duelists101
New Member
Hey i have a question. I would like to know what Priority is. It seems simple but can someone explain what Priority is an when it is applied? Also do all ignition effect monsters have priority? Thanks.
Priority
- Thread starter duelists101
- Start date
helpoemer316
Will game for food
Well, you don't know it now, but you just asked the meaning of life.
I've got a somewhat incomplete version 2.0 of my Priority essay that never saw the light of day since the ARRJ was never published with it. It's not 100% accurate, but of course, anything that helps you understand what priority is in the long run will help you figure out priority questions on your own, priority really isn't that hard to explain, but to explain the different scenerios, when a player has priority or not, that's a different story.
Here's the Version 2.0 that never got posted, I'm not proud of it to be honest, I wanted to make edits to it before I ever posted it somewhere, but I never found time to do those edits, it'll seemed rush, mainly because it was rushed, wrote in about a day or 2 under a deadline that never meant anything since the ARRJ was never put online.
But I hope it answers your questions.
Priority 2.0
By: Michael Palmer
Priority is a touchy subject for any judge to address. With the fact that there is very few known details on how priority actually works and the actual game mechanic of the entire system, it makes it hard for even the best of judges to make the right call on it. With the rumors of the upcoming "Priority Essay" coming from the UDE Game Developer himself, Kevin Tewart, one can only wonder if we've been doing things right all along, or if we've been so wrong that it's not even funny. Well, with all this said and done, I decided two months ago to write an article that pertained to priority and nothing but priority. The article got great reviews from people who were glad that things were finally explained. I decided to update the original article with new information and more in depth descriptions on the workings of most rulings that involve priority, once again, many thanks and praise came from the readers, but much discussion was raised as well, with it seemingly split down the middle, we had people arguing whether priority only pertained to the summoned monster, or the entire playing field and state of the game at the time of the chain events. With Yu-Gi-Oh! not being an event driven game like most other games, it makes it much more difficult to know who was right and who was wrong.
With all this set aside, I've compiled what I feel is the most accurate description of priority and the cards that may be involved in just about every aspect of it in this article, the third installment of the Priority Essay from Netrepâ„¢ Net. Thank you for reading this far, now I hope you learn and enjoy the facts, controversies, and rulings that you face ahead.
Also, before I get started, I'd like to remind everyone of the golden rule of priority"¦ That rule is "YOU THE PLAYER HAVE PRIORITY, NOT THE MONSTER!" With that in mind, let's continue.
To start off this article, I thought I'd start it off like I did with every other article with the explanation of "Tribe-Infecting Virus" Vs. "Bottomless Trap Hole"/"Trap Hole"/etc. The first chain of events I'm showing you will always be how it's being played, the current gameplay is considered to be "incorrect" and regardless of the matters at hand, many people feel I should explain how it should be played because the opposing player is always playing out of turn when the wish to use priority to activate a monster's effect is declared, so it is always wise to ask your opponent when they summon a monster "Do you wish to activate that effect?" and if they say "No" then they pass their priority to you to activate your trap card, if they say "Yes" then they may activate their effect and then you may activate you trap card in a chain to the effect. The second chain of events is the chain events that you should pay attention to if you are indeed playing your cards wrong. First the incorrect:
Player A summons "Tribe-Infecting Virus" to the field.
Player B responds with "Trap Hole".
Player A chooses to use turn priority to activate Tribe's effect in a response chain.
Player B's "Trap Hole" is then added on the chain as link 2.
Now the correct:
Player A summons "Tribe-Infecting Virus" to the field.
Player B asks Player A "Do you wish to use "˜Tribe-Infecting Virus'' effect?"
Player A answers "Yes" and activates "Tribe-Infecting Virus'" effect by discarding a card and announcing a type.
Player B chains the activation of the effect with "Trap Hole" to destroy "Tribe-Infecting Virus".
Chain:
Link 1: "Tribe-Infecting Virus'" effect is activated.
Link 2: "Trap Hole" is activated.
Resolution:
Link 2: "Trap Hole" resolves first since it was the last card on the chain and destroys "Tribe-Infecting Virus".
Link 1: Then Tribe's effect resolves since it was not negated destroying all monsters of the specific type called.
Reason: I know what many of you are thinking. How can a card resolve fully if it's no longer present on the field at resolution? Well, to put it quite simply, it's like chaining MST to "Raigeki". Even though you destroyed "Raigeki" in the chain, it's effect was never negated so it will resolve as normal even though it was destroyed in the resolution step before it's resolution would take place. The same goes with Tribe and any other monster, its effect is being chained to with the trap card being responded with. Since you can't chain to the summon, the trap card would have to be chained to the cost effect of the monster. Since the cost effect is spell speed 1, it would have to be the first link in the chain. Then you add on the speed 2 effect of the trap card, in this case it was "Trap Hole", and it destroy Tribe first and then Tribe's effect destroys all monsters of the specific type called.
Incorrect:
Player A summons "Magical Scientist".
Player B activates "Ring of Destruction".
Player A uses turn priority to activate "Magical Scientist's" effect by paying 1000 Life Points and targeting a fusion monster in his/her fusion deck.
