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...

 

[densetsu_x]

If I were the opponent, yeah I might ask if the turn player decides not to do anything or is taking his/her own sweet time trying to decide.

The thing is there is such micromanagement on every little thing you try to do but by convention of play 90% of it is skipped because for starters the game would not be very fun if on every single action I either state or ask "Is my/your attempt to activate/summon good? Do you wish to chain?" etc.

However, both players need to be mindful and ask/state intentions before doing it so you don't give it away esp. when what you are trying to do is NOT something that would normally come up 99.99% of the time. That lack of communication is what leads to so many "priority" issues when in fact if both players were clear on what is happening (as you should be and state what you are doing step by step). If I'm looking at playing Forced Back on my summon I would say "I attempt to summon Cannon Soldier, but will activate Forced Back to negate the summon." Otherwise I would say "I summon Cannon Soldier." and my opponent better jump in at that point to state if he/she wants to Solemn Judgment/Force Back it, etc. I could ask if they want to but again, it's not a common thing in most duels (unless I see they had it before so I might be more inclined to ask again). This avoids the needless steps that we all agree are there but are assumed to pass through without incident.

 

[Jathro]

This becomes particularly problematic when the opponent Special Summons a Cyber Dragon. Do you respond to that summoning with your Forced Back, or do you wait and see if they sacrifice it for something else like Mobius, Jinzo, etc.? Both your opponent and you should make your intentions clear.

 

[densetsu_x]

This becomes particularly problematic when the opponent Special Summons a Cyber Dragon. Do you respond to that summoning with your Forced Back, or do you wait and see if they sacrifice it for something else like Mobius, Jinzo, etc.? Both your opponent and you should make your intentions clear.

Actually you can't use Forced Back against the Special Summon of Cyber Dragon so yeah I'd definately wait and hope they decide to tribute him cause then I'd love to kick back Mobius or Jinzo to their hand and make them curse they wasted their Cyber Dragon...

... until they play Overload Fusion and go Zane on me.

 

[Jason_C]

For all the arguments about poor communication, I'm still right:

Unless you pass priority, your opponent cannot activate Torrential Tribute in response to your summon. The fact that you DIDN'T call priority doesn't mean you passed it.

No matter what the circumstances, the proper ruling is always that the TP has priority until he or she explicitly states it is being passed.

 

[densetsu_x]

First of all, you're not still right.

If I summoned a monster and then decided to play Graceful Charity, guess what? I HAD PASSED PRIORITY WITHOUT STATING SO (aka IMPLICITLY). As the opponent I can say "Excuse me but... rewind since I didn't have a chance to respond." and flip Torrential Tribute. You at that point cannot say well wait... Forced Back to negate the summon.

Further, you can't just do nothing and claim you still have priority. Players are expected to make decisions at a relatively quick pace otherwise you can be called for stalling.

So communication does matter to keep things clear as to where the players are. Otherwise while you might be right in that I didn't "explicitly" pass it, that fundamental problem is what leads to sloppy gameplay and all these debates about things where you are trying to nitpick over the needle in the haystack. Consideration matters.

 

[Jason_C]

If I summoned a monster and then decided to play Graceful Charity, guess what? I HAD PASSED PRIORITY WITHOUT STATING SO (aka IMPLICITLY). As the opponent I can say "Excuse me but... rewind since I didn't have a chance to respond." and flip Torrential Tribute. You at that point cannot say well wait... Forced Back to negate the summon.

I wasn't considering that. I'll concede that one point to you.

Further, you can't just do nothing and claim you still have priority. Players are expected to make decisions at a relatively quick pace otherwise you can be called for stalling.

Logical fallacy ignoratio elenchi.



Your statements imply that if you do not make a decision quickly, you will be called for stalling, and that, if you are called for stalling, this means you would lose priority. This I will not concede. You could be called for stalling if you take too long to decide your next move. But this does not mean you would lose priority. You would take whatever penalty was appropriate for stalling and then the game would return to the exact state it was in before. You would still have priority.

 

[densetsu_x]

This is where "consideration" comes into play. Yes you have priority but if you're sitting there all this time with a monster on the field that you just brought out, it's implied that the summon was good. I'm not saying it is, it's just implied that way since (as previously stated) Summons are not normally negated. However, you should state that you are negating your summon and not bait the opponent into something like Torrential only to say "You jumped the gun."

After all, consider this:

I summon a monster and then ask my opponent if he wishes to respond to the summon. I have implicitly passed my priority and cannot at this point decide to claim that I still had it and negate my summon instead.

That is the fundamental part of the ruling. If you reach the point where your opponent CAN activate Torrential Tribute, you have now missed the chance to activate Forced Back (however sloppily, lazily, or properly you do reach that point).

 

[densetsu_x]

P.S. Drop the Latin. All it does is suggest a certain arrogence to the general populace when your statement was clear enough without it. This way the debate can remain focused upon the subject.

