IRS/last will timing?

[Gutterpuppy]

just to make sure i don't incorrectly use the combo, would inferno reckless summon have to be chained right as last will is played? or do i have the option of playing last will and waiting until i activate its effect before deceiding to chain IRS?

i'm sure there are a couple other scineros between these 2 cards i could bring up, but lets just go with this for now.....

 

[DarkLogicianOfCaos]

But the priority is DEPENDENT on the effect of Premature Burial resolving. If I chain Dust Tornando or MST to the activation Premature at the time that the TP activates the effect of the card, then NO MONSTER is special summoned and TP CANNOT chain IRS to either of my cards. There is no monster special summoned to the field and as such, IRS resolves WITHOUT ANY monsters being special summoned. That's the point I'm trying to make. The TP cannot activate a S/T card that special summons a monster and CLAIM priority for another link in the chain because he's summoning a monster.

Point of clarification....If you mean TP chaining IRS to your card that you chained to Premature, they couldn't anyway, becaue pre has to resolve first.

I believe that the reason IRS is Quick Play is to avoid the whole priority dilema. What I mean is, if it were Spell Speed 1, we would have something to debate, but being SS2, TP can activate it in priority as soon as the Monster hits the field, barring any other "automatic" effect (stumbling, DMOC, etc., in which case prioity is forfit to the auto-effect and the NTP can chain) or if it were in the middle of a chain, such as Call of the Haunted being chained to something, in which the last thing to resolve would be something other than the Special Summon and the oportunity is missed. Yes?

 

[Digital Jedi]

But the priority is DEPENDENT on the effect of Premature Burial resolving. If I chain Dust Tornando or MST to the activation Premature at the time that the TP activates the effect of the card, then NO MONSTER is special summoned and TP CANNOT chain IRS to either of my cards. There is no monster special summoned to the field and as such, IRS resolves WITHOUT ANY monsters being special summoned. That's the point I'm trying to make. The TP cannot activate a S/T card that special summons a monster and CLAIM priority for another link in the chain because he's summoning a monster.

I think you may misunderstand a couple of things. IRS operates the same way as Bottomless Trap Hole. The summon has to resolve before you can activate it. Since this card has to be activated by the player doing the Special Summoning, when the summon resolve, priority has returned to that player. In other words, your never going to miss the opportunity to activate IRS in response to your own summon, unless you use turn priority for something else.

 

[Kyhotae]

Just as you cannot chain to a Summon, Summons cannot "resolve" either. A Summon is either successful or not successful, there's no resolution involved.

 

[ygo doc]

Ok, I don't know what's got everybody confused with this. This is really very simple.

As I stated before, the Turn Player has Priority after ANY Summon. It does not matter that it was via an effect or not.

You use "Premature Burial", the opponent can chain to this. If they don't, then it resolves and the monster is Special Summoned. At this point, what is the last thing to have happened in the Game? A Special Summon, so the Turn Player has Priority to respond to that Special Summon first.

You guys need to listen to skey23 here. There is no theory or difference in Konami or UDE rules here.

Whenever a monster is successfully summoned by the Turn Player, whether it be a special summon or a chain ending in the successful summon of a monster, the Turn Player retains priority.

So if the Turn Player activates Premature Burial to special summon Exiled Force, he may use Exiled Force's ignition effect before the opponent can activate Trap Hole; same as if he had normal summoned Exiled Force.

Of course the opponent can chain to both Premature Burial before it resolves or the effect of Exiled Force; however, if Premature Burial/Call of the Haunted resolves with the successful summon of a monster, the Turn Player still has priority. That's the rule!

doc

 

[slither]

That's the accepted rule, though it still isn't written anyware.

 

[ygo doc]

That's the accepted rule, though it still isn't written anyware.

Oh, it's written! Read this from the open judge site: http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=9353#9353

doc

 

[Digital Jedi]

Just as you cannot chain to a Summon, Summons cannot "resolve" either. A Summon is either successful or not successful, there's no resolution involved.

