Does anyone find the unlimiting of Lightning Vortex appalling?

[ShadowKyogre]

Does anyone find the unlimiting of Lightning Vortex appalling? I read over the ban list about 5 times today and didn't believe that it was unlimited until I saw it wasn't on there...anyone else concerned about this and how it will affect the game? I swear people would be abusing Lightning Vortex after it's been unbanned...and makes me wish the advanced ban list had Raigeki at one instead of three Lightning Vortexes (it was meant as a replacement for Raigeki, right?).

 

Anyway, your thoughts on this?

[Guest Star]

1. Lightning Vortex was never banned.

 

2. I used to think Lightning Vortex should be put on the list. Then I got slightly better at the game.

 

3. All of the above.

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

Lightning Vortex is not broken in any way. If the discard cost was eliminated then it would be banworthy.

[Felix]

It's not a good enough card to make it ban worthy, if it was good enough people would use the thing.

[ShadowKyogre]

1. Lightning Vortex was never banned.

 

2. I used to think Lightning Vortex should be put on the list. Then I got slightly better at the game.

 

3. All of the above.

 

^I completely agree with you. I have no idea why it's at x3 now...

 

Lightning Vortex is not broken in any way. If the discard cost was eliminated then it would be banworthy.

 

True, but shouldn't monster removal be limited on some level? I don't understand why Fissure is banned since Lightning Vortex has more potential.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Its good, really good, but eh. There are better cards to put in your deck.

---

And Fissure is limited because its costless iirc, unless Konami made a stupid move

[ShadowKyogre]

Yes...but it still doesn't make sense to limit Fissure if it takes out less...

[Toffee.]

First off, it requires a discard. 2nd, it only hits face-up monsters.

 

So unless the opponet has 3 or more face-up monsters, then Lightning Vortex will only be a -1 or a +0

 

Vortex =/= banable card

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

Lightning Vortex is not broken in any way. If the discard cost was eliminated then it would be banworthy.

 

True' date=' but shouldn't monster removal be limited on some level? I don't understand why Fissure is banned since Lightning Vortex has more potential.

[/quote']

 

Fissure isn't banned. Also, Lightning Vortex only targets face-ups and has a discard cost. Those balance it. As far as Monster removal being Limited or rather banned, it should be taken in a case by case basis. Take Raigeki for example. It has no cost and destroys all monsters your opponent controls. Easily banworthy. Take Ring of Destruction. It may only destroy face-ups but it can target any face-up and the amount of damage it can cause can create an easy OTK with Barrel Behind the Door. Banworthy.

 

Yes...but it still doesn't make sense to limit Fissure if it takes out less...

 

Konami is stupid. Most of their decisions don't make sense. Fissure is one-for-one removal that only hits face-ups and deserves to be at 3.

[Guest Star]

1. Lightning Vortex was never banned.

 

2. I used to think Lightning Vortex should be put on the list. Then I got slightly better at the game.

 

3. All of the above.

 

^I completely agree with you. I have no idea why it's at x3 now...

 

You do? I'm saying it's fine at three.

[Santi :D]

Vortex stays at 3. Honestly, some people are like OMG RAIGEKI.

 

What arm said.

 

Now if it hit face down monsters that would be a different story (ban)

[ShadowKyogre]

Well Fissure only hits one face-up monster...which makes me wonder why it's only at 1. Is it because it's supposedly a 1 for 1 trade-off?

[Santi :D]

Not even, Fissure sucks.

 

Hits 1 monster, and the one that has the worst attack.

 

Its like "I use fissure to kill your reaper or marshmallon because I really suck and never heard of better cards".

[ShadowKyogre]

Not even' date=' Fissure sucks.

 

Hits 1 monster, and the one that has the worst attack.

 

Its like "I use fissure to kill your reaper or marshmallon because I really suck and never heard of better cards".

[/quote']

 

I know, so why is it limited?! Lightning Vortex needs to be limited like it used to be!

[Santi :D]

I don't even remember Lightning being limited..

 

Unlimiting Fissure = Smart choice

 

Limiting Lightning = No one really cares cause not many people run it, some side.

[Felix]

Nobody's going to use Fissure anyway so why bother unlimiting it?

[Sleepy]

I don't think it should be limited, not even semi-limited. If someone Summons as many monsters as possible and fills the field, unless that person is planning on winning that turn or had some good enough reason, then that person is not too good at the game.

Usually, you won't find too many people having more than 3 monsters at the same time on the field (usually 2 or 1).

