Macro Cosmos and Grand Convergence

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

skey23

Council of Heroes
This was asked on another site. There was an answer given, but I'm not too sure I believe it, sooo....

Can you activate "Macro Cosmos" and then chain "Grand Convergence" and have the effect of "Grand Gonvergence" resolve properly?

One of the answers given was that "Macro Cosmos" must be fully resolved before you can activate "Grand Convergence" and get it's effect.


What do you think?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Kyhotae said:
That's fine. Convince yourself you're right because you have no confirmation and several others agree with you. Last time I checked, the truth was whatever most people think it is, so you must be right.

They're new cards, this situation was not addressed in the rulings, several other judges, at the very least, ruled the opposite of what you believe at the Sneak Preview that was referred to at the beginning of this whole mess (on the other site that Simon referred to), so take your "ocean" and have a beach party for all I care. You don't get to be right, though, until the guys that run the show say you are. Neither do I. That's why you have to ask them.
Click to expand...
I didnt say Im right, but I have more proof that I am than being confused, and trying to toss in more things like "Spirit Reaper" that have nothing to do with the scenario. Like most people were ANYWAY at Pre-Release, who WASNT confused? How many days did we have to absorb the Rulings? 2? Are you going to be able to extrapolate every sceanario that can happen in two days? I think not. I mean, I love this game, but I'm not going to lose a ton of sleep trying to be "Perfect", when the rulings only give me enough time to briefly read them before the weekend (which I think is VERY INCONSIDERATE of UDE/Konami).

Here, on this Forum, and ANY other Forum, we have the luxury of "time", and not 40 minutes or 100 life points to do it in. We can examine a call all day if need be, and not have to worry about who is going to win or lose from a 30 second Brain Storm.

Instead of trying to understand how the answer can be correct, you chose to take the stand that it is impossible for a card to be face-up without resolving. If a card was never face-up before resolution, how could you start a chain?

At some point, you are going to have to take the Spoon from UDE's hand, and feed yourself.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm not taking any stand except that this question needs to be addressed by UDE/Konami. I don't believe that it's impossible for a card to be face-up without resolving. If I did, I wouldn't seek clarification from the judge's list. I'd just believe what I think and would close my eyes to all possibilities. However, we all know that the game works a little differently than we might think sometimes. For instance, one might think that "Fissure" targets a monster, but they would be wrong.

My "Imperial Order" scenario was sufficient to cast doubt on the whole "face-up" thing. If "face-up" is all it needs to be (according to its own text), then it starts negating Spell Cards as soon as it's activated, and you can't chain "Mystical Space Typhoon" to it.

Anyway, you can be as beligerent and condescending as you want, but I'm still going to think that it needs to be submitted to the judges list and I'm still going to believe either one of us might be wrong.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I still can't see why you can't understand this simple thing Kyhotae.

Grand Convergence requires only 1 thing, so it can be activated, and that is for Macro Cosmos to be face-up on your field.

When you go to activate a card, what do you do, I sure that you pay your costs first, if there are any, and then flip the card face-up, then your opponent can chain any cards to it if they wish, if not, you can then chain your cards, and then the chain resolves, and the cards in that chain resolve as well.

Why does GC have to wait for MC to resolve, are you trying to tell me, that for cards to be 'face-up' on the field, they need to be activated, and resolved. If thats the case, do you leave them face-down then, until they finish resolving, and then flip them up at the end. By what you are trying to convey, your opponent wouldn't be able to chain there MST/Dust to your Call of the Haunted to stop their Jinzo coming, because the card was activated and resolved while face-down.

And the Imperial Order scenario, you need to perhaps take another look at how chains work and resolve, regardless of what some cards say.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The following exclude each other:
A) A card is considered face-up once activated
B) A card is not considered face-up until it begins to resolve
C) A card is not considered face-up until finished resolving.

We have the judge's lsit post that says 'A' is true.

Therefore B and C are false.

It doesn't matter that these cards are new, or there text is different, as the above situations are not dependant on card text.

If you're going to use the judge's list as a reference, then you already have an answer.

If that answer is not good enough, then you cannot get a better answer from the judge's list.

