How to NOT GET SHARKED in Yu-Gi-Oh!

[@lara6489]

This is why I like the madolche continuous spells since they're mandatory effects. Every time I forget to resolve salon I can just go back. Its like playing with training wheels on.

[@epicfreak7532]

If you missed, you missed. If you are at a tournament and go back just for resolving it after the game state isn't repairable again you will get a warning. And that's totally ok, I think. If yugioh players would read their cards, they would know what to do and when things happen :)

[@SoraNeku]

you can do that but can get a penalty

[@carsonbos472]

@@epicfreak7532 Someone didn’t look at the examples

[@skeletonwar4445]

@@epicfreak7532 lmao no

[@cephalosjr.1835]

Epic Freak is correct. You do indeed get the warning and have the effect forcibly “un-missed”.

[@ParadoxNerdHLM]

Imagine being so dedicated to cheating that you try to say your opponent can't activate a "mandatory" effect. They literally have no choice

[@goodguycwyzz4768]

That actually happened to me at a YCS. I used crimson blazer to kill his monster then next turn he tried to summon blaster saying I “didn’t activate its effect”

[@ParadoxNerdHLM]

@@goodguycwyzz4768 I mean, I can't get into the head of someone who would cheat anyway, but doubly so when it's so blatant. Like, why bother?

[@nlm7033]

I've always looked at it like a bluff. If you're too dumb to challenge bs and call a judge then you deserve to lose if it happens. Read your cards, understand the rules, learn things

[@nlm7033]

@@goodguycwyzz4768 that is actually insane, I just picked that card up for a while recently and its not possible to be dumb enough to not understand the card lol

[@ParadoxNerdHLM]

@@nlm7033 While I understand the logic of that argument, I feel like it disproportionately affects newer players who aren't as familiar with the rulings and policies, and won't be encouraged to continue learning by what they'll think is people trying to cheat them

[@literallynoone9923]

MICA: Finally, a worthy video. I will not appel that.

[@sto_ceppo9617]

Coder on the stream: we reached 10 minutes? The video: 15 minutes

[@orchidquack]

So many uploads, we’ve been blessed!

[@JoseJimenez-jm4vo]

“A misclick in real life” this is entirely how I play irl honestly

[@DimitriUmi]

I thought this would be about the Shark cards in Yu-Gi-Oh

[@matthewplays7232]

@HL those are the same thing

[@darksky7507]

Maaan you got me 100% haha. Me big noob thought there is a cool new shark archetype loool

[@michaelloveless243]

I lost a crucial game in a regional when Anthony declared what I did (physically) overrides what I said (verbally) when it comes to committing to a play. I put a spell on the field in the same column as infinite impermanence was previously activated by my opponent, and before letting the card go, slid it to an adjacent column stating clearly, "in this column." It wasn't like he said the effect was negated then i moved it. I just kinda put the card on the table as i would back when columns didn't matter and assessed the board state before declaring and finalizing my commitment. My opponent called a judge immediately who said I was incorrect about verbal statements overriding physical actions. I request a head judge and Anthony said physical actions override statements. I showed the initial judge the official rule stating I was correct between rounds and he apologized but said its too late now and that must be a new update.

[@michaelgrey1503]

Funnily enough, this isn't even a matter of that in the first place. I mean, it is, but the more pressing issue is you did not take your hand off of the card in the Imperm column which means you did not commit to the play, a separate part of the policy document.

[@yaboislurp]

Is this the step by step tutorial to how to be a good shark? If so I have waited sooo long.

[@thomaspaterson1354]

Sup MICA

[@evilsworn2901]

4:10 the nibiru thing, I usually have this to deal with: "End Phase" "nibiruh in ur endphase lolz"

[@5thDimensionDragon]

Oh ok. Then Farfa IS a rule shark

[@mynameisjimmy9827]

*Points Gun* Always has been

[@jonathan-6958]

Only JoKiNgLy

[@xOnislayer]

How?

