From what I was seeing, it seems like he thought that Swords was counting on his own end phases (or at least that was the story he was going with at the end) so he didn’t even read the card, let alone count properly
@Ulim151 I mean if you are going to make a mistake like that you'd probably prefer it to be in your favor. 3 of your EP only means 2 of your opponent's turns.
I am still confuse. Swords says on your opponents turn. Your opponent cannot attack for three turns. Based on what was said the opponent was only under swords for one of his turn. You are not suppose to count your own turn with swords since it specifically says during opponents turn.
Watching situations like these is why I always stick to EDO and MD. Constantly getting into arguments with idiots that don't get the rules and refuse to acknowledge fault is such a chore. They can't really argue when the rules are hard coded and work automatically.
Exactly, because poeple on the internet become 100x more confident and entitled then they would be irl since they know they'll get little to no actual consequences. Never had a problem like I've had on Manuel Sims at a local or event, why? Because poeple are actually worried about being decent poeple and building connections
@@majickmanIt’s been 3 months so who cares at this point but neither Originally, the player activated their cards in the order Just Desserts, Just Desserts, Ring of Destruction. This is a misplay as when the chain resolves backwards, Ring will destroy the monster before Just Desserts resolves, resulting in less damage. Coder allowed the player to change that order to Ring of Destruction, Just Desserts, Just Desserts, resulting in 1000 more damage than what they should have had It seems that they also misunderstood priority and thought they were activating as CL 1, 2 & 3 instead of CL 2, 3 & 4, but being stupid while you’re being stupid shouldn’t allow you to take one of those stupidities back
These videos make me appreciate automated simulators. I guess Dueling Book is still fine if you are playing with people you know, random people in that platform seem weird.
The problem with automated simulators is that you become a worse player. If you are a casual player then simulators are great but as soon as you are playing paper YGO at an event then only having simulator experience is a massive detriment.
@@tartantulakid666I actually learned way more from playing on automated simulator rather than arguing with people how rulings work. People who play on dueling book have this weird sense of superiority over people who play on simulators and they say the stuff you are saying to justify this thought process.
I had a guy like that (Balter "ruling") at the 6/18/23 Remote Duel regionals who couldn't understand why my Judge used discretion in giving a penalty instead of making it a PE-Major (It was the last match of the last round of the regional and they were already into their time extension), he appealed it, then try the "I don't understand", talk over me, and even threated to email Julia. So I gave him a UC-Minor for Rule Sharking. He tried claiming he was a judge and that he has duel some "big names". I told him his accolades don't mean anything to me, feel free to email Julia, and if he wants to continue arguing why his opponent got a PE-Minor (They both got one earlier in the match and he wanted to have his opponent's upgraded to a Severe or DQ) that I could upgrade his UC-Minor to a UC-Severe Disqualification. I rarely use my Authoritative Voice, I'm usually chill, laughing having fun kind of judge, but when you cross a line with me and refuse to listen, You get the "Dad is Mad" voice. A very firm, few decibels louder than normal but not quite the yelling stage of how loud.
Something like that ShadowMist call happened to me once. Opp activated DarkRulerNoMore on my Unchained board. Then in battle called a judge when I said my cards still activate in GY.
He could've said that cross negates the effect on field while balter negates the effect when the card leaves the field. Instead of just repeating "they aren't remotely the same" and "that's an old card".
They aren’t the same at all though, they are entirely different effects and don’t work the same, and also explained how the negate from Cross doesn’t follow Shadow Mist to the grave because once it hits the grave it’s considered a different monster. What the guy was saying was like comparing Infinite Impermanence and Bagooska should work the same because they both stop monster effects
@@Marqrk that's the problem. We know they aren't the same. But the best way to stop any headache and loss of time was to just explain how they aren't the same instead of just saying "they aren't the same". He explained cross in that way but from my understanding the guy needed to know what makes balter different from cross. Since it looked like he didn't understand the both of them.
@TheBlockx2 It's the same thing as spell/trap cards that say "you can banish this card from your gy, except the turn it was sent to the gy" being able to work after being banished and returned to the graveyard, because it's treated as a separate new card.
It's wild to me coder even acknowledges the guy might be just getting back into the game and just basically insults the dude for not understanding nuance in text and rulings. It's toxic and cringe,.
For Ruling at 10:12 Swords of revealing light. (I think Distant COder missed a very crucial detail). According to the chat box, luffy-senpai activated trunade on that turn which bounces swords of revealing light and activated it again. So, what happened... The swords of revealing light activates for up to 3rd opponent's end phase.The count activate during the opponent's end phase. Since Giant Trunade was activated, the Swords now is off the field and back to hand. Since luffy senpai activated the swords again, this would count as a new activation and the previous 2 turns from that swords won't apply. Therefore (now is turn 22 apparently), that "new" swords of revealing light would activate again 2 turns from now and will not be destroyed by end of turn 22 (which was opponent's turn) For more clarity, let me backtrack the turns based on the chat logs. turn 17: luffy turn activated swords of revealing light. turn 18: opponent turn swords count 1 turn 19: luffy turn turn 20: opponent turn swords count 2 turn 21: luffy turn (@9:48: luffy senpai: "I activate giant trunade and active again (assuming he activated the swords of revealing light again)) turn 22: opponent (@9:56 : "this is my end phase) swords count 1 (new count because new activattion of card) turn 23: luffy turn turn 24:opponent turn swords count 2 turn 25: luffy turn turn 26: opponent turn swords count 3 at end phase and is destroyed tldr: the player luffy senpai might be lying about activation of the trunade. If not, the sequence above is the correct one and the swords would not be destroyed.
yeah, I think mr. codington is wrong. He even stated out loud "3rd opponent's end phase" but still missed that he was in the wrong. THAT SAID, red didn't say anything to clarify and just got pissy. It's as much Coder's fault for getting the rule wrong as much as Red's fault for being a bitch about it
I think Balter Blue wanted to know why Balter itself was different to this scenario and to answer blue if you are reading comments it is becausing when a monster is destroyed by battle and Balter's effect triggers the monster is considered already in the GY and no longer on the field when Bolter resolves his negate.
With the archer issue (on the card itself) and to do with the confusion on the card rules, I believe the sacrifice is a cost(and can't be responded to), but old yugioh cards don't tend to be templated/worded clearly.
Thank you for the hero ruling! I had two other very simple ruling issues with him and finally said no we will wait on this one xD Managed to win that one somehow
but what if that shadow mist was destroyed by dark balter like yesterday, then it effects would be negated as it still was destroyed by balter as he remembers even when the card moves zones, which means moving to another games does not escape his wrath
First video of yours I've seen and honestly seems very cool you are a judge. Never knew all the stuff that happened in the background so it's cool to see how this all works.
It's always funny to see those people who you give the correct rulling/procedure and someone is like "Nope, I am having none of that." Like that guy who was against a Marincess player that had Iblee on their board saying that they have to use Iblee to special summon even tho Iblee just stops everything but Links.
One of the things I love and hate about YGO is that people have to know rulings for specific card interactions instead of having rules. So there's a difference between Skill Drain 'monsters on the field have their effects negated' and Imperm's 'Monster on the field has its effects negated' in regards to whether or not an on-field tribute-self-as-cost effect will be negated; you can tribute around Skill Drain because the effect isn't resolving while the monster is on the field, but you can't tribute around Imperm because the monster's effect activated on the field and is still considered from that monster despite being a new card in the GY. Also, it opens the door for massive disrespect like "Then you should've used Dark Balter the Terrible if you wanted Dark Balter's effect."
