Compulsory Evacuation Device vs. Creature Swap

[djshalifoe]

Scenario:

My opponent switches his Scapegoat token into attack mode, plays Creature Swap and selects the goat in attack mode to give to me...my question is, can I then chain my Compulsory Evacuation Device and send (technically would RFG it, I know) the token "back to his hand?"

If so, would the effect of Creature Swap then disappear?

I'm thinking yes that's all legal, but LMK if I'm correct please & thanks.

 

[Lustermaster]

anyway, if you say I tribute this, your opponent cannot chain to those words. I still think that when It touches the field it can be said a.s.a.p I tribute. Not sure of it but pretty confident.

 

[novastar]

I'm not familiar with a "response chain" unless you're talking about the way priority get's passed back and forth when players decide or decline to respond to an effect or chain.  I've just never heard of it as an official mechanic of the game.  The 2nd scenerio makes sense to me, but I can see how people are going to argue til they're blue in the face about it being wrong because it does "seem wrong".  That priority essay from Kevin Tewart can't come soon enough.

You have heard of the "Response Chain," it happens everytime you summon a monster from hand...

When you summon a monster, both players must first decide whether to respond to the summon or not first, by activating or passing. As well certain card have triggers to them that can only be activated in the Summon Response Chain.

This is no different, both players must first decide whether to respond to the resolution of Snatch Steal first, before the turn player can Tribute Summon. This kind of "response" occurs everytime a chain resolves or an action (ie. summon) occurs.

 

[YaDoc]

Don't you think some things can be over analyzed. Would not Creature Swap/Snatch Steal and any responce to it have to resolve before a tribute summons is declared? The way I see it the non-turn player should have a chance to respond to the resolution of Snatch Steal before the turn player starts a new chainable event (tribute summons). I may be wrong.....but it feels right.

 

[novastar]

Don't you think some things can be over analyzed. Would not Creature Swap/Snatch Steal and any responce to it have to resolve before a tribute summons is declared? The way I see it the non-turn player should have a chance to respond to the resolution of Snatch Steal before the turn player starts a new chainable event (tribute summons). I may be wrong.....but it feels right.

Yup...and thats exactly what i'm saying...

 

[jdos]

I'm not familiar with a "response chain" unless you're talking about the way priority get's passed back and forth when players decide or decline to respond to an effect or chain. I've just never heard of it as an official mechanic of the game. The 2nd scenerio makes sense to me, but I can see how people are going to argue til they're blue in the face about it being wrong because it does "seem wrong". That priority essay from Kevin Tewart can't come soon enough.

You have heard of the "Response Chain," it happens everytime you summon a monster from hand...

When you summon a monster, both players must first decide whether to respond to the summon or not first, by activating or passing. As well certain card have triggers to them that can only be activated in the Summon Response Chain.

This is no different, both players must first decide whether to respond to the resolution of Snatch Steal first, before the turn player can Tribute Summon. This kind of "response" occurs everytime a chain resolves or an action (ie. summon) occurs.

It sounds like we're essentially saying the same thing. I've just never heard of it actually being called a "response chain" before.

 

[djshalifoe]

Wow, I never thought my original question would have such a long life, LOL.

The only thing I can add is that YoDoc incorrectly refers to a tribute summon as "a new chainable event (tribute summons)." :bishop:

But I agree that (1) this issue is being over-analyzed and (2) we need something definitive from Konami on this issue ASAP.

I think it's pretty cool that this game is still growing & developing like this though...hopefully it's a testament to it's staying power.

 

[densetsu_x]

Well, since we have Kevin's in-depth explanation up there in the e-mail he was sent (ok, so it's just a "because I said so" answer) that's about as official as we're likely going to get.

Although the explanation that

P1 activates "Snatch Steal" -> P2 has chance to respond
P2 declines to respond -> P1 has chance to respond
P1 declines to respond -> "Snatch Steal" resolves -> P2 now has chance to respond

That back and forth (trying to avoid the "priority" word here but I think most people get it) mechanic is about the most logical thing I've seen with helping to answer the question.

