Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:01, 29 March 2006

Latest revision as of 16:49, 10 April 2025

(259 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

Is this a good place to put in the official rules? An original piece, not copied from the Namco Official Rule Book?

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=

:Generally, no, as there is a tendency for them to grow over time, and they can never be complete. I would say that a basic definition of the card types, special terms unique to this [[collectible card game|game]], and turn structure would be about all you need. What we can't do is re-post the official rules using the exact wording. If you keep it high-level, you should be fine. I've re-organized the headings, so you can probably work on [[Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game#Game play|the ''Game play'' section]].

{{WikiProject Board and table games|importance=mid}}

:By the way, welcome to [[Wikipedia]], hope you'll decide to [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|create an account]]. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 14:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Anime and manga|importance=low|yugioh-work-group=yes|yugioh-importance=top}}

}}

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game/Archives/|format=Y/F|age=2160|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}

== Age range between OCG and TCG ==

==Suggested deletion==

I removed the link to the article, [[Starter Deck - Special Edition: Duel Master's Guide]]. Said article should be deleted, as none of the other starter/structure decks have (or need) an article. --[[User:TheRockBoS|TheRockBoS]] 11:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to keep that on the page. Cuz it shows the difference in how the demographic of the game is different between two different versions of the game. OCG is confirmed 12 and up as it says on the back of every pack: “対象年齢12才以上”

I don't know how to vote, but I agree that the article should be delete. We should not put "card list" with effect. Plus, the infos are copy and paste from somewhere else anyway.

(Translation: “Target age 12 years and older”)

[[User:Redbaronii|Baron]] 17:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Which implies the game is for at least early teens. We need to expand more on the OCG and TCG information. This page shouldn’t be just TCG. [[Special:Contributions/2601:589:4100:4B49:51BE:AA3E:20FE:D0AF|2601:589:4100:4B49:51BE:AA3E:20FE:D0AF]] ([[User talk:2601:589:4100:4B49:51BE:AA3E:20FE:D0AF|talk]]) 14:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

:Someone altered the age range of the OCG on here. I have evidence that it is 12 and up. 9 and up is only for Rush Duels. [[User:SG1994!|SG1994!]] ([[User talk:SG1994!|talk]]) 12:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

==Poor writing in some sections==

There has been a slew of people who use poor spelling and grammer when putting up new information; the terms/decks sections in particular. I've marked the article for cleanup until this is dealt with. --[[User:TheRockBoS|TheRockBoS]] 12:54, 08 March 2006

::SG1994!, in case you show up again after noticing I changed it to 9+ again, know that whatever evidence you have is 10 years out of date, because OCG product since the 2015 booster pack "Clash of Rebellions" has been labelled with 9+. [https://ms.yugipedia.com//d/da/ALIN-BoosterJP.png Here's a picture of the currently-latest pack with the age range clearly printed on the upper-right corner, as proof that it hasn't changed since.] --[[User:XBrain130|XBrain130]] ([[User talk:XBrain130|talk]]) 20:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's impossible to stop some 12-15 yos to put things on there that don't make any sense (And have absolutely no grammar). Not to mention, the "glossary" (Which I already clean up a little bit by listing them alphabetically) has some terms that're either non-worthy to be on there or is just redundant. --[[User:Ion475|Ion475]] 04:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Then edit it as “12 and up” from 1999 -2015

:::and “9 and up” 2015 and onwards. That way people can see how it was changed. It’s only fair as the game since 1999 and onwards was advertised for 12 and older [[User:SG1994!|SG1994!]] ([[User talk:SG1994!|talk]]) 04:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

== Problems with people posting completely unconfirmed information / Japanese sets information ==

:::I’ve already discussed with you on how we can make this compromise work. 12 and up for 1999-2015 and then 9 and up for 2015 and onwards. Both can be applied here. But you have to be willing to accept that because there’s no reason to keep it at just nine and up. Because that would be lying to people and assuming that it’s always been the case when it clearly has not. [[User:SG1994!|SG1994!]] ([[User talk:SG1994!|talk]]) 00:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I just deleted the section for SD9 due to it being an absolutely NONCONFIRM information (No official info, all "information" are pure rumor, no source, etc.)

