Forced Back To Playground YGO?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jason_C

Banned
Text:
Negate the Normal Summon or Flip Summon of a monster and return the monster to its owner's hand.

Rulings :
You cannot activate this card when a monster is Set.
If a monster with a Flip Effect is Flip Summoned and you activate "Forced Back", then the Flip Effect never activates.
If you negate the Normal or Flip Summon of "Dark Magician of Chaos" with "Forced Back", it is returned to the hand and is not removed from play.
You can activate "Forced Back" when you Normal or Flip Summon your own monster. You should announce this immediately after your Summon. Once you allow your opponent to activate "Torrential Tribute" you are acknowledging that the Summon was successful and you cannot activate "Forced Back".
Click to expand...
I have reason to suspect the bolded ruling is in error. The intended meaning, I believe, is to confirm that, even in the "imaginary" window in which Horn of Heaven, Solemn Judgment, Forced Back, and Royal Oppression are to be activated, the summoning player still has priority off the bat to respond. That is, you may Force Back or Solemnly Judge your own monster before your opponent may do so.

So that's what I think the ruling means. But that's not what it SAYS. What it says is that if your opponent gets a chance to use a "real" card, then that automatically means you have entered "real" play and have passed that "imaginary" window for Solemn Judgment. What about all the talk of "YGO isn't a race" and "Priority is there to keep order" and "Just because your opponent jumped the gun doesn't mean they have a right to"?

Remember how, if you summon Cannon Soldier, and your opponent flips up a Trap Hole, you can say "Whoah! Slow down there! It's my turn; I summoned; I want to use my Cannon Soldier's Ignition effect!" and their Trap Hole will be returned to a face-down position? Well, why shouldn't the same apply here? Who says your opponent can jump the gun and play Torrential, thus cheating you out of your ability to Force Back your own monster? Aren't they supposed to wait until after you pass priority before they play?

:edit Yeah, and I'm using the words "imaginary" and "real" because I still contest the imaginary window for the activation of spell speed threes in response to a summon. But yeah...
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Dr Sin said:
yeah, I know. And in the thread I argued it too.
But many of the participants kept saying that it is legal.
Also another situation discussed:
TP has a Blade (not busted) in face-up attack position and is in his Battle Step. NTP has a face-up Chiron the Mage and a set Sak.
TP declares Blade is attacking Chiron and passes. NTP also passes (he didn't realize TP intentions). I believe response-window is closed at this time, and no card with "when your opponent declares an attack..." can be activated.
TP now activates EC. NTP tries to respond with Sak. I believe he can't do it now (reason above). But Kyhotae and John said that NTP can do it, because last thing "lingering" is still the attack.
Well, I don't agree, and I already explained why, but since no official word has been given, we could go anyway.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, the ruling (through unconfirmed) was only in regard to attack response timing, and not summon response. I believe that a lot of people believed that if it were true of one, that it should be true of the other, but last I recall, the Judges Lists showed that double pass on a summon meant summon response timing had passed.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jason_C said:
Double pass always closes the window. Period. End of story.

The Judges' List can disagree. They are incorrect.
Click to expand...
And you can provide irrefutable proof of this? I'd love to see it. Otherwise you are just stating your 'belief'. And just because you 'believe' it to be that way doesn't make it the 'End of Story'...lol.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And you can provide irrefutable proof of this?
Click to expand...
I'll try.

Statement P: If both player pass on the opportunity to activate an effect, the particular window in which they passed ends, and a new window begins.

I'll attempt to prove this to be true. To do so, I shall show that it can't not be true.

Assume that P is not true. In other words, it is false. Thus statement I: If both players pass on the opportunity to activate an effect, the particular window in which they passed does not end. From this, statement X: If both player pass on the opportunity to activate an effect, the particular window in which they passed remains 'open'.

Apply statement X to any scenario. Any. At all.

First we'll try applying it to the window of response after an attack. It is the Battle Step, second default chain point, and Gemini Elf has just declared an attack on Summoned Skull.

The attacking player, TP, has priority first to respond to his own monster's attack. He chooses not to respond. In other words, he passes.

The defending player, OP, receives priority to respond to the attack. He does not. He passes.

By the logic of statement X, the window of opportunity to respond to the attack is still open. At what particular point shall it close?

The attacking player, TP, has priority to respond to his own monster's attack. He chooses not to respond. In other words, he passes.

The defending player, OP, receives priority to respond to the attack. He does not. He passes.

The attacking player, TP, has priority to respond to his own monster's attack. He chooses not to respond. In other words, he passes.

The defending player, OP, receives priority to respond to the attack. He does not. He passes.

I do love the ctrl + V keys.

Now, statement X dictates that the window of opportunity to respond to the attack remains open. It specifies no point at which the window should close. By this logic, the game should continue in that window for all eternity. We know for a fact that the game does not continue in that window for all eternity. Therefore we conclude that statement X is false. Refer to the beginning of this post. We conclude that statement P is true.

