If you want inconsistent text, look no further than Magic's first set. "Shatter destroys target artifact." "Destroys a black card in play." "Destroys any one land." "Destroys 1 Wall." "[Tap to] destroy a Wall." "Target artifact or enchantment must be discarded." You would think these have different restrictions or maybe bypass different protection effects. No, they all work exactly the same except for the subset of things that it can target/destroy.
@S V Well, he touched on the changes to the game come 4th Edition (though I'd argue 6th Edition introducing the Stack in order to fix the mess that was batches), but of course early Magic text was super finnicky; it was the first of its kind, so it was the first to figure a lot of stuff out.
The original print of Firebreathing takes the cake for vagueness. It's just "R: +1/+0." It never says it ends at end of turn (even though Shivan Dragon does specify this in the same set) or even that it applies to the creature it's enchanting.
Quick "um akshually" nitpick, PSCT was introduced into Yugioh in 2011, 4 months after Master Rule TWO. Master Rule 3 wouldn't exist until 3 years later in 2014.
When it comes to custom cards, YGO's refusal to use keywords is actually a blessing in disguise. I see a lot of custom Magic cards that feel the need to invent keywords for the most niche things (and *way* too often not differentiating between normal and italic text; Italic text in Magic are for flavor and to link similar mechanics, not actual rules text) So having to not worry about subsystems done poorly messing things up, you've got a straightforward reading of the text.
I would disagree. The vast majority of card games (outside of Japan, at least) do not write their effects like in YGO and it also results in bloated text if the mechanics are complex enough. I think Magic is on the other end of the spectrum with its high number of keywords. Also, creating custom cards for a game is not as effective practice as designing your own game. Definitely a fun activity, though.
@@QKlilx understanding and applying the coded structure of the PSCT is quite a good practice to understand how the game is developed and to identify tools and flaws on it. The goal is to share them with the community to get feedback and gather information about balance, relevancy, powercreep, etc. Doing it by yourself means nothing if you don't even know if you applied the rules correctly. It's not only using YGO as a case study of game design, but also practicing on how to apply and use the tools and restrictions its manual of style give us, so you can apply that knowledge when creating yours.
Pokémon TCG could probably make a whole video on this topic, and on erratas. Def some interesting situations over the years, including the whole Trainer/Item/Supporter/Stadium thing (tl;dr: The terminology was expanded in generation 2, overhauled majorly in generation 4 for new cards but not older ones, then overhauled again in a different way in generation 5 with yet another mass errata for older cards based on the gen 4 overhaul for reference) Could absolutely hear about it for like 20-30 minutes, as it was a fun topic to research :P
As a starting guide: * Gen 1: Only trainer cards. Mid generation Stadium cards were added as a subtype of Trainers with specific rules. * Gen 2 (e-Series): Supporter cards are added as another subtype of Trainers, also with specific rules. * Gen 4 (Diamond & Pearl): Massive overhaul, now Trainers, Supporters and Stadiums are each their own card type. Older cards that target "Trainers" may search for any of the three types, but those since D&P Base Set can only search for Trainers that aren't Supporters nor Stadiums. * Gen 5 (Black & White): Now all 3 are subtypes of "Trainers": Trainer-Item, Trainer-Supporter and Trainer-Stadium (usually named with only the second word). Cards up to gen 3 that mention Trainers still mean all of them, Gen 4 cards that mention Trainers means Items, and cards from gen 5 onwards refer to all 3 types. Not as convoluted once searched around, but for someone picking up random cards, it's a mess of terms.
Slight, meaningless correction but Master Rule 3 was not introduced PSCT in Yu-Gi-Oh. Master Rule 3 was introduced in 2014, PSCT was introduced in 2011.
