Optional Tigger Effects

[John Danker]

Optional Trigger effects are something I've been meaning to do some studying up on but until yesterday never really got around to. Yes, I admit, I should be well versed in optional trigger effects already, it's a weakness I'll confess. The one question I still have left in my mind though is....

The actual activation point.

If I tribute summon for Mobius the Frost Monarch does his effect ACTIVATE when he's summoned or does it activate when I choose to use the effect?

The reason this is important is a scenario I've dreamed up (leave it to me to be a dreamer) ...but a concievable scenario.

P2 has an active Ultimate Offering on the field along with an attack position Spirit Reaper.

P1 has a set BTH and an attack position Gemini Elf.

P1 is in battle phase and declares an attack with Gemini Elf

P2 responds to the attack by activating the effect of Ultimate Offering, nothing is added to the chain.

P2 Now summons Mobius the Frost Monarch by tributing his Spirit Reaper.

Now the kicker....if after a summon priority always returns to the turn player then my original question comes into play.

If Mobius activates when it's summoned then all that is left is choosing...however, if the effect activates only after the turn player chooses to use the effect....and priority has passed to the turn player and turn player activates BTH, then P2 can't chain Mobius's effect because it's a spell speed 1.

Now you know how I got around to studying up on optional trigger effects <laffin>

Any help here?

 

[Cropz]

'Stumbling' and 'Mobius the Frost Monarch' form a chain when the latter is Tribute Summoned sucessfully.
regarding 'Level Limit - Area B'... well, maybe Continuous Effects don't count? (I can't remember any situation off the top of my head where a Continuous Effect can make an optional trigger miss the timing).

 

[slither]

The real problem comes out when really wanting to determine when a card will be considered a "Continous" <non-trigger> effect, Appropriate comes to mind.

 

[John Danker]

[Re: Null and Void] You cannot chain "Null and Void" to the effect of "Appropriate" because the effect of "Appropriate" cannot be chained to.

 

[slither]

Precisely, I ment, that if you read Appropriate you would really don't know if it was considered a non-trigger continous trap.

 

[Jason_C]

Precisely, I ment, that if you read Appropriate you would really don't know if it was considered a non-trigger continous trap.

Not to mention the number of cards worded similarly to Appropriate, yet with trigger effects.

 

[Cropz]

'Appropriate'/'Forced Requisition' are some piece of strageness...
the effect doesn't use the chain (like Continuous Effects), but are only applied after the whole CHAIN is done, not after each chain link (like Trigger Effects).

 

[novastar]

but are only applied after the whole CHAIN is done, not after each chain link (like Trigger Effects).

They are applied between links like other trigger-like Continuous Effects.

 

[skey23]

Nova is right on that one. If you'll read the ruling for "Forced Requisition" and "Night Assailant", you'll see that it activates inbetween like a continuous effect.

 

[Cropz]

They are applied between links like other trigger-like Continuous Effects.

...not.

http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=3395
(question #3)

 

[novastar]

Well plainly, Curtis is in error.

You should discard 2 cards after Serial Spell resolves, and then draw 3 cards for Card Destruction.

But FR has been up and down for a looong time.

 

[Cropz]

I don't think that's the case
Steve confirmed that same ruling when asked by someone.
(and since you use it, JERP confirms this same thing).

 

[skey23]

Yes, Curtis is correct, but not for the reason you're stating...lol. Let's see if I can explain why...lol.

P1 has 4 cards in hand, including "Card Destruction" and "Serial Spell".
P2 has 5 cards in hand.
P1 has an active "Forced Requisition".
P1 plays "Card Destruction".
P2 does not respond.
P1 chains "Serial Spell" from hand, and discards the remaining 2 cards from their hand.
P2 does not respond.
"Forced Requisition"s effect kicks in and P2 must now discard 2 cards from their hand.
"Serial Spell" resolves and P2 now discards 3 cards, then draws 3 cards. P1 doesn't have any cards to discard or draw due to the cost for "Serial Spell".
"Card Destruction" resolves and P2 now discards 3 cards, then draws 3 cards. P1 still doesn't have any cards in hand, so they don't discard or draw.

Does that make sense?

 

[novastar]

I don't think that's the case
Steve confirmed that same ruling when asked by someone.
(and since you use it, JERP confirms this same thing).

I honestly doubt eiter of them is correct.

And i will check the JERP, just incase you are "loosely" interpreting it.