Correct:
Player A summons "Magical Scientist".
Player B asks Player A "Do you wish to activate "˜Magical Scientist's' effect?"
Player A responds with "Yes" and activates "Magical Scientist's" effect by paying 1000 Life Points and targeting a fusion monster in his fusion deck.
Player B chains the activation of "Magical Scientist's" effect with "Ring of Destruction".
Chain:
Link 1: "Magical Scientist's" effect is activated.
Link 2: "Ring of Destruction" is activated.
Resolution:
Link 2: "Ring of Destruction" resolves destroying "Magical Scientist" and dealing 300 points of damage to both players.
Link 1: "Magical Scientist's" effect resolves special summoning a Fusion monster.
Reason: Basically this is the same as "Tribe-Infecting Virus". With the effect of "Magical Scientist" being spell speed 1, there is no way it can go on any other spot on the chain but the first link. You can't chain a speed 1 effect to a speed 2 or even speed 1 card for that matter it can't be chained to anything, except in the response chain of priority. The effect of "Magical Scientist" would resolve after "Ring of Destruction" destroyed it because there was no negation of the "Magical Scientist's" effect during the chain.
Incorrect:
Player A summons "Magical Scientist".
Player B activates "Torrential Tribute".
Player A uses turn priority to activate "Magical Scientist's" effect and targets "Mokey Mokey King" in his fusion deck.
Correct:
Player A summons "Magical Scientist".
Player B asks Player A "Do you wish to activate "˜Magical Scientist's' effect?"
Player A says "Yes" and activates the effect by paying 1000 Life Points and targeting "Mokey Mokey King" in his fusion deck.
Player B chains the effect with "Torrential Tribute".
Chain:
Link 1: "Magical Scientist's" is activated targeting "Mokey Mokey King" in the fusion deck.
Link 2: "Torrential Tribute" is activated.
Resolution:
Link 2: "Torrential Tribute" resolves destroying all monsters on the field.
Link 1: "Magical Scientist's" effect resolves special summoning "Mokey Mokey King" from the fusion deck.
Reason: Well, this one should be a little obvious after you read over the first two, but I thought it would be good to note this since it shows something that is pretty interesting. "Magical Scientist" was used to special a monster in response to "Torrential Tribute". How most assumed this would work out at first when these cards first faced each other in play, it was thought that the special summoned monster from the fusion deck would be destroyed as well, but after further looking at the chain later, many people realized that the monster would be special summoned after "Torrential Tribute" resolved, therefore leading to the fact that Player A now has one monster on the field after the chain and that is the special summoned fusion monster. Just something I thought would be interesting to note.
Player B has "Skill Drain" face-up on the field.
Player A tribute summons "Jinzo".
Player B's "Skill Drain" is already active and is a continuous effect.
Player A's "Jinzo" is negated upon the successful summoning.
With this it's a simple time stamp effect. Since "Skill Drain" was in effect first on the field, "Jinzo's" effect is negated.
Player B has a face up "Level Limit - Area B" on the field.
Player A tribute summons "Spell Canceller".
Same issue as above, since Level Limit was in effect first, it will turn "Spell Canceller" to defense position. Then "Spell Canceller's" effect will trigger, negating Level Limit, I'll also add to this, since Level Limit is negated that DOES NOT mean you can change the position of "Spell Canceller", you can not change the positions of a monster summoned that same turn, so it'll stay in defense until it's either destroyed or until you can turn it your next turn. You however can change the positions any other monsters you may control at that time since "Spell Canceller" has now negated Level Limit.
Reason: The above explanations show to you that a time stamp can determine priority of effects in this game. Since "Skill Drain" was in effect before "Jinzo" was summoned to the field, it will negate "Jinzo" before "Jinzo's" effect can become present to negate "Skill Drain". A similar situation applies to "Spell Canceller" Vs. "Level Limit "“ Area B", since "Level Limit "“ Area B" was in effect before "Spell Canceller" was summoned, it would switch "Spell Canceller" first, then the effect of "Spell Canceller" would trigger negating "Level Limit "“ Area B". Hope that helps in any confusion you may have had over this situation.
Player A tribute summons "Mobius the Frost Monarch" and targets two spell/trap cards on the field.
Player B responds with "Torrential Tribute".
Chain:
Link 1: Mobius' effect is activated targeting up two spell/trap cards on the field.
Link 2: "Torrential Tribute" is activated.
Resolution:
Link 2: "Torrential Tribute" resolves destroying all monsters on the field.
Link 1: Mobius' effect resolves destroying the two spell/trap cards that were designated as the targets upon activation (summoning).
Reason: This one should be apparent, the effect activates as soon as it's summoned, and this means that as soon as Mobius hits the field, the player controlling Mobius gets to select up to two targets with it's effect. Then Player B has the right to respond with a trap after the selection is made. Mobius' effect would resolve as normal and than the trap card activated in response to him will resolve as normal.
Player A's "D. D. Warrior Lady" attacks Player B's Face Down Card.
Player B flips their Face Down Card and reveals their own "D. D. Warrior Lady".
Damage Calculation is reached and Player A takes 100 points of damage for running into DDWL's 1600 defense with a 1500 ATK.
