Priority v. 1.1

Priority v. 1.1

By Michael Palmer

It's come to my attention that many of the questions being asked on our forums here at netrep.net have been the same questions regarding priority and specific monsters and how they interact. First, I'll say the golden rule that no one seems to understand as of right now. A monster does not have priority! YOU THE PLAYER HAVE PRIORITY!!! Some people just don't understand that so the first thing we always say while answering questions is "This monster doesn't have priority, no monster has priority. The player has the priority." So make sure you rephrase your questions before posting them if you ever ask about a monster's priority.

With that pushed aside, I thought up a few situations with certain monsters that you could use their effects with while using YOUR priority:

Player A summons Tribe-Infecting Virus to the field.
Player B responds with Trap Hole.
Player A choose to use turn priority to activate Tribe's effect.
Player B's Trap Hole is then added on the chain as link 2.

Chain:
Link 1: Tribe-Infecting Virus's effect is activated.
Link 2: Trap Hole is activated.

Resolution:
Link 2: Trap Hole first resolves since it was the last card on the chain and destroys Tribe-Infecting Virus.
Link 1: Then Tribe's effect resolves since it was not negated destroying all monsters of the specific type called.

Reason: I know what many of you are thinking.  How can a card resolve fully if it's no longer present on the field at resolution?  Well, to put it quite simply, it's like chaining MST to Raigeki.  Even though you destroyed Raigeki in the chain, it's effect was never negated so it will resolve as normal even though it was destroyed in the resolution step before it's resolution would take place.  The same goes with Tribe and any other monster, it's effect is being chained to with the trap card being responded with.  Since you can't chain to a summon, the trap card would have to be chained to the cost effect of the monster.  Since the trigger effect is spell speed 1, it would have to be the first link in the chain.  Then you add on the speed 2 effect of the trap card, in this case it was Trap Hole, and it destroy Tribe first and then Tribe's effect destroys all monsters of the specific type called.

Player A summons Magicial Scientist.
Player B activates Ring of Destruction.
Player A activates Scientist's effect by paying 1000 Life Points.
Player B's Ring of Destruction then resolves destroying Scientist and dealing 300 points of damage to both players.
Player B's Scientist's effect resolves special summoning his fusion monster to the field.

Chain:
Link 1: Magical Scientist's effect is activated.
Link 2: Ring of Destruction is activated.

Resolution:
Link 2: Ring of Destruction resolves destroying Magical Scientist and dealing 300 points of damage to both players.
Link 1: Magical Scientist's effect resolves special summoning a Fusion monster.

Reason: Basically see the same as TIV.

Player B has Skill Drain face-up on the field.
Player A tribute summons Jinzo.
Player B's Skill Drain is already active and is a continuous effect.
Player A's Jinzo is negated upon the successful summoning.

With this it's a simple time stamp effect.  Since Skill Drain was in effect first on the field, Jinzo's effect is negated.

Player B has a face up Level Limit Area B on the field.
Player A tribute summons Spell Canceller.

Same issue as above, since Level Limit was in effect first, it will turn Spell Canceller to defense position.  Then Spell Canceller's effect will trigger, negating Level Limit, I'll also add to this, since Level Limit is negated that DOES NOT mean you can change the position of Spell Canceller, you can not change the postions of a monster summoned that same turn, so it'll stay in defense until it's either destroyed or until you can turn it your next turn.  You however can change positions any other monster you may control at that time since Level Limit is now negated by Spell Canceller.

Reason: In this case, I'm demonstrating that continuous effects take priority over other effects.  What I showed you is that a continuous effect that's on the field will take priority over resolution against another continuous effect introduced due to it being in effect first.  In this case, since Skill Drain was active first, it's effect will effect Jinzo first before Jinzo could effect Skill Drain.  Since Jinzo is negated, Skill Drain is not negated by Jinzo's effect.  In the second demonstration I showed you Spell Canceller Vs. Level Limit Area B, the end result is Spell Canceller goes to defense mode and then negates Level Limit, the simultaneous effects would go on chain as I showed above.

