heavy storm is good for the game

[tonisanoob]

http://forum.ukaypro.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=10049&st=20entry141276

 

discuss

[zelda_tp_fan]

Copy and paste please, I don't feel like making an account.

[Von Csent]

Just to throw in my 'two-pence' worth - I think Heavy Storm should not be banned.. Having players over-commit their backrow and having no answer whatsoever would be a real problem.

 

Storm' date=' by all rights should not be banned for reasons previously explained.

 

It creates a mental state that forges the way the game is played, you remove that mentality and you'll see a great rise in decks that utilise strong continious traps i.e. macro and burn.

 

It also teaches players to become better at the game, they learn not to overcommit and in turn improves thier thinking power and thier ability to reason and gamble.

 

Storm is good for the game.

[/quote']

 

I personally would like to see continuous and non-chainables come back. On the contrary, strategy is robbed.

[Crimson General]

I like this article, my theory's has always been, "Heavy is only been Ban-Worthy against bad players". heavy punishes over-extention. can't be compared to Raigeki which doesn't care who does what and just F's everyone over.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I say ban Storm, then Unlimit Trunade and MST to help fight overextension and continuous cards. Storm provides an unfair advantage with no real cost and no skill required. Even if you're being careful to evade it, and you're Setting what they do +1 in case of a Storm, they can just activate their sheet and storm you anyway.

 

A +2's game. A +1's close to it if it isn't too. This is at least Pot of Greed in most cases. If they run fields or continuous cards, it's even worse. Sure, overextension is bad, but the punishment should have a cost. With BRD, Stardust, Mist Worm, Brionac, theme support, etc, there's no real need for Storm anymore.

[shadowferret]

I say they ban Storm. We have Breaker at 3. We have Giant Trunade.

Really, just destroying everything on the opponent's backrow and spamming beatsticks onto the field isn't really a strategy.

Besides, there's plenty of Archetype-specific destruction to compensate for it.

Unlimit MST or something and ban Heavy.

[Crimson General]

I say ban Storm' date=' then Unlimit Trunade and MST to help fight overextension and continuous cards. Storm provides an unfair advantage with no real cost and no skill required. Even if you're being careful to evade it, and you're Setting what they do +1 in case of a Storm, they can just activate their s*** and storm you anyway.

 

A +2's game. A +1's close to it if it isn't too. This is at least Pot of Greed in most cases. If they run fields or continuous cards, it's even worse. Sure, overextension is bad, but the punishment should have a cost.

[/quote']

 

Using Heavy is -1, destroying One set card is +1. I Rarely see anyone setting more than One card, Two is extreme, and any more and your playing someone who sucks or needs that many, and if they need that many then they SHOULD have protection.

 

Alot of cards set nowadays are Chainable, the most common non-chains are Bottomless, Solemn and Torrential. with TR running around Heavy at 1 is fine, given that everyone and thier grandma has one. Yea it doesn't have a cost, but Un-Limiting Giant Trunade as a compensation would be far worse, most good decks only need one turn for the kill anyway.

[DesCrow]

Keeping heavy un-banned will prevent over-extension and give a mentality of wariness, which adds something to the game.

 

Banning it will take all that away. BUT! It will put create strategy and mentality to replace it. What we have to do is dictated by the banlist (except for LOLtraditional) I say ban it, shake things up. Just because things are OK now, doesn't mean that something different wouldn't be better.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Dark Hole only punishes "bad players" who overextend their Monster Zone with no proper defense. Let's unlimit that too.

[Sleepy]

Agreed with Polaris.

Also, we have more balanced field removers that will actually make someone think about what to put and what to take out for them. There's a big list of S/T removals already that say "we don't need it"

 

-Twister

-Giant Trunade

-Mystical Space Typhoon

-Breaker the Magical Warrior

-Lyla, Lightsworn Sorceress

-Trap Eater

-Tornado

-Dust Tornado

-Malevolent Cathastrophy

-the spellcaster that you tribute to destroy a continuous card

-the spellcaster that removes 1 spellcounter to destroy a continuous trap

-the new spellcaster synchro that removes 2 spellcounters to destroy a spell or trap (not yet released in TCG)

-Arcanite Magician

-DAD

-pretty much most Counter Traps will help

 

and the list goes on and on (I just named some of the cards I concidered more splashable but you can even use burning and freezzing beasts for the lulz)

 

@Crimson General:

why would it be wrong that non-chainable cards could see some play and add more variety to the game?

you give up heavy (one card) and let 100+ other available options in exchange.

I know they can be used right now too, but you now why they aren't xD

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I say ban Storm' date=' then Unlimit Trunade and MST to help fight overextension and continuous cards. Storm provides an unfair advantage with no real cost and no skill required. Even if you're being careful to evade it, and you're Setting what they do +1 in case of a Storm, they can just activate their s*** and storm you anyway.

 

A +2's game. A +1's close to it if it isn't too. This is at least Pot of Greed in most cases. If they run fields or continuous cards, it's even worse. Sure, overextension is bad, but the punishment should have a cost.

