3-0 Banlist Rules

[CrabHelmet]

Either Fraz or I am missing the point. I'm thinking those rules were for banlists in general' date=' not 3-0, which states that no cards are at 2 or 1 (hence the name).

 

That should expedite the argument no matter who's right or wrong.

[/quote']

 

Only mad extremists want to actually build 3/0 without a Limited or Semi-Limited section, and doing so always leads to idiotic moves like banning Night Assailant for no better reason than that keeping it at 1 isn't aesthetically pleasing.

 

The name comes from the general theory that problem cards should be removed from the game and non-problem cards should be kept unlimited. If logic dictates that a card should be at 1, as with Night Assailant, then to 1 it goes.

[Fraz]

Who cares about all that. They get people playing archetype decks which is good for the game and accomplishes what Konami are trying to do.

People that care about the sanctity of the game. If a card damages the game then it should be banned. Putting it at 2 or even 1 doesn't change the fact that it is still damaging the game.

And gettng people to play a deck isn't beneficial.

 

Also just looking at your list I'll point out some failing.

LONEFIRE BLOSSOM - 3 means you can search 3 then play symbols. At 2 it can't do this.

Ok' date=' and you'll still end up with the same end result of having one plant beastick. The only time this changes is when you add more copies of Symbol which is situational.

 

GOBLIN ZOMBIE - Goblin zombie searching goblin zombie is a really good play. With new cards out that abuse this you'll see it limited next list.

No it isn't. I play Zombies and I'd never search an extra copy of Zombie when I can just as easily take a Master and end with both Master anf Zombie on the field. =And what new cards?

 

MAGICAL STONE EXCAVATION - Same as mezuki. The OTK strategies which use this are currently too unstable to warrant this card's banning.

How could this ever be bannable? You need at least this and two other cards in your hand for it to even work. If their are OTK ban the cards that are causing the OTK. Also any OTK with this can't be good since it alone makes it a 3 card OTK with no clear way to win.

 

JUDGMENT DRAGON - Play 3 from hand to do 9000 damage easily. Therefore interacts with itself.

Being 3000 points off from an OTK is a huge problem when you have two field nukers out.

 

Point 1... Archetype decks deserve broken(ish) cards. Without them non archetype decks would be the meta (Gadgets, Monarchs, CO Burn, Little City, etc...). I honestly have no problem with that, but it makes getting into the game a tad daunting. Archetype decks being meta makes the game a lot more accessible to new players and makes tournaments more fun.

 

Lonefire at 3 made powertool dragon deck really overpowered. Supervise plants is not an archetype deck so they had to hurt it.

 

You're not very good at the game if you think searching a goblin zombie with goblin zombie is a bad play.

 

Stone: I really don't think it matters where this card is on the list.

 

JD: I want JD at 1. I want all boss monsters at one for the sake of them being called boss monsters. This emulates the anime and helps regulate them as they're released.

[CrabHelmet]

Point 1... Archetype decks deserve broken(ish) cards.

 

No. No' date=' no, no, [b']very no[/b].

 

If a card is broken and damages the game, then it must be removed from the game.

 

If a deck cannot survive without a broken card, then that deck does not deserve to survive; it must die for the sake of the game.

[Fraz]

Broken's not the right word... overpowered is more like it.

[CrabHelmet]

Broken's not the right word... overpowered is more like it.

 

The word you use is irrelevant. If a card damages the game, it should not be left legal just because it helps some deck or other.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

You're not very good at the game if you think searching a goblin zombie with goblin zombie is a bad play.

 

You're not very good at the game if you think searching a goblin zombie with goblin zombie is a good play.

 

Sources:

"He searched his Deck for “Mezuki” with “Goblin Zombie’s” effect."

Top 8 Feature Match: Marquis Johnson vs. George Murray:

http://www.konami.com/yugioh/blog/?p=1141

 

"Johnson dropped to 3450 life and searched his Deck for “Plaguespreader Zombie” with the effect of “Goblin Zombie."

Top 8 Feature Match: Marquis Johnson vs. George Murray:

http://www.konami.com/yugioh/blog/?p=1141

 

"...and Brown added “Zombie Master” to his hand with the effect of “Goblin Zombie.”"

3rd Place Feature Match: Desmond Brown vs. George Murray

http://www.konami.com/yugioh/blog/?p=1167

 

"He then searched for “Mezuki” with “Goblin Zombie’s” effect."

3rd Place Feature Match: Desmond Brown vs. George Murray

http://www.konami.com/yugioh/blog/?p=1167

 

"Brown searched for “Plaguespreader Zombie” with the effect of “Goblin Zombie” and added it to his hand."

3rd Place Feature Match: Desmond Brown vs. George Murray

http://www.konami.com/yugioh/blog/?p=1167

[Fraz]

Different deck is different.

[daboss144]

Point 1... Archetype decks deserve broken(ish) cards.

 

No. No' date=' no, no, [b']very no[/b].

 

If a card is broken and damages the game, then it must be removed from the game.

 

If a deck cannot survive without a broken card, then that deck does not deserve to survive; it must die for the sake of the game.

 

Example #1: Yata Garasu.

 

Example #2:And what about Night assailant? It's fine at 1, but do you remember what happened when this was at 3?

 

Example #3:Treeborn/Cyber Dragon. Enough Said. Treeborn =/= bannable. Cyber Dragon =/= Bannable.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

Treeborn =/= bannable. Cyber Dragon =/= Bannable.

 

You're an awful duelist if you really believe that..

[CrabHelmet]

Point 1... Archetype decks deserve broken(ish) cards.

 

No. No' date=' no, no, [b']very no[/b].

 

If a card is broken and damages the game, then it must be removed from the game.

 

If a deck cannot survive without a broken card, then that deck does not deserve to survive; it must die for the sake of the game.

 

Example #1: Yata Garasu.

 

What is this supposed to be an example of? An absurd card that was rightfully removed from circulation?

 

Example #2:And what about Night assailant? It's fine at 1' date=' but do you remember what happened when this was at 3?

[/quote']

 

Night Assailant is an unusual case in that it has a very special self-interaction. That has already been addressed separately.

 

Example #3:Treeborn/Cyber Dragon. Enough Said. Treeborn =/= bannable. Cyber Dragon =/= Bannable.

 

First of all, you are wrong, and second of all, if they weren't banworthy then they would be fine at 3 - especially since Treeborn comes with a built-in clause that prevents multiples from working together.

[Flame Dragon]

Point 1... Archetype decks deserve broken(ish) cards.

 

No. No' date=' no, no, [b']very no[/b].

 

If a card is broken and damages the game, then it must be removed from the game.

 

If a deck cannot survive without a broken card, then that deck does not deserve to survive; it must die for the sake of the game.

 

Example #1: Yata Garasu.

 

Example #2:And what about Night assailant? It's fine at 1, but do you remember what happened when this was at 3?

 

Example #3:Treeborn/Cyber Dragon. Enough Said. Treeborn =/= bannable. Cyber Dragon =/= Bannable.

Can you please tell me what your listing these examples for? They do not seem to match with what you quoted.

 

Anyway....

 

For your second point if Night Assailant is at 3 it gives you infinite discard folder. That is why he is at 1 because at that number it doesn't happen.

 

For your third point Treeborn should be banned for a similar reason that Night Assailant should be 1. With Treeborn you have infinite tribute folder.

 

Cyber Dragon goes because it rewards people for playing badly and hurts stall.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

The reason it's called 3-0 is because it's an old term for the concept that happened to stick. It's mostly "3-0 with a dash of 1-2 here and there", actually.