Player A tribute summons Mobius The Frost Monarch and targets two spell/trap cards on the field.
Player B responds with Torrential Tribute.
Player A's Mobius The Frost Monarch resolves since it's effect is activated as soon as hits the field and the targetted spell or trap cards that were targetted upon summoning are destroyed. If Torrential Tribute is one of these targetted cards, it does not negate Torrential Tribute.
Player B's Torrential Tribute then resolves destroying all of the monsters on the field, including Mobius The Frost Monarch.

Chain:
Link 1: Mobius's effect is activated targetting up two spell/trap cards on the field.
Link 2: Torrential Tribue is activated.

Resolution:
Link 2: Torrential Tribue resolves destroying all monsters on the field.
Link 1: Mobius's effect resolves destroying the two spell/trap cards that were designated as the targets upon activation (summoning).

Reason: This one should be apparent, the effect activates as soon as it's summoned, and this means that as soon as Mobius hits the field, the player controlling Mobius gets to select up to two targets with it's effect. Then Player B has the right to respond with a trap after the selection is made. Mobius's effect would resolve as normal and than the trap card activated in response to him will resolve as normal.

Here's a tad bit different of a situation...

Player A's D.D. Warrior Lady attacks Player B's Face Down Card.
Player B flips their Face Down Card and reveals their own D.D. Warrior Lady.
Damage Calculation is reached and Player A takes 100 points of damage for running into D.D.'s 1600 defense with a 1500 ATK.
The question being is who gets the choice to remove first?

This one is quite simple, the turn player would have first choice on whether or not to remove. Player A would be the person to make the first choice on this, if they choose not remove, than it goes to Player B who has the choice now with their D.D. Warrior Lady. If they choose to remove than both monsters are removed from play. If not, than nothing happens and both monsters stay on the field, Player B's in face up defense position and Player A's in face up attack position.

That's enough for cards you would have "priority" with. It should be a little more evident that cards with normal face up effects would have their effect active on the field before any trap can be activated in response to the summon (not chained to the summon since another Golden Rule is that summons have no spell speed, which means for you new guys, they're non-chainable).

CARDS THAT A PLAYER HAS NO PRIORITY WITH:

If you read the above, you'll notice that that means that what is coming next is cards that you have no priority over to activate certain effects they control. First I'll talk about the one card that almost everyone wants to confuse it would seem.

Player A summons Breaker The Magical Warrior
Player B activates Bottomless Trap Hole
Player A chooses to use priority... but wait, what does that mean!?

Chain:
Link 1: Breaker is summoned, activating his effect to add the counter.
Link 2: Bottomless Trap Hole is activated.

Resolution:
Link 2: Bottomless Trap Hole resolves destroying and removing Breaker from the game.
Link 1: Since Breaker is no longer face-up on the field, the counter cannot be added to the card.

Reason: Breaker's effect is very tricky and some people don't understand how it's tricky. Breaker basically almost has two effects. The first is the addition of the counter, without this counter you cannot activate the secondary effect, so it's essential. The face up effect of Breaker as soon as it's summoned is the addition of the counter, not it's "breaking" effect itself. So the only priority you have when an opponent responds to the summon of your Breaker is the addition of the counter. If you look at the above chain you'll see that Breaker's counter is never added because Breaker is no longer face-up on the field to recieve the counter.

OTHER EFFECTS AND PRIORITY:

This goes towards the Giant Orc summoning/Sac to Catapult Turtle Vs. Torrential Tribue.  It's still my reasoning and my opinion that you could sacrifice the monster to Catapult Turtle, since when you look at the above chains, you see that it's always the trap being chained to a speed 1 effect.

What would happen in this case is the situation would look like this:

NOTE: This is still being debated, I've got many people I know who are very good judges agreeing with me and others who are very good disagreeing, it's a very hot topic, but I hope to have something on it soon (I've already started looking into it).

Player A summons Giant Orc.
Player B activates Torrential Tribute.
Player A uses turn priority to activate the trigger effect of Catapult Turtle.

Here's the chain:
Link 1: Catapult Turtle's effect is activated, the cost of the effect is sending Giant Orc to the graveyard, which is done at activation.
Link 2: Torrential Tribute is activated.

