A question my friend asked me I had NO clue as to the answer

Sort by date Sort by votes
can I try?

Let's change it around a little:


let's say berserk gorilla was summoned and I set two traps one being final attack orders. If they activate level limiter b, I chain with final attack orders. They both stay active, but since final attack orders was most recent. Basically by "time stamp" the last, most recent card would take effect. Final attack orders, just like someone stated.... because it's just like my situation with A field card and dna transplant, or homunculus the alchemic being and dna transplant. One basically over powers the other one.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Javario said:
Let's change it around a little:


let's say berserk gorilla was summoned and I set two traps one being final attack orders. If they activate level limiter b, I chain with final attack orders. They both stay active, but since final attack orders was most recent. Basically by "time stamp" the last, most recent card would take effect. Final attack orders, just like someone stated.... because it's just like my situation with A field card and dna transplant, or homunculus the alchemic being and dna transplant. One basically over powers the other one.
Click to expand...
Final Attack Orders is the last card played, but the first to resolve. Level Limit - Area B will resolve last and place all monsters Level 4 and above in Defense Position. All Level 3 and below will be in Attack Position since they are unaffected by Level Limit - Area B.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Um, just wondering, about Berserk Gorilla destruction, I found a similar situation on the Berserk Gorilla Rulings:
  1. If "Stumbling" and "Final Attack Orders" are both in play, and "Berserk Gorilla" is Summoned, "Berserk Gorilla" is destroyed when it is changed to Defense Position by "Stumbling".
Well, if you swap Stumbling for LLaB, then would there by any significant change?

-chaosruler
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Stumbling and Level Limit Area B aren't quite the same as discussed in another thread not very long ago. Still, if the monster in the ruling given turns to defense position first with Stumbling it certainly would with Level Limit Area B.

I seem to remember that ruling now that you bring it up (going to search function)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I was trying to show that even if FAO and a DEF mode switching card (Stumbling, LLaB) are both active, timestamp only determines which order they resolve in, and both effects still resolve. OR I could be completely wrong, in that case, just whap me upside the head.

-chaosruler
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chaosruler said:
Um, just wondering, about Berserk Gorilla destruction, I found a similar situation on the Berserk Gorilla Rulings:
  1. If "Stumbling" and "Final Attack Orders" are both in play, and "Berserk Gorilla" is Summoned, "Berserk Gorilla" is destroyed when it is changed to Defense Position by "Stumbling".
Well, if you swap Stumbling for LLaB, then would there by any significant change?

-chaosruler
Click to expand...
Stumbling creates a chain whenever a monster is summoned, whereas Level Limit - Area B does not.

That is why using Exiled Force when Stumbling is active will cause Exile to go to defense and be unable to chain his effect of monster removal.

Both Final Attack and Stumbling are continuous, but Stumbling is a Triggered Effect whenever a monster is successfully summoned, so it "must" go to defense position, and then Final Attack Orders forces it back to attack.

Level Limit - Area B just states if a Level 4 or above is summoned it will go to defense. No chain. And since the effect is continuously effecting the field, everytime it tries to go back to attack, it forces it back to defense. Stumbling only affects it upon the successful summon, and then it may change position on the next turn.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Danker said:
What leads you to believe this? I'm looking at the following ruling for Final Attack Orders which states...

If "Level Limit - Area B" is activated while "Final Attack Orders" is active, then the most recently resolved effect takes precedence and monsters Level 4 or higher will be in Defense Position.

The word "Precedence" is a bit misleading. In my mind it means it is the only active effect. The way you're describing it the meaning of "Precedence" would be that it is the last effect to take place, not the ONLY active effect.

I've posted a question to the judge's list on the subject. It's an easily misunderstood topic and I feel it would be a good idea to make it public and documented knowledge.
Click to expand...
Well, both effects are indeed still "active", niether FAO nor LLAB shut the other off.

When dealing with Battle Positions it is one or the other, either Attack or Defence Mode, so when both of these effects are active at the same time you must have some way to determine the final outcome or position. According to the rulings, one of these effects does indeed take "precedence" or become the final outcome, that is what is meant by "Precedence".

It seems that in YGO when you have 2 independant Continuous Effects active at the same time that affect the same object in the exact same manner, you determine the order by Timestamp, before actually applying the effects to object.

That is why, in the ruling example, FAO is the only modifier that creates a visable change in the game.

My problem arises with the Spell Canceller vs. LLAB ruling when compared to this, why is that outcome somehow different? In that scenario, you do actually apply both effects.

My guess is that when you bring one of the effects into play, the earlier Timestamp is always applied first, then the second. Once both effects are active, the order is now predetermined for all future objects that might be affected by both of them, so in the future, you only visibly apply the later Timestamp.

Confusing i know...I probably should have never posted on this in the first place, since D answered it in one sentence :(
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
i would like to make a question

continous effcts does not use the chain system right?

so when you activate FAO after of level limit area B is played

what is the better wording


1- " i am activating FAo em response to the activation of LLAB'

2- "i am chaining FAo to the efct of LLAB"

3- "i am chaining FAo to the activation of the card LLAB"

also

since it is a continuous effct, he should not wait until his link of chain resolves to start his effct?

i mean

he should not force berseck gorila when it is activated if other cards in response to his activation

because

imperial order would negate MST chained to its activation too

the main reason IO could be destroyed by MST is because IO effct didnt start work yet right?

so why LLAB is allowed shif monster on the field to defense position if other cards are added in the chain?

thank you very much

woltarr
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
To answer your question woltarr, it depends on how the cards were played.

I mean, if one is chains to Level Limit - Area B activation wit Final Attack Orders, the Final Attack Orders will obviously resolve first, putting the effect as Timestamp1 to Level Limit - Area B as to Timestamp2 being that it resolved second due to chaining.

The correct way to state this depends on the player.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top