 

[Cropz]

it WOULD make sense if 'Forced Requisition''s effect DID kick in-between Chain Links, which it doesn't.

I honestly doubt eiter of them is correct.

And i will check the JERP, just incase you are "loosely" interpreting it.

it's really impossible to interpret this wrongly, since the examples given there are pretty clear, and I've been using the JERP translations for a very long time now, I'm used to the wording (feel free to double-check it though )

 

[novastar]

Yes, Curtis is correct, but not for the reason you're stating...lol. Let's see if I can explain why...lol.

P1 has 4 cards in hand, including "Card Destruction" and "Serial Spell".
P2 has 5 cards in hand.
P1 has an active "Forced Requisition".
P1 plays "Card Destruction".
P2 does not respond.
P1 chains "Serial Spell" from hand, and discards the remaining 2 cards from their hand.
P2 does not respond.
"Forced Requisition"s effect kicks in and P2 must now discard 2 cards from their hand.
"Serial Spell" resolves and P2 now discards 3 cards, then draws 3 cards. P1 doesn't have any cards to discard or draw due to the cost for "Serial Spell".
"Card Destruction" resolves and P2 now discards 3 cards, then draws 3 cards. P1 still doesn't have any cards in hand, so they don't discard or draw.

Does that make sense?

No in cases where cards are discarded as cost, you discard after the effect of that card resolves, not after it is activated.

You perform all of these action on the resolution side of the chain.

FR should work exactly like Magic Thorn and the rest of the gang, between links.

IF they made a special provision for FR and Appropriate, it was to avoid problems, NOT because thats how they "should" work.

I'm not sold.

 

[Cropz]

I know how you feel, I got brain-tired after trying to understand it :/
("wtf? here it says the effect doesn't start chain, there it says it only applies after the chain is done, wtf?" *brain explodes*).

 

[skey23]

Ok, then...how about this one...lol

P1 has 4 cards in hand, including "Card Destruction" and "Serial Spell".
P2 has 5 cards in hand.
P1 has 2 set "Jar of Greed"s from a previous turn.
P1 has an active "Forced Requisition".
P1 plays "Card Destruction".
P2 does not respond.
P1 chains "Serial Spell" from hand, and discards the remaining 2 cards from their hand.
P2 does not respond.
"Forced Requisition"s effect kicks in and P2 must now discard 2 cards from their hand.
P1 chains "Jar of Greed" to "Serial Spell".
P2 does not respond.
P1 chains "Jar of Greed".
P2 does not respond.

Resolve chain.
Both "Jar of Greed"s resolve so P1 now has 2 cards in hand.
"Serial Spell" resolves and P2 now discards 3 cards, then draws 3 cards. P1 discards 2 cards, then draws 2 cards.
"Forced Requisition"s effect kicks in and P2 must now discard 2 cards from their hand, leaving 1 card.
"Card Destruction" resolves and P2 now discards 1 card, then draws 1 card. P1 discards 2 cards, then draws 2 cards.
"Forced Requisition"s effect kicks in and P2 must now discard 2 cards from their hand, but they only have one, so they discard the one card from their hand.

See how it interrupts just like a continuous effect?

 

[Cropz]

you're making your examples based on the fact that 'Forced Requisition' is applied in-between Chain Links, like other Continuous Effects, but it doesn't.

 

[novastar]

it WOULD make sense if 'Forced Requisition''s effect DID kick in-between Chain Links, which it doesn't.



it's really impossible to interpret this wrongly, since the examples given there are pretty clear, and I've been using the JERP translations for a very long time now, I'm used to the wording (feel free to double-check it though )

Whats the link to the exact page so i dont have to search around here.

 

[skey23]

you're making your examples based on the fact that 'Forced Requisition' is applied in-between Chain Links, like other Continuous Effects, but it doesn't.

I'm basing it that way because of this published ruling:

If you have "Forced Requisition" active (face-up) and 7 cards in your hand during the End Phase (and one of them is a "Night Assailant"), and there is another "Night Assailant" in your Graveyard, and you discard your "Night Assailant" because you have 7 cards, your opponent must discard because of "Forced Requisition". Then you can activate the effect of "Night Assailant" to retrieve the other "Night Assailant". Now you have 7 cards in your hand again so you can discard "Night Assailant", and your opponent must discard again for "Forced Requisition". You can continue doing this until your opponent loses all cards in their hand.

That clearly indicates that "Forced Requisition" interrupted the events such that a Continuous Effect would.