I need a recap on Dark World...

[Tkwiget]

I'm pretty sure I'd rule correctly on these situations. Just want to make sure.

Situation A

Turn Player has Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World and Sillva, Warlord of Dark World in his hand. Player B has a Set Bottomless Trap Hole. Turn Player activates Card Destruction. Card Destruction resolves completely. Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World and Sillva, Warlord of Dark World are Special Summoned to the field. Player B responds by activating Bottomless Trap Hole. Both Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World and Sillva, Warlord of Dark World are destroyed and removed from play.

Situation B

Turn Player has an active Royal Oppression on the field. Player B has three Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World in his hand. Turn Player activates Card Destruction. All of the Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World activate at the same time to Special Summon onto the field. The Turn Player activates Royal Oppression to pay 800 Life Points to negate the Special Summoning of all three Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World.

Situation C

Turn Player has a Set Morphing Jar with three copies of Broww, Huntsman of Dark World in his hand. Turn Player Flip Summons his Morphing Jar and discards all three copies of Broww, Huntsman of Dark World. The Turn Player first draws his five new cards from Morphing Jar's effect and then draws one card per copy of Broww, Huntsman of Dark World that he discarded from Morphing Jar's effect.


Am I correct on all three of these situations? The first two situations I'm ruling on like that because Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World, Sillva, Warlord of Dark World, and Biiege, Vanguard of Dark World don't trigger their special summoning effect when entering a game phase, like Vampire Lord.

I've got a regional coming up that I'm judging and I need a recap on these situations. =)

 

[Kyhotae]

You guys realize that the way that "Dark World" monsters are Summoned when they're discarded to the Graveyard is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from a Normal Summon from the hand, right?

And, woo0, the proper timing for "Solemn Judgment" is when a monster is Summoned. The proper timing for "Bottomless Trap Hole" is when a monster is successfully Summoned. There's a few seconds and hopefully some words Exchanged between players in between there. You can't say the timing is the same, just close.

 

[masterwoo0]

You guys realize that the way that "Dark World" monsters are Summoned when they're discarded to the Graveyard is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from a Normal Summon from the hand, right?

And, woo0, the proper timing for "Solemn Judgment" is when a monster is Summoned. The proper timing for "Bottomless Trap Hole" is when a monster is successfully Summoned. There's a few seconds and hopefully some words Exchanged between players in between there. You can't say the timing is the same, just close.

You're mincing words. One takes the summon away completely, while the other one just removes the successfully summoned monster from play.

Both were successful. You can't activate Solemn Judgment on a monster that was flipped face-up by Book of Taiyou, can you??

That's why I keep trying to say, how can you place a "time" on something that has no time limit other than "do you want to activate an effect?"

If I summon a monster, and neither I or my opponent do ANYTHING for 20 minutes, what's the last action that occured, and why can't my opponent still activate Torrential Tribute or Solemn Judgment?

 

[EmeraldDragon]

Ok lets see if i can explain why we are having trouble with your arguement wooO.

If solemn was the same timing as bottomless then just as bottomless cant be used when Jinzo is summoned neither would solemn be able to be used.

You see there are many things in this game that work without actually being able to work unless you think outside the box. You cant simply say that something cannot be true. Just like when you couldnt activate an effect in the middle of a chain archfiends came out and messed with that. Saying you cant activate a trap card in the middle of a summon may seem right to you now but what if a week from now Konami actually comes out and clarifies that there is a response point before the card hits the field for summon negators.

 

[masterwoo0]

Saying you cant activate a trap card in the middle of a summon may seem right to you now but what if a week from now Konami actually comes out and clarifies that there is a response point before the card hits the field for summon negators.

We arent dealing with tomorrow's argument. The game is still evolving. We can only deal with todays issues. There is no response point. You have a "response" and you have chain's to a response.

What dictates a response? Whether the effect is chainable, or the event can form a chain.

A card can form a chain. A summon can be an event that calls for a response. Where do you insert a "response point"?

You can't activate Solemn Judgment on monsters that arent summoned. That would include Strike Ninja when he returns from removed from play, or monsters flipped face-up by Ceasefire.

