Compulsory Evacuation Device vs. Creature Swap

D

djshalifoe

New Member
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.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
How is it a logical fallacy on my part?  I'm just going by what John says he was personally told by Kevin.  As far as I can tell, there's no interpretation involved on John's part.  Kevin gave him a situation and told him to rule it in a certain way.  John didn't reason it out for himself, he was given a direction.  I only see John doing the same thing the rest of us are doing, trying to read logic back into Kevin's direction.  And, admittedly, he's not entirely in agreement either.  But we're talking about your/our interpretation vs. Kevin's direction and in that case, all I'm saying it that his direction is final and we can all interpret til our little heart's are content, it doesn't change the fact that Kevin gave the direction to rule the situation in a specific way.

I agree with you on your description of a "response chain", if we're talking about reacting to the last action.  Hence my own thinking being opposite of the way John says he was told to rule.  Like I keep saying, I don't necessarily like the way it is, but I think I understand the perspective.  The only way any of us are going to be happy and be able to reason it out for ourselves is if Kevin/UDE/Konami/whoever releases a detailed explanation of the mechanic.  Until then, we're all just yammering on and on about how "we" think it should be.  Ultimately, Kevin will be the one to say how it actually is.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Danker said:
Incorrect. The chain or card effect did not end in a summon. After resolution of Creature Swap priority would be passed to the non-turn player to activate a spell speed 2 or higher card he has set, if the non-turn player does not or cannot then turn player would assume priority once again.
Click to expand...

This is what he said. Can he say that it's the exact ruling he was given?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
Click to expand...
And also to make it clear, Raj hit it right on the head... i stated "John's analysis" because that is his interpretation, and i disagree with it.

Also, I as a judge do not have to rule it kevin's way at all. Even if kevin was standing right in front of me and i was the Head Judge, my say goes, not his, and he could not overrule me. Theoretically i could re-write the rules of the game on the spot if i so wished as a Head Judge, that is how the policy works. Of course i would never do that, but its important to understand that when it comes down to it, a Head Judges' ruling is final. Regardless of what kevin says.

Considering priority has no official definition, we are free to "interpret" the rules any way we wish as a judge. I will not rule it this way, it will be slightly different but in the end i don't feel it will make a huge difference on the game.

Even though I pretty much disagree with everthing John has presented (concerning priority) in this thread fundamentally, we don't have to agree.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Novastar, no offense intended here, but you sound like you have a pretty arrogant and cavalier attitude about being a judge.  You sound just like the kid that runs the tournament where I used to play.  He decided that not only were they not going to follow the ban list, but they weren't going to follow the latest limited list either, so they're still playing the game with 3x MST, 3x DMoC, CED, Yata, and the rest of the gang.  I guess the way you see it, that's a completely acceptable way of doing things because, well, that's the way he want's to do it, UDE's direction on how the game should be played be damned.

Well, knock yourself out I guess.  But it's "judges" like that that made me find a new place to play. 

I guess I'm taking John at his word since he already stated on several occassions that he didn't necessarily agree with the ruling.  It's obviously not his interpretation.  You don't tend to interpret things in ways which you do not agree. 

But you're right, you are free to do what you want I suppose.  It just makes for a very frustrating environment when you have judges at different tournaments purposely ruling things differently because they don't like a ruling.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Personally I feel it my responsability, regardless of weather I agree with the interpretation or reasoning, to bring to the players I judge the most up to date and concise information and rulings that I can. Often times, that means that I don't have a complete explination or logical reason at the time I give them the information. I often come back at a later date and expand upon my information.

I don't like piece mealing things any more than any of you. What I have seen though, is that by giving the players in my area this up to date information that 95% of the time they are head and shoulders above their competition in technical knowledge. This has made a huge impact on their play. It was quite evident at the last regional qualifier in Des Moines where the players from our area took 3 of the top 4 places. Granted, they're good players to begin with....but they literally intimidated people with their technical play, it's what won them their national invites.

We've all learned that this game changes, it will likely continue to change, we have two choices, either we accept that and adapt and overcome or we resist, gripe, and moan......and it will continue to change anyway.

Novastar is absolutely correct in that any head judge may rule it as they see fit. We all have our different ideas and sources of information as to how a number of mechanics or rulings work. My best suggestion to anyone attending a tourmament where they're unfamiliar with the head judge is to speak with him before hand or before making a play about any card / mechanic that is under scruitiny. Is that the way it should be? Of course not....but for now that's the way it is.

I'll state it again. I had reasoned priority out the same way that a great many of you have. It all made perfect sense as Novastar has expressed it. Then I had my socks knocked off along with other L2-L3 judge and had my perfect little logical world all blown apart <soft chuckle> I HATE it whe that happens!

It's likely that when we do finally all get a consice definition we're all going to have to make adjustments and appologies. If you're a judge for Yugioh you're likely used to that by now though!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
djshalifoe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just a little something to add in from the original post...
I thought the monsters switched y creature swap could not change battle positions the turn they are switched...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Basically, that's another "BECAUSE" ruling. I prefer to simply know the ruling and go with it, rather than rack my brain understanding the "why", since it is after all a game. The game mechanics don't really have to follow the known laws of the Universe.

If you MUST have the why, then it's because Scapegoat has an activation condition (that you cannot have already summoned) but Creature Swap, a non-targeting effect, can't really care about prior battle positions, it can only prevent position change after it's resolution.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What started as a simple question about "Compulsory Evacuation Device" and "Creature Swap" turned into a long, heated discussion about priority. Good going, Danker.