The question being is who gets the choice to remove first?
This one is quite simple, the turn player would have first choice on whether or not to remove. Player A would be the person to make the first choice on this, if they choose not remove, than it goes to Player B who has the choice now with their "D. D. Warrior Lady". If they choose to remove than both monsters are removed from play. If not, than nothing happens and both monsters stay on the field, Player B's "D. D. Warrior Lady" in face up defense position and Player A's "D. D. Warrior Lady" in face up attack position.
Player A has a monster set in defense position.
Player B attacks Player A's monster with "La Jinn the Mystical Genie of the Lamp".
Player A flips over their face-down monster to reveal "Cyber Jar".
Damage Calculation is reached, with La Jinn destroying "Cyber Jar".
The Resolve Effects step is reached and "Cyber Jar's" flip effect resolves destroying all monsters on the field and causing both players to reveal their top 5 cards from their decks and special summon all level 4 or lower monsters in face-up attack mode or face-down defense mode.
Question is who has to play their monsters first in this situation?
Well, it is always the turn player who has priority"¦ so the same is no different here, the turn player must set their monsters first on the field before the opposing player. So in this example above, Player B would have to play their monsters on the field first due to the fact that it is their turn, and then Player A has the option to play their monsters on the field afterwards. Priority of this cannot be switched unfortunately.
Using Priority to activate other card effects:
The following was a highly debated theory and has now sense seemed to be proven to be true with recent UDE Judge List answers. I will refer you to this post made by Kevin Tewart here at http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=2416 on December 1, 2004.
Now to our own debated situation.
Incorrect:
Player A summons "Giant Orc" and already has "Catapult Turtle" face-up on the field.
Player B responds with "Torrential Tribute".
Player A uses turn priority to activate "Catapult Turtle's" effect to tribute "Giant Orc" to "Catapult Turtle" and deal 1100 points of damage to Player B.
Correct: Player A summons "Giant Orc" and already has "Catapult Turtle" face-up on the field.
Player B asks Player A "Are you going to tribute "˜Giant Orc' to "˜Catapult Turtle?"
Player A says, "Yes" and activates "Catapult Turtle's" effect by offering "Giant Orc".
Player B chains with "Torrential Tribute".
Chain:
Link 1: "Catapult Turtle's" effect is activated, sending "Giant Orc" to the graveyard at this time as a cost of the effect.
Link 2: "Torrential Tribute" is activated.
Resolution:
Link 2: "Torrential Tribute" resolves destroying all monsters on the field.
Link 1: "Catapult Turtle's" effect resolves dealing 1100 points of direct damage to Player B.
Reason: This was highly debated since no one could decide whether priority applied to the summoned monster that started the chain of events, or if any effect that was active in the chain events could be activated at that time. Now, does this mean that Player A could activate something like "Pot of Greed" with turn priority? We don't know, but my guess is no based on the fact that to limit the use of priority only to the effects present on the field at that time during the chain of events makes more sense then to be able to activate any card in the game at that time. This was a touchy subject for so long and the fact that it was something that was ruled the exact opposite by UDE in the past at tournaments such as Worlds, and now it's being ruled the way that, in my opinion, it should have all along, since it makes the most sense and has the most backing of the game mechanic of priority with it caused a lot of controversy in it's own right.
But Kevin Tewart has assured the gaming community and all of Yu-Gi-Oh! that this is in fact the way that a situation like that would pan out, so who are we to complain now? We can't complain now.
This concludes my short, but informative article. I hope you learned something through this and have a better understanding of priority and what it is today. When the official UDE Priority Essay is revealed to the public, maybe we'll have more answers, but for now, I feel that my own article is the most accurate depiction of priority today. Thank you for reading and happy dueling!
I've got a somewhat incomplete version 2.0 of my Priority essay that never saw the light of day since the ARRJ was never published with it. It's not 100% accurate, but of course, anything that helps you understand what priority is in the long run will help you figure out priority questions on your own, priority really isn't that hard to explain, but to explain the different scenerios, when a player has priority or not, that's a different story.
Here's the Version 2.0 that never got posted, I'm not proud of it to be honest, I wanted to make edits to it before I ever posted it somewhere, but I never found time to do those edits, it'll seemed rush, mainly because it was rushed, wrote in about a day or 2 under a deadline that never meant anything since the ARRJ was never put online.
But I hope it answers your questions.
Priority 2.0
By: Michael Palmer
Priority is a touchy subject for any judge to address. With the fact that there is very few known details on how priority actually works and the actual game mechanic of the entire system, it makes it hard for even the best of judges to make the right call on it. With the rumors of the upcoming "Priority Essay" coming from the UDE Game Developer himself, Kevin Tewart, one can only wonder if we've been doing things right all along, or if we've been so wrong that it's not even funny. Well, with all this said and done, I decided two months ago to write an article that pertained to priority and nothing but priority. The article got great reviews from people who were glad that things were finally explained. I decided to update the original article with new information and more in depth descriptions on the workings of most rulings that involve priority, once again, many thanks and praise came from the readers, but much discussion was raised as well, with it seemingly split down the middle, we had people arguing whether priority only pertained to the summoned monster, or the entire playing field and state of the game at the time of the chain events. With Yu-Gi-Oh! not being an event driven game like most other games, it makes it much more difficult to know who was right and who was wrong.
