"Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

F

Fiendish Envoy

Member
"Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

According to the ARRJ_2, if you have both "Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman" on the field, your opponent can attack you directly.

I just want to make sure, is this the correct ruling?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Re: "Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

I'm tired and going to bed so I'm not gonna bother looking. I'm just gonna wake up and look here to see if I have an answer. Say I have A Lenegdary Ocean on the field and The Legendary Fisherman on the field, Does Legendary fisherman get a 200 att boost?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: "Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

exiledforcefreak said:
I'm tired and going to bed so I'm not gonna bother looking. I'm just gonna wake up and look here to see if I have an answer. Say I have A Lenegdary Ocean on the field and The Legendary Fisherman on the field, Does Legendary fisherman get a 200 att boost?
Click to expand...

The answer is already covered in the UDE FAQ under "A Legendary Ocean".

- A
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: "Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

exiledforcefreak said:
I'm tired and going to bed so I'm not gonna bother looking. I'm just gonna wake up and look here to see if I have an answer. Say I have A Lenegdary Ocean on the field and The Legendary Fisherman on the field, Does Legendary fisherman get a 200 att boost?
Click to expand...

A quick glance at The Legendary Fisherman's effect shows that just like Horus LV6, he is unaffected by Spell Cards as long as "Umi" is face-up on the field.

So you can Dark Hole, Fissure, Smashing Ground, Hammershot, Change of Heart, Snatch Steal, Dark Core, Enemy Controller, etc., and you will just be wasting time....
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: "Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

so if horus lvl 6 or legendary fisherman is on the field (while umi is also on the field) and a monster of lower defense and my opponent activates smashing ground... Nothing happens right? Or am I wrong, does smashing ground move to the next best thing?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: "Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

You wouldn't be able to activate "Smashing Ground" in the first place if you had any of those two monsters.

However, lets say you had "Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV6" and "Sinister Serpent" on your side of the field, and your opponent activated "Smashing Ground". If you chain "Ring of Destruction" to destroy your "Sinister Serpent", then the "Smashing Ground" wouldn't resolve because it doesn't have a legal card to destroy.

*remember that "Smashing Ground" isn't targetting and choses the selection at resolution*
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: "Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

densetsu_x said:
Yes, that is the correct ruling.
Click to expand...

This is one of those rulings that I could really use some help in understanding why it is the way it is.  I guess it has something to do with the wording of The Legendary Fisherman, but I still do not see how it leads to this ruling.

The Legendary Fisherman
When "Umi" is face-up on the field, this card is unaffected by any Spell Cards and cannot be attacked by your opponent's monsters.

From the rulebook:
The attacking player chooses 1 of their monsters and designates 1 of the opponent's monster as a target. Play then proceeds immediately to the Damage Step, returning to the Battle Step if the attacking player wishes to attack again with another monster. If the opposing player has no monsters on the field, the selected monster's attack will inflict Direct Damage on the opposing player's Life Points.

Direct Damage: When the Opponent Has No Monsters
If your opponent does not have any monsters on the field, they take Direct Damage. The full amount of the attacking monster's ATK points is subtracted from the opponent's Life Points.

It just seems to me that this violates one of the basic mechanics of the game.

Also, given this ruling, why shouldn't an opponent with two Marauding Captains on the field be open to direct damage?  I am sure there is some simple, logical explanation for this apparent paradox, but it escapes me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: "Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

The new text of "The Legendary Fisherman":

As long as "Umi" is face-up on the field, this card is unaffected by any Spell Cards. Monsters on your opponent's side of the field cannot select this card as an attack target.


Since he can't be selected as an attack target, maybe thats why you can attack directly.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: "Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

The simple answer is "Because Konami said so".  That is the way they wanted "The Legendary Fisherman" and "Guardian Kay'est" to work.  They are exceptions to the rule, specifically set apart as not complying with the rulebook in the way you would ordinarily interpret them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: "Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

anthonyj said:
The simple answer is "Because Konami said so".  That is the way they wanted "The Legendary Fisherman" and "Guardian Kay'est" to work.  They are exceptions to the rule, specifically set apart as not complying with the rulebook in the way you would ordinarily interpret them.
Click to expand...

