Oooh... Here's an interesting question...

[Jason_C]

This one just occurred to me as a result of the thread about threatening roar, where cropz pointed out that you can activate it when the opponent intends to exit Main Phase 1. Here's my question:

What is the exact timing window for determining if a Battle Phase will be conducted or not?

Example:

Enter Main Phase 1, P1 elects to kick it off by summoning Gemini Elf.

Response window, both players pass.

Non-responsive window, P1 passes, AKA declares his wish to exit Main Phase 1. At this point, does he say if he intends to conduct a Batte Phase? Or does he wait until AFTER P2 has passed, where an infinitessimal timing window occurs to determine if there will be a Battle Phase?

And, if it is the former and not the latter, let's suppose the opponent did NOT pass. Let's suppose he activated something that CHANGED P1'S MIND about whether he wants a Battle Phase. Now what? Do we resolve the current chain, have another opportunity for response, and then repeat the process? Or is he bound to the decision previously made?

I'm inclined to believe an infinitessimal window occurs for this decision, to prevent the arguments that may occur if it were not for this window. But I wouldn't know.

 

[masterwoo0]

So if you enter Main Phase 1 and choose not to summon, activate an effect, set cards, or anything else and "Pass Priority" that would be formally verbally stated, "I wish to End Main Phase 1 and proceed to Battle Phase." Or "I wish to End Main Phase 1 and proceed to End Phase." At which time, of course, the opponent gets their chance to either activate a set Quickplay or Trap or agree to the ending of Main Phase 1 and proceeding to the Phase that was chosen by the Turn Player.

So basically, you're saying that the Turn Player should lose advantage whenever he attempts to change a Phase, because any decision he can make gives the opponent the upper hand.

TP: "I wish to end Main Phase 1 and go to Battle Phase"

NTP: "Hold up, I'm going to activate Threatening Roar at the end of Main Phase 1."

Would it not be the same situation if this were the scenario instead?

TP: "I wish to end Main Phase 1"

NTP: "Hold up, before we end Main Phase one, I'm going to activate Threatening Roar."

Same result occurs. Turn Player cannot declare an attack if he enters his Battle Phase. So now, if the opponent has a card like "Helpoemer" in his Graveyard, the Turn Player basically wasted his Battle Phase declaration, and loses a card in hand as well.

Advantage, opponent. They take no damage, lose no monster from Battle, and cause the Turn Player to discard a card.

Now, the other way around, with no declaration at end of Main Phase 1, the Turn Player loses no advantage and simply decides whether he wants to lose a card in hand just so he can set a Spell, Trap, or Monster in Main Phase 2, or just go straight to End Phase of turn.

Advantage, turn player. They decide (rather than being locked into their decision to enter the Battle Phase), whether they want to lose a card or not.

The first way causes a commitment by the turn player, while the opponent can still back out by activating a Quick-Play or Trap Card.

So, unless you are saying that the Turn Player can also change his decision based upon the opponent basically causing a "Phase Replay", then I will submit to a neutral position on "decision before and decision after".

 

[anthonyj]

So basically, you're saying that the Turn Player should lose advantage whenever he attempts to change a Phase, because any decision he can make gives the opponent the upper hand.

TP: "I wish to end Main Phase 1 and go to Battle Phase"

NTP: "Hold up, I'm going to activate Threatening Roar at the end of Main Phase 1."

Would it not be the same situation if this were the scenario instead?

TP: "I wish to end Main Phase 1"

NTP: "Hold up, before we end Main Phase one, I'm going to activate Threatening Roar."

Same result occurs. Turn Player cannot declare an attack if he enters his Battle Phase. So now, if the opponent has a card like "Helpoemer" in his Graveyard, the Turn Player basically wasted his Battle Phase declaration, and loses a card in hand as well.

Advantage, opponent. They take no damage, lose no monster from Battle, and cause the Turn Player to discard a card.

Now, the other way around, with no declaration at end of Main Phase 1, the Turn Player loses no advantage and simply decides whether he wants to lose a card in hand just so he can set a Spell, Trap, or Monster in Main Phase 2, of just go straight to End Phase of turn.

Advantage, turn player. They decide (rather than being locked into their decision to enter the Battle Phase), whether they want to lose a card or not.

The first way causes a commitment by the turn player, while the opponent can still back out by activating a Quick-Play or Spell Card.

So, unless you are saying that the Turn Player can also change his decision based upon the opponent basically causing a "Phase Replay", then I will submit to a neutral position on "decision before and decision after".

This isn't a question of "Advantage". It is the way that the game is properly played. That is like saying that you would "Lose Advantage" if you had to resolve your effects in the End Phase before the Opponent has to resolve their effects. I'm sure we can come up with dozens of examples like where you would like to be able to wait until after Dark Necrofear attempted to activate against an empty field and then you could bring back your Strike Ninja. There is both advantage and disadvantage to many parts of this game. We don't skew rules to make things more advantageous for one side or the other, we simply play the game by the rules that we have.

 

[masterwoo0]

No one is skewing a rule when there isnt one to skew. Again, we are all seemingly "speculating" since there isnt anything other than how we "feel" it should be,as a hard and fast rule.

 

[anthonyj]

No one is skewing a rule when there isnt one to skew. Again, we are all seemingly "speculating" since there isnt anything other than how we "feel" it should be,as a hard and fast rule.

But an argument that it should be one way or the other based upon what is more advantageous for a player is not going to get much creedence. If there is a logical reason why the two acts should be seperated then I'm happy to hear what those might be. But ending a phase without knowing where the game is going next leaves a loophole, a decision window which exists outside of any published rule or known game mechanic. I can't see any logical reason to assume such a thing exists when there would be no evidence of it.

 

[masterwoo0]

You say that as if there are more than 2 directions that the game can go.

Its not like you can chose to go all the way back to the Draw Phase. You are either going to the Battle Phase, or End Phase.

There is no mystery. The Opponent can plan just as well from that knowledge as he could from not having it.

What difference would it make if he didnt know? So far, I havent seen any logical reason why not having that knowledge is a hindrance.

They can still activate effects regardless of the outcome. Before the end of Main Phase 1 they can activate cards like Threatening Roar, and if the turn player decides he is going to go to End Phase, well, they didnt get attacked anyway, which is what they were trying to prevent.

 

[anthonyj]

I'm sorry, I'm still not hearing any valid reason why from a mechanics point there would or should be a decision point apart from the act of ending the Phase.

We've never heard anything about there being one. We can certainly post to the Judge's List and ask about it but I think anything more than what has already been posted is speculation about the possibility of what up to now has never even been mentioned. I don't close my Main Phase 1 in Power of Chaos (or any of the other games yet produced) and then decide whether I'll go to Battle Phase or End Phase. And while I know that is hardly conclusive proof it does lend weight to the argument that it is an unseen and undocumented idea that has never been applied before.