Thunder Dragon

[ChaosMachine]

Can i discard a Thunder Dragon if the other two are already in the graveyard? and will Thunder Dragons effect trigger if discarded for Dark Core?

 

[slither]

Thunder Dragon is a piece of cardboard in your hand. It does not know if there is another Thunder Dragon in your Deck, but you do. You know that you can not discard Thunder Dragon to search your Deck for another Thunder Dragon unless there is at least one in your Deck.

If that were true you could not discard it if you had none in your deck, which is inacurate, you still can discarded if you know you have none in your deck.

 

[ancient_duelist]

If that were true you could not discard it if you had none in your deck, which is inacurate, you still can discarded if you know you have none in your deck.

For now, anyway. Who is to say that can not change? Just look at Bottomless Trap Hole. It could be that we've been playing the game wrong all along.

 

[novastar]

I believe the ruling on Next to be Lost makes this scenario very possible. At the very least, it is something to think about.

I definately agree.

 

[anthonyj]

Konami/UDE has made a mistake with the Next to be Lost ruling. It in no way takes into account the many possibilities for having your opponent's limited monster which you are controlling on your side of the field. This is in my oppinion a doomed ruling which will fall to the side as unsupportable once it starts getting questioned. I don't remember a ruling that you didn't check the opponent's deck for copies of a limited card (or a card that already had two copies in the graveyard) when you hit with Nobleman of Crossout or Nobleman of Extermination.

My point being, contents of the deck are unknown (barring the Next to be Lost ruling) and have always been treated that way by the game. You can certainly discard a Thunder Dragon from your hand to activate it's effect even if you 1) only have one Thunder Dragon in your deck to begin with or 2) have two Thunder Dragons already in the graveyard or removed from play. The deck is not a known quantity based on the logic of deductive Reasoning. It is unknown what cards are in the deck and that is how rulings have worked up to this latest ruling/mistake.

 

[novastar]

It's true, is a weird ruling. The only way it's correct is if Konami is actually changing things, which who knows, they do this unbeknownced stuff all the time.

 

[anthonyj]

Yes, they may very well be in the early stages of a complete change in direction regarding how we treat the deck. I guess we'll just have to wait and see where they go with this.

I'm actually quite satisfied to see the change in the Bottomless Trap Hole ruling. It could certainly be explained as working either way but this new direction makes more sense. And I'm both shocked and dismayed at the ruling change we finally get with XYZ after the agonizingly long time we waited for an answer on the Dimension Fusion ruling and the explanation we finally received that it was a mistake from early OCG that just didn't get deleted and thus was translated without being corrected. Now we finally find out that the Dimension Fusion ruling was correct all along and XYZ was never meant to be a nomi monster but just not able to be revived from the Graveyard. How many dunces had to be involved in this fiasco? Why on Earth if this was a problem questioned by so many people for so long would it have taken the amount of time it took to get the ruling deleted and blame placed on Konami for having outdated rulings they gave to UDE and only 6 months later we get a complete reversal on the ruling that it was correct in the first place and our card text for XYZ was wrong.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

The ruling on Next to be Lost is wrong.

I take control of my opponent's D.D. Warrior Lady... guess what its a limited card on my side of the field--a perfectly legal card to target.

And I CAN have a D.D. Warrior Lady in my deck at that time.

And so waht reason do i have to not be able to send that D.D. Warrior Lady to the graveyard?

 

[anthonyj]

The ruling on Next to be Lost is wrong.

I take control of my opponent's D.D. Warrior Lady... guess what its a limited card on my side of the field--a perfectly legal card to target.

And I CAN have a D.D. Warrior Lady in my deck at that time.

And so waht reason do i have to not be able to send that D.D. Warrior Lady to the graveyard?

Um. Didn't I just say that 4 posts ago?

 

[masterwoo0]

Try non-specific post #93.

 

[anthonyj]

Try non-specific post #93.

I don't suppose anybody has posted the question to the Judge's List on this Next to be Lost mess? I can't wait to hear who gets blamed.

 

[skey23]

I went ahead and asked about the "D.D. Warrior Lady" and "Next to be Lost" ruling issue.

 

[ancient_duelist]

The ruling on Next to be Lost is wrong.

It appears to be wrong. That is for sure. But, it could simply be worded wrong (like that's never happened before) and the main intent could well be correct.

How about this:

"You can target your Limited monster with "Next to be Lost", but you don't search or shuffle your Deck. Essentially, there is no effect. If you control your opponent's Limited monster, you can target it, search, and shuffle your deck only if your deck contains a copy of that Limited monster."

This is all conjecture, but I think it is quite possible that this is what the ruling was meant to say.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

As i said, it is not defined as an Optional Trigger, but if you choose 0, no link is created. You do not create Links of empty effects.

I knew it was there somewhere:

Wroughtweiler:
When this card is destroyed as a result of battle and sent to the Graveyard, add from your Graveyard to your hand 1 card that includes "Elemental Hero" in its card name, and 1 "Polymerization".
"¢ The effect of "Wroughtweiler" targets.
"¢ If the necessary 2 cards are not in the Graveyard when the effect of "Wroughtweiler" resolves, the effect Disappears. Even if the effect cannot resolve, it still starts a chain