Guide to OCG Fixes

[Parting Shot]

Azrael's Guide to OCG Fixes

Azrael's Guide to OCG Fixes

 

Welcome one and all to this sticky.

 

Lately it seems members have been posting OCG corrections for cards that aren't really correct themselves either, so I was petitioned to make a guide showing a good way of going about formulating an OCG correction for a card. I'll be walking through corrections for 2 cards, a monster and a spell, and along the way I'll be posting the real TCG cards that I get the OCG from.

 

Here we go!

 

[spoiler=[b]OCG Correction #1: Cybernetic Ninja - Blaze]

When this card declares an attack it can attack your opponent directly. Also Once per turn if this card is selected as an attack target you can negate that attack and inflict 600 points of damage to your opponent life points.

 

First thing's first, you want to figure out what kinds of effects are on the card. Blaze here looks to have an attack directly effect, a damage negation effect, and a damage dealing effect. The easiest way to write an OCG correction is to find cards with those effects and use them to edit the OCG.

 

Let's start with the attack directly effect since it's first on the card. If you're familiar with the TCG (like I am), you should be able to think of cards that have the sorts of effects you're looking for. In this case, the first card that comes to my mind is Crystal Beast Amethyst Cat:

 

 

Using the Cat, our first OCG correction will look like this:

When this card declares an attack it can attack your opponent directly. This card can attack your opponent directly. Also Once per turn if this card is selected as an attack target you can negate that attack and inflict 600 points of damage to your opponent life points.

 

Simple, to the point, and correct!

 

Now, I'm going to skip ahead a little bit and deal with the damage dealing effect before the attack negation effect. There are a ton of cards that deal damage, so I'll pick one of my personal favorites Meteor of Destruction:

 

 

Using Meteor, we can see that the latest OCG no longer uses "points" or "Life Points" (it's kind of obvious you're dealing the damage to their life points since nothing else takes damage in that way :P).

 

Our next correction looks like this:

This card can attack your opponent directly. Also Once per turn if this card is selected as an attack target you can negate that attack and inflict 600 points of damage to your opponent life points.

 

It's starting to look a lot better.

 

Lastly, we still need to fix the attack negation portion of the effect. We'll dip into a classic archetype and find Gladiator Beast Bestiari for the first part of this correction:

 

 

This one isn't going to be as easy to see since it won't be an exact copy. What we have to do is splice out the parts we need and ignore the rest. Let's look at the part of Bestiari's effect that we need:

"At the end of the Battle Phase, if this card attacked or was attacked, you can.."

 

We can ignore the first part about the battle phase since our Blaze card doesn't deal with it. Also, using some common sense and knowledge of the English language, we can shorten it to this:

"this card is attacked"

 

Then we simply plug it into Blaze's OCG, smooth out the connecting phrases, and end up with this correction:

This card can attack your opponent directly. Also Once per turn, if this card is selected as an attack target when this card is attacked, you can negate that attack and inflict 600 damage to your opponent.

 

For the second half of this final correction, we'll visit and oldy but goody trap card, Negate Attack:

 

 

This is a simple correction of "negate that attack" to "negate the attack." Here's how it looks:

This card can attack your opponent directly. Once per turn, when this card is attacked, you can negate that the attack and inflict 600 damage to your opponent.

 

So, our final correction looks like this:

This card can attack your opponent directly. Once per turn, when this card is attacked, you can negate the attack and inflict 600 damage to your opponent.

 

OCG Correction #1: Cybernetic Ninja - Blaze --DONE!

 

 

 

[spoiler=[i]OCG Correction #2: Crystal Haven[/i]]

All monster's that include "Crystal Beast" in their card names gain 500 ATK and DEF points for each "Crystal Beast" in your Spell and Trap card zone. If you control a "Crystal Beast- Rainbow Dragon" you can Tribute this card and all other "Crystal Beasts" (other then "Crystal Beast- Rainbow Dragon") to destroy all card on your opponent's side of the field.

 

As before, let's first break it up into what types of effects it has. There's an ATK/DEF boost effect and a destruction effect. Each effect, however, has several parts to it so we'll need to work through each of them one at a time. Let's dive right in.

 

First, we're going to fix a general issue with the effect as a whole: that of the references to "Crystal Beast" monsters and "Rainbow Dragon". We're going to use the real Crystal Beast field spell, Ancient City - Rainbow Ruins, to fix these references in one fell swoop:

 

 

Here's what the correction will look like:

All monster's that include "Crystal Beast" in their card names "Crystal Beast" monsters gain 500 ATK and DEF points for each "Crystal Beast" card in your Spell and Trap card zone Spell & Trap Card Zone. If you control a "Crystal Beast- Rainbow Dragon" face-up "Rainbow Dragon", you can Tribute this card and all other "Crystal Beasts" (other then "Crystal Beast- Rainbow Dragon") "Crystal Beast" cards you control to destroy all card on your opponent's side of the field.

