Celestia and Wulf should both be banned.

[Exiro]

Within the Lightlords' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

I disagree here. Wulf isn't a 2100 ATK floater that comes out of nowhere without warning all the time. It is only that when it is milled any time after your opponent's Main Phase 2 and before your Main Phase 2. Let's call this the 'danger period'. If it isn't milled during the danger period, it is a 2100 ATK floater that comes with a warning, and your opponent will have a fair chance of finding an answer to it. Like you have stated, this answer can mean advantage for the owner of Wulf, or saving the owner 2100 life points. I do agree that it would be unfair if the owner would get an advantage from simply milling Wulf, but with the easy access to monsters stronger than Wulf, it'll most of the time be the latter, saving life points. I see this kind of advantage completely balanced; it extends gameplay, which gives both players an equal benefit.

 

Now, it is true that if Wulf is milled during the danger period, it is in fact a 2100 ATK floater that comes out of nowhere without warning. There are a bunch of cards that allow this to happen (examples include Charge of the Light Brigade, Solar Recharge, Reasoning, Card Trooper, etc.), but you need to have one of these cards as well as have Wulf in a place in your deck that allows that card to mill Wulf (where it needs to be, depends on the card itself). If we take those two factors into account, it really doesn't happen that often. In fact, it'll probably happen less often than Wulf being milled during the 'save period' or simply being drawn. I have already stated that Wulf being milled during the save period isn't a problem, and if it is being drawn, it isn't completely useless; it can still be used as a bad example discard fodder. I think we can both agree that using a card as discard fodder isn't a problem.

 

Recap: it is true that Wulf can be a problem, but most of the time, it isn't. As a comparison, Arcane Barrier can replace itself with 4 other cards, but because it doesn't do that most of the time, it's balanced.

 

 

Celestia' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

This is basically what you've based your anti-Celestia arguments on. You repeated the second statement (Lightlord.dek is terrible for the game) a lot. However, when looking in your post, the only reason for this statement that I could find was:

(...) but when an entire deck and all its core functions are focused on such randomness' date=' we have a problem.

[/quote']

 

Well, first of all, granted that we prohibit Judgment Dragoon, I don't think that if the archetype is focused on milling, it becomes a problem. Venoms are focused on weakening the opponent's monsters, Crystal Beasts are focused on having Crystal Beasts in the s/t zones, Gladiator Beasts are focused on toolboxing, Gravekeepers are focused on locking the Graveyard, etc. That doesn't make all these decks problems. This focus becomes a problem when cards can be used that are unbalanced when used in interaction. An example of such a card is Judgment Dragoon. It's logical to ban that card, and that's what you seem to agree on, but I don't understand why you want to additionally 'punish' the archetype by randomly banning strong cards that the archetype has. If Judgment Dragoon is banned, the fact that Lightlords are focused on mills isn't a problem anymore, and Celestia, despite being strong, shouldn't be a problem.

 

So, back to the original two statements. Lightlords being terrible for the game, with the reasoning you gave, doesn't make sense, and without that statement, Lightlords being competitive isn't a bad thing anymore.

 

 

Everything Crab says is true: You're an idiot. Especially since I change my mind all the time about stuff - until recently I would have scoffed at anyone suggesting that Celestia be dropped below 3. But maybe the universe changes every time I change my mind. That would be sweet' date=' but it's clearly not true because I hang out with people who aren't time-travelers, aliens, and espers.

[/quote']

 

I love you.

[CrabHelmet]

The only reason people think Wulf or Celestia is overpowered is because they are Lightsworn.

 

I'm honestly not quite sure what you're trying to say here.

 

Wulf is entirely rooted in the idea of milling him; a Wulf whose effect doesn't activate when he gets randomly milled is not even similar to Wulf. Are you trying to tell me that Wulf is balanced because he would be balanced if he were completely different?

 

And when it comes to cards that work only with a specific set of other cards' date=' that specific set of other cards is important; to say that you can change that set of other cards without making any significant changes is to overlook the core concept of what a theme is in the first place, as the card is inextricably tied to the cards with which it works. Yes, if Celestia's effect were activated not by Tributing a Lightlord but rather by, say, tributing a Mokey-Mokey, I probably wouldn't have a problem with her. We also probably wouldn't need to limit Stratos if instead of tutoring Heroes he were to tutor Toons. However, since we don't live in that particular insane fantasy world, we'd better deal with the cards that actually exist, and the cards that exist include a Celestia that is a member of the most ill-conceived archetype the game has ever seen.

