Basic Priority Questions

C

carlossilva

New Member
... or they should be, but while browsing through several forums I've often read contradictory answers ( whether direct or implied ) so I've decided to place them here.

1. After the turn player draws a card in his/her draw phase, who has priority to activate a quickplay spell or trap card?

2. After an attack is declared by the turn player, who has priority to activate a card in response to the attack ?

3. After a chain has completely resolved, who has priority to respond to the end of the chain? ( I've read it's the turn player, I've read it's the opponent of the controller of the last effect to resolve - this last one actually came from UDE ... )

Thanks

Carlos
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
But in the end, functionally its the exact same thing.

they can call it "an end of Phase/Step action" however...

Player A 'wants to advance to Damage Step'
Player B can respond and activate random effect
Click to expand...

...that is the same as a double Pass... the main difference being that its a specific "pass to end Phase/Step"

A rose by any other name, still smells the same...

As a side note...I personally find it quite hillarious that UDE of all people would be saying 'This is YGO, not Magic'...LOL... does anyone else find that funny?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Note: "moderator" badge was removed and placed far away so I could essentially generate what boils down to spam without feeling overly bad about it.
===========================================

soulwarrior said:
... so give it another 1,5 years and we'll all be happy ...
Click to expand...

Forgive my repeated cynicism on this matter, but I really think it's more like this:

"Once the game is long dead and everyone has started playing something else, the final rulebook we all seek will be signed off on and published on a web page that nobody has access to."

I admire everyone's diligence, I really do. But until there is hard proof one way or another on this whole silly (and it is kinda silly when you think about it) game mechanic, isn't it rather wasteful to even bother debating? It's a card game. It's supposed to be fun. I can pick up a book and learn how to operate on the human brain, but I can't do the same thing to play a card game? Edmond Hoyle is rolling in his grave.

The game was better off without the entire concept. Introducing it to (more like forcing it upon at Worlds, if I remember correctly) the TCG without anyone seemingly understanding it front-back was a poor idea. Having loads of promises from the people that are supposed to be supporting the game as to the official explanation not come to pass compounds the issue. Of course, when asked why, we get a "gee, you don't NEED it, the whole thing is brainlessly simple" while still not getting an answer. Unofficial articles have been published and debunked, but never corrected by those who claim to know what's what.

If so many wonderfully brilliant people at UpperDeck Entertainment speak Japanese (you know of whom I speak), why is it so hard to get a bloody straight answer? Why is a Level 3 Judge debate even needed? Does the game's real designer (read: not Kevin Tewart) in Japan not understand the game he/she created? How sad. How truly, truly sad. For this is a card game. Nothing more.

Keep debating gang. I'll read and take them all just like I have been, and probably chime in once more in a couple days in my rediculous attempt to understand why the debate exists in the first place, and play Eeyore with my assumptions that nobody will reveal the outcome anyway. (Again, no offense to John D. -- I respect and admire you more than you know)

<shakes head>

I wouldn't bother responding to this, since it's just incessant spam and against the forum rules. Actually, another mod should really delete this if they want to -- I won't mind one bit. But as you know, it does no good unless you actually hit "Submit Reply".

edit: For kicks, re-read the TITLE of this thread. 265 posts later ... not so Basic, is it?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
(and it is kinda silly when you think about it) game mechanic
Click to expand...
Priority? Silly? Priority IS ygo. The game is defined by priority. Anything and everything that occurs during a duel occurs because one player or another has priority.

Remember that priority does not just occur after a summon. It is perpetual. It IS the game. Always, it is either my turn to do something or your turn. If priority didn't exist, the game would be a race instead of a match of wit.

Alright, I'm done.

<EDIT: No, I'm not done:
The game was better off without the entire concept
Click to expand...

WHAT??? When was priority ever NOT in the game? Priority has always been there. It just didn't use to have a name.

