Christen57 wrote:Sound4 wrote:What I mean by "good chance" is that there is a high percentage that my opponent already knew about te nachsters 2nd effect. This is supported even further as he didn't say anything not knowing my card or was reading but for some reason which he didn't provide didn't respond. You did not get the main reason from my post.
I meant he said "hold on" which at was 4:24 when I had already activated my nachster 2nd eff explaining it to him which you didn't say anything on. I was clear as possible on my communication. I can not be held responsible for other people not responding.
Your opponent
was responding though.
[4:17] "on eff" was the response.
I think the problem here is that you, at some point, thought Cyber Dragon Nachster's "
You can discard 1 other monster; Special Summon this card from your hand" effect, and it's "
If this card is Normal or Special Summoned: You can target 1 Machine monster with 2100 ATK or DEF in your GY; Special Summon it" effect, were all one single effect, as if you were resolving something like
Conquistador of the Golden Land, and you thought that since your opponent was okay with Nachster's first effect, that means they would also be okay with it's second separate effect. Turns out they weren't in this case.
The reason I think you thought this, is because of what was said here:
[3:27] "Nachster eff"[3:32] "ok"[3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon Core" from hand (1/3) to GY
[3:39] Special Summoned "Cyber Dragon Nachster" from hand (2/2) to M-3 (DEF)
[4:07] "I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy"You saying "
I also get to summon 2100 machine monster" suggests to me that you thought those 2 effects of Cyber Dragon Nachster were all one single effect, since players don't normally say "I
also get to do X thing" when activating 2 separate effects. Players usually say "I
also get to do X thing" when performing multiple different actions to resolve 1 single effect, like with conquistador. In the case of conquistador, players would, for example, activate it, special summon it as a monster, then say "
I also get to destroy X card since I control Eldlich the Golden Lord" to indicate that they were also choosing to apply the second portion of conquistador's effect to destroy a face-up card.
These things were also said:
[6:49] "on eff of summon means i have a respond"
[7:03] "thats how it usually works. "[7:08] "What do you mean you said "OK" on nachster eff"[7:22] "that was the discard ss "
[7:26] "not the on summon eff"
[7:33] "they are both different"[8:27] "Nachster eff" [3:32] "ok" [3:34] Sent "Cyber Dragon"Which further suggests that you thought that the opponent being "ok" with the first Nachster effect meant that they were also "ok" with the second effect, and again, it turned out they weren't, and the fact that you proceeded to resolve the second effect of Nachster, without making sure the opponent was also "ok" with that as well, further shows that you must have thought those 2 effects of Nachster were all one single effect as if you were resolving a Conquistador of the Golden Land.
If he responded quicker I would have allowed the response.
The total time it took for the response was 10 seconds, from [4:07] where you said
"I also get to summon 2100 machine monster from gy" to [4:17] when the opponent said
"on eff".
However, I think the real other problem here is that you thought that since the opponent didn't specifically chat the word "
response," then they have no response and you can keep playing, even if they say
other things that would indicate that they have a response, such as "
on eff of summon," which they did say.
Look at what was said after you proceeded to resolve both effects of Nachster:
[5:42] "i said on eff of summon"
[5:46] "when you summoned it"
[5:52] "i even said hold on"[6:36] "That does not mean anything if you have a response you say "response" I saw nothing in chat so I thought I was allowed to continue to play"This tells me that you don't consider "
on eff" or "
hold on" to be an indicator that the opponent wishes to respond — only the specific word, "
response". This is also wrong. "
On eff" was a shorter way of saying "
on effect" as in, in this case at least, "
on the effect of Cyber Dragon Nachster". Then your opponent would play the card/effect they wished to respond with. Refusing to allow the opponent to respond, because they used "
hold on" and "
on eff" instead of the specific magic word or whatever, is rule sharking.
Taking all of this into consideration, I doubt you really would "have allowed the response" even if the opponent did respond "quicker".
Lastly, even if your opponent truly did have no quick effects, traps, hand traps, quick-play spells, or trigger effects they could've respond with at that time, guess what? They're
still allowed to request that you slow down and "
hold on" so they can at least go over the cards you played so far, the cards you're playing currently, and the combos you're doing, just to make sure you're doing them properly, and not (either intentionally or unintentionally) cheating, such as, for example, activating a hard once per turn effect more than once in a single turn (something I actually did catch players, and got caught by players, attempting to do in the past).