 

Wulf has 2100 and can come out of nowhere for free and go "IMMA MEME" and beat you to death with furry power. otherwise, he is useless. Let them waste their Foolish Burial on Wulf for all I care. If he was 1900 or 1800 people would have less problems with him.

 

"otherwise, he is useless" is a rather misleading phrase. I can say "Pot of Greed can come out and be all like, draw or something? Otherwise, it is useless" and act like that makes Pot of Greed balanced.

 

Remember that there was once an absurdly popular 2100 ATK monster that, given an empty field, would Special Summon himself from the hand. I am, of course, referring to Cyber Dinosaur. Spending a card to gain a 2100 ATK monster was so strong that Cyber Dinosaur (hint: I don't really mean Cyber Dinosaur) was practically a staple. Now we have Wulf, which grants a 2100 ATK monster without spending a card from the hand, and you're acting like it isn't a big deal? A randomly generated 2100 ATK monster can easily decide a game.

 

I'm not quite sure what on earth you're getting at with this whole "People wouldn't mind as much if he were weaker" business. Yes, you're right; people are less likely to accuse a card of being overpowered or of its randomness being too game-changing if it is less powerful and its randomness has a weaker positive effect. Thank you, Captain Obvious, for that wisdom. Of course, you're also making the fallacy of assuming that being less broken than a broken card implies being balanced, but I guess the problem with that chain of thought isn't obvious enough to fall into your territory, Captain.

 

Celestia is a necessity for Lightsworn with or without Judgment' date=' because every other archetype in the competitive scheme has removal or some sort.

[/quote']

 

First of all: A card deemed bad for the game should never be saved just because one decktype would be weaker without it. If that decktype is Lightlord.dek, this becomes truer than true.

 

Second of all: Themed removal is hardly a fundamental right to every archetype. Many archetypes have none or virtually none, and plenty of generic removal exists.

 

Third of all: The current competitive scheme as no relevance whatsoever. An improved list would have all sorts of changes that would drastically alter what decks would be competitive - Gyzarus would be gone, DAD would be gone, Black Whirlwind would either be gone or dropped to 1, and so on.

 

Fourth of all: The purpose of the banlist is not to make sure that Decktypes A, B, and C are able to be competitive in the meta; its purpose is to remove problematic cards from the game. If a decktype cannot exist without a problematic card, then that decktype does not deserve to exist; we can hardly leave DAD and Dimension Fusion legal just because Dark Armed Return would be too weak without them. (This is actually pretty similar to the "First of all" point, but it bears repeating because it is just that important, because it is fundamental to list construction.)

 

Fifth of all: Lightlords have removal other than Celestia. In fact, they have quite a bit of it. There is Lyla, who kills Spells and Traps; Ehren, who removes Defense Position monsters; Ryko, who blows cards up; and Vanquishing Light, which negates Summons. They also have Gargonith, which is de facto monster removal by virtue of easily having enough ATK to kill anything he wants to kill. And if they somehow need more, there isn't any law that says they aren't allowed to use a removal card unless that card says "Lightsworn" somewhere in its name or text.

[Exiro]

So I get to be ignored just because... ehm... why?

 

Owait.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Off the top of my head' date=' here are some card positions I'd like to see:

 

[b']Allure of Darkness - 1[/b]

Black Whirlwind - 1

Demise - 3

F.G.D. - 0

Gold Sarcophagus - 3

Magician of Faith - 0

Reasoning - 0

Tribe-Infecting Virus - 3

Tsukuyomi - 3

 

However, it would be boring for me to just post a bunch of card positions, so I've decided to make things more interesting. To do that, I've thrown a mistake in there somewhere: At least one of these positions is a lie. At least one of these nine listed card positions does not accurately reflect my current beliefs. Have fun with that one, people-who-just-nod-their-heads-in-agreement-with-me.

 

Those bolded 6 are lies amirite? Or at least I disagree with them. I'll elaborate if I'm called on them.

 

So I get to be ignored just because... ehm... why?

 

Owait.

 

He posted in the same minute you did. Also, I'd disagree with "Wulf is balanced because a player should be expected to handle it without losing resources if it's milled in the End Phase." Whether an opponent's capable of dealing with it isn't the issue, although it'd be hard to accomplish without your opponent having LP or resource compensation.

 

The instant luck-based advantage is the issue. Whether it in "the danger zone" or not, Wulf still rewards the fortunate over the skilled.

[Flame Dragon]

So I get to be ignored just because... ehm... why?

