What is "official"?

[ancient_duelist]

While we all may have our beliefs and reasons for them it's important that we rule by what is official <note: emphasis added> so that all playing the game are at least on the same page.

Rules will change and errata made and it's our job to inform our local players of those changes. Until such changes are made though stick with the current rulings please.

John,

I am sure I am starting to annoy some folks with this, but I would really appreciate seeing you address the issue of using turn player priority to activate Spell Speed 2 and 3 effects following a summon. (Well, I would really like to see Kevin address it, but you're here and he's not.) I have shown that what is "official" is that Spell Speed 1 effects other than face-up Monster effects can not be activated and that face-up Monster effects of Spell Speed 1 or 2 can be activated following a summon. There is no "official" statement on activating Spell Speed 2 or 3 effects following a summon.

I believe (and please correct me if I am wrong) I have seen you say that it would be ruled at Nationals that Spell Speed 2 and 3 effects can be activated. (I have tried, but can't find the posting now). Was this the case? If so, what is the justification for it?

I am really trying to understand this situation, but for the life of me I can not. I am certainly capable of accepting it on a "that's just the way it is" basis, but I have not seen anything that says "that's just the way it is" either. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Bill Belton
Level 1 Judge

 

[John Danker]

Upon a summon turn player has priority to activate a spell speed 2 or higher effect or an ignition effect of a monster.

Perhaps looking in the articles section and reading through the article on Priority might help you to better understand all of these concepts. If not, please let me know and I'll fill you in further.

 

[densetsu_x]

John,

I've made that blanket statement before and well, you can see the long threads of debates here. What's he's stabbing at is something more than us making said blanket statement. I'm thinking what he's looking for was: Is that what UDE and Co. told the judges what is allowable to activate with Priority? Even if there wasn't a why behind it.

Thanks.

 

[John Danker]

Yes, that is what we've been told as judges....and yes, without explination.

 

[densetsu_x]

Personally to me it makes sense, as I've tried to explain in other threads. Not so much the "why" (because I doubt this is something they'll ever get into the "why" for) but just based on what some of the rulings were as well as what the concept of priority was supposed to be.

Even when the Priority Essay finally comes out, I believe it will be more of what you can/can't do without getting into the why of things.

Further based upon other things you mentioned (like being the Turn player, passing priority, having the opponent pass, and THEN activating Torrential Tribute), it would seem like there are currently 3 things that can "change" the state so that you can no longer respond to a summon:

1) The resolution of a chain. I summon TIV and activate his effect. Opponent Torrentials, I chain 7 Tools. When that chain resolves, he cannot activate Bottomless Trap Hole.

2) The activation of a Spell Speed 1 Spell Card. I activate Pot of Greed. My opponent cannot chain with Torrential Tribute.

3) The summoning of a new monster. I summon BLS-EotB. My opponent does nothing. I then normal summon Breaker. My opponent cannot use Bottomless Trap Hole on BLS-EotB anymore (though he could on Breaker in this case).

Most people probably know these sub-consciously but spelling it out sometimes can help. The Reasoning behind it is that in the case of 1) A summoning was not the last thing to happen and in 2) and 3) they are not things you can claim priority to do (based upon what we've been told, though again in the case of 3) you can respond to the new summon, not the initial one though).

 

[John Danker]

The one I can't seem to get an answer to verbally or officially is.....

If a chain ends with a summon on the part of the non-turn player does the non-turn player then have priority to activate a spell speed 2 or higher effect?

 

[Digital Jedi]

That seems to the general posting style of the Judges List. Answeres with no explanations. Clarification through extrapolation, not through any kind of clearly explained logic. I can't understand it myself. Whats so tough about giving us an explanation? We do it here all the time, and I'm sure some of us are just as busy as the "Holy Trinity" (Pun intended)

 

[John Danker]

Answers with no explinations if often the Japaness style. Authority isn't to be questioned and needn't give explination there.

Answers without explinations is often what UDE gets so that's what they give out. Other times if something hasn't been clearly defined but has been ruled on the definition won't be explained until it's been completely worked out as not to confuse matters further.

 

[Digital Jedi]

And yet, thats what we do here. And we seem to undestand things better as a result. Makes you wonder.

 

[novastar]

Answers with no explinations if often the Japaness style. Authority isn't to be questioned and needn't give explination there.

Answers without explinations is often what UDE gets so that's what they give out. Other times if something hasn't been clearly defined but has been ruled on the definition won't be explained until it's been completely worked out as not to confuse matters further.

I think the second one is more likely.

They are scared to say something, because they know that the majority of the public will take it and beat it to death.

Since they dont actually make the rules, it can be tricky, because the type of explainations they could give will only lead to more questions, and that means bothering Konami more.

Its a vicious cycle and a terrible way to handle this, but hey... its not completely thier fault.

 

[ancient_duelist]

Yes, that is what we've been told as judges....and yes, without explination.

Thanks for replying, even though I am no closer to understanding anything. However, I must take exception with your statement that this is what "we've been told as judges." I'm only a lowly Level 1 and I don't have access to the powers that be and, as I have often said, I have never seen/read anything official that says this. Of course, I take your word that you have been told this, but not all judges are going to get the word on this. I would think that with something this important UDE could take the time to make sure *all* judges get the word officially.

 

[ancient_duelist]

Perhaps looking in the articles section and reading through the article on Priority might help you to better understand all of these concepts. If not, please let me know and I'll fill you in further.