Resolution:
Link 2: Torrential Tribute resolves destroying all monsters on the field.
Link 1: Since Catapult Turtle's effect was never negated, it would resolve as normal dealing 1100 points of direct damage to Player B.

Reasoning: I'm calling this reasoning for a reason, if someone comes up with it not being true, I want them to understand my completel reasoning behind my explanation.  If a monster is considered face-up on the field after the summon, and if priority chains are the way I and many others have described them in the previous thread, then Giant Orc would in fact be on the field for the sacrifice to Catapult Turtle.  Since the player with turn priority can choose activate any effect, including trigger effects, it would only make sense that they could activate Catapult Turtle's effect.  Since the sacrificing of Giant Orc is a cost, it has already been tributed and destroyed by the time Torrential Tribute (which is chained to the trigger effect) resolves.  Since Catapult was not negated (much like the Tribe example and Magical Scientist example above) then it would resolve as normal dealing 1100 points of damage to the opposing player.

I see no reason why it would be any other way and I see on reason why it would be contradicted within the game, it would only confuse even the most expert of players into second guessing every aspect of the game, it's situations like this that tend to cause people to quit, it causes massive confusion with the game, and it just really isn't very cost worthy if you get my point.

I'll look into maybe getting a few answers from UDE about the proposed chain, but for now I'm leaving this in the essay as another example of turn priority.  It might be contested, but I still have yet to see a very good reason (the one reason someone gave only strengthens the argument I have).

In any case, that's all the updates I'm doing to this, most other things can be asked about in this thread.  If you have any questions or beef about something I've exlained, feel free to explain yourself, that's what this is all about, it's to help others reach a better understanding about this aspect of the game and without that help, we're doomed to confusion and uncertainty for the rest of our lives... well... for the rest of the time we're playing Yu-Gi-Oh!
 
Click to expand...
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

Like we were mentioning above, it would make sense if the ruling meant that the player who takes "Breaker" with "Enemy Controller" can use that effect at the proper time. I can't imagine they would make it so carte-blance... I can more easily see this being due to bad verbage rather than a really bad gameplay mechanic SNAFU.

- Andrew
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

This priority stuff is leaving me without anything to answer the priority questions they make me. It may become very confusing to activate some kind of effect with a spell speed 1 in your opponent`s turn. Because as many people know they can only be activated in your turn, but in this case the summoning of breaker was correct to activate his effect to put a counter on, and to activate priority (the player).
What other cards may the you activate priority in your opponent`s turn. Every card considered to have a priority or different ones?. :?
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

Lustermaster said:
This priority stuff is leaving me without anything to answer the priority questions they make me. It may become very confusing to activate some kind of effect with a spell speed 1 in your opponent`s turn. Because as many people know they can only be activated in your turn, but in this case the summoning of breaker was correct to activate his effect to put a counter on, and to activate priority (the player).
What other cards may the you activate priority in your opponent`s turn. Every card considered to have a priority or different ones?. :?
Click to expand...

No. Remember, cards do not have priority, the player does.

As for cards that you can activate during your opponent's turn... any card that has a multi-trigger effect can be activated assuming either the timing is right (Like "Injection Fairy Lily" during the damage step, "Ultimate Offering" during the battle phase, "Dark Paladin" when a spell card is activated, etc.) or if the effect just allows it to be activated any time during either player's turn (like "Strike Ninja").

- Andrew
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)


*Just proved that the warning system works* I was about to post something similar to this.

The confusion comes in line where speed 1 effects such as Breaker are now obviously usable during your opponent's turn, even though you have no turn priority that turn, and you just gained control over the monster with Enemy Controller, which means control of the monster would shift back at the end of that turn.

One can only imagine the things they'll make up to explain it... to be quite honest with you, I'd rather they just dismiss it as a mistake, I can imagine how hard it'd be to explain it to players...
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

Ah yes, the inevitable Priority thread.

It was bound to happen, since there are so many intelligent and resourceful judges present in this forum (wish I could be a part of that group).

