Loophole in Torrential Tribute?

U

Ultralord

New Member
Okay. I have a weird situation to present. While in school today, my friend and I got into a conversation about summoning priority and the like. One topic led to another, until we came up with a loophole in some cards. Here's an example.

Player A summons Tribe-Infecting Virus
Player B responds with Torrential Tribute
Player A uses their priority to discard a card to kill his opponents Warriors (or any other type)

Now wait a second. Why would Player A want to discard a card from their hand to kill Warriors if all the monsters are going to get destroyed by Torrential Tribute anyways? This is where our loophole comes into play. Torrential Tribute must be activated in response to a summon, correct? It cannot be activated unless it occurs IMMEDIATELY after the summon occurred. Therefore, if you use priority, you can activate a monster's effect, in this case TIV's, causing another event to occur between the activation of Torrential Tribute and the summoning of a monster, thereby not allowing Torrential Tribute to be activated. I know it sounds cheesy, but there is no ruling that says this cannot take place. There are endless possibilities to this scenario. On a related note, has anyone ever thought of using quesitons about priority to scare their opponent into making a bad play? For example:

Player A summons BLS-EotB
Player B asks Player A if he wishes to use his priority to remove a monster from the game
Player A is forced to make a rash decision because he does not know what Player B has face-down
Player A decides to use priority to remove a monster from the game
Player B does nothing but laugh because he just bluffed his way into stopping a double attack

or try this scenario:
Player A summons BLS-EotB
Player B asks Player A if he wishes to use priority to remove a monster from the game
Player A decides not to remove a monster from the game because Player B was bluffing last time
Player B activates Ring of Destruction on BLS-EotB
Player A can no longer remove a monster before BLS is removed because he already forfeited priority
Player B laughs once more because he just rendered the most powerful monster in the game completely useless

Let me know what you think about these scenarios. Do you think this is legal? Have you ever scared anybody into using priority when they didn't want to? I can't wait to hear from you guys.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Ultralord said:
Okay. I have a weird situation to present. While in school today, my friend and I got into a conversation about summoning priority and the like. One topic led to another, until we came up with a loophole in some cards. Here's an example.

Player A summons Tribe-Infecting Virus
Player B responds with Torrential Tribute
Player A uses their priority to discard a card to kill his opponents Warriors (or any other type)

Now wait a second. Why would Player A want to discard a card from their hand to kill Warriors if all the monsters are going to get destroyed by Torrential Tribute anyways? This is where our loophole comes into play. Torrential Tribute must be activated in response to a summon, correct? It cannot be activated unless it occurs IMMEDIATELY after the summon occurred. Therefore, if you use priority, you can activate a monster's effect, in this case TIV's, causing another event to occur between the activation of Torrential Tribute and the summoning of a monster, thereby not allowing Torrential Tribute to be activated. I know it sounds cheesy, but there is no ruling that says this cannot take place. There are endless possibilities to this scenario. On a related note, has anyone ever thought of using quesitons about priority to scare their opponent into making a bad play? For example:

Player A summons BLS-EotB
Player B asks Player A if he wishes to use his priority to remove a monster from the game
Player A is forced to make a rash decision because he does not know what Player B has face-down
Player A decides to use priority to remove a monster from the game
Player B does nothing but laugh because he just bluffed his way into stopping a double attack

or try this scenario:
Player A summons BLS-EotB
Player B asks Player A if he wishes to use priority to remove a monster from the game
Player A decides not to remove a monster from the game because Player B was bluffing last time
Player B activates Ring of Destruction on BLS-EotB
Player A can no longer remove a monster before BLS is removed because he already forfeited priority
Player B laughs once more because he just rendered the most powerful monster in the game completely useless

Let me know what you think about these scenarios. Do you think this is legal? Have you ever scared anybody into using priority when they didn't want to? I can't wait to hear from you guys.
Click to expand...
The situations you describe are exactly how Priority is supposed to work. Player A must decide whether to use the effect or not while having to wonder what might be set on the field. Priority isn't a parachute to allow you to squeeze that speed 1 effect under a speed 2 after you know what it is.

As for the Tribe-Infecting Virus vs. Torrential Tribute, you may activate Tribe's effect but the condition of the field will still be last thing to resolve monster summoned to the field. So Tribe activates and calls Warriors, Torrential chains to Tribe and (assuming nothing else is added to the chain) Torrential destroys all monsters on the field, then Tribe resolves and attempts to destroy any Warriors on the field.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You are correct about timing on a card because Torrential Tribute must be played upon a monster being summoned. But...