@Burger_pants It only comes up with some cards, but activating a card and activating an effect aren't the same thing. For example, you can't Solemn a continuous spell/trap's effect if it's already face-up on the field, you can only get it when it's placed face-up on the card's activation. Skill Drain is very specifically worded to only negate the effects of monsters while they're on the field, not the activation. It's like Fabled Unicore or Necrovalley: as a continuous effect it negates things mid-chain; the card/effect still activates in order to have an effect to negate in the first place. You can't chain-block it because the negation doesn't chain, you can only make sure that the negate conditions aren't met by the time the card resolves, hence why Skill Drain stops working when the monster is no longer face-up on the field. It's also why Super Polymerization and Accesscode Talker can be negated by these kinds of effects despite being Spell Speed 4, you get around the "no activations in response" clause by having the negate not be activated in response, but occurs on the chain's resolution.
I think, that For clarification... The guys is not paying attention. Dark Valter negates the card its destroying. Because of Valters effect, its not gonna be activating the effect (effectively negating in the graveyard) On the other hand. Crosskeeper thing is negated on the field, so when it goes away, and like Judge said. "its considered a different card" By that it means "Its only negated while its on field" (im not am expert, just trying) So the thing to explain here is that those are 2 different types interaction. So the logic does not apply. A better compararion. Would potentially be Junk Synchron + Something like Synchro Fusionist. Synchro Fusionist is summoned by the effect of Junk synchron, thus, its negated. Then, you synchro summon for Junk Warrior. The effect of Synchro fusionist activates in the Graveyard as it was sent there for a synchro summon. Letting you add a Fusion card. Its able to resolve properly even if its effect was negated, because its only negated while on field, the negation wont follow it to the graveyRd cause it becomes another card. (or something like that)
Cut it off at only negated on the field such that it won't follow it to GY, can't get over "becomes another card" cause this sequence wouldn't get around any HOPT. And it's confusing. If a card becomes Xyz material granting an effect it doesn't become a different card. It has no location in the gamestate besides as a material enabling an effect of a card you control.
@@runningoncylinders3829 i thought so too. It just does not follow it to the graveyard. I remember the THING ABOUT BECOMING ANOTHER CARD. As something that Lingers. Such as Eldlitch the Horny Boi. Activates to return to the hand, and then "Summon a zombie" Which most of the times happens to be the one that activated the effect. But for mechanic reasons. Its not. Because it can summon any other zombie in your hand (if any exists) I think thats how it goes with WHY ITS ANOTHER CARD. Its mechanic not tecnically. But i agree with you.
@@Rocktherio Eldlich is a "then" effect, and at the time of use he will be a zombie in your hand to meet the condition of the last part of his effect. There's fundamentally poor wording in the "becomes a different card" phrase because what matters in cases this would apply is the effects that work with a particular card being in a particular location. Say you summoned Ash Blossom and now you can't discard it; it hasn't become a new card here, it's just now unable to do a particular thing that needs it to be in a specific location.
@@runningoncylinders3829 Probably poor wording. Becoming another card i believe here was utilized as YES it is a Cross porter YES it was summoned with its effects negated But It WILL resolve in the graveyard because it ceases to be the card summoned with its effect negated SUMMONED BY X CARD once its gone from the field. I believe it goes to the Argument that mechanically speaking theres some semblance of memory. But it stops applying under certain conditions. Of course im not arguing, im just adding fire to the fuel as im not a judge, im giving my understanding for the situation at hand. Not really asking or using eldlich as THE example for how it works, but rather using it as a pointer to How its effect applies to summon himself. My only point there was that Eldlitch the golden lord activating in the graveyard Adds "Eldlitch the goldenlord" to the hand And then summons a zombie being "Eldlitch the goldenlord." Now. The point to make about it being "Another card" or its effect in graveyard lingering. Say, for example. It would be different should the Eldlitch applied its effect of Being invincible and gaining 1000 By getting to the field. Because of Skilldrain. But that not being the case. It still applies the whole effect cause it activates from the grave, and on resolution. Those other things happen succesfully. (this was a FAQuestion at a point. Can i imperm EtGL to prevent the attack gain?) Not the perfect example. I know. Just my thought process to the MEMORY OF A CARD. Sorry for the long rambling. This is why i agree to the poor phrasing on Koders side. However, im bot a judge and he is. So, I can only cope. Cheers.
"Considered a different card" is poor wording to anyone with less experience. You could have phrased it to say that the card in GY isn't affected by an on-field exclusive negation since it is now in a place Cross Keeper has no way to stop it.
I think the first guy was malding cause he wanted to respond to the tributing? Which you cant lmao its like tributing for kaijus you can have 10 negates its not gonna do shit u less you have a summon lock
As a returning player, I'm confused about the negated effect situation as well. In this situation, its a monster on the field with a negated effect going to the graveyard. In the Balter situation, its a monster that gets destroying and has its effect negated going to the graveyard. In both situations, both monsters enter the graveyard with their effects negated, yet Shadow Mist's effect would still activate while the monster Balter destroyed wouldn't. If when they enter the graveyard they are considered different cards, why does one negate linger while the other doesn't?
Lets use ha des and mystic tomato as an example. I negate tomato on field then destroy it by battle using a blue eyes. Tomato in the gy is different from the one on the field to it activates its effect. Another case i negate the tomato then destroy it by battle using ha des. Ha des effect states that the monster it destroys by battle negates the effect. Hence the effect negated this time is the tomato in the gy.
skill drain negates effects on the field, so if i crash machina fortress despite having its secondary effect negated, its on battle destruction effect will trigger, because it triggers in the grave. balter negates any monster it destroys, as in after battle calc, so machina fortress cannot trigger its on battle destruction because dark balter prevents that monster from chaining its own effects to its destruction. cross keeper only negates while that card is SUMMONED FROM THE GRAVEYARD, however the moment it enters the graveyard again, it is NO LONGER considered summoned from the graveyard, it has successfully entered the graveyard and thats where the effect triggers
Keeper and Balter both work by negating a specific gamestate or transition. the simplest way to express it is to ask if a card fulfills an effect's conditions. keeper negates on the field because that's where the effect states. it doesn't say it negates in the hand, deck, or GY. Balter negates when the destroyed monster goes to the GY. because of that, Balter's effect can fizzle if, say, Macro Cosmos is active, because it overrides the destroyed monster's placement in the GY. it all has to do with conditions and limiters.
@@azure1094 Ha Des and Ancient Gear Beast have some really fun interactions like if they destroy Treeborn Frog, it never gets to activate its graveyard effect.
That first one's weird, like what does red want you to do there, zap the memories out of blue's head? Where they just pushing to try for a game win that blue gave them anyway?
Last Saturday I was playing against a darkworld player at locals and I swear, the judge had to spend the entire round at our table because the guy was constantly trying to pull shit. I can understand needing to be convinced that destroying a card in hand is different than discarding them. But he kept trying to activate none quick ignition effects during my turn, he wouldn't declare battlephase and jump to declaring an attack, and he was constantly pissed as if I was scumming him by pointing out the rules. My sole mistake, was that I forgot to correcte him when he didn't declare a target for an effect that needed targeting but I respond to it, so the judge just rolled us back to him picking a target, and when we were done the guy had the gall to complain that because of me the match got rerolled. I get not getting some rules, it's a complecated game, but many of those were both basic interactions anyone who has been playing for more than a month would have picked up, and apparently he's been playing for years.
this whole video is why i like EDOPro / Project Ignus. it has all the rules built in - - - and counting - - - and turn times. searching only happens for valid cards - will not let you search if there isn't something valid to search.
the main argument is that you get worse at IRL games because you dont have to worry about rulings and remembering what cards were activated and etc etc, which yeah, true, but also, if you're playing casually or just starting out, simulators are useful because 1. you can worry more about the game than rulings and 2. you can learn the game and rulings relatively easier. if you're practicing for an irl tourney, probably practice manual sims, but if you are playing casually or practicing for an online tournament, it's probably fine to use auto sims. tl;dr: there are pros and cons for both auto and manual sims
Instead of Balter, Living Fossil would be the closest comparison, and even then effects like Lonefire Blossom can solve once it left the field, unlike Veiler or Impermanence that states "Until the end of this turn"
@@Rahnonymousyeah, because skill drain negates effects of cards face-up on the field. You can still activate because skill drain does not negate activations and since they send themselves as cost, by the time the effect is activated they are already in the graveyard so skill drain doesn't apply.
