Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Honest

Spell speed of Cyber Network's and Mark of the Rose's effects?

Recommended Posts

Honest    12

1)  Is Cyber Network's sentence, "Destroy this card during your 3rd Standby Phase after activation" a Quick-like effect, a Trigger-like effect, or a speedless sort of "null maintenance cost"?

 

2)  Are Mark of the Rose's sentences, "During your End Phase: Give control of the equipped monster to your opponent" and "During your Standby Phase: Take control of the equipped monster" Trigger-like effects, and the sentence, "Take control of the equipped monster" an ongoing equip effect identical to Snatch Steal's?  If Swords at Dawn equips Mark of the Rose to a monster, does control shift immediately?  I'm having a bit of difficulty modeling Mark of the Rose in my mind, in a way that doesn't immediately re-grant its owner control of the equipped monster after resolving the End Phase effect (even though this is clearly not the intended behavior of the card).

 

3)  Can Trigger-like effects of Continuous Trap Cards, such as Fairy Box's effect, "When your opponent's monster declares an attack: Toss a coin and call it...," be activated during the same Chain that the Trap Card is activated?  I assume this rule applies to Quick-like effects but not to Trigger-like effects, because a Trap Card and its Trigger-like effect are not of the same spell speed (leading to abnormalities such as the Chain:  Chain link 1 - Mirror Force; Chain link 2 - Fairy Box, which could otherwise never happen).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~ness00~    1013

1) It does not start a chain and it is not an effect.
2) Think of it as a Snatch Steal that overwrites itself. It has a continuous effect like Snatch Steal that takes control of the monster, and when the effect activates, control changes to the opponent. Since control-changing effects override each other with the most recent one, Mark of the Rose overrides itself each time the effect activates.

3) It depends on the card. Abnormalities like you mention may happen. Lose 1 Turn is a common example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honest    12

Thank you much.  I think I'm starting to blur Hearthstone mechanics into Yugioh.  I didn't even consider that Mark of the Rose might have a continuous effect that WASN'T reapplied after non-continuous effects.  Thinking back to an old ATK/DEF modification example, perhaps the question is whether to compare this scenario to Mirror Wall -> Shrink or Megamorph -> Shrink (the answer being Megamorph -> Shrink).  Quoting from a previously official ruling for the sake of illustration, "Mirror Wall continually recalculates" yielding a double reduction in the case of Mirror Wall -> Shrink, whereas in the case of Megamorph -> Shrink, Megamorph's stat contribution is overwritten by Shrink's.  I wonder if the distinction lies in the fact that Mirror Wall is truly a Continuous Spell/Trap Card, whereas Megamorph is not.  This model would allow for the clearly intended behavior of Mark of the Rose, since it is not a Continuous Spell/Trap Card, thus its Continuous-like effect would not "continually recalculate."

 

Another interesting aspect of Continuous-like effects that do not continually recalculate is that they DO recalculate as soon as they start or stop being negated.  A monster stolen by Snatch Steal is returned to its previous controller immediately when negated by Imperial Order, and stolen again immediately when Imperial Order is no longer active.  Applying the same logic to Mark of the Rose's negation, we should only see control switch if neither of its Trigger-like effects have resolved yet; if they have, negating the Continuous-like effect with Imperial will have no visible impact, nor will removing the negation, correct?

 

So Lose 1 Turn's effect, "If an Effect Monster(s) is Special Summoned in Attack Position: Change it to Defense Position" can be Chained to Torrential Tribute, if and only if Lose 1 Turn is activated (flipped face-up) at the same time?  Would it be more correct to say that this effect of Lose 1 Turn BECOMES spell speed 2 when activated at the same time as the card, or that a spell speed 1 effect is allowed to occupy a higher Chain link than a spell speed 2 effect (Torrential) in this case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~ness00~    1013

compare this scenario to

 

No, don't compare ATK/DEF modifiers to anything. They are their own problem.

