Delinquient duo's first discard

M

Manta

New Member
Is the first discard for Delinquient duo serperate from the second?

E.g. I activate duo, and my opponent randomly discards peten the dark clown and then selects and discards sinister serpent.

Is the effect of peten (and similar cards) skipped in this case?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I wish I could think of another card that had a miss the timing ability when it went from hand to graveyard, like Peten can, but let's try looking at some other cards.

Fear from the Dark / Despair from the Dark
Night Assailant
Electric Snake
Regenerating Mummy
Elephant Statue of Blessing / Elephant Statue of Disaster
Minar (not in the card DB?)
Roc from the Valley of Haze

Now, then, according to the "miss the timing" logic most are saying that Peten would have if he's the randomly discarded card, then if any one of the above cards were the ones to be randomly discarded, they would /have/ to be chain link 1 on the new chain, right? No choosing in which order to put them on the chain if Duo makes two of them go to the graveyard. I'm not sure this is case.

Let's get theoretical here. Say you have 4 creatures on the field, and Delinquent Duo mae you randomly discard Despair from the Dark, and you chose to discard Fear from the Dark. By the above logic, which you're stating if Peten "misses his timing", Despair would be link 1, Fear would be link 2, so then Fear would have to be summoned, and Despair wouldn't get summoned at all. I'm honestly not sure this is the case. I've never actually read anything anywhere about there being any "timing" issues with Delinquent Duo.

It's something that should be found out though, since it very well could mean a difference in someone's game, if it does force a chain to be started in a certain way.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CraniumX said:
Let's get theoretical here. Say you have 4 creatures on the field, and Delinquent Duo made you randomly discard Despair from the Dark, and you chose to discard Fear from the Dark. By the above logic, which you're stating if Peten "misses his timing", Despair would be link 1, Fear would be link 2, so then Fear would have to be summoned, and Despair wouldn't get summoned at all. I'm honestly not sure this is the case. I've never actually read anything anywhere about there being any "timing" issues with Delinquent Duo.

It's something that should be found out though, since it very well could mean a difference in someone's game, if it does force a chain to be started in a certain way.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that's not the case with the monsters you listed. Their effects are not optional. Let's read "Peten" and "Despair from the Dark", shall we...

Peten: "When this card is sent to your Graveyard, you can remove this card from the Graveyard to Special Summon 1 "Peten the Dark Clown" from your hand or Deck."

Despair: "When this card is sent from your hand or Deck to your Graveyard by your opponent's card effect, Special Summon this card to the field."

Notice that "Peten" has the phrase "you can.." and "Despair/Fear" does not have that phrase. That's what makes "Peten" different and have the timing issues.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chaosruler said:
Archfiend of Gilfer? That has optional timing, and works if discarded from the hand.

-chaosruler
Click to expand...
Ding ding ding!!...You are correct sir! Tell the man what he's won Bob!

Well, chaos, you've won the satisfaction of knowing what you know! And because what you know IS what you know, that should be satisfaction enough in and of itself.

congrats!...:D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I knew everything I listed was mandatory, but what I was saying, is would you have to put them on the chain in a certain way? If not, then I don't see where Peten would miss his timing with Delinquent Duo, in essense, the two cards are still being discarded by one single effect, just one right after the other.

It's like Delinquent Duo with one card in your hand, that card being Peten. You can't tell me he'd miss the timing by him being the one randomly discarded, and then the second half of DD, you discard an invisible card that doesn't exist. That would just be plain stupid. I gotta go with novastar on this one until we hear something more concrete. Otherwise, everyone's going to need to play mandatory chains after DD has happened without the option of which of the two effects to pick first.

With Night Assailant for instance, do you pick the Flip: card target as soon as it's discarded, or when it activates after the current chain ends. If you had to choose as soon as it's discarded, then you wouldn't be able to bring both Night Assailants back if both were discarded by DD, because even though they're both mandatory, the first one "missed its timing" to target the second one, so it would have to choose another monster, or none at all.

I would even think, according to your logic, if one of those monsters were to be discarded first, that Peten would miss his timing if he were discarded second, because a new chain has already started, so you'd miss the timing there.

What about if all three were dumped via Painful Choice? Can only one activate, while the other two must sit there and do nothing?

All I'm really saying is that DD is one single effect resolving, forcing multiple cards to go to the graveyard at once, one is just random, while the other is chosen. It's not two effects on a chain, it's just one. I think that's what novastar's saying as well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Using cards with manditory effects is a bad example.

And remember we are looking at the last thing to resolve. So if say a Peten and Night Assailant are both sent to the Graveyard from your hand by Graceful Charity, the last thing to occur is Peten going to the GY (as well as Night Assailant). So NA is chain link 1 because it's manditory and if you want to activate Petan's effect, it would be chain link 2. As for Painful Choice, since the last thing to happen is 4 cards being sent to the GY, they all would activate if 3 of the 4 cards were Peten (although that would be pretty pointless. But the conditions are the same as Archfiend of Gilfer).