 

Owait.

You posted at the same time' date=' so he never saw his post.

 

 

Ugh... Here we go...

 

Celestia is theme specific. With pretty terrible stats compared to monarchs. And a good effect. LIKE monarchs, she must be tribute summoned, BUT WITH A LS MONSTER. In that case, limit caius and kuraz too >_>

In a LS deck the fact that it needs to be a LS doesn't matter. Caius is limited to one card and Kuraz keeps you from attacking and has any destroyed card replaced. Celestia kills two things then swings for 1/4 damage thanks to the fact that any back row cards that may xause a problem would be gone.

 

Explanation or not' date=' it still rubs off as "sore loser" to me.

[/quote']

And what happens if your told that Crab doesn't play the game. You can't be a "sore loser" if youaren't lossing. Or hell, what if he plays LS.

 

Off the top of my head, here are some card positions I'd like to see:

 

Allure of Darkness - 1

Black Whirlwind - 1

Demise - 3

F.G.D. - 0

Gold Sarcophagus - 3

Magician of Faith - 0

Reasoning - 0

Tribe-Infecting Virus - 3

Tsukuyomi - 3

 

However, it would be boring for me to just post a bunch of card positions, so I've decided to make things more interesting. To do that, I've thrown a mistake in there somewhere: At least one of these positions is a lie. At least one of these nine listed card positions does not accurately reflect my current beliefs. Have fun with that one, people-who-just-nod-their-heads-in-agreement-with-me.

 

Lies

Allure of Darkness

Demise

Gold Sarcophagus

Tribe-Infecting Virus

 

Hard to tell

Black Whirlwind (while it could be a card that is limited since it clearly combos with itself, it could go to one. However I'm calling lie)

Magician of Faith (comes down to what other cards may be banned. As it is I'm going to say truth)

Tsukuyomi (again comes down to what other cards may be banned. With MoF as a possible ban I'm saying truth)

 

Truth

F.G.D.

Reasoning

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

What's the problem with Gold Sarcophagus being at 3?

[Flame Dragon]

What's the problem with Gold Sarcophagus being at 3?

The fact that it can search out any card is ridiculous, even with the two turn wait. You need to remember that in a good format the game would be slower, so the two turn aren't that big a problem. So what is basily does is give you what ever card you may need to bring about your win condition. And yes I know the broken cards we have now will be gone in a good format, but the fact remains that decks will still have win conditions and this can make it very easy for them to reach their goal.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

What's the problem with Gold Sarcophagus being at 3?

The fact that it can search out any card is ridiculous' date=' even with the two turn wait. You need to remember that in a good format the game would be slower, so the two turn aren't that big a problem. So what is basily does is give you what ever card you may need to bring about your win condition. And yes I know the broken cards we have now will be gone in a good format, but the fact remains that decks will still have win conditions and this can make it very easy for them to reach their goal.

[/quote']

 

In a good format, the extent to which Decks rely on "win conditions" would be minimized. "Win conditions" are bad for the game. In a good format, you wouldn't be desperate to draw a game-winner, you should be much more indifferent to which card you'd draw than in the current format. Gold Sarcophages forces you to evaluate your situation and use skill to determine which card would get you the most out of it. It has practically no margin for luck whatsoever.

 

Cards shouldn't be as clearly better than others in a good format. Gold Sarcophagus could be part of a good format without the two turn wait.

 

"OOH I GOT A GOOD OPENING HAND I WIN" scenarios wouldn't occur to anywhere near the same extent. You should have to outplay your opponent to win as much as possible.

 

See where I'm going with this?

[~Wright~]

I think it should be

Lumina: 1

JD: 1

 

I think that would limit lightsworn quite a bit.

[Toffee.]

"Win conditions" are bad for the game.

Not true.

 

Polaris, there would actually be a fine line between 'Metagame' and 'Casual' win conditions, depending on the number of cards + how long it would take to set up, with the current card pool.

Metagame, which contains all the current best-used OTKs

Casual, which contains all the slower OTKs, that arent meta-worthy.

 

JD, on its own, its a 1-card Win Condition.

Something like the classic "3 Batteryman AAs on the field = OTK", is at least a 4 card set-up, and requires an Opponent to have a face-up monster on his/her side of the field, isnt as broken.

 

....But that would just be IMO

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

"Win conditions" are bad for the game.

Not true.

 

Polaris' date=' there would actually be a fine line between 'Metagame' and 'Casual' win conditions, depending on the number of cards + how long it would take to set up, with the current card pool.

