Enemy Controller question

[kansashoops]

I just want to make sure this works as I think it does:

Opponent has one or more Scapegoat tokens in face up defense position. I have D.D. Assailant in attack position. I declare an attack on a token and ask for a response (assuming that my opponent has one or more cards set in his spell/trap zone). Opponent declines. I then chain Enemy Controller from my hand to the declaration of the attack, switching the token to attack position, and D.D. Assailant destroys him and does 1700 damage.

This is all kosher, correct?

 

[Jason_C]

Right. But he still could have activated Enemy Controller in response to the attack. Remember, priority is the right of a player to do something. By passing priority, you are surrendering that right. You do not get it back unless something happens to give it back to you. In this case, the opponent passed back, so you regain priority. BUT since there isn't anything you could activate now that you couldn't before, the game state reads that as "both players are done here, let's move on". Dude, don't argue with the game state.
-pssvr

 

[skey23]

Right. But he still could have activated Enemy Controller in response to the attack. Remember, priority is the right of a player to do something. By passing priority, you are surrendering that right. You do not get it back unless something happens to give it back to you. In this case, the opponent passed back, so you regain priority. BUT since there isn't anything you could activate now that you couldn't before, the game state reads that as "both players are done here, let's move on". Dude, don't argue with the game state.
-pssvr

Um, no...the 'game state (GS for short)' would say this:

GS: P1, do you wish to activate anything in response to the attack?
P1: No, I do not.
GS: P2, do you wish to activate anything in response to the attack?
P2: No, I do not.
GS: Alrighty then! From here on out, nobody can activate an effect in response to the attack!
GS: P1, do you wish to activate anything else at this time?
P1: Yes, I choose to activate my "Enemy Controller" since it does not need to be activated in response to the attack!
GS: Ok, fine. P2, do you wish to respond to P1's activation?
P2: No, I do not.
GS: Then let the games begin!

See, it makes perfect sense!

 

[Tiso]

What's the difference. Well now that the Attack Response window is closed, neither player can activate a card that requires the attack declaration, like "Sakuretsu Armor" or "Magic Cylinders". They are now both locked into being able to only activate cards that don't have activation restrictions.
Was that a good response thing, or a bad one?...lol.

It was a good response because as long as I am able to activate Enemy Controller for example in that situation I am squared a-ok.

 

[anthonyj]

Right. But he still could have activated Enemy Controller in response to the attack. Remember, priority is the right of a player to do something. By passing priority, you are surrendering that right. You do not get it back unless something happens to give it back to you. In this case, the opponent passed back, so you regain priority. BUT since there isn't anything you could activate now that you couldn't before, the game state reads that as "both players are done here, let's move on". Dude, don't argue with the game state.
-pssvr

The game state is not a bully looking to punish the hesitant. If it were you wouldn't be able to pass the right to resolve an effect in the End Phase back and forth. Which we actually have rulings that state you can. We have also proven that passing back and forth doesn't shut doors in the Main Phase though only through exhaustive discussion and examples. There doesn't need to be a card that can't be activated in the response chain to a declaration of an attack in order to prove that there is an open window to continue creating chains. That is how it works every single place except the Damage Step because we have been specifically told that the Damage Step is restrictive in what can be activated and when. There can be multiple chains in the Battle Phase, there has never been a ruling that you as Turn Player must activate an effect upon declaration of attack without allowing a response window or lose the ability to activate an effect before moving into Damage Calculation. Where if anywhere at all ever has it been stated that the Game State decides for the player that he is moving into another Phase?

Like I said before passing Priority in a non-response window is exactly the same thing as saying "I'm not activating anything else I'll end the Phase". Then the opponent can either activate an effect or agree that the Phase can be ended. This complies with what we have been told in every ruling regarding game Phases. It upholds the instructions in the rulebook that you don't end a phase until both Players agree to it. It works this way in every other Phase so why (outside of the Damage Step) should it work differently in the Battle Phase?

 

[skey23]

Ok, so what's the feeling towards my post back on #164?

I know pssvr disagrees.
Tiso seems to have 'come around' .

