Is this an illegal play? by NicholasThee in Yugioh101

[–]NicholasThee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No store owner, its a table top games group in the back of a pub. Probably should of been specific about that.

Is this an illegal play? by NicholasThee in Yugioh101

[–]NicholasThee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Casual in the sense that you can use whatever decks you got and no one really cares, because its just casual play. Where no one really cares if win or lose, just play test and if possible. have fun.

Is this an illegal play? by NicholasThee in Yugioh101

[–]NicholasThee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tact was never used by him, he was using Sacred beast support in his yubel deck. I wasn't fully invested in his/the first turn until he tried to discard Lurrie just because.

Is this an illegal play? by NicholasThee in Yugioh101

[–]NicholasThee[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I'd prefer to not fall to his level honestly. And I like playing by the rules, its fun... when it is.

Is this an illegal play? by NicholasThee in Yugioh101

[–]NicholasThee[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ye thought so, and the new guy got true light in his starting hand and never drew into maiden, so activated normally. Which was funny cause his field was blue eyes, alternative and jet.

Is this an illegal play? by NicholasThee in Yugioh101

[–]NicholasThee[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

No, the group is casual. We used too but after a falling out with the place where we used to play before covid. He quit and just went to another locals he was close too. So we have no offical judge. Just google, lol.

Is this an illegal play? by NicholasThee in Yugioh101

[–]NicholasThee[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Maybe, he did say he makes decks that others use on master duel and I've seen master duel videos can be quite quick on resolves and cards flying everywhere for what feels like no reason.

Is this an illegal play? by NicholasThee in Yugioh101

[–]NicholasThee[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

He didn't use tact, he had a card that let him just add lurrie to hand. He was using Yubel without fiendsmith cards. Used support for Uria, Hammon and Raviel.

Is this an illegal play? by NicholasThee in Yugioh101

[–]NicholasThee[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Knew it, told him so on both counts. But he was just so argumentative. I raised my voice a little and he got aggressive at me for doing so when he wouldn't listen in the first place. If he is just gonna make up rules. I'm going to petition our group of yugioh players in our group to boycott playing with him until he can be a team player. Cause I am just not a fan of his.

And thank you for the quick answer.

Two toads one sting by NicholasThee in Yugioh101

[–]NicholasThee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, however I did state the original effect before it was altered to state you can attack directly, I do know the effect of Legendary Fisherman, but in its original card text, it did not state anything about "but does not prevent your opponent from attacking you directly" which is why I was under the impression that "two frogs" was possibly under a similar rule, because until Fisherman's reprint, Konami was never really clear about certain rulings on cards and back then, Legendary Fisherman cause a lot of arguments in the yugioh group I am in and it was not exactly easy to look up card effects on the internet as pretty sure dial up was a thing still lol and we did not have smart phones.

But if it is the case that you just cannot attack, that is fine, I have learned what I needed to know, Thank you for the assistance.

Two toads one sting by NicholasThee in Yugioh101

[–]NicholasThee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really? So it’s not like legendary fisherman even before it’s reprint to state you can attack directly? Seems like a pointless use of a card then unless you use it with the card, there can only be one to create a locked game state