(Quote from pheifer3)
>>>john, the term "summoing priority" fits perfectly fine, it is the priority retained after summoning a monster, which lets you use a speed 2 effect or the cost/activated effect of the monster you just summoned.<<<

You’re right “IF” it is an instance of priority retained after summoning a monster which lets you use a speed 2 effect or the cost / activated effect. This instance though is only a small portion of the concept of turn player priority and by calling it “Summoning Priority” it makes it seem as though that’s the only time the turn player has priority at all which we know isn’t the case. This is why I said it was misleading.

(Quote from pheifer3)
>>>and it has been brought up many many many times of whether the turn player regains priority afterwards. that is called "turn player priority" and it basically says that during each phase of a turn, the turn player gets to start the next chain or take a speedless action (such as summon) afterwhich the opponent gets to chain/respond to that (except with summon priority which overrules this). then when the turn player doesn't want to start the next chain and doesn't want to take an action the opponent gets to start a chain. if neither player wants to do anything, then you move onto the next phase, inwhich the turn player regains turn player priority again.<<<

What I was saying needed to be addressed is if turn player begins a chain in any phase, and that chair resolves, does turn player regain priority in that same phase. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re referring to in the above paragraph or not. The rule book doesn’t state the case, nor does the FAQ. There is a recent post on the old Yahoo Judge’s List that gives reasonable doubt to this and it as is follows:

No.

Kevin Tewart
Game Developer
UDE Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG R&D Lead
Upper Deck Entertainment



Why is this? The last chain has resolved and the player who activated Snatch
Steal is clearly the Turn Player. Wouldn't he/she have the ability to do
something (like Tribute for a Tribute Summon) before the opponent gets to
perform his/her own action?

--Jeremy Treanor
Level 3 Judge


-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Chow [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:42 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [UDE YGO Judge's List] Question about timing, priority, or
etiquette, whichever it is.

No.

Kevin Tewart
Game Developer
UDE Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG R&D Lead
Upper Deck Entertainment


> I play Snatch Steal on my opponent's Shining Angel.
> My opponent chains Magic Drain.
> I discard Book of Moon
> Snatch resolves, I take control of Shining Angel.
>
> Now, do I get a chance to tribute off the monster before he can start
>a new chain with a set Mystical Space typhoon to destroy the snatch?

Now, this post doesn’t necessarily mean that turn player doesn’t have the right to start a new chain after a chair resolves, it does make a person wonder though doesn’t it? What IS the reason that turn player could not tribute that monster taken with Snatch Steal before non-turn player could destroy it?

(Quote from pheifer3)
>>>also on a side note, "cost-effect" does/should entail all monster effects that can be manually activated (other than multi-triggers) whether there is a cost involved or not. therefore cannon solder is a cost effect monster (500 lp payment), but so BLS-envoy (no cost).<<<

So why call specify it as “Cost Effect” at all? If it doesn’t just include cost effects? Another misleading term in my opinion.

(Quote from novastar)
>>>Not when you summon a different monster.

When you summon a monster, using the "Summoning Priority" as we called it, you can only use a Spell Speed 1 effect of that monster, and only that monster.<<<

Correct novastar, however, if Cannon Soldier was face up on the field from the prior turn and before another monster was summoned Cannon Soldier could be activated before non-turn player could respond, which was my point. We as judges need to differentiate turn player priority from “Summoning Priority” IS there “Summoning Priority” or is it just an extension of turn player priority as turn player has summoned and there is an option on the field to begin a chain?

As I’ve said earlier, these concepts aren’t documented in any official source and leave far too much room for doubt or conjecture in the eyes of the general gaming public. I full well realize that Kevin’s hands are tied until he gets the okay from the maker. It’s a shame he is bound that way. I’m certain it would have all been cleared up a long time ago had he not be restricted.

As so often happens with my posts, I’m not necessarily saying anyone is wrong. I tend to stir the pot <laffin> My posts are never attacks but merely are intended to promote clarification and discussion of rulings or concepts I don’t feel are clearly defined. We as judges have a difficult enough time reasoning things out or researching them. For the average duelist it must be mind boggling.

