Duelmaster
New Member
I can't find the post which Dan posted on the Judgelist. I have already searched on the forum and on the Judgelist but I can't find it. Can somebody post it for me please. Thanks in Advance.
Response Window
- Thread starter Duelmaster
- Start date
John Danker
Administrator
masterwoo0 said:
Again we're talking about cards that should be worded in the same manner but likely due to translation problems are not.
I'm not saying my explination is technically proper and that all of the wording on each card that could possibly be involved in a similar scenario supports my explination....what I'm stating is that what I wrote is likely the easiest way to explain it to someone having difficulty grasping the concept.
Yeah John, but Damage Step is a possible exception, right?
If both players pass, it's over and there's not another "opportunity" to start a chain like in any other phases (although you can of course say that with both passing in the damage step, they are agreeing to proceed to end step in this particular case).
If both players pass, it's over and there's not another "opportunity" to start a chain like in any other phases (although you can of course say that with both passing in the damage step, they are agreeing to proceed to end step in this particular case).
No, the Damage Step is not an exception. Remember, the Damage Step is actually split up into many Sub-Steps. Progression does not occur unless both players agree. Granted, 99% of the time this is just 'assumed' or 'automatically' done by the players, but the 'agreement' is still there.Dr Sin said:
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
That's why I tried to eliminate using the word "attack" twice, as it will clearly confuse someone who is still on the fence, while someone who understands, will simply see it the way we already do.John Danker said:
I know what both of you are saying. I'm just trying to illustrate what will come up by saying that you can still respond to the "attack" without clarifying that the attack declaration has already lost its timing for response.
It's like someone telling you that they are throwing you a baseball, to give you time to put on your Glove. If you choose to ignore their warning, when they decide to throw the ball, you no longer have time to prepare yourself for putting on a glove.
They are still completing the action they intended to, but you have lost the timing for properly responding to it.
yeah, I know. The famous 6 steps... What I meant is that although the agreement is there, it's a bit different than any other phases, because you can't deny that in this steps there are "forced agreements"... haha
Elaborating too much... I understood your point, and I agree with it.
Elaborating too much... I understood your point, and I agree with it.
John Danker
Administrator
I guess I don't see as how what I said is confusing....
Responding to the attack declaration...
or...
Responding to the attack.
Think of it as a battle where no one can fire a gun without declaring they're going to do so.
I declare I'm going to fire upon you, you can respond to my attack declaration, if you do not then I pull the trigger, at this point your response to the actual firing (attack) is quite limited.
Responding to the attack declaration...
or...
Responding to the attack.
Think of it as a battle where no one can fire a gun without declaring they're going to do so.
I declare I'm going to fire upon you, you can respond to my attack declaration, if you do not then I pull the trigger, at this point your response to the actual firing (attack) is quite limited.
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
Again, there will always be a group that will combine both the attack and declaration into one, especially since we already know that stating intention is pretty much thrown out the window in this game, until it comes time to declare an attack.John Danker said:
Maybe, responding to the "Attack Resolution", since if the attack is successful, it moves on to the Damage Step, and you cannot activate Sakuretsu Armor after you have flipped face-up a monster, nor can you activate certain effects in response to a resolved action.
John Danker
Administrator
The wording....responding to the "Attack Resolution" certainly dispells some confussion at first glance, a couple of thoughts there though, first we know there could be multiple responses to the "Attack Resolution"....so which one is actually the resolution....the last response before entering damage calculation? I know, anything after the response to attack declaration <laffin>
What I was trying to do was give an explination using existing text on the cards most often in question.
What I was trying to do was give an explination using existing text on the cards most often in question.
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
It's all going to be rather confusing for some to grasp. but as long as we are all understanding the fundamental theory that once both players pass on the initial Battle Step Declaration of Attack, no responses can be generated based upon that Declaration, then I think it's pretty much safe to move on....John Danker said:
DarkLogicianOfCaos
Eschew Obfuscation
Wouldn't this area of time that is being discussed be the same time that Mystic Swordsman LV2 activates his effect? After the attack goes through, but before the damage Step begins (as apposed to Gravekeeper's Assailant, which activates before, or Drillroid, which activates after?)
DarkLogicianOfCaos
Eschew Obfuscation
Do we have an example of one that DOES automatically activate during this portion of time of which we are discussing (that is, after the attack declaration has "gone through", but before the damage calculation)?? Because that would really help, not only to understand, but to justify it to dissedents.