[@Buster_Blader322]

Is 2 late you click, you click

[@Vinabpmb]

"Silence is consent" - Farfa

[@dudesk099]

"You are obligated to know what every card in your deck does at all times" People will misplay a card for weeks because they never read the whole thing until they're corrected by someone else. That is the definition of wishful thinking in this game lol

[@Danko_Sukka]

I feel like the “Locals” Example is based on how the Pokemon TCG works. With trainer cards, even if you don’t have a legal target in deck or even if you do, you can still activate the card and it’ll go to the discard pile. For lack of a better term, you can make your card fizzle.

[@michaelgrey1503]

It's also something that used to ve able to happen in Yugioh but no longer can. As an example, Crop Circles has a "fail to find" clause but failing to find is no longer possible.

[@dmgCH3CK]

Great informative video, looking forward to the mandatory effects one.

[@DarthNash6]

This video made me subscribe. Very informative, thanks for this!

[@CDolph296]

I've had something like this come up: Opponent summons Aleister, activates effect. I let it go, opponent looks through deck and says they just realized they have no more copies of invocation in deck. In my opinion, this is a big issue because if I had a hand trap to negate, I would have definitely used in on the Aleister and the illegal play would have gone unnoticed. Would it be rule sharking to call a judge there?

[@gyro13]

I’ve been thinking a lot about this too. It should be the player’s responsibility to check the banish zone, graveyard, field and hand to see if there are any more copies of the card. If an opponent activates Aleister blindly, knowing there might not be any copies left in the deck, it should be considered cheating.

[@irismarin8613]

I don't believe it would be rule sharking there; your opponent activated an effect that could not legally activate, therefore they cheated

[@josevillegas721]

What's worse is that in that time he was "searching" he could've stacked his deck....

[@epicfreak7532]

Agree with the first comment... You can't just activate a card or effect if you can't resolve it properly. EVERYBODY needs to know how many copies of a card is in their decks. You will definitely get a warning for that. If it happens again, game loss. It is not that difficult to remember those few cards and ratios in a deck. Like you said, you could've activated something in response which he/she then would know about to play around properly afterwards. Definitely an illegal play which I cannot understand. Just play something else if you don't know your deck XD

[@erisesoteric7571]

@@epicfreak7532 While I agree that you should know every card in your Main Deck at all points, I do myself forget sometimes what I sided out games 2 and 3 and I would not expect someone in a tournament setting to always remember what exactly they sided out. Given the example with Aleister, if you play 3 Invocation it's not unreasonable to side 1 out going 2nd and by turn 3 having cycled enough cards and played enough Yu-Gi-Oh! that you've basically forgotten your side plan for the game. Yes, even then this is a terrible thing to happen, I agree, but after siding penalizing players for not remembering all the ratios seems harsh. Easier way to resolve this would be to revert back to the MR1 ruling on searching effects (these effects can be activated without legal targets which will resolve in the deck being shuffled). This would have downsides, but you wouldn't need to penalize plays like this if they were legal.

[@josephnicholls5018]

@11:16 history repeats itself with the recent drama with the guy moving his spell out of an imperm column lol

[@TheVidens45]

Can you tell us a bit about sharking with Time Rule? For example counting seconds, telling your opponent to hurry because you felt like he took way too much time, or things like that. That's the point I am the most interested in because of how current Time Rule works and how many people abuse of it.

[@smac0010]

I remember when i was judging for a bushi tournament, in top cut a player accused me of favoring his opponent for allowing him to take back a card and not allowing him to. in the case of his opponent his hand never left the card while the accuser just dropped the card (Intentionally) onto his field. he ended up calling the head judge over after another judge came over to confirm my ruling only to waste his time with the words i had repeated several times "if your had leaves the card it is considered in play and you will not be allowed to take it back"

[@BCmockingb1rd]

Please keep up the frequent vids coder, this is good man !

[@iSearchYoutube]

That thumbnail looks amazing

[@SnapBackGod69]

but what if my opp uses network and sends calling from deck as cost if i rip the calling in half well it resolve with or without effect?

[@darklightmotion5534]

its now a clearly marked card. Its illegal to play, so you win

[@8480108]

Depends which way it was ripped

[@italulu]

Ngl, I clicked on this video thinking "Oh cool, DistantCoder did a shark deck overview" but I was entertained nonetheless

[@brickgamingygo]

Rule sharking sucks, but as long as ur confident and know what your doing u should be fine and if ur opponent attempts to shark multiple times ur best bet is to make a judge call

[@VanillaScoopYGO]

YEP Sharks YEP Mica

[@BigBahss]

Okay, but what if you're searching your deck an accidentally drop a legal target onto the table?