Yes, you can use Cannon Soldier (quote #1) and you can use priority given from a monster which was not the one summoned. See post #6917 on the Yahoo judges board.

While I figure there is a great chance it'll be changed once Kevin releases his new document, It's the most recent ruling (i.e. the ruling we should be using until told otherwise) we have at all on the matter.

I'm not crazy at all about the phrase "summoning priority", but I do see a need to differentiate between general turn player priority and priority which one may exercise after they summon.

After successfully summoning, one may activate or is forced to activate (Breaker) the chainable effect of an already face up card on their side of the field. "Anti-aircraft flower" or even "Wave-Motion Cannon". Though why Mass Driver didn't make the list is beyond me -- maybe 'cause no one asked (I seached the whole stinking judge list :) )

I actually did this to someone when I was fairly new to the game. It just didnt' feel right even then and of course it wasn't.

Course I fully expect Kevin's document will turn the game mechanic upside down. :tired:

Count me in for not liking the phrase "cost effect" either. It does nothing to justify Mobius.

Yes, there is as i explained. I definately agree, the distinction must be made clear, that you do have a certain Priority throughout your turn, not just when you summon.

There is a slight distinction between Response Priority and genaric Turn Player Priority. However, in the end, it all roots back to you being the Turn Player. I still feel its enough to seperate the 2 terms.

topher, that is a very old post, the rules have changed. You cannot do what you are saying. You can only use an effect from the monster summoned. So when you summon a Normal Monster, you cannot utilize Priority.

You probably didn't find it, because you will not be able to use them. The only Spell Speed 1 effect you should be able to use, is from the monster just summoned.

Well, just to add to this insanly long topic... The question came up a couple weeks ago about turn player's priority, VS opposing player having multiple same speed effects happen at the same time.

Player 1 activates Swords

Player 2 flips over Cyber Jar and Morphing Jar

Does player 2 still choose the order these cards resolve, even though it is Player 1's turn? I assume yes, but...

Yes, Player 2 would choose in which order those effects resolve.

Nova, while I agree it's not a recent ruling, there is no word from Konami/UDE/Netreps to contradict post 6917. It is the last thing we have that anywhere comes close to an official ruling.

What happened at Worlds is irrelevent with cost effects **at the moment**. In 2003 Worlds, Bazoo & Skull Lair were ruled they could only use monsters. It was several months before that was officially changed in the TCG.

You might have the advantage in knowing what's coming soon, but it makes no difference to what it is at the moment. So while you may be ahead of your time :), there is no contradictory ruling **at the moment**. Even when I posted I said,

"the ruling we should be using until told otherwise"

This past Spring after IOC came out, I knew BLS was going to be limited, but my opponent could still (and did :( ) have 3 of them in his deck until it officially came down from Konami/UDE it was restricted to 1 in the TCG.

I do expect Kevin's priority document to outdate all previous thoughts & rulings on priority. But until then.....

john, it gets very very very complicated to explain priority in its entirety as 1 concept. so most of us (such as novastar and myself) have taken to considering "summoning priority" separate from "turn player priority". infact in my other post i referred to both separately and explained the difference.

in essanse, this is turn player priority:

first off theres what i call "dead time" this is when nothing is or has just happened. which means that no action/effect/activation/chain/resolution/etc is taking place at the moment, also no responses to these actions are being taken (remember responses are not chained to the event, they are activated after it has already happened).

in this "dead time" the turn player is given turn player priority, and can use it to start a chain (activate an effect) or take an action (such as summon, set, etc.) or he can choose to give priority to the opponent, allowing the opponent to start a chain (the opponent can't take speedless actions when its not their turn, so they don't have this option). either way, if an action is taken, then apropriate responses occur, if an effect is activated a chain can be created whatever. after the chain resolves, depending of the events that have happened in the chain, triggered effects may activate starting a new chain(cards can be chained to these) also in certain cases the players can respond to something from the last chain.