I use the word "resolution" in the broadest sense of the word. It implies a beginning, a middle and an ending. What I said had nothing to do with an effect. Everything in life has a resolution. Don't confuse the mechanic with the verb.

 

[Kyhotae]

I'm not. But, as was hammered home to me when I first got here, we should be careful which words we use when explaining the game.

In Yu-Gi-Oh!, effects resolve, Summons don't. Saying "the last thing to resolve was a Summon" is a misuse of a game term that can easily cause confusion..

 

[slither]

Oh, it's written! Read this from the open judge site: http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=9353#9353

doc

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] After performing a Summon

[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This is stating a "succesful summon" has been accomplished without anything interferring, then when the summon is completed what will happen.
[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That we all know and I don't believe anyone disagrees, what is trying to be cleared out is the "chain" itself. I'm not defending the other point of view since I agree that the only thing that "should" be counted is the summon itself, but it's an open window to state as well that a chain has just been completed before the summon has been considered succesful.
[/font]

 

[Kyhotae]

It is the same thing. It talks about "Metamorphosis" resolving and Summoning "Thousand-Eyes Restrict". After which it clearly says that the Turn Player retains priority. There is no new "window" after the resolution of the last chain link and a Special Summon. The resolution of the that last link IS the Special Summoning. After which, the Turn Player retains priority to activate a monster effect of a Spell Speed 2 or higher effect.

 

[slither]

It is the same thing. It talks about "Metamorphosis" resolving and Summoning "Thousand-Eyes Restrict". After which it clearly says that the Turn Player retains priority. There is no new "window" after the resolution of the last chain link and a Special Summon. The resolution of the that last link IS the Special Summoning. After which, the Turn Player retains priority to activate a monster effect of a Spell Speed 2 or higher effect.

You are still not getting the point, the succesful summon is totally independant from the cards activation and resolution itself.

It has been defined that priority will be retained by the opponent of who's last effect resolved. <- this in any normal chain.

What is being condradicted in this situation is what the chain ends up with, which is a summon, BUT there's still a chain involved and effects which have resolved.

 

[Kyhotae]

I'm not getting the point? As I explained the resolution of that chain link IS a Special Summon. After a Summon by the turn player, the turn player retains priority to activate an appropriate card. That's what the judge's list post says, and that's how it's always been.

Where is this definition of priority? Priority is something that the turn player has. He has it through his entire turn, no matter who's effect resolves last. He has it at the beginning of a Phase and he has it when he Summons a monster and it's the last thing to occur in a chain. He always has and he always will.

 

[ygo doc]

What is it that you don't understand?

When any chain of any length completely resolves with the last link of the chain resulting in the successful summoning of a monster, the Turn Player has priority. Both skey23 and I have stated that. The link I posted is direct from Kevin Tewart and involves a 1 link chain with Premature Burial.

Now if a chain resolves and the last link to resolve does NOT result in a summon of a monster, then the Turn Player does not necessarily get priority.

Example:
Austin activates Graceful Charity. No response from opponent. Austin then chains Return from the Different Dimension. No further chains. RftDD resolves and then GC resolves. It is too late for opponent to activate Bottomless Trap Hole since the last thing to occur in the game state was the resolution of Graceful Charity, not the special summon of monsters. However, Austin does not have priority to tribute his special summoned Exiled Force to destroy opponent's Cyber Dragon, since the chain did not end with him summoning a monster. Opponent has priority and activates Ring of Destruction to destroy Exiled Force.

doc

 

[slither]

I never said I didn't understand, as I said earlier, I AGREE with it being that way, what I am trying to say is that this:

Now if a chain resolves and the last link to resolve does NOT result in a summon of a monster, then the Turn Player does not necessarily get priority.

precisely is just an "accepted" terminology.

 

[HorusMaster]

The TP never CLAIMS Priority. The TP always has it. It's built-in to the Game. You cannot ever change that fact.

