[DISC] Royal Oppression

[CrabHelmet]

Wow' date=' this whole thread you people have been saying "it doesn't matter how good RO is, it's a type killer so it needs to be banned" and when I bring up fossil dyna (which is actually even more of a type killer, as it stops even in the damage step) all you can say is "well it's not as good as RO".

 

How "good" does a type killer need to be to be banworthy? You're going to have to define that clearly before you can say RO is banworthy but fossil dyna isn't.

[/quote']

 

Fossil Dyna and Jowgen, being monsters with less-than-amazing stats, have an inherent destruction condition - death by battle - that Royal Oppression lacks. This makes them trivial to remove regardless of the player's hand or deck, whereas Royal Oppression can mean game if the opponent hasn't drawn into any s/t removal yet.

 

It's related to the sliding scale of counterability that has Spiritualism near one end and Dark Spirit Art - Greed near the other end. If a card can be negated by Counter Traps, that's fairly meaningless in terms of balance; if, however, it can be negated by the opponent revealing any Spell Card or fulfilling some similar condition, that is much more significant.

[Wizarus]

Wow' date=' this whole thread you people have been saying "it doesn't matter how good RO is, it's a type killer so it needs to be banned" and when I bring up fossil dyna (which is actually even more of a type killer, as it stops even in the damage step) all you can say is "well it's not as good as RO".

 

How "good" does a type killer need to be to be banworthy? You're going to have to define that clearly before you can say RO is banworthy but fossil dyna isn't.

[/quote']

 

It's been explained previously that there are a slew of cards that can bypass it's effect, most of them broken cards in their own right. There is also your argument about that Fossil is better than RO, which is false. RO is splashable, chainable, and is a CT, all of which Fossil is not. Fossil is a monster, which makes it more vulnerable than RO. But really, RO should be banned because it is a splashable deck killer, the same way Imperial Order was to spells.

 

Edit: See above post.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Don't get mad because i'm proving a great point.

 

Because calling someone "on the money" is proving their point? You're either in the discussion or you aren't' date=' if you aren't, leave, if you are, post actual arguments and support them in an attempt to get a point across.

 

Meta Decks against RO get badly hurt

 

mid Meta doesn't get hurt to bad

 

fail decks barely get hurt at all.

 

So if we took out the meta decks, RO doesn't hurt as much.

 

"Take out the meta decks"? The goal isn't to genocide successful Decktypes here, it's to create a card pool in which one would have to use as much skill as possible to get to the top or to pilot a successful Decktype within that format. Besides, every tier has Decktypes with different amounts of reliability on Special Summoning. Oppression kills Great Moth Decks. Support your arguments? Examples?

[Tempest Dahlia]

It's like you didn't read anything l posted previously. That's basically what you're saying.

 

 

Let me sum it up for you.

 

"Opression is not banworthy because of all my previous statements." There. Now please read what l said before. >_>

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

It's like you didn't read anything l posted previously. That's basically what you're saying.

 

 

Let me sum it up for you.

 

"Opression is not banworthy because of all my previous statements." There. Now please read what l said before. >_>

 

Here's every "statement" you've made or implied in this thread and its current status.

 

"Oppression isn't banworthy because JD and DAD will have nothing to stop them" Already refuted' date=' broken cards which Oppression previously helped the game by keeping in check to some degree would be banned in a proper format.[/b']

 

"Oppression is counterable" Already refuted, just because a broken card might happen to be counterable doesn't mean a player should be required to always have an answer for it at any given time. One shouldn't have to counter unreasonable card effects in the first place, they should rather spend the Deck space and effort on supporting their strategy.

 

"Oppression isn't all that splashable" Already refuted. A card doesn't necessarily have to be broken in multiple Decktypes to be broken.

 

"Oppression harms its user" Already refuted, a Duelist running Oppression has adapted their Deck to the environment Oppression creates.

 

"If you're losing to Oppression you're playing YGO wrong." Not an argument.

 

Oppression dosen't win games. Refuted. Advantage gained as a result of Oppression's effect and its prevention of possible opposing can play a major role in determining the victor.

 

I don't feel as though I should have to re-argue against each of your refuted points. Either provide more support for them, provide new points, or get out. Oppression takes minimal skill to use, does nothing for the game once banworthy cards are removed, and discriminates against a mechanic which doesn't necessarily cause problems; it's an unnecessary type killer. It does nothing for the game and should be terminated.