Anthonyj?
Tkwiget?
Novastar?
Daguy?
John Danker?
Digital Jedi?
any of the Chaoseseses?
Squid?
anybody else I don't know by name? (sorry)

 

[anthonyj]

Dead on! There is no restriction to activating Enemy Controller in this situation. Allowing for the opponent to respond to the attack in no way infers you are not going to take an opportunity to create a chain before advancing to the Damage Step.

 

[Jason_C]

Wrong. Not that I stand a chance against Anthony. I will cease debating this issue until novastar returns. I can't hold my own like he can.
-pssvr

 

[skey23]

But what I posted on #164 is EXACTLY what Novastar has been saying!..lol

That's why I went back and re-read all 12 pages (13 now, soon to be 14!) of this thread. To make sure I had it correct...lol.

 

[Jason_C]

Well, this is how I see it (and anthony and simon will disagree, and I'll once again be in a corner with no Novastar to bail me out):

The game state does not allow unnecessary delay. This does not mean you cannot ever wait to play something until later, it just means that events must follow one another. The game state is never "We're waiting...". A move is made, then another move is made. YGO is an event driven game, and mechanically very different from, say, soccer, in which you have the opportunity, if for some reason you wanted to, to NOT kick the ball when it comes to you, but just stand there instead. In YGO, when the ball is in your court, you must either surrender it to the opponent, or kick it towards the goal. You can't stand there. SOOO....

Bottom line, there is no reason for there to be a non-responsive window in the battle step IF, and only if, both players chose not to respond to the attack. And while I'll admit the absence of evidence for the existence of something is not proof of its non-existence (just look at aliens, or the Federal Bureau of Edumacashion), still you must admit that it makes no sense for there to be a section of the game in which nothing relevant could occur that could not have occurred in the section before it.

-pssvr

 

[blade146]

Trying to catch up since I last posted. Here are a few things I want to comment on.

The turn player has priority before and after drawing, summoning ,and attacking. I see a lot of problems with this.

1.Drawing ( A player does not start the turn until they draw a card)

Player A (Turn Player) draws a card Player B activates Drop Off. Since Player A had priority Player B played to early but Drop Off reads when player draws a card. So does Drop Off skip priority?

2. Summoning (no need to explain here)

I do want to address one thing about the Torrential Tribute disscussion. If Player A (Turn player) summons then passes and player B passes. He is still able to activate Torrential Tribute. The reason is the last thing to happen is a summon. Nothing else has occured so the timing is still correct.

3. Attacking

Here is where I am confused. Player A (Turn player) attacks and Player B activates a card. Player A then can call priority and activate a spell speed two effect making is resolve last in the chain. There may be ways to abuse this just can't think of any.

If player A attack and then passes and player B passes it goes directly to the damage step. From my understanding the way the game is designed it doesn't continue to the damage until both players agree.

Here is how I think the battle step is done.
Player A attacks (pass to let their opponent respond to the attack)
Player B (passes priority back to player A and allows it to enter the damage step)
Player A can now pass or activate a card effect. If he passes it goes to the damage step. If he activates a card a chain starts.

 

[Jason_C]

Disection!

Player A (Turn Player) draws a card Player B activates Drop Off. Since Player A had priority Player B played to early but Drop Off reads when player draws a card. So does Drop Off skip priority?

No, it just means you have to chain Drop Off to the opponent's effect if the opponent uses priority. If not, Drop Off begins it's own chain. Either way, you're still responding to the draw.

I do want to address one think about the Torrential Tribute disscussion. If Player A (Turn player) summons then passes and player B passes. He is still able to activate Torrential Tribute. The reason is the last think to happen is a summon. Nothing else has occured so the timing is still correct.

Absolutely, 100% correct. moving on...

Here is how I think the battle step is done.
Player A attacks (pass to let their opponent respond to the attack)
Player B (passes priority back to player A and allows it to enter the damage step)
Player A can now pass or activate a card effect. If he passes it goes to the damage step. If he activates a card a chain starts.

That is correct, although Skey is about to dispute that I'm sure... Really, that is the whole debate right now. But you, I, and Novastar have aGreed this is correct.