 

That was kind of a big edit, so here's the cleaned up OCG correction up to this point:

"Crystal Beast" monsters gain 500 ATK and DEF points for each "Crystal Beast" card in your Spell & Trap Card Zone. If you control a face-up "Rainbow Dragon", you can Tribute this card and all other "Crystal Beast" cards you control to destroy all card on your opponent's side of the field.

 

Alright, let's move on to the first part of the effect, the ATK/DEF increase. We'll use Wetlands:

 

 

This causes us to make this small correction:

All "Crystal Beast" monsters gain 500 ATK and DEF points for each "Crystal Beast" card in your Spell & Trap Card Zone. If you control a face-up "Rainbow Dragon", you can Tribute this card and all other "Crystal Beast" cards you control to destroy all card on your opponent's side of the field.

 

Thanks to the general correction we made earlier, the first effect is done! Let's move on to the second and use Des Croaking:

 

 

Using this OCG, we get the following correction:

All "Crystal Beast" monsters gain 500 ATK and DEF for each "Crystal Beast" card in your Spell & Trap Card Zone. If you control a face-up "Rainbow Dragon", you can Tribute this card and all other "Crystal Beast" cards you control to destroy all card on your opponent's side of the field destroy all cards your opponent controls.

 

Lastly, we just have a few grammatical issues to take care of. Spell cards can't be tributed, so we need to replace that with either "destroy" or "send to the Graveyard" depending on the situation. In this case, I would suggest using send rather than destroy (less conflicting that way). We also need to fix the grammar in the last sentence since it no longer fits from our first edit. Here's what we get:

All "Crystal Beast" monsters gain 500 ATK and DEF for each "Crystal Beast" card in your Spell & Trap Card Zone. If you control a face-up "Rainbow Dragon", you can Tribute send this card and all other "Crystal Beast" cards you control to the Graveyard to destroy all cards your opponent controls.

 

And so our completed correction looks a lot better:

All "Crystal Beast" monsters gain 500 ATK and DEF for each "Crystal Beast" card in your Spell & Trap Card Zone. If you control a face-up "Rainbow Dragon", you can send this card and all "Crystal Beast" cards you control to the Graveyard to destroy all cards your opponent controls.

 

OCG Correction #2: Crystal Haven --DONE!

 

 

 

[spoiler=[b]BONUS Guide: How to post your OCG correction[/b]]

So, you have your OCG correction all nice and complete. Now what?

 

The current rules of the CC section disallow you from simply posting the OCG correction and nothing else, so here's a sample post that could be given on the Crystal Haven card we corrected above:

 

Crystal Haven

The OCG is a little off, here's my correction:

All "Crystal Beast" monsters gain 500 ATK and DEF for each "Crystal Beast" card in your Spell & Trap Card Zone. If you control a face-up "Rainbow Dragon", you can send this card and all "Crystal Beast" cards you control to the Graveyard to destroy all cards your opponent controls.

 

Well done with the name and pic fitting each other and the archetype. Unfortunately, the effect itself could use some work. The whole point of a Crystal Beast deck is to get them into your spell zones, so you're going to have several there at any given point. As such, getting 500 ATK and DEF for each of them would lead you to easily having a Sapphire Pegasus with upwards of 2800 ATK. While this does add the possibility for major beatsticking, the Crystal Beasts already have ways of getting this done. Also, Crystal Abundance is already a way for them to get rid of opponent's cards and end up with a force of monsters to use for attacking, and for a more balanced cost considering this card doesn't currently state a minimum number of cards to destroy besides itself, so you could conceivably destroy just it and nothing else and still destroy all your opponent's cards. Lastly, I would much rather use Ancient City - Rainbow Ruins in my field spell card slot than this as it provides multiple bonuses as well as continuing support for what the Beasts do best: putting themselves in crystal form.

 

overall - 8.67/13.69*

 

* = 13.69 grading scale is copyright to Azrael, Inc. and may not be used without permission

 

 

 

[Lexadin]

Nice Guide. This will help some people correct the OCG of others.

[Alexis Rhodes]

Nice Guide.

 

^^ , Although i get people to correct mine for me :)

[Mehmani]

It's a good, compact, simple guide. It's a shame that not many newbs will actually check this thread.

[Lexadin]

That's just plain lazy 5D.