I'm surprised that you didn't mention Hearthstone when talking about flavourful card text. HS does have a fairly consistent lexicon, but every now and then it switches to flavour descriptions to either shrink text or hammer home the card's theme. As a digital game, it has a lot more leeway since there's no chance for mid-game confusion. You play the card and it works. But there are good and bad things. For example, Mankrik reads "Battlecry: Help Mankrik find his wife! She was last seen somewhere in your deck." That's obviously complete nonsense. What it actually does is shuffle Olgra, Mankrik's Wife into your deck, which is a spell that summons a 3/7 "Mankrik, Consumed by Hatred" token when drawn. This is fine, because Mankrik was a free legendary, so everyone will have seen it. You can afford to be deliberately vague in order to reinforce why that effect does what it does. As a bad example, take Party Crasher. It says "Battlecry: Choose an enemy minion. Throw a random minion from your hand at it." The hell does throwing a minion from your hand mean? Well, it means summon a minion from your hand which attacks the target minion. This card caused a lot of confusion when it was revealed, and it's a garbage Epic so you don't learn by experience either. I'm not 100% sure whether the minion you throw stays in play or dies afterwards. Most "thrown" minions in the game die, but it's not specified here. That's a problem. That's the kind of effect you really don't want to be wrong about when testing the card out. In a digital game, flavourful descriptions can be a way to shrink text and add some character to a card. But you really have to be careful how you use it.
Good episode. However, since Yo-Kai watch was published directly by Hasbro I don't think "the company in charge of Magic the Gathering" is a completely correct description. I don't think Wizards of the Coast had anything to do with it. WotC does have other sins to answer for though.
Early _Yu-Gi-Oh_ borrowed a lot of terminology from _Magic,_ even when that didn't make sense. The original printing of the card "Waboku" says "Any damage inflicted by an opponent's monster is decreased to 0 during the turn this card is activated." What that printing *doesn't* say is that your monsters can't be destroyed by battle that turn either. In _Magic,_ that makes sense, since a creature is destroyed when it's dealt a certain amount of damage; but in _Yu-Gi-Oh,_ monsters don't take damage, they're either destroyed or they aren't. It took two errata before they added "Your monsters cannot be destroyed as a result of battle this turn."
I've been making custom magics cards for about 20 years now. I am very familiar with Chicago Style and use it daily. I like to think that Magic has improved my English greatly!
Some Counterspell cards say, "Counter target spell as it is being cast." Before we understood the stack, we used to think one had to interrupt an opponent while they were saying the card name of the spell they were casting in order to counter it.
And it was an interrupt and not an instant. Being an interrupt was a lot like having Split Second in that it resolved at a higher priority without going into a batch (the progenitor of the stack.) So I think you technically could not Counterspell another Counterspell.
@@billvolk4236 Not quite, I believe. Unlike Split Second, you could respond to an interrupt with another interrupt, so you could counterspell a counterspell, but you couldn't, for instance, sacrifice a creature with Fallen Angel in response to a Deflection redirecting a kill spell at that creature. If you're familiar with Yugioh, Interrupts are like Spell Speed 3, where Split Second is like what players dub "Spell Speed 4" (and I kind of feel like Yugioh was cribbing pretty hard from MtG, because Spell Speed 2 is basically instants, and Spell Speed 1 are sorceries, though I think Interrupts and the Batch system, which is nearly the same as Yugioh's Chain system were already obsoleted in MtG, by the time Yugioh came out)
@@GroundThing The old flow chart for how to resolve spells and abilities in pre-6th-edition rules just has all interrupts resolve right away. They don't go into a batch of their own, and so there seems to be no time to respond to them.
Yugioh has so many wording traps that radically alter how a card works, and Kohdok actually fell into this trap this episode. "You can activate [card name] once per turn." is different from "You can only use [card name] once per turn." and can actually alter how the card works substantially.
“You can only activate” and “you can only use” also mean drastically different things, often meaning the difference between being able to use another copy of a card with a hard once per turn clause and not
As someone only vaguely knowledgeable about YGO, the difference between "You can activate X once per turn" and "You can only use X once per turn" is the latter is one time per term, while the first is one per card per turn, right?
@@brendaneichler5244 If the activation of the card (different from the effect lmao) is negated, the card is considered "used" but was never "activated". If the activation of Toon bookmark was negated by an effect such as Borreload Savage Dragon who specifically says "Negate the activation", the player could activate a second Bookmark from hand if they had one. Meanwhile, if a player had the activation of something like Ash Blossom negated through the same means, which has the "You can only use..." restriction, Ash can't be activated again for the rest of the turn.