[@RNGHater]

Had one person that got mad, then RQ on me after I said that I didn't resolve Sucker's draw effect and just drew a card to not misrepresent gamestate. I thought he was actually gonna call a judge and try to shark me. JFC.

[@Mecra-qw9sy]

Can you do a video on timing effects please?

[@immunok948]

Also, is absuing the "verbal overrules physical" to an extent where you say completely different things from what you are physically doing, whenever that's possible, and always legal, just to add confusion considered cheating or abusing the rules or something ?

[@saishobtw]

if you are doing it on purpose then yes

[@orcustplaya8830]

what if u accedently click end turn online then ure opponent is forcing u to end turn

[@crimsonrowlet]

i needed to learn this because there is a person in my locals like this

[@summermermaidstar756]

on the search example, if my opponent accidentally puts two cards on the table (like they were right next to each other and somehow both got on the table with 1 physical action), which card is considered to be the searched card provided the two cards are legal search targets. Example if they played rota and the two cards are twistcobra and a marauding captain

[@DigiTism]

I’m really confused about what happens when you target a card that can’t be targeted, because in Master Duel it simply fizzles and there’s no prompt that “you have to select a card that can be targeted”. Wouldn’t it fizzle in person as well?

[@YGOPD]

Definitely going to make Ra Yellow after this lol

[@peoxfeff1444]

Bahamut Shark wants to know your location.

[@Yusei1Fudo]

Hey, so something I sometimes do is pull all the legal targets for a search from my deck. If I place them facedown on the table, I'm forced to add one of them, even though I haven't pulled all the legal targets?

[@stefanfaro852]

A good guide line to know when to call a judge!

[@SoraNeku]

the real question is. "Is judge turbo sharking?"

[@BlazingGear]

Around 2:30 about the example you used with Terraforming, what if say my opponent played a foreign version of the card that I also use in my decklist, but at the moment it is not visible because it's not in my hands/field/GY/banish pile, and I genuinely forget or is unsure if that card's effect is worded as what my opponent described. Am I allow to call a judge if my opponent didn't have a translation? And would the judge give me a warning or anything because I'm suppose to know the inside out of all my cards?

[@ryanspooner5438]

Thanks for this. It helps a lot. How about this? Altergeist protocal is active. I summon faker and use it's effect to summon from deck. They discard ash. Do they get to take the ash back aecause you couldn't have negated it in the first pkace or is that a misplay they are commited to?

[@ryanspooner5438]

@@gregoryford2532 Dang it! I was so hoping they burn it... lol. Oh well. Thank you. So follow up question. same scenario, but they try to use droplets. Can they droplet it since the attack is halved? Or do they get it back because of the word also?

[@RiverbrookTsodmi]

Ah the time when you got to asked by opponent who played the "Frozen Soul": 'So, do you end your turn?' Which results to end the turn and them just drawing, giving the turn and them going, 'battle? yep, you are on your main phase 2 now.'

[@masanetthomas8586]

I am late to the party but I feel, even though this video is really helpful to be able to distinguish what is legal or not in a tournament, I think there should be an extra distinction for call that are legals but that are absolutely obnoxious and anti fair play. I feel if an opponent tested your responses to one of his plays you can't let him take back. But sometimes it is clear the other guy realises his mistakes as soon as he does it (like attacking a monster with an attack boost without realising the boost) and tries to take it back, it should be in the spirit of the game to let him take back. I understand there are some stakes in big tournaments but we are still playing a card game and being fair play in those kind of situations should be what we, as a community, tend to. Especially when we are playing against a visibly disoriented/new player. As always there is the law and the sense of the law. If your opponent action could be a malicious attempt at cheating or come from a lack of calculations sure shark. But if not, don't be that guy.

