BTH being activated after TP announces he wants to proceed to BP

D

Dr Sin

New Member
Scenario: NTP has a f/d BTH and a set monster. He has activated Confiscation and knows that his opponent has only one Mobius in hand now.
TP draws a Cyber Dragon. He enters his MP1, special summons his CD and passes his opportunity to respond. NTP doesn't activates BTH, betting TP will summon Mobius, and then he will respond with BTH, making his opponent lose 2 cards for his one.
But then TP decides to proceed to BP, announcing it to NTP. NTP realizes his plan has failed, but he wants to maintain his f/d monster (a Skelengel, Dekoichi, MoF for example) and thinks: "wait a minute, the last event was still a summon and we are still in MP1" and activates BTH now.
1) Would this be a legal move?
2) And in fact, if this situation happens (a card being activated in a non-responsive window before the end of a MP1 after TP announced his intend to proceed to BP) would TP return to a point in his MP1 in which he could still perform a summon, or at this point he could only activate SS 2 effects?

I'm basing this situation on the below example, John Danker provided in another thread, for Battle step:

"This, however, would be legal...

P1 Declares attack w/ Gemini Elf and passes priority.
P2 Does not wish to respond at this time.
P1 Announces they wish to move into damage step.
P2 Activates Sakuretsu Armor* / BOM"

http://www.cogonline.net/threads.16798&page=6&pp=15

* "action connected card" being activated after both passing.

So, did you understand the point? And what do you think?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
John Danker said:
I don't buy the, "This is how it has always been in Yugioh" statement though. What people assume doesn't make it the correct ruling. I remember a time not so long ago when "The way it has always been in Yugioh" was stated about "monster priority" as well.
Click to expand...
Well UDE never had a definative rule on Priority at any point in time. Just so you know, the JPN priority rules were put into place a few years after the game was released, and only focused on Trigger placement and Cost Effect Priority.

So yes, it "Was how it was played since it was intruduced" the current revised Priority rules are purely new fresh mechanics, reworked, in collaboration by Konami and UDE together... you can smell it with the wide open Magic/VS style of Priority as it is ruled now, which is clearly UDE influenced.

Conversely, the event-response mechanic (timing rules) have been around since the beginning, and have never changed. The only challenge to this, are words coming from a select few UDE Officialls over the last couple years. Words that are not backed up by explainations which address the clear problems with the logic.

In the end, and i will state that this is purely opinion, but they will end up having the retract the statements because there would be too many holes to fill.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DarkLogicianOfCaos said:
And by retract, do you mean delete and pretend never existed?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't be the first time.... but something like that yeah...

A simple example to illustrate exactly "why" it doesn't work:

<Main Phase>

TP Normal Summons Gemini Elf
~a summon response timing is created/triggered

{Summon Response Chain}
TP pass
OP pass

***According to UDE, the summon response timing still exists since it is still the "last fact" so you end up with a "timing loop" until one player ends the loop by activating an Ignition Effect or a Spell Speed 2 or higher...

TP pass
OP pass
TP pass
OP pass

etc....

Also, keep in mind that during this timing you are not able to perform the following actions (and this is backed by UDE words as well):

- Normal/Tribute/Flip Summon or Set
- Activate a Spell Speed 1 effect
- End the current Phase/Step

SO, the problem you now face is that you will never be able to get out of this "timing loop" and progress the game unless one of you produces some sort of new "fact" thus forcing one of you to activate an effect.