DarkLogicianOfCaos
Eschew Obfuscation
Oh, oh, oh, I got it....it came to me last night while my wife was cutting my hair off...kind of a reverse Samson thing, I guess. For those still having a hard time wrapping your minds around this....
We know that multiple chains can go in between the attack declaration and the Damage Step. See http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=6529#6529
(basically, it says: "Going to your example, "Solemn Judgment" resolves and negates "Mirror Force." This ends the first chain. Then the opponent, player 2, began a new chain with "Book of Moon," and their action is fine because it is acceptable to have multiple chains within the same Battle Step.")
All that we are saying here is that Both players pass on the first option, that is, begining a chain in response to the declaration of an attack, if they had responded, the timing window would close, new chains may form until both agree to enter Damage Step. However, just because both agree to not respond to the attack declaration, does not automatically mean they move to the damage step. Therefore, other chains can form which are not "responding".
This is like passing on responding to the Summoning of a monster. Just because the last thing to happen was the summon, if both agree the monster is sumoned, closing the window on the timing for responders, even if Turn Player activates a Spell Speed 2 effect NTP cannot cahin a Torrential.
I know this seems pedantic to most here, but like John danker has iterrated in one form or another, sometimes it realy helps to slow down and take a close look at how these things go and why, to keep us from getting caught in the muddle (pun intended).
We know that multiple chains can go in between the attack declaration and the Damage Step. See http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=6529#6529
(basically, it says: "Going to your example, "Solemn Judgment" resolves and negates "Mirror Force." This ends the first chain. Then the opponent, player 2, began a new chain with "Book of Moon," and their action is fine because it is acceptable to have multiple chains within the same Battle Step.")
All that we are saying here is that Both players pass on the first option, that is, begining a chain in response to the declaration of an attack, if they had responded, the timing window would close, new chains may form until both agree to enter Damage Step. However, just because both agree to not respond to the attack declaration, does not automatically mean they move to the damage step. Therefore, other chains can form which are not "responding".
This is like passing on responding to the Summoning of a monster. Just because the last thing to happen was the summon, if both agree the monster is sumoned, closing the window on the timing for responders, even if Turn Player activates a Spell Speed 2 effect NTP cannot cahin a Torrential.
I know this seems pedantic to most here, but like John danker has iterrated in one form or another, sometimes it realy helps to slow down and take a close look at how these things go and why, to keep us from getting caught in the muddle (pun intended).
John Danker
Administrator
Sounds like you've wrapped your mind around this part of mechanics pretty well now!
As has been stated many times, once you've grasped the game mechanics then rulings on cards take care of themselves 90% of the time. Even when a new set comes out there are only usually a couple of cards you need to familiairize yourself with because the game mechanics dictate how the rest will work.
Now that you've wrapped your brain around that join in on the thread about resolving lingering effects in the standby phase, another one that people really have trouble grasping, mostly because it doesn't come up very often and has some different mechanics than normal.
As has been stated many times, once you've grasped the game mechanics then rulings on cards take care of themselves 90% of the time. Even when a new set comes out there are only usually a couple of cards you need to familiairize yourself with because the game mechanics dictate how the rest will work.
Now that you've wrapped your brain around that join in on the thread about resolving lingering effects in the standby phase, another one that people really have trouble grasping, mostly because it doesn't come up very often and has some different mechanics than normal.
John Danker
Administrator
It helps crusty old judges refresh their minds too! I'm doing that in the other thread I mentioned right now....lingering standby phase effects. I think I'd forgotten some things regarding those scenarios.
DarkLogicianOfCaos
Eschew Obfuscation
SoilentG said:
I hear you. It wasn't until I mulled it over a few times and said, "you know...let's get back to the basics. Everything is easier when you slow down" that I got it again.....or, maybe it was the haircut.
Weighing in at the MCRISP sight: http://www.cogonline.net/threads.19183&page=2
kifoghorn
Member
Are you all forgetting that after you declare the attack and ask the opponent if they want to respond (Sakuretsu Armor etc..).
if they don't reespond they lose the timming to stop the attack.
You then select which monster you are going to attack with and which monster/life points you are going to attack. Ask opponent if they want to respond (trap/spell to change atk/def numbers, ie Waboku)
if they don't respond they lose the timming to change the atk/def values.
Then you more to damage step. I am a newb so no head chopping please
if they don't reespond they lose the timming to stop the attack.
You then select which monster you are going to attack with and which monster/life points you are going to attack. Ask opponent if they want to respond (trap/spell to change atk/def numbers, ie Waboku)
if they don't respond they lose the timming to change the atk/def values.
Then you more to damage step. I am a newb so no head chopping please