@@nunocarvalho6671 I know, is not like is negating the effect to be sent to gy, only "on field" effects it might have (Which you can use with something like "A hero lives" but is restricted to not use the other)
2:47 Ring and Just Desserts can be activated in response to the summon before the player have a chance to use the monster's effect since it doesn't activate on summon.
I'm pretty sure they were playing goat. Goat is an old format and still has turn player priority, where the turn player has priority on ignition effects immediately after they summon a monster.
Archer has prio cuz goat. It was ruled incorrectly IMO due to the fact that the guy used ring as cl3 after cl1 jd cl2 jd. An obvious misplay, meaning, he would destroy archer, then do the 500x2 for the remaining token rather then 500x2x2. Like it is honestly such a whatever thing, but that shit would not fly if he did it irl.
That's different in goat. Back then you had "turn player ignition priority". Basically when you summon a guy that has an ignition effect (not just an on summon effect, but one you have to manually activate) you get priority to activate it before your opponent can chain any effects that don't directly respond to the summon itself.
At irl tournaments, you don't have the internet mouthbreathers who argue with every little thing and are terminally online. Honestly, Duelingbook is probably the worst way to play the game right now, just because of the fact that barely any judges are online, ever in the first place.
They activated it at a illegal time, they used it before amazoness archer. As them using that effect can change the order that you want to do stuff. In this case it wouldn't, but saying in this case it wouldn't doesn't mean the rule of rewind for illegal actions suddenly doesn't happen
yeah dueling book is more for testing in person game with people you know personally because people are complete A-holes, I would LOVE to see someone sit across the table from me and act the way people do on dueling book.
4:47 Why did you let him reverse the gamestate and chain things in a more advantageous way for himself? He made a mistake in his chains and should have to live with that, no?
So if you Imperm a normal summed Shadow Mist (for whatever reason), then it gets sent to the GY, they can still search? I'm not sure if i knew that either lol...
Coder def explained it well enough, but in simpler terms; card go gy and no longer affected by lingering negate. This is also why BA cards, when summoned with their effs negated by Tour Guide, can use their effs when sent to the GY. (Unless I'm misunderstanding)
@@saraakthefgomaster7694 I think coder failed to understand where the confusion came from. "it's no longer the same card" is simple enough but the player was likely unsure how to reach that conclusion by himself in the future, to explain that he needed to cover what part of the wording makes it different from balter but he kinda went on a KEKW this guy dumb rant
@@sqfzerzefsdf If you don't know the rules of the game, don't go in ranked play. And especially don't start arguing with the judge giving you the ruling.
@@youtube-kit9450 by your logic every ranked player can be a judge because the entry level you set is understanding every interaction and every ruling in the game. judges are there to clear up confusions like this one, not to just hand a ruling and get triggered that the guy doesn't immediately understand where that ruling comes from. Keep in mind judges aren't perfect and get appealed all the time, he deserves to know a proper explanation to make sure that's not necessary here.
Wait can you really not respond to the normal summon of a card with ring of destruction before they activate an effect? Ain't no way its like that in master duel
I don't think DistantCoder can be an official judge. Lol. The way he describes the rules are very vague. On the next match, Cross Keeper vs Shadow Mist, what happened was... Shadow mist summoned on the field from the graveyard (negated effect due to Cross keeper's effect), then when that monster was destroyed by battle, the player argues that it won't activate the search eff of shadow mist from grave since his effect was negated due to Cross Keeper's effect. His arguement comes from a ruling from Dark Balter the Terrible in which if Balter destroys a monster by battle, it negates the effect (regardless of where the card goes afterwards). The problem is that the Cross Keeper card text does not state if the monster summoned negated effect "on the field only". You can send this card from your hand or field to the GY; Special Summon 1 "Elemental HERO" monster or 1 "Neo-Spacian" monster from your hand or GY, but negate its effects if Summoned from the GY. However, this kind of card texts only applies on the summoned monsters on the field and is not a permanent. In the player's argument, then does that mean since Shadow Mist is summoned by Cross Keeper, since the card text does not state "from the field..." like "egate its effects if Summoned from the GY WHILE ON THE FIELD." Does that mean the effect of shadow mist is negated permanently for the rest of the game regardless of where the shadow mist is? No. Therefore, this effect only applies on the summoned monsters on the board. Also, his argument about the Dark Balter, it only affects during that battle meaning from destruction to damage calculation OF THAT BATTLE. Completely different situations. Lastly, arguing "Dark Balter ruling does not apply because Dark Balter is an extremely old card" is actually where you see if a judge is a good one or not. There are other "old" rulings but it still applies up to this day because the rulings are based on the situation and not based on how old are the cards in question. TLDR: DistantCoder seems a bad judge and won't be a good judge BASED on this clips. I don't agree to some of his rulings and I don't understand why he does those rules.
Generally, his rulings a pretty accurate it's just he's god awful at explaining them in the clips for whatever reason. He did do a video series where he actually explained obscure rulings decently well, so he's capable of explaining why things work the way they do, but I think he just gives into toxic streaming behavior
dark balters effect is a continuous effect meaning it continues to apply as long as Dark Balter is face up on the field. Newer cards are phrase differently. _"The effect of an Effect Monster that this monster destroys as a result of battle is negated."_ being that the negation only applies after then monster is destroyed in battle (meaning it is retaining awareness of the card to apply its negation which means its negation doesn't care about the cards location.... if the card it destroys has an effect like say DD survivor/dd scout plane then its end phase return effect is also negated. if the card has a graveyard effect that the opponent chose to activate 7 turns later if Balter isnstill face up on the field that effect will still be negated. ofnyou reborn it tho it would be live again andnneed tonbe destroyed by battle to have its effect negated again... yugioh😂
this is exactly why i don’t play dueling book i’ve played it in the past and people are just so extremely toxic and abuse the hell out of calling a judge i once beat someone and they offered a draw at the time i was younger and didn’t know what it meant to do that so i proceeded and he just left and said EZ like he actually won like bro it’s dueling book what are you competing for😂 idk how it is now but at the time it was only for simulation so it’s not like he gained anything from getting a draw
5:02 Dude, are you blind? That guy literally said chatting, not cheating. Of course, he did misspell it, but the correct word was chatting since he missed the letter "t." He's referring to people who are chatting on your stream. He knows who you are lol
@@BeebopChickenpock Unless I misunderstood you, you're suggesting to "fix" DRNM and imperm by rewriting them to something like skill drain by adding some "while they are face-up on the field" clause or something. Which again, imperm/DRNM and skill drain work differently from each other, so this would just be wrong wording.
Every day i wish more and more that Konami would get off their ass and punish a COMPREHENSIVE RULE BOOK. That's the minimum i would expect from a TCG. Heck, the PSCT for the TCG is pretty awful, and nigh incomprehensible to new players, and even some veterans don't fully understand the advanced aspects. Just putting CONDITIONS COST EFFECT In clearly outlined segments would help so much in making it more clear to the average player, and a rule book to actually inform them how to play the game would be just dandy.
