When do you officially "commit" to an XYZ summon?

If you have a ruling question related to the game, search for it here, or ask it if no one else has yet.
ggbbyboy
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:44 pm
Reputation: 0

When do you officially "commit" to an XYZ summon?

Post #1 by ggbbyboy » Thu Sep 15, 2022 7:12 am

I got into a disagreement in a ranked game about moving cards around.

Context, I was playing Spright and my opponent was playing some Runick deck. I ended up clearing his board and then had 3 level 2 monsters on board after he Judgmented the Zeus. I then proceeded to pick up monsters and overlay them, thinking about my next play, putting them back to their original state, etc, without committing to an XYZ summon. He then proceeded to say he could rule shark me for doing so, to which I said that's ridiculous, as an XYZ summon is inherent, so the only way to commit to one is to summon the XYZ monster out.

Fast forward, he paused the game, called a judge, and I ended up timing out, so I never got a ruling on this.

Renji Asuka
User avatar
Posts: 2680
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
Reputation: 242

Post #2 by Renji Asuka » Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:33 am

Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.

Genexwrecker
User avatar
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:52 pm
Reputation: 396

Post #3 by Genexwrecker » Thu Sep 15, 2022 1:21 pm

The moment you start moving cards you are no longer thinking you are making a play. In your case the play is an xyz summon and you must complete it
Official Duelingbook Support staff
Official Duelingbook Resource Judge
Official Duelingbook Tournament Admin.(Other tournament Admin is Runzy)

ggbbyboy
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:44 pm
Reputation: 0

Post #4 by ggbbyboy » Thu Sep 15, 2022 4:52 pm

Genexwrecker wrote:The moment you start moving cards you are no longer thinking you are making a play. In your case the play is an xyz summon and you must complete it


Seems like a weird ruling. Back during Nekroz format, every event I went to ruled that you did not commit to banishing the cards for effect unless you announce you are doing so, but you were able to move the cards out of grave slightly in order to "prepare"/think about the play.

In a more modern case, the judge of a recent regional ruled that you could move cards in your extra in preparation of prosperity without committing to activating prosperity.

As an XYZ is summon is inherit, the only true way to commit to one is to summon one. It's not like activating Shaddoll Fusion and taking it back, as the card effect has resolved and now requires you to continue the Fusion Summon.

I guess this would be a ruling that is up to the head judge of the event.

Genexwrecker
User avatar
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:52 pm
Reputation: 396

Post #5 by Genexwrecker » Thu Sep 15, 2022 6:49 pm

I do not care what happened at X event. That applies to that event only. You should never be moving cards if you arent making a play. If you overlay it is clear you have started an xyz summon.
Official Duelingbook Support staff
Official Duelingbook Resource Judge
Official Duelingbook Tournament Admin.(Other tournament Admin is Runzy)

ggbbyboy
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:44 pm
Reputation: 0

Post #6 by ggbbyboy » Thu Sep 15, 2022 7:02 pm

Genexwrecker wrote:I do not care what happened at X event. That applies to that event only. You should never be moving cards if you arent making a play. If you overlay it is clear you have started an xyz summon.


I never said you did. I'm saying that it's ruled differently at other events. I never said you had to follow the ruling of judge number 43 over your own.

The idea of intent gets muddy then. If the idea to do something is all you need to declare commitment, then I could - by that logic - force a player to play a card if they separate it from their other cards in hand and "stand" it on the field without playing it. They obviously showed intention of playing it, so it would stand to reason that I could then, by applying this ruling, tell them they must commit to playing that card?

If a player missclicks and overlays a monster, could I then force them commit to such a play because we, obviously, are not mind readers and cannot know intent outside of surface level actions? How about if someone sends a monster to grave instead of overlaying them because of a missclick? Can I call a judge to force them to commit to a Link summon?
Last edited by ggbbyboy on Thu Sep 15, 2022 7:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Christen57
User avatar
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Reputation: 182
Location: New York, United States of America

Post #7 by Christen57 » Thu Sep 15, 2022 7:27 pm

Genexwrecker wrote:I do not care what happened at X event. That applies to that event only. You should never be moving cards if you arent making a play. If you overlay it is clear you have started an xyz summon.


