Basic Priority Questions

[carlossilva]

... 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

 

[Digital Jedi]

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?

While I'm coherent let me comment on this:

I know why John. Other games. Our chain differs so dramatically from all the other games in this country that certain elements are attibuted to it that the other game already have. The fact that you cannot add to the chain as it resolves throws some off. And two players passing in succession seems like it should have the same strict standards. It seems only logical that if a player cannot add to the existing chain then why can you intiate a brand new one on response to the same attack?

Um..I'mstarting to loose coherancy again. Let just say that I'm not saying you can't have more then one. But it just seems odd from a TCG perspective.

 

[John Danker]

How is it that this couldn't or doesn't work in MP1?

 

[slither]

Earlier in this thread it was said that upon entering MP1 turn player could immediately summon a monster, "before" even having a window of response to Phase entering.

 

[John Danker]

I'm uncertain of what you're talking about.

Both players must agree that a phase ends before progressing onto the next phase.

<looking at your statement again>
Oh, I think I understand now.
Upon entering MP1 turn player has priority. They may either..
A. Begin a chain
B. Summon a monster
C. Set a monster
D. Declare that they wish to end MP1

Turn player maintains priority to begin a chain if option B or C is choosen

Turn player passes priority of option A or D is choosen

So how does that conflict what my statement?

 

[slither]

Yep, that's it, now, this as it maybe incorrect it might be correct, but it does create a certain conflict with each particular case.

 

[John Danker]

While I'm coherent let me comment on this:

I know why John. Other games. Our chain differs so dramatically from all the other games in this country that certain elements are attibuted to it that the other game already have. The fact that you cannot add to the chain as it resolves throws some off. And two players passing in succession seems like it should have the same strict standards. It seems only logical that if a player cannot add to the existing chain then why can you intiate a brand new one on response to the same attack?

The highlighted text is the problem. People are assuming that what they view as logical must make it so. There are other logical possibilities.

It's like when you take a test and the instructions are...."Choose the most correct answer to the question"

The most correct...there may be multiple correct answers but there is one that they're looking for, it may not be the one YOU see as the most correct but it's what they want to hear that is important.

In the same way players, when something isn't written yet to fully explain a mechanic or ruling, only see what the "most correct answer" is in their own mind and decide that is fact.

 

[John Danker]

Yep, that's it, now, this as it maybe incorrect it might be correct, but it does create a certain conflict with each particular case.

How does it create a conflict?

 

[slither]

How does it create a conflict?

Mostly on what Digital Jedi already said, logic without "rulings" create a conflict.

 

[Jason_C]

The most correct...there may be multiple correct answers but there is one that they're looking for, it may not be the one YOU see as the most correct but it's what they want to hear that is important.

Right. So, if we all had telepathy, we could read minds to find out what they want to hear and, in doing so, we could ace tests. But we don't (well, I, for one, certainly do not). Until we get a definite explanation of how this all plays out, I think the general concensus here is to go with what makes the most sense.

I don't play other tcgs. Never have. So I am not being confused by Vs, and I'm not assuming that YGO must match other tcgs, or that in some way it must be different. Chaining and priority were not concepts I had heard of before coming to these boards. Everything I know about the two has been inferred from what I've read here. That, plus Reasoning power. In short, I've just stated what makes sense.

Remember the debate of MBaaS verses Spell Economics? I believe it was in that argument that someone finally said something like, "Ok, everyone here knows exactly how these two cards work with each other, and it just happens that some of us don't want to believe it could really be that simple." And that's what I'm saying. I think, although I don't know, that deep down inside us all, we DO in fact realize just how basic priority is. Overcomplicating the issue or comparing and contrasting it to other card games just creates confusion.

And again, I see NO logical reason why there would be "extra" chain points created.

I have no idea what I just said. Coherency is not my strong suit. Rambling is.

Pie.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Right. So, if we all had telepathy, we could read minds to find out what they want to hear and, in doing so, we could ace tests. But we don't (well, I, for one, certainly do not). Until we get a definite explanation of how this all plays out, I think the general concensus here is to go with what makes the most sense.

I don't play other tcgs. Never have. So I am not being confused by Vs, and I'm not assuming that YGO must match other tcgs, or that in some way it must be different. Chaining and priority were not concepts I had heard of before coming to these boards. Everything I know about the two has been inferred from what I've read here. That, plus Reasoning power. In short, I've just stated what makes sense.

Remember the debate of MBaaS verses Spell Economics? I believe it was in that argument that someone finally said something like, "Ok, everyone here knows exactly how these two cards work with each other, and it just happens that some of us don't want to believe it could really be that simple." And that's what I'm saying. I think, although I don't know, that deep down inside us all, we DO in fact realize just how basic priority is. Overcomplicating the issue or comparing and contrasting it to other card games just creates confusion.