Priority in the way you are saying doesn't exist anymore. Archers effect does not have priority in this situation. The example i will give is Breaker and Bottomless. In 2014 you summon breaker, your opponents activates bottomless, you use priority to activate breakers popping effect. In 2024, you cannot use breakers popping effect, because priority doesn't exist. The key here is "On Summon". On summon breaker gets a counter, and on summon bottomless is activated. That's it, breaker is banished, no pop. Amazon Archer does not have an on summon effect, and cannot activate it's effect on summon, because priority does not exist. So if the traps are activated on summon the traps resolve first, no archer. The only priority that exists today is turn player priority. Which is the turn player gets to activate their card that meets a specific window before the opponent. So we'll use breaker again and both players have solemn warning. The turn player has the option to activate warning first, that is the priority. Amazon Archer does not have a quick effect, therefore cannot chain it's effect to any other cards. Archer Must always be CL1 from an open game state.
Yes but actually no. Even if it's a flip monster as long as its been marked for destruction as a result of battle Dark Balter will also negate it as well. Example Dark Balter will be able to negate Rykko if it attacks over the Rykko. This will still apply even if the Rykko would get banished due to something like Macro being on the field
He negates the effects of anything he destroys, which includes flip monsters and monsters that have grave effects. Cross Keeper only negates the monster it summons, which as Coder was explaining is not a detail that carries over to the graveyard once the monster leaves the field. Once it leaves the field that Shadow Mist is considered “a new card” in that anything affecting it before no longer affected it and was indistinguishable from any other Shadow Mist in the GY.
This is duelingbook, where everything is manual. If you play against other competitive players, it's a fine tool to try to get the hang of interactions and emulate real duels, but 99% of the time, it's a cesspool of toxicity because you get all the people not understanding rulings, barely any judges online ever and the problem of people being online and thus being just absolute jackasses.
Wait, so I was gonna get into the whole thing and try to reason it out and see if I understood it, cause I'm an mtg guy not a yugioh your guy's cards are interesting with their effects though. Then, I just went and rtfc Dark Balter and its like... There's a text there that word for word "The effect of an Effect Monster destroyed by this monster in battle is negated." Just...it's right there the difference. Cross Keeper's wording seems (to an mtg player) obtuse but that's cause we don't have books on our cards but it SEEMS to only effect well effects that would be activated by entering or maybe pay to activate? I'm unsure. Technically with the wording of negate you should be able to pay the effect, try to activate and it just fails and counters itself. I'm sure that's not really what happens and I'd love to have someone explain that card to me better if they want. CK -> EM -> Pay the Cost to Activate (cause costs aren't effects) -> Game Checks sees CK's Effect -> Laughs and says no. I'm not sure if that's right but I don't know people that play so I figured I'd ask here.
The issue here is of the effect of Cross Keeper, actually. The dispute is whether or not Shadow Mist's effect is still negated after it's sent back to the graveyard after being special summoned by Cross Keeper. The ruling one of the players brings up is regarding Dark Balter's effect in relation to Sinister Serpent, an interaction which specifically is written to negate the effect of the card after it is destroyed by battle. Cross Keeper negates the effects of monsters special summoned from the graveyard while they are on the field, but Dark Balter specifically is written with the intention of affecting monsters while they are IN the graveyard. They were conflating the two effects as being mutually exclusive. Upon being sent back to the graveyard in this case, however, Shadow Mist is allowed to use its effects without any issue.
It's not a "different card" it's just effects aren't negated in the gy unless you have a card like called by the grave. If you say its a different card in the gy your going to confuse people bro 😂
Aren't there better games to play? This the same as playing IRL & no one fully understands every card in every situation & disputes happen. This game is a waste of time imo. Rules & interactions of every card in every situation can be coded.. A lot of work tho.
first time viewer of the channel, are you always so bitter about it or is that something that just came along after doing this for a long time? lord and emporer tybe vibes and talking down to everyone like they should know everything off the rip is a horrible vibe for videos, all good if your like this to yourself when doing this, but publicly too? yeah idk
Yugioh: The only card game where you have to learn hundreds of effects with syntax-specific wording and some people can't count to 3.
From what I was seeing, it seems like he thought that Swords was counting on his own end phases (or at least that was the story he was going with at the end) so he didn’t even read the card, let alone count properly
@@Marqrk Yeah thats my thought. He prolly assumed swords only counts his own turns for whatever reason.
@Ulim151 I mean if you are going to make a mistake like that you'd probably prefer it to be in your favor. 3 of your EP only means 2 of your opponent's turns.
I am still confuse. Swords says on your opponents turn. Your opponent cannot attack for three turns. Based on what was said the opponent was only under swords for one of his turn. You are not suppose to count your own turn with swords since it specifically says during opponents turn.
probably one of the employee for Valve
I loved that moment when Coder said "It's calling time!" and started taking everybody's calls
People still make that joke lol?
Soooo funny
@@wyomingptt
It seems like it'll just never die
This meme is the true underdog of youtube comments.
@@wyomingptt That joke is about as old as Mass Effect 3's Citadel DLC.
Watching situations like these is why I always stick to EDO and MD. Constantly getting into arguments with idiots that don't get the rules and refuse to acknowledge fault is such a chore. They can't really argue when the rules are hard coded and work automatically.
What’s EDO?
@@FrostReave a yugioh simulator.
@@FrostReave EDO Pro is another yugioh simulator but it has the rules coded into it.
Exactly, because poeple on the internet become 100x more confident and entitled then they would be irl since they know they'll get little to no actual consequences. Never had a problem like I've had on Manuel Sims at a local or event, why? Because poeple are actually worried about being decent poeple and building connections
@@Tokumastu1 huh…I wonder why people don’t use it then over DB
Judge rules in your favour good judge
Judge rules against you "Glad to see the judge lets people cheat" man some people are wild.
@Burger_pantsnot sure if genuinely insane or trolling
@@majickmanIt’s been 3 months so who cares at this point but neither
Originally, the player activated their cards in the order Just Desserts, Just Desserts, Ring of Destruction. This is a misplay as when the chain resolves backwards, Ring will destroy the monster before Just Desserts resolves, resulting in less damage.
Coder allowed the player to change that order to Ring of Destruction, Just Desserts, Just Desserts, resulting in 1000 more damage than what they should have had
It seems that they also misunderstood priority and thought they were activating as CL 1, 2 & 3 instead of CL 2, 3 & 4, but being stupid while you’re being stupid shouldn’t allow you to take one of those stupidities back
These videos make me appreciate automated simulators. I guess Dueling Book is still fine if you are playing with people you know, random people in that platform seem weird.
The problem with automated simulators is that you become a worse player. If you are a casual player then simulators are great but as soon as you are playing paper YGO at an event then only having simulator experience is a massive detriment.
@@tartantulakid666you cant become a worse player if you never play tcg to begin with
@@Kuribonker Not really. There are OCG and TCG only cards so both way works. It's also a matter of which ban list you want to work with.
@@tartantulakid666not true but okay.
@@tartantulakid666I actually learned way more from playing on automated simulator rather than arguing with people how rulings work. People who play on dueling book have this weird sense of superiority over people who play on simulators and they say the stuff you are saying to justify this thought process.
I needed my dosis of "Yu-Gi-Oh players refusing to think"
The ones where they concede even though it's fixable make me think maybe they were trying to cheat tbh because they thought they were losing anyway
Coder it is time to update the judge call playlist
I think he said he doesn't read the comments
Not sure tho
@@RubenLeyva-uw4lf he has to because he sometimes hearts comments
I had a guy like that (Balter "ruling") at the 6/18/23 Remote Duel regionals who couldn't understand why my Judge used discretion in giving a penalty instead of making it a PE-Major (It was the last match of the last round of the regional and they were already into their time extension), he appealed it, then try the "I don't understand", talk over me, and even threated to email Julia. So I gave him a UC-Minor for Rule Sharking. He tried claiming he was a judge and that he has duel some "big names". I told him his accolades don't mean anything to me, feel free to email Julia, and if he wants to continue arguing why his opponent got a PE-Minor (They both got one earlier in the match and he wanted to have his opponent's upgraded to a Severe or DQ) that I could upgrade his UC-Minor to a UC-Severe Disqualification. I rarely use my Authoritative Voice, I'm usually chill, laughing having fun kind of judge, but when you cross a line with me and refuse to listen, You get the "Dad is Mad" voice. A very firm, few decibels louder than normal but not quite the yelling stage of how loud.
