Toffee. Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 TC should have used an image of Bill from Pokemon TCG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Crab Helmet' date=' what requirements/cost would make Pot of Greed limit worthy?[/quote'] There are countless ways for Pot of Greed to be altered for it to be fine at 3, but making it fine at 1 but not at 3 is a much more difficult problem, and one whose solutions are generally along these lines: Jar of Jarbinks[Normal Spell]Activate only by revealing 1 "Jar of Jarbinks" from your deck (shuffle it into your deck afterward). Draw 2 cards. See, there aren't many ways to make a card Limit-worthy, and one of the only ones is to make it combo with other copies of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnpsy Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 TC should have used an image of Bill from Pokemon TCG. Lemme fix that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffee. Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Jar of Jarbinks^I LOL'D hard^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 "Activate only if your opponent has three more cards on his field then you have on yours or higher. Draw 2 cards." This could punish your opponent for overextending but being limited would prevent it from being a deterrent to seeking field advantage. My best bet for a limited pot of greed that doesn't rely on interacting with other copies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 "Activate only if your opponent has three more cards on his field then you have on yours or higher. Draw 2 cards." This could punish your opponent for overextending but being limited would prevent it from being a deterrent to seeking field advantage. My best bet for a limited pot of greed that doesn't rely on interacting with other copies. What makes this card a problem at 3 but perfectly acceptable at 1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aximil Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 "Activate only if your opponent has three more cards on his field then you have on yours or higher. Draw 2 cards." This could punish your opponent for overextending but being limited would prevent it from being a deterrent to seeking field advantage. My best bet for a limited pot of greed that doesn't rely on interacting with other copies. So, if you go second, and draw this in your first hand, you basically start out the duel with 7 cards in your hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 There are many decks that need draw engines' date=' but cannot easily fit good cards to do so. Why isn't this card at 1? This would help, at least a little.[/quote'] Because the speedy overpowered decks that can fit a draw engine are ready, willing, and able to use this as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:pyramid:. Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 pot of greed is only banned for one reason. its a costless +1. so that basically means your running a 39 card deck. if konami wanted to play with they would of just let us make decks with 39 cards in. ( so why they still made this is beyond me ). now for the thunder dragon argument, its true it is a plus 1, however it only gives you 2 thunder dragons, and you have to run it in threes for its effect to efficient, while pot of greed an be maxed out and still wont effect its effectiveness, even if you draw multiples in 1 hand, while thunder dragon will be bad to draw in multiples. (I KNOW POT OF GREED IN LIMITED, IT WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE) anyways i do still believe thunder dragon maybe bannable because its only seems to be mainly used in ftk decks, and seeing how ftk's are bad of the game it maybe concluded that this doesn't add anything to the game, apart from a ftk engine, even though its luck based whether its going to be efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 pot of greed is only banned for one reason. its a costless +1. so that basically means your running a 39 card deck. if konami wanted to play with they would of just let us make decks with 39 cards in. ( so why they still made this is beyond me ). now for the thunder dragon argument' date=' its true it is a plus 1, however it only gives you 2 thunder dragons, and you have to run it in threes for its effect to efficient, while pot of greed an be maxed out and still wont effect its effectiveness, even if you draw multiples in 1 hand, while thunder dragon will be bad to draw in multiples. (I KNOW POT OF GREED IN LIMITED, IT WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE) anyways i do still believe thunder dragon maybe bannable because its only seems to be mainly used in ftk decks, and seeing how ftk's are bad of the game it maybe concluded that this doesn't add anything to the game, apart from a ftk engine, even though its luck based whether its going to be efficient.[/quote'] GO YCM GO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:pyramid:. Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 pot of greed is only banned for one reason. its a costless +1. so that basically means your running a 39 card deck. if konami wanted to play with they would of just let us make decks with 39 cards in. ( so why they still made this is beyond me ). now for the thunder dragon argument' date=' its true it is a plus 1, however it only gives you 2 thunder dragons, and you have to run it in threes for its effect to efficient, while pot of greed an be maxed out and still wont effect its effectiveness, even if you draw multiples in 1 hand, while thunder dragon will be bad to draw in multiples. (I KNOW POT OF GREED IN LIMITED, IT WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE) anyways i do still believe thunder dragon maybe bannable because its only seems to be mainly used in ftk decks, and seeing how ftk's are bad of the game it maybe concluded that this doesn't add anything to the game, apart from a ftk engine, even though its luck based whether its going to be efficient.[/quote'] GO YCM GO am i on the right or wrong line of thought though??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 If you really have to ask, you probably already know the answer to your question. <_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:pyramid:. Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 If you really have to ask' date=' you probably already know the answer to your question. <_<[/quote'] true but, you never know with crab at times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonisanoob Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 i hate the title of this topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 "Activate only if your opponent has three more cards on his field then you have on yours or higher. Draw 2 cards." This could punish your opponent for overextending but being limited would prevent it from being a deterrent to seeking field advantage. My best bet for a limited pot of greed that doesn't rely on interacting with other copies. What makes this card a problem at 3 but perfectly acceptable at 1? I'm mainly going towards a "heavy storm" argument where having it at one promotes good play by punishing over extension, but having it at three would prevent opponents from ever taking the initiative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.