Heheh...Ya know I'm kidding, John. :D

One more quick thing:

I think Kevin is working on a priority document (which was in fact meant to be done about 3 months ago
Click to expand...

Actually, Kevin has been done with it for a while -- the hard part is waiting for Konami (and Shueisha, and so on and so forth) to approve everything. It could be days from now, weeks, or even longer. It's already been a couple months, so a couple more months of wait shouldn't be so bad...right....right? :?

I'd add more to the priority stuff, but everyone thus far has done a remarkable job of explaining more or less everything we currently know about the subject (which sadly is not enough).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
<giggling> Yeah....and now AFTER I've taken all the heat YOU show up and make snide remarks Kenjiblade.......CHICKEN! <smirk> The LEAST you could do is back me up a bit here ya know!

Kenjiblade is absolutely right. Kevin has been done with that essay for eons actually. It's taken Konami months just to get around to reading it. That doesn't mean beans by the way.....they could let it rot on umpteen people's desks for months more.....and if that's what Konami decides to do there isn't anything you, I, or Kevin can do about it. We're all sadly at their mercy.

One thing I've discovered about card text....as I've made suggestions for them to change certain text or delete certain confusing text because it's not actually part of the card's effect at all but in reality a game mechanic is that Konami likes to have the same text on all cards regardless of language as their Japanesse versions. So, it doesn't matter what we have a taste for or what would make it easier for us to understand or contemplate.....it all has to be the same as theirs. We're going to have to live with it for now....though that isn't saying we can't express our displeasure with the matter.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
if my opp plays premature burial and targets magical scientist and i do nothing, then at the resolution when magical scientist hits the field, the non turn player (me) would have priority right?? i could do something before scientist tries to use his effect??
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Your opponent will have priority to activate "Magical Scientist's" effect once.

Of course, this merely puts its effect into Step 1 of the chain; although you don't get to activate something first, your effect(s) will be the first to resolve.

So, if you use "Ring of Destruction" on "Magical Scientist," you can destroy it before its effect resolves. Of course, "Magical Scientist's" effect WILL still resolve, as its effect does not require it to be on the field upon resolution. The plus side here is that your opponent can't use "Magical Scientist's" effect again, since it is no longer on their field.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
these rulings r confusing.

in the creature swap situation, the non-turn player has priority at resolution, but in my premature situation, the non-turn player does not??

is the creature swap situation official??
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sensAsian said:
these rulings r confusing.

in the creature swap situation, the non-turn player has priority at resolution, but in my premature situation, the non-turn player does not??

is the creature swap situation official??
Click to expand...


The Turn Player ALWAYS has priority when a chain resolves. However, priority does NOT allow the turn player to perform a Summon.

(except for "Last Turn" if there are no trigger effects to resolve.. last turn happens before the turn-player can respond to the resolution of its chain)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DaGuyWitBluGlasses said:
The Turn Player ALWAYS has priority when a chain resolves. However, priority does NOT allow the turn player to perform a Summon.

(except for "Last Turn" if there are no trigger effects to resolve.. last turn happens before the turn-player can respond to the resolution of its chain)[/QUOTE

There are many very knowledgeable people who will disagree with this statement, myself being one of them.

Kenji you want to pipe in on this one or aren't you allowed to being you're an official source and the official Priority Essay hasn't been posted yet?
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's all just "debate" at this point, until Konami get's off their collective butts and either aproves the Priority Essay or edits the thing as needed. As for some thought, I wan't to point out some existing (and not likely to change) rules that reinforces some of my views on the matter.

Konami has consitently ruled that when an effect monster (such as Magical Scientist) is summoned or special summoned the Turn Player will have the chance to activate it's effect. That effect always ends up as "Chain Link 1"

Konami has also consitently ruled that the Non-turn Player may activate effects (properly timed of course) in what we are now calling "The Responsive Chain". The non-turn player always ends up as "Chain Link 2", provided the Turn Player did in exercise their option to occupy "Chain Link 1".

What I see as happening is a simple "ordering" of the Responce Chain. Both effects are in responce to a game event, and one of two things is possible (as far as Konami views things)

- Either the Turn Player does maintain priority and therefor the effect goes into Chain Link 1

- Or the effects are concidered to be activated in the same time frame, just as effects which all trigger in a Standby Phase, the effects MAY be concidered to be triggered or keyed to the same event. IF that is the case, then ordering would again by default, place the Turn Player as Chain Link 1, and the Non-Turn Player as Chain Link 2.

I personally expect that the first option is the more likely of the two, but I'm open to what-ever Konami thows at us. Ultimately, the biggest chalenge we all face now is being willing to accept the rule when it does arrive and adjust our rulings/playings as need be.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kenjiblade said:
Actually, Kevin has been done with it for a while -- the hard part is waiting for Konami (and Shueisha, and so on and so forth) to approve everything. It could be days from now, weeks, or even longer. It's already been a couple months, so a couple more months of wait shouldn't be so bad...right....right? :?
Click to expand...
Ah Man!! I'm glad I decided to finish reading this thread. I was going to make this exact same point but I wanted to make sure someone didn't steal my thunder.

Thanks a lot Kenji! LOL :p
Spot's Knight ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Heheh...Stealing thunder, that's what I do best, spots! ;)

Oh, and John:

John Danker said:
Kenji you want to pipe in on this one or aren't you allowed to being you're an official source and the official Priority Essay hasn't been posted yet?
Click to expand...

It's not so much that I'm not allowed to (though that has something to do with it), it's that I also don't want to yet. Yes, all the various talk about priority during GenCon SoCal last month just made me less confident about my knowledge of it. :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top