Celestia and Wulf should both be banned.

[CrabHelmet]

And Judgment Dragoon goes without saying.

[Kyosuke Kiryu]

Celestia should be at 1-2

Wulf and 1-2

[Manjoume Thunder]

Celestia should be at 1-2

Wulf and 1-2

 

That wouldn't really change anything.

 

Both should be at 3.

Ban JD and LS will be as strong as GBs. It will top some regionals but it will never see day 2 in SJC.

[Great Unclean One: VK]

wulf at 2

 

celestia at 1

[CrabHelmet]

Celestia should be at 1-2

Wulf and 1-2

 

I love YCM.

[Kyosuke Kiryu]

Celestia should be at 1-2

Wulf and 1-2

 

I love YCM.

You can get horrendous amounts of +1's and above with celestia.

 

Wulf is an instant +1 I would probably say it shouldnt be on the list now I think about it but still :\

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Nope, wrong. Neither are banworthy, limitworthy, or anything like that.

 

The only thing that could be limit/semi worthy would be honest due to the ease of getting instant wins when you have multiple copies. And that's pretty iffy as well.

[Exiro]

Wulf on itself isn't a problem at all and there's no reason for both it and Celestia to be banned.

[shadowferret]

Wulf is fine. It's a pure luck card. Except for stackers.

Celestia, I think could be a problem, but it's usually only run at two anyway. At least, that's what I've seen.

 

Though, I can agree with Genzo. With Honest being mass produced in the Twilight pack, I think Honest could see a possible Limit, or at least a Semi.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Celestia is a theme-specific pseudo-Monarch. That's enough reason to keep it Unlimited.

 

I don't care enough about Wulf to argue about it one way or another.

[Metal Skull]

Celestia - 2

Wulf - 3

Judment Dragon -1

 

That way it will balance LS^^

[Sleepy]

Celestia is a theme-specific pseudo-Monarch. That's enough reason to keep it Unlimited.

 

This^

 

+ Wulf Depends on you randomly sending it from the Deck. I don't see how they would be broken.

Judgement Dragon banned pretty much will fix Lightsworns.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Celestia - 2

Wulf - 3

Judment Dragon -1

 

That way it will balance LS^^

 

No.

[Fraz]

Celestia and Wulf should both be banned.

 

Why?

[Toffee.]

Celestia and Wulf should both be banned.

 

Why?

Simple: Crab makes a topic, and then wants YCM-Kun to 'debate' what ever the TC posted.

[Akira]

Celestia and Wulf should both be banned.

 

Why?

 

If Crab says something, it's truth until proven otherwise. Everyone on YCM knows that.

 

But I suppose his statement is made on the premise that both are ridiculously easy +1s. Wulf requires no skill at all and supports Celestia, which is itself another skill-less and costless way to clear someone's field.

[Toffee.]

Celestia and Wulf should both be banned.

 

Why?

 

If Crab says something' date=' it's truth until proven otherwise. Everyone on YCM knows that.

[/quote']

 

Or els you will DIE!

 

......And then shortly after, Crab will be chanting: "U R DED, DED, DED"(he would repeat it, of course)

 

On-Topic: Wulf is actually pretty funny, since it effectivley turns Foolish Burial into a Monster Reborn

[Skyfi]

Limiting Wulf really wouldn't make a difference, either should be 0 or 3, card isn't good enough to be banned so its fine at 3. Celestia on the other hand should be limited as should Judgment Dragon.

[Flame Dragon]

I love YCM.

This.

 

Still I think the Judgement Dragon thread is better.

[Toffee.]

I love YCM.

This.

Truth is, thats how YCM rolls.

 

Pretty much the only real 'logic' that TC's cards have, is up to Konami to decide

[Darkest Hour]

And Judgment Dragoon goes without saying.

lolycm

[CrabHelmet]

Wait, nobody else here agrees on either card? Granted, I can chalk at least part of that up to YCM being filled with people who think arbitrary semi-limits make sense and that the only thing that matters with regard to a card's power is whether a deck containing it can Top 16 against Gyzarus-infused Gladiator Beasts, but YCM does still have a few good players, and I expected to find support from at least one of them on at least one front.

 

No matter. I shall use my powers of insulting people to stand alone on this point.