 

[anthonyj]

I notice that both those effects are already active on the field. I stated that you cannot "play" a card (from hand or a set) in the middle of a summon. How are you "playing" an already active Pole Position or Big Bang Shot??????????????????????????????

You are attempting to show that nothing can interrupt the summon process from in hand. The argument would be the same as that nothing interrupts a chain link resolving. The ruling i sited actually states that the space between the tribute/cost and the monster arriving on the field has a time when card effects can kick in. How can you not see that?

The ruling about Solemn Judgment is SIMPLE involving Mobius the Frost Monarch. Its obvious he is ON the field and trying to activate. You can't use Solemn Judgment to chain to a monster's effect after you have let him activate his effect. Solemn Judgment is NOT Divine Wrath, is what that is saying. Doesnt that fall into the realm of "missed timing"?????????????????????????????

The timing for Solemn Judgment is the same as Bottomless Trap Hole because you are responding to a summon. The only DIFFERENCE between the two is that you can chain Bottomless Trap Hole, whereas you cannot chain Solemn Judgment because you are negating the summon so what are you chaining too? The monster will never activate his effect because that would mean that you allowed him to be successful in his summon.

So Horn of Heaven ignores 1) the supposedly immediately active Continuous Effect of Jinzo because it is special. 2) It also ignores Priority since the opponent is allowed to activate it before the turn player can use his priority, well with things like Breaker the Magical Warrior it is sliding in there even before a mandatory effect would kick in, it also happens before the summoned monster is affected by Continuous Effects like Level Limit - Area B. Does Bottomless Trap Hole have the ability to pre-empt any of those? And although the timing is supposedly the same Horn of Heaven does for what reason?

I told you before. You can summon a monster to the field. And the monster can either be successfully summoned, or not successfully summoned, but that doesnt change the fact that a summon, NOT a set, was performed. Nowhere does it say that a summon is always hand and hand with a successful one.

You claim the timing is the same for Horn of Heaven and Bottomless Trap Hole, but somehow the things that happen before the timing is Appropriate for Bottomless Trap Hole is worlds apart from Horn of Heaven. You can exist in denial if you'd like but as a "Teaching Website", posts that stubbornly refuse to acknowledge basic mechanics of the game are hardly helpful to that effort.

You really shouldnt use part of a ruling that doesnt explain your point, or, at least try to explain "why" it is a valid argument. An apple isnt an apple because its not an orange.

I just can't win. You say we don't have any "Official Rulings" which support there being a seperate window for the negators than for response timing. I post "Judge's List Rulings" that firmly support the idea that something can and does occur in between the cost/tribute for a summon and the summon arriving. I post another stating that Mobius effect which would by definition be the first thing to "activate" upon being summoned has not yet activated when Solemn Judgment has timing for activation and get told they have nothing to do with the discussion.

And priority, response timing, resolution of effects, windows for continuous effects to kick in, the entire concept of timing whatsoever, all agree with me on this despite your persistence that they don't.

A card can form a chain. A summon can be an event that calls for a response. Where do you insert a "response point"?

A summon has 2 response points. One before it has been successfully summoned, and one after it has been successfully summoned. That is exactly what we have been talking about for ages now. You are the one wanting to make it one response point. You have been given sited rulings and game mechanics which we know to be fact. Your own arguments flip-flop on the timing because Mobius won't be able to activate his effect "until" he has been "successfully summoned". If that isn't a glowing endorsement of the very concept we have been pointing out I don't know what is.

Keep your apples and oranges. I'll just stick with the facts.

 

[masterwoo0]

I'm going to say this, and then Im done with it, period.

You want to know why there is no Priority Essay? Read the last 4 pages of this thread.

Where did we agree on anything? If we cant agree on when a monster is considered summon versus when a monster can activate his effect, versus when a monster can be negated; how can anyone sit here and expect KEVIN TEWART, one man, to answer the myriad of questions we have posted over the last 4 pages?

What makes Jinzo special? Obviously nothing because he doesnt have his effect while he is in hand. So why is it that only 2 cards can negate his summon if he never makes it to the field?