@@CaramelFrapple Geez,that's so incredibly complicated. Every time I look into other TCG's wierd card stuff, I understand more and more why Magic's got a 150+ page comprehensive rulebook to nail all these things out. It helps minimize the rules burden on the individual cards
They are not "traps" and they are example of Yugioh following a manual of style because, use an activate have an specific and clear meaning an they are used consistently. Khodok not being aware of it doesn't mean that those keywords are used erratic or inconsistently in Yugioh.
Some things just sound so simple you take them completely for granted, but then you play yokai watch tcg and realize how much pain there is in the world.
Penguin Knight reading as: _“When this card is sent directly from your deck to the Graveyard by an opponent''s card effect, combine your graveyard cards with your own deck, shuffle them and form a new deck.”_ Will *always* stick out to me.
As a ygo player whose first deck was the Endymion one back when it released, yeah...I'm still learning new edge cases half the cards in this deck have because of niche wording. You "can" and "having to" activate effects definitely threw me off back when I started playing.
"If _: you can" vs. "When _: you can" should really be in the beginner's guide. Among plenty of other things new players would really benefit from knowing.
Watching (and playing) other TCGs made me really appreciate the simplicity and clarity of Pokémon. I often wish for more condensed and/or specific text while playing Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokémon is almost always perfectly straightforward. I never have to worry about misreading one or two words and misusing the whole effect.
Yugioh tends to favour those who learn the rules and r skilled with them, while TCGs like Pokémon r made simple to favour more new and casual players so they can almost turn there brain off for a game. I used to play Pokémon and I did try magic but both r too casual, simple, and slow for my taste. I like modern yugioh for how it is built to allow me to play my fav and strongest cards right away if I play my cards right while u wud have to wait at least 4-6 turns or more to play them in magic and Pokémon.
maybe worth mentioning are card games localized into English from other languages and finding a way to prevent the translation in language from causing hiccups
I have an example where they DIDN'T prevent a mistranslation. Digimon has certain effects that last not until the end of your turn, but until the end of your opponent's turn. Almost everything is done during your turn, though, so they initially translated it as "until the end of your opponent's next turn". Makes sense, you activate it during your turn, and it lasts until your opponent's next turn. Well, eventually, they used this in places where it could be activated during your opponent's turn. In that case it was supposed to end that same turn, but because of the wording it made it seem like it lasted a whole extra turn cycle. They decided to say oops and changed it to "until the next time your opponent's turn ends" but the damage was done.
@@Cr3zant no, the rulings follow OCG precedent, only the banlist is a hybrid of both formats. Duel Links works the same in using OCG ruling precedents.
I think the pre problem solving card text of a lot of yugioh cards have erratas and show why a manual style is essential. Snoww Darkworld shows also why updating manual styles is needed as its current card text is just bad.
Snoww was one of the very first problem solving card text cards. It never had a print before it. It's text follows PSCT to a T, for better or for worse.
God, you want to see how old cards need erratas, look at necrovalley, how many erratas its had, and how the wording changed to say essentially the same thing, but the game evolved to have the different interactions accounted for
@@burningcole2538 Necrovalley is a trip. Because multiple times, the erratas actually changed how the card functioned. Some printings allow cards to target themselves (Like Colossal Fighter) while in the GY. Others cannot. Some cannot allow cards like Treeborn Frog to Special Summon themselves, while others do.
Another great example of this is the new tcg “Sorcery”. Inconsistent throughout with its text, and all of the different text could mean either different things or the same thing.
I believe that is intentional, as one of the aims of the game is to not be competitively viable. From my perspective it seems like a game that is trying to recreate the conditions of the past (childhoods of gen xers) which is always doomed to fail (target audience is no longer children). Wasn't there another game that tried this but for pokemon loving millennials?
The Umbra is a pretty well-defined game zone in the Rage TCG. "Stepping sideways" is just the lore term for entering it, because it's, like, an extradimensional spirit world.