[@deproissant]

Say my opponent's face-down Infinite Impermanence resolves, and one of my Spell/Trap Zone is negated. Can I ask my opponent for a confirmation on which zone did he place Imperm in, several plays down the line after Imperm resolved? Or can I mark the negated zone, with a dice or a token or a coin, to keep track that that zone is currently negated?

[@mcrepresentative4232]

I need an answer to this too... been losing brain cells over this for far too long

[@ByzanQueen]

Speaking as a judge myself, I don't exactly have the ruling on marking the zone but I'd rule you're absolutely allowed to double check with your opponent as far as which s/t zone they negated via the effect of Imperm. That sort of thing falls into public knowledge, and god knows how many misplays could be solved if more people slowed down to check that.

[@BlazingGear]

You are allowed to ask your opponent as that is public knowledge and he must answer you, for that turn only. You cannot use marking or any method to keep track of the cards or effects. That means you cannot do thing such as placing a dice on a continuous spell card after it have used its OPT effect, or on a monster like Salamangreat Sunlight Wolf to indicate whether it was reincarnated or not. Detail about marking can be viewed in the official tournament policy.

[@eyal28282]

Can you ask for a translation for Endymion while you play it, because it has infinite text?

[@nictay6180]

Ok just looking for an answer, with the new Sacred Beast cards if I activate opening of the spirit gates and I have no cards in graveyard (or any valid "target" , even though it doesnt target) to summon off of the discard and revive effect, I CANNOT discard dark summoning beast to then summon it back? A friend of mine swore that he could do that and our local judge ruled in his favor. I thought you at least had to have a valid monster in the grave to revive the discarded card (in this case dark summoning beast).

[@skittezraine]

That is correct you cannot activate a card effect that summons in grave without a target already there. It’s the same as Lumina for lightsworn, even though you can discard a lightsworn thereby creating a target, you cannot activate an effect without a legal target to begin with

[@nictay6180]

@@skittezraine thank you!

[@wolfie-_-ranger7932]

Legends Spoke of a shark so devious, he existed while sharking and Coder stream was in the same sentence... His name... was MICA.

[@johnapostolides4171]

This will probably never get seen but, how about with a card like metaverse. The opponent activates metaverse, then adds the field spell to their hand. Immediately after adding it to their hand, they activate it. Is it sharking to tell your opponent "no, you added it to your hand already", considering metaverse says you can activate it OR add it to your hand? My thought is, what is the point of the text being written that way if it is not allowed to be upheld? This may be a silly one. Also, when this is happening on something like duelingbook, how do you determine a misplay vs a misclick for this particular case? Similar, but not the same, as using imperm on dueling book. Someone will activate a spell card in a column that imperm was activated in, then as soon as they realize it, they will claim it was a misclick. At what point does this become sharking if at all?

[@Yugiohdeckmaster41]

so example of a mandatory effect be, i special summon traptrix myermelo and activate its mandatory effect (but my opponent has no spell or traps) her effect would still activate but resolve with no effect, (triggering say sera effect if she was on the field and their was a legal trap hole target in deck) ?

[@irismarin8613]

I believe if there are no legal targets for an effect that targets, the effect does not activate even if it's mandatory

[@aureliengoulley5711]

What about forgotten mandatory effects that leads to mandatory or not effect : - Miscell... special a baby, forgot to pop baby on end phase. According to what you say, baby will pop even tho it was forgotten but will baby mandatory trigger also activate ? - Lunalight Tiger special Lunalight Yellow Marten, forgot to pop Marten on end phase. According to what you say, Marten will pop, will the LL player be allowed to activate Marten optionnal trigger effect ?

[@federicoconnestari1647]

Every time a mandatory effect is missed you rewind to when the mandatory effect should trigger, for exapmle if you forget to pop baby in end with misc and i make plays during my turn, you will have to go back to your end phase and resolve misc popping baby, at which point, baby could trigger

[@mmooggoomm]

Happy 10K subs!

[@iplayyugioh2420]

coder finally uploading. kinda nice bro.

[@skynchickens300]

Go to 2:54 , look at the middle, now rotate your head to the right, and read the chat. You better do it.