- A

 

[John Danker]

<quote>

p1: Plays Snatch Steal -->Targets p2's Shining Angel (priority now passes to p2)
p2: Declines to respond (priority passes back to p1)
p1: Declines to chain to Snatch Steal (priority now passes back to p2)

Snatch Steal resolves with Shining Angel residing on p1's side of the field.

p2: (who regained priority after Snatch Steal resloved) Plays Compulsory and sends Shining Angel back to his own hand.
p1: "Oh crap"

<end quote>

Perfectly described with the minor change of.....p2: (who regained priority after Snatch Steal resloved)

 

[anthonyj]

Well that doesn't address the possibility that:

So if P1 activates "Snatch Steal" ->P2 has chance to respond
P2 activates Waboku ->P1 has chance to respond
P1 declines to respond -> P2 has chance to respond
P2 declines to respond -> Waboku resolves -> Snatch Steal resolves -> P1 now has chance to respond.

The answer needs to be Kevin giving us an actual playable definition on Priority.  I'm about burned out trying to get any kind of actual game mechanic out of Yes/No answers and it is too easy to back peddle out when someone points out a flaw to the answers by saying "Well if the situation is this then our answer is right."  Enough already, if Kevin doesn't know who has the right to activate what at a specified time then Konami needs to step up and give us the answer.  It has been months of this "we'll answer specific questions" garbage.  Just give us the actual mechanics of the game.

 

[Fiendish Envoy]

I think Kevin is working on a priority document (which was in fact meant to be done about 3 months ago :|)

 

[KnightCmdr]

I've always thought the six phases (draw phase, standby phase, main phase 1, battle phase, main phase 2, end phase) of the game
WERE the mechanics of the game and the cards' text took care of the rest.  I tend to look at things from a larger perspective and
from that viewpoint the game breaks down pretty simply.  Digging into the each phase of the game outside of what the card texts
actually state is like trying to take a Swiss Watch apart and telling the maker he/she did it wrong because you see it differently.

I personally never thought of the games mechanics being terribly difficult to understand, the cards themselves offer enough complexity
to keep this game going for years to come with all the variations on card play plus the sheer number of cards available today.  It has
been an interesting topic to discuss and at times very enlightening to see what some of the viewpoints are and how varried they are
while we have been waiting patiently for UDE/Konomi to put this question to rest once and for all.  I personally don't believe in priority
as a valid game mechanic, nor do I believe that priority is anything inherent in the game at all, however, that is just my opinion and not
one commonly shared.

 

[novastar]

<quote>

p1:  Plays Snatch Steal -->Targets p2's Shining Angel (priority now passes to p2)
p2:  Declines to respond (priority passes back to p1)
p1:  Declines to chain to Snatch Steal (priority now passes back to p2)

Snatch Steal resolves with Shining Angel residing on p1's side of the field.

p2:  (who regained priority after Snatch Steal resloved) Plays Compulsory and sends Shining Angel back to his own hand.
p1:  "Oh crap"

<end quote>

Perfectly described with the minor change of.....p2:  (who regained priority after Snatch Steal resloved)

No, when a chain resolves, the Turn Player retains/given priority. He/she can always respond first.

In this specific case a Normal/Tribute Summon cannot be performed, because a response timing prevents you from doing so. The Turn Player absolutely could activate an effect Spell Speed 2 or higher.

Specifics:

"p1:  Declines to chain to Snatch Steal (priority now passes back to p2)"

This does not happen, once p1 passes, it is a double pass and the chain resolves, priority is stripped.

"p2:  (who regained priority after Snatch Steal resloved) Plays Compulsory and sends Shining Angel back to his own hand."

Once the effect resolves, priority is then given again to the Turn Player. It this point you have a response timing, and can only activate effects, not Normal/Tribute Summon. If you pass THEN the opponent can activate Compulsory.

 

[John Danker]

I'm not going to argue about this. I'm simply stating it the way I was instructed to rule it at GenCon So. Cal. by UDE officials.

We can debate it all we want. The bottom line is until I'm redirected by official sources the way I described will be the way I'm ruling it and the way all regional qualifiers will be ruled by those judges who were present at GenCon So. Cal.