With all this set aside, I've compiled what I feel is the most accurate description of priority and the cards that may be involved in just about every aspect of it in this article, the third installment of the Priority Essay from Netrepâ„¢ Net. Thank you for reading this far, now I hope you learn and enjoy the facts, controversies, and rulings that you face ahead.
Also, before I get started, I'd like to remind everyone of the golden rule of priority"¦ That rule is "YOU THE PLAYER HAVE PRIORITY, NOT THE MONSTER!" With that in mind, let's continue.
To start off this article, I thought I'd start it off like I did with every other article with the explanation of "Tribe-Infecting Virus" Vs. "Bottomless Trap Hole"/"Trap Hole"/etc. The first chain of events I'm showing you will always be how it's being played, the current gameplay is considered to be "incorrect" and regardless of the matters at hand, many people feel I should explain how it should be played because the opposing player is always playing out of turn when the wish to use priority to activate a monster's effect is declared, so it is always wise to ask your opponent when they summon a monster "Do you wish to activate that effect?" and if they say "No" then they pass their priority to you to activate your trap card, if they say "Yes" then they may activate their effect and then you may activate you trap card in a chain to the effect. The second chain of events is the chain events that you should pay attention to if you are indeed playing your cards wrong. First the incorrect:
Player A summons "Tribe-Infecting Virus" to the field.
Player B responds with "Trap Hole".
Player A chooses to use turn priority to activate Tribe's effect in a response chain.
Player B's "Trap Hole" is then added on the chain as link 2.
Now the correct:
Player A summons "Tribe-Infecting Virus" to the field.
Player B asks Player A "Do you wish to use "˜Tribe-Infecting Virus'' effect?"
Player A answers "Yes" and activates "Tribe-Infecting Virus'" effect by discarding a card and announcing a type.
Player B chains the activation of the effect with "Trap Hole" to destroy "Tribe-Infecting Virus".
Chain:
Link 1: "Tribe-Infecting Virus'" effect is activated.
Link 2: "Trap Hole" is activated.
Resolution:
Link 2: "Trap Hole" resolves first since it was the last card on the chain and destroys "Tribe-Infecting Virus".
Link 1: Then Tribe's effect resolves since it was not negated destroying all monsters of the specific type called.
Reason: I know what many of you are thinking. How can a card resolve fully if it's no longer present on the field at resolution? Well, to put it quite simply, it's like chaining MST to "Raigeki". Even though you destroyed "Raigeki" in the chain, it's effect was never negated so it will resolve as normal even though it was destroyed in the resolution step before it's resolution would take place. The same goes with Tribe and any other monster, its effect is being chained to with the trap card being responded with. Since you can't chain to the summon, the trap card would have to be chained to the cost effect of the monster. Since the cost effect is spell speed 1, it would have to be the first link in the chain. Then you add on the speed 2 effect of the trap card, in this case it was "Trap Hole", and it destroy Tribe first and then Tribe's effect destroys all monsters of the specific type called.
Incorrect:
Player A summons "Magical Scientist".
Player B activates "Ring of Destruction".
Player A uses turn priority to activate "Magical Scientist's" effect by paying 1000 Life Points and targeting a fusion monster in his/her fusion deck.
Correct:
Player A summons "Magical Scientist".
Player B asks Player A "Do you wish to activate "˜Magical Scientist's' effect?"
Player A responds with "Yes" and activates "Magical Scientist's" effect by paying 1000 Life Points and targeting a fusion monster in his fusion deck.
Player B chains the activation of "Magical Scientist's" effect with "Ring of Destruction".
Chain:
Link 1: "Magical Scientist's" effect is activated.
Link 2: "Ring of Destruction" is activated.
Resolution:
Link 2: "Ring of Destruction" resolves destroying "Magical Scientist" and dealing 300 points of damage to both players.
Link 1: "Magical Scientist's" effect resolves special summoning a Fusion monster.
Reason: Basically this is the same as "Tribe-Infecting Virus". With the effect of "Magical Scientist" being spell speed 1, there is no way it can go on any other spot on the chain but the first link. You can't chain a speed 1 effect to a speed 2 or even speed 1 card for that matter it can't be chained to anything, except in the response chain of priority. The effect of "Magical Scientist" would resolve after "Ring of Destruction" destroyed it because there was no negation of the "Magical Scientist's" effect during the chain.
Incorrect:
Player A summons "Magical Scientist".
Player B activates "Torrential Tribute".
Player A uses turn priority to activate "Magical Scientist's" effect and targets "Mokey Mokey King" in his fusion deck.
Correct:
Player A summons "Magical Scientist".
Player B asks Player A "Do you wish to activate "˜Magical Scientist's' effect?"
Player A says "Yes" and activates the effect by paying 1000 Life Points and targeting "Mokey Mokey King" in his fusion deck.
Player B chains the effect with "Torrential Tribute".