Metagame, which contains all the current best-used OTKs

Casual, which contains all the slower OTKs, that arent meta-worthy.

 

JD, on its own, its a 1-card Win Condition.

Something like the classic "3 Batteryman AAs on the field = OTK", is at least a 4 card set-up, and requires an Opponent to have a face-up monster on his/her side of the field, isnt as broken.

 

....But that would just be IMO

[/quote']

 

"Casual" becomes "metagame" once the predeceasing "metagame" is removed. OTKs should have no place in the "metagame" as the "metagame" is supposed to consist of players battling it out and skill winning the day. Yugioh should be more like Chess than it should be Rock-Paper-Scissors. OTKs and extreme boss monsters are always going to be a problem should they circulate to the top of the table. Because an opponent can not be expected to counter any given problematic OTK (basically any of 4 cards or less with a means of bypassing your opponent's field presence), they should all be removed.

 

Batteryman OTK is broken. It always has been.

 

The ideal common means of victory in yugioh should not be whoever draws into their OTK first/gets better hands wins the game, the ideal common means of victory in yugioh is to overcome your opponent with sheer skill. Card order, timing, and targets.

[Flame Dragon]

In a good format' date=' the extent to which Decks rely on "win conditions" would be minimized. "Win conditions" are bad for the game.

[/quote']

Win conditions aren't bad for the game. They are a key part to it. When you make a deck you base it on an idea that you think will be most effective to win. In Zombie's it field swarm. In CB it's Crystal Abundance. In Batteryman it's Short Circuit. All decks will have a win condition of some kind. With Sarc it's only made easier to reach it.

 

Gold Sarcophagus could be part of a good format without the two turn wait.

Let me see if i understand this. You think Gold Sarc would be fine if you could get the card you wuold take with it that very turn. What? So I guess you think Sangan and Witch of the Black Forest would also be fine in a good format. Cause really it would be like them' date=' only much, much, much better.

 

"OOH I GOT A GOOD OPENING HAND I WIN" scenarios wouldn't occur to anywhere near the same extent. You should have to outplay your opponent to win as much as possible.

And that is the problem wth Sarc. Getting any card you want to your hand makes it so you don't have to outplay your opponent. You just need to kill two turns till you get the card you need to either let you win, or make it so victory is almost assured

[Toffee.]

"Casual" becomes "metagame" once the predeceasing "metagame" is removed.

....Actually' date=' yea it would.

But then by that, people would just run Gene Warped Warwolf in 3s.

 

OTKs should have no place in the "metagame" as the "metagame" is supposed to consist of players battling it out and skill winning the day.

But with Konami, thats not really going to happen :/

 

Yugioh should be more like Chess than it should be Rock-Paper-Scissors. OTKs and extreme boss monsters are always going to be a problem should they circulate to the top of the table.

Boss monsters are awesome.

Well' date=' the non game-winning ones.

 

Because an opponent can not be expected to counter any given problematic OTK (basically any of 4 cards or less with a means of bypassing your opponent's field presence), they should all be removed.

But even if they did remove all possible OTKs, there would always be that 1 tard who is like: "My deck can win on turn #3", and then he just runs equips and high-ATK stuff.

 

Batteryman OTK is broken. It always has been.

How so?

 

The ideal common means of victory in yugioh is to overcome your opponent with sheer skill. Card order' date=' timing, and targets.

[/quote']

Only if :/

But as I said earlier, its Konami who likes to have all these Boss monsters.

[Great Unclean One: VK]

You forget Polaris. JD don't need skill, thus making one of the most important things needed for dueling gone. Luck no matter pays any part in this. People sometimes can stack their deck, thus no longer needing luck to give them the cards they need. Not to mention the only thing stoping one person from winnning is the cards of the other person, and how fast they can execute their stragedy.

[The Corps]

I agree with Wulf and JD, but Celestia huh? I've never seen her deal a good amount of damage myself, though she is theoretically easy to pull out in LS and provides a double boost (milling and a good amount of destruction).

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Sure, put Sangan, Witch, and Sarcophagus at 3. As long as their broken targets are gone, they're just skill cards. =/

 

And that is the problem wth Sarc. Getting any card you want to your hand makes it so you don't have to outplay your opponent. You just need to kill two turns till you get the card you need to either let you win' date=' or make it so victory is almost assured

[/quote']

 

If this were the case, obviously it isn't a proper format. Sangan, Witch, and Sarcophagus are only as dangerous as their ranges. In a format where their ranges are restricted to relatively even cards with different flavors for the situation, there shouldn't be a problem.

