Yu-Gi-Oh! Rulings Questions

[Expelsword]

If Anti-Meta were to become meta' date=' what would be the Anti-Meta of that meta?

[/quote']

 

*head explodes*

 

Imperial Iron Wall (Mass Driver OTK)

[Sephiroth_The_Legend]

If Anti-Meta were to become meta' date=' what would be the Anti-Meta of that meta?

[/quote']

 

Anti-Meta would no longer be Anti-Meta. Therefore, it would be deemed as Meta.

and the previous Meta decks would be considered Anti-Meta.

[darkwolf777]

The previous "Meta" decks can't be the anti-meta though, because the new Meta (which is Anti-Meta) destroys the old Meta. There would need to be a new type of anti-meta, so anti-anti-meta (but not normal Meta).

 

Anti-Anti-Meta > Anti-Meta > Meta.

[Mysty]

The previous "Meta" decks can't be the anti-meta though' date=' because the new Meta (which is Anti-Meta) destroys the old Meta. There would need to be a new type of anti-meta, so anti-anti-meta (but not normal Meta).

 

Anti-Anti-Meta > Anti-Meta > Meta.

[/quote']

 

Now imagine if the decks were calculated just right so that:

 

Anti-Anti-Meta > Anti-Meta > Meta > Anti-Anti-Meta

 

And imagine if every deck type (even the Tier 3+ decks) was part of one of these classifications of decks. Wouldn't that make tournaments more varied deck type-wise?

[darkwolf777]

The previous "Meta" decks can't be the anti-meta though' date=' because the new Meta (which is Anti-Meta) destroys the old Meta. There would need to be a new type of anti-meta, so anti-anti-meta (but not normal Meta).

 

Anti-Anti-Meta > Anti-Meta > Meta.

[/quote']

 

Now imagine if the decks were calculated just right so that:

 

Anti-Anti-Meta > Anti-Meta > Meta > Anti-Anti-Meta

 

And imagine if every deck type (even the Tier 3+ decks) was part of one of these classifications of decks. Wouldn't that make tournaments more varied deck type-wise?

 

Not particularly, since Tier 3 would still be Tier 3. People will try to use the T1 decks, and Yugioh will become a big Rock Paper Scissors matchup with the best Meta, Anti-Meta, and Anti-Anti-Meta decks against each other.

[Mysty]

The previous "Meta" decks can't be the anti-meta though' date=' because the new Meta (which is Anti-Meta) destroys the old Meta. There would need to be a new type of anti-meta, so anti-anti-meta (but not normal Meta).

 

Anti-Anti-Meta > Anti-Meta > Meta.

[/quote']

 

Now imagine if the decks were calculated just right so that:

 

Anti-Anti-Meta > Anti-Meta > Meta > Anti-Anti-Meta

 

And imagine if every deck type (even the Tier 3+ decks) was part of one of these classifications of decks. Wouldn't that make tournaments more varied deck type-wise?

 

Not particularly, since Tier 3 would still be Tier 3. People will try to use the T1 decks, and Yugioh will become a big Rock Paper Scissors matchup with the best Meta, Anti-Meta, and Anti-Anti-Meta decks against each other.

 

Not exactly. IIRC there are at least 3 Meta decks right now: Blackwings, Infernities, and X-Sabers (sorry to the deck types I missed). These decks don't Rock-Paper-Scissors each other, and none of these are classified as Anti-Meta, so Anti-Meta decks (such as STUN IIRC) exist. If (for example) Koa'ki Meiru gets really powerful Anti-Meta cards and uses its brute force to become the Anti-Meta in this triangle, then a few Anti-Anti-Meta decks will rise up. Every Anti-Meta variant of Koa'ki Meiru (and things like Koa'ki Rock STUN) would probably be Anti-Meta, the Meta decks would be Meta, and a few new deck types that counteract Anti-Meta (or, in this case, Koa'ki Meiru) will be the anti-anti-meta. If there are 3 in each section, there are 9 decks in the "top scene," so tournaments would be more varied deck type-wise.

Unless I'm missing something. If I am missing some data, enlighten me.

[darkwolf777]

Well, when you say "Anti-Anti-Meta > Anti-Meta > Meta > Anti-Anti-Meta", by definition, one should defeat the other, while losing to third type. You have some kind of Fire Emblem triangle going on, you're saying that one should dominate the other, while being dominated by the alternate option.

 

Therefore, the way I see it, there should be a top Anti-Anti-Meta, a top Anti-Meta, and a top Meta deck. If you're trying to say anything past that, then its not going to fall into that "AAM > AM > M > AAM" group and breaks the whole thing and turns it to just A > B > C > D > E > F > G > H > I > J... and so on where each deck is built to simply counter the next deck type which would mean it would fail to destroy any of the other deck types, and only be good at destroying the one deck type x.o;

 

I can see you say there that the Anti-Anti-Meta decks will be beaten by the original Meta decks, but that's where the loop starts over and the original Anti-Meta decks would be used to defeat the original Meta, in a continuous loop. Its either that or i don't understand what you mean as this is confusing to talk about with all the anti and anti-antis being thrown around and being changed within the same paragraphs x.x

[Sephiroth_The_Legend]

thats when we all decide to play Magic and the entire triangle fails.

[Mysty]

Well' date=' when you say "Anti-Anti-Meta > Anti-Meta > Meta > Anti-Anti-Meta", by definition, one should defeat the other, while losing to third type. You have some kind of Fire Emblem triangle going on, you're saying that one should dominate the other, while being dominated by the alternate option.

