daboss144 Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 As stated before' date=' Malevolent Catastrophe can replace Heavy Storm. It's more balanced, and unlike Heavy Storm, it's not instant. Stardust needs to be banned. It's a generic Synrcho version of MBAAS, with little to no effort to achieve, a cost that tributes itself only to be revived once more in a 2500 ATK body. Sure the 2 cards you stated can stop him(with one of them being a minus 1), but you can't justify it not being broken just because it can be stopped. I can almost guarentee Summoner Monk wasn't limited to 1 because of Red Dragon Archfiend. Royal Decree is the exact trap version of Imperial Order. It turns all traps in your opponent's deck into dead draws. It's just because of traps being inferior to spells, and the fact that Decree can't be shut off that it sits at 3. With the Jinzo/Decree argument, look at the Spell Canceller/Imperal Order matchup. The point I'm trying to make is that cards that provide instant advantage with little cost or effort needs to be banned to make the game more balanced.[/quote'] Every card's effect must outweigh the cost. Heavy's cost is -1 hand advantage +x field advantage. Sure it's not exactly balanced, but it's splashable into everything unless the deck is already broken anyway. And if everyone runs it it's ok. Stardust isn't bannable... it has a defensive effect. Destruction Jammer be banned too? It's a beatstick that can only be destroyed by another beatstick. It can still be removed from play, topdecked, returned to the hand or destroyed by battle. Summoner monk got limited because of rescue cat. Once again, Stardust is pretty darned good, but it's no DSF. And if a deck can't deal with a stardust some changes should be in order. Decree just doesn't affect the meta like imperial order did. Once again, it's a mainly defensive card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark One Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Stardust isn't bannable... it has a defensive effect. Destruction Jammer be banned too? It's a beatstick that can only be destroyed by another beatstick. It can still be removed from play' date=' topdecked, returned to the hand or destroyed by battle. Summoner monk got limited because of rescue cat. Once again, Stardust is pretty darned good, but it's no DSF. And if a deck can't deal with a stardust some changes should be in order. Decree just doesn't affect the meta like imperial order did. Once again, it's a mainly defensive card.[/quote'] Destruction Jammer would indeed be bannable if it was instead a quickplay spell, required no discard, and was set again at the end of each turn it was used. That is essentially what Stardust Dragon is. Except Stardust also get to have a 2500ATK body behind it to make things worse. Stardust would have been fine had the Synchro mechanic been pulled off properly. (ie: Stardust, being a lvl8, would be more difficult to summon, possibly requireing two nontuner monsters. But as things stand, it has not. Speaking of the Synchro mechanic, it's an issue that generic synchros are almost universally better than theme specific counterparts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Stardust should not be banned. Stupid people need to learn it can be RFP'd, brained, sent back to hand/deck, ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daboss144 Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Stardust should not be banned. Stupid people need to learn it can be RFP'd' date=' brained, sent back to hand/deck, ...[/quote'] My point exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Exactly. Not to mention that the "2500 ATK body" made it vulnerable to battle and it requires a -1 at best to summon and on top of that is still killable by many cards. Stardust was never broken =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manjoume Thunder Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 it requires a -1 at best to summon Not if you float like a boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizarus Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Exactly. Not to mention that the "2500 ATK body" made it vulnerable to battle and it requires a -1 at best to summon and on top of that is still killable by many cards. Stardust was never broken =/ Ignoring the fact that mostly all synchros require a -1 to summon, people -1 themselves to summon Stardust Dragon, because it's just that good of an investment. Stardust stops more than double the number of cards that can be used to stop it. Stardust has ALWAYS been broken; it's just that people got so used to dealing with Stardust that they view it as not broken. When a single generic card can change the way you build a deck, it deserves to be banned. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for punishing stupidity. But the stupid should be punished by balanced cards, not overly powered cards that provides instant advantage for the cost of almost nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark One Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Stardust should not be banned. Stupid people need to learn it can be RFP'd' date=' brained, sent back to hand/deck, ...[/quote'] Stardust is not a difficult card to deal with in that there are many option available to defend against it. THe issue lies in the fact that it forces us to choose those kinds of removal that can deal with it effectively over other kinds of removal. Invalidating an aspect of the the game if grounds for a ban. Regardless, however, counterability generally does not imply balance. Stardust provides an unlimited source of costless negation. That's not good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Stardust should not be banned. Stupid people need to learn it can be RFP'd' date=' brained, sent back to hand/deck, ...[/quote'] Stardust is not a difficult card to deal with in that there are many option available to defend against it. THe issue lies in the fact that it forces us to choose those kinds of removal that can deal with it effectively over other kinds of removal. Invalidating an aspect of the the game if grounds for a ban. Regardless, however, counterability generally does not imply balance. Stardust provides an unlimited source of costless negation. That's not good. Stardust can be dealt with by half the synchro's there are. Therefore, he's easy to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted December 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Stardust should not be banned. Stupid people need to learn it can be RFP'd' date=' brained, sent back to hand/deck, ...[/quote'] Stardust is not a difficult card to deal with in that there are many option available to defend against it. THe issue lies in the fact that it forces us to choose those kinds of removal that can deal with it effectively over other kinds of removal. Invalidating an aspect of the the game if grounds for a ban. Regardless, however, counterability generally does not imply balance. Stardust provides an unlimited source of costless negation. That's not good. Stardust can be dealt with by half the synchro's there are. Therefore, he's easy to stop. Which brings us further in the current direction of "Run generic Synchro decks or lose!