I believe one of the main appeals to Yugioh is that there is no other TCG that feels like Yugioh. Maybe I am wrong, and people have examples of other games that provide a similar feel in gameplay, but that's something I'm unaware of. And as a non-MtG player, its crazy to me the amount of players who approach a TCG that is new to them, with complaints, and everything they are critiquing is basically how the game differs from MtG. And you have to remind them that we aren't playing MtG.
true. I feel like that unique feeling comes from how the game was created maybe. It's like other tcg games was created with a purpose to play them, but yugioh was just an another game in some manga that doesn't even had the rules and basically was created just for the plot to be flashy and not for a purpose to actually play it. It's actually a very unique approach if you think about it. Imagine creating a game without a thought to actually play it
_Condition: cost; effect_ The thing I think I like most about Yugioh. It allows for _so_ much freedom for loopholes and technicalities while being without needing a glossary of icon or keywords.
It's not necessarily consistency, but a good anacdote in favor of a manual of style was when Magic was in its playtest phase. There was a blue card that was seen as too powerful because it basically won you the game for 2 mana. That card was Time Walk, because it was written as "Target Player loses next turn". Obviously if you're familiar with the card, you can probably guess it was supposed to skip the opponent's next turn, but because homonyms, a bunch of playtesters assumed it meant they lose the game (and for additional clarity, if that were the case, do they lose immediately at the beginning of their turn? Do they lose at the end step?) So they changed the effect to be an extra turn rather than a turn skip. A manual of style would probably help by just having a glossary of valid card effects, and if there's any overlap, find a way to disambiguate. You're not going to solve all issues (for instance if you want to search for all counterspells in magic, it's going to be hard to do so without missing some or accidentally also including cards that care about +1/+1 counters, or most likely, both), but it should help.
Are there any examples of style manuals for card games? I do have consistent rules text on my cards, but since I'm working with a publisher, it'd be good to know how to write one.
Yu-gi-oh has guides that came with the starter decks (Usually a more expanded one when the structure deck released with a new master rule if I remember correctly) That had a explanation of the rules for reference and a glossary of terms. Also the Pokemon starter deck's paper playmat that had explanation of the rules, some terms and special conditions they could be under.
I didn't even realize Yo-Kai Watch had a TCG. Man, that franchise is the prime example of an IP with endless potential squandered by moronic, greedy suits.
Yugioh be like: target 1 monster destroy it Send 1 monster to the gy from the field Select a monster your opponent controls destroy it Your opponent must send 1 monster they control to the gy.
I'm now convinced the reason yugioh stopped putting rule books in their decks was entirely due to the fact they'd have to put 'misses timing' and then they'd get absolutely decimated online by companies the community and every one for such an ignorant game design
I haven't heard anything about yokai watch in years I enjoyed the first game a lot but lost all interest when I heard the sequel had two version, last I heard of it was when they did the ff14 crossover that was a grind
Shotout to mosters "Fur Hire"
They are so funny
shout out to u and n
Bro I'm dying "Fur Hire"
Yeah it was awesome to see the little detail.
For anyone unaware all the Fur Hire monsters mention monsters "Fur Hire" instead of "X" monster like every other archetype
If you want inconsistent text, look no further than Magic's first set.
"Shatter destroys target artifact."
"Destroys a black card in play."
"Destroys any one land."
"Destroys 1 Wall."
"[Tap to] destroy a Wall."
"Target artifact or enchantment must be discarded."
You would think these have different restrictions or maybe bypass different protection effects. No, they all work exactly the same except for the subset of things that it can target/destroy.
I think it would have also been fun to talk about the "Target player loses next turn" wording of Time Walk that was changed before the card saw print.
You joke, but the original Lightning Bolt's text is almost identical to its current one.
@S V Well, he touched on the changes to the game come 4th Edition (though I'd argue 6th Edition introducing the Stack in order to fix the mess that was batches), but of course early Magic text was super finnicky; it was the first of its kind, so it was the first to figure a lot of stuff out.
The original print of Firebreathing takes the cake for vagueness. It's just "R: +1/+0." It never says it ends at end of turn (even though Shivan Dragon does specify this in the same set) or even that it applies to the creature it's enchanting.
Don't forget that Floral Spuzzem itself gets to decide if it wants to destroy an artifact.
Spell Power Grasp has what we call a "Hard Once-Per-Turn" clause
Quick "um akshually" nitpick, PSCT was introduced into Yugioh in 2011, 4 months after Master Rule TWO. Master Rule 3 wouldn't exist until 3 years later in 2014.
