~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 What if Heavy, Feather Duster, and MST went to three? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werewolfjedi Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 What if Heavy' date=' Feather Duster, and MST went to three?[/quote'] monsters win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 With our current meta? Nothing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 It's effect is banworthy, but it provides benefit to the game by existing. Hence, it goes to the minimum nonzero number, one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 It's effect is banworthy' date=' but it provides benefit to the game by existing. Hence, it goes to the minimum nonzero number, one.[/quote'] What makes its effect "banworthy"? The effect's completely different depending on how many cards your opponent happens to have relative to yours, something that they can completely control, it promotes skill. Spells and Traps are fundamentally different from monsters in the way in which they can all be plopped down at once, and as this cannot be regulated by the ban list, why not let triple Storm? Its being at 3 hardly even results in a drawback "for the game". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 If "skill" means "hold onto it until your opponent has more backrow than you", then yeah I guess you could consider it "skill". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 If "skill" means "hold onto it until your opponent has more backrow than you"' date=' then yeah I guess you could consider it "skill".[/quote'] The skill isn't so much for being the one to use Storm, of which there is a margin for, albeit small, but rather to be conscious about Storm and make sure you're immune to it. Careful consideration of risk factors is a good thing for the game. Storm's only broken when it nets you loads of card advantage. One can be immune to Storm without having a card to do so if they're careful. There's nothing wrong in having players need to be cautious about an opponent's Storm. Storm to 3 y'all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Storm at 3 invalidates continuous spells/traps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted December 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Well, the trap has certainly been walked into... and at least one person has not so much walked into the trap as leaped headfirst into the trap while downing a glass of iocane-laced wine and stabbing themselves in the leg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Was this me jumping into the trap? Or the people saying to get 2 more MSTs? =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonisanoob Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 exept i found out the trap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted December 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 exept i found out the trap You said 3/0 logic was utter nonsense. That makes you immune to any sort of trap in the same way that a quadruple amputee is immune to having his fingers cut off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraz Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 They gave us Fraz though' date=' who has a hell of a lot of tournament and deckbuilding experience and isn't a complete dick, which is nice.[/quote']I'm not??? I'll have to try harder from now on then... ya arse. OT: Storm should never be banned. People who think the game would be better without it are idiots. People who think MST at 3 and this at 0 are bigger idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 There is still a big difference between Storm and MST, you know...MST = -1 or +0Storm = -5 (Stupid yo) to +4 (Stupid opponent) [Note: this is in theory. Any player with a full backrow of non-chainables is plain stupid, and so are any players playing Storm when they themselves have got a full backrow with the opponent having nothing.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BestBusterBlader Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Heavy Storm can be a life-saver and it gets rid of irritating traps in an offensive deck or against stall decks with Wave-Motion Cannon or Final Countdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted December 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Heavy Storm can be a life-saver and it gets rid of irritating traps in an offensive deck or against stall decks with Wave-Motion Cannon or Final Countdown. Oye, oye, oye! We don't like min-maxers and munchkins here, and you've clearly been pouring every last one of your stat points into INT and WIS to figure that out. Start roleplaying more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 tl;dr On-topic: Can those of us that aren't gentlemen still discuss? =( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ryu Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 This card has by itself has forced how the game has been played since it's inception. You can punish players for overextending, but this is an option that goes into every deck that isn't M/T based for the sole purpose of limiting your opponents defenses with the threat of a single copy in your opponents opening hand. Ban it and never look back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraz Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 This card has by itself has forced how the game has been played since it's inception. You can punish players for overextending' date=' but this is an option that goes into every deck that isn't M/T based for the sole purpose of limiting your opponents defenses with the threat of a single copy in your opponents opening hand. Ban it and never look back.[/quote']:/ Those reasons you just said are reasons to keep heavy on the list... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Storm at 3 invalidates continuous spells/traps. Point being? The promotion of skill is all that matters. What makes type killers fundamentally problematic is that their effects wouldn't be acceptable as generic' date=' so they shouldn't be acceptable just because you happen to be playing an unlucky Decktype. I still don't see why killing playstyles would be an issue. iocane-laced wine Sparks fly when the supposed trap-setting mastermind throws in some "The Princess Bride" references. They gave us Fraz though' date=' who has a hell of a lot of tournament and deckbuilding experience and isn't a complete dick, which is nice.[/quote']I'm not??? I'll have to try harder from now on then... ya arse. >=( WHAT A DICK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Type killers are banworthy because they reduce skill by reducing the available number of options to choose between when making a deck. Same reason why a card that said "draw one card" would be banworthy, it reduces skill by effectively only having people choose 37 cards when deckbuilding, thus reducing innovation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Type killers are banworthy because they reduce skill by reducing the available number of options to choose between when making a deck. Same reason why a card that said "draw one card" would be banworthy' date=' it reduces skill by effectively only having people choose 37 cards when deckbuilding, thus reducing innovation.[/quote'] I never suggested that type killers weren't banworthy, in fact, I gave an explanation of why I saw them as bad for the game. Acceptable generic effects which interfere with playstyles are totally different. Reduction of the card pool's an offense? >_> HEY. LET'S BRING BACK ALL FORBIDDEN CARDS. SCIENTIST DSF OTK YEAH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:pyramid:. Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Type killers are banworthy because they reduce skill by reducing the available number of options to choose between when making a deck. Same reason why a card that said "draw one card" would be banworthy' date=' it reduces skill by effectively only having people choose 37 cards when deckbuilding, thus reducing innovation.[/quote'] I never suggested that type killers weren't banworthy, in fact, I gave an explanation of why I saw them as bad for the game. Acceptable generic effects which interfere with playstyles are totally different. Reduction of the card pool's an offense? >_> HEY. LET'S BRING BACK ALL FORBIDDEN CARDS. SCIENTIST DSF OTK YEAH! i think he ment reducing the card pool un-needingly. e.g. some continus spell n traps may take skill to use to create synergy, why should they not be able to compete because of heavy storm???? and by the way heavy at three would be a type killer, to continus spells and traps, because their will be no point in using them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowferret Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Hm... now that I've started playing in Tournaments more often, I have to say I like Heavy Storm. But only at one. I found that while I was playing, I spent a lot of the match thinking, "Okay, where's Heavy Storm? Let's assume it's in his/her opening hand. Set Threatening Roar, and something else to bait it out." It took a bit of planning to try and play around Heavy Storm, then once it got played I felt comfortable just setting a lot of stuff. I dunno... I like how Heavy Storm kind of makes me cautious to play anything. I like that rush of planning it out. If it were at anything else other than 1, players would either always have a full backrow due to its absence, or players would simply never play face-downs. At least, that's my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Type killers are banworthy because they reduce skill by reducing the available number of options to choose between when making a deck. Same reason why a card that said "draw one card" would be banworthy' date=' it reduces skill by effectively only having people choose 37 cards when deckbuilding, thus reducing innovation.[/quote'] I never suggested that type killers weren't banworthy, in fact, I gave an explanation of why I saw them as bad for the game. Acceptable generic effects which interfere with playstyles are totally different. Reduction of the card pool's an offense? >_> HEY. LET'S BRING BACK ALL FORBIDDEN CARDS. SCIENTIST DSF OTK YEAH! i think he ment reducing the card pool un-needingly. e.g. some continus spell n traps may take skill to use to create synergy, why should they not be able to compete because of heavy storm???? and by the way heavy at three would be a type killer, to continus spells and traps, because their will be no point in using them. Eh, I'd rather have non-chainable and continuous Spell and Traps rarely played ever than being played in clusters of fours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.