Sonic Shooter loop?

[english chef]

Sonic Shoooter- new monster from the new "Lord of the Storm" structure deck:

If there are no cards in your opponent's Spell & Trap Card Zones, this card can attack your opponent's Life Points directly. When it does, any Battle Damage this card inflicts to your opponent's Life Points becomes the original ATK of this card.

No rulings issued at this time that I could find.

So...
1. If this card were equipped with, say, Axe of Despair, it would have an attack of 1300+1000=2300.

2. If it were able to attack directly through its effect, the damage it would do would be 2300.

3. Then the next part of its effect kicks in after the damage step, making its original attack equal to the battle damage it did, i.e. 2300. Then Axe would add 1000, making the total attack now 3300.

4. The next time it attacks (next turn, or even double attack), assuming it could attack directly through the first part of its effect, it would do 3300, and would then increase the original attack to the damage done, i.e. 3300, then Axe would add a further 1000 for a combined total of 4300.

Assuming that I am not missing or misapplying something of course, with double attack and multiple equips this could get unpleasant quite quickly...

Tell me this ain't so?

 

[skey23]

It ain't so. You are interpreting the card text incorrectly.

The text states the Battle Damage becomes the Original ATK of this card. It doesn't say, the Original ATK of this card becomes the Battle Damage inflicted. See the difference.

If "Sonic Shooter" uses it's effect to attack directly, the damage will only be 1300...period. It doesn't matter if it's current ATK is 3000, it will still only inflict 1300 points damage.

Please, don't even start in with "Megamorph"...lol.

You can also read the ruling given here...
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=10279


Hope this helps!

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

The effect means the battle damage Sonic Shooter inflicts to the opponent's Life Points will only be 1300 when equipped with axe of Despair (or Mage Power, or United We Stand etc..)

Sonic Shooter does not modify its original ATK.

 

[english chef]

Ah-ha gotcha. I see now. Thanks for your help

The battle damage dished out via its effect is equal to the original attack regardless of how much the attack is boosted by other cards.

NOT: the battle damage dished out becomes the new original attack.


Isnt the english language so wonderfully vague and interpretable?

 

[Maruno]

I didn't think it was that vague, really.

 

[ygo doc]

Best to try to equip "Sonic Shooter" with "Twin Swords of Flashing Light - Tryce". The Twin Swords will reduce "Sonic Shooter's" ATK to 800, but if you get a direct shot at LP's, you get to attack twice and inflict ORIGINAL ATK of 1300 twice! = 2600!

doc

 

[masterwoo0]

I was the one who posted the question to the Judge List about it, and purposely created a scenario that I knew would get a rapid response if not for just me, but in the case anyone else may need to make a call to a defiant player.

 

[John Danker]

As is often the case, I think the card text to be very misleading.

 

[masterwoo0]

As is often the case, I think the card text to be very misleading.

I agree. It could just as easily have been said like, "When attacking directly by this cards effect, any battle damage inflicted will be the same as this cards original attack."

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

As is often the case, I think the card text to be very misleading.

I disagree, "become" meaning "to undergo change or developement" is an intransitive verb, i.e it doesn't have an object.

The only proper way to interpret the sentence is that "Any Battle Damage" is what has to become somthing different.

"Becomes" cannot mean to modify the object of the sentence.

 

[John Danker]

I disagree, "become" meaning "to undergo change or developement" is an intransitive verb, i.e it doesn't have an object.

The only proper way to interpret the sentence is that "Any Battle Damage" is what has to become somthing different.

"Becomes" cannot mean to modify the object of the sentence.

If you're an english major and have any idea what a intransitive verb is that might be fine....but keeping in mind that most of the world is not and the game is targeted toward people the ages of 8-16 I think it's safe to say that the text can be easily misunderstood as it was by a good percentage of the people currently playing the game.

 

[Jason_C]

If you're an english major and have any idea what a intransitive verb is that might be fine....but keeping in mind that most of the world is not and the game is targeted toward people the ages of 8-16 I think it's safe to say that the text can be easily misunderstood as it was by a good percentage of the people currently playing the game.

I don't think it's fair to say, though, that the card's text is misleading. While I can certainly understand how a person who had not extensively studied the English language could interpet the card text to mean what the Chef did, that would still be a misinterpretation. The text, although worded rather strangely, did not have any kind of "misplaced" modifiers or anything that would make its meaning ambiguous.