[RAEGING D0GKING]

There is the Official OCG Thread which is more easy to use.

But anyone can just look at a card and add all the cards effect together.

Thats what I do.

[Cloister]

Good. I still prefer the OCG thread, mainly because Junk Raver has posted ALL phrases that can be used/useful in the card making.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Good. I still prefer the OCG thread' date=' mainly because Junk Raver has posted ALL phrases that can be used/useful in the card making.

[/quote']

 

The Old OCG thread is not kid friendly, and does not supply (shamed to say it) picture examples. There is also another thread in WC that is an alternation of that as well, that limits exclusively to TCG and OCG (Official Card Game) phrases directly from cards instead of finding situations that are unique to specific cards.

 

These threads (yes there will be 2 more) will be designed to be kid friendly, show how we look at cards to figure out aspects of Grammar- Azrael, Creativity- Icyblue and Balance- Crab Helmet (or some Member who we will ask, however do not PM us as we will contact you). They will also be done in such a way, that we will provide ways to double check yourself with little time involved, thus in the end hopefully improving the quality of cards and ways to look at a card as a whole. Consider it sort of... Learning Workshops.

[Moon_Saint]

This is a really nice guide. And thanks for using the card I created, Crystal Haven. I am glad that I can now go change the OCG to the proper usage.

---

Ok here is a question. What would the proper OCG be if you wanted a monster to be both a spellcaster and a warrior? I tried finding some cards that were multiple types but I could not think of any. If the card was listed as a Spellcaster would the correct OCG be "This card is also treated as Warrior-Type monster."?

[Guest JoshIcy]

Ok here is a question. What would the proper OCG be if you wanted a monster to be both a spellcaster and a warrior? I tried finding some cards that were multiple types but I could not think of any. If the card was listed as a Spellcaster would the correct OCG be "This card is also treated as Warrior-Type monster."?

 

Yup ^^

[Inferno I20]

yup this is exactly how you do it people

its what i do :D

hopefully more people will get to see this

however, i try to find a card that was most recently made b/c most of the old OCG is different

[ChaosIncarn]

It'll be nice if people actually pay attention to this thread and the OCG thread. I myself am not an expect on it, but I took a long look over it and studied some card via my DS (Much quicker than yugioh wika if you ask me, less finger work. :P) after my first couple of cards that didn't sound quite right.

 

Nice work Azrael

[Sweet Lightning]

Nicely done, Azrael. ;)

 

I've always looked on real cards for the correct OCG. It's a shame more people don't.

[usetheforcehan]

Niceee... :)

 

But how about the Piercing Damage? What is the correct term for it in the Lore?

Option A: "This card can inflict Piercing Damage".

Option B: "This card can inflict Piercing Damage to your opponent monster".

Option C: "This card can pierce your opponent monster".

 

Which Options is correct?

[-Griffin]

Niceee... :)

 

But how about the Piercing Damage? What is the correct term for it in the Lore?

Option A: "This card can inflict Piercing Damage".

Option B: "This card can inflict Piercing Damage to your opponent monster".

Option C: "This card can pierce your opponent monster".

 

Which Options is correct?

 

"During battle between this attacking card and a Defense Position monster whose DEF is lower than the ATK of this card, inflict the difference as Battle Damage to your opponent." is correct, but "This card inflicts Piercing Damage" means exactly the same thing and isn't a waste of words.

[Parting Shot]

Niceee... :)

 

But how about the Piercing Damage? What is the correct term for it in the Lore?

Option A: "This card can inflict Piercing Damage".

Option B: "This card can inflict Piercing Damage to your opponent monster".

Option C: "This card can pierce your opponent monster".

 

Which Options is correct?

 

"During battle between this attacking card and a Defense Position monster whose DEF is lower than the ATK of this card' date=' inflict the difference as Battle Damage to your opponent." is correct. "This card inflicts Piercing Damage" means exactly the same thing and isn't a waste of words [b']but only appears on one card in the TCG and isn't considered proper OCG.[/b].

Fixed.

[-Griffin]

Niceee... :)

 

But how about the Piercing Damage? What is the correct term for it in the Lore?

Option A: "This card can inflict Piercing Damage".

Option B: "This card can inflict Piercing Damage to your opponent monster".

Option C: "This card can pierce your opponent monster".

 

Which Options is correct?

 

"During battle between this attacking card and a Defense Position monster whose DEF is lower than the ATK of this card' date=' inflict the difference as Battle Damage to your opponent." is correct. "This card inflicts Piercing Damage" means exactly the same thing and isn't a waste of words [b']but only appears on one card in the TCG and isn't considered proper OCG.[/b].

