Zombie Master was definitely illegal. The card existed for some time before Edison and never worked like that. I even remember requiring a valid target for it in some of the old GBA games (not that those are official rulings for the TCG) but still, it was known and played the same as it would be today. Pretty sure you're right about NoC, too.
Pain definitely sharking and cheating. kinda sad. Back in the day you still needed a valid target to activate zombie master. the NoC gamestate was also scuffed.
I swear rated Edison is more toxic than any point in db I have ever played in and I've been playing on db rated since 2017. Between the illegal zombie master usage and not revealing for nobleman because winning an edison game is that important to you is crazy.
Gage doesn’t have to reveal his deck, it is impossible for there to be more than 3, but ironically, i think the person who activated NoC DOES have to show his deck because he could have copies too
if i remember correctly it used to be ruled where if you use an effect that takes from deck but have no legal targets you have to reveal that you don’t have any, but if you have the legal target, you just resolve the effect.
I think this is important too, I’ve seen zombie variants run the dog so it’s not impossible for him to have it still (not that it matters in the long run) but deck thinning could’ve mattered
Yea the deck check shit is bs. I play goat and I had an opponent irl say to me after nocing my MOF and banish both, "you gotta show me your deck I have to see what traps you have left". Also zombie master in edison needs to have a valid target in grave to activate the eff
If you banish the maximum legal number of copies of the card, your opponent CANNOT check your deck. But if you have 1 in hand it's unfortunate but you must reveal the deck in order for them to confirm you resolved the effect properly and didn't cheat. On the other hand, this isn't one-sided and they must reveal their decks as well, unless they already have all legal copies already as public knowledge,. That is face-up field, gy, faceup banished... a Book of Moon-ed copy does not count, and even if the card is limited and facedown on the field you still get the right to check their deck (as well as the deserved "ruleshark" title)
Paint tent wild - I thought in dueling book even if all 3 weren’t exiled you don’t reveal because ppl screenshot your deck and Logs prove if someone cheated or not
nah you still show deck , people have “gentlemen’s agreement” on not showing deck but that’s just not the ruling so if someone calls a judge you’ll be forced to show deck
on the edison format website it says this, "If the target is destroyed, and it was a Flip Effect Monster, you and your opponent MUST briefly show each other your Decks to verify that all copies of that Monster Card have been removed" so if they banish 3 then they shouldnt have to show
@@TheDBGrinderyeah I looked up and there are I think 8 different errata’s with the replay showing the newest one. You would think for ranked they would have the printed version at the time not the newest one that works completely differently.
@@TheDBGrinder you reach the right conclusion but your reasoning is incorrect since it's based on what the last errata (the on-screen) says, that you FIRST confirm the deck THEN banish all copies (as if we are to follow PSCT). Blue player tries to abuse this (latest errata) for their benefit while it should have been illegal. But this wasn't even the case for 2010 were all prints had either "both players must remove all Monster Cards of the same name from their *respective* Decks" or "both players check their *respective* Decks so the only case of forcing your opponent to reveal the deck would be for CONFIRMATION after claiming they banished all their copies but they end up not banishing the maximum legal number. At this point they must reveal the deck and cannot reveal drawn copies in order to avoid the deck-check since the card in hand is private knowledge and NoC specifically designates the deck. Assuming they studied popular Edison interactions (like the Ignition Priority on summon THEY MENTIONED), there is no way they don't know how NoC works. @Karpath_ "In Edison Format *we don’t deck check for NOC EVER* " I hope you understood as well why your statement is 100% false and you have to reveal when you draw 1 of those Rykos (1 set, 1 drawn, 1 in deck).
Bummer, Gage should know better. ZM always had that cheat exploit. Not being face up to resolve and ss without target. Early TAEV copy caused this. Also, for NOC. No. You both skim in person, but it’s not really done. That dude def wins locals a lot lmao
Guys, I played in Edison format when it was actually happening and not whatever it is nowadays. The Zombie Master play to discard then resummon without a valid target at activstion is legit. Idc what PST says back then, that is how it worked
that doesnt mean much tbh , the ruling thats used nowadays says this "This effect cannot activate without a legal target in any Graveyard, even if you would discard a Level 4 or lower Zombie-Type monster."
Zombie Master was definitely illegal. The card existed for some time before Edison and never worked like that. I even remember requiring a valid target for it in some of the old GBA games (not that those are official rulings for the TCG) but still, it was known and played the same as it would be today. Pretty sure you're right about NoC, too.
ye both those things i was right on , i checked the edison format website after recording this
Yea lumina, master all had to have legal targets.. would've been crazy for then lol
That pain tent guy dun some suspicious stuff 🧐
Yeah I missed the ZM activation someone pointed it out later.
I also like blacked out during that game 3 that could’ve been executed way way better
You should also know that on Duelingbook we never reveal deck for NOC in Edison Format. Only do that in paper.
Pain definitely sharking and cheating. kinda sad. Back in the day you still needed a valid target to activate zombie master. the NoC gamestate was also scuffed.