 

Let me begin by reminding everyone of the classic banlist-construction concept of Luck Versus Skill. Over time, this idea has been introduced, discarded, revived, debunked, and who-knows-what-else as banlist theory has advanced and evolved, but in the end, LVS is at the core of every theory in one way or another: we desire a game that plays less like flipping a coin in which the better player wins the most often. And around this idea we construct the banlist: removing cards from the game that emphasize Luck over Skill. We want Pot of Greed banned not because a +1 is "broken" but rather because it makes the game depend more heavily on the Luck of being the one player to draw Pot of Greed than on the Skill of building a deck properly and playing the game well. Most of the time, if we deem a card banworthy for being "broken", this is what we really mean. (There are other possible reasons, such as cards that have some other sort of negative influence on the game, but this reason is by far the most common.) Other "broken" cards, banned for providing too many victories too easily but acting independently of being drawn - Dark Strike Fighter is the most blatant example - are banworthy not only because of the mad turbo state they force upon the game but also because they are so mindlessly easy to play that Skill becomes meaningless very quickly as it caps at such a low level.

 

I see Lightlord.dek as being the epitome of the triumph of Luck over Skill. Even in the absence of Judgment Dragoon, the deck's abilities are more heavily weighted in random chance than in player ability than any other deck in the history of the game. Tele-DAD may have been more "broken", but it at least took more skill to play than Lightlord.dek. This is no accident; as its core mechanic is random mill, Lightlord.dek was deliberately designed to be based in Luck. Now, I have no problem with random mill itself - I'm not asking for Card Trooper to be banned here, and I'm not going to claim that a splashed Lyla will turn the game into rock-paper-scissors - but when an entire deck and all its core functions are focused on such randomness, we have a problem.

 

And the stronger that deck is, the bigger the problem we have. If that deck can't gain much more with Luck than any other deck could gain consistently, then no harm is done - the player running the random deck is just shooting himself in the foot. That's why I'm not going to call for a whole bunch of bans on the Arcana Force series on the basis of their coin-flips emphasizing Luck: their Heads effects just aren't good enough to give that player an advantage even with Luck. The Lightlords, however, are another story. Even without their Judgment Dragoon, they are still remarkably strong - especially when you consider that the format in which they would ideally be competing would have Gyzarus banned, DAD banned, Rescue Cat banned, and so on. In fact, several players have done playtesting in such formats and confirmed that, yes, Lightlords are still competitive - in some cases, even without Wulf!

 

Within the Lightlords, however, a single card shines as being a paragon of Luck even when viewed in relation to his brothers. I am, of course, referring to Wulf, who depending on the player's luck is either a useless draw or a 2100 ATK floater that comes out of nowhere without warning. His entire purpose is to create random swings in one direction or the other - the antithesis of a Skill-based game. He can be used outside of Lightlord.dek, but hardly enough to justify his presence. When one considers that an improved format would involve the legalization of at least Monster Gate and possibly (depending on the build) Reasoning, Wulf becomes absurd. He adds nothing but chance to the game; banish him and be done with it.

 

(To those of you who were defending Wulf with arguments like, and I quote, "Wulf Depends on you randomly sending it from the Deck" and "It's a pure luck card", you are to be congratulated for finding the core problem with Wulf and to be mocked for seeing this flaw as an argument in favour of keeping it legal. Incidentally, do you chaps know what other card is founded on pure luck and is completely dead two-thirds of the time that it is drawn? Its name is Sixth Sense.)

 

Celestia, not being quite as blatantly forged out of flipped coins as Wulf, may not appear to be quite so straightforward, but in fact she is actually far easier to justify banning. Above, I have said two things: first, Lightlord.dek, even without Judgment Dragoon and perhaps even Wulf, are still competitive in improved formats, and second, that Lightlord.dek is terrible for the game. From these two statements, we can conclude that costlessly damaging Lightlords is a good thing for the game. This is not about maintaining competitive balance or anything of that sort; it is about removing a unilaterally damaging influence from the format.