The following is my informed opinion on how the concept of priority works in this game (one aspect anyway):

(Yes I copied my post from realms)

OK...I am treading on dangerous ground here (drum roll please ):

1) Monsters do not have priority, PLAYERS have priority.

2) Having (or retaining) priority for the most part means you get the opportunity to put your "effect" as chain link one.

3) If you choose to activate an effect (and it becomes chain link one), then you "give up" your priority to your opponent, who then has the chance to chain with any applicable effects.

Example:

I summon Time Wizard.

I declare I will retain priority in order to activate Time Wizard's effect (I start looking for my double-headed quarter)

<Priority now passes to my opponent, since I have activated an effect>

My opponent says he will chain to Time Wizard's effect by activating his trap, Ring of Destruction (target: Time Wizard).

<Priority now passes back to me, since my opponent has activated a card effect>

I tell my opponent to take his Ring of Destruction and to shove it up his...ahem, cough,cough; I tell him I have nothing to add to the chain.

<I have declined on activating an effect, priority now passes back to my opponent>

My opponent says he will chain and activate his trap, Barrel Behind The Door.

<Priority now passes back to me, since my opponent has activated an effect>

I choose not to add to the chain.

<Priority now goes to the opponent since I have declined to add to the chain>

My opponent chooses not to add to the chain as well. The chain now resolves.


Here's the chain:

Link 1> Time Wizard's effect (me)
Link 2> Ring of Destruction (opponent)
Link 3> Barrel Behind The Door (opponent)

OK, so just resolve backwards. I wind up taking 1000 damage to my LP.

BTW, for those who are wondering, my choice to use Time Wizard as an example was a deliberate one. Since Time Wizard is considered to be a cost effect monster. One of the conditions in which the turn player can retain priority upon summoning is if they use a cost effect monster ability right after they summon.

Well, that's my two cents. Please forgive me if my example is overly simplistic, but I've always felt that simple explanations were the best ones.

I would also like to extend a special thanks to Helpoemer316 for starting this thread. (Keep up the good work and don't worry so much about that whole Enemy Controller vs Breaker the Magical Warrior thing...go with Dlannan's explanation on that one :))

Thanks for reading.
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

The confusion comes in line where speed 1 effects such as Breaker are now obviously usable during your opponent's turn, even though you have no turn priority that turn, and you just gained control over the monster with Enemy Controller, which means control of the monster would shift back at the end of that turn.

One can only imagine the things they'll make up to explain it... to be quite honest with you, I'd rather they just dismiss it as a mistake, I can imagine how hard it'd be to explain it to players...
Click to expand...
I think the best way to explain it, is to simply start making people understand that you still must incorperate the rules in addition to rulings, unless the ruling adds or contradicts the rules, in which case the ruling takes precedence.

I too agree that the verbage could be better, but at no point does it state "when" you may use the effect only that you can. You are still subject to normal rules of chaining. So the non-Turn Player cannot use it, and the Turn Player must be in his/her Main Phase, no other time.

The ruling does not state "when" so you have to assume that it is under normal rules.

This will become more important as time goes on ;).

Hope that helps
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

If this were the case then many cards would have "can" portion in them. But I don't see how a player "can" use an effect that's speed 1 and the card is returning to the opponent at the end of the turn. It should be a "cannot" effect, to say that you "can" use the effect is suggesting that many players "will". Now tell me, if you knew that you "can" use the effect of your oppoent's Breaker they just summoned, during their turn I might add, you would do it. So this really doesn't make sense.

And even if that was the point in it. Most every card would have this, for instance, you'd see this under Tribe saying if you happen to take control of it with Enemy Controller during your opponents turn (say they attack you with it and you activate Enemy Controller and take control). Suggesting that you "can" use the effect of this speed 1 card during your opponent's turn would suggest that you "could" and "will" use the effect during the main phase II. It throws the game out of proportion and throws the reason for spell speeds out the window as well. I understand that rules must be added to the game to further evolve it, but to do that with this card and combination would require a complete rework of the entire rulings system with all cards in the game. It's not just one card, but it's all cards. To make an exception is worthless, so you have to make a general change to a game that's ran that specific way for around 3 years now. It's very ill thought. But maybe I should just ask about it on the list, rather then whine about it here, lol.