Creating custom cards for yugioh as practice for game design is great because of the PSCT
When it comes to custom cards, YGO's refusal to use keywords is actually a blessing in disguise. I see a lot of custom Magic cards that feel the need to invent keywords for the most niche things (and *way* too often not differentiating between normal and italic text; Italic text in Magic are for flavor and to link similar mechanics, not actual rules text)
So having to not worry about subsystems done poorly messing things up, you've got a straightforward reading of the text.
I would disagree. The vast majority of card games (outside of Japan, at least) do not write their effects like in YGO and it also results in bloated text if the mechanics are complex enough. I think Magic is on the other end of the spectrum with its high number of keywords. Also, creating custom cards for a game is not as effective practice as designing your own game. Definitely a fun activity, though.
@@QKlilx understanding and applying the coded structure of the PSCT is quite a good practice to understand how the game is developed and to identify tools and flaws on it.
The goal is to share them with the community to get feedback and gather information about balance, relevancy, powercreep, etc. Doing it by yourself means nothing if you don't even know if you applied the rules correctly.
It's not only using YGO as a case study of game design, but also practicing on how to apply and use the tools and restrictions its manual of style give us, so you can apply that knowledge when creating yours.
4:00 ok that "push down the card pack to reveal title" was a smart trick
Pokémon TCG could probably make a whole video on this topic, and on erratas. Def some interesting situations over the years, including the whole Trainer/Item/Supporter/Stadium thing (tl;dr: The terminology was expanded in generation 2, overhauled majorly in generation 4 for new cards but not older ones, then overhauled again in a different way in generation 5 with yet another mass errata for older cards based on the gen 4 overhaul for reference)
Could absolutely hear about it for like 20-30 minutes, as it was a fun topic to research :P
As a starting guide:
* Gen 1: Only trainer cards. Mid generation Stadium cards were added as a subtype of Trainers with specific rules.
* Gen 2 (e-Series): Supporter cards are added as another subtype of Trainers, also with specific rules.
* Gen 4 (Diamond & Pearl): Massive overhaul, now Trainers, Supporters and Stadiums are each their own card type. Older cards that target "Trainers" may search for any of the three types, but those since D&P Base Set can only search for Trainers that aren't Supporters nor Stadiums.
* Gen 5 (Black & White): Now all 3 are subtypes of "Trainers": Trainer-Item, Trainer-Supporter and Trainer-Stadium (usually named with only the second word). Cards up to gen 3 that mention Trainers still mean all of them, Gen 4 cards that mention Trainers means Items, and cards from gen 5 onwards refer to all 3 types.
Not as convoluted once searched around, but for someone picking up random cards, it's a mess of terms.
@@starg09 Wow. Trainer doesn't even sound like a word anymore.
5:49 Q'Wit presumably doesn't use the same text as Frostina because he only gets it when blocking, while Frostina gets it while attacking or blocking.
Slight, meaningless correction but Master Rule 3 was not introduced PSCT in Yu-Gi-Oh. Master Rule 3 was introduced in 2014, PSCT was introduced in 2011.
I'm surprised that you didn't mention Hearthstone when talking about flavourful card text. HS does have a fairly consistent lexicon, but every now and then it switches to flavour descriptions to either shrink text or hammer home the card's theme. As a digital game, it has a lot more leeway since there's no chance for mid-game confusion. You play the card and it works. But there are good and bad things.
For example, Mankrik reads "Battlecry: Help Mankrik find his wife! She was last seen somewhere in your deck." That's obviously complete nonsense. What it actually does is shuffle Olgra, Mankrik's Wife into your deck, which is a spell that summons a 3/7 "Mankrik, Consumed by Hatred" token when drawn. This is fine, because Mankrik was a free legendary, so everyone will have seen it. You can afford to be deliberately vague in order to reinforce why that effect does what it does.
As a bad example, take Party Crasher. It says "Battlecry: Choose an enemy minion. Throw a random minion from your hand at it." The hell does throwing a minion from your hand mean? Well, it means summon a minion from your hand which attacks the target minion. This card caused a lot of confusion when it was revealed, and it's a garbage Epic so you don't learn by experience either. I'm not 100% sure whether the minion you throw stays in play or dies afterwards. Most "thrown" minions in the game die, but it's not specified here. That's a problem. That's the kind of effect you really don't want to be wrong about when testing the card out.