 

To claim that Celestia is fine because she is just a "theme-specific pseudo-Monarch" is to ignore the very important differences between her and an actual Monarch. Monarchs, by and large, are +0 and kill only one card by their effect. There are two exceptions, Mobius and Kuraz, but the differences between them and the other Monarchs (and Celestia) are clear enough that I will take for granted that you understand the difference between blowing up any two cards, blowing up only two backfield cards, and blowing up two cards but paying for them and not attacking. The difference between a +0 and a +1 is not nearly as small as it sounds - imagine how people would rage if a Normal Spell that read "Activate only if you control a "Lightsworn" monster. Draw 2 cards. Your opponent gains 1000 Life Points" were released. However, while this difference is significant in general, it is even more significant when it comes to field advantage. Assume that a reasonable field size is, say, 3 cards. Something like Caius or Raiza that clears 1 card still leaves the opponent with a respectable field; on the other hand, blowing up 2 cards leaves the opponent with next-to-nothing and leaves them wide open. In that sense, Celestia is taking up Judgment Dragoon's role of "Pop out, blow up field, attack for game".

 

From all of this, it seems probable that, if there remains a problem with Lightlord.dek minus Judgment Dragoon and Wulf (besides, you know, the underlying problem of its core concept), that problem lies in Celestia. The final nail in Celestia's coffin, however, is that she can only be used in Lightlord.dek. Other Lightlords can be teched or splashed or even used in small numbers, but she absolutely requires a dedicated Lightlord.dek in order to do anything at all.

 

Consider what happens if we ban her. If she is the Antichrist and would if legal destroy the game forever, we have done a very good thing. If she was perfectly fine and not a problem in the slightest, then nothing good happened, but nothing bad happened either - the only deck that has been affected at all is Lightlord.dek, and Lightlord.dek isn't a good thing anyhow, so that is acceptable.

 

Consider what happens if we don't ban her. If she is the Antichrist and would if legal destroy the game forever, we have done a very bad thing and our format is doomed. If she was perfectly fine and not a problem in the slightest, then nothing bad happened, but nothing good happed either - the only deck that has been helped by her presence is Lightlord.dek, and Lightlord.dek isn't a good thing anyhow, so helping it isn't exactly a benefit to the game.

 

In reality, Celestia lies somewhere between the two extremes of "Antichrist" and "perfectly fine". From this, we can see that the worst-case scenario of banning her is perfectly neutral, and the best-case scenario of not banning her is perfectly neither. There is therefore no advantage to be had in keeping her in the game.

 

Note that this does not generalize to "ban everything just in case", or even to "ban all Lightlords"; this argument only holds because Celestia can only be used in a single deck and that deck is bad for the game anyhow. Without those conditions in place, banning a perfectly fine card has actual negative consequences (and keeping a balanced card legal has positive consequences), and so the argument would no longer be valid.

 

As such, Celestia's balance can at best be described as "questionable", and the game literally does not lose anything good from having her banned. Ergo, banning her is a costless move that will almost certainly help the game in some way, and therefore there is no reason not to ban her.

 

I have been rather overlong here, so I shall summarize my argument for those who do not wish to read: Wulf is nothing but Luck and therefore should die. Lightlord.dek is nothing but Luck, and Celestia is entirely useless outside of Lightlord.dek and is questionable in terms of balance when used in Lightlord.dek, so she should die too.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Oh my god.

That was beautiful.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I was convinced on Wulf ever since I took a look at it balance-wise. Stupid card.

 

Celestia I had a little trouble with. It's a sort of a boss monster right? I suppose it could be acceptable as a lesser Archetype's (Clouds) hidden gem, but LS, even without Celestia, JD, and Wulf, would still be far from the worst Archetype around.

 

It's complicated, but I think that Archetype strength as a whole is an issue if we're to look at using "Archetype-specific" style excuses for calling a card more balanced than we otherwise would. If that Archetype's already at the top, it can be worse than being splashable by giving them another edge they don't deserve.

 

Also, I think that it would be a good idea to look at the definition of skill in Yugioh. It's based entirely on targets and card play order. Cards with a range of targets take skill to use to their full extent, which is partly why I'm a little split on whether Sangan should be given any heat. Selective destruction like Celestia's don't really count, as the margin for skill is minimal. The margin for skill is also minimal for targeters who have many targets but have a single obvious target which is consistently chosen. In this case, the target should be taken out.

[deathxy]

 

If Crab says something' date=' it's truth until proven otherwise. Everyone on YCM knows that.

 

[/quote']

 

this

 

so the argument of crab is based in luck is bad for a skill game and those cards are insta +1, and of those +1 is the perfection of luck and you can always foolish him without even thinking, so make bad players being good cuz they can construct a deck with 99% luck and 1%( or below) skill and claim to be good at the game and therefore full the "skill" game with bad players and harm the game forever

 

if that is the case, and i think its the case, im agree with crab, in both cards