Delinquent Duo has 2 parts needed to be done during the resolution of the card. They involve 1 card to randomly be discarded, and 1 card to be selected and discarded. However if Peten is the card randomly discarded, it's not the last event to occur. Think Card Destruction in this case. There are 2 parts to that to resolve it (discard then draw). Just because your 2 parts are the same kind of effect (discard), that doesn't mean it still isn't 2 separate actions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
Ya had to say it, didn't ya? lol :D

Anyhoo, I can't agree that Delinquent Duo could be construed as one discard event. By it's nature it requires you to randonly select a card, discard it, select another card, discard it. There would have been no need for the long winded phrasing the card text if it was a simuteaneous event. Otherwise it could have just as easily said:

Pay 1000 Life Points. Your opponent selects 1 card from his/her hand and then randomly selects another card from his/her hand and discards both cards to the Graveyard.

But the way it's phrased now is just unneccesarily long if its a single event.
Click to expand...
They have no choice but to phrase i that way because the selection process for each card is different.

I don't feel that a different selection method is enough to qualify it for a different event or effect. It should be 1 effect with 1 discard event of up to 2 cards, each chosen differently.

There should be functionally no difference between this:

"Randomly discard 2 cards from your opponent's hand."

and this:

"Your opponent randomly selects and discards 1 card from his/her hand and then selects and discards another card from his/her hand."

Other than the method of selection, there are both a single "up to 2 card" discard effects in my view.

Having said that, i cannot find anything, i mean anything, anywhere that could answer this (i've looked everywhere) somewhat Officially. Since none of the answers in this thread have official ruling to back them up, i will attempt to get one eventually once the List clears up, and they start answering questions again.

I'm not satisfied with the missed timing arguement. I just want to get Delinquent Duo cleared up in mind first.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
They have no choice but to phrase i that way because the selection process for each card is different.
Click to expand...

Sure there is:

"Your opponent randomly selects and discards 1 card from his/her hand and () selects and discards another card from his/her hand."

Without the word "then" it could be a single event but still explaining how to select the cards in order.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So then remove it, as far as i'm concerned the "then" wording doesn't matter here. I chalk that up to bad wording, it wouldn't be the first time, nor the last.

Besides Card Destruction only contains "and" and we know that it is infact to seperate events, that would cause cards to miss timing.

The root of the problem here is that the selection process is different for each card, making it look like 2 effects, when it should be infact 1 "2 card" discard effect.

I have submitted this to the Judge's List, hopefully we get a response. I think it's important for scenarios such as this to have a clear understanding of how DD works.

Scenario:
My opponent has 2 cards in hand, and I activate Delinquent Duo.

Question:
If Peten the Dark Clown is the first card discarded, can his effect be activated? or has it missed timing?

In otherwords, are the discards for Delinquent Duo considered to be a single effect with "up to 2 cards" discarded?(but chosen differently) or two seperate effects, and thus making it seperate events?

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

I don't mind being wrong, i just wanna make sure.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
They could have use the "and then" terminology for Card D as well, and it would have in no way, shape, or form changed the function of the effect.

Bottom Line: YuGiOh text should never be used as the only support for a ruling arguement. It is notoriously vague and inconsistant.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
It is notoriously vague and inconsistant.
Click to expand...
Hmm... they really could do a university degree in Yu-Gi-Oh rulings so, as that description about fits theoretical physics, if they can teach people that surely they can teach people Yu-Gi-Oh rulings!;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Delinquent Duo's both discard effect is a simultaneous.

Pay 1000 Life Points. Your opponent randomly selects and discards 1 card from his/her hand "and then" selects and discards another card from his/her hand.

Hate to admit, I don't like to make rulings based on the card's text, but this is what I believe is true.

It wouldn't be a simultaneous if the text were to say, "then" only.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
It could very well be a single event, but the mechanics of it speak to me as a two part event, much the way Last Turn has Multi-Events after reolution resolution. I guess I wouldn't be surprised either way, though. Need I mention Ultimate Offering again? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes, but if you compare it to other multiple discard effects like say Mirage of Nightmare, you will see my point.

[resolve] Mirage of Nightmare

1.) The opponent randomly selects a card in your hand. You discard it.
2.) The opponent randomly selects another card in your hand. You discard it.

[resolve] Delinquent Duo

1.) The opponent randomly selects a card in your hand. You discard it.
2.) You specifically select another card in your hand (looking at them). You discard it.

Lets try and forget about what the card actually says for a moment.

If you just look at the effects in action, the only difference between Mirage and DD is the selection process.

Hopefully i can get an official answer, i am definately curious to know. It will be relevent for Peten, Gilfer and a few others, and since Delinquent is a widely used card, it should be well understood.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top