-pssvr

 

[anthonyj]

Here is how I think the battle step is done.
Player A attacks (pass to let their opponent respond to the attack)
Player B (passes priority back to player A and allows it to enter the damage step)
Player A can now pass or activate a card effect. If he passes it goes to the damage step. If he activates a card a chain starts.

That is correct, although Skey is about to dispute that I'm sure... Really, that is the whole debate right now. But you, I, and Novastar have aGreed this is correct.

-pssvr

Want to read that again. He just confirmed what Skey and I have been saying.

 

[Jason_C]

Oohh.. Ouch. Well, I'm sure I'll hafta dispute that, since Anthony just alerted me to how wrong it it... In the morning.. it is evidently far too late for me...
-pssvr

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

P1 has "D. D. Assailant" in attack position, and an "Enemy Controller" in hand.
P2 has 3 "Sheep Tokens" in defense position.
P1 declares their attack, which does not use the chain, so they retain Priority to activate an Appropriate effect. We have now entered the Attack Response Chain 'window'.
P1 does not wish to activate anything in response to attack, so they pass on to the opponent.
P2 also does not wish to activate anything at this time, so they pass back to Turn Player.
Now, the Attack Response Chain 'window' is now GONE! Cards like "Magician's Circle" and "Sakuretsu Armor" can no longer be activated because the response window is gone;

I don't see any thing to suggest that declaring an attack would be different from summoning a monster, and so the turn-player gets the same second chance as s/he would have to activate Torrential Tribute. I see 4 choices for the turn player:

• 
  --The turn player has the 1st and last chance to begin a chain in response to an event. Even though s/he already passed once, there is still one more opportunity for the turn player to start a chain in response to the (attack/chain resolving).
  
  --Or the turn player can choose start a chain in the non-response window.
  
  --Or the turn-player can pass priority. (Chooses this)
  
  --The turn-player can ask to end the battle-step

then, the opponent doesn't get a second chance at a response chain, so when priority is passed back to the opponent there are only two choices. Activate something or pass priority back.

Now once again the lucky turn player gets a second chance to start a non-response chain. But s/he can't pass priority back as this would be "stalling," so now it's either, activate something, or request to end the step.

The opponent is now on the button, it's his/her last chance to activate something in the battle step. but if something is activated, check for chaining, then once it's resolved return to when the attack was declared in the quote, but replace attack with chain resolving... lather rinse repeat as many times as necessary.

 

[Tkwiget]

Interesting, I think I'll throw a reply in here just for the heck of it.

<cracks knuckles and stretches> >=)

Btw, for this post I'm using this as part of my resource..

http://www.cogonline.net/threads.6503.html

There are four types of response windows.

Summoning, Normal Response, Attack, and Non-Attack.

Let me focus on defining each of these for you guys.

Summoning Response window is openned whenever a monster is being summoned.

Normal Response window is openned whenever a player enters a phase, not when a player leaves one.

Attack Response window is openned whenever a player declares a monster attack in the Battle Step of the Battle Phase.

A Non-Attack Response window is ONLY created after the first chain block that's created in response to the declared attack in the Battle Step of the Battle Phase. That's the only time that window will ever be created. If both players pass priority, they give up the right to proceed with this response window. The Non-Response Window is what makes it possible for multiple chains in the Battle Phase. It can only be created if and when the Attack Response window is openned up and used.

Those are the four types of response windows..

Ask yourself, why would a response window be created in the first place? Priority doesn't need to be passed completely around in one resolution for the Non-Attack Response window to open. It requires the Attack Response window to be created first.

Non-Attack Response Window is the mechanic that simply allows you to have multiple chains in the Battle Phase. That's all it is and it can't ever, EVER, be created without first having a chain block created for the Attack Response window..

 

[Jason_C]

You are allowed to have multiple chains in the battle step, I conceded that point long ago. But the concept of a mandatory second chain point in the battle step is flawed at the core. Quick question: How many chains are you allowed to have in the Battle Step? As many as you want, of course. No, not quite. The correct answer would be as many as can be supported by the current players' cards. Which is basically saying as many as you want, as long as there is SOMETHING you would have reason to play.

