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

 

[anthonyj]

I was actually responding to you and the prior message from Slither. It has been stated by UDE numerous times now that Priority is not retained by the Turn Player after a chain which they initiated has resolved. I think most recently it was said to Soulwarrior after an excellent article he was proposing and it was Dan Schneider who stated the response chain Priority had been passed to the Non-Turn Player. The posted article can be seen here: http://www.cogonline.net/threads.12176

 

[skey23]

It's possible because you're assuming that turn player regains priority at the end of any chain, which, according to Dan isn't the case. novastar obviously disagrees here and his opinion is commonly accepted at this point, however, you'll find that those judges who have worked closely with those at UDE who hand down the rules from Konami (Gary, Brent, John Lacey, Julia, Jason, myself, etc.) will rule otherwise by virtue of what we've been instructed.

Ok, so that's where the 'opponent of the controller of the last effect to resolve' thingy came into play? Correct?

 

[Jason_C]

I was actually responding to you and the prior message from Slither. It has been stated by UDE numerous times now that Priority is not retained by the Turn Player after a chain which they initiated has resolved. I think most recently it was said to Soulwarrior after an excellent article he was proposing and it was Dan Schneider who stated the response chain Priority had been passed to the Non-Turn Player. The posted article can be seen here: http://www.cogonline.net/threads.12176

I wasn't talking about your reply's MESSAGE. I was talking about its LOCATION. See, as I was typing up my reply, yours wasn't there. I clicked "Post Quick Reply", and when the page loaded again, you had somehow posted after my post, but before the page Reloaded. How that's possible, I can't imagine.

 

[slither]

Well though I side with novastar on the non-acceptance of the ruling implied in "non-turn player gets priority after a chain fully resolves", I guess there's not much that we can do about it, that being the official rule and all.

Meh this game gets weirder and weirder every day

 

[John Danker]

I was actually responding to you and the prior message from Slither. It has been stated by UDE numerous times now that Priority is not retained by the Turn Player after a chain which they initiated has resolved. I think most recently it was said to Soulwarrior after an excellent article he was proposing and it was Dan Schneider who stated the response chain Priority had been passed to the Non-Turn Player. The posted article can be seen here: http://www.cogonline.net/threads.12176

It was stated there in print. It's been stated numerous times verbally. I just wish they'd publish the same thing to the general judge's list....though any info. on the L3 judge's board is also considered public knowledge....why it's not put on the general judge's board then I'm uncertain.

 

[John Danker]

Turn Player always has and always will retain priority at the end of a chain. That doesn't mean it won't later be passed back to the opponent.

What leads you to believe this? Because it's widely accepted doesn't make it so.

 

[Jason_C]

Meh this game gets weirder and weirder every day

I strongly disagree. All of this confusion stems not from a wierd game, but from a few very 1337 people (Kevin, Dan, etc come to mind) who refuse to admit that priority is in fact an astonishingly simple concept. They tell us over and over again about such things as summoning priority and receiving priority after a chain resolves. Priority is received only once in an entire duel, and that is when the first player begins the first turn. After that, priority is simply passed back and forth between the two players.

No one receives priority after a summon. The player who summoned simply does not lose it. You have to have priority to summon a monster. And since summons do not use the chain, you do not LOSE your priority after said summon. You simply retain it.

No one receives priority after a chain resolves. The turn player just doesn't lose it. It defaults to the turn player when the chain resolves, as it does after any non-chainable event, because non-chainable events... er... well... don't use the chain

Priority is not a complicated concept. The complications occur when people try to modify a general mechanic of the game to suit a specific situation and not any other. Priority is continuous. One player or the other ALWAYS has priority. And priority only ever changes hands when a chainable effect is activated or priority is passed.

I have writer's cramp.

<EDIT: Mr. Danker just butted in twice to my one post. Welcome to my sig>

 

[Jason_C]

What leads you to believe this? Because it's widely accepted doesn't make it so.