:::If you continue to ignore this, then you’re just gonna create an edit war. I’m trying to make this an easy thing for everyone. [[User:SG1994!|SG1994!]] ([[User talk:SG1994!|talk]]) 00:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::...are you for real? You cannot say "there’s no reason to keep it at just nine and up. Because that would be lying to people and assuming that it’s always been the case when it clearly has not" and then revert it to exactly as before. The reason is because that's how it is now, and and only saying how it was 10 years ago is an infinitely bigger lie! Do you not see how hypocritical that is??? I personally do not believe the past target age is relevant enough to mention, but if you really do then just add it yourself instead of reverting! You're the one who's making edit wars here. And what the hell do you mean by "provide proof"? I did above when I edited the first time! --[[User:XBrain130|XBrain130]] ([[User talk:XBrain130|talk]]) 15:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, I notice on 90% of the Japanese set that people are purely copying translation from various translation site (i.e. DMComet) and are not in "wiki format" at all - what exactly should be done to those?? --[[User:Ion475|Ion475]] 06:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::No, you didn’t, bro. You didn’t provide any sufficient evidence on your case you’re the one starting to edit war and throwing a temper tantrum so keep believing in your own delusions. [[User:SG1994!|SG1994!]] ([[User talk:SG1994!|talk]]) 07:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Already done. Now you can leave it alone. [[User:SG1994!|SG1994!]] ([[User talk:SG1994!|talk]]) 07:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

== How detailed should we go? ==

::::::No, you're the one throwing a tantrum just because I'm replacing outdated information, I'm just irritated that my factual correction is being unjustly rebunked and called a lie. To be clear, I wasn't ignoring you before, I just didn't think of checking the talk page again because I thought the matter was already resolved given that (1) I wasn't reverted at first, (2) it was an anon to do it, and (3) it's the freaking truth. I provided a picture of a pack saying 対象年齢9才以上, how is that not sufficient evidence? How is it a delusion in any way?? I saw your talk page, you've been blocked that many times for edit-warring over things exactly like this, and you still act that way? I'd say you're the one having some weird delusional obsession over demographics. [[User:XBrain130|XBrain130]] ([[User talk:XBrain130|talk]]) 12:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I added the further description of the Monster, Magic, and Trap cards, but just how far should we go? Should I also add in for instance the types of effect monsters or whatever? Seeing how above you said we shouldn't copy from the rulebook, how much detail can we have until it is considered copying from the rulebook?

== A parody ==

I just noticed that [[Champions of Kamigawa#Set history|this section from the Champions of Kamigawa ''Magic'' set article]] tells that the Yu-Gi-Oh! card game was based off a parody from ''[[Magic: The Gathering]]'' seen in the manga. Is that true? It doesn't sound very right to me. And if it is, I think the word "parody" wouldn't work well there, unless the intention of the author was really to make a parody out of that creation. Also, that same section says that a big objection was that the "Japanese setting has been 'done to death'", by games such as Yu-Gi. Not only that alone sounds weird to me, but also... I never thought that genre was overdone. What ''is'' overdone, specially in ''Magic'', are European themes. Norse and Greek mythology. "European fantasy", if I might say that. Until some time ago, that is all ''Magic'' was ever based on, with the exception of stuff like that [[Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering)|Arabian Nights expansion]]. As for Yu-Gi-Oh, I never saw many monsters themed after the Japanese folklore. There are some cards like that, but not enough to make things "done to death". Even less in Pokémon.

Looks like this post is more of a rant than a remark about something from an article, but any opinions on this would be appreciated. Thank you.--[[User:Mackeriv|Kaonashi]] 04:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I think Magic & Wizards was the neame of the game that Yuugi and Seto originally played in the Manga. The rules were a simplified version of [[Magic: the Gathering|M:tG]], but the themes were different.<br>

Also, the rules released in Japan with the [[Starter Box]] were effectively a simplified version of M:tG --[[User:BBM|BBM]] 22:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

*According to Kazuki, the name '''Magic & Wizard''' DOES come from [[Magic: the Gathering]] (I think this is stated on [[Yu-Gi-Oh]] page) --[[User:129.116.25.159|129.116.25.159]] 02:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

''Also, the rules released in Japan with the [[Starter Box]] were effectively a simplified version of M:tG'' <br>

*Is there any information on these rules? A translated version, perhaps? Or is it just referring to the similarities between Duel Monsters and M:tG?

== Magic/Spell Lawsuit ==

Should this page mention in the section under Spell Cards the fact that they were called Magic cards until Wizards threatened to use legal action against Konami? I don't think I've seen it anywhere else on Wikipedia, or anything... a link to it would be appropriate.