My statement didn't argue whether the TP does or doesn't have priority AFTER a summon has occurred but rather that they CLAIM THEY HAVE IT "because they INTEND to summon a monster." Everyone agrees that a SUCCESSFUL summons of a monster HAS TO OCCUR in order for TP to HAVE priority. The question was raised earlier as to IRS being chained IMMEDIATELY to the special summoning of a monster WITHOUT the NTP being able to respond to the card effect special summoning a monster.

I agree that the TP retains priority PROVIDED that the summoning of the monster is successful and it is the last thing to have occurred in the chain.

 

[Gutterpuppy]

ok this has kinda strayed away on a tangent but lets go with it.

we all agree that bottomless trap hole and IRS respond to the summon right? ok then TP appears to have priorty, but why would you want it in this scinerio? personally i would be glad to let my opponent play bottomless and then chain IRS to my special summoned goblin king. irs would resolve first then bottomless would take out the original ss goblin king. i would rather see the one goblin get removed and retain my lock than force priority and have my lock removed and be stuck with a potentially face up 0atk goblin king.

 

[ApocalypseAp]

ok this has kinda strayed away on a tangent but lets go with it.

we all agree that bottomless trap hole and IRS respond to the summon right? ok then TP appears to have priorty, but why would you want it in this scinerio? personally i would be glad to let my opponent play bottomless and then chain IRS to my special summoned goblin king. irs would resolve first then bottomless would take out the original ss goblin king. i would rather see the one goblin get removed and retain my lock than force priority and have my lock removed and be stuck with a potentially face up 0atk goblin king.

If that happened, then Bottomless would remove all 3 Goblin Kings. Bottomless doesn't target. Using IRS before Bottomless would be better by far because then Bottomless Resolves, then you special summon both of them.

 

[Maruno]

If that happened, then Bottomless would remove all 3 Goblin Kings. Bottomless doesn't target. Using IRS before Bottomless would be better by far because then Bottomless Resolves, then you special summon both of them.

Wrong. It's been ruled that Bottomless Trap Hole only affects the Summoned monster(s) it was originally activated in response to, NOT all Summons in the chain that may happen to grow off the activation of Bottomless Trap Hole. Gutterpuppy is correct.

However, we're (or they're, more accurately) not talking about particular scenarios such as the one Gutterpuppy described. They're talking about general situations, and whether the Turn Player DOES have Priority or not. Whether they use it or not is irrelevant.

 

[novastar]

Ok, I don't know what's got everybody confused with this. This is really very simple.

As I stated before, the Turn Player has Priority after ANY Summon. It does not matter that it was via an effect or not.

You use "Premature Burial", the opponent can chain to this. If they don't, then it resolves and the monster is Special Summoned. At this point, what is the last thing to have happened in the Game? A Special Summon, so the Turn Player has Priority to respond to that Special Summon first.

It's not confusion... it's simply that when you put Kevin's and Dan's statements regarding Priority together, you get inconsistancy, in terms of who gets what, when an effect resolves.

To say that summon effect are a special case, sounds like UDE temporarily trying to cover bases, while they try and push Konami to what they (UDE) think Priority should be like.

In my mind, the TP should always have Priority... after every resolution ...period. Summons should not be the only exception.

I totally a agree it should be simple, the TP should always get Priority first.

 

[Jason_C]

it's simply that when you put Kevin's and Dan's statements regarding Priority together, you get inconsistancy, in terms of who gets what, when an effect resolves.

Nah. I mean yes, one says that the opponent of the controller of the last effect to resolve gets priority, and the other says the controller of the summoned monster gets priority. On the face of it, that seems to be an inconsistancy. But that doesn't mean there can't be a simple mechanic to end the inconsistancy. Whenever two forces clash, one trumps the other. In this case, it has been rather arbitrarily decided that summon trumps effect resolution. This isn't too different from how mandatory effects trump optional effects and so get placed on the chain first. They had to choose between the TP and the NTP getting priority, and they chose the TP.

In my mind, the TP should always have Priority... after every resolution ...period. Summons should not be the only exception.

And I'll bet anyone here that that's how the game was intended to be played. But through poor translations and general vagueness, we have ... this.