In response to your second sentence: That is so true. I've been trying to get some of my friends to believe that for ages, particularly this one guy who takes to heart every stupid urban myth he hears.

In response to your question: It is a fundamental mechanic of the game that whoever had priority before a non-chainable event retains it afterwards.

 

[John Danker]

In response to your question: It is a fundamental mechanic of the game that whoever had priority before a non-chainable event retains it afterwards.

You have yet to answer my question. Where is it stated that (Quote) "It is a fundamental mechanic of the game that whoever had priority before a non-chainable event retains it afterwards." ?

Again, you're quoting a widely accepted belief...but no where has that been stated by Konami or UDE. It's a belief that is the most simple to stomach, not a fundamental mechanic of the game.....at least, not until either of those sources state as much.

*EDIT* I never consider myself "butting in"...merely adding to the flavor and content of an existing thead <smirk> Perception is everything!

 

[Jason_C]

You have yet to answer my question. Where is it stated that (Quote) "It is a fundamental mechanic of the game that whoever had priority before a non-chainable event retains it afterwards." ?

Probably somewhere in the minds of those involved in creating this game. But stated, no where. Because there's no one to state it, because Kevin doesn't WANT it stated, so no one does.

Again, you're quoting a widely accepted belief...but no where has that been stated by Konami or UDE. It's a belief that is the most simple to stomach, not a fundamental mechanic of the game.....at least, not until either of those sources state as much.

It's the way it's always been played, the way many rules on various cards have described it, and the way Kevin has vaguely hinted at on more than one occasion. And it's logical. Granted, Konami/UDE has yet to come right out and say it. But this is, right now, the closest thing we've got to a true understanding of priority.

And again, it's logical. Which is more than I can say for most of what Kevin says, so I'm taking advantage of it.

*EDIT* I never consider myself "butting in"...merely adding to the flavor and content of an existing thead <smirk> Perception is everything!

Perception, Pershmeption! You're butting in if you get between my post and the one I'm replying to.

 

[John Danker]

Probably somewhere in the minds of those involved in creating this game. But stated, no where. Because there's no one to state it, because Kevin doesn't WANT it stated, so no one does.

I see, so now a basic game mechanic has boiled down to being (quote) "Probably somewhere in the minds of those involved in creating this game."?

It's the way it's always been played, the way many rules on various cards have described it, and the way Kevin has vaguely hinted at on more than one occasion. And it's logical. Granted, Konami/UDE has yet to come right out and say it. But this is, right now, the closest thing we've got to a true understanding of priority..

The way it's always been played? Odd, that's not the way the judge's I associate with play the game. It's not the way the judges at the past two nationals have judged it.

It's described on various cards as you say? Could you please point those out to me? I should then do some studying that I've missed.

I'd say the closet thing we have to a true understanding of priority is what I posted earlier in the thread from Dan.

And again, it's logical. Which is more than I can say for most of what Kevin says, so I'm taking advantage of it.

The fact that what you say seems logical I'll grant you, then again, there are a great many things about this game that would be much easier and more logical if they were to work in a more standard, organized, and structured fashion....we all know that's simply not the case in this game though. As I've said many times, we're talking about a game based on a comic book / cartoon character who talks to his alter ego....you want logic out of that? <smirk>

 

[masterwoo0]

So basically, if we were all Paranoid and suffering from Schizophrenia, we'd have a MUCH better understanding of the game.

I see....

 

[skey23]

This is actually starting to make better and better sense to me the more I re-read this thread and Dan's response.

I do have a few questions though.

I understand that the opponent of the controller of the last effect to resolve will 'gain' priority, but what happens when that last effect resulted in a Special Summon? Dan mentioned the 'only' hiccup being when the Turn Player Summoned, but does that extend to a Special Summon via an outside effect?

Example:

P1 Summons "Sangan" in face-up attack position.
P1 passes on response.
P2 passes on response.
Now P1 activates "Call of the Haunted" targeting "Cannon Soldier".
P2 responds with "Threatening Roar".
P1 responds with "Royal Decree".
P2 responds with "Dust Tornado".
P1 does not respond.