Where in does a monster arrive to the field? Is there a moment when he isnt considered summoned before you activate cards like Solemn Judgment?

If Jinzo does not have his effect while in hand, why can you not activate Waboku or Threatening Roar before he is summoned?

Because we do not have a clear cut answer on Priority, the answers we do have conflict with the ways we handle card effects and call them "exceptions" to the rule, when they cannot fit within the standard way of explaining things.

One thing I have always tried NOT to do is go beyond that which I have no way of confirming or rationalizing, whichever comes first, when I give a answer.

We know 2 things today. 1) Solemn Judgment and cards like them need to be explained better in terms of "timing", and 2) Some people need to control their temper. It's only a debate, no one is making "Life Decisions" here....

 

[Tiso]

Woo, what are you talking about? We have a clear cut answer on what exactly is priority and it is already explained why Jinzo is negated if he is summoned and Horn of Heaven or Solemn Judgment is activated. Spell Speed 3 overrides all other cards unless other Spell Speed 3 cards are activated against it. The reason we cannot use Waboku or Threatening Roar from the declaration of the summon is because we cannot just quickly activate cards in response to declarations like that. That is just there to allow the opponent to know that something is about to happen, Spell Card being activated, Trap Card being flipped over, Monster Card being summoned. Priority has already been explained enough that everyone should have a grasp of what it is and is not.

 

[masterwoo0]

Woo, what are you talking about? We have a clear cut answer on what exactly is priority and it is already explained why Jinzo is negated if he is summoned and Horn of Heaven or Solemn Judgment is activated. Spell Speed 3 overrides all other cards unless other Spell Speed 3 cards are activated against it. The reason we cannot use Waboku or Threatening Roar from the declaration of the summon is because we cannot just quickly activate cards in response to declarations like that. That is just there to allow the opponent to know that something is about to happen, Spell Card being activated, Trap Card being flipped over, Monster Card being summoned. Priority has already been explained enough that everyone should have a grasp of what it is and is not.

Define, "Summon"....

Is it "declarative", or is it "the physical act of placement on the field".

The reason we cannot use Waboku or Threatening Roar from the declaration of the summon is because we cannot just quickly activate cards in response to declarations like that.

Isnt that how it is being suggested Solemn Judgment is activated?

 

[Tiso]

Define, "Summon"....

Is it "declarative", or is it "the physical act of placement on the field".

What do you think? It is not the "declarative". A "Summon" is exactly what it means. The physical aspect of placing the monster on the field.

Isnt that how it is being suggested Solemn Judgment is activated?

No, it was never suggested like that. The entire point of declaring your moves in a loud and clear voice is to avoid confusion and problems.

EX: Tiso summons Water Dragon, activates Mystical Space Typhoon on opponent's face-down Spell or Trap Card, flips over Call of the Haunted to Special Summon Hyozanryu and delcares battle. (ALL in the matter of 4-5 seconds without giving my opponent to respond to anything).

That is the reason we declare our moves and intentions. It allows our oppone to be prepared for something is ABOUT to happen. Not something that MAY happen. Not to mention, we go back to game mechanics. Even if I do not declare that I am doing something, my opponent if he/she has a Spell Speed 3 card should be able to flip it over before anything else occurs such as me discarding a card for an Ignition Effect because I have priority. The act of declaring that I am summoning a monster, such as Hydrogeddon is not the actual summon. Otherwise what is stopping someone from after they declare what they are going to do to change their mind after they see their opponent flip over a card that would counter it?

 

[anthonyj]

Actually much like Bishop said on another thread the whole Priority thing could be explained in a couple sentences.

As I recall from years ago when this site was just getting up and the forums had just opened we had debates which just about identically mirrored this one here because somebody would keep trying to throw out the old "If your opponent activates Bottomless Trap Hole to you summoning XYZ then you can claim priority and push your effect in before the Bottomless Trap Hole". We had people writing suggestions about doing so in game play as a strategy to find out what the opponent had on the field to use for response. We spent page after page argueing for correct terminology and game play and weeding out every post which wanted to "use the new rulings" to get an extra advantage.