[@holynacho17]

So Rota comes back to my hand if i activated it with 0 warriors in my deck. But my question is: What's with one for one? Let's say i sent a monster with a quickeffect to the gy, i chained the monster' eff to the one for one, resolved it and then i realize: oh w8... i don't have any lvl 1s in my deck. (excluding the case that my quickeffect did something with a lvl1 in my deck that was there the time i activated one for one). So the main question here is: When is an action considered as "no longer repairable"? I mean: i assume, that if i just dumped a card without a quickeff and nothing was chained to my one for one, i can just take the one for one and the other card back to my hand.But I am very often confused by the word "repairable" mistake...

[@1448717]

can i leave a ruling question here? if me and my oponent controls 1 monster and i have mystic mine, in my end phase, when mystic mine triggers to self destroy and i use widow anchor as chain link 2 to steal his monster, does mine still destroy itself?

[@mohammedhussain6749]

10:35. But isn’t it since gazelle’s effect is an if or not you can activate any time after the activation requirements were met this turn.

[@timaeus22222]

No, because it only summons itself from hand (on the next chain link) if it meets the specific trigger condition of a Salamangreat going to the GY, so if you forgot to activate it on the very next chain link when you meant to do so, you cannot try to activate it late, and you must then wait until you meet those conditions again in a different moment in that turn.

[@mohammedhussain6749]

timaeus22222 so it go normal summon spinny then link summon bale lynx then gazelle effect then bake lynx effect not summon bale lynx then bake lynx effect search and activate field spell then gazelle effect.

[@timaeus22222]

@@mohammedhussain6749 No, it goes Normal Summon Spinny, Link summon Balelynx, forget to summon Gazelle, and you missed your chance until you reincarnate Link Summon using Sanctuary later on in the turn. The play you had suggested was an illegal play because you activated Sanctuary in a chain link too far separated from when a Salamangreat hit the GY.

[@mohammedhussain6749]

So balelynx and gazelle would be summoned simultaneously

[@matthewcolosi7606]

"If" effects are still trigger effects. They must be actives in the next chain after their trigger is met, or they cannot activate. The difference between "if" and "when" is that "if" effects can activate if their trigger was met at any point in the previous chain, while "when" effects can only activate if their trigger was the very last action to happen in the previous chain.

[@dkouyou]

What happens if someone declares verbally that he is normal summoning X card, but puts and let go on the board Y card? Since you stopped touching the card you shouldn't be able to take it back, but verbal actions should be prioritized. What should happen in this case?

[@underkitten]

I'm not an expert but verbal takes priority, therefore you can say they should take that back and summon X if they can.

[@kinghext9357]

I was at a regionals playing against sky striker. I was playing blind second crusadia pre guardragons. I kaijued the shizu then proceeded to do rescue cat combo. During the combo I said "link into Nat beast" I was told I had to link summon. This was about a year before saying the phrase link summon committed me to a link summon. My question is with the current policy guide would I have to link or could I synchro into Nat beast because I called it by name?

[@motxmod]

In regards to your last example of not sharking, when I search my deck, I tend to have the potential targets I'm thinking over stick out of the deck while I'm physically looking in my deck. The cards in question are still between other cards of the deck and the deck is still in my hands. Am I now obligated to take the first card I do this to?

[@David_Here]

Yo this was a great video for me since I'm super new to the game... Tho I have to say I'm alittle disappointed. I wanted a shark deck profile xD

[@cbrycem]

Honestly was thinking the same thing!!!!

[@aureliengoulley5711]

Is it shark if eldlich target an invalid target since the cost isn't only targetting ? Can they take back their eldlich + S/T ?

[@werzottel601]

Can you please share this document?

[@smileywater]

Is calling judge if your opponent doesn’t let your opponent cut after searching before they draw rulesharking?

[@underkitten]

No, as giving your oponent option to cut is mandatory to prevent people who can shuffle manipulate.

[@smileywater]

Cold Shiver So is that game loss? 🥶

[@underkitten]

@@smileywater are you talking about if they don't offer (as you are meant to offer) or actually refusing to let the opponent shuffle if they ask? If its the former yes, you will get disqualified if you wont let your opponent cut if they want

[@smileywater]

Cold Shiver No, if you forget to let your opponent cut after searching and draw. Your opponent also didn’t ask to cut. Is that a game loss for the searcher? 🥶

[@underkitten]

@@smileywater take what I say with a pinch of salt, as I dont play big tournaments etc, but I believe this is down to judge. However, if you call judge and tell judge to punish someone for it, you can get penalty for rule sharking. If someone does it, you call judge and just inform them of the issue and see what they say.