Chain resolves with the last thing happening is "Cannon Soldier" being Special Summoned to the field by P1. Now, Does P1 retain Priority to use "Cannon Soldier"s effect? Or since the last effect to resolve was controlled by P1, is Priority passed to P2 at this time?

 

[slither]

Why didn't I think of a way to ask that question, so easily , that's exactly my whole doubt about this case.

 

[novastar]

Yes you can. Royal Oppression. :icon_mrgr

Although I probably missed what you mean.

lol, you did... i'm not refering to summons from Hand.

It seems to me that Dan (and John) is implying that there are 2 different rules regarding which player recieves Priority after an effect resolves.

- if an effect that Special Summons like Call of the Haunted resolves... Priority is given to the Turn Player.

- if any other type of effect resolves, like say Breaker's effect, then Priority slides over to the Opponent.

I see this as causing massive confusion...especially since many Special Summon effects are not as clear cut as Call.

We need to have 1 fixed rule here John because it is a mechanic/rule...much like declaring an attack. The process of Attack Declaration is designed to flow step by step the same way in all cases when it happens (unless altered by effect which is the golden rule).

Priority should follow suite, as mechanics and rules form the framework of the game, and should be solid. Rulings can vary from case to case, thats what they are there for.

 

[Jason_C]

I see, so now a basic game mechanic has boiled down to being (quote) "Probably somewhere in the minds of those involved in creating this game."?

I'll be honest and say I fail to see the problem with that...

It's described on various cards as you say? Could you please point those out to me? I should then do some studying that I've missed.

Ever heard the ruling of Exiled Force vs Trap Hole? Isn't that an example of the turn player retaining priority after a non-chainable event? Or am I missing more than I thought here?

The fact that what you say seems logical I'll grant you, then again, there are a great many things about this game that would be much easier and more logical if they were to work in a more standard, organized, and structured fashion....we all know that's simply not the case in this game though. As I've said many times, we're talking about a game based on a comic book / cartoon character who talks to his alter ego....you want logic out of that? <smirk>

And again, I fail to see the problem with that. Granted, we all know that spiritual alter egos don't exist. But what if they did, and you had one, and it knew more about the world than you? You'd talk to it, I'm sure. The facts in the show are different, but the LOGIC remains the same. Surely you must've read some decent science fiction stories, right? And you know that there isn't such a thing as a time machine or a portal to another dimension, but they're still good stories, because the LOGIC that dictates the character's decisions is still the same, just in a different setting from what we're used to.

So basically, if we were all Paranoid and suffering from Schizophrenia, we'd have a MUCH better understanding of the game.

It's been stated on several occasions *looks at Skey and Daivy* that I am paranoid and schizophrenic. And I believe I understand priority. BELIEVE. Don't know.

Dan mentioned the 'only' hiccup being when the Turn Player Summoned, but does that extend to a Special Summon via an outside effect?

You've just stumbled onto one of the glaring flaws in the current rulings. It is illogical, and anything that is illogical will inevitably falter at some point. Like social security.

<EDIT: Novastar and slither both butted in on that last post>

 

[novastar]

I'd say the closet thing we have to a true understanding of priority is what I posted earlier in the thread from Dan.

Well...the JERP has a great deal of reference to Priority is all of the rules and rulings they have. Everything from individual card rulings to actual rules of the game. EDO has also made reference in the past to Priority...as well as the JPN Rulebook itself...yet no NA rules? after how many years?

Of course i know first hand that Kevin denouces most of these sites altogether... but it's more politics than anything else.

Where do you suppose they got it from?

Did they just make it up?

I'd personally like to know, because sites like the JERP are a huge resource...probably as large as UDE's and Konami's individual sites put together in terms of content.

 

[John Danker]

It seems to me that Dan (and John) is implying that there are 2 different rules regarding which player recieves Priority after an effect resolves.