 

If every card in the game except for Sangan, Witch, and Sarco were a 1500/1500 Level 4 Vanilla, would Sangan, Witch, and Sarco be problems? Not at all. This is the goal here, except the game would inherently have more flavour and skill margin, vanillas wouldn't be used.

 

Win conditions aren't bad for the game. They are a key part to it. When you make a deck you base it on an idea that you think will be most effective to win. In Zombie's it field swarm. In CB it's Crystal Abundance. In Batteryman it's Short Circuit. All decks will have a win condition of some kind. With Sarc it's only made easier to reach it.

 

Sarc can't get anything you couldn't get with a lucky draw' date=' so it really can't do anything but good in a proper format.

 

You forget Polaris. 1 JD don't need skill, thus making one of the most important things needed for dueling gone. Luck no matter pays any part in this. 2 People sometimes can stack their deck, thus no longer needing luck to give them the cards they need. 3 Not to mention the only thing stoping one person from winnning is the cards of the other person, and how fast they can execute their stragedy.

 

1 I don't get your point? I'm not defending JD. >_>

 

2 In a much more skillful format, stacking would be much less effective. Not that we'd like to take stacking into consideration when making decisions anyhow.

 

3 Totally obvious and irrelevant to the points here.

[CrabHelmet]

Ah, excellent. We have a worthy opponent this time.

 

Within the Lightlords' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

I disagree here. Wulf isn't a 2100 ATK floater that comes out of nowhere without warning all the time. It is only that when it is milled any time after your opponent's Main Phase 2 and before your Main Phase 2. Let's call this the 'danger period'. If it isn't milled during the danger period, it is a 2100 ATK floater that comes with a warning, and your opponent will have a fair chance of finding an answer to it. Like you have stated, this answer can mean advantage for the owner of Wulf, or saving the owner 2100 life points. I do agree that it would be unfair if the owner would get an advantage from simply milling Wulf, but with the easy access to monsters stronger than Wulf, it'll most of the time be the latter, saving life points. I see this kind of advantage completely balanced; it extends gameplay, which gives both players an equal benefit.

 

Even when it appears in the End Phase, a Wulf can have a significant effect, even though the opponent gets a chance to respond before it can attack. If the opponent spends a card to eliminate Wulf, the Wulf has drawn removal and its owner has randomly +1'd. If the opponent does not or will not spend a card to eliminate Wulf, battle is their only chance of stopping it from attacking.

 

I don't quite understand that last comment of yours about Wulf absorbing 2100 Life Points of damage benefiting both players equally because it extends gameplay. That is just balderdash; if I have a Normal Spell whose complete text is "Gain 150000 Life Points", then that doesn't benefit both players equally because it extends gameplay, that benefits me because it makes me harder to kill. Conversely, taking damage doesn't hurt both players equally because it shortens gameplay, it benefits whoever didn't take the damage (unless that person wanted the damage for Trap of Darkness or Air Neos or something, but let's not go off on a tangent). Giving the user a random 2100 Life Point restoration seems like a highly significant effect, especially since it doesn't cost the user any cards.

 

However, note that one cannot rely on the opponent necessarily being able to kill Wulf in battle - or, if he can, then one cannot rely on the opponent being able to do so without letting something else live. Lightlords have decent swarm power with Lumina and Glorious Illusion, which helps them accumulate large fields (not to mention that Wulf himself is a Special Summon); furthermore, their Level 4 monsters tend to have fairly high ATK. The result is that, in order to even reduce Wulf to a 2100-point shield, the opponent must be able to Summon enough monsters to kill all of the Lightlord player's monsters that turn, and those monsters must have enough ATK to succeed. If the opponent cannot Summon enough strong monsters in that turn to match the field of a swarm deck that just received a free bonus monster, they must either let Wulf live or kill Wulf at the expense of letting someone else live. Either way, Wulf has served as far more than a mere Life Point shield. The kicker is that mills in the "safe period" - a period that is increasingly seeming to be in need of a rename - are almost always from the Lightlords already on the field, and that the more Lightlords are out, the more cards are milled, and thus the more likely it is that Wulf will pop out that turn; as such, Wulf is most likely to appear in the larger fields where he will be most effective.