[@mrcleung]

If your opponent uses "into the void" but forgets to discard his hand during the end phrase, then they drew for their next draw phrase. Can you call the judge over as your opponent created a irreparable gamestate, and would that be considered as sharking?

[@irismarin8613]

I think you not only can but should call the judge for that

[@CC_Th1rst]

One situation I had to deal with: I was about to win in game 3. The opponent had no clue how to play their own deck properly and I out-resourced them. Then somebody from two tables away(playing the exact same deck build), LEANED OVER BOTH tables and said “Why didn’t you do {this}?” The opponent then realizes what the ‘coach’ was talking about and then immediately “I’d like to do {this}. I have a response.” The “judge” sitting right next to me face-palms himself and just says “It’s accepted game-state.” Not the head judge, mind you. I then lost because of the outside influence and the advantage gained from it. Was there anything I could have done in this situation? Is there anything in the Tournament Policy Document that directly refers to coaching, or would I have been at risk for “sharking”?

[@DistantCoder]

That was 100% coaching. If the judge said "accepted gamestate" then A the judge hasn't read policy documents and B the judge doesn't know what an accepted gamestate is. You should have appealed to the Head Judge as Coaching is not allowed in official tournaments.

[@CC_Th1rst]

DistantCoder - thanks. I’ll keep that in mind going forward in the future

[@Honesty90Percent]

9:40 I'm a lil confused if he's saying you are or are not committed to the summon. For example: If someone overlays 2 monsters, do they legally have to xyz summon?

[@irismarin8613]

If they have overlaid the monsters onto each other and then taken their hand off the overlaid group of cards, the taking their hand off the cards is commitment to an Xyz summon

[@ntneaton2857]

how is accidentally saying a monsters name instead of a different one forcing the other one fair in anyway?

[@cutecombo8496]

A question for your next rulings video. What happens if I use lightning storm on my opponent who has mystic mine up that's protected by field barrier? What are the rulings to do with simultaneous destruction/cards being protected like this?

[@zdahmed4504]

It destroys everything except the field spell

[@richard8670]

I thought its only illegal to bring back the cards from gy if you actually declare a summon verbally i.e "link 2/link summon/link", because otherwise youre just sending them to gy for seemingly no reason. If you just pick up two cards on the field, send them to the gy and say nothing, It could be literally anything right?

[@mohammedhussain6749]

What if I purposely misuse a card to get the card to the graveyard. Can I still send it to graveyard or can my opponent say “no, put it back where it was, not in the graveyard”.

[@matthewcolosi7606]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Coder specifically said that illegally activated cards do NOT go to the GY. Try to make an opponent send a card to the GY because it was activated illegally is the prime example of Rules Sharking.

[@whales312]

I think Cody angeloff should’ve been the thumbnail for this pic 😂

[@finnianfanning3136]

Can you ask to back a play at all? Like, can your opponent call a judge if you do?

[@chasefox6200]

So a problem i've had frequently and been called a shark for is say for example i have 2 monsters on the field and 1 can't be destroyed by card effect. my opponent activates conquistador of the golden land while controlling eldlich the golden lord. If he attempts to destroy the monster that cannot be destroyed by card effect is he allowed to try to destroy the other monster once he realizes he can't destroy the first one?

