DARK HOLE

[CrabHelmet]

But LarryCotter made a good post

 

I assure you that this is not possible.

 

proving that it might come back.

 

In other words, saying nothing whatsoever.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

But LarryCotter made a good post' date=' proving that it might come back.

[/quote']

 

Heavy Storm should be banned.

This is one of the matter of opinion cards but I don't think it should be banned.

 

With out Heavy people can overextended their spells and traps with out fear of Heavy appearing.

 

On Topic: Based on what Konami's done in the past their is a fair chance of this coming back. Should no, but again it's Konami.

 

With Heavy, people can still overextend with the activation of Quick-Play, Normal Spell Cards, and the Setting of chainable Traps without fear.

 

Overextending the spell and trap zone implies setting cards, so on your list only traps will really be set. The main chainable trap used today is threatening roar and people will never set more then one at once.

 

Reckless, Dustshoot, Icarus, I could go on. There're a lot more out there than just Roar.

 

What makes Setting non-chainable Traps and activating Continuous Spells/Traps Cards so much worse? why should they be punished over cards that can be activated right away or on destruction?

 

Using non-chainables and continuous cards comes with and inherent risk that they are easy to destory. Simple, these group of cards, the ones weak to spell and trap destruction, have better effect then those you can chain. EX: threatening roar vs mirror force. They are rewarded with the better effect in exchange for this weakness.

It hardly punishes overextention at all, it just damages certain playstyles and nets ridiculous advantage.

 

It does punish people that are heavily relient on things like mirror force and torrential tribute. The only playstyle this punishes is stall but with Gravity Bind and the like at the 3 with along with MST at 3 on a good list, it isn't that bad and stall already has enough to worry them with all the other spell and trap removal. And how does this net ridculous advatage. At any time spart players won't have more then 3 spell and traps out, so in most cases it's only a +2, and this partly because your opponent was starting to overextend. If it nets any more advantage your just punishing your opponent for playing badly.

 

Only a +2? A +2 is significant. Significant enough to win you the duel.

 

I'm not sure about Mirror but Torrential should be banned. If we have 3 MST Mirror shouldn't be too much of a problem.

 

Why would they be playing badly if they Set an abundance of S/Ts? Because their opponent might use Heavy Storm? =/

 

Playstyle wasn't the term I was looking for, but above stall it also punishes anti-meta and any Deck that relies on Continuous or Field cards.

 

The bottom line: What makes overextension so much worse than spamming Normal Spell cards that the need for punishing it outweighs the heavy advantage given by Storm?

 

RAIIIINNNNNNNNNBOOOOOOOOOW!

[Aximil]

proving that it might come back.

 

In other words' date=' saying nothing whatsoever.

[/quote']

 

Yes. I saw that after I posted and couldn't go back and change it since I had to leave. But, if you look at the pattern, and throw in Konami's idiocy, you'll see that Dark Hole returning is very possible.

[Flame Dragon]

Reckless' date=' Dustshoot, Icarus, I could go on. There're a lot more out there than just Roar.

[/quote']

Fair enough. Still now your forcing your opponent to use them at a time when they didn't want to.

Only a +2? A +2 is significant. Significant enough to win you the duel.

Yes' date=' that can win the duel, but it won't always. Besides it comes down to what cards your hitting when you use this. If your hitting Reckless Greeds it won't matter. If you hit Bottomless or Mirror Force it may, but if you walk into a Mirror force when your trying to attack for game, that is just bad playing.

I'm not sure about Mirror but Torrential should be banned. If we have 3 MST Mirror shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Both should be at 1. At 3 Mirror simply makes your opponent afriad to attack and TT makes them afraid to summon, but at 0 people can overextend with out any fear.

Why would they be playing badly if they Set an abundance of S/Ts? Because their opponent might use Heavy Storm? =/

Or any other card that kills the back row' date=' like BRD.

Playstyle wasn't the term I was looking for, but above stall it also punishes anti-meta and any Deck that relies on Continuous or Field cards.

Again anti-meta uses a lot of continuous cards so they already have a great fear of spell and trap removal. Like Trapeaterman.

 

The bottom line: What makes overextension so much worse than spamming Normal Spell cards that the need for punishing it outweighs the heavy advantage given by Storm?

The simple fact that the traps have an over all better effects then most spells and without Heavy your opponent is forced to play around them untill they give up their monsters to the traps or draw enough spell and trap removal to get rid of them.

[CrabHelmet]

proving that it might come back.

 

In other words' date=' saying nothing whatsoever.

[/quote']

 

Yes. I saw that after I posted and couldn't go back and change it since I had to leave. But, if you look at the pattern, and throw in Konami's idiocy, you'll see that Dark Hole returning is very possible.

 

...which means nothing more than "it is not impossible".

 

...which, in turn, means nothing at all.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Reckless' date=' Dustshoot, Icarus, I could go on. There're a lot more out there than just Roar.

[/quote']

Fair enough. Still now your forcing your opponent to use them at a time when they didn't

want to.

 

Only a +2? A +2 is significant. Significant enough to win you the duel.

Yes' date=' that can win the duel, but it won't always. Besides it comes down to what cards your hitting when you use this. If your hitting Reckless Greeds it won't matter. If you hit Bottomless or Mirror Force it may, but if you walk into a Mirror force when your trying to attack for game, that is just bad playing.[/quote']

 

Trying to attack for game while your opponent has a single facedown is bad playing? I should bluff set way more often.

