.Nu-13 Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 I think Stardust should be limited. It's effect sometimes can FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU- you. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Never limit synchros or fusions blah blah essentially always in your hand blah blah. Anyways, no. He's good, but not broken in the least (imo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Never limit synchros or fusions blah blah essentially always in your hand blah blah. Here this poor man stands, teetering on the edge between Konamilogic and enlightenment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Yeah, never limit Synchros.There's no smaller chance to summon it.And no, it's not banworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiff! Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Technically, Limiting Synchros can help. I mean, loo at Goyo! He's still always there, but once he's gone, you can't bust out another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Never limit Synchros without good reason.For the same reason that Heavy is broken but should be limited because it creates a mentality, and some cards are limited because they interact with themselves, Synchros can fulfil these roles.DSF (and in my mind Goyo and Brio) is an example of a Synchro which was broken, not because of it interacting with itself, and did not encourage better play, just more reckless because there was such a high chance you'd lose next turn (or with Goyo/Brio, MOST Synchros do not deserve to be limited.I could actually see an argument made for limiting BRD, because it discourages over extending and promotes more conservative and thoughtful play. However that's a different topic.Stardust is one of those 3/0 ones though, and it should easily be at three because it is a GOOD card, but not broken, and makes other means of removal playable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Leo Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Semi-Limited is the way to go if at all. I say keep it at Unlimited. Who has Summoned one in the past while anyway. All you see is Judgement Dragon or a Monarch due to popularity and ease of use... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior-of-Dreams Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 All Synchros will be limited to 1 in 2012 Anyway, back on topic! Limiting Stardust wouldn't really change much. He would still be easy to summon. Plus, why would you want to make all the Yusei fans die a little on the inside? :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manjoume Thunder Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Semi-Limited is the way to go if at all. I say keep it at Unlimited. Who has Summoned one in the past while anyway. All you see is Judgement Dragon or a Monarch due to popularity and ease of use... There is soooo much fail in this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chaos Pudding Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Pro tip: Saying "never Limit Fusions/Synchros" is a blaring alarm that alerts everyone that you don't really know what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Unclean One: VK Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 He's not broken. So he shouldn't be limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:pyramid:. Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 better question: who runs stardust at more than 1 competitivly anyways????following the better question: why dont you need more than 1 stardust most of the time???following, following the better question: what would limiting actually do for this card competitivly???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azuh Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Stardust isn't really threatening. Its more SDD/AM thats a jabroni Half the time, when I Summon it, it gets Gale'd or Shrink'd in the next turn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffee. Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 I think Stardust should be limited.[/post] Never limit synchros or fusions blah blah essentially always in your hand blah blah. Here this poor man stands' date=' teetering on the edge between Konamilogic and enlightenment.[/quote']But Crab, in the game of Yugimonz, Konamilogic is appearently the most prominant logic available. He's still always there' date=' but once he's gone, you can't bust out another one.[/quote']Sure you cant "Bust out another one", but you can always re-build him: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiff! Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 ... Awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffee. Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 ... Awesome.Why do you think I bring it up? Lego Goyo can easily fit into a topic that mentions Goyo bieng B&/Limited 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 BAN STARDUST FOREVER 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metal Skull Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 BAN IT AND IT?S DONE...Synchros can't be Limited...Also SD is f****** OP!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 -Laughs at those who seriously think Stardust deserves any banlist placement- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 =/...I'm going to say you're pulling a Crab and trying to pull people into a trap by agreeing with you. It's not a danger. It's a decent Card. People often run Collosal/TRA over it, for good reason. It encourages diverse monster removal. It is not that strong, and what it does do is good for the game.Going to prove otherwise? 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 encourages diverse monster removal. Because "sending to the Graveyard" is much better for the game than regular destroying. It encourages diverse monster removal. Just because a card happens to include "destroying" as part of its effect doesn't mean it has to be worthy of punishment of Stardust-style proportions. Granted, many "destroyers" aren't great for the game, but that doesn't mean all of them are. Banlists can be much more selective than Stardust Dragon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 It encourages diverse monster removal. Because "sending to the Graveyard" is much better for the game than regular destroying. Because letting cards that "send to the Graveyard" but would normally be too weak to be played compared to the alternatives have an advantage is good for the game. It encourages diverse monster removal. Just because a card happens to include "destroying" as part of its effect doesn't mean it has to be worthy of punishment of Stardust-style proportions. Granted' date=' many "destroyers" aren't great for the game, but that doesn't mean all of them are. Banlists can be much more selective than Stardust Dragon.[/quote'] It's not really punishment. It's punishment for having a restricted Deck that can't do anything without "destroying". His ATK isn't that high, making him relatively easy to run over, he is still vulnerable to many effects. There is no way he is too powerful. Not to mention it adds additional strategy to cards by making a serious effect and difference between cards that destroy and those that don't by making ones that include destroy have an extra disadvantage, promoting more thinking about which cards to include in a Deck and if one should use a destruction card or risk their opponent blocking it later with Stardust. But really, I'm not trying any more, it seems like you're convinced on a point you're barely even supporting, so I'll just stop it there. 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 encourages diverse monster removal. Because "sending to the Graveyard" is much better for the game than regular destroying. Because letting cards that "send to the Graveyard" but would normally be too weak to be played compared to the alternatives have an advantage is good for the game. It encourages diverse monster removal. Just because a card happens to include "destroying" as part of its effect doesn't mean it has to be worthy of punishment of Stardust-style proportions. Granted' date=' many "destroyers" aren't great for the game, but that doesn't mean all of them are. Banlists can be much more selective than Stardust Dragon.[/quote'] It's not really punishment. It's punishment for having a restricted Deck that can't do anything without "destroying". His ATK isn't that high, making him relatively easy to run over, he is still vulnerable to many effects. There is no way he is too powerful. Not to mention it adds additional strategy to cards by making a serious effect and difference between cards that destroy and those that don't by making ones that include destroy have an extra disadvantage, promoting more thinking about which cards to include in a Deck and if one should use a destruction card or risk their opponent blocking it later with Stardust. Just because something can be destroyed by battle doesn't mean it's balanced. Destroying by card effects doesn't have to be any more of a problem than any other form of removal. Why should cards be promoted simply because they don't "destroy", resulting in the demotion of cards which do? If a card doesn't make the cut for one's in a well-constructed format, than it won't make the cut for one's Deck. It's not necessarily "good for the game" that destructive cards be replaced with alternative cards just because they happen to be destructive when destruction isn't necessarily a bad thing. But really' date=' I'm not trying any more, it seems like you're convinced on a point you're barely even supporting, so I'll just stop it there.[/quote'] That didn't even begin to make sense, so I'll just stop there and leave that comment to either be revoked or not to your discretion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BulletMan Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 SD doesn't need to be on the list. It gives weaker Decks a chance, even though most likely the more competitive Deck would also use SD, but it's so cheap that anybody can get it. And besides, we luv SD/AM :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffee. Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Guys, we cant possibly put Stardust on the B& list. Because it would ruin any marketing strategys that Konami has, for Yugimonz 5Ds Really... each time Yusei plays Stardust, someone is bound to get another copy of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.