[@matthewcolosi7606]

I actually had this same question I asked in the DB judge server the other day. No they are not allowed to select a new monster once they declare which one they intend to destroy, even if it cannot be destroyed by card effects. The only time this is allowed is if they target a card that cannot be targeted by card effects, but in the specific example of Conquistador, this does not apply since it does not target

[@_bsmooth]

My experience on sharking was that i, a salamangreat player, had performed a link summon with spiny and jack jaguar into update jammer, after which i used sunlight wolf and jammer to link into transcode talker, then i used transcode talker effect to revive my update jammer to finally link into accesscode talker. I used accesscode’s effect to gain 3k additional attack and attacked directly once, then i go for my second attack and my opponent said it’s illegal and that i should not get the second attack and even resorted to calling a judge after i explained the effect of update jammer. Now i know you should declare update jammer’s effect but it is a mandatory effect and the monster you link into using him as material will be allowed to attack twice my opponent really tried to shark me into forfeiting the game

[@BlazingGear]

Your opponent is not sharking you. You should read more carefully of Update Jammer's effect. Update Jammer's 2nd effect is an optional trigger effect, it is not mandatory (its effect said "If this card is sent to the GY as Link Material: That Link Monster 'CAN' make a second attack during each Battle Phase this turn."). Therefore if you did not or forgot to declare that you would activate Update Jammer's effect when it was sent to the GY as link material for Accesscode Talker, your Accesscode Talker indeed cannot make a second attack like your opponent said.

[@_bsmooth]

BlazingGear it’s still applied even if the player doesn’t declare it because update jammer reads “if this card is sent as link material: that link monster can make a second Attk during each battle phase this turn” it’s not the same as if the card said “you can make your monster attack twice”

[@_bsmooth]

BlazingGear so yea I’m sorry bud it doesn’t have to be declared but if the person doesn’t declare they can get a game warning

[@BlazingGear]

@@_bsmooth While its wording used "that Link Monster can..." instead of the usual "you can..." phrase, I assure you that this is an optional trigger effect. A mandatory trigger effect has to be placed in the chain before optional trigger effect. If you have ever tried making Accesscode Talker with Jammer in ygopro, you will realize that you can actually place Jammer's effect as chain link 2 or simply choose not to activate it, which would not be possible if it was a mandatory trigger effect. You can ask a judge if the ygopro example still doesn't convince you, but I'm sure you will not hear the answer you want from them. Good luck.

[@jaydenyuki3431]

BlazingGear ur wrong, update jammer doesn’t need to be declared, the can you are referring to is the option to attack not the option to gain the second attack,.

[@fukkendermohammed]

Yo coder. Where can I check all the more intricate rulings that aren't written out in the regular rulebook? Like for example _when exactly_ you have to activate summon negation effects, how open and closed game states function in detail and so on. I'm trying to brush up on my skills because I want to actually win my locals for once and because I play with people in private who themselves dont go to locals, so I want to be able to point them somewhere when I correct them on an illegal play and they ask me were its written

[@DistantCoder]

Sounds like you're looking for the fast effects timing chart. www.yugioh-card.com/en/gameplay/fasteffects_timing.html

[@crusadiaduelist4950]

sometimes i declere a link 3 and then summon a link 4, must i commit to a link 3?

[@crusadiaduelist4950]

@NOGA it's a habbit of mine that i do unintentioly, and that didn't answer the question,

[@galaxy-eyesknight4056]

My friend got called out for sharking because his opponent called judge after his opponent activated widow anchor on one of the noble knights that’s treated as a normal monster when not equipped with a noble arms card and my friend told him his hayate is the only legal target for widow anchor. Judge ruled in favor to my friend.

[@neilpacheco622]

Is it rule sharking to call slow play on someone who looks through their deck several times trying to decide on their ROTA target? Shouldn't they know their target before activating ROTA?

[@joey-js9pr]

is coder actually a youtuber now? :)

[@sadier3536]

yesterday someone summoned 1 linkross token and one o-lion token, leftmost he puts the linkross token, rightmost he puts the olion token, he then uses the linkross token and linkross to summon a link 2, then i tell him, bro thats the linkross token remember? then hes like, Are you seriously going to shark right now and left.

[@siakattack660]

Now I can shark all my friends at YCS library :D

[@yugimonmaster1018]

Let's say I activate a desires in a zone that imperm was used in, if I kept my fingers on that pot could I move it legally?

[@matthewcolosi7606]

I think this gets left up to the reasonability test. For example, if you activate it, and specifically wait for them to declare a response (or in this case tell you that it's negated by imperm) you can't take it back or move it just because you left your fingers on it. If you move it before asking for a response or having your opponent verify the action in any way, then I would assume that's ok. I am not a judge though, so take this answer with a grain of salt

[@yugimonmaster1018]

@@matthewcolosi7606 thank you

[@supersentaifan26]

Seeing how you would rule this. Player A (turn player) Link summons saryuja with 4 materials. Draws 4 puts 3 back and afterwords *shuffles* the deck. Player B catches this action calls a judge. How would you rule?