 

Even in the period of time when Wulf is least effective, he still has a powerful effect - in the worst-case scenario, he's a 1/4 LP shield, and in better scenarios (which are more probable than they intuitively seem) he is a free +1. And a free +1 has a tremendous effect in the game we desire when we can't toss around nukes like it's 1962 and we're in Cuba. (And all of this is before we even consider that Wulf can be used as fuel for the Lightlord Counter Trap or whatever else...)

 

Now' date=' it is true that if Wulf is milled during the danger period, it is in fact a 2100 ATK floater that comes out of nowhere without warning. There are a bunch of cards that allow this to happen (examples include Charge of the Light Brigade, Solar Recharge, Reasoning, Card Trooper, etc.), but you need to have one of these cards as well as have Wulf in a place in your deck that allows that card to mill Wulf (where it needs to be, depends on the card itself). If we take those two factors into account, it really doesn't happen that often. In fact, it'll probably happen less often than Wulf being milled during the 'save period' or simply being drawn.

[/quote']

 

Let me just get one thing out of the way here: just because it comes up in the "Extra Danger Period" (which seems a more accurate name to me) less often than it does in the End Phase doesn't mean that its appearances in the EDP aren't a problem. Here's a hypothetical example for illustration: Suppose there is a card that has a good effect less often than it has a sucky effect. Suppose that, two-thirds of the time, that card expends itself to simply make the user mill a small number of cards. Now, suppose this isn't a hypothetical example and that that card's name is Sixth Sense. Just because the random good effect comes up less often than the random bad effect doesn't mean that the card is balanced. But it gets worse from there; being milled in the End Phase isn't a random bad outcome for Wulf but rather a random not-quite-as-awesome-but-still-good outcome. The worst-case scenario - actually drawing Wulf - is much less probable than either of the good outcomes.

 

At any rate, I think you're over-exaggerating the difficulty needed to Summon Wulf in the EDP. At the very least, Charge of the Light Brigade and Solar Recharge will always be maxed out in Lightlord.dek, and a single Charge has a 28% chance of milling at least one Wulf in a three-Wulf deck - better than one-in-four.

 

You seem to be conceding that Wulf popping out in the EDP is a bad thing and are arguing that it is tolerable because it doesn't happen enough. On that front I must disagree; it happens plenty.

 

I have already stated that Wulf being milled during the save period isn't a problem' date='

[/quote']

 

*coughyesitiscough*

 

and if it is being drawn' date=' it isn't completely useless; it can still be used as [s']a bad example[/s] discard fodder. I think we can both agree that using a card as discard fodder isn't a problem.

 

ANTI-RAIGEKI IS BROKED BAN BAN BAN

 

Recap: it is true that Wulf can be a problem' date=' but most of the time, it isn't. As a comparison, Arcane Barrier can replace itself with 4 other cards, but because it doesn't do that most of the time, it's balanced.

[/quote']

 

Last time I checked, Arcane Barrier isn't a Luck-based card. Its effect doesn't say "Roll a die, subtract 2 from your roll and draw that many cards"; instead, the draw is a function of how many Spellcasters died since it was activated. The problem with Wulf isn't that the advantage it grants is impossibly large but rather that it is purely random. A better analogy than Arcane Barrier is Sixth Sense, where chance is the only thing that has an effect.

 

Celestia' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

This is basically what you've based your anti-Celestia arguments on. You repeated the second statement (Lightlord.dek is terrible for the game) a lot. However, when looking in your post, the only reason for this statement that I could find was:

(...) but when an entire deck and all its core functions are focused on such randomness' date=' we have a problem.

[/quote']

 

Well, first of all, granted that we prohibit Judgment Dragoon, I don't think that if the archetype is focused on milling, it becomes a problem. Venoms are focused on weakening the opponent's monsters, Crystal Beasts are focused on having Crystal Beasts in the s/t zones, Gladiator Beasts are focused on toolboxing, Gravekeepers are focused on locking the Graveyard, etc. That doesn't make all these decks problems.

 

That's because those decks don't have an unusually high emphasis on Luck. Venoms don't flip a coin to see how many Venom Counters they distribute; Crystal Beasts don't discard cards from the top of the deck when they're destroyed and put any Crystal Beast monsters that show up into the s/t zone; Gladiator Beasts are less chance-based than any other deck under the sun, since even the random opening draw has less impact than usual thanks to the tagging mechanic; and so on. Only two archetypes have their entire theme focus on random chance. One is Lightlords; the other is Arcana Force. The difference is an important one; one is too weak to win bar the most absurd good luck, but the other is not.