 

Therefore, the way I see it, there should be a top Anti-Anti-Meta, a top Anti-Meta, and a top Meta deck. If you're trying to say anything past that, then its not going to fall into that "AAM > AM > M > AAM" group and breaks the whole thing and turns it to just A > B > C > D > E > F > G > H > I > J... and so on where each deck is built to simply counter the next deck type which would mean it would fail to destroy any of the other deck types, and only be good at destroying the one deck type x.o;

 

[b']I can see you say there that the Anti-Anti-Meta decks will be beaten by the original Meta decks, but that's where the loop starts over and the original Anti-Meta decks would be used to defeat the original Meta, in a continuous loop.[/b] Its either that or i don't understand what you mean as this is confusing to talk about with all the anti and anti-antis being thrown around and being changed within the same paragraphs x.x

 

Okay, let's simplify this: A = Anti-Anti-Meta, B = Anti-Meta, and C = Meta. The various deck types I promise for each are A1, A2, A3 (the "A" decks), B4, B5, and B6 (the "B" decks) and C7, C8, and C9 (the "C" decks).

As my theory goes, A > B > C > A, so, in a usual case, any "A" deck will beat any "B" deck, any "B" deck will beat any "C" deck, and any "C" deck will beat any "A" deck. However, noting that the three current meta decks don't have a clear cut Rock-Paper-Scissors relationship, C7, C8, and C9 decks dueling against each other would be based more on other factors than the RPS one. Hence, A1, A2, and A3 would share a similar non-RPS-relationship, as would the B decks competing against each other.

 

I think you got it with the bolded statement, but it's not like everyone will stop using the "C" decks once the "B" decks take over; there will always be people fine-tuning their "C" decks against the "B" decks, as well as the people using "C" decks anticipating the "A" decks taking over the tournaments. Because of the RPS loop, and the constant addition of more cards, people will be using decks of all the different groups of decks, creating more varied tournaments.

 

Let's not forget some side deck and/or tech cards for A to side against C may fit in easier in certain A decks than others, but that makes the issue too complicated.

 

thats when we all decide to play Magic and the entire triangle fails.

 

Do you really think that will ever happen? People already decide between Meta and Anti-Meta' date=' and which deck of which they want to use. Why would adding a third branch of decks make decision-making too much harder?

If this situation ever happened, don't be a party pooper with a Stop Having Fun Guys meta attitude; just go into the tournament scene with your favorite deck and have fun! Who knows: you could do really well against a considerable chunk of the tournament scene.

[evilfusion]

Keep in mind that these calculations are purely hypothetical and don't take innumerable factors into account, like the skill of the player, the build of the deck, and individual strategies. No deck is 100%.

[Shinzuku]

Does:

 

Honest - DNA Surgery - Blackwings

 

Work?

[evilfusion]

I dont have a clue what that question means.

[Shinzuku]

Does Honest with Dna Surgery work with Blackwings? (if you declare LIGHT)

[evilfusion]

DNA Surgery changes TYPE. You mean DNA Transplant, which changes Attribute. (Type= Dragon, Fairy, Reptile, etc. Attribute= LIGHT, DARK, FIRE, WATER, DIVINE, etc)

 

Honest's effect works on a LIGHT Attribute monster. So with Transplant, selecting LIGHT, yes, you can use Honest's effect on any of your monsters, because in this scenario, they all are LIGHT.

[Shinzuku]

Okay thank you.

[DARKPLANT RISING]

I have a Question on the commonly used Stardust and Goyo.

 

If I summon Stardust' date=' it's arrested by my friend's Goyo, and he tries to use its effect on a Lightning Vortex of mine, would the Stardust come back to my side? Or is it his?[hr']

If my friend robs a Stardust with Goyo and tries to use its effect, would it revive on my side? Or his?

 

Stardust Dragon brings itself back on the side of the field whose Graveyard it was sent. Therefor, it will Special Summon itself on your side of the field.

 

O, thanks ^^

[Canadian]

I checked the wiki, but I still didn't understand.

 

If I use guard penalty on my monster, and it is changed to defense position twice during the same turn, do I get to draw a second card during that turn from one Guard Penalty? Or does Guard Penalty only work once?

[Sephiroth_The_Legend]

No. It's a once off effect.

 

If it was twice or thrice, i'd use it as a draw engine in clown control....

[-Griffin]

Once

[evilfusion]

Guard Penalty is a one-time draw, unfortunately. I don't really get why, since it's difficult to abuse, but that's the way the card is. The anime allowed one draw per instance comboed with Spark Blaster, but oh well.

[byak]

 

Tribute Knight for Puppet Master. Do SEGOC and they both resolve, or does Puppet Master miss the timing?

[darkwolf777]

 

Tribute Knight for Puppet Master. Do SEGOC and they both resolve' date=' or does Puppet Master miss the timing?

[/quote']

 

Their triggers go off at the same time. Skull Knight #2's effect is Chain Link 1 (since it is mandatory) and Puppet Master is Chain Link 2 (since it is optional).

[Fraz]

Dark Illusion

 

Counter Trap:

Negate the activation of a Spell Card, Trap Card, or Effect Monster's effect that targets a face-up DARK monster, and destroy that card.

 

 

Can this negate a card that targets multiple dark monsters?

Can this negate a card that targets non dark monsters or spells/traps along with a dark monster?

[werewolfjedi]

Dark Illusion

 

Counter Trap:

Negate the activation of a Spell Card' date=' Trap Card, or Effect Monster's effect that targets a face-up DARK monster, and destroy that card.

 

 

Can this negate a card that targets multiple dark monsters?

Can this negate a card that targets non dark monsters or spells/traps along with a dark monster?

[/quote']

 

yes and yes, as long it targets at activation, that card can stop it.

[Sephiroth_The_Legend]

Silent Swordsman Level 5 and Horus the Black Flame Dragon Level 6.

 

Does Level Up! work on either?