 

 

I'm not sure about Mirror but Torrential should be banned. If we have 3 MST Mirror shouldn't be too much of a problem.

 

Both should be at 1. At 3 Mirror simply makes your opponent afriad to attack and TT makes them afraid to summon' date=' but at 0 people can overextend with out any fear.[/quote']

 

If monster overextension becomes a problem, the cards responsible can be banned. TT and Mirror are debatable bans.

 

Why would they be playing badly if they Set an abundance of S/Ts? Because their opponent might use Heavy Storm? =/

Or any other card that kills the back row' date=' like BRD.

[/quote']

 

Most field-nukes should be banned too. (Not BRD, but others like Demise, Norleras, JD, Daedaluses, etc.).

 

Playstyle wasn't the term I was looking for' date=' but above stall it also punishes anti-meta and any Deck that relies on Continuous or Field cards.

[/quote']

Again anti-meta uses a lot of continuous cards so they already have a great fear of spell and trap removal. Like Trapeaterman.

 

The difference with most of those removal cards is that they're recoverable from and usually cost your opponent a card to pull off in the process. Trap Eater and Breaker being exceptions.

 

The bottom line: What makes overextension so much worse than spamming Normal Spell cards that the need for punishing it outweighs the heavy advantage given by Storm?

The simple fact that the traps have an over all better effects then most spells and without Heavy your opponent is forced to play around them untill they give up their monsters to the traps or draw enough spell and trap removal to get rid of them.

 

 

Was that not the original intention for the existence of Traps in the first place? Fast duels aren't a good thing.

[Aximil]

proving that it might come back.

 

In other words' date=' saying nothing whatsoever.

[/quote']

 

Yes. I saw that after I posted and couldn't go back and change it since I had to leave. But, if you look at the pattern, and throw in Konami's idiocy, you'll see that Dark Hole returning is very possible.

 

...which means nothing more than "it is not impossible".

 

...which, in turn, means nothing at all.

 

-_-

 

They have already seriously screwed up the cards on the banlist. Who's to say they're not going to unban Dark Hole?

[Flame Dragon]

Only a +2? A +2 is significant. Significant enough to win you the duel.

Yes' date=' that can win the duel, but it won't always. Besides it comes down to what cards your hitting when you use this. If your hitting Reckless Greeds it won't matter. If you hit Bottomless or Mirror Force it may, but if you walk into a Mirror force when your trying to attack for game, that is just bad playing.

[/quote']

 

Trying to attack for game while your opponent has a single facedown is bad playing? I should bluff set way more often.

No, but I'm assuming that their are 3 face downs, since I was continuing the idea of +2 being best case.

 

I'm not sure about Mirror but Torrential should be banned. If we have 3 MST Mirror shouldn't be too much of a problem.

 

Both should be at 1. At 3 Mirror simply makes your opponent afriad to attack and TT makes them afraid to summon' date=' but at 0 people can overextend with out any fear.[/quote']

 

If monster overextension becomes a problem, the cards responsible can be banned. TT and Mirror are debatable bans.

The thing is that the main swarm cards I think of are Zombie Master and Lumina and their is nothing wrong with them. Side from them Blackwings are also very abled swarms. Cards like Mirror Force and TT are needed to keep them in check

 

Playstyle wasn't the term I was looking for' date=' but above stall it also punishes anti-meta and any Deck that relies on Continuous or Field cards.

[/quote']

Again anti-meta uses a lot of continuous cards so they already have a great fear of spell and trap removal. Like Trapeaterman.

The difference with most of those removal cards is that they're recoverable from and usually cost your opponent a card to pull off in the process. Trap Eater and Breaker being exceptions.

How is Heavy unrecoverable? What would anti-meta decks being lossing to a Heavy that would totally brake them?

The bottom line: What makes overextension so much worse than spamming Normal Spell cards that the need for punishing it outweighs the heavy advantage given by Storm?

The simple fact that the traps have an over all better effects then most spells and without Heavy your opponent is forced to play around them untill they give up their monsters to the traps or draw enough spell and trap removal to get rid of them.

Was that not the original intention for the existence of Traps in the first place? Fast duels aren't a good thing.

Fast duels aren't good, and the whole point of traps is to slow the game down, but I think that with out Heavy duels would become too slow and it would make the game very stall oriented.

[Luxlord]

There arent enough reliable Spell/Trap destroyers

There are Plenty of Monster Destroyers

 

The only GOOD Spell/Traps that Protect you are on the limit/ban list

Destroying monsters leaves you wide open, destroying Spell/Trap cards means you still have to deal with the monsters protecting your opponent

 

Whoever says Heavy Storm should be banned needs to be shot

Whoever says Dark Hole should be un-banned needs to be shot

[CrabHelmet]

proving that it might come back.

 

In other words' date=' saying nothing whatsoever.

[/quote']

 

Yes. I saw that after I posted and couldn't go back and change it since I had to leave. But, if you look at the pattern, and throw in Konami's idiocy, you'll see that Dark Hole returning is very possible.

 

...which means nothing more than "it is not impossible".

 

...which, in turn, means nothing at all.

 

-_-

 

They have already seriously screwed up the cards on the banlist. Who's to say they're not going to unban Dark Hole?

 

Nobody.

 

...which means nothing more than "it is not impossible".

 

...which, in turn, means nothing at all.