Had the chain ended in a summon on the part of the turn player then the turn player would have had priority to activate a spell speed 2 effect or a cost effect before non-turn player could activate his Compulosry Evacuation Device / Ring of Destruction (or whatever)

If after the resolution of Snatch Steal, if non-turn player either cannot or decides not to activate a spell speed 2 or higher effect then priority would indeed return to the turn player to begin a new chain or tribute summon that Shining Angel.

 

[anthonyj]

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that you are incorrect. But this is a game mechanic that has to be straightened out. This is an essential element of the game. Who has the right of taking an action first after a given event in the game? What can and can not be used with that (for lack of a better word) Priority? If these answers change arbitrarily with each tournament and who is judging it gives the game a lack of reliability and makes petty arguments arise. There have to be basic truths of how the game operates. Obviously the game designer has in his mind how those work and dispenses those through Konami. Upperdeck is supposed to get those game mechanics from Konami and pass them down to the players here. If they want to take the next 6 months to pow wow and work it out, then tell us "We don't have this all worked out and we'll have a comprehensive rulebook that actually covers all aspects of the game in 6 months." But right now we get "Yes/No" answers to situations with no explanation as to game mechanics behind them and disparaging remarks on how "Knowledgeable people will say otherwise." If they have the understanding as to how the game properly operates and why then write it down. Give it to the Judges and the players so everyone understands the game. We were only asking what exactly Kevin said at GenCon as to "why" that is how it works.

 

[John Danker]

I'll give you an honest answer to at least part of your question.

I can't personally explain all the WHYS as to how it works the way it does. I can speculate as can any of you why and it's likely that's all I'll be able to do until we all get the full run down. I'll be happy to speculate and reason as best I can as soon as I get time enough to do so.

For right now I'm just relating to you what I've been instructed to do and how I've been instructed to rule.

As we all know the the communications between Konami and UDE are very carefully and meticuliously done and things get passed back and forth and batted around often without resolve. The culture differences alone make it very difficult. I'm afraid those are things I can't influence let alone resolve.

I'm just doing the best I can to pass onto anyone who chooses to listen what I've learned and how I've been instructed to rule. Just like all of you, I'm chomping at the bit to hear the whole story.

 

[novastar]

John just to make sure you understand, this is a discussion, so i'm adding my thoughts. I do fundamentaly disagree with your analysis, and will not rule it that way, but that doesn't mean that we can't just agree to disagree.

I'm not trying to argue at all, everyone's input i'm sure is appreciated.

 

[jdos]

John just to make sure you understand, this is a discussion, so i'm adding my thoughts. I do fundamentaly disagree with your analysis, and will not rule it that way, but that doesn't mean that we can't just agree to disagree.

I'm not trying to argue at all, everyone's input i'm sure is appreciated.

The thing is, it's not John's analysis, it's Kevin Tewart's direction.  If Kevin say's that's how it works, then you, me, or even John, can't just choose to rule it differently until told otherwise.

I don't necessarily like this ruling either, but I can see the perspective from which it comes.  If Kevin Tewart, and by extension UDE/Konami say that's how it is to be ruled right now, then that's how it is to be ruled.

Of course, a detailed explanation of priority would work wonders here...hint, hint, nudge, nudge...you out there Kevin?  Is this thing on?   

 

[John Danker]

Exactly....as far as I know....the reason could be, "Because the summon fell on a Tuesday of the first full moon of the month and Bigfoot was spotted crossing the bog down by the old Gattlin farm"

What you have to remember here is the cultural differences. In the United States we always want to know WHY....to us there is always suppose to be a rational explination, it's all suppose to work out to a logical flow. That's not necessarily the way it is in other parts of the world. In Japan, an official says this is the way THIS card works. Everyone says, "Ahhhhhh" and no one questions it. The Japanesse are unaccustomed to having to give explinations for anything that everyone wants to know....and for it to have to have a logical flow. They're slowly realizing that if they don't their customers here in the U.S. throw a hissy fit!

This reminds me of when Disney decided to build EuroDisney. The europeons saw what they had planned and how they planned on running it and they told Disney, "Hey wait folks, that's not going to work here" Disney didn't listen, their thought was, "Hey newbie, we've been doing this for eons, we know what works, just sit back and watch the fireworks" Well, the first couple of years went by and EuroDisney flopped big time. Disney decided they'd best open their ears. Slowly, EuroDisney became a success but not without having to re-earn and work hard to lure the european clientel back for another look.