Clearly one can see that this is not how YGO is played...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
and I'm afraid as a UDE judge that is what I'm bound to rule by....is what UDE puts forth for me to rule by. While there indeed may have been things set forth by Konami in the past UDE judges are to rule by what UDE has set forth.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That's why I hold to the idea that the TP should be the one to deside, "Okay, I am moving out of the response window to something new (as if I were to activate a normal spell card), do you agree that the response window is closed?"
I play it that way. At very least, if the NTP then tries to chain to my SS2 card in summon-response window that we both agreed was closed, we will both know that he is a liar!! (and quite probably a cheat)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Danker said:
and I'm afraid as a UDE judge that is what I'm bound to rule by....is what UDE puts forth for me to rule by. While there indeed may have been things set forth by Konami in the past UDE judges are to rule by what UDE has set forth.
Click to expand...
I know John, i'm just discussing it with you ;), as i like discussing things with you.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Oh there are many things I would change about the game and the rules if given the chance to make it more simple and more easily playable to it's targeted age group. I'm afraid though that's not my choice. I do the best I can to relay to members here what has been told me and to help decifer confusing rules and mechanics....and when different information is passed to me I'll be the first one to recant my statements.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
To be honest, i think it's more about what actually works vs. what doesn't work, rather than complex vs. simple.
Click to expand...

I can't say as I agree. It "works" now....we're playing the game, we're having sanctioned tournaments, regionals, nationals, and a world tournament....it must "work" well enough for those things to happen....but that doesn't make it simple.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Without being able to read both players' minds, the only thing I could do in a situation like that is talk to both players and then make a ruling based on what they said. It's a judgement call, and why head judges make the big bucks.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I just realized that if we can respond after a double pass, it could lead to:

TP has Torrential Tribute f/d
NTP has several monsters, and Bottomless Trap Hole f/d
Both players know the f/d cards.

TP's plan: "I'll summon a monster, and when he activates BTH I'll chain TT!"

NTP's plan: "When he summons a monster, he'll use TT to destroy my monsters, but my BTH will remove his monster!"

TP Summons a monster, and passes priority.
NTP passes.
TP passes.
NTP passes.
TP passes.
NTP passes.
TP passes.
NTP passes.
TP passes.
NTP passes.
TP passes.

Both players refuse to activate their card until the opponent does, stick by it stubbornly, tie up the game and cause many headaches!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok, it's about time I timidly jumped in here...lol.

Infinite loop passes are NOT valid in this game. Entropy's scenario is not something that can happen.

If the Turn Player declares their intent to end a step/phase and the opponent activates an effect before that phase/step is ended, the Turn Player is indeed allowed to continue in the current step/phase and do something else before declaring their intent to leave the step/phase again.

If both players pass on responding to the Summon, the timing for cards like "Torrential Tribute" or "Bottomless Trap Hole" has been missed.


There, that's my 2 cents....for what it's worth...lol.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Danker said:
I can't say as I agree. It "works" now....we're playing the game, we're having sanctioned tournaments, regionals, nationals, and a world tournament....it must "work" well enough for those things to happen....but that doesn't make it simple.
Click to expand...

It "works" in spite of having a clear ruling. Depending on where you are at any given time the Judge will have to choose A or B. That doesn't mean the system "works". It just means that in the overall picture it is a small enough mechanic that it shouldn't cause major havoc.

What the current UDE stance seems to be is that the response window is open until a new "event" or a Speed 1 spell is introduced (thus closing the window because they aren't able to be used in a response chain). This is a perplexing line of thinking as it very much clouds the response timing (as Nova stated). This seems more like a definition of exclusion rather than an actual mechanic. What we basically have is UDE has been told by Konami that you cannot activate a Speed 1 spell or summon as a legal action in a response chain. Thus when you do these things they obviously won't be the beginning of a response chain. That is like saying I know grapes don't come in Blue or White so as long as it is Blue or White it isn't a grape.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Danker said:
I can't say as I agree. It "works" now....we're playing the game, we're having sanctioned tournaments, regionals, nationals, and a world tournament....it must "work" well enough for those things to happen....but that doesn't make it simple.
Click to expand...
It works because nobody really follows it properly.

If this "last fact" lingering timing were to be followed strictly in the framework of the rules, you would end up in the timing loop i described every single game, and the game would essentially halt.

The way judges/players make it work, is by pretending the loop isn't there and moving on with life. Doesn't change the fact that the irregularity exists.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
<laffin> I didn't say it worked to my satisfaction ....or anyone else's for that matter! My point was that making it "work" isn't good enough in my eyes....making it work and clear (simple in my eyes = clear) is the goal.