Your Treeborn Frog question had the same ring to it as many of those "real world" arguments regarding priority. The flaw is that it assumes that poor gameplay procedure is somehow an adequate argument to disprove proper game mechanics and rulings. While you might allow your opponent to change their mind at the kitchen table after you have responded to what they are doing Reasoning such as

We all know that until you see something happen, it "hasnt happened". I could say your the Grand Prize winner of a Power Ball Lottery. Until you see the the money, it's all talk.

does not stand up to the acid test of proper game mechanics. Talking in an abstract is not the same as declaring and paying costs. A friendly game oops is a tournament warning, keep making those "Wait, I didnt want to summon it, I was just thinking and decided to leave it in the Graveyard." and see how many game losses you get handed by a Judge. That is not a mechanic, it has no place in the game. Does it happen? Sure, it does. But my son plays Obelisk in his deck too at the kitchen table. That doesn't make him legal to play.

Regular Summoning Priority has been pretty entirely summed up and put to rest ages ago. The hold ups on Priority are in the area of attack declaration, chain resolution (though it either hasn't been answered "Kevin" or is easy "Dan") and one oddball ruling for flip summoning which truly deserved a detailed explanation of the logic that is behind it.

We have one BKSS ruling regarding the negators, that of Vampire Lord vs. Royal Oppression. That is the only circumstance that at all supports the theory of them not operating the way everybody has had it explained to them. The Sacred Phoenix ruling being much more recent should take precedent and show that Vampire Lord was a mistake. My frustration comes from these "mistakes that won't be deleted so they keep churning the same questions". I don't blame anyone for having doubts about rulings in this game. I actually question the sanity of anyone that takes all rulings as correct as we can poke holes through that idea all day. But I take exception to an extreme degree when told after the number of posts that have addressed this topic over years of time now that my explanation is unfounded, without support in the rulings, and likely to confuse players who are new to the game here.

If you truly don't buy what has been stated here you are welcome to post a question asking specifically whether the timing is different to activate Horn of Heaven and any other trap card in the game. I'd wager it would be answered relatively quickly as they seem to enjoy those questions where they can confidently answer them without hesitation.

And Tiso, Spell Speed is not a factor here because there was no chain before the negator is activated.

 

[Tiso]

The only reason I mentioned it Anthony is because if I summon an Ignition Effect monster and you respond with Solemn Judgment, the only thing I can activate would be a Spell Speed 3 card in order to negate that card. Then the chain ends and we are back to business as usually with me still having priority.

Also it is not claim priority. You RETAIN priority. You do not have to actually call out that you have priority since you already retained it and it is assumed. Your opponent is actually the one that should be for the most asking do you retain it.

 

[anthonyj]

The only reason I mentioned it Anthony is because if I summon an Ignition Effect monster and you respond with Solemn Judgment, the only thing I can activate would be a Spell Speed 3 card in order to negate that card. Then the chain ends and we are back to business as usually with me still having priority.

Also it is not claim priority. You RETAIN priority. You do not have to actually call out that you have priority since you already retained it and it is assumed. Your opponent is actually the one that should be for the most asking do you retain it.

Preaching to the choir there brother. I hate the term Claim Priority.

As far as the summon of an Ignition Effect monster is concerned the turn player does retain priority after a summon. Thus it would be the turn player who first chose to activate an effect or not. So the concept that the Turn Player has Priority yet the opponent is allowed to activate Solemn Judgment prior to him being able to activate anything means that the summon hasn't finished when the opponent has the opportunity to use Solemn Judgment. If it had finished you would not be able to use Solemn Judgment unless the opponent did not use their priority to activate an effect, because a Counter Trap as the next step to what it is negating not later in the chain (with the obvious exception of Negate Attack).

 

[Tiso]

Wouldn't it just be easier to say Counter Traps (Spell Speed 3) will override priority in some cases when your opponent summons on their turn? Since Spell Speed 3 should always be superior against anything else in the game except itself.

 

[anthonyj]

Wouldn't it just be easier to say Counter Traps (Spell Speed 3) will override priority in some cases when your opponent summons on their turn? Since Spell Speed 3 should always be superior against anything else in the game except itself.