anyways, once all chains, triggered effects have occured and no responses are being made to the last chain/actions. you get "dead time" again, which means that the turn player gets turn player priority again (it doesn't matter if the turn player passed priority to the opponent before the last chain, the turn player still gets priority back).

now, as for responding, i used to think that the opponent got frist response as they do with chaining. but apparently the turn player's TP priority allows them to respond to an action before the opponent. summoning priority reffers to the fact that besides being able to use any speed 2 effect in response to the action/event, they can also use a "manually activated speed 1 monster effect of the montser just summoned" (cost effect, but also those without costs).

now as for that post where kevin says that after the chain with snatch steal resolves, the turn player can't tribute it before the opponent uses mst, this is actually quite simple.

i refered to it in before when i talked about "dead time" (which i'd like to emphasize is my own term, not official in any way, i just think it fits). after actions/chains/etc. either player can respond to it. turnplayer priority gives the turn player first chance to respond to the chain involving snatch steal, but they don't have any response to it, so the opponent is given a chance to respond to the chain, they do so by useing MST to destroy snatch steal (why didn't they just chain it to snatch steal, oh well, its an example).

the turn player does not regain turn player priority to tribute summon jinzo until all effects/actions finish AND neither player respond to what just happened. which means that the opponent gets to respond to the resolution of snatch steal before the turn player priority allows the monster to be tributed.

(whenever i do this i make things make more sense to myself :p my only question is whether or not summoning priority will expand to include any action of gaining control of a new monster. as i believe that if you use monster reborn to summon say cannon soldier, after the chain you can use summon priority to respond to the chain with cannon soldiers effect. so does that mean if you change of heart cannon soldier after the chain resolves, can you respond to the chain with cannon soldiers effect as if you just summoned it?)

edit: madtofer, i believe that there have been mentions by kevin and/or the netreps regarding that only cost effects can utilize priority when they are the monster summoned, infact for a while the definition of cost effect was more debated than the definition of priority.

(Quote from phiefer3)
>>>in this "dead time" the turn player is given turn player priority, and can use it to start a chain (activate an effect) or take an action (such as summon, set, etc.) or he can choose to give priority to the opponent, allowing the opponent to start a chain (the opponent can't take speedless actions when its not their turn, so they don't have this option).<<<


>>>I refered to it in before when i talked about "dead time" (which i'd like to emphasize is my own term, not official in any way, i just think it fits). after actions/chains/etc. either player can respond to it. turnplayer priority gives the turn player first chance to respond to the chain involving snatch steal, but they don't have any response to it, so the opponent is given a chance to respond to the chain, they do so by useing MST to destroy snatch steal (why didn't they just chain it to snatch steal, oh well, its an example).<<<

(End quotes)

Again, please don’t think I’m attacking or making things difficult, I really do appreciate everyone who tries to reason out this concept. The above two paragraphs seem to contradict each other though. In the first you state that in the “dead time” turn player can activate an effect or take and action such as summon, set, etc……..in the last paragraph you state that during that “dead time” turn player has no response so non turn player can activate MST after snatch steal resolves. If your original paragraph describing “dead time” turn player should have been able to tribute the monster that snatch steal was equip. to as you say that after a chain turn player may use turn player priority to take an action such as summon, set, etc.

I think we’re all trying to take all of the rulings we’ve seen and make them reason out in terms of priority. It’s certainly difficult and I hope no one takes offense to me playing devil’s advocate <s> Heck, I’m a trouble maker, it’s what I do best <smirk>

My hope is that it’s as simple as turn player having the right to begin a chain in any given phase…..period If that means that turn player summons Gemini Elf (can’t chain to a summon) and then turn player wishes to activate a face up Cannon Soldier from a previous turn, so be it…..or activate a MST after summoning Gemini Elf, so be it….or after summoning Gemini Elf special summon BLS and use his effect….so be it. That would certainly make things a lot easier and pull it all together into once concept of turn player priority!

In any case, thank you all for your views and input. As seen though different judges have their own views at this point of what priority entails. Please encourage your local duelists to verify with a head judge they are unaccustomed to how he will be ruling it.

