Forced Back To Playground YGO?

[Jason_C]

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".

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...

 

[Digital Jedi]

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?

That your right. No posting or any UDE or Konami documentation that I know of claims that you are.

 

[Jason_C]

That your right. No posting or any UDE or Konami documentation that I know of claims that you are.

I've never seen Konami say that 2 and 2 make 4, but I'm pretty sure that's still right.

Heck, even if I didn't have math books, 2 and 2 would still be 4. I don't need anyone to tell me I'm right. My logic is solid.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Jason,your post wasn't logical:

You made a False Dilemma:
You assumed that the only thing either player could do was Pass or Activate a card.

One can say that you could: Pass Priority, Activate a card, OR Announce that you plan on leaving the window.

You also made the assumption that the game could not continue for infinity, which might be proved incorrect:

If each player controls an active Appropriate and one player draws, they alternate drawing 2 cards until one of the players deck out. But, there is no limit on the number of cards in a players deck, therefore (mechanically speaking) each player could have an infinite number of cards in his/her deck, and how would that player deck out.

Also keep in mind that the rules against Infinite Loops are only game mechanics when they involve automatic loops (e.g. Pole Position loops) There is nothing in the game mechanics preventing you from manually performing an action an infinite number of time (E.g. Butterfly Dagger Elma/Gearfried/Spell Absorption), the rules against it are Tournament Policy only.

Obviously it wouldn't be much fun to play against an opponent that does something infinitely. But similarly, it wouldn't be much fun playing against an opponent who'll punch you in the nose, but I think anyone's going to argue that there's Game Mechanics preventint the latter.

 

[Digital Jedi]

I've never seen Konami say that 2 and 2 make 4, but I'm pretty sure that's still right.

Heck, even if I didn't have math books, 2 and 2 would still be 4. I don't need anyone to tell me I'm right. My logic is solid.

Unless Konami decides that's not the case. You see, your only right, as long as your not wrong. Konami doesnt decide the laws of math. But they can make tokens flip-face down, give you an extra Normal Summon per turn and make donuts playable cards if they wanted to. Your arguing their own logic against their own logic.

 

[Jason_C]

Note DaGuy's post. Notice how he dissects my argument and points out the specific statements which he disagrees with, combined with a proper explanation of why they are disagreeable. He does NOT say "You aren't a UDE dude so what you say isn't always right".

One can say that you could: Pass Priority, Activate a card, OR Announce that you plan on leaving the window.

I thought it was generally accepted that passing priority is equivalent to declaring that you have nothing to activate, which is equivalent to stating your intention to leave the window.

However, I can see how this could be disputed, although in my humble opinion it would be asking for unnecessary overcomplication.

You also made the assumption that the game could not continue for infinity, which might be proved incorrect: ...

True, but in your examples effects are being used over and over again without progression. When I said that it could not continue infinitely, I meant the game could not exist in a state in which no events were occurring infinitely. I should have been clearer.

 

[Digital Jedi]

"You aren't a UDE dude so what you say isn't always right".

Yet strangely enough, that says it all, doesn't it.

 

[Jason_C]

Yet strangely enough, that says it all, doesn't it.

Not even remotely. I don't appreciate my logical arguments being treated like an opinion. If I make a logical argument, I expect anyone who disagrees with my conclusion to show the exact error in my logic. If I say Dark Hole is broken, that's an opinion and you don't have to disprove me. But what I have been arguing is fact based on logic. To disprove or even to discredit it, you must show the error in my logic.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Not even remotely. I don't appreciate my logical arguments being treated like an opinion. If I make a logical argument, I expect anyone who disagrees with my conclusion to show the exact error in my logic.

That's unfortunate. Because your logical argument was an opinion. Just because it makes sense, doesn't mean it was right. It seems we spend a lot more time arguing the validity of your statements rather then actual game mechanics

If I say Dark Hole is broken, that's an opinion and you don't have to disprove me. But what I have been arguing is fact based on logic. To disprove or even to discredit it, you must show the error in my logic.

We "must" do nothing of the sort. Yet we did anyway. We just didn't do it in the way you would have liked. Daguy points out the flaw in your logic. But we point out the fundamental flaw in your attitude. You can present rational information, but unless you can show the basis for you information, then your stating an opinion. You used no rulings, mechanics, or messages that would irrefutably prove you as correct.

Now that we are done with that, can move on to discussing rulings instead of discussing the degree to how correct you are?

 

[Jason_C]

Because your logical argument was an opinion.

:huh

Yet we did anyway.

No, not "we". "He".

But we point out the fundamental flaw in your attitude.

There is a connection between my attitude and the mechanics of YGO?

