Negate Attack

[HorusMaster]

Is Negate Attack a chainable card when the opponent plays Giant Trunade, Heavy Storm or another card effect that destroys S/T cards? Is the effect chainable much like Waboku to stop the opponent from attacking or can it only be activated at the time the opponent actually declares an attack?

 

[DH2K4]

Text - Activate only when your opponent's monster declares an attack. Negate the attack of that 1 monster and end the Battle Phase.

Only when your opponent declares an attack can you activate/respond with Negate Attack.

 

[skey23]

And to add on to that, yes, "Negate Attack" IS a chainable card, provided you are using it in a chain that is direct response to an attack declaration.

So, the scenario could be something like this.

P1 Declares attack.
P2 responds with "Sakuretsu Armor".
P1 responds with "Royal Decree".
P2 responds with "Negate Attack".
Nothing else added, resolve.

 

[The Advocate]

If Negate Attack can only be activated in response to a declared attack, doesn't have to be the first in the chain?

 

[skey23]

No, it's the same as "Magic Cylinder", "Mirror Force" and "Sakuretsu Armor". They only need to be in the chain that is created immeidately following the attack declaration.

 

[english chef]

No, it's the same as "Magic Cylinder", "Mirror Force" and "Sakuretsu Armor". They only need to be in the chain that is created immeidately following the attack declaration.

This is why one could also chain, for example, 3 draining shields to the same attack. Unless I have things totally confused (again)

 

[HorusMaster]

This is why one could also chain, for example, 3 draining shields to the same attack. Unless I have things totally confused (again)

It would all depend on where they are placed on the chain and what trap effect is being activated. If Magic Cylinder or Negate Attack are activated first and then you chain with 3 Draining Shields, the chain would resolve backwards with the Draining Shields each resolving individually and Magic Cylinder or Negate Attack being the last to resolve. If Sakerutsu is activated somewhere in the chain, then the resolution of the chain depends on where Saks is in the chain.

 

[Digital Jedi]

If Negate Attack can only be activated in response to a declared attack, doesn't have to be the first in the chain?

One of the few Counter Traps, if not the only one, that doesn't chain directly to card activation. Most players, and by that, I mean everyone but me, explains Counter Traps as cards that can only be chained to the effect their responding to and then when Negate Attack/Horn of Heaven/Solemn Judgement comes up, they label it as an exception. I, personally, prefer to say that Counter Traps are cards that can only be activated in direct response to the effect or action they are responding to, just to be consistent and all encompassing.

 

[HorusMaster]

One of the few Counter Traps, if not the only one, that doesn't chain directly to card activation. Most players, and by that, I mean everyone but me, explains Counter Traps as cards that can only be chained to the effect their responding to and then when Negate Attack/Horn of Heaven/Solemn Judgement comes up, they label it as an exception. I, personally, prefer to say that Counter Traps are cards that can only be activated in direct response to the effect or action they are responding to, just to be consistent and all encompassing.

So in other words, they can ONLY be activated to a particular event and ONLY when that event occurs....correct?

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

One of the few Counter Traps, if not the only one, that doesn't chain directly to card activation. Most players, and by that, I mean everyone but me, explains Counter Traps as cards that can only be chained to the effect their responding to and then when Negate Attack/Horn of Heaven/Solemn Judgement comes up, they label it as an exception.

A natural exception that doesn not need to be mentioned because the word "chained" excludes counter traps that aren't in a chain to the event they are trying to negate, that rule cannot be applied to them

I, personally, prefer to say that Counter Traps are cards that can only be activated in direct response to the effect or action they are responding to, just to be consistent and all encompassing.

But that would be inconsistant:

Player A Declares Attack.
Player A activates uses priority to activate Magician's Cicle
Player B activates chains Sakuretsu Armor
Player B:

Now what explanation is their why player can activate Negate Attack there, but cannot activate SOlemn Judgment to deal with the spellcaster problem? How can the situation be that the counter trap is too late to negate one thing, yet can negate something even earlier?

 

[Digital Jedi]

A natural exception that doesn not need to be mentioned because the word "chained" excludes counter traps that aren't in a chain to the event they are trying to negate, that rule cannot be applied to them

Needs to be included because it's not all that natural an exclusion, when the question comes to peoples minds often enough. Preemptive answers clear up things, rather then just what they "need to know".

