I think it's funny how many of the contestants refuse to answer it. This is a very easy question, literally the most basic of algebra equations.

@@Celestia282 yea, its a lot of text but its just target = GY - enemy controlled, so just find a monster whos level x1-6 matches and you are good to go. I think they get tripped up trying to walk the whole thing forwards all at once, so the flat modifier on the end makes them feel lost

actual factual on god no cap

coder doesn't watch mbt's twitter thread videos

MBT doesn’t either because it’s been brought up like 3 times and he ALWAYS FORGETS!

I came back to yugioh after à long hiatus in 2018, and i didn t understand why this card was good bc u need to pay life points... past me was so pure and innocent

Truly was the most Mandela effect banning in all of yugioh

Or Gage since he was the friend who Coder called

I am waiting on cimooo

Who would EVER accuse TheGaslightLogs of gaslighting someone??

On TCG Player Lady is more expensive now by a $1. But that change happened in the last week or two.

it's like 8-10€ difference in favour of welcome on cardmarket lol

Welcome is 20 UK pounds bigger than lady. Arianna is the one that is closest at almost the same

@@JoeH.. Right now on TCG Player Welcome is averaging $27.59 and Lady is at $28.86. Wonder what's causing such a discrepancy between NA and EU.

No intro because Coder was kinda rushing for his next collab.

Or Beautiful Headhuntress, which I'm pretty sure is at least $100 or something nuts like that.

Half of 0 is still 0(or a computational error), but its still halved, the act of halving has no requirement for quantity, though subtraction effects also don't require the full quantity to properly resolve either, just a value greater than zero The weirder things about Shrink are the way its worded gives it some weird corner case behavior with other stat modifiers, since its "Original ATK is halved"

​@@syrelian I know half of 0 is still 0, but that kind of thing is still considered as fizzling usually in yu-gi-oh. For instance, if there are no monsters on the field, destroying no monsters is still technically destroying all of them ("destroying all of something" does not really has a requirement for quantity either), but yu-gi-oh rulings will still consider that as if the effect did not work (for instance, if there is one monster on the field, you activate kaiju slumber, and your opponent chains to it a card that destroys the sole monster on the field, kaiju slumber will then fizzle and not allow you to summon the kaijus from the deck) Regarding what you said about the nuance of "original atk" I don't think it is *that* weird because, while it might be hard to predict without knowing rulings, it at least does actually make sense and becomes predictable once you know the rulings (and is akin to mtg layers)

@@pkinsect6618 "Destroy All" doesn't specify a quantity, but you still fail to Destroy if you have no targs, its not that you Destroyed 0 and 0 is a Number, its that the operation of Destruction never occurs successfully at all, the value of destructions is Null because it never occurred, but "Divide" works on 0, you can successfully perform the operation of Divide, because even though the result is meaningless, it does have a result

@@syrelian I get what you mean because that makes sense in natural language, but imo a card game should be as formal as possible (almost "mathematical" in a way) because that way it is easier to predict how the game will work once you know the basic rules. Doing a "manual" different case for 0 is deeply anti-mathematical, so to me destroying no monsters should absolutely be "destroying 0" Even computationally (since that's what you seem to try to compare it to), the easiest function you would think of to destroy all monsters on the field would be "for all monsters on the field : destroy it" which would absolutely return that it did its task succesfully if there are no monsters on the field. I don't really think it's possible to write an intuitive function that would "return null" as you say on an empty field without adding a specific clause for the case 0 (by that I also include "indirect" clauses, like adding a boolean that becomes true only if you actually enter the for). If you want the function to "return what it did", you would need a list for the case where there are several monsters, and this list will just be empty if you destroyed none, it's just like 0, it's meaningless but it's still a result In that sense, to me the only formal way to say that a card "did nothing" is to see that the field is the same before and after its resolution, and that way I don't really see how shrink on a monster with 0 atk would not fit into this category

I think this one was a bit more rushed since he did it for coders subathon

I'm not a judge but my interpretation is that resolves succesfully indeed does clear your field but not your oponent's. Like when you have a towers it doesn't get tributed but everything else does. Happened while playing @Ignister

@@yatakarasu98 That makes sense. Bummer. Fun fact: the original Towers is actually not immune to Nibiru. Apoqliphort Towers is unaffected by spells, traps, and all effects of monsters with a Level/Rank lower than its own Level, ten. Nibiru, however, is Level 11.

Ganz viele Effekte negiert.

He’s only been banned once. And it’s for a year (which is a standard amount of time to be banned).

@@jk844100 ok cool, i guess. but what did he do to deserve this?

@@dantemcedgelord9331 Konami didn’t say (they never do). But I suspect it’s because he called out DKayed for promoting cheating. DKayed made a video that promoted “legal cheating” by encouraging people to mislead their opponent on which effect of “fateful adventure” they’re activating. Coder made a video explaining why it’s against the rules to do what DKayed said but in the thumbnail coder put “cheater?!” Or something like that. So Konami banned him. You’re not allowed to call people out. You’re just supposed to report them to Konami. Realistically DKayed should have been banned too for promoting cheating but he’s literally the only reason people still play DuelLinks so Konami is probably giving him a pass (plus he hasn’t play in-person Yugioh in like 10 years so a ban would be pretty pointless).

@@jk844100 really, cause if i remember correctly, coder mentioning being banned even before the dked drama. i mean i hat dqeyd cause he promotes bullshit to his audience, like when cross duel came out, he made some videos hyping is as the second coming of yugi, recomending his viewers to spend money and shit on that game. dekayed can f himself

​@@jk844100 when people don't play IRL they aren't scared of getting banned.