Chain:
Link 1: "Magical Scientist's" is activated targeting "Mokey Mokey King" in the fusion deck.
Link 2: "Torrential Tribute" is activated.
Resolution:
Link 2: "Torrential Tribute" resolves destroying all monsters on the field.
Link 1: "Magical Scientist's" effect resolves special summoning "Mokey Mokey King" from the fusion deck.
Reason: Well, this one should be a little obvious after you read over the first two, but I thought it would be good to note this since it shows something that is pretty interesting. "Magical Scientist" was used to special a monster in response to "Torrential Tribute". How most assumed this would work out at first when these cards first faced each other in play, it was thought that the special summoned monster from the fusion deck would be destroyed as well, but after further looking at the chain later, many people realized that the monster would be special summoned after "Torrential Tribute" resolved, therefore leading to the fact that Player A now has one monster on the field after the chain and that is the special summoned fusion monster. Just something I thought would be interesting to note.
Player B has "Skill Drain" face-up on the field.
Player A tribute summons "Jinzo".
Player B's "Skill Drain" is already active and is a continuous effect.
Player A's "Jinzo" is negated upon the successful summoning.
With this it's a simple time stamp effect. Since "Skill Drain" was in effect first on the field, "Jinzo's" effect is negated.
Player B has a face up "Level Limit - Area B" on the field.
Player A tribute summons "Spell Canceller".
Same issue as above, since Level Limit was in effect first, it will turn "Spell Canceller" to defense position. Then "Spell Canceller's" effect will trigger, negating Level Limit, I'll also add to this, since Level Limit is negated that DOES NOT mean you can change the position of "Spell Canceller", you can not change the positions of a monster summoned that same turn, so it'll stay in defense until it's either destroyed or until you can turn it your next turn. You however can change the positions any other monsters you may control at that time since "Spell Canceller" has now negated Level Limit.
Reason: The above explanations show to you that a time stamp can determine priority of effects in this game. Since "Skill Drain" was in effect before "Jinzo" was summoned to the field, it will negate "Jinzo" before "Jinzo's" effect can become present to negate "Skill Drain". A similar situation applies to "Spell Canceller" Vs. "Level Limit "“ Area B", since "Level Limit "“ Area B" was in effect before "Spell Canceller" was summoned, it would switch "Spell Canceller" first, then the effect of "Spell Canceller" would trigger negating "Level Limit "“ Area B". Hope that helps in any confusion you may have had over this situation.
Player A tribute summons "Mobius the Frost Monarch" and targets two spell/trap cards on the field.
Player B responds with "Torrential Tribute".
Chain:
Link 1: Mobius' effect is activated targeting up two spell/trap cards on the field.
Link 2: "Torrential Tribute" is activated.
Resolution:
Link 2: "Torrential Tribute" resolves destroying all monsters on the field.
Link 1: Mobius' effect resolves destroying the two spell/trap cards that were designated as the targets upon activation (summoning).
Reason: This one should be apparent, the effect activates as soon as it's summoned, and this means that as soon as Mobius hits the field, the player controlling Mobius gets to select up to two targets with it's effect. Then Player B has the right to respond with a trap after the selection is made. Mobius' effect would resolve as normal and than the trap card activated in response to him will resolve as normal.
Player A's "D. D. Warrior Lady" attacks Player B's Face Down Card.
Player B flips their Face Down Card and reveals their own "D. D. Warrior Lady".
Damage Calculation is reached and Player A takes 100 points of damage for running into DDWL's 1600 defense with a 1500 ATK.
The question being is who gets the choice to remove first?
This one is quite simple, the turn player would have first choice on whether or not to remove. Player A would be the person to make the first choice on this, if they choose not remove, than it goes to Player B who has the choice now with their "D. D. Warrior Lady". If they choose to remove than both monsters are removed from play. If not, than nothing happens and both monsters stay on the field, Player B's "D. D. Warrior Lady" in face up defense position and Player A's "D. D. Warrior Lady" in face up attack position.
Player A has a monster set in defense position.
Player B attacks Player A's monster with "La Jinn the Mystical Genie of the Lamp".
Player A flips over their face-down monster to reveal "Cyber Jar".
Damage Calculation is reached, with La Jinn destroying "Cyber Jar".
The Resolve Effects step is reached and "Cyber Jar's" flip effect resolves destroying all monsters on the field and causing both players to reveal their top 5 cards from their decks and special summon all level 4 or lower monsters in face-up attack mode or face-down defense mode.
Question is who has to play their monsters first in this situation?
Well, it is always the turn player who has priority"¦ so the same is no different here, the turn player must set their monsters first on the field before the opposing player. So in this example above, Player B would have to play their monsters on the field first due to the fact that it is their turn, and then Player A has the option to play their monsters on the field afterwards. Priority of this cannot be switched unfortunately.
Using Priority to activate other card effects:
The following was a highly debated theory and has now sense seemed to be proven to be true with recent UDE Judge List answers. I will refer you to this post made by Kevin Tewart here at http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=2416 on December 1, 2004.
Now to our own debated situation.
Incorrect:
Player A summons "Giant Orc" and already has "Catapult Turtle" face-up on the field.
