The Eye of Timaeus clearly lists "Target 1 "Dark Magician" monster you control" in it's card text. Therefore the two cards above should be able to add it to the hand. :3

I guess it makes some sense now.. But we won't really know until the cards are released. The card doesn't say "lists EXACTLY". This is the first card of its kind to list an Archetype name whose Archetype is a monster card's name. My bet is on it being able to get added. Timaeus will become completely useless otherwise.

You people are just making this up, it doesn't specify the monster card itself. Only you guys are saying that. Please fix this, and stop making rulings up.

Censored by mod

Look, this is the third thread about this issue and I'm definitely fed up about this, so I'll say this once and for all: we won't know for sure until the official rulings are out, but the Japanese text, supported by similar cards like Chimeratech, supports the idea that card like these work on the monster, not the archetype. So, until the official rulings are out, those cards will NOT search Timaeus.

---

Look, this is the third thread about this issue and I'm definitely fed up about this, so I'll say this once and for all: we won't know for sure until the official rulings are out, but the Japanese text, supported by similar cards like Chimeratech, supports the idea that card like these work on the monster, not the archetype. So, until the official rulings are out, those cards will NOT search Timaeus.

So until you're proven wrong by the official rulings, you're just going to ride this ruling that you made for yourselfs? The most logical thing to do here is to let it do what the card says which is: search timaeus and then, if you were right, change it back to that. You don't just make up hypothesis, say its a new ruling and take the stance that it's going to be like this until proven wrong. You guys aren't part of the official ocg ruling department so it really isn't your place to make up rulings. Instead, your place is to simulate a platform for others to play. Not taint it with magical rulings that don't exists.

These rules are not made up.

Until Konami themselves make a ruling we go by the most logical course of action, which is finding a similar card from the original OCG text, and following its ruling, which we have done.

---

Look, this is the third thread about this issue and I'm definitely fed up about this, so I'll say this once and for all: we won't know for sure until the official rulings are out, but the Japanese text, supported by similar cards like Chimeratech, supports the idea that card like these work on the monster, not the archetype. So, until the official rulings are out, those cards will NOT search Timaeus.

So until you're proven wrong by the official rulings, you're just going to ride this ruling that you made for yourselfs? The most logical thing to do here is to let it do what the card says which is: search timaeus and then, if you were right, change it back to that. You don't just make up hypothesis, say its a new ruling and take the stance that it's going to be like this until proven wrong. You guys aren't part of the official ocg ruling department so it really isn't your place to make up rulings. Instead, your place is to simulate a platform for others to play. Not taint it with magical rulings that don't exists.

No, we're going to use the rulings that are coherent with previously estabilished rulings. As discussed dare I say ad nauseam in the previous topics, there is a difference between a monster name and an archetype, and everything in the Japanese text supports the former interpretation rather than the latter. No, we're not part of the ruling department, but there are users here who have read the original, official Japanese text, have looked up official OCG rulings for similar cases and have come to the exact same conclusions: so, I rest my case. And I mean it: I'm not continuing this discussion, it's pointless until the official rulings come out.

P.S. Also, while you wrote about it in a different topic: the most likely reason your comments keep being edited by the mods is because you are violating the rules about polite language on these forums.

---

P.S. Also, while you wrote about it in a different topic: the most likely reason your comments keep being edited by the mods is because you are violating the rules about polite language on these forums.

How convenient that we have to resort to speculation because the mod avoids stating the reason for editing it. Its censorship. Also, there was a message to mods on it, that was taken out too. polite language =/= dont call me out

https://www.ygopro.co/Fo...s/t/29125/Magician-s-Rod 
XTAL pretty much proved it. Until further rulings come out, that's the final stance.

---

Now that the ruling from the Perfect Rulebook  is out, I'm bumping this thread to make sure everyone sees it. As confirmed by the rulebook, "The Eye of Timaeus" is NOT treated as a card that lists "Dark Magician" in its name, since what's listed on that card is an archetype and not a name.

---

Yay! It won't stop people making threads though in future.

Also, another DM support Quick-play confirmed.

---

Yay! It won't stop people making threads though in future.

Also, another DM support Quick-play confirmed.

True, but at least now we can point at that article and say "Read the rules, it doesn't work that way". [:tongue:]
I've seen it: I can't do anything about it right now, obviously, but I've already marked a temporary unofficial code on my card list.

---

So you guys mean to tell me that nobody can read? Timaeus clearly says "Target 1 "Dark Magician..." and magician's rod and dark magic circle say cards that "List "Dark Magician". I don't know how one can say dark magician and not be counted as saying dark magician. I seriously doubt that nobody in all of komani etc. can read.

EDIT: I also disagree with everyone saying the Japanese text doesn't agree. I looked up the Japanese text for all 3 cards (The Eye of Timaeus, Magician's Rod, and Dark Magic Circle), and all three mention "Dark Magician" with the same kanji: ブラック・マジシャン therefore, I think it is entirely reasonable to conclude that The Eye of Timaeus can indeed be added with the other two cards.