Pretty much, you answered the question yourself if you really look into it.... and the question of Priority should occur "AFTER" your opponent declares wishes to respond to the newly summoned Tribe-Infecting Virus. Remember, your opponent always has the first "Priority" to respond for whatever actions you take. Quick example... lets say your opponent is Player A and you are Player B:

Player A: Summons Tribe-Infecting Virus
Player B: Responds with Torrential Tribute (then Priority can be decided here for Player A)
Player A: Wishes to use Priority using Tribe-Infecting Virus's effect discards and delares "Fairy"
Then you resolve the steps
Player A: Tribe-Infecting Virus resolves and all face up "Fairy" type monsters are now destroyed
Player B: Torrential Resolves and destroys all monsters currently on the field

What you had wrong was the time of "Priority" can be used and that Torrential Tribute was played at the correct time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Strike Ninja, this is entirely inaccurate. The opponent does not have "Priority" to respond to whatever actions you take. The example you are giving is absolutely not allowed by the rules. The summoning player has "Priority" until he uses the effect or passes priority to the opponent. Please refer to the sticky thread on Priority where this has been discussed ad infinitum.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And to further add to what Anthony was saying, your example is what we are trying to weed out. That is Player B jumping the gun and showing sloppy play. Ultralord's example is the way the player should respond... by ASKING whether the turn player or not wants to use his/her priority to activate the effect.

- A
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In addition we had this asked of us at the Shonen Jump Championship....

Turn player summons and asks his opponent if his wishes to respond (passing priority)
Non turn player says "No, I don't wish to respond" (passing priority back)
Turn player then acitivates Torrential Tribute and clears the field.

(non turn player) You can't activate Torrential Tribute!

Well, yes, he can. Though priority has passed twice the last "fact" to happen was that a monster was summoned. Priority is like a floating spirit that doesn't effect the field itself.

Turn Player made a wise move by checking out his opponent's face down options first so as not to possibly waste his own card.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That actually makes sense... fits in with the "Attack Declaration" dynamic as well.

Technically though, wouldn't this be allowable too?

Turn Player Summons something other than Jinzo and those "can't activate trap card" monsters".
Turn player then activates "Torrential Tribute" clearing the field with said "Priority".

- A
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
densetsu_x said:
That actually makes sense... fits in with the "Attack Declaration" dynamic as well.

Technically though, wouldn't this be allowable too?

Turn Player Summons something other than Jinzo and those "can't activate trap card" monsters".
Turn player then activates "Torrential Tribute" clearing the field with said "Priority".

- A
Click to expand...

This seems a little cheap if priority works that way. Shouldn't the Non-Turn Player get a chance to respond to the summoning of a monster before the Turn Player can activate a magic/trap card.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Though it hasn't been confirmed by the "essay", it is commonly believed that you could use Priority to activate Torrential.

And no it isn't a little cheap just completely different then how the game was originally handed to us.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bishop said:
Oddly enough, John, that's actually 100% opposite from what Kevin just released in the forums.

Player A summons Archfiend Soldier
Using priority -- not passing it after the Summon -- Player A activates the effect of a previously Summoned Cannon Soldier using Archfiend Soldier as a Tribute
Player B can then respond with Torrential Tribute, chaining that to the effect of Cannon Soldier
It then all resolves ... ad nauseum

There was no "passing of priority" here after the Summon to determine if the opponent would respond. It doesn't matter. The priority to activate an effect after a Summon, according to the exact words that Kevin just released, remains with the turn player regardless of the opponent's desire (or lack thereof) to respond to that Summon.

Now, if Kevin wants to jump online and rescend that, fine. But it fits right along with the ORIGINAL concept of priority that he released to the "Guru List" months ago and then told us to forget because it was COMPLETELY inaccurate.

Go figure.
Click to expand...

I don't see what Kevin said as contradicting what John mentioned above. In the ruling that Kevin did post, he was talking about the turn player activating the effect of a monster on the field first before the opponent could respond to the summon.

In John's example, the turn player decided not to do anything at the moment, then the opponent did nothing as well. Since nothing happened so far, the turn player activates "Torrential Tribute" in response to his own summon (since the timing was still right).

Then in mine, I was saying that technically, the turn player could have activated TT immediately since it was still in response to the summon.

Unless I'm really misunderstanding something here....

*Hurriedly goes back to trying to finish up another "Outside the Box" essay... MUCH shorter than the last one though*

- A
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I kinda like the way you defined it. "Priority" is who has 1st crack at being Chain Link 1.

I think the "confusing" part (which really doesn't contradict anything) was John's example in that both players "gave up" the right to be Chain Link 1, which means the Turn Player has 1st dibs again in which he merely responded to his own summon by activating "Torrential Tribute". Normal chaining rules apply here.

What has the opponent in a hissy fit is likely due to thinking that the turn player can't activate TT, but since the timing is still right...