Well, good grief, how hard would it be to errata (erraticate?, whatever) the card to read:

As long as "Umi" is face-up on the field, this card is unaffected by any Spell Cards. Monsters on your opponent's side of the field cannot select this card as an attack target, but can attack your life points directly.

Then it would not be an exception to the rule, it would just be another card effect.  I hate stuff like this that requires exceptions to the rules to make it work. 

Thanks for the response, anyway, of course!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: "Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

Because then there would be an argument that since you have "The Legendary Fisherman" out with Umi and also another monster on the field your opponent would target your life points and say "Well that's legal because "The Legendary Fisherman" lets me attack your life points if I want to.

I thought it was dumb to make the ruling they could attack life points directly too. It makes the card nearly unplayable since he isn't going to defend you, is really hard to make strong enough to be a useful attacker, and also costs to get him onto the field (tribute). Goes to show that sometimes they aren't releasing cards to make the game better, just releasing cards to sell more cards.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: "Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

anthonyj said:
Because then there would be an argument that since you have "The Legendary Fisherman" out with Umi and also another monster on the field your opponent would target your life points and say "Well that's legal because "The Legendary Fisherman" lets me attack your life points if I want to.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, okay, how about:

As long as "Umi" is face-up on the field, this card is unaffected by any Spell Cards. Monsters on your opponent's side of the field cannot select this card as an attack target, but can attack your life points directly when they can attack and this is the only monster on your side of the field.

I thought it was dumb to make the ruling they could attack life points directly too.  It makes the card nearly unplayable since he isn't going to defend you, is really hard to make strong enough to be a useful attacker, and also costs to get him onto the field (tribute).  Goes to show that sometimes they aren't releasing cards to make the game better, just releasing cards to sell more cards.
Click to expand...

My son has a Water deck and he ran 2 The Legendary Fisherman in it until he got a rude awakening at a local card shop tournament when another player who was aware of the ruling attacked his life points.  Interestingly, my son had used this deck for a while and no one else knew this ruling and everyone assumed they could not attack at all with Umi and only TLF on the field. 

Beyond the question of "should this work this way," there is the problem of how would someone know it works this way.  I just checked the UDE site and the mirror here at Netrep, and there are no rulings listed for The Legendary Fisherman at all.  Shouldn't this ruling be listed?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: "Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

Did you find anything about multiple chains in response to an attack? Upperdeck is one thing above all else, Terrible at getting consistent information about cards and game mechanics out to the gaming population at large. I still run into Fairy King Truesdale and The Legendary Fisherman in WATER decks every couple of weeks at tournaments being used incorrectly. To say that it is the player's fault for not keeping up on rulings is really unfair. Upperdeck's web page has always been a sad place to look for rulings and card Errata, the Judge's list is not easily found nor are the earlier rulings searchable unless you are a Judge. The magazines and most web pages that focus on Yugioh are also often generating information that has been contradicted by "Official" rulings. The best I can suggest is for the best information in the game spend a lot of time here on the Rules and Regulations board.

(And maybe start a petition that Upperdeck get out a comprehensive Rulebook that you could actually use to conduct this game without needing auxilary sources of information every 5 minutes)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: "Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

anthonyj said:
The best I can suggest is for the best information in the game spend a lot of time here on the Rules and Regulations board.
Click to expand...

That's why I contributed to the Netrep Fund.  I want this place to stay around for a while.  Well, that and the box of cards.   :lol:

(And maybe start a petition that Upperdeck get out a comprehensive Rulebook that you could actually use to conduct this game without needing auxilary sources of information every 5 minutes)
Click to expand...

Now there's a concept . . .
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: "Umi" and "The Legendary Fisherman"

Just thought I'd confirm this ruling, it was just answered on the judge list:

If Player 1 has a face-up "Legendary Fisherman" and "Umi" on the field,
with no other monsters in play, can Player 2 attack Player 1 directly?



Answer:

Player 2 would be able to attack directly.

---------------------------------------
Curtis Schultz
Official UDE Netrep
CurtisSchultz_Netrep@Hotmail.com
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top