 

This focus becomes a problem when cards can be used that are unbalanced when used in interaction. An example of such a card is Judgment Dragoon. It's logical to ban that card' date=' and that's what you seem to agree on, but I don't understand why you want to additionally 'punish' the archetype by randomly banning strong cards that the archetype has. If Judgment Dragoon is banned, the fact that Lightlords are focused on mills isn't a problem anymore, and Celestia, despite being strong, shouldn't be a problem.

[/quote']

 

Even without Judgment Dragoon, Lightlord.dek still has its basis in luck; it's not as blatant and obnoxious as it was when they had a 3000-ATK self-Special Summoning field-nuker, but it is still present when your deck flow depends on whether you mill the cards you want to mill. Even without something like Judgment Dragoon, a high-tier meta deck with such a high emphasis on Luck is still a bad thing. (They also tend to speed up the game quite a bit, which is another thing we'd rather not have.)

 

The whole Lightlord.dek-should-die thing is more the final nail in Celestia's coffin than the only argument against her; I placed the greatest emphasis on that because that, if accepted, makes the case against Celestia absolutely flawless via the whole cost/benefit analysis thing.

 

Without that argument, Celestia is still borderline at best. I gave a brief overview of that angle of the case against her in my original post, but you don't seem to have quoted it here - rather a large oversight.

[Flame Dragon]

Sure' date=' put Sangan, Witch, and Sarcophagus at 3. As long as their broken targets are gone, they're just skill cards. =/

[/quote']

What skill? Their is no skill in searching your deck for any card.

 

If we break the three down this is what we get.

Sarc: Takes two turns to use but can give you any card from your deck. Often times a card that will be key to winning the game.

 

Witch: Limited to monsters, but can take 90% of the monster pool in any given deck.

 

Sangan: Much more questionable then the above two, but even so it can add a a good amount of a deck to your hand.

 

Even with broken cards gone they still give the controller of these card a large advatage by giving them a free pick at what ever card in their deck may be most helpful.

 

If this were the case' date=' obviously it isn't a proper format. Sangan, Witch, and Sarcophagus are only as dangerous as their ranges. In a format where their ranges are restricted to relatively even cards with different flavors for the situation, there shouldn't be a problem.

[/quote']

But not all cards in their range are ban worthy. Most are just good. However what these 3 cards do take all those fine cards and basicly make it so that card becomes another copy of them.

 

If every card in the game except for Sangan' date=' Witch, and Sarco were a 1500/1500 Level 4 Vanilla, would Sangan, Witch, and Sarco be problems? Not at all. This is the goal here, except the game would inherently have more flavour and skill margin, vanillas wouldn't be used.

[/quote']

This example is a bad one. In game where every card is a vanilla with stats of 15/15 the 3 can't change anything. You will always draw vanilla monster with 15/15. However if we make it so their are only 1 monster with 15/15 (also assuming that it shouldn't be banned) the game now becomes a race to see who can draw into their big beatstick and who ever does will gain a huge advatage over the opponent. The 3 of them now only make it easier for the person that draws into them to get said beastick.

 

Sarc can't get anything you couldn't get with a lucky draw' date=' so it really can't do anything but good in a proper format.

[/quote']

Yes it can. It removes luck. It makes it so you are insured to get any card in your deck. When ever you draw you are never sure if your going to draw into any given card, but now you have a one in one chance to get a card.

 

 

Because this is off topic I'm going to end on this note.

 

Every one has different view on a ban list, with one of the main differences being how fast they think the game should be. Cards like Sarc, Witch, and even Allure all add speed, and so those that want a slower game will want these cards banned. those that don't mind extra speed don't see a need to remove them.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Sarc promoted skill over luck. This is a good thing.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

But not all cards in their range are ban worthy. Most are just good. However what these 3 cards do take all those fine cards and basicly make it so that card becomes another copy of them.

 

A card's no more imbalanced in 9 copies than in 3 copies. If there were 3 cards with the exact same stats and effect and each was banworthy' date=' they should ALL be banned. If not, they should all be legalized.

 

Also, let's not forget that Sangan and Witch have field presence drawbacks a good amount of the time as their stats can't stand up to too many beatsticks out there..

 

Yes it can. It removes luck.

 

And that's terrible?

 

This example is a bad one. In game where every card is a vanilla with stats of 15/15 the 3 can't change anything. You will always draw vanilla monster with 15/15. However if we make it so their are only 1 monster with 15/15 (also assuming that it shouldn't be banned) the game now becomes a race to see who can draw into their big beatstick and who ever does will gain a huge advatage over the opponent. The 3 of them now only make it easier for the person that draws into them to get said beastick.