I apologize for the poor grammar above>
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jason_C said:
Priority? Silly? Priority IS ygo. The game is defined by priority. Anything and everything that occurs during a duel occurs because one player or another has priority.

Remember that priority does not just occur after a summon. It is perpetual. It IS the game. Always, it is either my turn to do something or your turn. If priority didn't exist, the game would be a race instead of a match of wit.

Alright, I'm done.

<EDIT: No, I'm not done:


WHAT??? When was priority ever NOT in the game? Priority has always been there. It just didn't use to have a name.

I apologize for the poor grammar above>
Click to expand...

I think you know what I meant, and will not usher in a sub-debate as to my intent. I'm not nearly as stupid as this response would imply I am :D [no offense taken, BTW]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
lol, i just meant that i remember bishop stating in the past that alot of the people who worked for them were of a M:tg background... in fact it's a hiring requirement.

Seems that many of the misinformed info concerning topics like Priority have probably been spread because of that...and not from info directly from Konami.

So for them to say that, to me ...was funny ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
djp952 said:
I admire everyone's diligence, I really do. But until there is hard proof one way or another on this whole silly (and it is kinda silly when you think about it) game mechanic, isn't it rather wasteful to even bother debating?
Click to expand...

It's silly on one hand, on the other it's completely necessary. I'll give you the same answer I gave others who have asked that we stop speculating on priority....that being, that's fine, we could indeed stop speculating on the issue on the boards, it really doesn't bring about a final answer, this much is true, however....we as judges are still FORCED to speculate on it. When asked to rule on a scenario regarding the subject we can't very well say, "Sorry folks, I can't rule on this situation until something official is posted"

In the mean time we as judge (and players) are left to try to reason out in our own minds the most probable or logical (thus speculating) way priority works. As judges we're basically setting ourselves up for failure by doing this of course, no doubt we'll have plenty of retraining of players to do once, and if ever, it's officially defined...but what other options do we have?

djp952 said:
The game was better off without the entire concept. Introducing it to (more like forcing it upon at Worlds, if I remember correctly) the TCG without anyone seemingly understanding it front-back was a poor idea.
Click to expand...

Again, I agree to some extent but ultimately I don't. When the game was young we just played....and it was fun. (In the beginning there was light...and it was good) As the game grew and was taken more seriously, as regional, national, and world level tournaments came about and as the card pool became more complex with thousands of more scenarios to rule on there needed to be some mechanic to maintain order....so that it didn't turn into whoever could flip their card over first.

What most of the readers here don't know is how hard Soulwarrior (in paticular) and I have both pushed to get some resolve to this situation on the L3 board...and we're certainly taking heat for even bringing up the topic.

<shakes head>

I wouldn't bother responding to this, since it's just incessant spam and against the forum rules. Actually, another mod should really delete this if they want to -- I won't mind one bit. But as you know, it does no good unless you actually hit "Submit Reply".