You do know that misclicks are a thing right? You can't force someone to commit to something that was purely accidental such as an accidental overlaying. The site rules even list:
- Not allowing an opponent to Set an accidental Normal Summon (e.g. Snowman Eater).
as one of the examples of rule-sharking.

Genexwrecker
User avatar
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:52 pm
Reputation: 396

Post #8 by Genexwrecker » Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:42 pm

Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:I do not care what happened at X event. That applies to that event only. You should never be moving cards if you arent making a play. If you overlay it is clear you have started an xyz summon.


You do know that misclicks are a thing right? You can't force someone to commit to something that was purely accidental such as an accidental overlaying. The site rules even list:
- Not allowing an opponent to Set an accidental Normal Summon (e.g. Snowman Eater).
as one of the examples of rule-sharking.

Misclicks are not what is in question here. That is an entirely different scenario than the one here
Official Duelingbook Support staff
Official Duelingbook Resource Judge
Official Duelingbook Tournament Admin.(Other tournament Admin is Runzy)

Genexwrecker
User avatar
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:52 pm
Reputation: 396

Post #9 by Genexwrecker » Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:44 pm

ggbbyboy wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:I do not care what happened at X event. That applies to that event only. You should never be moving cards if you arent making a play. If you overlay it is clear you have started an xyz summon.


I never said you did. I'm saying that it's ruled differently at other events. I never said you had to follow the ruling of judge number 43 over your own.

The idea of intent gets muddy then. If the idea to do something is all you need to declare commitment, then I could - by that logic - force a player to play a card if they separate it from their other cards in hand and "stand" it on the field without playing it. They obviously showed intention of playing it, so it would stand to reason that I could then, by applying this ruling, tell them they must commit to playing that card?

If a player missclicks and overlays a monster, could I then force them commit to such a play because we, obviously, are not mind readers and cannot know intent outside of surface level actions? How about if someone sends a monster to grave instead of overlaying them because of a missclick? Can I call a judge to force them to commit to a Link summon?

You cannot possibly compare misclicks to a player intentionally performing the action then going back to think more.
Official Duelingbook Support staff
Official Duelingbook Resource Judge
Official Duelingbook Tournament Admin.(Other tournament Admin is Runzy)

Renji Asuka
User avatar
Posts: 2680
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
Reputation: 242

Post #10 by Renji Asuka » Thu Sep 15, 2022 9:07 pm

Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:I do not care what happened at X event. That applies to that event only. You should never be moving cards if you arent making a play. If you overlay it is clear you have started an xyz summon.


You do know that misclicks are a thing right? You can't force someone to commit to something that was purely accidental such as an accidental overlaying. The site rules even list:
- Not allowing an opponent to Set an accidental Normal Summon (e.g. Snowman Eater).
as one of the examples of rule-sharking.

Let me ask you.

How the hell do you misclick the over lay button, move your mouse onto another card and misclick AGAIN to overlay?
Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.

Christen57
User avatar
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Reputation: 182
Location: New York, United States of America

Post #11 by Christen57 » Thu Sep 15, 2022 9:31 pm

Renji Asuka wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:I do not care what happened at X event. That applies to that event only. You should never be moving cards if you arent making a play. If you overlay it is clear you have started an xyz summon.


You do know that misclicks are a thing right? You can't force someone to commit to something that was purely accidental such as an accidental overlaying. The site rules even list:
- Not allowing an opponent to Set an accidental Normal Summon (e.g. Snowman Eater).
as one of the examples of rule-sharking.

Let me ask you.

How the hell do you misclick the over lay button, move your mouse onto another card and misclick AGAIN to overlay?


