burnpsy Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 [align=center] Draw 2 cards from your Deck.[/align] There are many decks that need draw engines, but cannot easily fit good cards to do so. Why isn't this card at 1? This would help, at least a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow™ Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 The lack of costs/restrictions are what cause this card to be banned. Pot of Avarice, Allure, etc. have taken over.Although if everybody used this card at 1 (which they would if that happened), it would be fair...I think.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 It has no cost. I guess that's why it's not sitting in limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aximil Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 "Discard 1 card. Draw 2 cards."Would that make it limited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow™ Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 "Discard 1 card. Draw 2 cards."Would that make it limited?That would make it like Speed Spell - Angel Baton. So does that mean we could get a normal Angel Baton spell card? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 "Discard 1 card. Draw 2 cards."Would that make it limited? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tronta Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 a +0 is still too goodit needs restrictions on who can use it, or how its usedhand dest, for example, sends 2 cards first, and both players get it, and both players need to have at least 2 or it cant be playedallure requires a dark, or it explodestradein needs a lvl 8etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 This wouldn't be good to unban because every single deck that used to be forty would be 39 w/ one pot of greed added. It would reduce the game's creativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Lightray Daedalus- Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 According to Tronta's post Cecilia Pegasus Used allure Twice in her Lightsworn deck...XD Also...No...What the game needs is better draw engines for the rest of the Types and better support too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnpsy Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 a +0 is still too goodit needs restrictions on who can use it' date=' or how its usedhand dest, for example, sends 2 cards first, and both players get it, and both players need to have at least 2 or it cant be playedallure requires a dark, or it explodestradein needs a lvl 8etc etc[/quote'] Pot of GreedierDiscard 3 cards that do not have "Dark World" in their name nor are called "Ojamagic". Draw 2 cards. How about now? Is that balanced? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 That's really bad... it's a -2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabris Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 God help the downtrodden if Pot goes back. PS: If yer not gettin' anythin', the return of deh Pot over here would also result in top-tier decks makin' a killin' to use it. Therefore... (... connectin' dots...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 And thus, children, we learn that Aximil and burnpsy are both terrible at this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazer Yoshi Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 It's a + 1, 2 different cards to get, and absolutely no cost.Perfect reason to ban it. XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aximil Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 And thus' date=' children, we learn that Aximil and burnpsy are both terrible at this game.[/quote'] Because all +0 cards should be banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 And thus' date=' children, we learn that Aximil and burnpsy are both terrible at this game.[/quote'] Because all +0 cards should be banned? Yes. Exactly. Because saying that your proposed card would be banworthy obviously implies that every +0 card ever created is also banworthy. You know, in the same way that saying Pot of Greed is banworthy obviously implies that Thunder Dragon is also banworthy. Obviously. Whenever my faith in the intelligence of the average person has risen too high, YCM is always here to drag me back down to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aximil Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Well, I'm not going to reply directly to sarcasm because it makes my head hurt over the internet. But as a +1 it should be banned. As a +0 it should be limited because it's worse than the way it was before it. Or would it finally be limit worthy if it could only be activated if it was the only card in your hand? Which gives it requirements that must be met before activation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 How exactly could you discard a card if you only had one card in your hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aximil Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Where in that post did you see me including the discard cost into it? The activation requirement would be no cards in your hand other than it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Well' date=' I'm not going to reply directly to sarcasm because it makes my head hurt over the internet.[/quote'] Suuuure. But as a +1 it should be banned. Good' date=' at least you figured that much out. As a +0 it should be limited because it's worse than the way it was before it. *facepalm* Being less broken than a banworthy card does not imply balance. Let me put it this way: suppose we have two Ookazi-esque cards, named Onikakushi and Watanagashi, where Onikakushi deals 8000 damage and Watanagashi only deals 7000 damage. Now, Onikakushi is banworthy for reasons that are too fundamental for me to explain. However, Watanagashi is clearly not as powerful as Onikakushi, since it deals less damage! Does that mean that we can reasonably Limit it? What's that, you say? "No, that's stupid"? Why, yes, indeed, you're right, that is stupid! We could also just look at Confiscation and The Forceful Sentry. Since Confiscation is inferior to The Forceful Sentry, does that mean that it should be Limited? Seriously, I thought YCM had outgrown this ridiculous anything-not-as-strong-as-Chaos-Emperor-Dragon-should-be-legal phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 "Discard 1 card. Draw 2 cards."Would that make it limited? No. Not all +0's are balanced. This would be an example as is Graceful Charity. This card like Graceful Charity has no restrictions on how it can be used like Destiny Draw does. Then again' date=' not all cards that have specific requirements on how they can be used are balanced either. Although if everybody used this card at 1 (which they would if that happened), it would be fair...I think.... No it wouldn't. Everything would benefit from this including the Meta Decks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Although if everybody used this card at 1 (which they would if that happened)' date=' it would be fair...I think....[/quote'] No it wouldn't. Everything would benefit from this including the Meta Decks. Almost everyone has at least 1 Lightning Vortex. Does that make LV unfair? But, as stated, PoG is indeed unfair. Meh, video games staple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Although if everybody used this card at 1 (which they would if that happened)' date=' it would be fair...I think....[/quote'] No it wouldn't. Everything would benefit from this including the Meta Decks. Almost everyone has at least 1 Lightning Vortex. Does that make LV unfair? Is Lightning Vortex banworthy though? No. If it didn't have the discard cost, it would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Although if everybody used this card at 1 (which they would if that happened)' date=' it would be fair...I think....[/quote'] No it wouldn't. Everything would benefit from this including the Meta Decks. Almost everyone has at least 1 Lightning Vortex. Does that make LV unfair? Lightning Vortex is now a super-Staple? Is that how things are nowadays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aximil Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Although if everybody used this card at 1 (which they would if that happened)' date=' it would be fair...I think....[/quote'] No it wouldn't. Everything would benefit from this including the Meta Decks. Almost everyone has at least 1 Lightning Vortex. Does that make LV unfair? Lightning Vortex is now a super-Staple? Is that how things are nowadays? Yes. But I just side Lightning Vortex. Anyway, back on topic. Crab Helmet, what requirements/cost would make Pot of Greed limit worthy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.