Genexwrecker wrote:The ruling isnt going to be consistent as stated by marshie every situation is different. as for overlaying them to perform a link summon I do not think I have seen a single player do this in over 17000 judge calls on the website. It would be very odd for a player to overlay when not performing an xyz summon. I think I saw 1 player out of all those games that overlayed to synchro summon and actually xyz summoned the synchro monster on top. A general rule of thumb is that overlaying is generally comitting to an xyz summon though every situation can easily change that pending on what occurs. It is up to us as the judges to determine wether or qot comitting had occurred or misclicks or even other outside forces. In most games if you are moving the pieces somewhere and letting go then wanting to change your mind it simply does not work. take chess for instance. You are free to touch and move a piece but the moment you let go your turn is over and that move is final you cannot take it back.
I am also not sure what you mean by open gamestates after overlaying. If an action is being conducted it is one of the following
missclick
play being made
lag
improper use of a feature
illegal play
it isnt really so much about a gamestate issue as it is an issue with taking back moves after beginning them. Lets go with another summon example so you have an idea of what may be possible in a call regarding this.
Player A Sends kuriboh and effect veiler to the graveyard and views the extra deck. They then exit the extra deck and summon the materials back. In this situation it would be hard to say they were comitting to a specific type of summon or play as quite a few things could have happened. pending the situation and after the judge has asked questions this is a case were a judge might just rewind and put the materials on the board and let the game proceed from that point.
An example where that might not happen.
Player A is restricted to only summoning level 5 or higher Wind syncrho monsters from the extra deck. They send a clear wing synchro dragon and an effect veiler to the gy view extra deck and then summon them back and they have no cards in hand. This can also be a case like the xyz overlay argument where there is only 1 possible route to go here so it can be fairly clear what is occurring with the materials which would be a synchro summon for a level 8 wind synchro monster. Now the situation is again determined by investigation and questions by the judge. the player might not have been able to perform a legal summon at all or they can perform a synchro summon for say crystal wing synchro dragon. most likely after investigating I might force the player to summon the crystal wing synchro dragon. or if other circumstances come to light during the investigation I might rule this as returning the materials to the field as well.
There are a massive ammount of ways to rule situations like this but generally a player shouldnt be moving the cards around if they are still thinking and that can avoid any possible disputes.
I'm arguing the action of moving cards at this point and whether the "intent" of a card being moved makes sense to be classified as a commitment to an XYZ summon. The way the game functions would be fundamentally changed if moving cards around was commitment to an extra deck play, as it would then cause a closed game state to be created following that line of thinking. In other words, if something does not cause a closed game state, it is not seen as a commitment by the game. For it to then be looked at by a judge and ruled "commitment" to - in this argument - an XYZ summon would infer that a closed game state is created on the action of overlaying monsters. The game itself does not view it that way, but a judge does. That's unreasonable.
In other words, moving cards is not the same as committing to a play. Arguing otherwise is essentially the creation of arbitrary rules that the game itself does not follow, and will lead to inconsistent rulings.
MarshieDemon wrote:ggbbyboy wrote:MarshieDemon wrote:Lots of good questions and topics coming out of this. I appreciate this discussion.
Cards don't move by themselves, hence why my Judges on DB are instructed to rule that if you overlay two monsters, you have committed to performing an Xyz Summon. The most accurate comparison to this in real-life events would be when most judges rule that you have committed to a play once you remove your hand from the card.
Of course, any sort of policy related dispute between players is going to require investigation by the judge. The judge will then evaluate several things, from intent to the gamestate to beyond, to come up with a ruling. If a player claims the play to be a missclick, the judge will have to evaluate that claim and determine the likelihood of that.
Unfortunately, unlike ruling questions related to game mechanics, every situation is going to be different when you're talking about policy. What seems like "wonky and inconsistent rulings" is typically just going to be the judge evaluating a different situation differently than another different situation. The judge is simply trying to apply the policy document in the most fair way to keep the duel going. And, of course, if you disagree with the judge, you are free to try to appeal their decision. This is why we try not to deny appeals that are more policy-based unless the judge taking the call is a senior or head administrator.
I completely understand that the the job of a judge is to determine the best outcome given the current state of the game. My argument at this point is that saying an XYZ summon is committed to once monsters are overlayed is too flawed, as there are multiple reasons that one might overlay in online or IRL play, such as grouping them together to send them to grave for a link summon.
On top of that, saying that an XYZ summon is committed to once you overlay monsters is just inconsistent in general. Applying that logic to other parts of the game would lead to a stupid amount of rulesharking, and in general just isn't intuitive as it does influence game state in the way other decisions do. There is no gamestate that opens for up overlaying monsters. Saying that I've committed to an XYZ summon by overlaying implies that there should be an open game state prior to summoning the monster where the opposing player can respond. If there isn't, then you aren't committing to one, and the ruling is flawed. If the ruling is to stay true would mean that I could respond to an overlay prior to the summon. It just flat-out does not make sense from a gameplay perspective for this ruling to be the way it is and comes off as more of a, "because I said so" rather than it being logical.
Well, there is a logical gameplay reason. It's been consistently ruled that players should select their Extra Deck monster before selecting the materials they intend to use. For example, page 19 of the official Yu-Gi-Oh rulebook (version 10) tells us that step 1 of performing an Xyz Summon, we must "Choose an Xyz Monster from your Extra Deck that you have the right Xyz Materials for." So if we are at the point of choosing Xyz Materials, we have clearly chosen a legal Xyz Monster to Xyz Summon. Typically, Judges frown upon rewinding unnecessarily when a legal action has occurred.
Simply put, just as it is ruled in real life, you just shouldn't start moving cards until you are ready to move them. That's the most fair way to handle situations like this, and it's applied to all players.
Also, unrelated, but an "open gamestate" by definition is one where the opponent cannot respond. An open gamestate is "Box A" on the Fast-Effect Timing Chart in which the turn player has Priority to make the next action. Not related to the discussion but I figured I'd make the comment to avoid improper terminology.
Choosing an XYZ monster and committing to a play are two completely different things. If I decide in the moment that I want to summon an XYZ monster, overlay the monsters, then immediately decide that I do not wish to, it's a ridiculous ruling to enforce the summoning of a monster that was not committed. Again, applying this to an IRL situation, it'd be like if a player puts a card in the playable area without playing it. By this logic, I would be able to call a judge in to force them to play said card so long as it is able to be used. This is different, of course, from activating something like polyermization, looking at the Extra Deck, then deciding to take it back; A card effect has created a closed game state that both players passed on to let the card resolve. Since the card has resolved, the user now has no excuse to not resolve the effect. That is simply not the case with XYZ/Synchro/Link summons.
Fixed terminology to closed game state instead of open.