 


Applying the same logic to Mark of the Rose's negation, we should only see control switch if neither of its Trigger-like effects have resolved yet; if they have, negating the Continuous-like effect with Imperial will have no visible impact, nor will removing the negation, correct?

 

It would reset to "take control of the equipped monster".

 

So Lose 1 Turn's effect, "If an Effect Monster(s) is Special Summoned in Attack Position: Change it to Defense Position" can be Chained to Torrential Tribute, if and only if Lose 1 Turn is activated (flipped face-up) at the same time?

 

 

 

Yes. Otherwise, if L1T is already active, its effect activates before Fast Effects can be activated, at the time Trigger Effects do.

 

Would it be more correct to say that this effect of Lose 1 Turn BECOMES spell speed 2 when activated at the same time as the card, or that a spell speed 1 effect is allowed to occupy a higher Chain link than a spell speed 2 effect (Torrential) in this case?

 

SEGOC ignores Spell Speed. You also aren't changing the Spell Speed to 2, you are making the effect resolve in the same chain link in which you activate the card, and the card's activation, being a Continuous Trap Card, is a Spell Speed 2 effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honest    12

Okay, I think a more explicit wording of Mark of the Rose might be something like...

 

Banish 1 Plant-Type monster from your Graveyard; equip this card to a monster your opponent controls, and you become the appropriate player.  Control of the equipped monster belongs to the appropriate player.  During your End Phase, your opponent becomes the appropriate player.  During your Standby Phase, you become the appropriate player.

 

If Mark works like this, it makes sense that any control shifts granted by its resolved Trigger Effects would also be undone when Mark becomes inactive.  So what would happen if:

 

Player A activates and resolves Mark of the Rose, taking control of Player B's Frog the Jam.  Player B activates and resolves Enemy Controller, re-taking control of Frog the Jam.  Player A activates and resolves Change of Heart, re-taking control of Frog the Jam.  During the End Phase, Player A does not take any action immediately (don't know a good way to say this other than "passes priority to Player B").  Player B ends the effect of Enemy Controller, with no visible effect (Frog the Jam remains on Player A's side of the field).  Player A activates and resolves Imperial Order.  At the moment Imperial Order resolves (before it is decided in what order Change of Heart will end and Mark of the Rose's End Phase effect will activate), how does the game calculate who should control Frog the Jam?

 

Does it re-apply all effects in the order they resolved, this time excluding the negated Mark of the Rose?  In that case Enemy Controller would have no effect because the monster would already be on Player B's side of the field, then Change of Heart would shift control to Player A, so Player A would keep the monster (until later in the End Phase when Change of Heart ends).  This "re-applying" process seems to become more difficult if Creature Swap is substituted in for Enemy Controller.  Would new monsters be selected when re-applying Creature Swap since Frog the Jam is not under the same player's control he initially was when Creature Swap resolved?  I'm sure there are a whole host of other problems one could come up with.

 

Alternatively, does the game just "forget" everything that happened after Mark of the Rose resolved, and give control back to Player B?

 

The Lose 1 Turn thing is an interesting mechanic.  Are you able to list a few examples of Trigger-like effects that follow this pattern, and a few that cannot be activated at the same time as the card itself, since you said it went card by card?  Would be interesting to note the most common examples of each, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~ness00~    1013

the appropriate player

 

No, why you do this to yourself, man.

 

 Player B ends the effect of Enemy Controller, with no visible effect (Frog the Jam remains on Player A's side of the field).

 

I don't think Enemy Controller is even applying at this point.

 

 Player A activates and resolves Imperial Order.  At the moment Imperial Order resolves (before it is decided in what order Change of Heart will end and Mark of the Rose's End Phase effect will activate), how does the game calculate who should control Frog the Jam?

 

Player A has control of the Jam until Change of Heart expires, and when it does, since Mark's effect is negated, Jam would return to player B.

 

 I'm sure there are a whole host of other problems one could come up with.

 

There sure are, but you were already stretching the available information with your first scenario. At this point I'm mostly giving you my opinions.