-If you used Lightning Vortex when your opponent has only 1 monster, unless you were about to loose that turn, its a bad desition since you are loosing the Spell you are activating + 1 card from your hand to get rid of only 1 monster (its a -1 )

-If you use it when your opponent has 2 monsters, you are just breaking even ( a + 0 )

-If you use it when your opponent has 3+ monsters, then its truly worth using, you are finally gaining something, but again, that won't always be the case so.... that's why the card is unlimited and should remain unlimited (I mean, who would main 3 copies of it in their Deck to begin with? )

[ShadowKyogre]

Nobody's going to use Fissure anyway so why bother unlimiting it?

 

If no one is going to use it' date=' then why did they limit it?

 

 

I don't think it should be limited, not even semi-limited. If someone Summons as many monsters as possible and fills the field, unless that person is planning on winning that turn or had some good enough reason, then that person is not too good at the game.

Usually, you won't find too many people having more than 3 monsters at the same time on the field (usually 2 or 1).

-If you used Lightning Vortex when your opponent has only 1 monster, unless you were about to loose that turn, its a bad desition since you are loosing the Spell you are activating + 1 card from your hand to get rid of only 1 monster (its a -1 )

-If you use it when your opponent has 2 monsters, you are just breaking even ( a + 0 )

-If you use it when your opponent has 3+ monsters, then its truly worth using, you are finally gaining something, but again, that won't always be the case so.... that's why the card is unlimited and should remain unlimited (I mean, who would main 3 copies of it in their Deck to begin with? )

 

Well I have seen that...and I do know a person who would main 3 copies of Lightning Vortex: my brother. Half of his deck removes cards from the field by destroying them or removing the cards from play...and one is already annoying...

[Toffee.]

Now if it hit face down monsters that would be a different story (ban)

 

......How does hitting only face-down monsters = ban?

It would just be worse then.

 

Since if you use it right away, like, say, the 1st turn(if you went 2nd) of the duel, then it would just be a pointless -1. Well, provided they set thare monster.

 

Also, monsters hardly ever get set. Since they are usually better in attack position.

[Sleepy]

Now if it hit face down monsters that would be a different story (ban)

 

......How does hitting only face-down monsters = ban?

It would just be worse then.

 

Since if you use it right away' date=' like, say, the 1st turn(if you went 2nd) of the duel, then it would just be a pointless -1. Well, provided they set thare monster.

 

Also, monsters hardly ever get set. Since they are usually better in attack position.

[/quote']

 

I think he means (all monsters in general) ^-^"

[CrabHelmet]

It's not a good enough card to make it ban worthy' date=' if it was good enough people would use the thing.

[/quote']

 

A card can be terrible and still be banworthy. Victory Dragon is a good example of that.

 

Yes...but it still doesn't make sense to limit Fissure if it takes out less...

 

Fissure should be at 3, but your argument is still flawed. You are looking only at how many monsters the card is capable of removing, but are ignoring other factors, like how heavily it depends on the opponent's actions and what the cost is.

 

According to your own train of logic, it makes no sense to ban Pot of Greed when Beginning of the End makes you draw more.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

"Why isn't Lightning Vortex banned anymore?"

 

"It was never banned, and should never be banned."

 

"I agree that it should never be banned! Hence why I am arguing that LV should be banned!"

 

... What the hell is going on in this topic?

[Dryad]

If fissure hit two monsters instead of 1, now that would be the reason for it being at 1 per deck. As it is, meh, removal is removal.

 

Lightning Vortex is okay... its not "ZOMG PWNED U NUB!!!1" strong or anything like that. Personally I would rather run 2-3 copies of "Earthbound Immortal - Aslla Piscu" since it also hits facedown monsters your opponent controls and offers 800 damage per opponent's monster destroyed, thats at best 4000 damage.

 

Now what would trully be appalling is if Konami just one day decides to trash the Advanced & Traditional Format lists.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

If fissure hit two monsters instead of 1' date=' now that would be the reason for it being at 1 per deck. As it is, meh, removal is removal.

[/quote']

 

If it hit two monsters, that would be a reason for it to be banned. It would most certainly NOT be a reason for it to be at one per deck.

[SkillzKill]

Lightning Vortex has been unlimited since September 2006. The only time you would lose a lot of cards from Lightning Vortex is when you over extend. If you over extend and get hit by this, you're not playing right. If you over extend, you should be win on that same turn. Also with most decks maining Solemn Judgment, Dark Bribe and Stardust Dragon (in Gladiator Beasts, also Gladiator Beast Heraklinos), Lightning Vortex should not be a problem.