And again, I see NO logical reason why there would be "extra" chain points created.

I have no idea what I just said. Coherency is not my strong suit. Rambling is.

Pie.

While I'm ahaving another brief moement of clarity let me point out that it doesn't matter that a player didn't know any other games before playing this one to be influenced by other games. You wer brought inot this game by somebody who new this game and so was that person and the person who brought him and so on and so forth. Somewhere along the way the influences and thought processes were already there already influenced you. You dont have to play any other game but Yu-Gi-Oh! to be influenced by the logic of the other games. When a monster runs through another defenses we call it trample. When a card gets negated we say it fizzle's. All Magic: The Gathering terms. If I'm not mistaken, so is the expression tutor. The logic is there and it cross pollinates this game to th point where you don't even have to have played those games to start using their terms.

 

[anthonyj]

I still can't see why it is believed that that "makes the most sense". What many of us have been trying to point out every time this "forced push through phases and steps" is suggested is simply this. There has never been anything published stating that passing would end a phase. If two players wanted to just sit and pass back and forth all day long I guess they'd do just that. But as far as official word on how a phase or step (all except the Damage Step which has a different structure as we are all aware) is ended it is that the turn player states they wish to go on to the next phase or step. This doesn't cause any problems that I have seen examples for other than the ludicrous notion that the two players will have nothing better to do and just pass back and forth for all eternity.

There is nothing that has ever been handed down to us stating that passing priority would preclude or prevent a player from exercising their right to begin a chain or summon a monster. The very suggestion that this would be the case is quite unsettling as I can easily see this train of thought being used to prevent players from legal moves due to some perceived requirement that has never existed in the game. If and when Konami ever deems the world worthy of a more defined explanation for Priority there may or may not be any mention of this possible new addition to the given rules of the game. At this point there has never been anything to even remotely suggest this.

 

[Jason_C]

You wer brought inot this game by somebody who new this game and so was that person and the person who brought him and so on and so forth.

Incorrect.

When a monster runs through another defenses we call it trample. When a card gets negated we say it fizzle's. All Magic: The Gathering terms.

So the fact that YGO players can't come up with decent slang means we have no understanding of logic?

And for the record, yes, I am aware that that wasn't your point. And I do agree to some extent with what you're saying. But not to the extent that I'm willing to abandon my prioritized beliefs over it.

<EDIT: And Anthony just butted in>

 

[Digital Jedi]

I know I'm not getting my point across the way I normaly would be able to. Chalk it up to food poisoning or stomach flu or whatere the heck that was that had me reeling yesterday, but what I'm trying to say is the reason we have some people with one set of Reasonings conflicting with the other sets of Reasonings on this priority thing is because of that. One makes more sense then the other based on heavily you've been influnced by this. You can't completely escape the influence, as you may be all for it or all against it. But it's still there. Now what you have to do is reexamine the whole issue with this in mind and see if the whole matter doesn't make sense to you in a way it didn't before.

As I said, I didn't neccessarily disagree with the notion that there could be more then one chain in the Battle Phase. But hat Reasonings are we using to be for or against it?

 

[novastar]

There has never been anything published stating that passing would end a phase. If two players wanted to just sit and pass back and forth all day long I guess they'd do just that.

Look... honestly, come on guys...

From a purely mechanical point of view, asking to "end a Phase" IS a pass.

In TCG's (any game), declining to do anything is a pass. This is not in any way over-the-top thinking...seriously. It's just a specific "pass to end a Phase" when the Turn Player has priority with no outstanding timing left to be resolved. Heck ...even in the Overpower days it worked like that...and if you think this game had a lack of Comp Rules...that game was alot worse.

If they don't wanna call it that...i'm perfectly fine with that, but everyone should recognize that mechanically that is what is happening.

You can't just have constant passing either...this is not some free-for-all where you don't have any structure at all. The game requires you to either do something, or pass to your opponent. If your opponent declines to do something...you MUST move on. It is ment to be this way, because fundamentally YGO is setup so that the Opponent reacts to the Turn Player's actions..not the other way around.

I am pretty sure that at the end of the day, you cannot just sit there in MP1 and do absolutely nothing (as the TP) with no timing... and pass straight up to the opponent, and then have Priority come back to you if the opponent passes too. No, instead you would have call for the end of the Phase in this case, if you have nothing left to do, and that would be how you pass.

But we'll never know for sure...Konami will never fully explain this.

 

[John Danker]

Look... honestly, come on guys...