 

Alternatively, does the game just "forget" everything that happened after Mark of the Rose resolved, and give control back to Player B?

 

That's why I tell you not to come up with new terminology, let alone use 4 control-switching cards.

Player B owns Frog the Jam. Unless some effect says that Player A can control it, Player B controls it. Mark of the Rose has an effect that gives Player A control of Frog the Jam, but during the End Phase, that control is reverted to Player B, essentially turning itself off as a result.

 

Are you able to list a few examples of Trigger-like effects that follow this pattern, and a few that cannot be activated at the same time as the card itself, since you said it went card by card?  Would be interesting to note the most common examples of each, at least.

 

It's not common for Continuous Trap Cards to be able to activate their effects in the same chain link in which they are activated, and in the cases that you can, it's rare to have Trigger-like effects as well. It's a rare mechanic overall. It's easier that you ask if X card can activate its effect or not than to check for all of them.

Another example of a Trigger-like effect that works very similarly to Lose 1 Turn that comes to mind is Einsbahn, and it's not a very popular card.

What you need to remember is Spell Speeds. If you are activating a Trap Card, that's a Spell Speed 2 effect. If you are activating its effect in the same chain link, the result is the same. If only the effect of the Trap Card is being activated, and it's a trigger-like effect, it follows the rules of SEGOC, and SEGOC piles all effects together according to turn player/opponent player and mandatory/optional regardless of Spell Speed, in earlier chain links than Spell Speed 2 (fast) effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I think a more explicit wording of Mark of the Rose might be something like...

 

Banish 1 Plant-Type monster from your Graveyard; equip this card to a monster your opponent controls, and you become the appropriate player.  Control of the equipped monster belongs to the appropriate player.  During your End Phase, your opponent becomes the appropriate player.  During your Standby Phase, you become the appropriate player.

 

No.

Activate this card by banishing 1 Plant-Type monster from your Graveyard, then targeting 1 monster your opponent controls; equip this card to that target.
(1) Take control of the equipped monster. 
(2) During your End Phase, if you control the equipped monster: Give control of it to your opponent.
(3) During your Standby Phase, if your opponent controls the equipped monster: Take control of it.

Like ness said earlier, taking control of something by applying a non-activated effect doesn't immediately reapply once you resolve an activated effect that would have someone else take the newly controlled card back, nor does it immediately reapply once you apply a new non-activated effect that would have someone else take the newly controlled card back.

There is no doctrine of "appropriate player", only concern over "whose effect most recently took control of this card" and "in what sequence did effects change control of the card, which ones were temporary and which were indefinite, and so on" - handing back a card over and over in the EP can happen, for example, but not often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honest    12

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting we adopt my terminology when discussing Mark.  I was just trying to find a way to model the card that makes explicit sense of any quarks, for the sake of understanding them.

 

The quark I see is that the monster returns to its previous owner when Mark becomes inactive (negated or removed from the field), even if its Trigger-like Effect(s) has already resolved at least once.  Taking the card text literally, if Player A re-takes control of Player B's Dark Magician via Mark's Standby Phase effect, I would not expect control to return to Player B if Mark is then destroyed, any more than I would expect the monsters to "flip back" after Ghostrick-Go-Round is destroyed, because the effect has already resolved.

 

What seem to be happening is the control shifts generated by Mark's Trigger-like Effects somehow becoming dependent upon Mark's Continuous Effect.

 

 

handing back a card over and over in the EP can happen, for example, but not often.

 

 

Does that mean you disagree with...

 

 

 Player B ends the effect of Enemy Controller, with no visible effect (Frog the Jam remains on Player A's side of the field).

 

 

I don't think Enemy Controller is even applying at this point.

 

 

It would be great to get this part ironed out, as it actually could have some application in real games.  For example, if the turn player takes control of a monster with Enemy Controller, and the non-turn player takes it back with his Enemy Controller, if both effects are still waiting to end, the turn player can end his first during the End Phase, resulting in his gaining permanent control of the monster once the non-turn player returns it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×