Player B responds with "Torrential Tribute".
Player A uses turn priority to activate "Catapult Turtle's" effect to tribute "Giant Orc" to "Catapult Turtle" and deal 1100 points of damage to Player B.
Correct: Player A summons "Giant Orc" and already has "Catapult Turtle" face-up on the field.
Player B asks Player A "Are you going to tribute "˜Giant Orc' to "˜Catapult Turtle?"
Player A says, "Yes" and activates "Catapult Turtle's" effect by offering "Giant Orc".
Player B chains with "Torrential Tribute".
Chain:
Link 1: "Catapult Turtle's" effect is activated, sending "Giant Orc" to the graveyard at this time as a cost of the effect.
Link 2: "Torrential Tribute" is activated.
Resolution:
Link 2: "Torrential Tribute" resolves destroying all monsters on the field.
Link 1: "Catapult Turtle's" effect resolves dealing 1100 points of direct damage to Player B.
Reason: This was highly debated since no one could decide whether priority applied to the summoned monster that started the chain of events, or if any effect that was active in the chain events could be activated at that time. Now, does this mean that Player A could activate something like "Pot of Greed" with turn priority? We don't know, but my guess is no based on the fact that to limit the use of priority only to the effects present on the field at that time during the chain of events makes more sense then to be able to activate any card in the game at that time. This was a touchy subject for so long and the fact that it was something that was ruled the exact opposite by UDE in the past at tournaments such as Worlds, and now it's being ruled the way that, in my opinion, it should have all along, since it makes the most sense and has the most backing of the game mechanic of priority with it caused a lot of controversy in it's own right.
But Kevin Tewart has assured the gaming community and all of Yu-Gi-Oh! that this is in fact the way that a situation like that would pan out, so who are we to complain now? We can't complain now.
This concludes my short, but informative article. I hope you learned something through this and have a better understanding of priority and what it is today. When the official UDE Priority Essay is revealed to the public, maybe we'll have more answers, but for now, I feel that my own article is the most accurate depiction of priority today. Thank you for reading and happy dueling!
Or... priority means that when you summon a monster, you can activate a monster's effect before your opponent can activate something like Trap Hole or Torrential Tribute. Yup.
It's a ton more complicated, but it's a start. Work your way up to his article (literally, since it's above my post).
It's a ton more complicated, but it's a start. Work your way up to his article (literally, since it's above my post).
StRiKe_NiNjA
Dimension Shift Ninja
duelists101 said:
Believe it or not, Priority has been around since Yu-Gi-Oh! had begun. Back then though, it wasn't "defined" as "Priority" because they didn't think it was neccessary to define it, as with a term of some sort.
"Priority" is a chance to "activate" a card. It's simple really... if you don't believe that Priority has been in this game since the start, here's a example I know you will understand:
PlayerA: activates Heavy Storm
PlayerB: chains Waboku
Players do no respond
Resolve in reverse order...
See? Review this example in slow motion:
PlayerA: activates Heavy Storm
(Priority is then passed to PlayerB, as he/she has a chance to "activate" a card)
PlayerB: chains Waboku
(Priority is then passed to PlayerA, as he/she has a chance to "activate" a card to add to the chain)
PlayerA passes Priority
PlayerB passes Priority
Resolve in reverse order...
See my friend, it's simple really.
Try and figure how Priority is passed between this example, and it'll be easy to figure out:
PlayerA: activates Heavy Storm
PlayerB: chains Call of the Haunted, declares Jinzo
- PlayerA does not respond
PlayerB: chains Waboku
PlayerA: chains Call of the Haunted, declares Jinzo
Players do not respond
Resolve in reverse order...
Now they got this "Priority" working for monster cards. And I say why not. Understand this, that the Turn Player always has "Priority" to activate an effect first on a chain. So when you Normal Summon Tribe-Infecting Virus, and the summon was not negated, it is successfuly face-up on your side of the field, as the Turn Player, you have "Priority" to activates it's effect. Your opponent can still respond to the summon, as Priority is passed on.
helpoemer316
Will game for food
The funny thing is that I strongly recommend any YGO player to attempt to play VS at least somewhat. VS has a very strong grasp as far as priority goes and even though it's not the exact same mechanic, it's a lot easier to understand after you've played a few VS games as far as YGO priority should be played. It's more or less always constant questioning on whether your opponent intends to use an effect or not. Always distinctly and clearly state when you are going to use an effect and when you're not, also, remember that priority is not the ability to chain your effect to the trap card or what not being activated in response. But is the right that you as the turn player has to start the said chain and in cases where players activate a trap card too quickly after the summon before you can announce your intents to use the monsters effect or not.
Opponents always make sure you allow your opponent ample time to declare their intentions before activating Torrential Tribute or Bottomless Trap Hole in response to the summon, don't automatically think that you can force them out of their priority by acting quicker, bishop said it best I believe sometime last year as one of his monthly quotes when he was a UDE Netrep, "Priority isn't a game leap frog between you and your opponent with both of you jumping each other to every phase of the turn." Of course, it might not have been exactly like that... but close enough.
