Enemy Controller question

K

kansashoops

New Member
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?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
No. Two things are wrong in your example. One, you cannot chain Enemy Controller, or any other card, to an attack. You may only RESPOND to that attack. But more importantly, you have missed the timing to respond. Once the attack is declared, there is a response window, with you as the turn player gaining priority. By asking the opponent if they wish to respond, you have passed priority to them. If they choose not to respond, then we proceed to the damage step. There is no more opportunity for you to use Enemy Controller. HOWEVER, if they HAD responded with something like Enchanted Javelin, priority would be passed BACK to you, and then you could chain with Enemy Controller. Make sense? No? Well how about eating some cheese?
-pssvr
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
pssvr said:
No. Two things are wrong in your example. One, you cannot chain Enemy Controller, or any other card, to an attack. You may only RESPOND to that attack. But more importantly, you have missed the timing to respond. Once the attack is declared, there is a response window, with you as the turn player gaining priority. By asking the opponent if they wish to respond, you have passed priority to them. If they choose not to respond, then we proceed to the damage step. There is no more opportunity for you to use Enemy Controller. HOWEVER, if they HAD responded with something like Enchanted Javelin, priority would be passed BACK to you, and then you could chain with Enemy Controller. Make sense? No? Well how about eating some cheese?
-pssvr
Click to expand...

I do not think that is how that would work. If my opponent has a face-down card on their field and 4 face-up Defense Position Scapegoats. I would declare my Attack. I ask my opponent are they going to respond to the attack with their face-down card, if they decide no, I can activate Enemy Controller. I do not know where you got this Turn Priority thing at. I think were thinking about priority issues when you summon a monster.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Umm... huh? *sigh* This is so much easier to comprehend than it is to explain... Look, you as the turn player have priority to respond to any non-chainable event. So by giving the opponent the opportunity to respond, you have already passed priority. It is now too late to go back and change your mind. Once you pass, you pass. Unless they respond, it's too late to un-pass.
-pssvr
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Actually I belive they recently ruled that there can be multiple chains in the Battle Phase. Both players would have to be able to pass on one chain on order for there to be a second.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, there can be multiple chains in the Battle step. No, Enemy Controller does not have that restriction. But let me propose a scenario to you:
P1 attacks, and passes priority
P2 passes priority
P1 passes priority
P2 passes priority
P1 passes priority
P2 passes priority...
Do you see my point? Once both players pass consecutively, and there is no chain to resolve, it's OVER. You don't just keep passing over and over. It ends once both players pass during a non-responsive window.
-pssvr
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I went and read the article someone wrote on the Battle Phase, and I think I understand this now. I misunderstood the mechanics. I thought that when someone played Sakaretsu Armor, let's say, they were chaining to the declaration of the attack, and that if they declined to do so, I could chain to it myself. Looks like that's not the case.

But what's the point of giving the turn player priority after the declaration of the attack? Going back to the case in question, could I use that priority to chain Enemy Controller to the declaration of the attack, and make my opponent miss the timing to play Sakaretsu Armor in response to the attack? (I doubt it.) Or is the point to prevent the turn player from doing something like I suggested in the original question?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Oooh Oooh...how 'bout this one...lol....

P1 attacks, and passes priority
P2 passes priority
As a result of P2 passing priority, P1 activates "Enemy Controller" from their hand...

P1 responded to something before the Damage Step...lol.

Would you 'accept' that answer?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Absolutely not. Why in the world did P1 pass in the first place? It simply is not a valid and legal scenario. Here's a new one for you (and really read this, there is a surprise).
P1 attacks, and passes priority
P2 passes priority
P1 passes priority
P2 passes priority
P1 passes priority
P2 passes priority
P1 passes priority
P2 passes priority
P1 passes priority
P2 passes priority
P1 passes priority
P2 passes priority
P1 passes priority
P2 passes priority
As a result of P2 passing priority, P1 activates Enemy Controller.

Did your read ALL of that? You see my point?
-pssvr
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Bad attitude in answers is not Appropriate, ESPECIALLY when the answer is wrong.

Passing priority to respond to something NEVER ends a phase. It is only when priority is passed when there IS no Last Event to consider that a phase will be ended.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Again, where is there an article about this at? I highly doubt the mechanics work in that fashion. If my opponent has a face-down card and I declare an attack, he/she should have the opportunity respond to it, for example Sakuretsu Armor, then I should be able to chain with Enemy Controller. Better yet, if he/she has a face-down card and I attack and I ask are they responding and they say no, I should be able to use my Enemy Controller. It just does not make sense that you pass some invisible time window for the attack when you do not know what your opponent has face-down that they may or may not respond with.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Do not capitalize my name, please. And if we go by the "non-responsive window" theory (THAT WAS MY IDEA!!!) then I would say your example was correct to begin with.
-pssvr
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And one more thing. My response earlier was not intended to be overly harsh. In fact, I can't even see how it is. I was incorrect, but not rude. And it is still, IMHO opinion, a perfectly valid point. The entire concept of the non-responsive window was shunned when I brought it up before. So I tried to answer the question based on the assumption that the non-responsive window did not exist. And I failed miserably. But being totally wrong and being rude are two very different things. Beign wrong because someone else told you your first answer was incorrect on another thread is a third thing.
-pssvr
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top