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daboss144 Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Stardust should not be banned. Stupid people need to learn it can be RFP'd' date=' brained, sent back to hand/deck, ...[/quote'] Stardust is not a difficult card to deal with in that there are many option available to defend against it. THe issue lies in the fact that it forces us to choose those kinds of removal that can deal with it effectively over other kinds of removal. Invalidating an aspect of the the game if grounds for a ban. Regardless, however, counterability generally does not imply balance. Stardust provides an unlimited source of costless negation. That's not good. Stardust can be dealt with by half the synchro's there are. Therefore, he's easy to stop. Which brings us further in the current direction of "Run generic Synchro decks or lose!" There are now anit-meta decks based on synchro elimination. I think this is a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 I was just implying that Stardust is perfectly balanced due to its vulnerablities and its low attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson General Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Stardust only wins games if your opponent is bad at this game. seriously, the only real problem with the synchro deck is the lack of diversity in it. level 6 synchros are generally more broken than any other level imo, goyo and brionic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archelaus Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 lolycm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark One Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Stardust only wins games if your opponent is bad at this game. seriously' date=' the only real problem with the synchro deck is the lack of diversity in it. level 6 synchros are generally more broken than any other level imo, goyo and brionic...[/quote'] Actually, Stardust only doesn't win game because Goyo and Brionac exist. Nothing was said to suggest that other synchros aren't broken, because they certainly are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson General Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 lolycm... Seriously, Iv'e been to locals a crap-load of times, if someone drops stardust, I find a way around it. It's not that freakin' difficult. Brionic can be jumped around with his effect still going off. I'd much rather face Stardust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 I don't know why we're talking about banning stardust. Seriously i'm wondering if you people even play because whenever my opponent summons stardust, it's a mild inconvenience at worst. Even in the deck it hurts most, GBs, it's not insurmountable by any means or even that difficult to work around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson General Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 I don't know why we're talking about banning stardust. Seriously i'm wondering if you people even play because whenever my opponent summons stardust' date=' it's a mild inconvenience at worst. Even in the deck it hurts most, GBs, it's not insurmountable by any means or even that difficult to work around.[/quote'] I think most people on ycm are either bad, or havn't played in a while. your absolutly right. oh, and glads have that loophole where if you bring out two glads at the same time, and thier effects chain, if you choose to activate Murmillo first, then the second glad, like say Darius, Stardust can't negate Murmillo because the destruction wasn't the last thing on the chain. such a jerk move. XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daboss144 Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 I don't know why we're talking about banning stardust. Seriously i'm wondering if you people even play because whenever my opponent summons stardust' date=' it's a mild inconvenience at worst. Even in the deck it hurts most, GBs, it's not insurmountable by any means or even that difficult to work around.[/quote'] I think most people on ycm are either bad, or havn't played in a while. your absolutly right. oh, and glads have that loophole where if you bring out two glads at the same time, and thier effects chain, if you choose to activate Murmillo first, then the second glad, like say Darius, Stardust can't negate Murmillo because the destruction wasn't the last thing on the chain. such a jerk move. XD True, but I usually just go for murmillo/retiari. Stardust really doesn't hurt any decks as much as he used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 But SDD/AM is badass... Anyways; have we aggreed on the fact that Storm should be banned, but won't ever be because Konami's retarded and doesn't want the mother of OTK's to die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daboss144 Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 Anyways; have we aggreed on the fact that Storm should be banned' date=' but won't ever be because Konami's retarded and doesn't want the mother of OTK's to die?[/quote'] Well, there's really nothing that can replace it and it doesn't really hurt people like it used to. It just makes people play a lot more carefully when placing spells/traps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archelaus Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 This topic went Off Topic when Stardust entered it. Glad its back to topic now. Creates a mentality that scares people to set Spells and Traps... Should be at 1 although it'd be funny to see it at 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daboss144 Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 This topic went Off Topic when Stardust entered it. Glad its back to topic now. Creates a mentality that scares people to set Spells and Traps... Should be at 1 although it'd be funny to see it at 2.If this card ever goes to 2 i'm going to quit this game. To be heavy stormed 2 turns in a row would just kill me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 But Storm IS replacable! For the last time; Breaker, Lyla, MST, JD, DAD, Gyzarius, Black Feather Duster, Dust Tornado, Malevolent and Celestia will replace him once he's gone! Storm at 0! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Armed_Zombie Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 But Storm IS replacable! For the last time; Breaker' date=' Lyla, MST,[b'] JD, DAD[/b], Gyzarius, Black Feather Duster, Dust Tornado, Malevolent and Celestia will replace him once he's gone! Storm at 0! JD and DAD should be banned Black Feather Duster isn't a real card... -.- Gyzarus is for GBs only Celestia is a possibly bannable card so that also does not work. Breaker doesn't work as it must get it's spell counter first. MST, Dust Tornado, and Lyla all target a single card, they are not Heavy Storm. And finally, Malevolent Catastrophe... possible, but it only targets face-downs. Fairy Wind could be used to make up for that, but that's a side-in card. Conclusion: Your argument is full of fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.