In a digital game, flavourful descriptions can be a way to shrink text and add some character to a card. But you really have to be careful how you use it.
Good episode.
However, since Yo-Kai watch was published directly by Hasbro I don't think "the company in charge of Magic the Gathering" is a completely correct description. I don't think Wizards of the Coast had anything to do with it. WotC does have other sins to answer for though.
Early _Yu-Gi-Oh_ borrowed a lot of terminology from _Magic,_ even when that didn't make sense.
The original printing of the card "Waboku" says "Any damage inflicted by an opponent's monster is decreased to 0 during the turn this card is activated." What that printing *doesn't* say is that your monsters can't be destroyed by battle that turn either. In _Magic,_ that makes sense, since a creature is destroyed when it's dealt a certain amount of damage; but in _Yu-Gi-Oh,_ monsters don't take damage, they're either destroyed or they aren't. It took two errata before they added "Your monsters cannot be destroyed as a result of battle this turn."
I've been making custom magics cards for about 20 years now. I am very familiar with Chicago Style and use it daily. I like to think that Magic has improved my English greatly!
Some Counterspell cards say, "Counter target spell as it is being cast." Before we understood the stack, we used to think one had to interrupt an opponent while they were saying the card name of the spell they were casting in order to counter it.
And it was an interrupt and not an instant. Being an interrupt was a lot like having Split Second in that it resolved at a higher priority without going into a batch (the progenitor of the stack.) So I think you technically could not Counterspell another Counterspell.
@@billvolk4236 Not quite, I believe. Unlike Split Second, you could respond to an interrupt with another interrupt, so you could counterspell a counterspell, but you couldn't, for instance, sacrifice a creature with Fallen Angel in response to a Deflection redirecting a kill spell at that creature. If you're familiar with Yugioh, Interrupts are like Spell Speed 3, where Split Second is like what players dub "Spell Speed 4" (and I kind of feel like Yugioh was cribbing pretty hard from MtG, because Spell Speed 2 is basically instants, and Spell Speed 1 are sorceries, though I think Interrupts and the Batch system, which is nearly the same as Yugioh's Chain system were already obsoleted in MtG, by the time Yugioh came out)
@@GroundThing The old flow chart for how to resolve spells and abilities in pre-6th-edition rules just has all interrupts resolve right away. They don't go into a batch of their own, and so there seems to be no time to respond to them.
Yugioh has so many wording traps that radically alter how a card works, and Kohdok actually fell into this trap this episode.
"You can activate [card name] once per turn." is different from "You can only use [card name] once per turn." and can actually alter how the card works substantially.
“You can only activate” and “you can only use” also mean drastically different things, often meaning the difference between being able to use another copy of a card with a hard once per turn clause and not
As someone only vaguely knowledgeable about YGO, the difference between "You can activate X once per turn" and "You can only use X once per turn" is the latter is one time per term, while the first is one per card per turn, right?
@@brendaneichler5244 If the activation of the card (different from the effect lmao) is negated, the card is considered "used" but was never "activated". If the activation of Toon bookmark was negated by an effect such as Borreload Savage Dragon who specifically says "Negate the activation", the player could activate a second Bookmark from hand if they had one. Meanwhile, if a player had the activation of something like Ash Blossom negated through the same means, which has the "You can only use..." restriction, Ash can't be activated again for the rest of the turn.
@@CaramelFrapple Geez,that's so incredibly complicated. Every time I look into other TCG's wierd card stuff, I understand more and more why Magic's got a 150+ page comprehensive rulebook to nail all these things out. It helps minimize the rules burden on the individual cards
They are not "traps" and they are example of Yugioh following a manual of style because, use an activate have an specific and clear meaning an they are used consistently. Khodok not being aware of it doesn't mean that those keywords are used erratic or inconsistently in Yugioh.