After all

Turn player attacks with "Mega Thunderball"
Opponent activates "Negate Attack" (responding, not chaining)
Turn player chains "Trap Jammer"
Opponent chains "Negate Attack" (since the timing is still correct and weird!)

Right? :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bishop said:
That's the point exactly. Does the Turn Player pass priority before or after he has the ability to activate an effect after he Summons a monster? Priority isn't about responding to an event. It's about who gets the ability to place an effect at Link 1 of a Chain after a Summons. Curtis has said that repeatedly. I've said it repeatedly (or used to LOL). Even Kevin's scenario continues that particular slant. It's not about passing or not passing. Once it's passed, Chaining 101 kicks in and the opponent starts the chain. Passing Priority means that the Turn Player doesn't get to be at Link 1. Not much more than that.

However, take the Torrential Tribute scenario and reverse it.

Player A Summons Cannon Soldier.
Player A passes Priority and activates no effect.
Player B activates Torrential Tribute.
Player A chains Ultimate Offering and Summons Giant Germ.

Would we call this a case of priority? No. It's Chaining 101. However, what still makes this a case of Priority is the fact that Player A did not utilize the effect of Cannon Soldier when he could have. The Priority -- that ability to be Link 1 on the chain -- was relinquished.

Hmm .. I think I confused myself again. Any wonder why this subject caused me convulsions? :evil:
Click to expand...
And that is a fundamental question...

Do we look at "Priority" (and when i say priority in this case, i mean Response Priority) as simply a one-time offer given to the Turn Player to simply start the chain? or is like a token, and is the passed back and forth, and that in general gives the power to activate to a player. The latter being more of a M:tg/VS way of looking at it.

I personally don't think it really makes a difference, this really is a matter of semantics and how you want to look at it or word it. The end result is always the same.

The ruling in John's post definately seems erroneous, as it goes against something that is very fundemental to YGO. When both players pass on responding to an event, you have missed that window to activate effects that respond to it, it is irrelevent whether it was the last event to resolve, and priority has nothing to do with it.

The "response" kind of logic has been around since the beginning of the game. you can't have a double pass on an event, and then respond to the same event in a new chain afterwords. You get 1 window of opportunity to respond to the event, if both players pass, that window is gone.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, John, who said that you could still activate "Torrential Tribute" after both players pass? Was this something that came from one of the UDE guys or what? Is this a "Fairy King Truesdale" ruling? (You know where they change the ruling without telling anyone?)

- A
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This goes hand in hand with topic 1 at the top of the forums for rules and regulations.

I still believe that priority is just something someone made up so they could do something to
protect or get some value out of their monsters before they are destroyed by Torrential Torrent
or other similiar card. I believe that if a monster is summoned with a non-specific activating effect
it should be automatically activated and if it is an effect that MUST be chosen to be activated the
player summoning the monster is given that opportunity at the time it is summoned, if declined,
well then it's declined and the player cannot say, whoa, wait a minute, I've decided to activate that
effect now. The the Opponent should be allowed to respond to the change of state status on
the field or in the hand, if declined, so be it.

Anyway... just another opinion, we all have them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Can't we just get like a thousand guys to sign a petition saying that priority should be gone forever? I mean seriously, if monsters have no spell speed, then how can their effects be activated BEFORE a card like Torrential Tribute? I wish priority was never even thought of. DAMN YOU EXILED FORCE! I know what I just wrote would just nullify my so-called "loophole", but it would make the game so much easier. And back to the whole petition thing. I think that this is a realistic solution, at least for the American game. I know that tournaments have been won and lost on "priority" rulings, so why can't we simply make it go away? So some of you mods should start a topic that allows players of the game to sign their names in a petition against priority.
On a different note, my base question was never really answered, IS THIS A LEGAL LOOPHOLE?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No it's not a loophole.

It's like the Battle Step chaining rules. The last event to happen was "Monster summoned", so it doesn't matter if the turn player uses his priority to activate the effect of a monster or not. The opponent can still respond with "Torrential Tribute" because the timing is still correct (the current chain has not yet resolved so you are still responding to the inital successful summon).

- A
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In one chain link, can you respond to two events? For example, my opponent summons Gemini Elf, then uses his/her priority to activate his Tribe Infecting Virus's effect. I know I can respond to TIV's effect with Divine Wrath, but I miss the timing on Torrential Tribute because of DW is spell speed 3. I also know if I respond with TT, I miss the timing to activate DW. I guess what I really wanted to know is, is there a way to play TT and DW to respond to summon and "activated effect" events.

I can't think of an example where when a priority was used by the turn player after summoning, opponent respond to both event in one chain.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In your example, no only because as you said, "Divine Wrath" is a counter trap so you'll miss the timing for 1 or the other.

The closest I could think of would be "Torrential Tribute" chain to "Skill Drain" (or vice versa).

- A
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top