If you click Overlay while you control only 2 monsters, they'll be overlaid automatically without you having to click again. If it's while you control 3 or more, you'll click again to indicate which ones you want to overlay.

ggbbyboy
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:44 pm
Reputation: 0

Post #12 by ggbbyboy » Thu Sep 15, 2022 10:22 pm

Genexwrecker wrote:
ggbbyboy wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:I do not care what happened at X event. That applies to that event only. You should never be moving cards if you arent making a play. If you overlay it is clear you have started an xyz summon.


I never said you did. I'm saying that it's ruled differently at other events. I never said you had to follow the ruling of judge number 43 over your own.

The idea of intent gets muddy then. If the idea to do something is all you need to declare commitment, then I could - by that logic - force a player to play a card if they separate it from their other cards in hand and "stand" it on the field without playing it. They obviously showed intention of playing it, so it would stand to reason that I could then, by applying this ruling, tell them they must commit to playing that card?

If a player missclicks and overlays a monster, could I then force them commit to such a play because we, obviously, are not mind readers and cannot know intent outside of surface level actions? How about if someone sends a monster to grave instead of overlaying them because of a missclick? Can I call a judge to force them to commit to a Link summon?

You cannot possibly compare misclicks to a player intentionally performing the action then going back to think more.


You can when the intent isn't clear. What's to say I didn't missclick the overlay and instead of clicking out I just decided to overlay and then send them to grave to perform a LInk summon as I thought it'd be easier? What's to say that I DIDN'T missclick when I sent a monster to grave, but immediately realized I messed up and said, "missclick" and summoned it back before sending the rest of the monsters to grave? What if the game automatically overlayed them since I only had 2 monsters and I DID misclick?

Fact of the matter is: An action can only be committed to once the action is committed. Arguing intent is going to lead to some wonky and inconsistent rulings that can be easily abused. Thinking of a play is inherently NOT committing to a play when the only way you can commit to an XYZ summon via game mechanics (to create an open game state) is by summoning said monster. The logic behind the ruling you follow is too flawed. If overlaying 2 monsters created an open game state, I'd be inclined to agree, as the game itself would then have gone passed the state of just having monsters into - in this theoretical situation - the beginning of an XYZ summon. Fortunately, this isn't an issue since the game does not have a "start to XYZ summon" mechanic/state. To argue that you have "started an XYZ summon" is just you creating a game state that doesn't exist within the nature of the game's official rules/mechanics. Unless you can say that I can respond to my opponent overlaying 2 monsters BEFORE they summon an XYZ monster, then there is no "start to XYZ". You either XYZ summon or you don't.

Genexwrecker
User avatar
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:52 pm
Reputation: 396

Post #13 by Genexwrecker » Thu Sep 15, 2022 10:59 pm

ggbbyboy wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:
ggbbyboy wrote:
I never said you did. I'm saying that it's ruled differently at other events. I never said you had to follow the ruling of judge number 43 over your own.

The idea of intent gets muddy then. If the idea to do something is all you need to declare commitment, then I could - by that logic - force a player to play a card if they separate it from their other cards in hand and "stand" it on the field without playing it. They obviously showed intention of playing it, so it would stand to reason that I could then, by applying this ruling, tell them they must commit to playing that card?

If a player missclicks and overlays a monster, could I then force them commit to such a play because we, obviously, are not mind readers and cannot know intent outside of surface level actions? How about if someone sends a monster to grave instead of overlaying them because of a missclick? Can I call a judge to force them to commit to a Link summon?

You cannot possibly compare misclicks to a player intentionally performing the action then going back to think more.


You can when the intent isn't clear. What's to say I didn't missclick the overlay and instead of clicking out I just decided to overlay and then send them to grave to perform a LInk summon as I thought it'd be easier? What's to say that I DIDN'T missclick when I sent a monster to grave, but immediately realized I messed up and said, "missclick" and summoned it back before sending the rest of the monsters to grave? What if the game automatically overlayed them since I only had 2 monsters and I DID misclick?