Some things just sound so simple you take them completely for granted, but then you play yokai watch tcg and realize how much pain there is in the world.
you can also use old yugioh cards as bad examples lol
You mean "Fuses 2 or more Fusion-Material Monsters to form a new Fusion Monster." isn't good card text? ;p
Penguin Knight reading as: _“When this card is sent directly from your deck to the Graveyard by an opponent''s card effect, combine your graveyard cards with your own deck, shuffle them and form a new deck.”_ Will *always* stick out to me.
As a ygo player whose first deck was the Endymion one back when it released, yeah...I'm still learning new edge cases half the cards in this deck have because of niche wording. You "can" and "having to" activate effects definitely threw me off back when I started playing.
Optional vs mandatory?
"If _: you can" vs. "When _: you can" should really be in the beginner's guide. Among plenty of other things new players would really benefit from knowing.
Watching (and playing) other TCGs made me really appreciate the simplicity and clarity of Pokémon. I often wish for more condensed and/or specific text while playing Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokémon is almost always perfectly straightforward. I never have to worry about misreading one or two words and misusing the whole effect.
The nightmare of missing timing will always hunt my plays on yugioh
@@GallantRayRed At least with missing timing, after PSCT, you just need to look for the bastard word "when", and its fiendish buddy "you can".
@@elijahpadilla5083 if your printing has psct, or if it was ever reprinted with psct
Yugioh tends to favour those who learn the rules and r skilled with them, while TCGs like Pokémon r made simple to favour more new and casual players so they can almost turn there brain off for a game. I used to play Pokémon and I did try magic but both r too casual, simple, and slow for my taste. I like modern yugioh for how it is built to allow me to play my fav and strongest cards right away if I play my cards right while u wud have to wait at least 4-6 turns or more to play them in magic and Pokémon.
maybe worth mentioning are card games localized into English from other languages and finding a way to prevent the translation in language from causing hiccups
I have an example where they DIDN'T prevent a mistranslation.
Digimon has certain effects that last not until the end of your turn, but until the end of your opponent's turn. Almost everything is done during your turn, though, so they initially translated it as "until the end of your opponent's next turn". Makes sense, you activate it during your turn, and it lasts until your opponent's next turn.
Well, eventually, they used this in places where it could be activated during your opponent's turn. In that case it was supposed to end that same turn, but because of the wording it made it seem like it lasted a whole extra turn cycle. They decided to say oops and changed it to "until the next time your opponent's turn ends" but the damage was done.
Yugioh's master rules is all well and good, but Konami needs to make their card rulings more accessible.
TCG problem lmao. OCG has Perfect Rulebook and has actual simulation program that called Master Duel.
@@MVAS-mp9oo Master Duel is literally a fucked up hybrid of the OCG and TCG rules lmao. It doesn't strictly follow either.
@@Cr3zant Sure it may have some mix of TCG, but you got the point.
@@Cr3zant no, the rulings follow OCG precedent, only the banlist is a hybrid of both formats. Duel Links works the same in using OCG ruling precedents.
The rules got so bloated that starter decks no longer have the manual included, instead it must be sought out online.
I think the pre problem solving card text of a lot of yugioh cards have erratas and show why a manual style is essential. Snoww Darkworld shows also why updating manual styles is needed as its current card text is just bad.
Isn't it like one of the first cards printed with problem solving cards text?
The crown for dumb card text has to go to Twin Headed Behemoth's pre-errata soft-once-per-duel effect
Snoww was one of the very first problem solving card text cards. It never had a print before it.
It's text follows PSCT to a T, for better or for worse.
God, you want to see how old cards need erratas, look at necrovalley, how many erratas its had, and how the wording changed to say essentially the same thing, but the game evolved to have the different interactions accounted for
@@burningcole2538 Necrovalley is a trip. Because multiple times, the erratas actually changed how the card functioned. Some printings allow cards to target themselves (Like Colossal Fighter) while in the GY. Others cannot. Some cannot allow cards like Treeborn Frog to Special Summon themselves, while others do.
Another great example of this is the new tcg “Sorcery”.
Inconsistent throughout with its text, and all of the different text could mean either different things or the same thing.
I believe that is intentional, as one of the aims of the game is to not be competitively viable. From my perspective it seems like a game that is trying to recreate the conditions of the past (childhoods of gen xers) which is always doomed to fail (target audience is no longer children).