So you guys mean to tell me that nobody can read? Timaeus clearly says "Target 1 "Dark Magician..." and magician's rod and dark magic circle say cards that "List "Dark Magician". I don't know how one can say dark magician and not be counted as saying dark magician. I seriously doubt that nobody in all of komani etc. can read.

EDIT: I also disagree with everyone saying the Japanese text doesn't agree. I looked up the Japanese text for all 3 cards (The Eye of Timaeus, Magician's Rod, and Dark Magic Circle), and all three mention "Dark Magician" with the same kanji: ブラック・マジシャン therefore, I think it is entirely reasonable to conclude that The Eye of Timaeus can indeed be added with the other two cards.

And it looks like you can't read either. An official ruling straight out of a rulebook states it doesn't work. There is nothing ambiguous to conclude.
https://ygorganization.c...ect-rulebook-early-news/ 

To simplify it. Dark Magic Circle searches cards that list "Dark Magician" the named monster specifically, NOT the archetype.

yeah now the rullings are out

[:confu:]

I disagree with ChaosEvacuationDragon. This idea that you can't add "Eye of Timaeus" to your hand with "Magician's Rod" or "Dark Magical Circle" is an illogical rule. First off, "Dark Magical Circle" and "Magician's Rod" do NOT say a spell or trap that exclusively lists the Dark Magician. If that's the case then you shouldn't be allowed to Magician's Navigation to your hand with it's effect, because Magician's Navigation says "Special Summon Dark Magician from your hand, THEN special a level 7 or lower spell caster from your deck." So it's the case why can you add Magician's Navigation but not Eye of Timaeus? There is a big difference between saying "You add 1 Spell/Traps Card from your Deck to your hand , that SPECIFICALLY lists the card "Dark Magician" in it's text" and saying, "You can add 1 Spell/Trap Card from your deck to your hand, that EXCLUSIVELY lists the card "Dark Magician" in it's text." If it said listed EXCLUSIVELY then you would be correct. Because exclusively would mean it would apply only to Dark Magician. But Magician's Rod and Dark Magical Circle do not say that. They say a card that SPECIFICALLY lists the Dark Magician, meaning that it's relevant to the Dark Magician, but it's not only relevant to him. So if this is the rule then you need to change the card text from SPECIFICALLY lists the Dark Magician, to EXCLUSIVELY lists the Dark Magician.

So ChaosEvacuationDragon Just because an official makes it a rule that doesn't mean the rule makes sense. We can't just argue from the rulebook, that's a circular argument. We need to be debating does the rule make sense. And from the way I see it, it doesn't make sense. Why does it matter if it says "Dark Magician" Monster or "Dark Magician".

[:confu:]

I disagree with ChaosEvacuationDragon. This idea that you can't add "Eye of Timaeus" to your hand with "Magician's Rod" or "Dark Magical Circle" is an illogical rule. First off, "Dark Magical Circle" and "Magician's Rod" do NOT say a spell or trap that exclusively lists the Dark Magician. If that's the case then you shouldn't be allowed to Magician's Navigation to your hand with it's effect, because Magician's Navigation says "Special Summon Dark Magician from your hand, THEN special a level 7 or lower spell caster from your deck." So it's the case why can you add Magician's Navigation but not Eye of Timaeus? There is a big difference between saying "You add 1 Spell/Traps Card from your Deck to your hand , that SPECIFICALLY lists the card "Dark Magician" in it's text" and saying, "You can add 1 Spell/Trap Card from your deck to your hand, that EXCLUSIVELY lists the card "Dark Magician" in it's text." If it said listed EXCLUSIVELY then you would be correct. Because exclusively would mean it would apply only to Dark Magician. But Magician's Rod and Dark Magical Circle do not say that. They say a card that SPECIFICALLY lists the Dark Magician, meaning that it's relevant to the Dark Magician, but it's not only relevant to him. So if this is the rule then you need to change the card text from SPECIFICALLY lists the Dark Magician, to EXCLUSIVELY lists the Dark Magician.

So ChaosEvacuationDragon Just because an official makes it a rule that doesn't mean the rule makes sense. We can't just argue from the rulebook, that's a circular argument. We need to be debating does the rule make sense. And from the way I see it, it doesn't make sense. Why does it matter if it says "Dark Magician" Monster or "Dark Magician".

...Firstly, welcome to the forum.

Secondly, was that necrobump really necessary? These cards are far and away out of beta; you can argue with official rulings in the regular Card rulings and card bugs forum.

Thirdly, the cards' text specifies "specifically lists the card 'Dark Magician'". The Eye of Timaeus mentions "Dark Magician" as a portion of a card name, but does not indicate the card's name itself. Magical Navigation includes "Dark Magician" as a reference to a specific card, not as a phrase which must simply be included in a card name.