I would call it a mistake until he checked his GY 13 times while making the play
And then the full reveal is literally game changing and HARD cheating
I swear rated Edison is more toxic than any point in db I have ever played in and I've been playing on db rated since 2017. Between the illegal zombie master usage and not revealing for nobleman because winning an edison game is that important to you is crazy.
Nah that was for sure illegal play with zombie master. If he has a zombie in GY he can send and summon, but yeah what he did wasn’t allowed.
Gage doesn’t have to reveal his deck, it is impossible for there to be more than 3, but ironically, i think the person who activated NoC DOES have to show his deck because he could have copies too
if i remember correctly it used to be ruled where if you use an effect that takes from deck but have no legal targets you have to reveal that you don’t have any, but if you have the legal target, you just resolve the effect.
Both players must reveal their decks if going by the rules of that time frame.
I think this is important too, I’ve seen zombie variants run the dog so it’s not impossible for him to have it still (not that it matters in the long run) but deck thinning could’ve mattered
@@SweetEyesStanley not online they dont because they can screenshot your deck and have knowledge of the cards remaining in your deck
@@MrPlatinumboii its not done online ever
Gageh gameplay
gage is way too nice...
Yea the deck check shit is bs. I play goat and I had an opponent irl say to me after nocing my MOF and banish both, "you gotta show me your deck I have to see what traps you have left". Also zombie master in edison needs to have a valid target in grave to activate the eff
If you banish the maximum legal number of copies of the card, your opponent CANNOT check your deck. But if you have 1 in hand it's unfortunate but you must reveal the deck in order for them to confirm you resolved the effect properly and didn't cheat.
On the other hand, this isn't one-sided and they must reveal their decks as well, unless they already have all legal copies already as public knowledge,. That is face-up field, gy, faceup banished... a Book of Moon-ed copy does not count, and even if the card is limited and facedown on the field you still get the right to check their deck (as well as the deserved "ruleshark" title)
I had left his stream at this point, but I can’t stand the fact he brought up survivor again 😂
Paint tent wild - I thought in dueling book even if all 3 weren’t exiled you don’t reveal because ppl screenshot your deck and Logs prove if someone cheated or not
nah you still show deck , people have “gentlemen’s agreement” on not showing deck but that’s just not the ruling so if someone calls a judge you’ll be forced to show deck
I mean NoC says you both show your deck THEN banish. Unless there are some weird Edison rules it’s pretty straight forward.
on the edison format website it says this, "If the target is destroyed, and it was a Flip Effect Monster, you and your opponent MUST briefly show each other your Decks to verify that all copies of that Monster Card have been removed" so if they banish 3 then they shouldnt have to show
@@TheDBGrinderyeah I looked up and there are I think 8 different errata’s with the replay showing the newest one. You would think for ranked they would have the printed version at the time not the newest one that works completely differently.
In Edison Format we don’t deck check for NOC EVER if we are using an onlime simulator like duelingbook. Only in paper.
@@TheDBGrinder you reach the right conclusion but your reasoning is incorrect since it's based on what the last errata (the on-screen) says, that you FIRST confirm the deck THEN banish all copies (as if we are to follow PSCT). Blue player tries to abuse this (latest errata) for their benefit while it should have been illegal.
But this wasn't even the case for 2010 were all prints had either "both players must remove all Monster Cards of the same name from their *respective* Decks" or "both players check their *respective* Decks so the only case of forcing your opponent to reveal the deck would be for CONFIRMATION after claiming they banished all their copies but they end up not banishing the maximum legal number.
At this point they must reveal the deck and cannot reveal drawn copies in order to avoid the deck-check since the card in hand is private knowledge and NoC specifically designates the deck.
Assuming they studied popular Edison interactions (like the Ignition Priority on summon THEY MENTIONED), there is no way they don't know how NoC works.
@Karpath_ "In Edison Format *we don’t deck check for NOC EVER* "
I hope you understood as well why your statement is 100% false and you have to reveal when you draw 1 of those Rykos (1 set, 1 drawn, 1 in deck).
Nah he cant zombie master with no targets
Alt title: vayu turbo vs zombie
Pain Tent deff sus af
Bummer, Gage should know better. ZM always had that cheat exploit. Not being face up to resolve and ss without target.
Early TAEV copy caused this.
Also, for NOC. No. You both skim in person, but it’s not really done. That dude def wins locals a lot lmao
Some old rulings are super awkward ngl
Z master play not legal
I like Edison but Edison is a whack format. The rulings are all over the place. It would be easier for everyone to just use modern rulings.
certain modern rulings would be bad for that format, like monster reincarnation with dandy / monsters with 0 atk being able to crash etc etc
(they would be bad cause it would literally change how certain plays are done)
First ;)
Guys, I played in Edison format when it was actually happening and not whatever it is nowadays. The Zombie Master play to discard then resummon without a valid target at activstion is legit. Idc what PST says back then, that is how it worked
that doesnt mean much tbh , the ruling thats used nowadays says this "This effect cannot activate without a legal target in any Graveyard, even if you would discard a Level 4 or lower Zombie-Type monster."
- UDE FAQ: Individual Card Rulings [U-Z] (cannot send link unfortunately)
Literally hit us with “Back in my day”
Boring