to a specific alternate meaning. In fact, it doesn't even come close. Saying that you can interpret the card's text in a way other than the most grammatically correct way actually opens multiple other possibilities for how to interpret it. From these multiple possibilities, how do you decide which to use? I'm sorry if this sounds like an insult, but I'd say the Judge's List arbitrarily chose the first thing that popped into its head. Now how is a new player to decide what to do? What if I gave you a Mind Crush card, which you had never seen or heard of before, and told you to play it? Would you not, in fact, play it in the most correct way possible based on the text you see before you? And if you did not play it in the most correct way possible, how WOULD you play it?
Claiming the text is not to be interpreted literally and then choosing an alternate interpretation without logic is not only highly BKSSish, but it simply does not have legitimate reason behind it. You may as well say that 2 + 2 = 5 and then denounce all the "anal" nitpickers who say it does not.
1. Konami isn't making card text grammatically accurately.
2. Therefore, the meaning of the card text should NOT be determined to be EXACTLY as written.
3. Therefore, the meaning of the card text is: [insert answer from Judge's List here]
If this is your argument, I find no coherency between step 2 and step 3. Again, proving the potential falseness of one meaning of a card's text does not necessarily directly lead to a specific alternate meaning. In fact, it doesn't even come close. Saying that you can interpret the card's text in a way other than the most grammatically correct way actually opens multiple other possibilities for how to interpret it. From these multiple possibilities, how do you decide which to use? I'm sorry if this sounds like an insult, but I'd say the Judge's List arbitrarily chose the first thing that popped into its head. Now how is a new player to decide what to do? What if I gave you a Mind Crush card, which you had never seen or heard of before, and told you to play it? Would you not, in fact, play it in the most correct way possible based on the text you see before you? And if you did not play it in the most correct way possible, how WOULD you play it?
Claiming the text is not to be interpreted literally and then choosing an alternate interpretation without logic is not only highly BKSSish, but it simply does not have legitimate reason behind it. You may as well say that 2 + 2 = 5 and then denounce all the "anal" nitpickers who say it does not.
Jason_C said:
It's still more legal than a "grammatical assumption", you can't expect a 12 year old kid to be scooping around grammatical mistakes when playing the game, the Master Monk scenario was accepted because of how the text was worded, there is no such case here as it is part of just missing text, which Mind Crush lacks on having.
Staunch Defender and Amazoness Archers is a great comparison to bring forth to attend.
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
The literal interpretation of the cards text (and you are only reinforcing the Dark Designator example I posted, by the way...) reads that you declare a card name. Your opponent looks at his hand, if he has the card in his hand, he discards it.Jason_C said:
Why do I need my opponent to discard a card from my hand, if we both know what the card is? Mind Crush does not give you a "free look" at your opponents hand unless he doesnt discard a card. Just like you dont get to search your opponents Deck to see if they could have summoned any another monster from Giant Rat's effect, other than Marauding Captain.
If your opponent fulfills the effect, and you dont think they have completely fulfilled it, then you do what? You can't demand they should you their hand, because it isnt in the card text, is it? To insinuate that the correct interpretation is to look at their hand, is inserting your own assumption, and just like a particular thread, we both cannot be correct, as we are both making assumptions, even though I am not adding to the text with mine.
Do not presume to add to what I have already stated. I am giving a literal interpretation. I have not said that the text is "flawed". What I said, and this is my direct quote,
"I dont know how many times I have taken a cards text and placed it in a Grammar Check program and been told to revise the statement"
Based upon having done that several times, one can come to the obvious conclusion that Konami does not care if anyone is going to grade them on the proper usage of the English Language and Grammar.
Anyone who cares to take the time and try to reword a cards effect by adding and subtracting certain phrases and clauses is only transforming the actual text itself from the original meaning. We have a ruling. If you want clarification, challenge it on the Judge List, not here, because no one here can change it.
This is not a situation like we have with The End of Anubis. We were directly given a resolution to a situation where doubt comes into play on the proper result of an effect. If you can't abide by it, there's always the UDE Hotline.
Do you know what 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person forms are?
1st person is the "I did this and that" form.
2nd person is "You did this and that".
3rd person is "Some external third party did this and that".
Now let's try it with different verbs.
