CrabHelmet Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I am speaking, of course, in terms of list position. Consider the matter carefully, for it is very important to list construction and the resulting format. (Protip: This topic is a trap for bad players who think they're good.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aximil Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 1. No need to be banned because it punishes your opponent for over extending which is good for the game. But any higher and it will be just far too much S/T destruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyosuke Kiryu Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 *Turns into Crab fanboy* Whatever Crab says. =P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaos Flame Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 If you don't play too many traps or continuous cards it isn't that bad and can't hurt you much. I think its good at 1 because this way you can feel a bit safer at overextending. Your always at risk of magical stone excavation though. It does a good job of stopping s/t overextension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted December 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 well its a prty gd crd i tink i shud be semilimit bc its gd but it mit b a bit 2 gd at tree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manjoume Thunder Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 1 on any good list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyosuke Kiryu Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 well its a prty gd crd i tink i shud be semilimit bc its gd but it mit b a bit 2 gd at tree Touche, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted December 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Well, I see we've got a fierce debate going here between the people who want it at 1 and the people who want it at 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aximil Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Well' date=' I see we've got a fierce debate going here between the people who want it at 1 and the people who want it at 1.[/quote'] Well, then, since this is going to dwindle down and die out, let's discuss the chaos that would be wreaked upon the meta if it were at 3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 It should be at 1 IMO, because it discourages large backrows by EXISTING as a threat. I personally think that it tends to be OP'd when played, but it's worth the game having an OP'd card if it will discourage large backrows.Time to try and support my statement, and probably fail. Get ready to laugh, I've just taken meds, am tired, and don't even consider myself "pro" to start with. Why large backrows are bad:Cards that stay in the backrow often, but not always (BWW), have an effect that slows the game down. Through directly stopping something from happening or negating a specific event. Too much of this makes a game drag on, which is generally thought of as less enjoyable. If and why too long games are bad is for another topic, let's just say they are. [/can't be bothered to continue point] Why Heavy Storm fixes this:In short, people won't put too much down if there's a chance that doing so is going to make them lose the game through their opponent having Heavy Storm. So unless they're confident they can stop it, a big backrow happens less. Why it shouldn't be at 2/3:Heavy Storm is overpowered in that it's easy advantage and removes risk for the rest of the turn from most sources if not negated. [/treating this as fact] Because of this, I would say it should be banned if not for the above two points. The above two points show that something like Heavy is needed for the mentality it creates, it being in the Deck should stop them setting just as much as it being in the hand, since they don't know where it is, and won't risk it. Therefore, it only needs to be unbanned for the positive points to take effect, but any more than one and it's just making any s/t that won't chain to it less useful and shrinking the playable card pool. tl;dr - game should be made fun through fear, fear good in little bits. You can stop laughing at what was probably god-awful logic now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I'm torn between it being at 1, or banning it.Eh...Ban it and put MST at 3 so S/T destruction and back-row clearing is possible, but requires discretion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I'm torn between it being at 1' date=' or banning it.Eh...Ban it and put MST at 3 so S/T destruction and back-row clearing is possible, but requires discretion.[/quote'] MST does not gain advantage. Infact, it often loses it by hitting a chainable. Because of this, the mentality that Heavy creates is not even nearly created by 3 MST, and it serves an entirely different use in how the game is affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I'm torn between it being at 1' date=' or banning it.Eh...Ban it and put MST at 3 so S/T destruction and back-row clearing is possible, but requires discretion.[/quote'] MST does not gain advantage. Infact, it often loses it by hitting a chainable. Because of this, the mentality that Heavy creates is not even nearly created by 3 MST, and it serves an entirely different use in how the game is affected.True, but I don't think chainables would be the most common Trap on a good format... correct me if I'm wrong though. This is assuming that Crab meant on a good format (as he normally does) rather then this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted December 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 This is assuming that Crab meant on a good format (as he normally does) rather then this one. It is paradoxical to discuss where a card belongs in this format because once that card has been moved the format is no longer this format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Storm at zero would not allow the use of Continuous Trap Cards on big scale, because there are still cards like Besti, Lyla, JD, DAD, Twister, MST, Black Feather Duster, Breaker, Brionac, Trunade, ...For some reason, people think it would. Storm is ok at 1. It prevents overextension, as mentioned countless times before. It stimulates people to think in a different way. And hey, once storm gets banned, stalling decks could do what they're good at again; trying to run away before getting eaten, even though they never manage to. Storm can go to 2, imo, if all the cards mentioned in the first paragraph get limi'd/banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 This is assuming that Crab meant on a good format (as he normally does) rather then this one. It is paradoxical to discuss where a card belongs in this format because once that card has been moved the format is no longer this format....thanks for pointing that out. On a similar format to this one. I guess it would depend on the rest of the list though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 For the sake of agreement is boring, debate is fun, I'ma make a statement. The mentality created by Heavy Storm is good for the game and it should be @1 on ANY list which isn't stupid to the point of it being a different game (EG, ban all traps) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson General Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 i leik hevy sturm because it kils doodz and doesn't afraid of anything *ahem* it belongs at 4. *ahem* fine, I think it should stay at one, but I'm not too attached to it. 3 MST and no storm would be odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chaos Pudding Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Ban it. MST at 3, Giant Trunade at 3, various other hypothetical S/T removal, various themed backrow removal, the list goes on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:pyramid:. Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Ban it. MST at 3' date=' Giant Trunade at 3, various other hypothetical S/T removal, various themed backrow removal, the list goes on and on.[/quote'] whats the difference from trunade at 3 than cold wave at three, their both used to achieve the same goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Those also do nothing to stop being overextending the backrow. Without nukes to prevent large backrows, which I believe slow the game in an unenjoyable manner, the game would not be as good. Heavy Storm is good for game when it exists in the Deck, bad for game when played. The only way to get this effect of it being good for the game by preventing overextending is by being powerful enough that players who fall into this trap of setting a lot without protection WILL suffer a risk of losing enough advantage to lose the game. IMO- if the game is to remain fun, if Heavy was banned, a new bit of splashable s/t removal that is OP'd by design would be required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chaos Pudding Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Ban it. MST at 3' date=' Giant Trunade at 3, various other hypothetical S/T removal, various themed backrow removal, the list goes on and on.[/quote'] whats the difference from trunade at 3 than cold wave at three, their both used to achieve the same goal. You can still Set things the rest of the turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 No, it doesn't deserve to be banned.At 1, yes, but it's not broken enough to be banned.And MST doesn't deserve to be at aything more than 1. well its a prty gd crd i tink i shud be semilimit bc its gd but it mit b a bit 2 gd at treeCRAB TO THE RESCUE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aximil Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 This talk about MST being at 3 is just bad. You would need to waste more room in your deck for them than just that one Heavy Storm. Even with MST at 3, I doubt anyone will run it that high. Just a waste of room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docomodake Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 (Protip: This topic is a trap for bad players who think they're good.) Trap'd. I think it should be at 1 because it prevents overextension' date=' and I need a filler card for my decks because I often can't think of what else to put in that spot. In addition, with how it's easily 80 degrees farenheit once the sun is up in Florida in [i']December[/i], an air-conditioned bandwagon feels like a dream. (On a side note, the "Protip" meme is silly.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.