Jump to content

Photo

OCG/PSCT Thread: Writing your card properly!

* * * * * 5 votes OCG PSCT Official Card Grammar Problem Solving Card Text

  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#101
Zaziuma

Zaziuma

    Winter is Coming

  • Overwatch Addict
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,957 posts

Let's say I have a monster with this effect:

  • If your opponent Summons a monster(s): That monster(s) has its effects negated, also they lose ATK and DEF equal to their own Level/Rank x 600.

I choose to activate the effect.

What if I activate the effect, and as a result, the ATK and DEF of one of my opponent's monsters becomes negative?  Is it treated as zero, or a negative number?  I need clarification.

ATK and DEF cannot become lower than 0, if they would become a negative number they just become 0 instead.



#102
777c

777c

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

I have trouble writing this effect:

  • This card can attack twice during each Battle Phase.

Is this the correct way to state that a monster can attack two times in one Battle Phase, in terms of OCG/PSCT?

How would I rewrite this effect to say that the monster can attack three times in one Battle Phase?



#103
Zaziuma

Zaziuma

    Winter is Coming

  • Overwatch Addict
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,957 posts

I have trouble writing this effect:

  • This card can attack twice during each Battle Phase.

Is this the correct way to state that a monster can attack two times in one Battle Phase, in terms of OCG/PSCT?

How would I rewrite this effect to say that the monster can attack three times in one Battle Phase?

It would be more accurate to say "This card can make a second attack during each Battle Phase."

 

For the other question, you would say "This card can make 3 attacks during each Battle Phase."



#104
777c

777c

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

I have trouble writing this effect:

  • Destroy all Set monsters your opponent controls, and if you do, your opponent loses 700 LP for each.

Is this correct OCG/PSCT?



#105
Zaziuma

Zaziuma

    Winter is Coming

  • Overwatch Addict
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,957 posts

I have trouble writing this effect:

  • Destroy all Set monsters your opponent controls, and if you do, your opponent loses 700 LP for each.

Is this correct OCG/PSCT?

You want to say "inflict 700 damage to your opponent for each" instead, losing LP is only used when talking about yourself. Also, I would say "for each card destroyed", though I have seen some cards that omit that too, I just prefer it since it makes it a bit clearer.



#106
777c

777c

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

I have trouble wording this effect:

  • Declare a number from 1 to 10; this card gains ATK and DEF equal to the declared number x 900 until the end of this turn.

This is an effect for my archetype "Lurker".  What it does is that the player declares a number from 1 to 10 inclusive, and the card gains ATK and DEF equal to the declared number x some other number until the end of this turn.



#107
Azuriena

Azuriena

    Justapony

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

I have trouble writing this effect:

  • Destroy all Set monsters your opponent controls, and if you do, your opponent loses 700 LP for each.
Is this correct OCG/PSCT?

 

 
When you have an effect that attempts to apply to all cards in a given place and it's followed by "and if you do" or "then", you say "as many [cards] as possible" instead of "all [cards]". This clarifies that you don't have to have destroyed all Set monsters your opponent controls to proceed beyond "and if you do" because some might be unable to be destroyed by card effects. That is, you apply what's functionally identical to "destroy all Set monsters your opponent controls," but proceed beyond "and if you do" even if not every monster it could've affected was destroyed.
 
So in this case it would be "Destroy as many Set monsters your opponent controls as possible."
 

You want to say "inflict 700 damage to your opponent for each" instead, losing LP is only used when talking about yourself. Also, I would say "for each card destroyed", though I have seen some cards that omit that too, I just prefer it since it makes it a bit clearer.

 
Losing LP isn't restricted mechanically or conventionally restricted to something you can only do to yourself. See Contract with Don Thousand.
 
Regardless you should still generally have card effects inflict damage to your opponent instead of making them lose LP. Only have them lose LP instead of taking damage if there's a reason to.
 
I don't know whether Lurkers do or not, but there's too much we don't know about them for me to make a comment on a thread like this. (What's the significance of declaring a number for the ATK-gaining effect below if it's, from what we know, almost always better to declare the highest number, for instance?)
 

I have trouble wording this effect:

  • Declare a number from 1 to 10; this card gains ATK and DEF equal to the declared number x 900 until the end of this turn.
This is an effect for my archetype "Lurker".  What it does is that the player declares a number from 1 to 10 inclusive, and the card gains ATK and DEF equal to the declared number x some other number until the end of this turn.

 

 
It's fine.



#108
777c

777c

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

I have trouble wording the following.  It's a variable effect.

Declare a number from 1 to 10; this card gains ATK and DEF equal to the declared number x 900 until the end of this turn. Apply one of the following, depending on the declared number:

  • 4 - Destroy as many Set monsters your opponent controls, and if you do, inflict 400 damage to your opponent for each card destroyed.
  • 10 - Your opponent must discard their entire hand. Inflict 700 damage to your opponent for each card discarded.


#109
Zaziuma

Zaziuma

    Winter is Coming

  • Overwatch Addict
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,957 posts

 Losing LP isn't restricted mechanically or conventionally restricted to something you can only do to yourself. See Contract with Don Thousand.
 
Regardless you should still generally have card effects inflict damage to your opponent instead of making them lose LP. Only have them lose LP instead of taking damage if there's a reason to.

I did remember an exception, but couldn't find it, the reason being that both players lose LP here, you can't say that you inflict damage to yourself, so the opponent would lose it too. Really, you shouldn't be toying around with that as a concept IMO, it's already complicated enough to deal with taking damage and losing it yourself, let's not throw the opponent into the mix.



#110
Azuriena

Azuriena

    Justapony

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

I did remember an exception, but couldn't find it, the reason being that both players lose LP here, you can't say that you inflict damage to yourself, so the opponent would lose it too.

 

You can inflict damage to yourself, although it's written as you taking damage, or in this case, each player taking damage.

 

Really, you shouldn't be toying around with that as a concept IMO, it's already complicated enough to deal with taking damage and losing it yourself, let's not throw the opponent into the mix.

 

Yes.

 

I don't condone it, but I'm not going to speak out against such an effect in a thread like this any more than I would an effect that says "Declare a number from 1 to 10; this card gains ATK and DEF equal to the declared number x 900 until the end of this turn."

 

(I'm not saying you shouldn't have. I'm just explaining why I didn't even though this is something I'm generally opposed to as well.)



#111
777c

777c

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

ATK and DEF cannot become lower than 0, if they would become a negative number they just become 0 instead.

Thanks.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users