Fact of the matter is: An action can only be committed to once the action is committed. Arguing intent is going to lead to some wonky and inconsistent rulings that can be easily abused. Thinking of a play is inherently NOT committing to a play when the only way you can commit to an XYZ summon via game mechanics (to create an open game state) is by summoning said monster. The logic behind the ruling you follow is too flawed. If overlaying 2 monsters created an open game state, I'd be inclined to agree, as the game itself would then have gone passed the state of just having monsters into - in this theoretical situation - the beginning of an XYZ summon. Fortunately, this isn't an issue since the game does not have a "start to XYZ summon" mechanic/state. To argue that you have "started an XYZ summon" is just you creating a game state that doesn't exist within the nature of the game's official rules/mechanics. Unless you can say that I can respond to my opponent overlaying 2 monsters BEFORE they summon an XYZ monster, then there is no "start to XYZ". You either XYZ summon or you don't.

The fact of the matter is the intent was clear here and you yourself 100% admitted you went back to keep thinking and did not misclick. This isnt something that is a grey area the difference between having a player admit they just wanted to go back and think and a player saying they misclicked is night and day. This is why judges investigate the games and ask questions of the player. if the player says they went back to think obviously that isnt a misclick. If they claim misclick then the judge investigates even more and asks more questions to determine if it was a misclick or if they intentionally rewound.
Official Duelingbook Support staff
Official Duelingbook Resource Judge
Official Duelingbook Tournament Admin.(Other tournament Admin is Runzy)

MarshieDemon
User avatar
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2021 1:41 am
Reputation: 48

Post #14 by MarshieDemon » Thu Sep 15, 2022 11:48 pm

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.
Image

Head Administrator

ggbbyboy
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:44 pm
Reputation: 0

Post #15 by ggbbyboy » Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:31 am

Genexwrecker wrote:
ggbbyboy wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:You cannot possibly compare misclicks to a player intentionally performing the action then going back to think more.


You can when the intent isn't clear. What's to say I didn't missclick the overlay and instead of clicking out I just decided to overlay and then send them to grave to perform a LInk summon as I thought it'd be easier? What's to say that I DIDN'T missclick when I sent a monster to grave, but immediately realized I messed up and said, "missclick" and summoned it back before sending the rest of the monsters to grave? What if the game automatically overlayed them since I only had 2 monsters and I DID misclick?

Fact of the matter is: An action can only be committed to once the action is committed. Arguing intent is going to lead to some wonky and inconsistent rulings that can be easily abused. Thinking of a play is inherently NOT committing to a play when the only way you can commit to an XYZ summon via game mechanics (to create an open game state) is by summoning said monster. The logic behind the ruling you follow is too flawed. If overlaying 2 monsters created an open game state, I'd be inclined to agree, as the game itself would then have gone passed the state of just having monsters into - in this theoretical situation - the beginning of an XYZ summon. Fortunately, this isn't an issue since the game does not have a "start to XYZ summon" mechanic/state. To argue that you have "started an XYZ summon" is just you creating a game state that doesn't exist within the nature of the game's official rules/mechanics. Unless you can say that I can respond to my opponent overlaying 2 monsters BEFORE they summon an XYZ monster, then there is no "start to XYZ". You either XYZ summon or you don't.

The fact of the matter is the intent was clear here and you yourself 100% admitted you went back to keep thinking and did not misclick. This isnt something that is a grey area the difference between having a player admit they just wanted to go back and think and a player saying they misclicked is night and day. This is why judges investigate the games and ask questions of the player. if the player says they went back to think obviously that isnt a misclick. If they claim misclick then the judge investigates even more and asks more questions to determine if it was a misclick or if they intentionally rewound.


You ignored my second point and then strawmanned my first. I didn't say that my intent wasn't clear. I'm saying that having a ruling not be consistent is going to lead to wonky interactions and easily abusable and misrepresentable game states. There are very few questions you can ask to determine intent that can't be lied about.

ggbbyboy
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:44 pm
Reputation: 0

Post #16 by ggbbyboy » Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:41 am

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.