- if an effect that Special Summons like Call of the Haunted resolves... Priority is given to the Turn Player.

- if any other type of effect resolves, like say Breaker's effect, then Priority slides over to the Opponent..

I assume you mean the opponent to be the opposite player of the contoler of the last effect to resolve? This is, quite honestly where I unclear about Dan's post myself. It's an assumption (and quite possible a completely incorrect one) this is the case.

I see this as causing massive confusion...especially since many Special Summon effects are not as clear cut as Call.

We need to have 1 fixed rule here John because it is a mechanic/rule...much like declaring an attack. The process of Attack Declaration is designed to flow step by step the same way in all cases when it happens (unless altered by effect which is the golden rule).

Priority should follow suite, as mechanics and rules form the framework of the game, and should be solid. Rulings can vary from case to case, thats what they are there for.

I see mass confusion as it is now <shrug> I'm not sure we could possibly confuse the matter any more than it already is! <soft chuckle>

We many NEED 1 fixed rule...and as I've stated about numerous other mechaincs and rulings concerning this game...it would please me to no end IF that would turn out to be the case. It would make my job MUCH easier....I'm cheering for the possibility! What I'm being told, I'm afraid, conflicts with the cheering seciton in my mind's eye.

As I stated in another thread today. Just because it makes sense, just because it is logical, just because it makes things simple and follows a flow....doesn't mean that's the way it's ruled. Evidence the thought pattern of a resolution of a card effect being unable to be interupted. It was sound, it worked all the time....then entered the Archfiends <rolling eyes> Always an exception to the rule, always something to mess up the system. I'm slowly growing accustomed to it....which doesn't make me like it anymore.

I've done my "job" in this thread and put out what I've been presented. I'm not saying it's the final end all, I'm not saying it's even correct as stated thus far. All I'm saying is that's the way we've been instructed to rule it as representatives and sanctioned judges for UDE and that's the way you can expect the L3 judges to rule it until we're told differently.

I'll leave the rest of the debate to the rest of you very dedicated and helpful members. Again, a sincere thank you for your efforts, input, and discussion.

 

[novastar]

I see mass confusion as it is now <shrug> I'm not sure we could possibly confuse the matter any more than it already is! <soft chuckle>

Yes... but not among individuals (and i have my own thoughts on who they are) who have been around for a long time and worked with priority in building a framework. In otherwords, those who have had a firm grasp on mechanics and priority have really not changed much and stood firm. It's the lack of official ruling to back it up that has created the confusion. <*smile*>

I'm saying that it would cause mass confusion, because of the fact that it's not just anyone saying this... its a UDE rulings official... people take that stuff and run like with it like chickens with their head cut off.

At any rate, i'm glad you brought it to our attention John... it's food for thought. Maybe we (in this forum) can pick it apart and hopefully give something back for them to chew on.

 

[slither]

people take that stuff and run like with it like chickens with their head cut off.

LOL!, I just imagine the mental picture of it .

Just a quote:

Though this types of "whatchamacallit"... irregularities tend to cause dramatic explanations and extensive discussion with out a real conclusive ruling <I expressed earlier>, that one might agree with, even though UDE <after KONAMI of course> still has the last word =/.

If judging by thoughts <let's say in an official tournament> instead of what has been written by officials in UDE and another judge brings this issues up, there is not much that one can do, nevertheless not one being wrong.

So, I do agree on what thing, that as of know I believe is one of the greatest things i've seen here so far, which is this thought by novastar:

Maybe we (in this forum) can pick it apart and hopefully give something back for them to chew on.

we should all try and do this, as there are still many things to fully clear up about this game which for some strange reason as time passes by it seems that answers given from higher officials in regards to "new" cards/rulings is less and less and less explanatory.

I don't see the day when an answer will consist only in a YES or NO <I know that this has happened already>, but just think about it:

"I have a question about priority, does the turn player get priority upon summoning a monster? And if he does why does he get it?"

ANSWER:

"Yes, and he gets it because he does"