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

 

[John Danker]

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.

How so? The last thing to resolve was Player A's MST, therefore, priority passes to player B.

<noting the thread tittle of "Basic Priority Questions"...yeah, right...this thread is basic (laffin)>

 

[skey23]

Actually, wouldn't the last effect to 'resolve' be Player B's "Stumbling"? It attempts to resolve, but can't resolve properly because it's no longer face-up on the field.

 

[Digital Jedi]

The actual title of this thread shold be:

Basic Piority Question <Throws Self Off Cliff>

And now that I have digested the entire contents of this thread...<throws self off cliff>

 

[squid]

well if Player B did not chain to Player A's MST, then the chain resolves and it becomes the Turn Player's option to activate a new chain block, or event, wouldn't it?

Yeah, sheesh! 21 pages of nothing but the "basics"? Im so not ready for advanced.lol

 

[Digital Jedi]

Advance Priority Question <Throws Cliff On Self>

 

[John Danker]

If something attempts to resolve but cannot since it is no longer face up on the field does it resolve or just resolve without effect?

Why is there air?
If a man is in the woods and says something..but there isn't a woman there to hear him....is he STILL wrong?

 

[slither]

My precise conflict with the MST is this:

Actually, wouldn't the last effect to 'resolve' be Player B's "Stumbling"? It attempts to resolve, but can't resolve properly because it's no longer face-up on the field.

in this situation the monster would end up in attack position as anthony stated, ahem, but who would get priority?? by this time would an ignition effect be able to be activated first?

EDIT: Man im really not cut out for this =/

 

[anthonyj]

Actually, wouldn't the last effect to 'resolve' be Player B's "Stumbling"? It attempts to resolve, but can't resolve properly because it's no longer face-up on the field.

That's what I think too. Of course it is oh so easy to be wrong in this particular area. Just because the effect fizzles doesn't that still count as the last thing that has happened?

 

[skey23]

If something attempts to resolve but cannot since it is no longer face up on the field does it resolve or just resolve without effect?

I would say it simply resolves without effect. The effect was placed on the chain. It CANNOT be removed from the chain, so it must resolve as much as possible. If it can't, then it simply resolves w/o effect, IMHO.

in this situation the monster would end up in attack position as anthony stated, ahem, but who would get priority?? by this time would an ignition effect be able to be activated first?

The issue now would appear to be, as anthonyj just stated...

Just because the effect fizzles doesn't that still count as the last thing that has happened?

If this holds true, then Player A would retain Priority. If, in fact, the game doesn't count "Stumbling" as having resolved because it was destroyed before it was allowed to resolve, then Player B would indeed retain Priority.

The whole 'opponent of the controller of the last effect to resolve' thing.

 

[Digital Jedi]

If a man is in the woods and says something..but there isn't a woman there to hear him....is he STILL wrong?

As long as there are still women on the planet...YES>

 

[John Danker]

Like.....dude....this is....sooooo deeep. <slow laugh> Contemplating the cosmos.....it just rocks.

 

[John Danker]

I can only assume (and I know that's dangerous and terribly unreliable) that any effect that is activated always resolves, it either resolves with the effect or resolves without effect. In either case the resoltion of a card effect would have to be considered an action or "fact"......at least for the time being until I'm informed otherwise. (going off to do some digging)

 

[carlossilva]

When I questioned UDE and got the answer about the opponent of the controller of the last effect to resolve getting priority, I replied asking what would happen if the first effect on the chain was negated.

Their answer was " Well, if the effect is negated, it is no longer on the chain to resolve".

So, from their answer it looks like a negated effect wouldn't count for purpose of determinig who gets priority. In that case, I guess an effect from a continuous card that has previously been sent to the graveyard and that therefore can't resolve might be seen as a similar situation.

Thanks

Carlos

 

[John Danker]

A negated effect though, is different from an effect that was activated but resolves without effect or one that is activated but is destroyed and the card needs to be face up on the field to successfully resolve.

 

[SS64]

sorry to ressurect this thread but gots me a question

ok turn player summons Mokey Mokey & calls Pro. w/Poison Old Man

Opp. chains old man with Magic Jammer.

Can the opp. still active Torriental Tribute or is the timing still missed?

If u negate the priority effect, does it negate priority all together?

 

[anthonyj]

Magic Jammer is Speed 3 so you wouldn't be able to activate Torrential Tribute afterwards. Once the current chain resolves it will no longer be proper timing for responding to the summon. Thus, the non-turn player would have to choose between activating Torrential Tribute and activating Magic Jammer.

 

[SS64]

Magic Jammer is Speed 3 so you wouldn't be able to activate Torrential Tribute afterwards. Once the current chain resolves it will no longer be proper timing for responding to the summon. Thus, the non-turn player would have to choose between activating Torrential Tribute and activating Magic Jammer.

i see what your talking about, both cards cannot be actived at the same time.

wait so you can active TT even when the last thing that happened was an activation of a spell card?
wouldnt Torrentail miss its timing?

 

[Digital Jedi]

No timing will be missed. The chain is being built in response to the summon. Anything add to that paticular chain is in response to the same summon.

 

[SS64]

No timing will be missed. The chain is being built in response to the summon. Anything add to that paticular chain is in response to the same summon.

Thanks, i mucho comprenda now

so basically, it isnt really a chain, just an event that everything gets chained to.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Correct. The event has response timing, but no Spell Speed. Once an effect responds to the event, anything chained to that effect is in response to the same event.