Do I disagree with you post? Not entirely, and I'm not scolding though it may sound like it...that's what I hate about the written word, it's so difficult to portray body language and tone of voice. I just wanted to let you know that I don't feel it a waste of time and energy, I think a lot of us are trying to confirm our thought patterns so that we can say with as much certainty as is possible at this point that we've done our homework and when we rule on a scenario know in our own minds we've done everything within our power to make the correct ruling. Personally I feel a sense of responsability (getting corny here) and commitment as a judge. I don't feel I'd be doing a service to the community if I didn't try and be as knowledgable and do as much reserach and study as I personally can.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Danker said:
It's silly on one hand, on the other it's completely necessary. I'll give you the same answer I gave others who have asked that we stop speculating on priority....that being, that's fine, we could indeed stop speculating on the issue on the boards, it really doesn't bring about a final answer, this much is true, however....we as judges are still FORCED to speculate on it. When asked to rule on a scenario regarding the subject we can't very well say, "Sorry folks, I can't rule on this situation until something official is posted"
Click to expand...
Wonder if such a boycott would even motivate the slackers at UDE/Konami? :eek:rcfouet:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
All right.
When the discussion is at a high level I prefer not to post but read and learn. But now, this topic is making me doubt about all the concepts I believed were solid and completely accepted.
I believed the concept TP retains priority after an "action" (draw in the DP, summon or special summon in MP or attack in the battle phase) contained the very logic that states: summon or attack (well, assuming this by extrapolation) does not have (spell) speed, they are actions.
The way I see it, if NTP has priority after an action, then summon and declare an attack have spell speed and start a chain, contradicting all the rules until this moment. They are link 1 and NTP is respoding in the link 2.
AT least, if TP has priority when he summons (ignition effects prove this) but have not when an attack is declared, then declare an attack is completely different, it's not an action and starts a chain, and this sound strange. And it's like having two completely differents rules for similar things (like when was stated that in BP only one chain could be done, turning BP a "special phase" with different mechanics compared to MP and other phases).
Sorry if I'm bothering or messing everything up, but I needed to say this and if someone understood what I wrote and could clarify at least one point to me, I would be happy.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The way I see it, if NTP has priority after an action, then summon and declare an attack have spell speed and start a chain, contradicting all the rules until this moment. They are link 1 and NTP is respoding in the link 2.
Click to expand...
Dead on. I have believed for quite some time that, because they are non-chainable events, TP retains priority afterwards. If NTP gets priority, they MUST be chainable with Spell Speed. Which we know isn't true.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Chaining is activating a card before something can happen.

Responding is activating a card after something has happened.

You can't chain to a summon, as that would imply that your effect resolves before the summon actually happens.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Raijinili said:
Chaining is activating a card before something can happen.
Click to expand...

How so??

Meaning before resolution?? Because if not you could still chain to the "activation" <this would imply something that has happened>
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I believe Rai was indeed referring to the resolution.

<NOTE: I'm not sure who the following is in reply to. So I'm not specificaly responding to anyone. Just further explaning my logic in the previous post> Again, there are ONLY two ways priority can ever Shift from one player to another:

1. Activating or initiating a chainable event.

2. Passing.

So, since we know that summoing or attacking is not passing, the ONLY way priority could go to the opponent afterwards is if it were chainable. And we know it is not. As Rai pointed out, for summoning to be chainable, it'd have to be possible to interrupt its resolution. It is not. So summoning player will retain priority after summon; attacking player will retain priority after attacking.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Oh heck, let's not stop now shall we? <laffin>

A thought to put into you minds. Where is it stated in the FAQ or on the judge's list that if both players pass after the declaration of attack....that the attack automatically proceeds to the damage step?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There is no written rule involving this, but isn't that the whole discussion about:

P1 - Attacks - passes priority
P2 - I pass
P1 - again I pass
P2 - again I pass

etc. they could go on and on and on, its just ambigous and vague.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
slither said:
There is no written rule involving this, but isn't that the whole discussion about:

P1 - Attacks - passes priority
P2 - I pass
P1 - again I pass
P2 - again I pass

etc. they could go on and on and on, its just ambigous and vague.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the popular belief...and people over complicate that issue.

P1 Declares an attack
P1 Does not begin a chain at this time
P2 Does not respond to the attack
P1 Declares they wish to enter the damage step
P2 either...
A. Begins a chain
B. Agrees to end the current step and enter the damage step

The same set-up can be applied to any step or phase. Once the turn player declares they wish to enter the next phase the opponent may either begin a chain or agrees to enter the next step/phase.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Don't you feel it like a deja vu here John :D.

Well problem with it is that Main Phase 1 as know, doesn't work the same way, why would this work in that particular way, im not trying to overcomplicated, I know that there needs to be a window of response in between phases and steps, but this could also lead to being a cycle to a cycle (excusing redundancy).

This is not yet been precisely ruled yet, I know that what sounds logical, states what should be logical, but it can vary from time to time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top