 

[Jason_C]

I summon a monster and then ask my opponent if he wishes to respond to the summon. I have implicitly passed my priority and cannot at this point decide to claim that I still had it and negate my summon instead.

If you ask your opponent if they would like to respond, you are offering them the opportunity to respond. Offering someone a cookie implies that if they say "Yes", you will give them a cookie. The same applies. So by asking if they would like to respond, you are saying that you do not wish to respond. Thus, you are passing priority.

This is entirely different from just sitting there. By sitting, you are effectively declaring that you are still thinking. If you take an absurd amount of time to think, you could be called for stalling. But that woudn't cause you to lose priority.

P.S. Drop the Latin. All it does is suggest a certain arrogence to the general populace when your statement was clear enough without it. This way the debate can remain focused upon the subject.

If you want to argue over what qualifies as arrogance, I'd be happy to start a new thread.

I like Latin.

 

[densetsu_x]

It's not so much that...

Because of this card, the game mechanics had to be a little further defined. However most players assume that when you place a card down on the field, the summon is GOOD because that is what we are accustomed to. So if you are thinking, state you are thinking. Or if you had the intention of Negating your summon in the first place, just state that first. If you are planning on doing something that is within your right (and this is a tactic I've used myself) but something that goes against the commonly accepted way of play, just be clear of your intentions. This way I'll know not to assume that summons are "good" just because you dropped it on the field.

My point with this is that while you may have the priority... be clear with your intentions.

 

[Jason_C]

My point with this is that while you may have the priority... be clear with your intentions.

Now I realize we're arguing cross-ways.

What you say is all good and moral and would be the NICE thing to do. What I say is clear-cut and solid and would be the STRICT thing to do.

Your argument is that a player ought to declare their intention right off the bat. This is a vague, judgement-based concept that aids play and keeps the duel polite.

My argument is that a player wouldn't have to by any game mechanic. This is a specific, logic-based rule that can't be abused through "dubious" play unless the opponent assumes you are a nice guy and gives you too much credit.

We're both right and both have points. The only thing is, your interpretation is more suited to a "Duel etiquette handbook" than to a ruling. Maybe you "should" do something for clarity. But I maintain that there's no logical reason why you'd have to, and that to say there is violates game mechanics.

 

[densetsu_x]

In the "strict" sense. Of course as the opponent I can be smart enough to ask "Is your summon good?" or even simpler "Care to activate an effect?" (to which that sets where you are in the chain and once you state or act upon something, I can respond accordingly.)

And likewise depending on what you do, you may have missed your window:

Case in point... my opponent flipped Dekoichi and drew a card. He then wanted to Torrential the field in response to the Flip Summon but since he drew the card, he way missed the timing. Granted, the anology isn't identical but I think you understand the point.

 

[anthonyj]

The ruling is not worded well enough to prevent mistranslation of the meaning but it is not in error. What UDE is stating is that the timing windows are distinct and seperate for Torrential Tribute and Forced Back. Forced Back must be activated before the summon is considered successful, for example I tribute summon Mobius and the proper timing for Forced Back is after the tributed monster has been sent to the graveyard but before Mobius is considered successfully summoned and thus the timing proper to determine if I will activate his effect to destroy spells/traps.

The ruling does not explicitly state that you passed your priority and thus allowed the opponent the opportunity to activate Torrential Tribute. However it implies that you could not at a time appropriate for the opponent to be able to activate Torrential Tribute claim that you are activating Forced Back in order to avoid the destruction of the summoned monster because the timing for Forced Back would have past.

Now the question they still haven't answered with any degree of clarity is this: If I summon a monster and have the ability to negate the summon set on the field (either with Forced Back, Solemn Judgment, etc.) would it be possible for me to bait out my opponent's own summon negation prior to committing to announce I was using my own?

For example: I have a set Solemn Judgment and I have Voltanis in my hand, I summon Breaker. If I ask my opponent if they wish to negate the summon, have I passed my one opportunity to negate the summon myself, or would I still be allowed to elect to activate my own Solemn Judgment after the opponent has declined the opportunity to activate a summon negator?

I would think once you ask the opponent if they want to negate the summon you would in effect be passing priority and thus stating you do not intend to negate the summon. But I'm open to opposing theories.

 

[densetsu_x]

Now the question they still haven't answered with any degree of clarity is this: If I summon a monster and have the ability to negate the summon set on the field (either with Forced Back, Solemn Judgment, etc.) would it be possible for me to bait out my opponent's own summon negation prior to committing to announce I was using my own?

For example: I have a set Solemn Judgment and I have Voltanis in my hand, I summon Breaker. If I ask my opponent if they wish to negate the summon, have I passed my one opportunity to negate the summon myself, or would I still be allowed to elect to activate my own Solemn Judgment after the opponent has declined the opportunity to activate a summon negator?

I would think once you ask the opponent if they want to negate the summon you would in effect be passing priority and thus stating you do not intend to negate the summon. But I'm open to opposing theories.

Actually you would be correct in stating that once they ask me, they've passed their priority. I have had people try that trick on me, argued it before the judge, and won my case. I have also ruled that way as well.