I have read all the articles and I still believe the opponent should have the right to respond to a summon before the turn player can activate Spell Speed 2 or 3 effects. I can understand, sort of, the activation of a summoned monster's effect. I can not understand the activation of another monster's effect or Spell Speed 2 or 3 effects. I could understand both of those *if* the turn player also had priority to activate Spell Speed 1 effects, but we have been told explicitly more than once that this is not the case. It seems to me there is a contradiction inherent in the current situation. I hate seeing a contradiction in such an important and basic mechanic of the game.

 

[helpoemer316]

Priority may always be a "gray area" for the game of Yu-Gi-Oh! since it was first introduced to the game. Even though it was always around, it never became hugely evident until cards such as Tribe-Infecting Virus, etc. came out that use the turn player priority to have their ignition effects activated.

The article that I've got posted on the article board on these forums isn't really as accurate as I'd wish it to be but as John said, it gives you a basic knowledge of what priority is and how it's utilized with the game. Priority shouldn't be as confusing as it seems to be to some people. Once you learn the basics of how chains work in Yu-Gi-Oh! and how priority fits in with this mechanic then you're basically set as far as rulings go. Of course there may be the occasional exception created with card effects, such as when another effect is present on the field (Like a continuous card effect that triggers when a monster is summoned will use up a turn player's priority since that card effect because chain link 1 instead of the ignition effect of the monster summoned).

But those should be blatantly obvious to the experienced judge and should even catch the eye of a novice judge as well.

 

[krazykidpsx]

why dont you find out from the OCG?

supposedly now the games are supposed to be mirrored rulings, so why not go to OCG and find out why?


I figure their making it a law of the game, and like any Law it can be bent.

if your opponent has King tiger wanguh, you lose priority since there already exists a link in a chain.

and so forth.

you have to know what the rule is before you bend the rule and in order to do so find out the rule were its used the most. if we only get partial explenations from UDE because they get it from Konami, then just ask konami.

" To whom it may concern,

The YUGIOH OCG has tons of rulings, but we as judges and players dont understand the concept behind said ruling, could we please get an outline on how said ruling works?

thank you very much for your time.

Mr. __who ever wants to sign their name__"

not to hard now, but will you get a clear answer? possibly not, you wont recive logics untill you understand the rule.

the rule is law, the law is a rule.

if the Rule is bent then the law is bent.

if the rule is broken, the law is broken.

etc.. etc.. etc..

 

[ancient_duelist]

Helpoemer[/ycard]316]The article that I've got posted on the article board on these forums isn't really as accurate as I'd wish it to be but as John said, it gives you a basic knowledge of what priority is and how it's utilized with the game. Priority shouldn't be as confusing as it seems to be to some people. Once you learn the basics of how chains work in Yu-Gi-Oh! and how priority fits in with this mechanic then you're basically set as far as rulings go.

I understand how chains work; I have read your article numerous times; I still don't understand the current situation.

As I have repeatedly said, I could understand it if priority allowed for activation of Spell Speed 1 effects following a summon, but it does not. Why? If the turn player must "do something" that allows the opponent to chain to it, why not a Spell Speed 1 effect? Obviously something has happened that has changed the options available to the turn player. The something that happened was the successful summon of a monster. The opponent should have the chance to respond to that summon. I can see allowing the activation of the effect of the summoned monster, that makes some kind of sense because the card is now face-up on the field. But why should the turn player have the option of playing another card before the opponent can respond to the already played card (summoned monster)? That makes no sense to me given the ruling that the turn player can no longer activate Spell Speed 1 effects. As I have also pointed out, there is at least one ruling that says the opponent has the right to respond to actions of the turn player such as adding a card to his/her hand. I believe it is illogical not to carry that right of response to the action of summoning a monster.

I am looking forward to having this explained to me. Seriously.

 

[densetsu_x]

All I can say is you're looking for an answer you're not likely going to get. You're wanting to know "why can I do this". Look at Kevin's answer to the question. It was a flat "No". Nothing else.

Bottom line here... I don't agree with some of their rulings. The one where I summon, pass priority, my opponent passes, now I can still activate Torrential Tribute? To me it would seem like the timing passed. John said he had 3 of them tell him that is the case though. Does it make sense? No. Do I accept it? Well, if that's what they're saying then I better. Do I want to know why? Darn straight. Will I get it? Probably not.

I see what you're thinking. I understand what you're thinking. But you have as close to an official answer as you're likely going to get. If that's what they told John and the judges about how Priority runs, I accept that. In this case I agree with it though.

You've also wondered if they tell the L3s and such, why not tell everyone else? Ultimately I believe it comes down to Konami. UDE needs to tell the judges how to rule some things (see last years BLS-EotB ruling) in order for the game to be played by their rules. But, they hadn't been authorized to release the rulings here yet or they're still trying to iron out the differences in them. However, you are in a great place here. You have access to these Judges who are "in the know" and I know they'd be more than willing to explain things and say what they've been told the "proper" way things are. This is a resource that I feel not many other boards can offer.

With that I'm closing the thread. What we have here is as much of an answer as has been disclosed. No, there's no "why" answers... just what is. Now I did post a followup question to the list trying to get a little more out of Kevin in regards to other kinds of cards so even if it's Yes/No answers, then at least you'll have heard it from the horse's mouth directly. I doubt I'll see an answer though. Oh well. If so I'll open it up again. Otherwise, things are about as exhausted as they're going to be given what is public.