[/quote']

 

Using Heavy is -1, destroying One set card is +1. I Rarely see anyone setting more than One card, Two is extreme, and any more and your playing someone who sucks or needs that many, and if they need that many then they SHOULD have protection.

 

Alot of cards set nowadays are Chainable, the most common non-chains are Bottomless, Solemn and Torrential. with TR running around Heavy at 1 is fine, given that everyone and thier grandma has one. Yea it doesn't have a cost, but Un-Limiting Giant Trunade as a compensation would be far worse, most good decks only need one turn for the kill anyway.

 

Two is extreme? Two is standard opening. Why is everyone running chainables and chainables only "good for the game"? "Most good Decks" that rely on winning that quickly should have their trumps punished for allowing them to do so. Longer Duels should be promoted. More of a margin for skill.

 

Heavy promotes short Duels and just has everyone spamming chainables and Setting Storm itself for enough advantage for game. The game shouldn't be about "who's better equipped for Storm". There's already enough themed and balanced generic Spell/Trap removal as is.

[Crimson General]

I say ban Storm' date=' then Unlimit Trunade and MST to help fight overextension and continuous cards. Storm provides an unfair advantage with no real cost and no skill required. Even if you're being careful to evade it, and you're Setting what they do +1 in case of a Storm, they can just activate their s*** and storm you anyway.

 

A +2's game. A +1's close to it if it isn't too. This is at least Pot of Greed in most cases. If they run fields or continuous cards, it's even worse. Sure, overextension is bad, but the punishment should have a cost.

[/quote']

 

Using Heavy is -1, destroying One set card is +1. I Rarely see anyone setting more than One card, Two is extreme, and any more and your playing someone who sucks or needs that many, and if they need that many then they SHOULD have protection.

 

Alot of cards set nowadays are Chainable, the most common non-chains are Bottomless, Solemn and Torrential. with TR running around Heavy at 1 is fine, given that everyone and thier grandma has one. Yea it doesn't have a cost, but Un-Limiting Giant Trunade as a compensation would be far worse, most good decks only need one turn for the kill anyway.

 

Two is extreme? Two is standard opening. Why is everyone running chainables and chainables only "good for the game"? "Most good Decks" that rely on winning that quickly should have their trumps punished for allowing them to do so. Longer Duels should be promoted. More of a margin for skill.

 

Heavy promotes short Duels and just has everyone spamming chainables and Setting Storm itself for enough advantage for game. The game shouldn't be about "who's better equipped for Storm". There's already enough themed and balanced generic Spell/Trap removal as is.

 

I wasn't saying it didn't happen, and every deck isn't about bieng better equipped for heavy, its a MENTAL awareness, if heavy was un-banned, no one would worry despite the plentiful S/T destruction out there. Having Heavy doesn't really affect anything anyway, take it out and all you lose is the "better safe then sorry" first though when you go to set up your back-field.

[Von Csent]

I say ban Storm' date=' then Unlimit Trunade and MST to help fight overextension and continuous cards. Storm provides an unfair advantage with no real cost and no skill required. Even if you're being careful to evade it, and you're Setting what they do +1 in case of a Storm, they can just activate their s*** and storm you anyway.

 

A +2's game. A +1's close to it if it isn't too. This is at least Pot of Greed in most cases. If they run fields or continuous cards, it's even worse. Sure, overextension is bad, but the punishment should have a cost.

[/quote']

 

Using Heavy is -1, destroying One set card is +1. I Rarely see anyone setting more than One card, Two is extreme, and any more and your playing someone who sucks or needs that many, and if they need that many then they SHOULD have protection.

 

Alot of cards set nowadays are Chainable, the most common non-chains are Bottomless, Solemn and Torrential. with TR running around Heavy at 1 is fine, given that everyone and thier grandma has one. Yea it doesn't have a cost, but Un-Limiting Giant Trunade as a compensation would be far worse, most good decks only need one turn for the kill anyway.

 

Two is extreme? Two is standard opening. Why is everyone running chainables and chainables only "good for the game"? "Most good Decks" that rely on winning that quickly should have their trumps punished for allowing them to do so. Longer Duels should be promoted. More of a margin for skill.

 

Heavy promotes short Duels and just has everyone spamming chainables and Setting Storm itself for enough advantage for game. The game shouldn't be about "who's better equipped for Storm". There's already enough themed and balanced generic Spell/Trap removal as is.

 

I wasn't saying it didn't happen, and every deck isn't about bieng better equipped for heavy, its a MENTAL awareness, if heavy was un-banned, no one would worry despite the plentiful S/T destruction out there. Having Heavy doesn't really affect anything anyway, take it out and all you lose is the "better safe then sorry" first though when you go to set up your back-field.

 

I would gladly give up the Heavy Storm bluff if it means getting the "unusable" Spells and Traps back into the game.

[Crimson General]

If Heavy gets banned I wouldn't care less. It would really just mean everyone would point at the next card that "gives unfair advantage"

 

I suggest everyone read the article posted before we resume this discussion. It doesn't really give unfair advantage unless you wanna say every card thats a possible + 2 or more is broken and needs to be banned.