Opponents always make sure you allow your opponent ample time to declare their intentions before activating Torrential Tribute or Bottomless Trap Hole in response to the summon, don't automatically think that you can force them out of their priority by acting quicker, bishop said it best I believe sometime last year as one of his monthly quotes when he was a UDE Netrep, "Priority isn't a game leap frog between you and your opponent with both of you jumping each other to every phase of the turn." Of course, it might not have been exactly like that... but close enough.
StRiKe_NiNjA
Dimension Shift Ninja
Just a sided note... for Konami.
LoL the guy who invented this sort of ruling as Players have Priority to activate effects of monsters must of HATED Trap Hole with a passion! LoL, it's just a thought of course...
I use to get heated when people Trap Hole to destroy my Barrel Dragon after I tried so long and hard to bring it out. Haha I can see where this ruling came from...
LoL the guy who invented this sort of ruling as Players have Priority to activate effects of monsters must of HATED Trap Hole with a passion! LoL, it's just a thought of course...
I use to get heated when people Trap Hole to destroy my Barrel Dragon after I tried so long and hard to bring it out. Haha I can see where this ruling came from...
helpoemer316
Will game for food
Well, Priority doesn't just exist in the Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG so I doubt it's hardly Konami's fault.
Priority exists in any TCG there is, it exists in Magic, it exists in VS, etc. It's simply a game mechanic that is used to determine who has the "priority" to activate an effect before their opponent(s) on a chain. Without it, none of the game mechanics in any of the games would make any sense and the games would have fallen apart as you know it.
Priority is something that is essentially a part of every TCG there is, not just Yu-Gi-Oh!.
Priority exists in any TCG there is, it exists in Magic, it exists in VS, etc. It's simply a game mechanic that is used to determine who has the "priority" to activate an effect before their opponent(s) on a chain. Without it, none of the game mechanics in any of the games would make any sense and the games would have fallen apart as you know it.
Priority is something that is essentially a part of every TCG there is, not just Yu-Gi-Oh!.
helpoemer316
Will game for food
Of course.Raijinili said:
My major point was for people to be patient and not just immediately jump out with their card but allow the other player the time to at least announce "Hey I want to do this."
[ycard="DR1-EN006" said:
I realize you said this was an unfinished/uneditted version, but I wanted to point out the last line of Example #5. (Ive been studying
)Wouldnt the trap (in this case TT) resolve first, then Mobius' effect?
Mobius Summoned
Chain 1: Mobius targets up to 2 s/t cards
Chain 2: Torrential is activated
(assuming no more chaining)
Resolution:
Chain 2: Torrential destroys all the monsters on the field
Chain 1: Mobius' effect (not the monster itself now, since its destroyed, but not negated) destroys the selected s/t cards.
I ask because the resolution of effects for that example seems to be contrary to the format explained by the other examples.
Its funny you used Mobius. I got fed up with a 10 min explanation of why I can use its effect, and let my opponent BTH my Mobius without getting to use the effect. Their concept of priority had to do with the exact incorrect chaining that you detailed.
Unfortunately it cost me an advancement in the tournament I was playing in.
John Danker
Administrator
In the article's Resolution statement it's correct. The reasoning statement just got a bit mixed up. You're correct Squid in your thought pattern. TT resolves first and then the effect of Mobius resolves (even though it's no longer on the field)
I'm still trying to understand the mechanics of how priority works, so I've put together a scenario to help me figure out one of the particulars:
Player A, the turn player, has a face down Level Limit Area B. Player B has a face down Final Attack Order and a face down MST. Player A summons a monster that has an ignition effect. At this point, player B is wanting to MST the face-down LLAB. Now, priority says that Player A gets to use the monster effect, and then Player B can chain to the activation of that effect. And, if I recall correctly, player A can also decide to yield priority to player B to activate his face down card.
But suppose Player A wants to activate LLAB instead of the monster effect. I'm assuming he can do that -- use his priority for a spell/trap instead. So if player A uses his priority to do LLAB, Player B might be thinking "well, I was going to MST it, but now that I know what it is, I could just cancel it out using Final Attack Orders and save my MST for some other card." So player B does NOT chain either card to the activation of LLAB knowing that FAO would resolve first and be cancelled instead. So the chain is resolved, monsters go to defense mode. Now, here's where my question comes in. Does player A now has priority again to activate the monster effect before player B can do FAO?
Player A, the turn player, has a face down Level Limit Area B. Player B has a face down Final Attack Order and a face down MST. Player A summons a monster that has an ignition effect. At this point, player B is wanting to MST the face-down LLAB. Now, priority says that Player A gets to use the monster effect, and then Player B can chain to the activation of that effect. And, if I recall correctly, player A can also decide to yield priority to player B to activate his face down card.
But suppose Player A wants to activate LLAB instead of the monster effect. I'm assuming he can do that -- use his priority for a spell/trap instead. So if player A uses his priority to do LLAB, Player B might be thinking "well, I was going to MST it, but now that I know what it is, I could just cancel it out using Final Attack Orders and save my MST for some other card." So player B does NOT chain either card to the activation of LLAB knowing that FAO would resolve first and be cancelled instead. So the chain is resolved, monsters go to defense mode. Now, here's where my question comes in. Does player A now has priority again to activate the monster effect before player B can do FAO?