Fixed.

 

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.

Strunk & White’s "Elements of Style"

 

99% of people on YCM understand piercing, and it is therefore acceptable. On a printed card, yes, it should be the longer one so that people who don't know can understand. But since this should be primarily a place to pass ideas, I see no reason to not find the consice version entirely adequate.

[DARKPLANT RISING]

I love this thing. The method of copying OCG from real cards is something I use too. This thing will be useful for newbies ^^

[Fizzy™]

Awesome guide on how to fix OCG. I like the Idea of getting OCG from already existing cards.

It'll be very useful, thanks.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

A pity Icyblue won't allow the golden content here to actually be applied. Wonderful guide!

[Guest JoshIcy]

A pity Icyblue won't allow the golden content here to actually be applied. Wonderful guide!

 

Im sorry, what?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Niceee... :)

 

But how about the Piercing Damage? What is the correct term for it in the Lore?

Option A: "This card can inflict Piercing Damage".

Option B: "This card can inflict Piercing Damage to your opponent monster".

Option C: "This card can pierce your opponent monster".

 

Which Options is correct?

 

"During battle between this attacking card and a Defense Position monster whose DEF is lower than the ATK of this card' date=' inflict the difference as Battle Damage to your opponent." is correct. "This card inflicts Piercing Damage" means exactly the same thing and isn't a waste of words [b']but only appears on one card in the TCG and isn't considered proper OCG.[/b].

Fixed.

 

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.

Strunk & White’s "Elements of Style"

 

99% of people on YCM understand piercing, and it is therefore acceptable. On a printed card, yes, it should be the longer one so that people who don't know can understand. But since this should be primarily a place to pass ideas, I see no reason to not find the consice version entirely adequate.

 

"Piercing" is wholly unacceptable. Not only is it unrealistic owing to its whole property of not being the latest released wording for what it's trying to communicate, but also because of the fact that it never should've been used in the first place due to its lack of precision.

 

The claim could be made that a DP04 Cyberdark Horn could attack its opponent directly and deal 100 times the value of its original ATK with no immediate evidence to contradict it, as that could very well be what "This card inflicts Piercing damage" could be said to convey. Precision is critical. This is why I suspect that the particular wording on DP04 Cyberdark Horn was used only for it, Konami realized that it was too vague and had to be discontinued.

 

"During battle between this attacking card and a Defense Position monster whose DEF is lower then the ATK of this card, inflict the difference as Battle Damage to your opponent" (as per Strong Wind Dragon) is actually entirely necessary to communicate the desired effect, whereas "This card inflicts Piercing damage" isn't descriptive enough.

 

Not only is your "99%" statistic based on absolutely nothing, but whether or not members of YCM understand what the card is meant to communicate isn't at issue. The problem lies in the hypothetical situation of what would happen were it to be released. If it's possible for what's being said to be misinterpreted, it's also possible to abuse it. If a card should not be considered for actual release because its effect is too vague, it isn't a "realistic" card.

 

A pity Icyblue won't allow the golden content here to actually be applied. Wonderful guide!

 

Im sorry' date=' what?

[/quote']

 

You know, the whole "NO FIXING OCG IT'S AN OFFENSE" rule? =/

[Guest JoshIcy]

A pity Icyblue won't allow the golden content here to actually be applied. Wonderful guide!

 

Im sorry' date=' what?

[/quote']

 

You know, the whole "NO FIXING OCG IT'S AN OFFENSE" rule? =/

 

Again you ripped it out of context. It means that strictly the OCG correction alone in a post is against the rules and minimal on the rest does not suffice. While I do recognize that this is one of the 3 important aspects of a card, (the other 2 being Balance and Creativity); hell I was the one that ASKED Azrael to make this thread.

[-Griffin]

@Polaris

No. It's an entirely acceptable short-form. If it isn't brutally obvious what it means for the way Cyberdark works in games and is known to work from Konami's word, then you are truely a master at the art of stupidity. What next, you say the entire game of MtG is invalid for using keywords? It works. It shouldn't be on a printed card, yes, but for reviewing and such - all that needs to happen in RC - it is superior because it communicates the exact same message - nothing more or less - in much fewer words, making the card more visually appealing by not being wordy for no reason.

 

There is quite simply no advantage of the extra words. That's like me writing on a Spell "You can activate this card from your hand," or on a Trap, "You cannot activate this card the turn it is set." It's pure redundancy.

[Phantom Roxas]

Polaris, this guide helps people that are going to post OCG correction. Using the tips provided by this thread and commenting on other stuff would be a great post. No, not the kind of post people should be forced to make, but it would be a great post.