[J-Max]

It should stay at 1. Anyone stupid enough to place 3 or more S/T's in a turn is asking for trouble. Also Heavy can easily be countered with "Heavy Bait" or a well placed Bribe or Solemn.

[Crimson General]

Dark Hole only punishes "bad players" who overextend their Monster Zone with no proper defense. Let's unlimit that too.

 

Don't forget that Heavy CAN'T be compared to Dark Hole,

 

Monsters =/= Spells and Traps

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Their problems are the same, however.

 

*Punishes a GOOD player, because the cards are at their best when you have less mons or s/ts and your opponent has more.

*Being able to stop a card doesn't make it any less broken. And in that case it's an even 0 on both sides with your opponent losing a good defensive card.

*Second turn OTKS.

 

 

And Heavy punishes non-chainables severely, which is what's contributing to this speed fest of a meta.

[Sleepy]

If Heavy gets banned I wouldn't care less. It would really just mean everyone would point at the next card that "gives unfair advantage"

If you mean DAD and JD as field nukers' date=' I think people have the right to complain, or what other cards do you have in mind? you can't begin to compare Malevolent Catastrophy with Heavy Storm

 

I suggest everyone read the article posted before we resume this discussion.

umm...emmm... We need someone to copy/paste that, that site needs subscription in order to read content of such post, or at least that is according to one of the above posts and what I'm reading...

[Von Csent]

My first post in this thread quotes the posts toni was referring to.

[Exiro]

Heavy Storm is meant to punish overextending and therefore force players to play better, but it simply fails to achieve the second goal. Right now, if you have 2 BTH in your opening hand, for example, you must simply guess whether or not your opponent has Heavy Storm. If you set just 1, your opponent might very well start overextending in monsters and punish you for not having set the second BTH, even though you shouldn't have. In a 40 card deck, the chance that your opponent draws it in the opening hand, or later in the game for that matter, is simply too high compared to how powerful it is. Therefore, we need a less powerful Heavy Storm that doesn't make it risky to set 2 face-down s/ts on an empty field. One that comes with a discard cost is a good example of this.

[Von Csent]

Therefore' date=' we need a less powerful Heavy Storm that doesn't make it risky to set 2 face-down s/ts on an empty field. One that comes with a discard cost is a good example of this.

[/quote']

 

So, like a Lightning Vortex for (face-down?) Spells and Traps? That could work.

[That Fat Guy]

my only problem with heavy storm is that it instantly cuts the number of useable st's into nearly a third of what it was, and the number of sts actually desired for a deck to something like 1/100th, if not less.

 

the only continuous traps out there that even see any play, AT ALL are there for specific deck types, (ex. macro, skill drain, oppression), all of which really arent that great, mostly because they cant rely on their traps because they get blown up every funking turn.

 

banning heavy isnt enough though.

they need to ban gyz, jd, dad, and anything that gives free general nukes. possibly even celest too. ryko is alright because its that slow, and only gives one, but i funking hate celest.

just look at the monarchs as a guideline, because theyre probably the fine line between balanced and overpowered.

caius gets one general removal, raiza gets one bounce, etc. the only ones that get 2 are either specific type or have the drawback of forcing the controller to draw cards.

any card with more than one general nuke should probably be banned, along with heavy.

 

then unlimit mst, and maybe trunade...

i'm not as fond of trunade, actually, because its one of those cards that sets up the otk, which is what we should be trying to avoid.

 

 

in conclusion, yes, heavy punishes poor playing, but it also limits variation in deck construction (along with a few other obnoxious cards)

 

[/troll]

[El Majishan]

So because there is themed removal we should ban storm? ok so we ban storm and every one is forced to run themed decks for mass removal. thats really good for the game and support originality >_<. So what if we have breaker at 3. ban storm and now we need to find room for breaker that can be used for other cards. Breaker is at 3 right now and very few people even main one.

 

I dont believe non chainable cards will ever come back even if we ban storm and make trunade and mst unlimited. People would still run chainables because they now have 3 breaker/trunade/mst to worry about. The game has changed, and people noticed just how important chainablity is, they wont go back.

 

Banning storm will lead to over extension in the back row. With no storm I can now set 3-4 back row and have nothing major to worry about. Punishing overextension is a good thing. To me banning storm will do nothing for the game unless a balanced version is released.

[Von Csent]

in conclusion' date=' yes, heavy punishes poor playing, but it also limits variation in deck construction (along with a few other obnoxious cards)

 

[/troll']

 

I think that the game would flourish better under a larger card pool than hurting players that rely a lot on the back row. How is that really a crime anyway? Several set Traps can actually be a sign that a player is prepared enough to cover all defensive bases, which can be a good sign of strategy.

[RyanAtlus]

 

they need to ban gyz' date=' jd, dad, and anything that gives free general nukes. possibly even celest too. ryko is alright because its that slow, and only gives one, but i f***ing hate celest.

 

[/troll']

 

HAIL FAT GUY!

 

Those should've been banned a long time ago, and storm too maybe.

Storm needs a restriction, as said before...

 

Discard 1 Card from your hand to destroy all your opponent's face-down Spells and Traps.