Magician's Circles and replays

D

Dr Sin

New Member
I was wondering about some situations with MC and replays, and I want to check:

1) Well, it's in fact general: do we have some official "clue" until this moment about if TP retains priority after an attack is declared? Or there isn't any official answer yet? I'm asking this because this affects question below.

2) If TP declares an attack, pass priority, then NTP responds with Magic Cylinder, or Sak, or Widespread etc and TP then chains activating MC, what would happen? I believe it goes like this:
Link 2: MC resolves. Assuming only TP special summons, there isn't a problem. But if NTP special summons a sp too, then the attack of the monster still resolves and the monster is:
Link 1: destroyed (if it was Sak or WR) or its attack is negated and TP takes the damage (if it was Cylinder). Is this correct?

General question behind it: If an attack is declared and a chain is formed in response to this attack, even if in the middle of it monster(s) is (are) special summoned in the NTP side, the full chain MUST resolve right, sort of "breaking replay rules"? (Note: maybe my replay concepts are not solid)

Thanks in advance
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
1) Official? I don't think so. But that's the way it is, plain and simple. Danker will argue with me, of course, but I'm certain of it. So :p to him. XD.

2) I believe you've got that right. I don't :~! THINK !~: that a replay can interrupt chain resolution. I think it has to wait.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks Jason_C.

And I am on the group that believes TP always retains priority after an action, including: summon, flip summon, declaration of an attack, draw at the DP. Why? Because this would make all the mechanics "similar" and much more reasoneable, don't you think? But, let's wait.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Danker said:
1. Nope, no arguement here. Turn player retains priority after the declaration of attack. You assume too much Jason <wink and a smile> you often do.
Click to expand...
Either that, or you make the mistake of taking me seriously. You ought to know by now that I'm rarely serious in my insults. :D

So, without further adieu, :nyah_jedi
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Dr Sin said:
I was wondering about some situations with MC and replays, and I want to check:

2) If TP declares an attack, pass priority, then NTP responds with Magic Cylinder, or Sak, or Widespread etc and TP then chains activating MC, what would happen? I believe it goes like this:
Link 2: MC resolves. Assuming only TP special summons, there isn't a problem. But if NTP special summons a sp too, then the attack of the monster still resolves and the monster is:
Link 1: destroyed (if it was Sak or WR) or its attack is negated and TP takes the damage (if it was Cylinder). Is this correct?

General question behind it: If an attack is declared and a chain is formed in response to this attack, even if in the middle of it monster(s) is (are) special summoned in the NTP side, the full chain MUST resolve right, sort of "breaking replay rules"? (Note: maybe my replay concepts are not solid)

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

If the turn player in this example passes priority, does he not lose the timing window to activate Magician's Circle?

Man I type way to slow!!!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Big Oldprankster said:
If the turn player in this example passes priority, does he not lose the timing window to activate Magician's Circle?

Man I type way to slow!!!
Click to expand...
He does not.

That was remarkably terse.

He does not for the simple reason that the opponent did not ALSO pass. Remember, until both players pass consecutively, the window stays open.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Big Oldprankster said:
Jason_C said:
He does not.

That was remarkably terse.




What do you mean by that?????
Click to expand...
I was referring to my own statement of "He does not" as extremely terse. Then I decided to be polite and go into actual detail.

It's something djp952 did once. Someone asked if Pandemonium was an archfiend. His reply:

It is not.

How terse of me.
Click to expand...
I thought that was so hilarious, I steal it every chance I get. :p
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jason_C said:
Big Oldprankster said:
I was referring to my own statement of "He does not" as extremely terse. Then I decided to be polite and go into actual detail.

It's something djp952 did once. Someone asked if Pandemonium was an archfiend. His reply:


I thought that was so hilarious, I steal it every chance I get. :p
Click to expand...

I did not have a dictionary around when you said that, that is why I was asking. the definition of terse is - free of superfluous words; concise.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top