"I discard"
"You discard"
"Some external third party discards"
Notice that only the third person form contains an "s". The other two do not. There is no "s" after "discard" in Mind Crush's text. Therefore it is speaking in either first person or second person. It can't be first person because ... the card is not a person. :dur So it must be second person. "You discard". "You" in Yu-Gi-Oh ALWAYS has and ALWAYS will refer to the card's controller. Thus, it is directing its "discard" command at its controller. I am not adding or subtracting from the card's text. I am only applying sound, tried and true rules of grammar to its text, as any educated person would do if they had not seen that obscure and arbitrary ruling by the Judges' List.
You're arguing backwards. You're taking the Judges' List ruling, assuming it to be true, and then attempting to find fault in those who argue against it. I would suggest you invert your strategy. Forget the List for a moment. Go pick up a Mind Crush card. How would you play that, if it was your first time to ever see that card? You would play it exactly as it is written, because you would see no reason to assume otherwise.
:edit I would also like to point out the flaw in your comparison of what DaGuy and I are saying to checking your opponent's deck for another monster besides Marauding Captain when they play Giant Rat. Giant Rat says to summon an Earth monster with 1500 ATK or less from your deck. It does not say to summon ALL Earth monsters with 1500 ATK or less from your deck - just one. So, by summoning one, your opponent has completed the effect without question. There is no point for you to contest here. However, Mind Crush says to discard ALL of the declared card(s). Therefore, if they discard one and then claim to have no more, you have every right to check and make sure that they have no more.
When playing Giant Rat, your opponent never says "I have no other Earth 1500 ATk or less monsters in my deck". But when playing Mind Crush, your opponent WILL say "I have no more [card name] in my hand", at which point you have the right to make sure he or she is not lying.
And when you argue that grammar is not perfect in Yu-Gi-Oh, you are totally ignoring the point I have brought up multiple times: Denying the correct interpretation of the card does not suggest a single, specific alternative interpretation; it suggests an unlimited number of other ways to read the text.
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
Can someone please tell me why no one does a literal interpretation of Dark Designator??Jason_C said:
Using all the sound logic I have heard today, and lets just assume I never graduated High School, or ever took College Level English Classes, or never received a Degree....
Dark Designator (lets insert those neat things we learned about 1st Person)
Normal Spell
Declare 1 Monster Card name. If the declared card is in your opponent's Deck, "YOU" add 1 of that card to your opponent's hand.
Now, lets look at the real text again, and also the rulings...
Dark Designator
Normal Spell
Declare 1 Monster Card name. If the declared card is in your opponent's Deck, add 1 of that card to your opponent's hand.
"¢ If you activate "Dark Designator" and your opponent says he/she has no cards in their Deck of that name, you may check the Deck to verify.
"¢ You cannot declare a nonexistent card for "Dark Designator".
"¢ Your opponent must show you the card added to his hand.
Since we have learned that this card should be another example of a 1st Person effect, that would mean that YOU search your opponents Deck, and YOU place the card in your opponents hand. Then, just for grins and giggles, you get to show your opponent the card he selected for you to put in your hand in the first place, because the Ruling says you must do so.
Makes a lot of sense.
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
It would be reckless to always assume that every single card created by Konami is written with literal text.Jason_C said:
Its just not. And again, because of your assertion that it is, I would challenge anyone of you to play Dark Designator according to the 1st Person point of view, and attempt to take your opponents Deck and search through it to give them the selected card. It should be really easy, just say either Jinzo or Cyber-Stein. If they dont call a Judge on you for trying to search their Deck, then something is wrong, but if you are able to convince them that the effect should work that way, then you should submit a question to the Judge List and ask for a clarification, based upon how you think it works.
Okay. What if Konami says "The dogs caught the mouse". Then I go "Huh? Dogs don't catch mice!". Then the Judges' List says "Oh, they didn't mean 'dogs'; they meant 'cats'!" So I say "Well they should have said what they meant because I'm always going to interpret the words as meaning what they say". Then you say "That's reckless and you're anal".
What's the problem? The problem is, how was I supposed to know they meant "cats"? They could have meant "snakes", because snakes catch mice, too. Or, instead of meaning "mouse", they could have meant "suirrel", in which case "dogs" would fit. In fact, there are many different things they COULD have meant. So how is it reckless to assume they meant exactly what they said?
:edit As for Dark Designator, that IS how my friends and I used to play it before we saw "official" rules, and I still don't agree with those rules. I think either DD needs an errata or Konami needs a smack in the face.
, sorry.- Status