How did it end. I'm curious
@@DarkSymphony777 He finally accepted it, finished Game 3 losing, then cussed me out as he rage quit the server.
@@GKuriboh nice. victory over the salty one
octaves louder? you mean decibels, a few octaves would make your voice higher by a lot
it is for people like that i have come to apriciate the sentence "i can explain it for you(as i have) but i can't understand it for you"
Something like that ShadowMist call happened to me once. Opp activated DarkRulerNoMore on my Unchained board. Then in battle called a judge when I said my cards still activate in GY.
Literal toddlers throwing a fit when they don't get their way. Funny stuff to see lmao
He could've said that cross negates the effect on field while balter negates the effect when the card leaves the field. Instead of just repeating "they aren't remotely the same" and "that's an old card".
They aren’t the same at all though, they are entirely different effects and don’t work the same, and also explained how the negate from Cross doesn’t follow Shadow Mist to the grave because once it hits the grave it’s considered a different monster.
What the guy was saying was like comparing Infinite Impermanence and Bagooska should work the same because they both stop monster effects
@@Marqrk that's the problem. We know they aren't the same. But the best way to stop any headache and loss of time was to just explain how they aren't the same instead of just saying "they aren't the same".
He explained cross in that way but from my understanding the guy needed to know what makes balter different from cross. Since it looked like he didn't understand the both of them.
ok buddy.
@TheBlockx2 It's the same thing as spell/trap cards that say "you can banish this card from your gy, except the turn it was sent to the gy" being able to work after being banished and returned to the graveyard, because it's treated as a separate new card.
It's wild to me coder even acknowledges the guy might be just getting back into the game and just basically insults the dude for not understanding nuance in text and rulings. It's toxic and cringe,.
For Ruling at 10:12 Swords of revealing light. (I think Distant COder missed a very crucial detail). According to the chat box, luffy-senpai activated trunade on that turn which bounces swords of revealing light and activated it again.
So, what happened... The swords of revealing light activates for up to 3rd opponent's end phase.The count activate during the opponent's end phase. Since Giant Trunade was activated, the Swords now is off the field and back to hand. Since luffy senpai activated the swords again, this would count as a new activation and the previous 2 turns from that swords won't apply. Therefore (now is turn 22 apparently), that "new" swords of revealing light would activate again 2 turns from now and will not be destroyed by end of turn 22 (which was opponent's turn)
For more clarity, let me backtrack the turns based on the chat logs.
turn 17: luffy turn activated swords of revealing light.
turn 18: opponent turn swords count 1
turn 19: luffy turn
turn 20: opponent turn swords count 2
turn 21: luffy turn (@9:48: luffy senpai: "I activate giant trunade and active again (assuming he activated the swords of revealing light again))
turn 22: opponent (@9:56 : "this is my end phase) swords count 1 (new count because new activattion of card)
turn 23: luffy turn
turn 24:opponent turn swords count 2
turn 25: luffy turn
turn 26: opponent turn swords count 3 at end phase and is destroyed
tldr: the player luffy senpai might be lying about activation of the trunade. If not, the sequence above is the correct one and the swords would not be destroyed.
I thought I was the only one who saw this.
yeah, I think mr. codington is wrong. He even stated out loud "3rd opponent's end phase" but still missed that he was in the wrong. THAT SAID, red didn't say anything to clarify and just got pissy. It's as much Coder's fault for getting the rule wrong as much as Red's fault for being a bitch about it
Yeah this one is on coder for missing the trunade activation (which i am assuming was successful) as well as reactivating swords.
"Also, he called me a ******** which is highly offensive."
It's fine, he's deflecting. He's upset he can't count to 3.
I think Balter Blue wanted to know why Balter itself was different to this scenario and to answer blue if you are reading comments it is becausing when a monster is destroyed by battle and Balter's effect triggers the monster is considered already in the GY and no longer on the field when Bolter resolves his negate.
With the archer issue (on the card itself) and to do with the confusion on the card rules, I believe the sacrifice is a cost(and can't be responded to), but old yugioh cards don't tend to be templated/worded clearly.
Thank you for the hero ruling! I had two other very simple ruling issues with him and finally said no we will wait on this one xD
Managed to win that one somehow
Loved how you handled that guy who self snitched. What a joke.
I die a little inside every time I see him use a comma instead of an apostrophe
but what if that shadow mist was destroyed by dark balter like yesterday, then it effects would be negated as it still was destroyed by balter as he remembers even when the card moves zones, which means moving to another games does not escape his wrath
First video of yours I've seen and honestly seems very cool you are a judge. Never knew all the stuff that happened in the background so it's cool to see how this all works.
It's always funny to see those people who you give the correct rulling/procedure and someone is like "Nope, I am having none of that."
Like that guy who was against a Marincess player that had Iblee on their board saying that they have to use Iblee to special summon even tho Iblee just stops everything but Links.
Or the Mikanko players who use Falling Down.
You ruled wrong on the Swords of revealing light call.
One of the things I love and hate about YGO is that people have to know rulings for specific card interactions instead of having rules. So there's a difference between Skill Drain 'monsters on the field have their effects negated' and Imperm's 'Monster on the field has its effects negated' in regards to whether or not an on-field tribute-self-as-cost effect will be negated; you can tribute around Skill Drain because the effect isn't resolving while the monster is on the field, but you can't tribute around Imperm because the monster's effect activated on the field and is still considered from that monster despite being a new card in the GY.
Also, it opens the door for massive disrespect like "Then you should've used Dark Balter the Terrible if you wanted Dark Balter's effect."
@Burger_pants It only comes up with some cards, but activating a card and activating an effect aren't the same thing. For example, you can't Solemn a continuous spell/trap's effect if it's already face-up on the field, you can only get it when it's placed face-up on the card's activation.
Skill Drain is very specifically worded to only negate the effects of monsters while they're on the field, not the activation. It's like Fabled Unicore or Necrovalley: as a continuous effect it negates things mid-chain; the card/effect still activates in order to have an effect to negate in the first place. You can't chain-block it because the negation doesn't chain, you can only make sure that the negate conditions aren't met by the time the card resolves, hence why Skill Drain stops working when the monster is no longer face-up on the field.
It's also why Super Polymerization and Accesscode Talker can be negated by these kinds of effects despite being Spell Speed 4, you get around the "no activations in response" clause by having the negate not be activated in response, but occurs on the chain's resolution.
Mans with the infinite sword of revealing is a time traveling duelist was the issue
the swords clip is wrong, unless swords is under a different errata
swords stays active for three of the OPPONENT’S turns, so five turns total
Coder missed that trunade was activated.
@@reshiwashereduelist issue, they should have mentioned it since they had plenty of time.
@@skyrimlover777 Look at 9:47
Most of these judge calls can be simplified as the person in question not understanding yugioh problem solving card text
I think, that For clarification...
The guys is not paying attention.
Dark Valter negates the card its destroying.
Because of Valters effect, its not gonna be activating the effect
(effectively negating in the graveyard)
On the other hand.
Crosskeeper thing is negated on the field, so when it goes away, and like Judge said.