Anyways, I respect your opinion, I just don't find it to be very practical.
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

I understand that rules must be added to the game to further evolve it, but to do that with this card and combination would require a complete rework of the entire rulings system with all cards in the game.
Click to expand...
One thing at a time, but it is in the works.

But I don't see how a player "can" use an effect that's speed 1 and the card is returning to the opponent at the end of the turn.  It should be a "cannot" effect, to say that you "can" use the effect is suggesting that many players "will".  Now tell me, if you knew that you "can" use the effect of your oppoent's Breaker they just summoned, during their turn I might add, you would do it.  So this really doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that you can do it during an opponents turn. When you use the rules with the ruling you know that you cannot do it. Just like if you took control of an opponent Tribe or Cannon Soldier.

Under the rules, Breaker's effect is a Spell Speed 1 and can only be activated during your Main Phase. Those are the "rules" and they still apply in the case of this "ruling."

The ruling does not state: "you can activate the effect, even if it is the opponent's turn"

It is open ended, because it assumes knowledge of the rules, which is what we should be striving towards, with players young and old.

Thats all i'm saying, and i personally, think its very practical to push people to always keep the rules in mind. Unfortunately, because of the heavy reliance on "ruling" we sometimes forget that the rules still exist.
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

"If your opponent Summons "Breaker the Magical Warrior" and activates "Breaker the Magical Warrior"'s effect to place a Spell Counter on him, and you chain "Enemy Controller" to the effect and take control of "Breaker the Magical Warrior", resolve "Enemy Controller" first and "Breaker the Magical Warrior"'s effect of placing a Spell Counter second, and the player who used "Enemy Controller" can use "Breaker the Magical Warrior"'s effect to destroy a Spell or Trap Card."

That's what is on the FAQ pages.

Check the bolded word.

Now... I did think of something that makes sense and it makes more sense than anything else, lol.

It specifically states the chain that the counter is added after Enemy Controller resolves. This means that when the counter is added it's now in control of the person who played Enemy Controller on it. Now the only logic I can derive from it is that they're saying is since the counter was added to it while it was under that person's control, it's considered to be successfully normal summoned by that player and they can use the effect that turn... but that still makes very little sense since the fact that it's still a spell speed 1 effect and still not your turn doesn't allow for it.

But while quoting I did notice the fact that it mentions how the chain goes with and specifically states the the counter is added after control switches. In any case, that's my attempt to make sense of it without having to think optimistic of it and saying "Well, maybe there is another card effect at play." or "It just says that if you take control you can use it." If the latter were the case I think it'd make more sense to say that if Breaker is face up on the field with a counter still on him during your turn and you play Enemy Controller on it to take control of it during your Main Phase I, you can use the effect to destroy one spell/trap card on the field, that would make more sense in the "can" category then the fact that it says that the player just summoned it and you chained Enemy Controller to the addition of the counter.

*Sigh* I've brought it up on the list (just like the Catapult Turtle effect), to put it quite simply right now, the Catapult thing makes more sense (saying it can't be used) then saying you can use a cards spell speed one cost effect during your opponent's turn.
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

This is a case of reading too much into the ruling, I hope you get your answer soon. I have a feeling you'll get the Breaker answer a lot quicker than the Catapult answer.
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

http://p083.ezboard.com/fedoshomepagebbsfrm12.showMessage?topicID=2737.topic

That's the Chaining FAQ by DRaGZ. I've never actually read it myself, but you might want to look at it. I promise, I'll look through it one day... really.

novastar said:
The order looks like this:

- The Turn Player declares a summon
- At this point you have the timing to negate the summon with HoH/SJ
- If not negated, the monster is successfully summoned
- The Turn Player is given Priority

- At this point you can perform 1 of 3 things:
1.) Use Cost Effect Priority and activate the Spell Speed 1 effect of the monster summoned (if there is one)
2.) Respond with a Spell Speed 2 effect (any that can legally be activated)
3.) Pass

- Once you act, the Opponent can then respond to the summon and/or chain with a Spell Speed 2 effect or Pass.

- Once both players Pass, the Summon Reponse Chain resolves.
Click to expand...