You would need an official rulings answer (which the Judge list does not provide)

If you think that Grand CO=onvergence is not intended to be able to chain to Macro Cosmos, than you should be arguing that the Text of grand convergence is inaccurate. I can see the possibility that GC's effect means that it needs a "Macro Cosmos" whose effect is being applied from your side of the field, and if that were the case, I can see that Konami would use the more concise text instead of an accurate text, afterall that has been the case before.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DaGuyWitBluGlasses said:
The following exclude each other:
A) A card is considered face-up once activated
B) A card is not considered face-up until it begins to resolve
C) A card is not considered face-up until finished resolving.

We have the judge's lsit post that says 'A' is true...
Click to expand...
Where is the judge list post that says 'A' is true?

doc
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DH2K4 said:
I still can't see why you can't understand this simple thing Kyhotae.
Click to expand...
I'd like you to quote somewhere in this thread where I said that I did not understand what your position is. I'm not an idiot. I understand the argument, I'm just not sure that it is the way that they intended the card.

Grand Convergence requires only 1 thing, so it can be activated, and that is for Macro Cosmos to be face-up on your field.
Click to expand...
Actually, it only requires that "Macro Cosmos" is simply on your side of the field. If I took that literally, as you guys are wanting me to, I could argue that I don't even have to flip it face-up before I activate "Grand Convergence". After all, it doesn't say it has to be "face-up" on your side of the field, it just says it has to be on your side of the field. However, we all know that's not what they meant.

When you go to activate a card, what do you do, I sure that you pay your costs first, if there are any, and then flip the card face-up, then your opponent can chain any cards to it if they wish, if not, you can then chain your cards, and then the chain resolves, and the cards in that chain resolve as well.

Why does GC have to wait for MC to resolve, are you trying to tell me, that for cards to be 'face-up' on the field, they need to be activated, and resolved. If thats the case, do you leave them face-down then, until they finish resolving, and then flip them up at the end. By what you are trying to convey, your opponent wouldn't be able to chain there MST/Dust to your Call of the Haunted to stop their Jinzo coming, because the card was activated and resolved while face-down.
Click to expand...
Blah, blah, blah. I'm not implying anything of the sort, just that a card is usually not considered "face-up on the field" until it is activated and resolved fully. Just like you cannot use the effect of a Continuous Trap Card with a trigger effect until it is activated and resolved on the field.

And the Imperial Order scenario, you need to perhaps take another look at how chains work and resolve, regardless of what some cards say.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me? I know how it works, that's why I made the point.

Oh, and I don't think that "Umi" thing is adequate to resolve this issue. Look at the reason given that "Tornado Wall" is not destroyed. It was NOT because the new "Umi" is face-up, but because the FIELD did not change from Umi. That's why I think this should be submitted to the judge's list. As soon as I have access to it, I'll do it since none of you can bother yourselve's to do it. In the mean time, I'll just wait and see if someone else asks...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I stand by my deleted comment, and you can Ban me for it. This guys an IDIOT!!!

Instead of trying to explain his way out of the Paper Bag he's in, he would rather dance around all the explanations we have given, and probably still won't be satisfied when the answer comes back that says he is wrong because he can't even comprehend what face-up means, so what difference will a Official answer have, other than him just "obeying" what he still cant see as right.

Or, is the light bulb going to turn on all of a sudden?

I guess when you remove a Field Card, the field has to resolve AGAIN before it can return to no Field Modifier. Wow... New Mechanics all the time. Learn something new everyday!!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Deathjester said:
Easy there, masterwoo0. Don't start to lower yourself to the same level as that of various users I deal with every day. I come here to get away from them :)
Click to expand...
I dont consider the truth lowering myself. I'm not flaming him just cause I dont have any more Alka Seltzer, or Coffee to drink. Most people just insult or dismiss people with no reason. I HAVE a reason.

I'm not even asking him to provide a reason past wanting to see a more official ruling, but its just plain idotic to sit here and be told that the reasons we are providing are invalid just because he CANT refute them any better than he has.

I'm sure many of us didnt get to where we are because we can quote Upper Deck Rulings. That would mean I'm no better than a Parrot, and that's what I cannot accept.

There's a BIG difference between throwing caution to the wind and saying what you believe to be true, and finding out it isnt; but the fact that his argument is based on flawed logic, with no support, and ours is at least closer to the truth, puts us on more stable ground.

Not once have I seen him say, "While it could totally be reasonable to accept that what you guys are saying is true, I think it might have more validity if it were from a Official Source."

That's neither saying "I agree or disagree", but it is not the slap in the face that we keep getting. The only thing I'm seeing is, "One of us is wrong". That much is obvious, and the one thing he has said that is correct.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top