"its considered a different card"
By that it means "Its only negated while its on field"
(im not am expert, just trying)
So the thing to explain here is that those are 2 different types interaction.
So the logic does not apply.
A better compararion.
Would potentially be
Junk Synchron + Something like Synchro Fusionist.
Synchro Fusionist is summoned by the effect of Junk synchron, thus, its negated.
Then, you synchro summon for Junk Warrior.
The effect of Synchro fusionist activates in the Graveyard as it was sent there for a synchro summon.
Letting you add a Fusion card.
Its able to resolve properly even if its effect was negated, because its only negated while on field, the negation wont follow it to the graveyRd cause it becomes another card.
(or something like that)
Cut it off at only negated on the field such that it won't follow it to GY,
can't get over "becomes another card" cause this sequence wouldn't get around any HOPT.
And it's confusing. If a card becomes Xyz material granting an effect it doesn't become a different card. It has no location in the gamestate besides as a material enabling an effect of a card you control.
@@runningoncylinders3829 i thought so too.
It just does not follow it to the graveyard.
I remember the THING ABOUT BECOMING ANOTHER CARD.
As something that Lingers.
Such as Eldlitch the Horny Boi.
Activates to return to the hand, and then "Summon a zombie"
Which most of the times happens to be the one that activated the effect.
But for mechanic reasons.
Its not.
Because it can summon any other zombie in your hand (if any exists)
I think thats how it goes with WHY ITS ANOTHER CARD.
Its mechanic not tecnically.
But i agree with you.
@@Rocktherio Eldlich is a "then" effect, and at the time of use he will be a zombie in your hand to meet the condition of the last part of his effect. There's fundamentally poor wording in the "becomes a different card" phrase because what matters in cases this would apply is the effects that work with a particular card being in a particular location. Say you summoned Ash Blossom and now you can't discard it; it hasn't become a new card here, it's just now unable to do a particular thing that needs it to be in a specific location.
@@runningoncylinders3829
Probably poor wording.
Becoming another card i believe here was utilized as
YES it is a Cross porter
YES it was summoned with its effects negated
But
It WILL resolve in the graveyard because it ceases to be the card summoned with its effect negated SUMMONED BY X CARD once its gone from the field.
I believe it goes to the Argument that mechanically speaking theres some semblance of memory.
But it stops applying under certain conditions.
Of course im not arguing, im just adding fire to the fuel as im not a judge, im giving my understanding for the situation at hand.
Not really asking or using eldlich as THE example for how it works, but rather using it as a pointer to How its effect applies to summon himself.
My only point there was that
Eldlitch the golden lord activating in the graveyard
Adds "Eldlitch the goldenlord" to the hand
And then summons a zombie being "Eldlitch the goldenlord."
Now.
The point to make about it being "Another card" or its effect in graveyard lingering.
Say, for example.
It would be different should the Eldlitch applied its effect of Being invincible and gaining 1000 By getting to the field.
Because of Skilldrain.
But that not being the case.
It still applies the whole effect cause it activates from the grave, and on resolution.
Those other things happen succesfully.
(this was a FAQuestion at a point.
Can i imperm EtGL to prevent the attack gain?)
Not the perfect example.
I know.
Just my thought process to the MEMORY OF A CARD.
Sorry for the long rambling.
This is why i agree to the poor phrasing on Koders side.
However, im bot a judge and he is.
So, I can only cope.
Cheers.
@@runningoncylinders3829 you dont know poor wording like machina fortress being about to use itself as fodder for its summon
"Considered a different card" is poor wording to anyone with less experience.
You could have phrased it to say that the card in GY isn't affected by an on-field exclusive negation since it is now in a place Cross Keeper has no way to stop it.
Swords guy really hit you with the “nuh uh”
He activated trunade and coder missed that the swords was reactivated
After i started working in a call centre, I can truly feel your pain
I'd say Tolarian Community College's addage of 'reading the card explains the card' but we all know how YGO players read
I think the first guy was malding cause he wanted to respond to the tributing? Which you cant lmao its like tributing for kaijus you can have 10 negates its not gonna do shit u less you have a summon lock
As a returning player, I'm confused about the negated effect situation as well. In this situation, its a monster on the field with a negated effect going to the graveyard. In the Balter situation, its a monster that gets destroying and has its effect negated going to the graveyard. In both situations, both monsters enter the graveyard with their effects negated, yet Shadow Mist's effect would still activate while the monster Balter destroyed wouldn't. If when they enter the graveyard they are considered different cards, why does one negate linger while the other doesn't?
Lets use ha des and mystic tomato as an example.
I negate tomato on field then destroy it by battle using a blue eyes. Tomato in the gy is different from the one on the field to it activates its effect.
Another case i negate the tomato then destroy it by battle using ha des. Ha des effect states that the monster it destroys by battle negates the effect. Hence the effect negated this time is the tomato in the gy.
I will say its probably because Balter "checks names"
skill drain negates effects on the field, so if i crash machina fortress despite having its secondary effect negated, its on battle destruction effect will trigger, because it triggers in the grave.
balter negates any monster it destroys, as in after battle calc, so machina fortress cannot trigger its on battle destruction because dark balter prevents that monster from chaining its own effects to its destruction.
cross keeper only negates while that card is SUMMONED FROM THE GRAVEYARD, however the moment it enters the graveyard again, it is NO LONGER considered summoned from the graveyard, it has successfully entered the graveyard and thats where the effect triggers
Keeper and Balter both work by negating a specific gamestate or transition. the simplest way to express it is to ask if a card fulfills an effect's conditions. keeper negates on the field because that's where the effect states. it doesn't say it negates in the hand, deck, or GY. Balter negates when the destroyed monster goes to the GY. because of that, Balter's effect can fizzle if, say, Macro Cosmos is active, because it overrides the destroyed monster's placement in the GY. it all has to do with conditions and limiters.
@@azure1094 Ha Des and Ancient Gear Beast have some really fun interactions like if they destroy Treeborn Frog, it never gets to activate its graveyard effect.
That first one's weird, like what does red want you to do there, zap the memories out of blue's head? Where they just pushing to try for a game win that blue gave them anyway?
I sometimes forget you're an actual judge, which makes it better.
Dark Balter as the subject of a comparison in a modern format is so hilarious.
@Burger_pantsare you the player in the video?
It's a 20 year old card.
I'm waiting for the day Coder is called for a ruling on Bishbaalkin
Last Saturday I was playing against a darkworld player at locals and I swear, the judge had to spend the entire round at our table because the guy was constantly trying to pull shit. I can understand needing to be convinced that destroying a card in hand is different than discarding them. But he kept trying to activate none quick ignition effects during my turn, he wouldn't declare battlephase and jump to declaring an attack, and he was constantly pissed as if I was scumming him by pointing out the rules. My sole mistake, was that I forgot to correcte him when he didn't declare a target for an effect that needed targeting but I respond to it, so the judge just rolled us back to him picking a target, and when we were done the guy had the gall to complain that because of me the match got rerolled. I get not getting some rules, it's a complecated game, but many of those were both basic interactions anyone who has been playing for more than a month would have picked up, and apparently he's been playing for years.
this whole video is why i like EDOPro / Project Ignus. it has all the rules built in - - - and counting - - - and turn times. searching only happens for valid cards - will not let you search if there isn't something valid to search.
the main argument is that you get worse at IRL games because you dont have to worry about rulings and remembering what cards were activated and etc etc, which yeah, true, but also, if you're playing casually or just starting out, simulators are useful because 1. you can worry more about the game than rulings and 2. you can learn the game and rulings relatively easier. if you're practicing for an irl tourney, probably practice manual sims, but if you are playing casually or practicing for an online tournament, it's probably fine to use auto sims.
tl;dr: there are pros and cons for both auto and manual sims
Instead of Balter, Living Fossil would be the closest comparison, and even then effects like Lonefire Blossom can solve once it left the field, unlike Veiler or Impermanence that states "Until the end of this turn"
Shadow mist would still resolve in grave if you veiller or imperm, so it's the same shit
Also how witchcrafters work even under skill drain. They can activate their effects on field, but they resolve them in the graveyard.