Genexwrecker
User avatar
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:52 pm
Reputation: 396

Post #17 by Genexwrecker » Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:59 am

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.
Official Duelingbook Support staff
Official Duelingbook Resource Judge
Official Duelingbook Tournament Admin.(Other tournament Admin is Runzy)

MarshieDemon
User avatar
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2021 1:41 am
Reputation: 48

Post #18 by MarshieDemon » Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:22 am

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.
Image

Head Administrator

Christen57
User avatar
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Reputation: 182
Location: New York, United States of America

Post #19 by Christen57 » Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:50 am

ggbbyboy wrote:
Genexwrecker wrote:
ggbbyboy wrote:
You can when the intent isn't clear. What's to say I didn't missclick the overlay and instead of clicking out I just decided to overlay and then send them to grave to perform a LInk summon as I thought it'd be easier? What's to say that I DIDN'T missclick when I sent a monster to grave, but immediately realized I messed up and said, "missclick" and summoned it back before sending the rest of the monsters to grave? What if the game automatically overlayed them since I only had 2 monsters and I DID misclick?

Fact of the matter is: An action can only be committed to once the action is committed. Arguing intent is going to lead to some wonky and inconsistent rulings that can be easily abused. Thinking of a play is inherently NOT committing to a play when the only way you can commit to an XYZ summon via game mechanics (to create an open game state) is by summoning said monster. The logic behind the ruling you follow is too flawed. If overlaying 2 monsters created an open game state, I'd be inclined to agree, as the game itself would then have gone passed the state of just having monsters into - in this theoretical situation - the beginning of an XYZ summon. Fortunately, this isn't an issue since the game does not have a "start to XYZ summon" mechanic/state. To argue that you have "started an XYZ summon" is just you creating a game state that doesn't exist within the nature of the game's official rules/mechanics. Unless you can say that I can respond to my opponent overlaying 2 monsters BEFORE they summon an XYZ monster, then there is no "start to XYZ". You either XYZ summon or you don't.

The fact of the matter is the intent was clear here and you yourself 100% admitted you went back to keep thinking and did not misclick. This isnt something that is a grey area the difference between having a player admit they just wanted to go back and think and a player saying they misclicked is night and day. This is why judges investigate the games and ask questions of the player. if the player says they went back to think obviously that isnt a misclick. If they claim misclick then the judge investigates even more and asks more questions to determine if it was a misclick or if they intentionally rewound.


You ignored my second point and then strawmanned my first. I didn't say that my intent wasn't clear.


You did say your intent was clear though, or at least appeared to, when you said you "then proceeded to pick up monsters and overlay them, thinking about [your] next play". Genexwrecker must've interpreted that as you saying that next play was whatever Xyz monster you were intending to bring out after overlaying those monsters, so if this isn't the case, what was this supposed next play of yours?

Also, could you show the replay so we could better determine what exactly happened?

I'm saying that having a ruling not be consistent is going to lead to wonky interactions and easily abusable and misrepresentable game states. There are very few questions you can ask to determine intent that can't be lied about.


What would those questions be?

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.


I agree with ggbbyboy that the ruling(s) should be more consistent, so my solution here is simple: If the user overlays the monsters but immediately returns them to normal, it should be ruled as a misclick and they should be allowed the takeback. However, if the user overlays the monsters then opens up their extra deck, then at that point, they shouldn't be allowed the takeback and should be required to xyz summon a monster they can legally xyz summon, since, by opening up their extra deck, that signals that they've decided on an xyz summon.

Would this work?

MarshieDemon
User avatar
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2021 1:41 am
Reputation: 48

Post #20 by MarshieDemon » Fri Sep 16, 2022 2:13 am

Based on the original post that was made, and assuming a proper investigation was done, I would expect every one of my Judges to conclude that an Xyz Summon should be enforced.

I only talk about inconsistencies in judge rulings to make it clear that every situation is different and requires a thorough investigation by the judge.

Your solution may work for some instances and may not work in others. I trust my Judges to apply the solution they think is best based on their investigation.
Image

Head Administrator


Return to “Rulings Q&A”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests