Hamon, Lord of Striking Thunder vs Chain Energy

Sort by date Sort by votes
I think the things in the following way:
- Declaring the summon
- Cost payments:
- 1) Continuous effects apply here first! So Chain Energy must be paid FIRST!
- 2) Cost payment for the summon (Hammon): the 3 CE's.
- Costs are send to the Graveyard and/or subtracted from the LP
- The monster is summoned (Hammon)

At the moment, I've got no rulings who can back me up on this... just a feeling.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I dont think you declare the summon first. That would be like summoning the monster to the field, then paying the cost.

Any monster who has a requirement for the summoning must meet that first before it can be summoned. Besides, when have you ever performed a Tribute Summon by summoning the monster, then performing the Tribute?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I believe that Benjamin was only referring to declaration as the formality of specifying that a summon will be made. Something like:

"I will summon Hamon" by this time continous costs (ie. Chain Energy) knowing that a summon will be made, the cost must be paid... etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I know what he meant, but usually the syntax goes like this,

"I remove one light and one dark from play to Special Summon...."

This indicates that the cost is paid, and then the summon performed.

"I removed one Pyro-type monster from play to Special Summon..."

"I tribute one monster on the field to attack with Panther Warrior"

This indicates that a cost most be paid before you can declare an attack.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It really is a very strange scenario no doubt, but it really seems that you have to pay the cost of Chain Energy before anything...

If we compare it for instance to SEGOC (this is only comparative, nothing else)... and we had to put the cost sequences in order, it would really seem very similar to what Benjamin had stated earlier:
- 1) Continuous effects apply here first! So Chain Energy must be paid FIRST!
- 2) Cost payment for the summon (Hammon): the 3 CE's.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
My opinion consider it a chain. Chain Link 1, CE's cost. Chain Link 2, Hamon's "Summoning Cost". Since CE can only force you to pay while it's on the field, then the first link dis-appears since they are no longer on the field to enforce the payment. Either way the cost must be paid to "play a card" before it can be played triggering CE's payment.

Similar to Rivalry of Warlords (IMHO) as stated earlier that just since one type was on the field doesn't stop you from summoning a different type if the original type is no longer on the field due to tribute or other cause. (CEDevice, etc)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
The problem is that CE's cost is supposed to be paid at the same time as the cost for Hamon.

Also, in your other example, you still have to pay the 500 to play Monster Reborn, in the same fashion you would pay the 800 to play Premature Burial.

The cost is part and parcel with the intent to use the effect or perform the action, which precisely why it doesn't make sense to say that it occurs beforehand. It is just a series of events, but paying cost is at the start of that sequence.

So yes, if you payed the cost for Gravekeeper's Servant, you are declaring an attack and have made the choice (intent). Infact you actually select targets first, then pay cost (just like you are selecting the monster to summon first), but that's a whole other arguement...lets stick to this one.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with you on this point. Summoning, as we have examined in depth ad nauseum on these forums, has a two part process. Declaration and, although I don't like this phrase, resolution. Where are we told that paying to Summon something constitutes actually summoning it from the perspective of any effects in play?

Imagine, if you will, an Effect Monster with the same effect as Chain Energy. Would we then be concered about the payment of both effects if Hamon required you to offer the monster as tribute instead of the Spell Cards? I don't think we would. I think we would be saying that the monster is not on the field when the tribute is payed for. We would see the monster as no longer in play when when Hamon's summon is payed for.

And why not? You can offer a monster on a full field as a tribute for another one, even though the field is full. I realize that a full field is not the same as a payment effect, but there is still fundamental logic there. I don't see why paying for a summon is the same as summoning. I think if there is a point between the tribute and the summon where the whole process can be negated, then if anything happens to Chain Energy in that point it isnt on the field for its effect to demand payment. There is an order. And it's dictated by mechanics.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
there is a slight difference between what Digital Jedi is stating, and yourself, OK, becuase a chain implies a speed of some kind. Chain Energy is a Continuous spell speed 1 effect. Summoning Hamon is .....well, it doesn't have a spell speed. So putting it on a chain is impossible.

I have to admit though, I always viewed Chain Energy as being an effect triggered by an event, namely the playing of a card: activating, summoning, anything else I might have missed. Its being a cost has more to do with it being exempt from effects that play off of "damage" such as Dark Room of Nightmare or Des Wombat.

I don't see this "cost" being the same as a cost paid in order to activate; its a cost paid as a result of being activated.

So, from that perspective, I see Chain Energy waiting to see if the card does get played. If the card isn't on the Field when Hamon reaches the field itself, how can you pay for the summoning (playing of a card).

This is all very enlightening to me, because the Uria ruling bothered me originally, and Im still not comfortable with it, though I understand its Reasoning.

Let me ask it differently though.

Chain Energy is face up on the Field. A player activates Heavy Storm; opponent chains with Magic Jammer, negating the activation and effect. Does the player who threw down Heavy Storm still pay 500 LP for Chain Energy, considering that the activation was negated?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
squid said:
Let me ask it differently though.

Chain Energy is face up on the Field. A player activates Heavy Storm; opponent chains with Magic Jammer, negating the activation and effect. Does the player who threw down Heavy Storm still pay 500 LP for Chain Energy, considering that the activation was negated?
Click to expand...

Reading through this ruling, yes you would have to pay:

"Chain Energy" applies only to cards played or Set from your hand, not cards that are activated when already Set on the field, or to cards placed onto the field by effects like "Cyber Jar"'s Flip Effect.

If you play Heavy Storm it hasn't resolved yet just played therefore, you have to pay.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
I have to disagree with you on this point. Summoning, as we have examined in depth ad nauseum on these forums, has a two part process. Declaration and, although I don't like this phrase, resolution. Where are we told that paying to Summon something constitutes actually summoning it from the perspective of any effects in play?

Imagine, if you will, an Effect Monster with the same effect as Chain Energy. Would we then be concered about the payment of both effects if Hamon required you to offer the monster as tribute instead of the Spell Cards? I don't think we would. I think we would be saying that the monster is not on the field when the tribute is payed for. We would see the monster as no longer in play when when Hamon's summon is payed for.

And why not? You can offer a monster on a full field as a tribute for another one, even though the field is full. I realize that a full field is not the same as a payment effect, but there is still fundamental logic there. I don't see why paying for a summon is the same as summoning. I think if there is a point between the tribute and the summon where the whole process can be negated, then if anything happens to Chain Energy in that point it isnt on the field for its effect to demand payment. There is an order. And it's dictated by mechanics.
Click to expand...
Well you can see from my first post that i actually agree and believe that Hamon's cost would be first in line, but i don't see it as being that clear cut.

If it was a monster the issue would be the same. "Paying to play" a card has nothing to do with success of the action. When you initiate the cost you are initiating the sequence to perform the action. There is a slot for cost in this sequence, and Chain Energy's cost is payed during that time, which is the same slot that Hamon's cost is payed.

Other games specify that you can choose the order in which to pay cost, so that alleviates this issue. Unfortunately here we have no mechanics, and Konami generally outlines concrete resolutions to these "order" scenarios with a ruling.

I agree, and believe that Konami will choose Hamon's cost here as first in line, but not for any reason other than choosing to do so.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
Imagine, if you will, an Effect Monster with the same effect as Chain Energy. Would we then be concered about the payment of both effects if Hamon required you to offer the monster as tribute instead of the Spell Cards? I don't think we would. I think we would be saying that the monster is not on the field when the tribute is payed for. We would see the monster as no longer in play when when Hamon's summon is payed for.

And why not? You can offer a monster on a full field as a tribute for another one, even though the field is full. I realize that a full field is not the same as a payment effect, but there is still fundamental logic there. I don't see why paying for a summon is the same as summoning. I think if there is a point between the tribute and the summon where the whole process can be negated, then if anything happens to Chain Energy in that point it isnt on the field for its effect to demand payment. There is an order. And it's dictated by mechanics.
Click to expand...

Jowgen the Spiritualist vs. Lava Golem, even though Jowgen won't be on the field when Lava Golem is summoned you can't declare the summon because Jowgen is on the field. Chain Energy acts very similar to a preventer, it requires you to pay if you wish to perform the action you wish to take. The effect is active on the field and you will have to pay for it in order to Special Summon.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
anthonyj said:
Jowgen the Spiritualist vs. Lava Golem, even though Jowgen won't be on the field when Lava Golem is summoned you can't declare the summon because Jowgen is on the field. Chain Energy acts very similar to a preventer, it requires you to pay if you wish to perform the action you wish to take. The effect is active on the field and you will have to pay for it in order to Special Summon.
Click to expand...
But what if you have the 1500 LP to pay?

Now we are in a situation where nothing is preventing the summon at all, so we need to know what is payed.

Using "perventative" rulings doesn't seem to work here.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
anthonyj said:
Jowgen the Spiritualist vs. Lava Golem, even though Jowgen won't be on the field when Lava Golem is summoned you can't declare the summon because Jowgen is on the field. Chain Energy acts very similar to a preventer, it requires you to pay if you wish to perform the action you wish to take. The effect is active on the field and you will have to pay for it in order to Special Summon.
Click to expand...
But, again, there is no cost involved with Jowgen. Jowgans effect is what is preventing things. And, as nova points out, there is no prevention here. You have to decide what comes first. Can you really pay the cost for card that isn't on the feild?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What would really be the difference, prevention over cost? There is always something before the action, either there being something that nullifies it all at once, or something that needs to be payed before it can be done.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
slither said:
What would really be the difference, prevention over cost? There is always something before the action, either there being something that nullifies it all at once, or something that needs to be payed before it can be done.
Click to expand...
Because it's about requirements, and cost only prevents you from doing something when you can't meet the cost. And requirement's are first in line in terms of what you can or cannot do.

So if you have 1500 LP to pay, the cost requirement is met, and nothing is preventing you from initiating the action you wanna perform.

In the case of Jowgen, the requirement is not met period, because the effect takes away any ability to do so. So you can't even begin the sequence that will eventually lead to a Special Summon.

Like i said earlier, the cost is still tied to the action you wanna perform, even though the lines have become confused.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
But Chain Energy doesn't say "Each player must pay 500 Life Points per card when they Normal Summon, Special Summon, Set or activate cards from his/her respective hand."

It says "Each player must pay 500 Life Points per card to Normal Summon, Special Summon, Set or activate cards from his/her respective hand."

This is paid before you perform the action. It is a gate preventing you from performing the action until you unlock the gate "pay the 500 Life Points".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top