 

I liked that "(also assuming that it shouldn't be banned)" thrown in there.

 

What skill? Their is no skill in searching your deck for any card.

 

You'd ideally have to assess the situation and find which target you would get the most of in that situation. You're forced to think, this's a test of skill.

[CrabHelmet]

A card's no more imbalanced in 9 copies than in 3 copies. If there were 3 cards with the exact same stats and effect and each was banworthy' date=' they should ALL be banned. If not, they should all be legalized.

[/quote']

 

There's actually a school of banlist construction based on this concept, called 60/0. It leads to some unusual side-effects; for example, in 60/0 theory, Upstart Goblin is banworthy.

[daboss144]

Holy poop guys, seriously??? LS are (almost) garbage w/o JD.

 

Here's how it works...

JD:0

Honest: 1-2

Every other LS card:3.

 

This makes LS 2nd tier at best. I mean honestly, Celestia is a monarch with a condition...

[CrabHelmet]

Holy poop guys' date=' seriously??? LS are (almost) garbage w/o JD.

 

Here's how it works...

JD:0

Honest: 1-2

Every other LS card:3.

 

This makes LS 2nd tier at best. I mean honestly, Celestia is a monarch with a condition...

[/quote']

 

You'd hit Honest just to hurt Lightlords? I can understand putting Honest to 1 because it just leads to stupid OTKs when you can drop multiples, but it sounds like you want Honest to take a hit just to hurt Lightlords. And that's terrible.

 

Even granted a drop in Honest, you're making your deductions based on the assumption that the only changes between the current Konami banlist and the improved banlist would be the drops in Judgment Dragoon and Honest. Given this assumption, you're probably right. However, this assumption is false - it's not like Judgment Dragoon is the only problem with the game and everything else is perfect. Most of the decks that you're counting on to be Tier 1 above Lightlord.dek don't come away unscathed - Gladiator Beast Gyzarus dies, Dark Armed Dragon dies, Black Whirlwind either drops to 1 or dies, Brionac dies, Malicious drops to 1 and thus effectively dies... and of course absurd cards like Brain Control get killed off as well. This isn't even just theory - such formats have been playtested and Lightlord.dek remains top-tier even in many of the formats in which Wulf is banned. This leads not only to heavily chance-fueled formats but also to high speed ones in which slower decks generally autolose to Lightlord.dek.

 

Celestia is not "just" a Monarch with a condition. A Monarch +0's and under normal conditions clears less than half of the opponent's field. Celestia +1's and under normal conditions clears at least half of the opponent's field. They are similar in style but completely different in terms of power. Now, when you recall that an updated banlist doesn't have the field being nuked every other turn and that card advantage matters far more under such conditions, the problem becomes clear.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

A card's no more imbalanced in 9 copies than in 3 copies. If there were 3 cards with the exact same stats and effect and each was banworthy' date=' they should ALL be banned. If not, they should all be legalized.

[/quote']

 

There's actually a school of banlist construction based on this concept, called 60/0. It leads to some unusual side-effects; for example, in 60/0 theory, Upstart Goblin is banworthy.

 

Could you describe that in a bit more detail?

[CrabHelmet]

A card's no more imbalanced in 9 copies than in 3 copies. If there were 3 cards with the exact same stats and effect and each was banworthy' date=' they should ALL be banned. If not, they should all be legalized.

[/quote']

 

There's actually a school of banlist construction based on this concept, called 60/0. It leads to some unusual side-effects; for example, in 60/0 theory, Upstart Goblin is banworthy.

 

Could you describe that in a bit more detail?

 

Consider a deck consisting of 34 Upstart Goblin + 6-card combo of doom. Unless you can ban every 6-card combo that can OTK/FTK regardless of the opponent's Life Points, Upstart Goblin has to go. And what about 37 Upstart Goblin + 3 Nurse Reficule? That will FTK as long as at least one Nurse Reficule is amongst the deck's top 21 cards, which is about 90% of the time.

 

The idea is that an acceptable card is one that would be fine if it were legal at not 3 but 60 copies, which is essentially what you were saying.

 

And no, I don't know how 60/0 handles Thunder Dragon and other cards that self-interact.

 

Of course, I have also seen at least two other schools also bill themselves as 60/0 but use completely different principles; the name seems to be a popular one. The one with 0 Upstart Goblin is just the most absurdly extreme one.