The same logic can be applied to any situation in Yu-Gi-Oh!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And the source of this information you provided would be?



Btw...if it's anybody other than Kevin, Dan or Justin, then it can be refuted as being incorrect.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
Btw...if it's anybody other than Kevin, Dan or Justin, then it can be refuted as being incorrect.
Click to expand...
They also can be refuted as well.

Make no mistake, their level of understanding and info is no greater than many of us here. In some cases even less.

The main difference is that their titles make their words somewhat "Official" ...but official <> correct (in the case of UDE).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Irrefutable proof would be more then logical reasoning, for this particular discussion. It would be where it has been official stated and posted. Anything else is just our opinion.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
They also can be refuted as well.

Make no mistake, their level of understanding and info is no greater than many of us here. In some cases even less.

The main difference is that their titles make there words "Official" but official <> correct (in the case of UDE).
Click to expand...
True, very true, but.... It's much harder to refute them than anything else.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
Irrefutable proof would be more then logical reasoning, for this particular discussion. It would be where it has been official stated and posted. Anything else is just our opinion.
Click to expand...
To add, it should also be pointed out very clearly, that infact NEITHER theory/logic has ever been posted to the public in any way, shape, or form, in regards to response timing "lingering" or not (only IMHO hints towards it not lingering).

A post on the LV3 list is NOT an official statement, nor ruling.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
A post on the LV3 list is NOT an official statement, nor ruling.
Click to expand...
I don't think anybody suggested it was, or that there even was a post on the L3 list about anything similar to this at all. (at least not in this thread)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
To add, it should also be pointed out very clearly, that infact NEITHER theory/logic has ever been posted to the public in any way, shape, or form, in regards to response timing "lingering" or not (only IMHO hints towards it not lingering).

A post on the LV3 list is NOT an official statement, nor ruling.
Click to expand...
Let me point out, though, that my initial post which triggered this leg of the discussion, I did put in parenthesis (though unconfirmed).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Guys i'm just making it clear to anyone else reading this, i don't think stating "unconfirmed" is enough.

There is no Official public statement "proving" one way or the other at this point. Not from UDE anyway.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
Guys i'm just making it clear to anyone else reading this, i don't think stating "unconfirmed" is enough.

There is no Official public statement "proving" one way or the other at this point. Not from UDE anyway.
Click to expand...
And THAT was exactly my point. There is no way Jason can provide information to back up his 'End of Story' claim because it doesn't exist publicly (if at all). Just like there would be no way for me to back up an opposing stance against Jason's statement.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jason_C said:
Please define "official".
Click to expand...
Quoted for emphasis.

You keep denouncing what I'm saying as unofficial, so therefore you are obligated to provide an explicit definition of "official" and an explanation of how what I say is not official.

Can anyone here quote a specific part of my post that is unofficial in any way? It does not matter if there is one sentence that is based on unofficial information or if the entire post is. I would just like to see someone pick a specific statement I made, define "official", and conclusively show me why what I'm saying is not official.

Need I remind anyone of the Master Monk and Mind Crush threads? In both cases, DaGuyWitBluGlasses effectively and conclusively proved the Judges' List to be utterly wrong beyond doubt. He is not an official rule-maker, but he didn't make any rules. He only took known facts and demonstrated how they disprove what the Judges' List claimed. I am doing exactly the same in this thread. Unless someone can show me the error in my post, I'm correct.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jason_C said:
Quoted for emphasis.

You keep denouncing what I'm saying as unofficial, so therefore you are obligated to provide an explicit definition of "official" and an explanation of how what I say is not official.

Can anyone here quote a specific part of my post that is unofficial in any way? It does not matter if there is one sentence that is based on unofficial information or if the entire post is. I would just like to see someone pick a specific statement I made, define "official", and conclusively show me why what I'm saying is not official.

Need I remind anyone of the Master Monk and Mind Crush threads? In both cases, DaGuyWitBluGlasses effectively and conclusively proved the Judges' List to be utterly wrong beyond doubt. He is not an official rule-maker, but he didn't make any rules. He only took known facts and demonstrated how they disprove what the Judges' List claimed. I am doing exactly the same in this thread. Unless someone can show me the error in my post, I'm correct.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. What we had on those threads was a conflict of existing rules and statements. That's not the same thing as being incorrect. That just being inconsistent.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
Not exactly. What we had on those threads was a conflict of existing rules and statements. That's not the same thing as being incorrect. That just being inconsistent.
Click to expand...
What we had on those threads was a conflict between official statements and unofficial ones. The official ones came from Konami. The unofficial ones came from UDE.

We have the same thing here. I'm arguing the official side. What am I saying that is unofficial?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top