 

[english chef]

Perhaps this is a cultural thing- the difference between the Queen's English (i.e. what the Brits use), and American English.

"When it does, any Battle Damage this card inflicts to your opponent's Life Points becomes the original ATK of this card."

To my understanding of the Queen's English, the 'becomes' bit implies change, and change to that which comes after the word that does the changing, so that the damage dealt is that which changes into the original attack.

Certainly, I think that the card might have had more precise wording than that which it was written.

As a further example of the Queen's English, the correct usage of the phrase "another person and myself" is, 'The Queen and I', not 'The Queen and me'. When Michael Moore's movie "Roger and Me" came out years ago, we Brits laughed so much at the bad grammar...


Incidently, to agree with John Danker about whom the game is marketed at: I teach high school science, and nothing in my experience suggests that the majority of high schoolers would understand the linguistic subtlety of the phrase.

 

[Jason_C]

As a further example of the Queen's English, the correct usage of the phrase "another person and myself" is, 'The Queen and I', not 'The Queen and me'. When Michael Moore's movie "Roger and Me" came out years ago, we Brits laughed so much at the bad grammar...

Actually, either one is proper depending upon the usage. "Me" is the object pronoun while "I" is the subject. So "John and I went bowling with Fred" is correct, as is "Fred went bowling with John and me". Of course, I don't know if that applies in England, but I would certainly be inclined to believe it does, because it is not a connotational difference but rather a fundamental grammatical concept.

EDIT: Oh, and what DaGuy said about "becomes" is quite right. The word can, if you will excuse the bizarre metaphor, only work in one direction. It is a one-way word, and can only apply to the subject.

 

[english chef]

Actually, either one is proper depending upon the usage. "Me" is the object pronoun while "I" is the subject. So "John and I went bowling with Fred" is correct, as is "Fred went bowling with John and me". Of course, I don't know if that applies in England, but I would certainly be inclined to believe it does, because it is not a connotational difference but rather a fundamental grammatical concept.

"...and me" would always be considered bad grammar over the pond. American English, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't changed that much since the 1700s, whilst English has changed. If one looks at, for example, many of the common spelling differences between American and English, e.g. color and colour, sulfur and sulphur; the American spelling is usually older.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

"...and me" would always be considered bad grammar over the pond.

Anyone who considers it always bad grammar is mistaken.

Me is an object. I is a subject. Even here in North America there are many people who think its always supposed to be ""¦ and I."

Children tend to only use "I" at the beginning of a sentence. So when a name of someone else comes first, they use the word me. They are corrected many times and told to use "and I". Eventually correcting their habit, and always thinking that it is supposed to be " "¦ and I." We generally don't interrupt a conversation after each sentence to let a child know when they used a word correctly, and they don;t remember everytime we've said "and me"--having a mistake pointed out is more likely to create a memory-- so they don't realize that ""¦ and me" was correct wheneverthey didn't get corrected.

 

[english chef]

Anyone who considers it always bad grammar is mistaken.

Me is an object. I is a subject. Even here in North America there are many people who think its always supposed to be ""¦ and I."

Just going by what I recall my English language teachers telling me at school back in England.

Actually, the differences between US English and British English make for some interesting times when I am teaching science- I tend to end up with some of the kids criticising my spelling, some of them even bring dictionaries to class. That said, anything that encourages them to take interest in the class can't be a bad thing!

 

[Digital Jedi]

There have to be some grammatical differences between American English and the Queen's English that extend beyond simple inflection and spelling. I would wager to say that any rules of grammar found in American textbooks do not apply to British English anymore then they would apply to English spoke in Australia, Ireland or The Solomon Islands.

 

[Jason_C]

DJ, while you maybe right there, DaGuy and I still have valid points regarding the subject vs object. No matter where you live, as long as you speak English, "I" is a subject pronoun in the first person singular, "me" is an object pronoun in the first person singular, and "becomes" cannot modify the object of any sentence.

<EDIT: Self-pwnage. What I meant is, "'Becomes' cannot modify the object of any sentence if it is the verb".>

 

[Digital Jedi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences

Here's some interesting info. Don't know if it proves this point one way or the other, but it does go to show that grammatical uniformity cannot always be presumed.