From a purely technical/mechanical point of view...asking to "end a Phase" IS a pass.

In TCG's (any game), declining to do anything is a pass. This is not in any way over-the-top thinking...seriously.

It's just a specific "pass to end a Phase" when no outstanding timing left to be resolved.

If they don't wanna call it that...i'm perfectly fine with that, but everyone should recognize that mechanically that is what is happening.

novastar....I actually couldn't agree more. What I've been talking about isn't what I would LIKE to see....however, I believe it's what you're GOING to see.

Please keep in mind as I've stated on numerous occasions, I don't always agree with the news, rulings, mechanics that I state, I'm merely reporting them as they've been given to me.

 

[carlossilva]

Hello again

From what has been discussed in this thread, and by the answers I've read in some other threads, it looks like, at least until we hear otherwise from Konami and while discussion continues on the L3 board, current ruling is:

After a chain resolves, the opponent of the controller of the last effect to resolve gets priority. The exception is when the chain ends in a summon, in which case turn player always gets priority.

Now I would like to try to clarify a few situations in account of this ruling:

QUESTION 1.

If a chain was started by the turn player in his Main Phase ( and the first effect was not somehow negated ) than priority Shifts to the non-turn player. All he can do in this case is activate spell speed 2 or higher cards and multi-trigger effects, so in this case there is no issue.

However, if NTP was the controller of the last resolved effect, priority Shifts to the Turn Player again. In this case, is he somewhat limited in what he can do ( like only SS2 -3 ) or can he immediately do things like summoning a monster, playing a Normal Spell, or other non-responsive actions ?

About this matter, please refer to Dan's answer as quoted by John Danker in post #14 of this thread. It looks like, after CotH resolved by NTP, turn player gets priority and may immediately flip-summon Jinzo.

QUESTION 2

So, when a chain ends in a summon, turn player always gets priority. Now, if a chain ends with the NTP summoning an effect monster, what happens to this effect? I'd say:

a) Ignition effects can't be activated since the monster controller is not on HIS main phase.

b) Mandatory Triggers will automatically start a new chain, with turn player having priority to chain.

c) but what happens to optional triggers ( that trigger on summoning the monster )?

If turn player, who now has priority, decides to do anything, a trigger effect cannot be chained to whatever he did, since it's SS1. Even if what he did was summoning a normal monster, by now the trigger effect has missed his timing.

Howver, if turn player passes priority after the summon, nothing has happened since the monster was summoned and no chain has been started. In this case, could the non-turn player activate his optional trigger effect ? Why/why not ?

Thanks

Carlos

 

[John Danker]

Gamer wannabe and you're posting questions like that? I think this is no game wannabe! <soft chuckle> I think this guy has a future in this game don't you?


carlossilva those are fine questions and show you've really put your mind into this. I'm not going to give you an answer because if I did I would be doing so without confidense, however, I'll work hard on finding out the answers to your questions...and THANK YOU for raising them. This only causes me to dig yet a bit deeper.

 

[anthonyj]

Question 1: This is a response window. As such you can only activate speed 2 or faster to respond to the last event (the last effect that resolved). That would hold for both the Turn Player and Non-Turn Player. I could be wrong as obviously Dan's post allows for a flip summon without addressing the response window needing to be allowed for (but he may have just skipped past it as if neither player had intended to respond to the summon and just gone right ahead to the next thing that was happening in the game).

Question 2: a) You are correct.
b) Correct again.
c) Optional Triggers will begin a chain if the controller of the monster chooses to use the effect and will proceed just as in Mandatory Trigger scenario.

In a case where a mandatory or optional trigger is activated by a special summon the Turn Player does not get Priority for the same reason that Stumbling robs the Turn Player of Priority, the game has already begun a chain and it is now time to continue building the chain not time to begin one.

 

[slither]

In a case where a mandatory or optional trigger is activated by a special summon the Turn Player does not get Priority for the same reason that Stumbling robs the Turn Player of Priority, the game has already begun a chain and it is now time to continue building the chain not time to begin one.

Speaking of which, what would be the case if a card like MST is chained to Stumbling? as of now, i've really never heard that type of case.

 

[anthonyj]

Speaking of which, what would be the case if a card like MST is chained to Stumbling? as of now, i've really never heard that type of case.

Player A summons Exiled Force
Player B's Face-Up Stumbling kicks in and begins a chain
Player A chains MST targeting Stumbling
neither Player adds to the chain

Resolve Chain link 2 MST destroys Stumbling
Chain Link 1 Stumbling would have to be on the field to resolve (since it is a Continuous Spell Card) so the effect fails to resolve.

Exiled Force is now in ATK position and it should be Player A who has Priority.