@@Rahnonymousyeah, because skill drain negates effects of cards face-up on the field. You can still activate because skill drain does not negate activations and since they send themselves as cost, by the time the effect is activated they are already in the graveyard so skill drain doesn't apply.
@@nunocarvalho6671 I know, is not like is negating the effect to be sent to gy, only "on field" effects it might have (Which you can use with something like "A hero lives" but is restricted to not use the other)
2:47 Ring and Just Desserts can be activated in response to the summon before the player have a chance to use the monster's effect since it doesn't activate on summon.
I'm pretty sure they were playing goat. Goat is an old format and still has turn player priority, where the turn player has priority on ignition effects immediately after they summon a monster.
Archer has prio cuz goat. It was ruled incorrectly IMO due to the fact that the guy used ring as cl3 after cl1 jd cl2 jd. An obvious misplay, meaning, he would destroy archer, then do the 500x2 for the remaining token rather then 500x2x2. Like it is honestly such a whatever thing, but that shit would not fly if he did it irl.
4:23 But op can trigger their traps on summon, can't they? That's before archer has any chance to activate. Or is this different in goat?
That's different in goat. Back then you had "turn player ignition priority". Basically when you summon a guy that has an ignition effect (not just an on summon effect, but one you have to manually activate) you get priority to activate it before your opponent can chain any effects that don't directly respond to the summon itself.
I wish I had a judge like you back in the day Because a bad judge is the reason why I quit Is rank
Oh man... I just had some PTSD flashbacks of when I was a DN admin/judge.
I cant imagine being in an irl tournament and dealing with this kinda nonsense, as a player or a judge 😅
At irl tournaments, you don't have the internet mouthbreathers who argue with every little thing and are terminally online. Honestly, Duelingbook is probably the worst way to play the game right now, just because of the fact that barely any judges are online, ever in the first place.
I don't get the 2nd one. He DID misplay, he did just desserts, just desserts, ring of destruction. Why did you let him redo the chain?
They activated it at a illegal time, they used it before amazoness archer. As them using that effect can change the order that you want to do stuff. In this case it wouldn't, but saying in this case it wouldn't doesn't mean the rule of rewind for illegal actions suddenly doesn't happen
yeah dueling book is more for testing in person game with people you know personally because people are complete A-holes, I would LOVE to see someone sit across the table from me and act the way people do on dueling book.
Wait was he not right with the sword unless i got the card rong but doenst giant trunate return al spell to the hand ans then he reactivate swords?
4:47 Why did you let him reverse the gamestate and chain things in a more advantageous way for himself? He made a mistake in his chains and should have to live with that, no?
if i absorb correctly summoned mirrorjade with infinity will mirrorjade clear the board at end phase?
Wouldn't a 2013 rule call be a precedent for modern intwractions.
So if you Imperm a normal summed Shadow Mist (for whatever reason), then it gets sent to the GY, they can still search? I'm not sure if i knew that either lol...
Coder def explained it well enough, but in simpler terms; card go gy and no longer affected by lingering negate. This is also why BA cards, when summoned with their effs negated by Tour Guide, can use their effs when sent to the GY. (Unless I'm misunderstanding)
@@saraakthefgomaster7694 I think coder failed to understand where the confusion came from. "it's no longer the same card" is simple enough but the player was likely unsure how to reach that conclusion by himself in the future, to explain that he needed to cover what part of the wording makes it different from balter but he kinda went on a KEKW this guy dumb rant
@@sqfzerzefsdf If you don't know the rules of the game, don't go in ranked play. And especially don't start arguing with the judge giving you the ruling.
@@youtube-kit9450 by your logic every ranked player can be a judge because the entry level you set is understanding every interaction and every ruling in the game. judges are there to clear up confusions like this one, not to just hand a ruling and get triggered that the guy doesn't immediately understand where that ruling comes from. Keep in mind judges aren't perfect and get appealed all the time, he deserves to know a proper explanation to make sure that's not necessary here.
Wait can you really not respond to the normal summon of a card with ring of destruction before they activate an effect? Ain't no way its like that in master duel
It's ancient YGO rules. It's called ignition priority. It stopped working that way in, like, the synchro or XYZ era
It's goat format probably, with ignition priority still intact.
This is why people think us Yu-Gi-Oh players are illiterate.
Should have Reminded those players to take a shower!
Calmest goat player indeed
You can tell he enjoys being a judge way too much lol
I don't think DistantCoder can be an official judge. Lol. The way he describes the rules are very vague. On the next match, Cross Keeper vs Shadow Mist, what happened was...
Shadow mist summoned on the field from the graveyard (negated effect due to Cross keeper's effect), then when that monster was destroyed by battle, the player argues that it won't activate the search eff of shadow mist from grave since his effect was negated due to Cross Keeper's effect. His arguement comes from a ruling from Dark Balter the Terrible in which if Balter destroys a monster by battle, it negates the effect (regardless of where the card goes afterwards).
The problem is that the Cross Keeper card text does not state if the monster summoned negated effect "on the field only".
You can send this card from your hand or field to the GY; Special Summon 1 "Elemental HERO" monster or 1 "Neo-Spacian" monster from your hand or GY, but negate its effects if Summoned from the GY.
However, this kind of card texts only applies on the summoned monsters on the field and is not a permanent. In the player's argument, then does that mean since Shadow Mist is summoned by Cross Keeper, since the card text does not state "from the field..." like "egate its effects if Summoned from the GY WHILE ON THE FIELD." Does that mean the effect of shadow mist is negated permanently for the rest of the game regardless of where the shadow mist is? No.
Therefore, this effect only applies on the summoned monsters on the board. Also, his argument about the Dark Balter, it only affects during that battle meaning from destruction to damage calculation OF THAT BATTLE. Completely different situations.
Lastly, arguing "Dark Balter ruling does not apply because Dark Balter is an extremely old card" is actually where you see if a judge is a good one or not. There are other "old" rulings but it still applies up to this day because the rulings are based on the situation and not based on how old are the cards in question.
TLDR: DistantCoder seems a bad judge and won't be a good judge BASED on this clips. I don't agree to some of his rulings and I don't understand why he does those rules.
I am also an old player like S1 yugioh but some of the rulings from the "old days" still apply to this day.
Generally, his rulings a pretty accurate it's just he's god awful at explaining them in the clips for whatever reason. He did do a video series where he actually explained obscure rulings decently well, so he's capable of explaining why things work the way they do, but I think he just gives into toxic streaming behavior
Malicious afk is one of my favorite Farfa bans
YuGiOh players find reading difficult, how did we expect them to be able to correctly count up to 3?
He activated trunade
dark balters effect is a continuous effect meaning it continues to apply as long as Dark Balter is face up on the field. Newer cards are phrase differently. _"The effect of an Effect Monster that this monster destroys as a result of battle is negated."_ being that the negation only applies after then monster is destroyed in battle (meaning it is retaining awareness of the card to apply its negation which means its negation doesn't care about the cards location.... if the card it destroys has an effect like say DD survivor/dd scout plane then its end phase return effect is also negated. if the card has a graveyard effect that the opponent chose to activate 7 turns later if Balter isnstill face up on the field that effect will still be negated. ofnyou reborn it tho it would be live again andnneed tonbe destroyed by battle to have its effect negated again... yugioh😂
this is exactly why i don’t play dueling book i’ve played it in the past and people are just so extremely toxic and abuse the hell out of calling a judge i once beat someone and they offered a draw at the time i was younger and didn’t know what it meant to do that so i proceeded and he just left and said EZ like he actually won like bro it’s dueling book what are you competing for😂 idk how it is now but at the time it was only for simulation so it’s not like he gained anything from getting a draw
5:02 Dude, are you blind? That guy literally said chatting, not cheating. Of course, he did misspell it, but the correct word was chatting since he missed the letter "t." He's referring to people who are chatting on your stream. He knows who you are lol
Man, counting to 3 is really hard.