[@anthonymorales4433]

Wouldnt that be a game loss to player B for creating a irreparable gamestate?

[@anthonymorales4433]

Player A*

[@supersentaifan26]

@@anthonymorales4433 I thought so too but no he gets a pe minor and I get a uc minor

[@12thLevelSithLord]

@@supersentaifan26 Wait, you caught the illegal action your opponent took and reported it immediately. Why do you get an infraction?

[@Pixelfighters100]

Just one ruling Question: Can you Explain the Interaction with Mechaba and Eldlich? A Judge at my Locals stated that Eldlich doesnt get banned, eventho Mechaba negated ist effect

[@jaydenyuki3431]

Ewga it goes to gy because mechaba negates the card in hand and since it’s negates it’ goes to gy as a card would normally do if negated from hand, then once in gy it would be banished but yugioh rules state it’s considered a different card when in gy and therefore not banished.

[@abneysnova1178]

Idk why I was thinking this would be a shark deck profile. 🤣🤣🤣

[@tsukuyomi2055]

I forgot to mill at the end phase with my lightsworn monster and my opponent got all pissy about it

[@danthomson5708]

Hi Coder, if my opponent has magical midbreaker on the field and activate halqifibrax and I ghost ogre would ghost ogre still go to grave as midbreaker as the activation was legal but the halqifibrax can't be destroyed?

[@danthomson5708]

@Casswury ghost ogre does not target, it attempts to destroy but magical mid-breaker prevents destruction

[@immunok948]

Not allowing to a play to be taken back, like a normal summon that was a bad play may not be rule sharking per official rules definition, but I will 100% consider the person to be a big sharky boi.

[@jsd4574]

With respect to the last two 'not sharking' points, what if they place one card on the table whilst verbally declaring that they're searching a different card?

[@Kaylersick]

i thought this was going to be a shark deck profile.

[@GleamingGarmore]

Ive been told that if you allow your opponent to take a play back, that is legal. Is that true?

[@valiant5714]

What happens if i set a trap card on the field (physically) and say "End Phase" as i want to end my turn, at the same time or with slight delay. Can my opp. force me to pick up the trap card?

[@irismarin8613]

Verbal declaration comes before physical action, so unless there was a mandatory action in your main phase 2 your opponent can force you to pick up the card

[@thekilla1234]

​@@irismarin8613 If this is true then this is an incredibly shit ruling. Placing the trap and declaring end phase are 2 actions that have literally nothing in common and there is no way to interpret it as anything other than "I want to place this trap and end my turn". The verbal/physical thing clearly exists to disambiguate plays, but nothing about that is ambiguous. Attacking with one monster and naming a different monster is an ambiguous play since the verbal and physical actions are interchangeable.

[@Max_Haus]

I thought this was a shark combo guide

[@greggoso600]

omg the flares on the eyes in the thumbnail that go in different directions, my ocd is so triggered

[@ShoXwavee]

This was a good yugioh class lecture

[@pamoon_]

I thought this would be about how to play a Fish deck. I just bought one and regret it since Nimble Manta is a WHEN effect instead of an IF, so Nimble Manta + Mask Change II won’t summon Acid and 2 other Nimble Mantas :(

[@Retro_Gaming]

I won a dice roll to go first, the guy said he rolled higher. I called judge, and they made us re-roll and he won the dice roll.

[@lorenzo7247]

Came for the shark deck profile. Feels bad man (good video anyways ;) )

[@AdduhMM]

Please do the accepted game state

[@herbertcharlesbrown1949]

Opponent plays German Eldlich the Golden Lord, you call the judge for a translation because you are playing an Italian Lord in your own deck xD

[@Steele47]

I like this videos but i was thinking, Why not make "intermediate" guidelines like the lesser explained mechanics like memory loss when your monster is put face down or banished (not when temporarilly), lingering effects, etc.