"Priority" would not let you activate a Spell Speed 1 Spell card, so in this scenario, Player A cannot just activate LL-AB without giving Player B a chance to "respond" to the summon first.
densetsu_x said:
So after a summon, player A has priority to respond with a spell speed 1 ignition effect, but not a spell speed 1 spell. Interesting. So could player 1 use priority to activate a spell speed 2 trap right after the summon of an effect monster (instead of activating the effect?) New scenario:
What if player A ritual summons Paladin of white dragon. Player B wants to bottomless trap hole it. Player A's intent, however, isn't to use the effect of Paladin of White Dragon, but to use it for Burst Breath, a trap he set in a prior turn.
Oh great, now I've got two questions from that new scenario. 1) Does Player A get to activate Burst Breath before Player B activates BTH due to priority after summoning? Or does priority after summoning ONLY allow the activation of the effect of the monster summoned (and not the activation of any other monster's effect, trap, or quick spell?) 2) If Player A did decide to use the effect, and player B CHAINED BTH to the effect, BTH would resolve first and take away Paladin. Would it cause his effect to disappear, or would Paladin's effect still take place and would BEWD be affected by the BTH, or what would happen?
helpoemer316
Will game for food
Yeah, that's just a case of me not re-reading it after I wrote it. I tell everyone this and it's true. I'm dyslexic sometimes, especially when reading stuff, but sometimes when I'm writing my mind gets ahead of my typing and stuff comes out backwards, that was a case of that, the last line in the explanation came out backwards and since I never took the time to sit down and re-read it thoroughly and slowly I missed it. Once again, that's not me being an idiot, just me having a typo.squid said:I realize you said this was an unfinished/uneditted version, but I wanted to point out the last line of Example #5. (Ive been studying
Wouldnt the trap (in this case TT) resolve first, then Mobius' effect?
Mobius Summoned
Chain 1: Mobius targets up to 2 s/t cards
Chain 2: Torrential is activated
(assuming no more chaining)
Resolution:
Chain 2: Torrential destroys all the monsters on the field
Chain 1: Mobius' effect (not the monster itself now, since its destroyed, but not negated) destroys the selected s/t cards.
I ask because the resolution of effects for that example seems to be contrary to the format explained by the other examples.
Its funny you used Mobius. I got fed up with a 10 min explanation of why I can use its effect, and let my opponent BTH my Mobius without getting to use the effect. Their concept of priority had to do with the exact incorrect chaining that you detailed.
Unfortunately it cost me an advancement in the tournament I was playing in.
John Danker
Administrator
It's okay, you're in good company, I was terribly dyslexic myself as a child. It doesn't seem to come out too much anymore. I notice it when I'm writing down phone numbers sometimes though. It wouldn't be so bad except I'm constantly writing down numbers in my job. I've only had it be a major issue once when I measured up a room at 154 inches, they went to put in the bookcases and somehow those bookcases didn't want to go into a 145 inch space!
helpoemer316 said:
Not a problem. I wasnt meaning to suggest you were sloppy or anything. I just didnt want that to become a confusing point for anyone reading through the article. (BTW: frequent use of sense, where you intend since) Just nitpicking.
Ugh! Thats a mess, but try me. I measured 89 inches for the shelves in my house, then cut the wood to find out the space was 98 inches. You cant fix that. Talk about wasted money and materials.-_-'John Danker said:
JOls said:
You can activate "Burst Breath" before your opponent responds. In this case there would nothing on the field to chain "Bottomless Trap Hole" to since "Paladin of White Dragon" would already be off the field.
Same would be true if you used Paladin's effect (sending him to the graveyard is the cost of the effect so there's nothing to chain BTH to). In that case though your opponent COULD use BTH after you summoned BEWD.
helpoemer316
Will game for food
squid said:
Now that would be entirely my fault, I normally have no problem with spelling and grammar when typing out. It's just how a sentence gets worded sometimes and how I place the subjects of the sentence that get mixed up, which was apparent by the mix-up in the incident you had depicted before.
Don't worry if I ever decide to post it as an article (which may be never, but whatever) I'll review it with a fine tooth comb before doing so.
Bottomless Trap Hole could still be activated as it is in response to a sucessful summons of Paladin, but since the monster is no longer on the field, the effect would fizzle.densetsu_x said:
...wouldn't it?
densetsu_x...again said:
Ok if my thinking on the first one is flawed then it would affect this too. However, if Player B waits to activate BTH in response to the summons of BEWD, then would Player A recieve the priority of a new Chain block?
Reason Im asking is if there is a situation involving other trigger effects present on the field (ie: Catapult Turtle/Cannon Soldier/etc)
From what I gathered in helpoemer316's article, if Catapult Turtle were face up and BEWD was summoned via Paladin, that Player A could still claim priority of a new chain block, tribute BEWD for Catapult Turtle's effect and cause BTH to fizzle once again.
Last Q: If a face down Mystic Wok/ Ring of Destruction were present at the time of a summoned monster, could Player A use their priority to tribute that monster? (Similar to how Exiled Force activates its own effect)