Going waaay back

J

John Danker

Administrator
I noticed that on the UDE judge's list they stated they're trying to go back and answer old questions that hadn't been replied to yet. It must be so, it was a loooonnnng time ago I posted a question regarding Staunch Defender....long enough ago that the latest ruling on Staunch Defender was that it tured all the attacking player's monsters to attack position (we know this not to be true but an ancient post on a very old judge's list that some of you old timers will remember stated as such)

This question was finally answered! (regarding when Staunch Defender's effect ceased) My next question in reply was does Staunch Defender set up a condition upon it's resolution to the field (I'm assuming it does) We all know what questions come from cards that set up "conditions"

Anyway, just found it interesting they've kepth some VERY old questions and are now addressing them. With the addition of another person in the rules dept. they must be seeing their way clear to have time to do so....nice to see.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
IN the event that "liquid nitrogen" were my favourite fertilizer to use in my garden, I would still know that it's poop I won't get hurt by anybody telling so.

Garuda the Wind Spirit's my favourite, but i've always known that Aqua Spirit was the better card.

What is someone's "favourite" has nothing to do with what someone thinks is the best, or even good at all.

This game has always had FILLER cards. That is cards that are meant to be not good on purpose. The people that make the game are capable of thinking as much as anyone of us, they can certainly see the cards for the same thing anyone else can.

---

There were no aggressive words by Dan, no tone of aggressiveness either. In fact, Dan as indicated jokes in the past by marking them with a ":)".

Dan is a person too, and has everyright to express himself about this game. Although at sometimes it can be a source of official information, it bears no marks of authenticity. Despite the heavier moderation, it is still only a forum, much like ours.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Danker said:
<nodding> I see what you mean Tiso....

If I have Stone Statue Of The Aztecs out in face up def. position and when my opponent's third monster attacks I activate a second copy of Staunch Defender.....I assume it forces all face up monsters to attack the newly chosen monster....and forces monsters that have attacked to attack again? I know there are cards that can force monsters that have attacked to do so again....is this another of them?

I see they added the ruling about double copies activated in the same turn to the list of official rulings.
Click to expand...

Don't mean to be so technical (especially since I haven't yet earned the right to presume to correct a green-star), but in order for Staunch Defender to be activated, the last thing to have happened would be a declaration of attack by the opponent. In the senario above, the last thing to have happened was the "resolution" of an attack. And that, by card effect, not by the opponent's declaration. So, you would not be able to activate a second copy of Staunch Defender in response to the third monster's attack.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DarkLogicianOfCaos said:
In the senario above, the last thing to have happened was the "resolution" of an attack. And that, by card effect, not by the opponent's declaration. So, you would not be able to activate a second copy of Staunch Defender in response to the third monster's attack.
Click to expand...
I see where you could be correct....

BUT, each monster declares it's own attack. Staunch Defender only makes it so that the attacking monster can ONLY attack the selected monster from Staunch Defender's effect. Nothing changed about the way the Battle Phase was carried out.

Each monster most still proceed through its own Battle Step and declare an attack, to which point, a second Staunch Defender could be activated when the last monster declares an attack.

If the effect of Staunch Defender stated that each monster was consecutively attacking BY the effect of Staunch Defender in a single Battle Step, then that would be where your conclusion would be correct.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay, on a re-read of the card, it does say that the opponent declares the attack, sorry. But here are two more questions.

UDE ruling said:
If two "Staunch Defenders" are activated during the same turn, the last one to resolve will be the one that applies.
Click to expand...

Is this just a case of unfortunate wording? Should it rather say "chained?"

And can they "attack again" when they have already attacked once?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There are numerous cards that can force a monster that has already attacked to attack again....what are they?...<tapping chin>...err...well....I'm sure someone whill help me out here and name them....can't remember their names off the top of my head sorry to say.

(side note)
After that last response by anthonyj....I'm going to hire him to write my wife's next Valintine's Day card. <nudge> How poetic was THAT? <impressed>
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DarkLogicianOfCaos said:
Okay, on a re-read of the card, it does say that the opponent declares the attack, sorry. But here are two more questions.



Is this just a case of unfortunate wording? Should it rather say "chained?"

And can they "attack again" when they have already attacked once?
Click to expand...
That is a little bit tricky there... I would say that they meant "in a chain", but you never quite know if that is what they meant.