Disciple of GameRookie too?

Thoughts on the "Breaker" ruling: I think it's an error on the part of Konami's "diplomats".
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

DragZ's article is pretty good, very indepth...could be a little cleaner though. Sometimes too much info can be a bad thing.

As far as GameRookie is concerned, I respect him very much. I myself, having been on realms for 2 1/2 yrs or so, have seen him give alot of insightful, well researched posts. He is an asset to the community for sure.

Disciple? Well I hope you ment that in a good way, he's definately one of the nicest guys i've met, i'd hate to think he's being mocked when he's not here to defend himself. Sadly, I would not call myself a disciple of his, i've picked up just as much from fantasyzz and magician_noir as well. Two guys of which, i feel, are at the top of the heap in terms of knowledge along with Rookie. I've researched alot of this as well, because i don't like to simply go on here say.
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

I don't go on Realms, but I found very important errors in my thinking when reading GameRookie's posts at Edo's.
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

Raijinili said:
I don't go on Realms, but I found very important errors in my thinking when reading GameRookie's posts at Edo's.
Click to expand...
...as do many who do read his stuff. He is extremly accurate, and when he's wrong, he is quick to correct.
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

Folks I got the answer from Curtis for the Breaker Vs. Enemy Controller thing that is on the FAQ. Apparently there was supposed to be another card involved, but since it doesn't state that, it can and most likely will cause confusion and bad rulings =/. Here's the email for you guys.

Apparently the assumption here is that the opponent summoned it during your turn with something like Ultimate Offering.

I have notified them of the confusion this can cause.

----------------------------------
Curtis Schultz
Official UDE Netrep
CurtisSchultz_Netrep@hotmail.com

---

From: "Michael Palmer" <michael_palmer@netrep.net>
To: judge-yu
Subject: Breaker Vs. Enemy Controller (confusion)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 18:50:04 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-LYRIS-Recency:

"If your opponent Summons "Breaker the Magical Warrior" and activates
"Breaker the Magical Warrior"'s effect to place a Spell Counter on him, and you
chain "Enemy Controller" to the effect and take control of "Breaker the Magical
Warrior", resolve "Enemy Controller" first and "Breaker the Magical Warrior"'s
effect of placing a Spell Counter second, and the player who used "Enemy Controller"
can use "Breaker the Magical Warrior"'s effect to destroy a Spell or Trap Card."

This is a quote from the UDE FAQ section.

Now, my question is... How is it possible for a player to take control of an
opponent's Breaker during that opponent's turn in which they just summoned him,
and then use Breaker The Magical Warrior's effect, which is spell speed 1
(not multi-trigger) during the opposing players turn? It makes very little sense
and breaks all rules of the game in either priority (turn player, it isn't that
players turn who just took control of Breaker) or even simple spell speed 1 cards,
no spell speed 1 effect can be activated unless it's that controllers main phase
I or II.

I kinda need to understand this...

-Michael Palmer
Level 2 Yu-Gi-Oh! Judge
Level 1 VS System Judge
Level 1 Tournament Organizer
Click to expand...
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

OK, it seems that this strange and painful case will be resolved. But, there will be more mysteries and doubts to come in the next chapter, jujujuajaja. :evil:

OK, now getting into the topic, ¿Do you know how many times I've thrown my fusion monsters with my Magical Scientist Deck, knowing that my opponent is just waiting to activate its Torrential Tribute when the last monster comes? I agree with the logic of helpoemer316 in the situation of Catapult Turtle and the summoning of Giant Orc, but I can't begin to rule this until we get an official issue. Go, go, Kevin!!! :D

Another thing about priority is that I can show that it exists, by just showing some rulings like:

" If "Chaos Emperor Dragon - Envoy of the End" is Special Summoned, and the controller immediately activates its effect, and the opponent chains "Torrential Tribute" as Step 2 of a chain..."

But most of people still don't know about priority; the rulebook will never show them until the matter is completely resolved and the rulebook is re-written. Then, some people are playing with it and others aren't. It is a concept hidden from a lot of players until it is used against them.