You can present rational information, but unless you can show the basis for you information, then your stating an opinion.

I did show the basis for my information. I stated my stance in the beginning. I then proceeded to argue my stance through an inverted form of proof. I first assumed my stance to be incorrect, then showed how, if it were incorrect, there would be a contradiction with game mechanics. DaGuy pointed out a flaw in my reasoning. You just told me I wasn't important enough to be right.

You used no rulings, mechanics, or messages that would irrefutably prove you as correct.

Obviously not, since I wasn't correct at all. But you saying that over and over is not the same as DaGuy demonstrating it.

Now that we are done with that, can move on to discussing rulings instead of discussing the degree to how correct you are?

It is only your opinion that we are done.

 

[anthonyj]

Jason, we've been down this road at least twice that come immediately to my mind, perhaps that is the reason you are simply being told the same thing we finished with previously.

We have not received any "Official" definition of what a pass "means" as far as the possibility of still continuing afterwards. From past comments that we've seen from Kevin he seems to believe that the "Pass" does not close windows and thus until he is either a) Given permission by Konami to make that "Official", or b) Konami sets him straight we can only give opinion on the logic of how things "should" be. The logic may be irrefutable however until we have no more illogical rulings posted as "Official" rulings, using the "logical" argument is not going to be the "end of the story".

It isn't that anyone is telling you you are wrong. I believe you are being told that we don't have that answer to able to disseminate. And one thing we have always attempted to maintain on this site is that we would attempt to teach everything correctly, when one encounters an area without proper rulings we may certainly give opinion, however we need to ensure less experienced players understand that "opinion" has weight according to the scenario they find themselves in. Kevin Tewart's "opinion" at a UDE sanctioned event will probably trump other theories because it is his show to call the shots (whether he is completely wrong or not). Giving information in absolute terms here spreads that information as fact to people who come here to learn more about the game. What you are stating has not been accepted as factual by Konami nor by UDE and thus needs to be offered as theory only so as not to spread information that may be proven incorrect when we do get "official" answers.

It is already frustrating enough to have "Official" answers get reversed after they have been taught. We don't need to add to the confusion.

 

[Jason_C]

Anthony: Got that now, thanks. DaGuy said basically the same thing, albeit in less detail.

I maintain, however, that any time a person makes a thought-out argument, anyone attempting to discredit said argument is obligated to also make a thought-out argument. Anyone remember the thread titled "The Wrong Word"?

 

[Digital Jedi]

Because your logical argument was an opinion.

:huh

Yet we did anyway.

No, not "we". "He".

But we point out the fundamental flaw in your attitude.

There is a connection between my attitude and the mechanics of YGO?

You can present rational information, but unless you can show the basis for you information, then your stating an opinion.

I did show the basis for my information. I stated my stance in the beginning. I then proceeded to argue my stance through an inverted form of proof. I first assumed my stance to be incorrect, then showed how, if it were incorrect, there would be a contradiction with game mechanics. DaGuy pointed out a flaw in my reasoning. You just told me I wasn't important enough to be right.

You used no rulings, mechanics, or messages that would irrefutably prove you as correct.

Obviously not, since I wasn't correct at all. But you saying that over and over is not the same as DaGuy demonstrating it.

Now that we are done with that, can move on to discussing rulings instead of discussing the degree to how correct you are?

It is only your opinion that we are done.

This is an example of what happens when you try to break down a statement and completely miss the point of it altogether. First off, a logical statement isn't necessarily a correct one. Things can makes sense, but you can still be wrong about them. And I was correct when I said "we". Go back and re-read my post in it's entirety and you'll see what I mean. Your attitude shapes the way you reason on things. We point out that your reasoning incorrectly. You don't seem to like that. And so you become defensive when we state it. You take simple things and split them into pieces. You splinter a statement again and again and again breaking it down into so many pieces that the original point gets lost. That's not called logical reasoning. That's called muddying the waters, which you seem to be proficient at.

But I'm not going to allow you to muddy the waters on this subject. Nor am I going to allow you to make this subject more about you, then it is about summon response timing. Your reasoning was inaccurate. We told it was inaccurate. But you didn't like the way we did it. It's funny how it doesnt matter to that you were incorrect. Only that you weren't told how you were incorrect in a manner of your choosing. You had to wait until someone came along and did so in way that you approve of before you conceded to being wrong. There is no more logical base set of fact then the one that states if it isn't in UDE/Konami documentation, then it is an opinion. Yet when someone points that out, you twist it into a personal insult. You twist a lot of statement you disagree with into insults.

It is only your opinion that we are done.

