Just a post about a ruling.
Just food for thought.
If I correct you on your ruling,why do you argue your ruling then before I even get to respond you just accept my correciton on your ruling by saying "but ok"
Thats getting corrected then arguing then automatically admitting your wrong like I dont get it.
anyways I dueled this guy who was playing zombies. Right off the bat he had my respect because no one ever really plays zombies.but he didnt know his book of life ruling. Which I thought was pretty self explanatory.
What had happened was he used book of life to try to revive his Mezuki but I had no monsters in my grave for him to remove.
His immediate argument was that it still goes,he just doesn't remove.
instead of arguing with him further I went out and got a link. Now I could've got a link to a forum,could've got admin but i ended up sticking with a yugioh wikia link.
The link to yugioh wikia...THE FIRST RULING THERE STATES:
You cannot activate "Book of Life" if there are (1) no monsters in your opponent's Graveyard and/or (2) noZombie-Type monster in your Graveyard.[1]
so at that point it's pretty much self explanatory....
The thing that I'm finding so difficult about players lately is,they dont do their research on rulings all they do is read and feel however they
understand it is the way it actually works.
No comments:
Post a Comment