I would like to see priority mentioned in the explanations about Game Mechanics, just to show everyone that priority does exist, even if it is not completely defined, before they get to meet it the bad way. Something like:

"Priority: There are no official rules. Ask your local UDE Judge about how to use it."

Just my thoughts, to avoid confusions in tourneys.
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

I may be way off on my reasoning, and please point it out if so, but I think the issue of priority for speed spell 1 effect monsters could be resolved quite easily...I propose that:

1) Priority only exists for the turn player if the effect of the successfully summoned monster is MANDATORY e.g. Jinzo, Magician of Faith, etc.

Example
a) Player A flips MoF
b) Player B activates TT
c) Player A gets the effect of MoF

That's pretty elementary, but I think point one is pretty clear.

2) If the effect is OPTIONAL (e.g. CED, BLS, TiV, etc.), then the opponent who has activated a SS2 or higher card such as Torrential Tribute must have the effect of said card appropriately responded to by the turn player before he can activate the effect of his SS1 monster. Therefore, there is no such thing as priority for SS1 effect monsters whose effect is optional.

Example
a) Player A summons CED/BLS/TiV, etc.
b) Player B activates TT
c) Player A cannot negate TT
d) Player B's TT destroys all monsters on the field
e) Player A's CED/BLS/TiV does NOT get it's effect at all...Player A cries, throws a tantrum, packs up his cards, boo hoo :p

Again, I may be overlooking something(s) here, but I think abolishing the notion of "Priority" for SS1 effects is probably the best option for the game in the long run.

LMK what you all think!
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

Well, flip summoning a monster has nothing to do with priority since the monster would already have to have been set on a previous turn. The priority issue only involves monsters that are summoned to the field in face-up position.

As for "abolishing" the chance to activate a trigger effect after you summon the monster, it won't happen. It is UDE getting in snyc with Konami on how the game is played and this has been a ruling there all along which only (relatively) recently is coming around here. Things may be "simpler" without it, but again, "priority" is part of the rulings.

- Andrew
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

densetsu_x said:
Well, flip summoning a monster has nothing to do with priority since the monster would already have to have been set on a previous turn.  The priority issue only involves monsters that are summoned to the field in face-up position.

As for "abolishing" the chance to activate a trigger effect after you summon the monster, it won't happen.  It is UDE getting in snyc with Konami on how the game is played and this has been a ruling there all along which only (relatively) recently is coming around here.  Things may be "simpler" without it, but again, "priority" is part of the rulings.

- Andrew
Click to expand...

Well, with all due respect, it's my second point that is the crux of my argument and not the first. Saying that "it won't happen" doesn't do anything to add to an intelligent discussion of the issue.

Priority may currently be part of the body of rulings, but rulings can and do change. Please try to criticize me on the merits of my proposal instead of just dismissing what I have to say out-of-hand.

Thanks.
 
Re: Priority v. 1.1 (All Read before posting priority quest.)

djshalifoe said:
densetsu_x said:
Well, flip summoning a monster has nothing to do with priority since the monster would already have to have been set on a previous turn. The priority issue only involves monsters that are summoned to the field in face-up position.

As for "abolishing" the chance to activate a trigger effect after you summon the monster, it won't happen. It is UDE getting in snyc with Konami on how the game is played and this has been a ruling there all along which only (relatively) recently is coming around here. Things may be "simpler" without it, but again, "priority" is part of the rulings.

- Andrew
Click to expand...

Well, with all due respect, it's my second point that is the crux of my argument and not the first. Saying that "it won't happen" doesn't do anything to add to an intelligent discussion of the issue.

Priority may currently be part of the body of rulings, but rulings can and do change. Please try to criticize me on the merits of my proposal instead of just dismissing what I have to say out-of-hand.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

You missed the crux of the argument. The rulings are being changed to include "priority" (which as I said was the way the game is supposed to be played. We're only catching up over here. For the longest time, people thought the way you were suggesting).

Also, your whole second point has no bearing on this particular thread since it's a discussion on what priority is, not a "well what if the game is played this way instead". If you want to discuss a "what if" scenario, "General Discussion" would be a better place to bring this up.

- A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top