The reasoning behind that is that as the turn player, your priority simply means that not only do you have the right to go first when deciding actions but you MUST go first. By asking your opponent if they wish to do something, you are stating "I do not wish to do anything, do you?" I would not let someone get away with that kind of bait and switch tactic. You take the good with the bad of having to decide first.

A common trick we do here which I feel is perfectly valid (esp. if I'm not looking to negate my own summon) is ask "Is the summon good?" That way I can then turn around and activate his effect or a trap card like Torrential Tribute. Yes I've passed on the window to negate the summon with that question but I haven't passed on the opportunity to fire off an effect. Now, if I say "I summon Treeborn Frog, do you wish to respond?" then we're back at the point above. I've missed my chance to activate Torrential Tribute since I am now seeing if my opponent wants to respond to the summon.

As I said, there's a lot of micro-management and windows you have to be careful about such that you don't miss your chance to do something.

 

[Jason_C]

...it implies that you could not at a time appropriate for the opponent to be able to activate Torrential Tribute claim that you are activating Forced Back in order to avoid the destruction of the summoned monster...

This is what I was not getting due to the poor wording. I'm sure you can see from the way the ruling is worded how it looks like they're saying that the game is a race.

If I summon a monster and have the ability to negate the summon set on the field (either with Forced Back, Solemn Judgment, etc.) would it be possible for me to bait out my opponent's own summon negation prior to committing to announce I was using my own?

This has already been answered.

The question was if, after TP summons a monster and passes on the opportunity to respond to the summon, and NTP also passes, could the TP then activate Torrential Tribute? Kevin Tewart declared that the TP could indeed activate Torrential Tribute there because the last thing to happen was the summoning of a monster.

I would like to emphasize explicitly that this ruling was absolutely, positively wrong. I'll say it again because it's that important. The ruling was utterly and horribly incorrect.

The reasoning is that there is only ever one default chain point in response to anything. By "chain point" I mean a point at which first one player and then the other is given the opportunity to activate card effects. Of course if either player chooses to activate a card at any given chain point, there will immediately be a new chain point initiated to respond to that card's activation. But in any chain point, if both players decline, the opportunity to activate effects ends then and there. That means that if you want to respond to a summon (or anything else, for that matter), you must do it at the first opportunity you get, because your first opportunity may well be your last (unless for some odd reason you can be 100% certain that your opponent will activate something in response).

 

[Dr Sin]

You know, this last thing you posted is annoying.
Man, I really can't agree that if both pass TT would be still activated. And even worse... in another thread, some time ago, the discussion came to a point in which many claimed that the following situation could happen:
NTP has 2 set cards (BTH and Sak). TP is in his MP1. He summons DD Survivor. TP pass. NTP has only 1800 or less LP, but since removing DDS would be a bad move, he decides to trust his Sak. He also pass. Imediately after this, TP activates Mystical Space Typhoon, still in his MP1, targeting Sak.
Realizing he would lose the duel, now NTP activates BTH.
I think this is crazy, but many argued that yes, it's perfectly fine, since the last thing to resolve was still a summon (because MST is spell speed 2). Why do I think it's deadly wrong? Because the activation of MST has absolutely no relation with the summon. Even more annoying, those who were defending this idea, argued that if Heavy Storm (normal spell) were played instead of MST, BTH could NOT be activated.
Of course, this is a "forced" example, but there are some other situations that could fit this kind of scenario too.
I believe YGO is a event oriented game, thus, there could be only one "chain point" connected to the previous event.

Wouldn't it be logical?

 

[Jason_C]

Why do I think it's deadly wrong?

Because it IS deadly wrong.

After both players pass to respond to a summon, any chain that has been initiated would resolve. After the chain resolution, we would enter a window to begin a response chain. Had no chain been initiated at all, we would enter a non-responsive window in the Main Phase. There's no way we could linger in the summon-response window.

You may as well say:

TP Summons Breaker
TP Passes
OP Passes
TP Passes
OP Passes
TP Passes
OP Passes
TP Passes
OP Passes
TP Passes
OP Passes
TP Activates Torrential Tribute

 

[Dr Sin]

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.

By the way, an off-topic little question:
What does FTW means?

 

[Fiendishly1138]

You can only chain to the last activation. If you declare an attack, and you both pass, the attack goes through. If you activate a card afterwards, then he can only chain to that. Sakuretsu doesn't effect spell and trap cards, so it can't be activated.

The easiest way to avoid all that is just to ask both players, after every action, if they want to activate a card. It makes things so much easier.

And the only FTW I know of is Ft. Worth. GO TEXAS!

Sorry. Had to say it.

 

[slither]

You may as well say:

TP Summons Breaker
TP Passes
OP Passes
TP Passes
OP Passes
TP Passes
OP Passes
TP Passes
OP Passes
TP Passes
OP Passes
TP Activates Torrential Tribute

Lol, and then TP activates Breaker's effect by removing his counter? :shudder