[Tempest Dahlia]

Well i'm not leaving.

The point is, l MADE arguments. So don't sit there and say l haven't said a damn thing.

 

Oppression is a trap (Easily run over), slow, counterproductive, can become useless/dead, and it's LP cost can easily screw you over whilst your opponent abuses YOUR CARD.

 

All to negate you op's special summons AND YOUR OWN? Oh please. Really, this card, banned? Ridikkulus!

[Sleepy]

Well i'm not leaving.

The point is' date=' l MADE arguments. So don't sit there and say l haven't said a damn thing.

 

Oppression is a trap (Easily run over), slow, counterproductive, can become useless/dead, and it's LP cost can easily screw you over whilst your opponent abuses YOUR CARD.

 

All to negate you op's special summons AND YOUR OWN? Oh please. Really, this card, banned? [i']Ridikkulus![/i]

 

-Rephrasing arguments that already have been countered is not valid =/

-Decks that run Royal Oppression are adjusted to not be bothered doing Special Summons themselves as much as the Decks they are countering, its a one-sided effect pretty much.

-Can easily been run over is no good either. Most/all field nukers should be banned, and Chaos Emperor Dragon should be legal because it can be countered by that reasoning.

-Solemn Judgement's cost screws you over so badly that its a bad card [/lol]

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Well i'm not leaving.

The point is' date=' l MADE arguments. So don't sit there and say l haven't said a damn thing.

 

Oppression is a trap (Easily run over) [b']We've been through counterability.[/b]

 

slow You can set it up as soon as you need it unless your opponent Special Summons during your turn, in which case it's likely either Tokens or a Damage Step SS, so Tokens are the only thing which can take advantage of it being "slow".

 

counterproductive, Filler flavor adjective.

 

can become useless/dead As can anything involving Special Summoning a monster, broken or not.

 

and it's LP cost can easily screw you over Benefit outweighs cost.

 

whilst your opponent abuses YOUR CARD. People don't exactly run this in Decks abundant in Special Summoning resources. We've been through this. >_>

 

All to negate you op's special summons AND YOUR OWN? Which is an unfair advantage against cards which don't necessarily have to have done anything worthy of punishment. This's like saying "ALL to murder your opponent's Deck if they happen to be running the wrong Decktype, render them utterly helpless, and win without any skill required at all?"

 

Oh please. Really, this card, banned? Ridikkulus! Running out of things to say?

[Great Unclean One: VK]

 

Oppression is a trap (Easily run over)' date=' [b']So? We got counter measures[/b]

 

slow, counterproductive, can become useless/dead, Nope, if you make your deck correctly,

 

it's LP cost can easily screw you over No, not really, lose 800 or 3000 from jd?

 

opponent abuses YOUR CARD. Once again, if you built your deck properly, it won't happen

 

 

 

I've just turned the chessboard.

[CrabHelmet]

Well i'm not leaving.

The point is' date=' l MADE arguments. So don't sit there and say l haven't said a damn thing.

[/quote']

 

Those arguments were rebutted... after which, rather than making any rebuttals yourself, you joined the peanut gallery.

 

Oppression is a trap (Easily run over)' date='

[/quote']

 

You're confusing Oppression with Jowgen. 200 ATK monsters are easily run over. Trap Cards cannot have attacks declared against them, which means that they cannot be run over at all unless the opponent has the appropriate removal on hand.

 

slow' date='

[/quote']

 

No, not really. You Set it... and then you activate it next turn. That's not exactly a huge delay, especially when you consider that the vast majority of your opponent's Special Summoning takes place during their turn.

 

counterproductive' date='

[/quote']

 

I see locking down my opponent's Special Summons as highly productive, actually.

 

can become useless/dead' date='

[/quote']

 

Only if the opponent is running a deck that never Special Summons... in which case they're almost certainly running Oppressions of their own.

 

and it's LP cost can easily screw you over whilst your opponent abuses YOUR CARD.

 

No. No' date=' it can't. Ever.

 

First of all, use of Oppression's effect is completely optional, so your opponent cannot ever use that against you. Unless, of course, you're the AI in one of the video games, since it insists on negating Treeborn endlessly, but most players are not bad AIs.