But that would be inconsistant:

Player A Declares Attack.
Player A activates uses priority to activate Magician's Circle
Player B activates chains Sakuretsu Armor
Player B:

Now what explanation is their why player can activate Negate Attack there, but cannot activate SOlemn Judgment to deal with the spellcaster problem? How can the situation be that the counter trap is too late to negate one thing, yet can negate something even earlier?

Because attacks and summons are mechanically similar, but not mechanically identical. The rules for responding are different. The windows are in different places. Fundamentally, the explanation is more "all encompassing" the more basic one that leaves four well-played cards out altogether.

 

[skey23]

It would all depend on where they are placed on the chain and what trap effect is being activated. If Magic Cylinder or Negate Attack are activated first and then you chain with 3 Draining Shields, the chain would resolve backwards with the Draining Shields each resolving individually and Magic Cylinder or Negate Attack being the last to resolve. If Sakerutsu is activated somewhere in the chain, then the resolution of the chain depends on where Saks is in the chain.

Well, all of that is true, except for "Negate Attack". If "Negate Attack" is activated first, then you can't chain with "Draining Shield" because "Negate Attack" is a Counter Trap.

I'm surprised nobody else mentioned/caught this....tsk..tsk..tsk...

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Needs to be included because it's not all that natural an exclusion, when the question comes to peoples minds often enough. Preemptive answers clear up things, rather then just what they "need to know".

"A change of acceleration without a change of speed."

It might no come to mind straight away what this sentence means, but that doesn't change the fact that it confirms one conclusion, even if some people don't see it right away.

IF you take the time to analyze it you can make the conclusion,

Just like anyone who reads the ruling can make the conclusion that a ruling involving chaining does not apply to situations that don't involve chaining. People don't naturally read every single word, but by that logic, any explanation at all could lead to mistakes: you cannot predict how every single person is going to read something, therefore, the only correct explanation is one that can be logically analyzed, to obtain conclusions.

Because attacks and summons are mechanically similar, but not mechanically identical. The rules for responding are different. The windows are in different places.

But one window is earlier than the other, how can it be too late for the more recent?

Saying they are "different" offers no explanation, and is only "begging the question"

 

[Digital Jedi]

"A change of acceleration without a change of speed."

It might no come to mind straight away what this sentence means, but that doesn't change the fact that it confirms one conclusion, even if some people don't see it right away.

IF you take the time to analyze it you can make the conclusion,

Just like anyone who reads the ruling can make the conclusion that a ruling involving chaining does not apply to situations that don't involve chaining. People don't naturally read every single word, but by that logic, any explanation at all could lead to mistakes: you cannot predict how every single person is going to read something, therefore, the only correct explanation is one that can be logically analyzed, to obtain conclusions.

But one window is earlier than the other, how can it be too late for the more recent?

Saying they are "different" offers no explanation, and is only "begging the question"

I think your overcomplicating it. I prefer to explain Counters this way because, in my estimation, the explanation is more encompassing then the official one that completely excludes four significant cards. It's not any more or less correct then the official one. It doesn't change the mechanics of anything. It just includes all cards of its type.


And the summon response timing and the attack response timing are so different that they NEED their own explanation. There are rules to them that, outside of the Counter Trap activation issue, beg plenty of questions on their own. It's not like the question is never going to come up because I leave the issue out of my prefered explanation. Summons vs Attacks are questions that requires their own explanations and topics and cover far more issues and undefined areas then the four Counter Traps relate to.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

I think your overcomplicating it. I prefer to explain Counters this way because, in my estimation, the explanation is more encompassing then the official one that completely excludes four significant cards.

Why is there a need for an encompassing explanation,

we don't try to explain Ultimate OFfering and Imperial Order together afterall, they have different effects so they have different rulings.

It's not any more or less correct then the official one. It doesn't change the mechanics of anything. It just includes all cards of its type.

Yes it is less correct, because it suggests that there isn't a difference among counter traps.

And the summon response timing and the attack response timing are so different that they NEED their own explanation.