Quite honestly as of late I've really grown tired of "making it work" as it were. I've also grown tired of trying to figure out what has not yet been explained. I often feel as though there are a very small percentage of the L3s who give input and dig deep into question for fear of a damaged reputation (fearing they'll look unknowledgable of the game that they're suppose to be an expert on) Being an old man I'm accustomed to asking the questions that make me look silly so that in the long run I DO know what I'm talking about....so long as those I ask are willing to answer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So, in your view this scenario is perfectly legal?

TP Normal Summons Gemini Elf

{Summon Response}
TP Pass
OP Pass
[TP Chain Link 1] Pot of Greed
[OP Chain Link 2] Torrential Tribute

Even though UDE has specifically stated that Pot of Greed (or any Normal Spell) cannot be activated during the Summon Response.

If not, then how in your view, does the game progress?

How do you explain or work it out in your head?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
Ok, it's about time I timidly jumped in here...lol.

If both players pass on responding to the Summon, the timing for cards like "Torrential Tribute" or "Bottomless Trap Hole" has been missed.

There, that's my 2 cents....for what it's worth...lol.
Click to expand...

The only difference I would put here is that if TP passes, then NTP passes, then it should be up to the TP to either go ahead and respond, or to move on to the next "action" (passing again, of course, not an option anymore...as Yugi likes to say, "Your Move"). The TP is the initiator. To take away his ability to respond to the summon after a double pass would, in a sense be like saying, TP either responds to the summon first, or, should he gamble that the NTP would respond and he doesn't, it is too late to respond. Should we penalize the TP for gambling away his Priority in the hopes that he can chain to his opponent? I can see the NTP losing out if he gambles that the TP will possibly move on should he give up the priority passed to him, but not the TP.

Of course, you are my head judge, so i rule the way you tell me too, Oh great and powerful "S"key.
<bows seven times, in humble obeisance> :yes_jedi:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
(assuming that novastar is addressing me)

I didn't say that....what I've stated is that I haven't seen where UDE said that the scenario you just wrote was illegal...by all means please point that link out to me....I've asked that question (sub. Heavy Storm for Pot of Greed) multiple times on the judge's list AND the L3 list with no response from UDE. The way the current rulings are stated with TT and BTH (the last thing to resolve) without a statement of definition of what is and is not considered a game event (the passing of priority, as far as I know, is not considered a game event) and without a rewording of the rulings for TT and BTH the evidence points to that scenario being a legal play.

In the absence of written documentation, and with my own logic (which I'll readily admit can sometimes be flawed) and with my strongest evidence being witness to a conversation between Kevin Tewart and another judge after the first SJC in CA explaining to him that even after multiple passes TT could still be activated because the last thing to occur was still the summon (a spell speed 1 card was not involved in this scenario...if you wish the specific scenario I'd be happy to give it to you) I can only draw the conclusion I have.

Am I saying that I'm without a doubt, dead nuts, correct? Nope. I'm saying that I haven't seen anything stated by UDE to point me in the other direction. Again, by all means, if you have a link stating otherwise I'm MORE than open to changing my mind.....heavens to betsy....I've been trying to get this answer for over a year!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The assumption is (and it may be incorrect, but...) that IF the TP cannot use his priority to respond to the summon with a non-QP spell card, then it must be because there is a timing window that only allows a response of speed 2, once a monster is summoned. If that is the case, then when both players pass (agreeing, in my mind, that the window is closed), by the time a non-QP spell IS played, the timing for response is over. However, I see your point. And it is true that I cannot for the life of me find anything stating that you cannot chain to a non-QP spell card in response to a summon. However, if you could, I would say that more mechanics just flew out the (response) window.... lol.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
If this "last fact" lingering timing were to be followed strictly in the framework of the rules, you would end up in the timing loop i described every single game, and the game would essentially halt.
Click to expand...

If i want to go from Point A (Say my front door) to Point B (the Grocery Store)

I can put a Point C, halfway between point A and Point B.
Then i can put a point D halfway between point B and Point C.

I can do this forever, And have an ifinite amount of points, yet, I can still make it from point A to Point B by walking, I do it once a week at least.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top