No we are done with this leg of the subject. It's not an opinion. Anymore comments from you should pertain to the subject of the thread. Any resistance to that will result in either the thread being locked, or action taken against you.

 

[DarkLogicianOfCaos]

Wow, and this used to be a happpy place....J/K. Back to the subject [what was the subject?? Oh, yeah, Forced Back]

Why can't we just say that PRIORITY, which belongs to the TP AFTER any non-chainable action/event, no longer exists if that action/event is negated?

This is most evident in the summon. TP Summons Mobius and immediately uses his priority to declair a S/T card destroyed. NTP doesn't chain to the effect of Mobius, he simply ignores it, becuase when you negate the summon, the priority no longer exists for that event. The same for TP summoning Sangan and using priority to activate Breaker's effect (already on the fileld), if the summon in negated, TP has to wait, put Sangan back in hand, then prioirty is back to TP to activate the effect of Breaker.

I do think that there should be (but right now it appears that there isn't, nor will be in the near future, so we go by what the head judge of the event decides) a CLEAR demarkation between an event/action and a new event.

What I mean is this (as stated above) once a Spell Card (SS1) has been played, there is no "Chaining to the last event".

TP Summons <pass priority> <no response> TP plays a Spell Card (SS1) ----It is too late for NTP to chain Torrential, BTH, Trap Hole, etc.

Also, if TP Summons Mobius, uses priority for effect, NTP can chain these cards. I don't think there are any arguments here. The problem we are debating, it seems, and the one I contend with over and over is this one:

TP summons <pass priority> <no response> activates a Spell Card (SS2) NTP can STILL chain Torrential, Trap Hole, BTH.

Or did I miss the boat somewhere? BTW, I think that the whooole idea that the TP has to immediately announce that he is using Forced back (priority again) shows that you can't "chain" it to another effect, but that's just my take on it.

 

[slither]

Maybe this could get a little off subject but it's just a stated point of view.

The game has progressed so far this days it is really hard to get used to new whatchamacallit, um "manerisms?" for the players, to be brutally honest the game should be played similar to the Anime, for instance:

Yu-Gi says: now by activating my Hand of Nephtys' effect I can tribute it and my Obnoxious Celtic Guardian to special summon Sacred Phoenix of Nephtys in Attack Mode!

Kaiba says: oh no!

-- > this is the time in which all annoucements for negating the summon should occur, so:

Yu-Gi says: oh but wait, after I sacrifice my two monsters, I will play this! Solemn Judgement!! to destroy my very own Phoenix.

Kaiba says: but why?! why would you want to destroy your own monster?!

Yu-Gi says: that you will figure that out on my next turn, but what I really needed to do was reduce my life points to play this! Megamorph! on my Dark Magician Girl!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see it's an announced sequence, players "we" are not used to play like this, we are used to just sending the cards to the grave and placing the other card on the field.

We used to play without game mats now with the next to be released cards we will have to use mats for the position things. IMPO it's just a matter of getting used to the idea that we should play the game in order, instead of doing it all in the same time.

Another example is the Phases for instance, we are so used to just summoning a monster and saying "I attack", ok so Threatning Roar is useless?

 

[Kyhotae]

Um. You can't activate "Solemn Judgement" to negate the Special Summon of "Sacred Phoenix of Nephthys" by the effect of "Hand of Nephthys". You would have to negate the effect of "Hand of Nephthys" and "Solemn Judgement" has no way to do that... lol

 

[slither]

I swear, I swear I had a gun pointed on my head telling me to write that :-:...

** walks away silently ***

 

[anthonyj]

Wow, and this used to be a happpy place....J/K. Back to the subject [what was the subject?? Oh, yeah, Forced Back]

Why can't we just say that PRIORITY, which belongs to the TP AFTER any non-chainable action/event, no longer exists if that action/event is negated?

This is most evident in the summon. TP Summons Mobius and immediately uses his priority to declair a S/T card destroyed. NTP doesn't chain to the effect of Mobius, he simply ignores it, becuase when you negate the summon, the priority no longer exists for that event. The same for TP summoning Sangan and using priority to activate Breaker's effect (already on the fileld), if the summon in negated, TP has to wait, put Sangan back in hand, then prioirty is back to TP to activate the effect of Breaker.

I do think that there should be (but right now it appears that there isn't, nor will be in the near future, so we go by what the head judge of the event decides) a CLEAR demarkation between an event/action and a new event.

What I mean is this (as stated above) once a Spell Card (SS1) has been played, there is no "Chaining to the last event".

TP Summons <pass priority> <no response> TP plays a Spell Card (SS1) ----It is too late for NTP to chain Torrential, BTH, Trap Hole, etc.