Just because they are different, doesn't mean that there will be incosistency here, saying they are different does not negate the point i made "why is it too late to respond to something even more recent?"

Surely the Main Phase and Standby Phase are extremely different, but one ruling can apply to both of them in the same way.

Proof of the relevance of an exception needs to be proven, which the official explanation does, but your explanation requires "Special Pleading"

 

[Digital Jedi]

What I'm saying is, that in spite of your protestation, this is the way I prefer to explain them. I guess what I'm trying to say on the matter, without sounding rude, is that I'm not seeking anyone's approval on the matter.

I could see a problem if the way I explained things altered Game Mechanics or timing of the cards in some way, but it doesn't. It's just another way of understanding the mechanics and explaining the way they function to people. This is what makes it no more or less correct then the official one, because it will not alter gameplay in any manner. It just doesn't fit with your concept of what a Counter is. So be it. I never stated that this was the way you were supposed to regard it. I only stated that this was the way I prefer to explain it.

Proof of the relevance of an exception needs to be proven, which the official explanation does, but your explanation requires "Special Pleading"

Honestly, I neither desire nor think it's appropriate to get into logical fallacies again, especially about a Trading Card Game. If we were talking about the mysteries of the universe, maybe. But here, it seems inappropriate.

I will say that I've not ignored your question about ""why is it too late to respond to something even more recent?" I've simply been trying to point out that it's something altogether different and that it's a separate subject. One that we've discussed in depth in other threads and perhaps deserves it's own.

I'm not sure why my answer, that summons response timing and attack response timing are only similar, but not identical, is not sufficient enough to explain myself to you, especially considering the fact that, from the start, I asserted that this was my personal, preferred way of explaining how Counter Traps function (nor am I making anything up when I state that they are different). I was simply trying to present an alternative form of explanation which I feel you've made way to complicated by trying to turn it into a debate. But I'm not trying to debate anything. I'm only trying to explain why I think the way I do. If you don't care to think this way, c'est la vie.

Beyond that, I'm not really sure what your looking for. I answered each of your questions to the best of my ability. Maybe I'm just too dumb to grasp what your saying. :nod_yes So on that note, I'm putting the matter to rest.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

I'm saying that tring to group all counter trap cards together is only going to cause more confusion.

Negate Attacks, and summon negating ecounter traps have completely different effects from other counter traps cards.

Negate Attack is as different from Magic Jammer, as Imperial Order is different from Ultimate Offering.

In fact, the rulebooks ruling about counter traps really isn't really a ruling about counter traps, but rather chained negation effects that also applies to spell speed 2 effects.

The only rule about counter traps specifically is "Spell Speed 3"

Withouth changing how anything works a COunter Trap could be released that has no activation situation, i.e. a card whose purpose is to prevent chaining from spell speed 2 effects, to itself, or previously activated cards. There would be no response timing as an issue either

So your explanation is simply incorrect.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Withouth changing how anything works a COunter Trap could be released that has no activation situation, i.e. a card whose purpose is to prevent chaining from spell speed 2 effects, to itself, or previously activated cards. There would be no response timing as an issue either

So your explanation is simply incorrect.

And if that ever happens, I'll stop explaining that way. Wait, didn't I say "c'est la vie"? Crap.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

I was saying that why can't solemn judgment be used to negate the effect of magician's circle, so essentially, summons and attacks are different, in the concept of counter traps, what I was getting at is your explanation doesn't explain why negate attack can be activated later, (or horn of heaven can).

I was talking about summons and attacks were different from chaining, not from each other.

cards that can only be activated in direct response to the effect or action they are responding to

Saying that negate Attack can only be activate as chain link 1 would be an equally correct interpretation of this description. I.E. The description does nothing to remeove the confusion over Negate Attack.

 

[SoilentG]

And to add on to that, yes, "Negate Attack" IS a chainable card, provided you are using it in a chain that is direct response to an attack declaration.

So, the scenario could be something like this.

P1 Declares attack.
P2 responds with "Sakuretsu Armor".
P1 responds with "Royal Decree".
P2 responds with "Negate Attack".
Nothing else added, resolve.

I hope this is only for illustration... wouldn't Royal Decree negate Negate Attack?