I'm not saying that there won't be a logical explination to all questions currently up in the air, there may very well be. At this point I'm trying to relay to you as jdos has said, just how I've been instructed to rule. It's not my analysis, it's not my viewpoint, it's not something I've reasoned out, it's simply what I've been instructed to do.

As I've stated earlier, not but a month ago I'd reasoned out priority to be the same as all of you. It made SENSE, it was LOGICAL.....well, not everything in this game is necesarrily logical.....we ARE playing a game based off of a comic book strip featuring a guy who transforms into another person from ancient history....does THAT sound logical to you? <smirk> I think in today's world he'd be commited rather quickly and put on some heavy medication.

 

[anthonyj]

We do understand the limitations of the system (such as it is). The real hindrance here is that the Judge's of this game should be able to make rulings based on their knowledge of the game and how it works, not on how Kevin (or Konami) has chosen to run things this week. I'm sure there are cultural barriers that arise here much more often than in Japan on wanting to know the why behind given rulings. I can also say I (and many others I know) have pretty much lost faith in anything "face value" from Upperdeck as we have received a host of incorrect rulings and misunderstood game mechanics from them since I got into this game. We really are left with a situation where to take anything passed down without an understanding of why it works is just being part of supporting the problem instead of working towards a solution. Any time you preface handing down rulings with "Don't print this out or reproduce it in any way." You're stating you aren't 100% sure about what you are saying and that you want to be able to retract it with as little fuss as possible. That is the state we are currently in. We want more than a simple ruling because when pressed the simple ruling often falls apart at the seams. While Kevin can always blame the local Judges (or someone at Upperdeck made a typo) for not understanding what he meant because he isn't communicating directly with everyone who plays the game, those of us who are trying to educate the duelists who play this game and explain to them how things work and what they can and can't do would really appreciate not instructing anyone incorrectly as it keeps getting passed on to more and more people making it hard to get the correct information into practice once a logical explanation comes out.

The head judge at the tournament is supposed to be the one to make final decisions on any question about rulings during the tournament. I really don't think it is too much to ask that he be given straight information about the mechanics of the game. This isn't exception to the rule stuff here. It isn't a special ruling for a card that doesn't follow the rules. It is a base understanding of who has the right to make the next move. Without it you can't possibly rule correctly even if you know every rule handed down on every individual card in the game.

I'm fine with Konami wants it to work this way answers, the creator of the game wants it to be that way and that's how the game will be played (Legendary Fisherman comes to mind). But we aren't getting that kind of definitive on this topic. There has been no Priority Essay. There has been nothing "Officially" posted on handling who has the right to make the next move. Obviously the way it has been previously posted (before the issue of Priority was brought to our attention) is inaccurate and in need of revision. But it sounds like currently the Turn Player has first right to respond only when summoning a monster according to the individual card rulings and the few snippets we've been given on this. If I'm the only one confused by that I'll just walk away for a couple weeks to clear my head and hope the essay comes out.

 

[Raijinili]

John just to make sure you understand, this is a discussion, so i'm adding my thoughts. I do fundamentaly disagree with your analysis, and will not rule it that way, but that doesn't mean that we can't just agree to disagree.

I'm not trying to argue at all, everyone's input i'm sure is appreciated.

The thing is, it's not John's analysis, it's Kevin Tewart's direction. If Kevin say's that's how it works, then you, me, or even John, can't just choose to rule it differently until told otherwise.

I don't necessarily like this ruling either, but I can see the perspective from which it comes. If Kevin Tewart, and by extension UDE/Konami say that's how it is to be ruled right now, then that's how it is to be ruled.

Of course, a detailed explanation of priority would work wonders here...hint, hint, nudge, nudge...you out there Kevin? Is this thing on?

Logical fallacy: assuming that one interpretation is the only interpretation.

From the two posts from Kevin John posted, novastar and I interpret the rule to say that you cannot start a summon or anything slower than a Speed 2 in a response chain (usually). John interprets it as saying that the opponent has priority after the turn player's card is resolved. Unless there's information you're not providing?

Can we agree on the existence of a "response chain", at least, where the "Last Action" is what the players are responding to?