But that isn't supported by other Counter Trap rulings. Counter Traps are not immune to rules of Priority, more often they are enslaved by them. For example:

[Re: Barrel Behind the Door] Remember that the effects that Counter-Traps are chained to must immediately precede them in the chain. So if you activate "Ring of Destruction", and intend to chain "Barrel Behind the Door" to it, if your opponent chains something in-between (even an unrelated effect like "Jar of Greed"), then you cannot chain "Barrel Behind the Door" because "Ring of Destruction" is no longer the preceding step in the chain.

 

[masterwoo0]

And that's why I said "Priority" has made cards like Solemn Judgment unusual.

If priority cannot be sidestepped by a negator, and a summon cannot be chained to, when is the proper time to activate Solemn Judgment or Horn of Heaven on a card like Jinzo?

 

[anthonyj]

And that's why I said "Priority" has made cards like Solemn Judgment unusual.

If priority cannot be sidestepped by a negator, and a summon cannot be chained to, when is the proper time to activate Solemn Judgment or Horn of Heaven on a card like Jinzo?

In the "window" that you are argueing against existing.

A. Turn Player retains priority after a summon.
B. If A = True then Turn Player may activate Mystik Wok before opponent could respond to the summon with Bottomless Trap Hole.
C. Thus the alternative is that the timing for activating Solemn Judgment is "before" the summon is completed.

This isn't ignoring the rules of Priority. It is allowing proper response to a specific event "the declaration of summon/paying costs or offering tributes". Currently there are only three cards in the game that have proper timing to use this window.

 

[masterwoo0]

So you are saying that in order to summon a monster, not only must you state that you wish to summon a monster, you must show your opponent 'FROM HAND" the monster you intend to summon, ie,

Player A enters Main Phase 1 and states that he is Tribute Summoning "Jinzo" from hand, and sends Great White from the field to the Graveyard.

Player B activates Solemn Judgment to negate the summon and destroy Jinzo.

Player A sends Jinzo to the Graveyard from hand.

Is that the action you are telling me "should" occur? That Jinzo will never leave your hand when his summon is negated?

The problem I am having with this is, if this is the way ALL monsters are negated, what difference does it make that its Jinzo if he is never summoned to the field?

He could just as well be a 2400 attack Skull Servant. It makes no real difference that he can negate Trap Cards if his effect will not come into play.

 

[anthonyj]

That is 100% what I'm saying. And it does not matter whether it is Jinzo or not. That is the essence of it. No matter which monster were being summoned it never reaches the field and thus the Continuous, Trigger, Ignition effect hasn't had the opportunity to be active.

 

[masterwoo0]

That is 100% what I'm saying. And it does not matter whether it is Jinzo or not. That is the essence of it. No matter which monster were being summoned it never reaches the field and thus the Continuous, Trigger, Ignition effect hasn't had the opportunity to be active.

Okay. I have you making your stand on that point.

So why then, have we been PREACHING that there are only two cards that can negate the summon of Jinzo??

If it doesnt matter, why emphasize the ridiculous? Of course there are only 2 cards that can negate the summon of Jinzo, hell, they negate the summon of a couple thousand more monsters as well...

This is where Im coming from.

I bang my head telling players that only Solemn Judgment and Horn of Heaven can negate the summon of Jinzo, when in reality, Jinzo could be Gemini Elf or Fusionist. It never mattered that it was Jinzo, is what you are saying, but I find that incredibly hard to swallow and would really like to see this IN WRITING from the Judge List and I really think it deserves a spot on the FAQ as well, since it pretty much turns a long standing ruling into dust in the wind.

Further more, I would say that if you did a search of THIS SITE, you would most definitely find where 100% of people have stated that about SJ and HoH, and I can guarantee that NO ONE has bothered to state that it didnt matter that it was Jinzo anyway because he never hits the field.

Why now does this info come out???

 

[skey23]

Just for your reading enjoyment.....

http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=8650#8650


[edit]I'm not sure if that's what you were looking for Woo0.