It would make sense to say that as far as chaining is concerned. This isnt like activating (if you could have 2 ceasefire per deck) 2 ceasefire's in a chain. Each one would have their own activation and resolution, while Staunch Defender is only creating a condition.

BUT, another way to look at it is, since Staunch defender creates a "lingering effect", you may already have a number of monsters that have already attacked, and per John's question, those monsters are now prevented from attacking once again, and only the remaining monsters who have not attacked are affected.

I don''t see where the Battle Phase changes other than causing any monster eligible to attack, to have to attack ONLY one monster.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Danker said:
I'm not thinking that way masterwoo0, I'm thinking they'll be forced to attack again.
Click to expand...
I know the ruling states that monsters summoned after Staunch defender is resolved are affected as well, but I dont see where the effect is giving a monster who has already attacked a second shot.

Yes, it does say, "all face-up monsters", but I would consider that the rule applying to "one attack per turn" is not being bypassed here, by staunch defender, since. it has not changed anything about the Battle Phase, other than what a monster may attack, and if face-up, who has no option as far as attacking if they have not done so already.

EDIT: Also, if the first Staunch defender retained its effect on the attacking monsters; if the monster selected was destroyed, the remaining monsters would be unable to attack, but if a second staunch defender was activated, and a new monster selected, the older one would prevent the remaining monsters from attacking a new target if the latest staunch defender did not override the olders effect.

So, the monsters that have not attacked would now be able to attack once more.

Or, would you even be able to activate a Second one if they can't declare an attack??
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
We know that card text often times means very little as far as the rules go, however, the card text for Staunch Defender is pretty clear....

Staunch Defender

Text:

You can only activate this card when your opponent declares an attack. Select 1 face-up monster on your side of the field. During this turn, your opponent can only designate the selected monster as an attack target and your opponent must attack the selected monster with all face-up monsters.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DarkLogicianOfCaos said:
All face up monsters except defense position monsters, which cannot attack, due to being in defense position, EVEN Total Defense Shogun (http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=3385#3385). Therefore, if the defense rule is still applied (even to TDS), then surely the rule that one atack per monster applies (of course, one would assume that milti-attack monsters could still attack again).
Click to expand...

That link says that Total Defense Shogun must attack -_-'
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=9391

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If multiple Staunch Defenders are activated at different times during the
Battle Phase, must monsters that have previously declared an attack declare
another attack on the newly-selected monster?

An Example
Player A has 1 face-up defence position Oppressed People, and 2 face-down
Staunch Defenders.
Player B has 1 face-up attack position Insect Knight and 3 face-up attack position
Ojama Trio Tokens (due to a previously-activated Windstorm of Etaqua).
There are no other cards in either player's hand or on the field.

For reasons that are never completely clear, Player B declares an attack on
Oppressed People with Insect Knight. Player A activates Staunch Defender,
targetting their Oppressed People.
Player B's Insect Knight and 2 of their Ojama Tokens declare attacks on the
Oppressed People (Total Damage: 4100). When the 3rd Ojama Token declares an
attack, Player A activates their 2nd face-down Staunch Defender, targetting their
face-up Oppressed People.
Question: The other 2 Ojama Tokens and Insect Knight have already declared
attacks on Oppressed People due to the effect of the 1st Staunch Defender.
Must they all declare 2nd attacks due to the effect of the 2nd Staunch Defender,
or are they prevented from doing so due to the rule of "1 attack per turn"?

---------------------------------------------
ANSWER:

Activating a 2nd "Staunch Defender" will not make monsters that have already attacked attack again.
(Just like "Amazoness Archers").

Activating a 2nd "Staunch Defender" will only make the Attack Position monsters that have yet to attack, attack the target of the new "Staunch Defender".

Dan Scheidegger
Jr. Game Designer
Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG R&D
Upper Deck Entertainment[/font]
1x1.gif
1x1.gif

rounded_corner_lowerleft.gif
1x1.gif
rounded_corner_lowerright.gif
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, yeah, that just makes sense. Basically, any monsters that can attack MUST attack because of Staunch Defender, i.e. All Attack position monsters (unless modified) and Total Defense Shogun (regardless of position). And a monster cannot attack if it has already attacked earlier in the turn (again, unless a special effect says otherwise).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top