Yes, of course. Any prove? [[User:Riddle|Riddle]] | [[User talk:Riddle|Talk]] 01:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This so-called lawsuit is merely a myth; there is not sufficient evidence to prove there was ever a lawsuit, or even a threat of one by Wizards of the Coast. [[User:Kenjiblade|Kenjiblade]] 24:10, 9 November 2005

*Sorry for the late reply but. From what I remember on the website they said they changed it to Spells for story reasons and something else, but not sure what though. [[User:Greyhead|Greyhead]] 21:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

==Skull Servant==

I merged that article here, but arguably it belongs on [[Legend of Blue Eyes White Dragon]]. Please feel free to fix. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small>^Talk</small>]] 09:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

== Merging Volumes ==

[[User:Tabor]] suggested that [[Yu-Gi-Oh! card game volume 2|Volume 2]] be merged with the main Yu-Gi-Oh! Article. I don't think it's necessary (or a good idea), because ¹this article is already 36 KB, and ²if it were a good idea to merge Volume 2 into this article, then what's the reason not to merge all of the booster pack lists into this article? --[[User:BBM|BBM]] 23:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

== Secret Rare Promos update ==

''Promo Rare. This unofficial title is given to promotional cards. These cards look very similar to Secret Rares, but are not nearly as rare. However, recent promo cards have been printed in standard Ultra Rare and Super Rare style. Currently, the only promo cards printed in the old-style Secret Rare style are those available in the yearly promo tin sets, though how long they will continue to be printed in this style is unknown.''

Elemental Energy Special Edition contains Secret Rare cards, so I feel the need to update this quote. Someone check it out.

== Innovative Decks ==

what is the empty jar deck? It's mentioned a couple times but can't find any imformation on it. [[User:67.188.53.135|67.188.53.135]] 09:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

== Deck-bundled Official Rulebooks ==

I have a Version 2.0 Rulebook bundled with Starter Deck Yugi and a Version 5.0 Rulebook bundled with Structure Deck Warrior's Triumph. Was there a 1.0 English rulebook? The boxes both feature Konami promenently and so do most materials, though on the back of both boxes Upper Deck is mentioned. The 2.0 Rulebook says on the back that [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5,662,332 Pat 5,662,332] is used under license from Wizards of the Coast. It also uses Magic as the term for the cards. 5.0 uses Spells. In 2.0, while the phrase "Trading Card Game is used on the front and in the Foreward, throughout the rulebook the game is just referred to as Yu-Gi-Oh!, but in 5.0 the phrase "Trading Card Game" is used throughout. The mat included with SDY says "Magic", the mat included with SDWT says "Spell" [[User:Hackwrench|Hackwrench]] 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

*This reply might be a little late but here's a run down of the rule book versions. Version 1 was bundled with the first starter decks and version 2 was bundled in later printings of the first two decks. Version 3 was placed into the Joey and Pegasus decks but mostly just changed the pictures of cards in rule book and had Joey on the cover. Verion 4 was bundeled with the Evolution decks and mainly changed pictures again. Version 5 is the most current version that is bundled with all Structure Decks so far and has nobody on the cover. [[User:Greyhead|Greyhead]] 17:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

== AfD ==

[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! card lists]]

Just wanted to point out this proposal. Please make your voice be heard! I proposed putting it off, pending the AfD reform proposal outcome. [[User:Hackwrench|Hackwrench]] 21:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

== Article WAY too long?? ==

Well, it seems like, no matter what, the article is being WAY too long.--[[User:Ion475|Ion475]] 22:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

*Maybe we should put the cards sets on a seperate page? Including the decks. [[User:Greyhead|Greyhead]] 06:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

*I agree with Greyhead. This article is way too long, and the set list are the #1 problem. [[User:Redbaronii|Baron]] 03:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

::Well then may i add something.THIS ARTICLE TELLS NOTHING ON THE SPECIAL EDITIONS!Its possible we could make it into sections like [[2005 Atlantic hurricane season]].I'll create a Special Edition section.[[User:HurricaneCraze32|HurricaneCraze32]] 22:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

*I went ahead split the card sets onto the article [[Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets]] but it needs some work and I was wondering whether we should place the decks into the article? [[User:Greyhead|Greyhead]] 17:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

::We should rework the Set sub-page before adding the decks into the article. In addition, I feel that the countries should have separate page since it's a LONG list. [[User:Redbaronii|Baron]] 03:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

==Infobox Infos, Rules==

1. I have a question on the infobox...is this game REALLY 6 and up?

2. Should the "Game Play" section be shorten (not to put the whole rulebook on here)?

[[User:Redbaronii|Baron]] 03:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)