User blog comment:ArmorDragoWizardDrum/SDW Deck Help: URGENT!/@comment-25004901-20160125061804/@comment-10780019-20160125231933

Your quote:

[  However, it is definitely a point of contention in what a Play Timing is. After my heavy correspondence and clear answers that are consistent, I obviously believe it is your "definition" of a Play Timing, after your heavy correspondences with Bushiroad, that is incorrect, and that you do not understand it. And that, is called progress. And it is also great. Because both of you are very clear thinkers. ]

My response:

This is what I keep saying. You're missing the bigger picture. I know 100% that what I'm saying is correct and your email will only verify that. I am not questioning the correctness of what I am saying. I cited at least 4 locations where I had emails or actual interactions in the video game to verify what I was saying was true. My being right or wrong was never my point, and I wasn't trying to persuade you in that regard.

What I've been stating this whole time was how the misconception happens, not what a playtiming is. I completely made this point irrelevant by stating that I called the 2-card playtimings within playtimings "chains" and the all-encompassing playtimings "playtimings". This isn't an argument over whether or not my definitions are correct. I simply split two terms using the same word apart and gave them unique definitions for clarity. You can't say this is arguing semantics when I have predefined my semantics to make the argument clear.

Essentially, let's say that we're talking about two men. One is named Bill. The other is named Bill. The first Bill is great at dodgeball. The second one is great at baseball. I keep saying that Bill is great at baseball, but you're refuting me because you know for a fact that Bill is great at dodgeball. Then, I decided to call the other Bill, the one you're referencing, by his last name, Jackson. So, you're continuing to argue that I don't know what I'm talking about with regards to Bill when I specified that I wasn't talking about Bill Jackson before the conversation.

We know EXACTLY what a playtiming, as I have definied it, is. My definition for a playtiming is correct. It's described in the comprehensive rules, completely. We even have this handy flowchart showing usexactly when a playtiming starts and stops.

So, let's create a scenario. Dungeon World vs. Darkness Dragon World. The Dungeon World player has Arkdra on their field with no monster in the center. Arkdra is a 3 critical card with [Penetrate]. The DDW has a card in their center area with 6000 or less defense and 6 life. We can ignore automatic abilities, like on-attack abilities, for this example.

Dungeon World player declares an attack with Arkdra into the DDW's center monster. The Arkdra player passes priority, as they will win if nothing happens. The DDW player casts "Dark Energy" on their center monster. The Dungeon World player has "Pillar of Fire" in hand. If they cast Pillar of Fire now, the creature will die before Dark Energy can protect it, and then it will be destroyed before [Penetrate] can happen. If they let the attack hit without doing anything, the card's destruction will be nullified, and [Penetrate] will not occur. So the Arkdra player passes priority.

We're still in the same playtiming, and the Arkdra player chooses to cast "Pillar of Fire" in the next chain of the same playtiming, taking away the destruction nullification of "Dark Energy", and allowing their attack to hit, destroying the monster, and ending the game with 3 [Penetrate] damage.

Here's an example of this particular interaction, including all 3 chains involved.

There really shouldn't be confusion over what Bushiroad means when we can follow the flowchart in the comprehensive rulebook and arrive at the obvious conclusion, especially when all of the evidence from past emails and the video game points directly to what I'm stating.

Now, you're stating that you believe that on-attack abilities must be continuous, because otherwise you couldn't resolve multiple abilities in the same playtiming. If we want to go back to what I clearly established my semantics were, this "playtiming" you are mentioning would be a chain by my semantics. You're stating that you can't resolve everything in the same chain, and this is correct. But you don't resolve every ability in the same chain, you resolve it in the same playtiming. There's nothing in the rules that states that you have only one chain in a battle, and the core mechanics of the game would contradict this, due to how automatic abilities function, and how multiples will easily happen. But this doesn't mean that on-attack abilities are continuous, or that you can't respond to them. That just means that you have multiple chains in the same playtiming in a battle phase, which doesn't contradict the rules at all. You resolve every ability that is triggered or played in the same playtiming until both players choose not to use a spell or ability, then the battle playtiming is over and you resolve whether or not the attack hits, etc.

I can't make this any more clear. Feel free to send the email. Even if, by some weird turn of events, they are mistaken and claim that you are right, I will get in touch with my contacts and correct them to fix the issue. I really don't see this happening though, when they've been correct about this for so long.

Here's another example that kind of shoots your theory out of the water. If Yamigedo's attack nullifcation "Thunder Mine" was a continuous effect, you would lose when you cast Green Dragon Shield at 1 life.

I'm going to be honest. After the clarification I've put into this, I don't see how you still think I'm mistaken.