Let's use the theory of reverse proof. That is to say, to prove that you are wrong, I will attempt to prove that you are RIGHT, point out the whole in the logic: So now we assume, for all intents and purposes, that you are 100% correct. There are exactly two chain points in the Battle Step. Therefore, two chains or fewer may be initiated in the Battle Step. Yet this directly conflicts with the known fact that there can be MORE than two chains in the battle step. So it is simply wrong.

Let's continue: There is exactly ONE beginning chain point in the battle step, followed by an indefinite number of possible response chains. This means that each player is GUARANTEED the option to play one card, and then may continue afterwards as long as they are able to continue to play cards. But once the final chain resolves, and both players have nothing with which they would like to initiate a new chain (AKA they both pass consecutively) then the Battle Step end. One initial chain point, an indefinite number of possible chain points afterwards.

-pssvr

 

[novastar]

Normal Response window is openned whenever a player enters a phase, not when a player leaves one.

True, but its important to visualize that the "entering" can be the same as "leaving"

For example, if both players enter the Main Phase, a Non-Response windows exists and Priority is given. If all they do is pass on that "Normal Window" as you call it, the Phase is over,

So that window can essentially become both the start and end of Phase window.

Capishe?

A Non-Attack Response window is ONLY created after the first chain block that's created in response to the declared attack in the Battle Step of the Battle Phase.

If you are using the link you posted as a reference then i guess you are disagreeing with the very first Sub-Step that Raigekick points out.

"Battle Step:

1. Sub-step 1: Turn player has the priority to activate Spell Speed 2 here. (Example: Turn player can activate CotH here)."

That clearly indicates that a Non-Response point always occurs first...before declaring the attack. Which i agree with, AND its consistant with the JERP as well as the GBA game (yes i know its a video game).

Infact it is necessary to have this chain point, because you have to have Priority in order to actually declare an attack. It works just like the Main Phase Non-Response point, which of course allows you to perform a summon from hand.

I realize the Rulebook states otherwise...but i believe it is done on purpose, in order to simplify things for kids.

 

[Tkwiget]

<laughs and nods his head at Novastar>

Dude, I winged that entire post btw...XD

I wanted someone to identify which part the Non-Attack Response window is located. That's what was missing from this entire discussion. If that window is at the Battle Step (I left out tiny errors on purpose to point this out even more) then yes, the window is there as proof as you're entering a step.

>=) Someone, finally said the location of it. How many posts did it take for someone to say that? You have to know the location of where the response window is to be at all correct. Novastar pointed the error in my above post to respectivefully tell its location.

Non-Attack Response Window is located at the beginning of the Battle Step.

Now all we need is someone to update that Battle Phase chart or just create a more detailed one by using it as a template.

If someone did point out the location of these response windows, please tell me the post number. You don't have priority to activate anything when leaving a phase because that isn't a response point. Think about it, if both players just pass priority back and forth, you'd think the phase would end. Leaving phases doen't give you priority, only when entering them.

<goes to algebra...>

 

[Jason_C]

Well, that is true. In that context, there ARE two defined chain points in the Battle Step. All this time, I though we were arguing about AFTER the attack, but it turns out we were arguing about the Battle Step as a whole. So, are we both right, or both wrong?

-pssvr

 

[Tkwiget]

Lol, I don't know, but the information and fact that needed to be brought up was what Novastar did. The Non-Attack Response window is at the beginning of the Battle Step. The location of this response window is more important than if it actually doesn't exist, because it does. XD

When you throw effects like Messenger of Peace into the situation dealing with priority. Does it come after or before you pay for Messenger of Peace? Messenger of Peace only says you pay during. This payment I would say eats that priority for the turn player.

>=) Yay!! More stuff to discuss about!!! I know you all hate me so much for my game phase theories...lol

I think that when you have a maintance cost like Messenger of Peace in a game phase, it will eat the priority up and create a response window...Oh no!! Not another one of those!! XD

It still would be, to me anyway, a normal response window in which maintance costs eat up priority and is automatically passed to the Non-Turn Player.

>=) Let the disputes begin!!! ROAR!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'M WIRED ON COFFEE!! BEWARE!!!!

XDXDXDXD