Mentions maybe -- but nothing officially released yet. If there was, I'm sure Nova would have directed me to it. :)

Just like after World last year with Bazoo. It was mentioned for months that Bazoo & Skull Lair would be changed to monster only, but it took months before it became a legal TCG ruling.

first off, nothing official has been released, but their have been questions directed at the netreps, etc. and while the answers did not specifically outline priority, they did give some info. what i say is not official and is simply what i feel is the way it works (thus the reason for my sig) but from all the months of debating this with others, in addition to info from kevin the netreps, and a few of the level 3 judges who got a sneak peek at the upcomming priority essay, this is how it seems to work thus far.

second of all, john i did not contradict myself, you must read my entire post, you will notice that dead time comes once nothing is currently occuring AND WHEN NEITHER PLAYER IS RESPONDING to what just happened. after an event (such as a summon or a chain's resolution) both players are given a chance to respond to what just happened by activating/playing a speed 2 effect (or cost effect of a fresh summoned monster). the turn player is given first chance to respond, then the opponent is given chance to respond.

since tribute summoning is not a speed 2 action, the turn player cannot do this until neither player responds to the last chain (containing the snatch steal). the turn player in that example does not respond, but before dead time occurs, the opponent also gets their chance to respond and does so with mst.

as you can see, i'm simply repeating part of what was in my earlier post. the turn player could not tribute the stolen monster before mst is activated, because they must wait until both players decline the chance to respond. i'm sorry if i come accross as angry, but i did say this before (and priority issues always work me up).

so remember, the way i see it and explained it is: something, anything happens, if it has speed the opponent can chain, the chain would then form and resolve. if it has no speed or after the chain ends, the turn player gets a chance to respond with a speed 2 or 3 action (or the cost effect of the monster, if any, that they just summoned) if they respond, the opponent can chain etc. if the turn player doesn't respond, the opponent gets a chance to respond with a speed 2 or 3 action (chain can form, etc.). if any chain has occured in response to the initial action, after it resolves both players can respond to that chain. after an action, or chain in which neither player responds the turn player regains priority to take the next action.(at this point they can summon, but not as a response as it's not speed 2 or 3)

After having judged this weekend at the Des Moines, Iowa regional tournament and conversing with another L3 judge (John Lacy) and after having read your most recent post and the way you’ve fully explained it I’m inclined to agree with you! (Do wonders never cease?) I’d say thus far that’s the most accurate explanation I’ve seen without having any official clarification.

As so often happens it seems, many of us have had to piece meal information together to try and making a working definition until the official word comes out. That’s seldom if ever the fault of UDE as it’s hands are always tied until everything is approved by Konami. I understand that and have come to accept it. The only problem with it is that it leaves even experienced judges looking uninformed and creates unnecessary friction among not only duelists but judges as well.

I’d like to thank those who have given their time and efforts toward helping others understand, as best we could, this subject matter. As I get a bit deeper into this game and the “system” I’m learning that there are some who have a bit more information available to them (as you stated about a peek at the upcoming essay) and that it can make all the difference in the world at understanding certain issues.

By the way? You can be a bit edgy when it comes to this topic, I don’t blame you! I become edgy when I’m doing my best to help people understand and they don’t seem to want to accept it too! Thankfully you’re dedicated to the game and helping others just like many others of us. The difference here is you seemed to have talk to people in the know where a few others of us didn’t have that option and were trying to piece it together without the resources.

Again, thank you all for your time, efforts, and dedication!

So can you only activate effects of a freshly summoned monsters or one that has been on the field for a few turns. Example can I summon Gemini Elf and then use my Cannon Soldier before my opponent responds?

There still seemed to be 2 different opinions about it in this thread...some say any effects others say only the fresh monster.

Yes..you can use the effect of Cannon Soldier if you choose to use your priority.

Priority for the player isn't limited to monster's that are newly summoned or anything.

oh come on HDI, i wanted to answer first!

oh well...

holy crap! i didn't know teddiesbyt was still here