sillva/goldd + creator + cosr

1

1cup

New Member
do excuse if this has been posed before.

here's the situation.
field: faceup the creator
faceup card of safe return [cosr]
in my hand i have a sillva
in my graveyard i have a blue-eyes white dragon. [bewd]

i use creator's effect, i discard sillva to special summon bewd from the grave. special summoning bewd, cosr activates and i draw.
since sillva was discarded to the grave by effect (creator's discard is an effect, not cost), sillva is also special summoned to the field, thus cosr activates again.

this is correct, right?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I read what your reading, and I believe I understand where your interpreting the distinction. I simply don't understand how phrases like "triggering condition" are referring to the act of triggering and not to the actual event that will trigger activation.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
I read what your reading, and I believe I understand where your interpreting the distinction. I simply don't understand how phrases like "triggering condition" are referring to the act of triggering and not to the actual event that will trigger activation.
Click to expand...
Digital, I can understand how you came to your conclusion and I can see how it works to determine when optional triggers miss their timing; however, you can see from me and others that we don't want players to interpret "trigger" in this manner.

My biggest argument would be this: The optional trigger when it doesn't miss its timing is optional. If I go by your method, the optional trigger is "not activated" when the trigger condition occurs in the middle of a chain, but it is "activated" when the trigger condition occurs last or end of chain. Once an effect is activated, your obligated to resolve it, unless some other effect negates or changes it.

Case in point: "D.D. Warrior Lady" attacks a set "Man-Eater Bug". The attacking turn player also has a face-down monster. 2 effects are triggered here: The mandatory monster destroying FLIP: effect of "Man-Eater Bug" and the optional monster removal effect of "D.D. Warrior Lady". (No effects are activated yet and no effects have gone on chain yet.) Because it has a mandatory effect, "Man-Eater Bug" must go on chain first. Turn player asks opponent to declare target; Why? If opponent chooses to remove DDWL, then TP will remove both monsters from play. If opponent chooses to remove the face-down monster, TP wants to keep DDWL on the Field.

Opponent declares the face-down monster as his target for "Man-Eater Bug". TP chooses to NOT activate DDWL's effect because there's no reason for him to sacrifice his Field presence by losing both his monsters.

We're left with a 1 link chain and "Man-Eater Bug" destroys face-down monster. DDWL's optional trigger effect was never activated; she remains on the Field. Thus, trigger does not equal activate.

doc
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
Why would I argue just for the sake of arguing, Nova? You should know me better then that, by now. I understand the logic your using to explain what it is. I'm simply not seeing evidence that what your suggesting is what it is. It sounds like a nice "fix" for certain scenarios, but I don't see it implied at all in the FAQ quote or in any of the rulings. You can't fault me for not seeing something and then questioning whether it officially exist or not, can you? Certainly if something is implied, I can acknowledge that it has been implied. But I don't even see its implication. I'm not arguing just to be difficult, and as long as we've been members here, you should know that by now. We've disagreed before, and all I'm searching for is the specifics of your argument. Example are fine to explain the mechanics of what you see happening. What I was asking for was the documentation that verifies those are the mechanics, because at this point it would seem that either argument can fit the mechanics of the game, just with varying results. And you know I've never been afraid to question a common belief if I feel it may be in error. I can live with being wrong, but I need to see the evidence and reasonings that make it so.
Click to expand...
Well my appologies.

Seems like doc has got it covered here, there is not much i can add to that, but if i can find something i will.

Also, the scenarios alluded to by DaGuy, regarding control/location of a card at different points in time when events occur to trigger an effect is also a useful illustration of just how a trigger "ques" itself up at the point the event takes place, and doesn't trigger when the activation itself actually takes place.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'll put it his way, and bear in mind, this is the way I've always looked at it, if we go by my argument saying that trigger and activation are the same thing, we don't have the quandary that Doc suggests we would. When the trigger event is the last link in the chain, the optional effect triggers/activates, and you choose whether or not you want to use the effect. Hence the "you can" part. Your not obliged to resolve anything because you haven't chosen to use the effect yet. I suppose the only actual mechanical difference between these two arguments is whether or not in my version is that non-used effect chainable. But whether or not that's an issue, I would think that neither argument really makes that much of a difference on how a situtution would play out.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I suppose the only actual mechanical difference between these two arguments is whether or not in my version is that non-used effect chainable. But whether or not that's an issue, I would think that neither argument really makes that much of a difference on how a situtution would play out.
Click to expand...
Ok...

The idea here is that from a triggering point of view, all of the different types have the same mechanic...they trigger when the event occurs, and forces an activation at a response window...that what makes them triggers. The triggering nature is not optional in any of the cases as that is the nature of the beast.

The activation/resolution portion is what seperates them.

- King Tiger - completely mandatory activation/resolution
- Mobius - optional activation, mandatory resolution
- Penguin Soldier - mandatory activation, optional resolution

...but they all work exactly the same in terms triggering.

Think of the response window restriction on Optional Triggers as simply another activation requirement, like cost or legal targets, not a trigger requirement.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
I would think that neither argument really makes that much of a difference on how a situtution would play out.
Click to expand...

Player A activates Change of Heart targetting player B's Face Down monster.
Player B chains Ceasefire.

Change of heart>>Ceasefire

Chain Resolves: Ceasfire Flips Nightmare Penguin
Change of Heart Takes Control of Nightmare Penguin.

Nightmare Penguin will be under the control of Player A when its effect wants to activate,

Q)Who controls the effect?

A)Player B, as Player B was the controller when the effect was triggered.___
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Another one:

Player A summons Gemini Elf and has Player B's face-down Magician of Faith under his/her control.

Player B activates Torrential Tribute -> Player A chains Desert Sunlight.

resolve...

[PA Chain Link 2] Desert Sunlight (flips the face-downs)

[PB Chain Link 1] Torrential Tribute (destroys all the monsters)

MoF is now in Player B's Graveyard when it's effect is activated, who controls it?

This is why triggering and activation are 2 seperate things.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top