Wasn't there another game that tried this but for pokemon loving millennials?
This series continues to be absolutely amazing!
I can't describe how much these videos have helped me make my own game, I thank you.
The Umbra is a pretty well-defined game zone in the Rage TCG. "Stepping sideways" is just the lore term for entering it, because it's, like, an extradimensional spirit world.
I believe one of the main appeals to Yugioh is that there is no other TCG that feels like Yugioh. Maybe I am wrong, and people have examples of other games that provide a similar feel in gameplay, but that's something I'm unaware of. And as a non-MtG player, its crazy to me the amount of players who approach a TCG that is new to them, with complaints, and everything they are critiquing is basically how the game differs from MtG. And you have to remind them that we aren't playing MtG.
true. I feel like that unique feeling comes from how the game was created maybe. It's like other tcg games was created with a purpose to play them, but yugioh was just an another game in some manga that doesn't even had the rules and basically was created just for the plot to be flashy and not for a purpose to actually play it. It's actually a very unique approach if you think about it. Imagine creating a game without a thought to actually play it
_Condition: cost; effect_
The thing I think I like most about Yugioh. It allows for _so_ much freedom for loopholes and technicalities while being without needing a glossary of icon or keywords.
@@joshuahadamsDelusional
Funny how i have an idea of creating a cardgame and this gets recommended almost right away, awesome video dude!
Your phone is listening
It's not necessarily consistency, but a good anacdote in favor of a manual of style was when Magic was in its playtest phase. There was a blue card that was seen as too powerful because it basically won you the game for 2 mana. That card was Time Walk, because it was written as "Target Player loses next turn". Obviously if you're familiar with the card, you can probably guess it was supposed to skip the opponent's next turn, but because homonyms, a bunch of playtesters assumed it meant they lose the game (and for additional clarity, if that were the case, do they lose immediately at the beginning of their turn? Do they lose at the end step?) So they changed the effect to be an extra turn rather than a turn skip. A manual of style would probably help by just having a glossary of valid card effects, and if there's any overlap, find a way to disambiguate. You're not going to solve all issues (for instance if you want to search for all counterspells in magic, it's going to be hard to do so without missing some or accidentally also including cards that care about +1/+1 counters, or most likely, both), but it should help.
As an attorney, these subtle text differences are clear. But it is good to have such information distilled into a video.
Liked the Manual of Style intro. Great segue!
Nice Ina stand!
Gasp, Medabots!! So in general or the TCG?
Are there any examples of style manuals for card games? I do have consistent rules text on my cards, but since I'm working with a publisher, it'd be good to know how to write one.
Yu-gi-oh has guides that came with the starter decks (Usually a more expanded one when the structure deck released with a new master rule if I remember correctly) That had a explanation of the rules for reference and a glossary of terms. Also the Pokemon starter deck's paper playmat that had explanation of the rules, some terms and special conditions they could be under.
I love the Mitos y Leyendas representation in all of this videos.
Viva Chile!
I have i my own card game “souLink”
Where I refer to cards in your hand as A “Hand Card”
Same With Graveyard & Damage Zone but NOT deck
Look at you with your Warcry Store Champion trophy! Congrats :D
I kove your videos, do u have someting about Final Fantasy tcg?
I didn't even realize Yo-Kai Watch had a TCG. Man, that franchise is the prime example of an IP with endless potential squandered by moronic, greedy suits.
"Draw 2 cards."
From whos deck though?
🤔
Yugioh be like:
target 1 monster destroy it
Send 1 monster to the gy from the field
Select a monster your opponent controls destroy it
Your opponent must send 1 monster they control to the gy.
I'm now convinced the reason yugioh stopped putting rule books in their decks was entirely due to the fact they'd have to put 'misses timing' and then they'd get absolutely decimated online by companies the community and every one for such an ignorant game design
Or the original idea of the Manual of Style, to discern between "high class" and "low class". Literally that's what it really was for.
Good vid
I haven't heard anything about yokai watch in years I enjoyed the first game a lot but lost all interest when I heard the sequel had two version, last I heard of it was when they did the ff14 crossover that was a grind
Whatever happened to that soda pop game
#Q'WITSWEEP
Don't Google erratas. You will be fired.