Also, if TP Summons Mobius, uses priority for effect, NTP can chain these cards. I don't think there are any arguments here. The problem we are debating, it seems, and the one I contend with over and over is this one:

TP summons <pass priority> <no response> activates a Spell Card (SS2) NTP can STILL chain Torrential, Trap Hole, BTH.

Or did I miss the boat somewhere? BTW, I think that the whooole idea that the TP has to immediately announce that he is using Forced back (priority again) shows that you can't "chain" it to another effect, but that's just my take on it.

You are correct that you do not "chain" Forced Back to another effect. It is activated in a seperate window before the summon has been considered complete/successful. The summon negators do not "rewind" the event so that the prior effects in the chain (like Mobius in your example) have no longer occurred. The negator actually is used prior to the point where you would place Mobius effect on a chain.

As for the "open timing until something closes it" issue, this is one of those areas where I think Kevin is miles away from what Konami had in mind but I don't talk to Konami so who knows how this will end up being "officially ruled" when the dust finally settles. To me and many here it seems logical, just as Jason was stating, that the event creates a point for a response chain, that response chain has a defined area where you would react to it and then should be closed by neither player opting to activate in response. It should not matter after that has occurred whether the player uses an ignition effect of a monster, a trap, a quick-play spell. To assume that that response window is left open until you do something that can't be chained to (summon another monster, activate a Normal, Field or Continuous Spell) is illogical. I haven't seen an argument yet that anyone does believe it makes the most sense to do things that way. It's just the way Kevin has told others that the game works. Perhaps we'll get this cleared up "officially" some day. I'm not going to hold my breath because Kevin+Konami=mass confusion and far too long to get things cleared up.

 

[novastar]

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.

I totally agree, and i did this already in the last looong draw out thread regarding this, and clearly explained how it doesn't fit into the mechanics of the game at all.

Then everyone turns around and says you have no "proof" ... and everytime i hear that statement i loose a little respect for the one saying it.

It always takes me back to something Dave Brent (magician_noir) used to say...

If everyone always needs an official statement for everything, you are never going to get anywhere this game. Extrapolation is absolutely neccessary in this environment, and infact, IS what Konami expects us to do with the rulings setup that they have.

If they won't answer it for us, we have to come to some sort of resolution, common sense tells me that it doesn't work, and i go with that... especially when i can envision it in real play, and have plenty of examples to point me in that direction.

To say you have no proof, only solidifies the fact that the one saying it also doesn't have proof, and can't counter with anything "real".

 

[Digital Jedi]

I totally agree, and i did this already in the last looong draw out thread regarding this, and clearly explained how it doesn't fit into the mechanics of the game at all.

Then everyone turns around and says you have no "proof" ... and everytime i hear that statement i loose a little respect for the one saying it.

It always takes me back to something Dave Brent (magician_noir) used to say...

If everyone always needs an official statement for everything, you are never going to get anywhere this game. Extrapolation is absolutely neccessary in this environment, and infact, IS what Konami expects us to do with the rulings setup that they have.

If they won't answer it for us, we have to come to some sort of resolution, common sense tells me that it doesn't work, and i go with that... especially when i can envision it in real play, and have plenty of examples to point me in that direction.

To say you have no proof, only solidifies the fact that the one saying it also doesn't have proof, and can't counter with anything "real".

Nova, that is not even the issue or the problem. The problem is manner and demeanor, and as I stated, neither I nor any mod, will allow any one member to make this thread more about themselves then about the mechanics/rulings. There are ways to go about making a point and there are ways that are unacceptable. Especially after repeated warning against such behavior. The members of this forum are always willing to listen to logical and reasonable arguments. Provided, of course, it can be done in a manner that's mature. We know, perhaps better then most, the beards that will grow waiting for official stances on lots of issues. No one is ignoring that. But let's make a concerted effort to prevent a rules dispute morph into something personal, as it was in this instance. Let's keep personality disputes out of the mix, and stick to solid information and have fun again.

 

[Jason_C]

There are ways to go about making a point and there are ways that are unacceptable.

Except that before you weren't lecturing me about my manner; you were lecturing me about my unofficiality.

The problem is manner and demeanor, and as I stated, neither I nor any mod, will allow any one member to make this thread more about themselves then about the mechanics/rulings.

You say that ... and then you say...

Let's keep personality disputes out of the mix, and stick to solid information and have fun again.

Wow, that is as contradictory as anything I've ever read. Not only that, but I wasn't the one who brought personality in. I was using facts and logic to back up my point. I was not the one who started taking things personally.

I NEVER take it personally.