What is the website seen in the video?
OK so Dark Ruler says Until the End of this turn..... when it SHOULD also say WHILE ON THE FIELD........
Same issue with Infinite Impermanence, And a few others
Except no, that's not how the card functions, so your "fix" would just be incorrect wording.
I'm pretty sure those cards DO only effect monsters ON THE FIELD and they SHOULD say so.... but ok... boomer
@@BeebopChickenpock Unless I misunderstood you, you're suggesting to "fix" DRNM and imperm by rewriting them to something like skill drain by adding some "while they are face-up on the field" clause or something. Which again, imperm/DRNM and skill drain work differently from each other, so this would just be wrong wording.
clean video, just need the bgm to be lower so I can hear coder please.
My God I love these judge calls!
Coder saying "if you choose not to understand" is frustrating, the guy was being a headass but I genuinely dont think he was being willfully ignorant
That guy has obviously NEVER seen BA; OF COURSE monsters summoned off of Tour Guide don't get their effs when they go to the GY.
...? Of course they do.
@@youtube-kit9450 allow me to introduce you to the concept of sarcasm.
@@johnryanjosey6368 Considering how smooth-brained some commenters are, I took the chance.
@@youtube-kit9450 totally fair, my dude
Every day i wish more and more that Konami would get off their ass and punish a COMPREHENSIVE RULE BOOK. That's the minimum i would expect from a TCG.
Heck, the PSCT for the TCG is pretty awful, and nigh incomprehensible to new players, and even some veterans don't fully understand the advanced aspects.
Just putting
CONDITIONS
COST
EFFECT
In clearly outlined segments would help so much in making it more clear to the average player, and a rule book to actually inform them how to play the game would be just dandy.
Priority in the way you are saying doesn't exist anymore. Archers effect does not have priority in this situation. The example i will give is Breaker and Bottomless. In 2014 you summon breaker, your opponents activates bottomless, you use priority to activate breakers popping effect. In 2024, you cannot use breakers popping effect, because priority doesn't exist. The key here is "On Summon". On summon breaker gets a counter, and on summon bottomless is activated. That's it, breaker is banished, no pop. Amazon Archer does not have an on summon effect, and cannot activate it's effect on summon, because priority does not exist. So if the traps are activated on summon the traps resolve first, no archer.
The only priority that exists today is turn player priority. Which is the turn player gets to activate their card that meets a specific window before the opponent. So we'll use breaker again and both players have solemn warning. The turn player has the option to activate warning first, that is the priority.
Amazon Archer does not have a quick effect, therefore cannot chain it's effect to any other cards. Archer Must always be CL1 from an open game state.
What are they playing on
so, balter negates the effect in graveyards
Yes but actually no. Even if it's a flip monster as long as its been marked for destruction as a result of battle Dark Balter will also negate it as well. Example Dark Balter will be able to negate Rykko if it attacks over the Rykko. This will still apply even if the Rykko would get banished due to something like Macro being on the field
Same way dark ruler ha Des does
He negates the effects of anything he destroys, which includes flip monsters and monsters that have grave effects.
Cross Keeper only negates the monster it summons, which as Coder was explaining is not a detail that carries over to the graveyard once the monster leaves the field. Once it leaves the field that Shadow Mist is considered “a new card” in that anything affecting it before no longer affected it and was indistinguishable from any other Shadow Mist in the GY.
also did you know that effect veiler negates the battle phase?
cause im curiouse, what game is this, i know its yugioh, but what website
2003 card me from 2004 Yu-Gi-Oh "wait what we had a good card?" Reality it's 2006
Aren't the video games usually programmed to not allow major mistakes in the game such as misplayed chains?
This is duelingbook, where everything is manual. If you play against other competitive players, it's a fine tool to try to get the hang of interactions and emulate real duels, but 99% of the time, it's a cesspool of toxicity because you get all the people not understanding rulings, barely any judges online ever and the problem of people being online and thus being just absolute jackasses.
Wait, so I was gonna get into the whole thing and try to reason it out and see if I understood it, cause I'm an mtg guy not a yugioh your guy's cards are interesting with their effects though. Then, I just went and rtfc Dark Balter and its like...
There's a text there that word for word "The effect of an Effect Monster destroyed by this monster in battle is negated."
Just...it's right there the difference. Cross Keeper's wording seems (to an mtg player) obtuse but that's cause we don't have books on our cards but it SEEMS to only effect well effects that would be activated by entering or maybe pay to activate? I'm unsure. Technically with the wording of negate you should be able to pay the effect, try to activate and it just fails and counters itself. I'm sure that's not really what happens and I'd love to have someone explain that card to me better if they want.
CK -> EM -> Pay the Cost to Activate (cause costs aren't effects) -> Game Checks sees CK's Effect -> Laughs and says no.
I'm not sure if that's right but I don't know people that play so I figured I'd ask here.
The issue here is of the effect of Cross Keeper, actually. The dispute is whether or not Shadow Mist's effect is still negated after it's sent back to the graveyard after being special summoned by Cross Keeper. The ruling one of the players brings up is regarding Dark Balter's effect in relation to Sinister Serpent, an interaction which specifically is written to negate the effect of the card after it is destroyed by battle. Cross Keeper negates the effects of monsters special summoned from the graveyard while they are on the field, but Dark Balter specifically is written with the intention of affecting monsters while they are IN the graveyard. They were conflating the two effects as being mutually exclusive. Upon being sent back to the graveyard in this case, however, Shadow Mist is allowed to use its effects without any issue.
@@guycoolSpore2 Thanks ^_^
Can this be played on mobile?(and whatis the name?)
this Dueling book?
Why was priority a thing?
You kinda did let that ring jd player to slide. Waaaaack
"Counting to 3 isn't that hard" it seems for some players it is. 😅
He activated trunade
I mean not many cards have including in gy now
ruled wrong on archer case
This is why I stopped playin Yugioh. LOVE the game, but I’m not gonna spend 45min of a 50min duel arguing over a children’s card game 😂
So if a Judge is needed for a game, that means the creator of the game have no idea what they are doing with all their Noob Cards.
8:21 math teacher be like
Whats the name of the Game?
What is this game?
With the swords ruling its luffy hes nutorious for cheating
*No señor codificador, mi no entendiendo su idioma de las reglas*
It's not a "different card" it's just effects aren't negated in the gy unless you have a card like called by the grave. If you say its a different card in the gy your going to confuse people bro 😂
Based kirby music
I thought these may be fake.till I saw you blame the dude for.your own mistake then I knew like a cokehead testing product this is genuine
You fool! You can't make calls on a Text Based Comunication System! Don't you know Yugioh Players Can't Read!?
Aren't there better games to play?
This the same as playing IRL & no one fully understands every card in every situation & disputes happen.
This game is a waste of time imo.
Rules & interactions of every card in every situation can be coded.. A lot of work tho.
I hate playing vs Zazen, such and unpleasant human being
first time viewer of the channel, are you always so bitter about it or is that something that just came along after doing this for a long time? lord and emporer tybe vibes and talking down to everyone like they should know everything off the rip is a horrible vibe for videos, all good if your like this to yourself when doing this, but publicly too? yeah idk