 

Second of all, if your opponent actually benefits from having every last one of their Special Summon cards turned into copies of Ookazi, then something is very, very wrong.

 

All to negate you op's special summons AND YOUR OWN?

 

Yeah. See, Oppression decks don't run a whole lot of Special Summons to negate in the first place, and negating opponent's Special Summons is a very big deal.

 

Oh please. Really' date=' this card, banned? [i']Ridikkulus![/i]

 

Logical arguments: they're what this isn't.

 

 

Oppression is a trap (Easily run over)' date=' [b']So? We got counter measures[/b]

 

slow, counterproductive, can become useless/dead, Nope, if you make your deck correctly,

 

it's LP cost can easily screw you over No, not really, lose 800 or 3000 from jd?

 

opponent abuses YOUR CARD. Once again, if you built your deck properly, it won't happen

 

 

 

I've just turned the chessboard.

 

That's not what Battler means when he says that.

 

Just sayin'.

[Great Unclean One: VK]

Well i'm not leaving.

The point is' date=' l MADE arguments. So don't sit there and say l haven't said a damn thing.

[/quote']

 

Those arguments were rebutted... after which, rather than making any rebuttals yourself, you joined the peanut gallery.

 

Oppression is a trap (Easily run over)' date='

[/quote']

 

You're confusing Oppression with Jowgen. 200 ATK monsters are easily run over. Trap Cards cannot have attacks declared against them, which means that they cannot be run over at all unless the opponent has the appropriate removal on hand.

 

slow' date='

[/quote']

 

No, not really. You Set it... and then you activate it next turn. That's not exactly a huge delay, especially when you consider that the vast majority of your opponent's Special Summoning takes place during their turn.

 

counterproductive' date='

[/quote']

 

I see locking down my opponent's Special Summons as highly productive, actually.

 

can become useless/dead' date='

[/quote']

 

Only if the opponent is running a deck that never Special Summons... in which case they're almost certainly running Oppressions of their own.

 

and it's LP cost can easily screw you over whilst your opponent abuses YOUR CARD.

 

No. No' date=' it can't. Ever.

 

First of all, use of Oppression's effect is completely optional, so your opponent cannot ever use that against you. Unless, of course, you're the AI in one of the video games, since it insists on negating Treeborn endlessly, but most players are not bad AIs.

 

Second of all, if your opponent actually benefits from having every last one of their Special Summon cards turned into copies of Ookazi, then something is very, very wrong.

 

All to negate you op's special summons AND YOUR OWN?

 

Yeah. See, Oppression decks don't run a whole lot of Special Summons to negate in the first place, and negating opponent's Special Summons is a very big deal.

 

Oh please. Really' date=' this card, banned? [i']Ridikkulus![/i]

 

Logical arguments: they're what this isn't.

 

 

Oppression is a trap (Easily run over)' date=' [b']So? We got counter measures[/b]

 

slow, counterproductive, can become useless/dead, Nope, if you make your deck correctly,

 

it's LP cost can easily screw you over No, not really, lose 800 or 3000 from jd?

 

opponent abuses YOUR CARD. Once again, if you built your deck properly, it won't happen

 

 

 

I've just turned the chessboard.

 

That's not what Battler means when he says that.

 

Just sayin'.

 

1. You watch Umineko too?

 

2. I compeletly agree with Crab. (Considering he's like the grandpa of YGO)

[CrabHelmet]

1. You watch Umineko too?

 

I'm pretty far behind... still on the second arc. I'll catch up over winter break.

 

2. I compeletly agree with Crab. (Considering he's like the grandpa of YGO)

 

lolno

[Psycho Shocker Android]

Wow' date=' this whole thread you people have been saying "it doesn't matter how good RO is, it's a type killer so it needs to be banned" and when I bring up fossil dyna (which is actually even more of a type killer, as it stops even in the damage step) all you can say is "well it's not as good as RO".

 

How "good" does a type killer need to be to be banworthy? You're going to have to define that clearly before you can say RO is banworthy but fossil dyna isn't.

[/quote']

 

Fossil Dyna and Jowgen, being monsters with less-than-amazing stats, have an inherent destruction condition - death by battle - that Royal Oppression lacks. This makes them trivial to remove regardless of the player's hand or deck, whereas Royal Oppression can mean game if the opponent hasn't drawn into any s/t removal yet.

 

It's related to the sliding scale of counterability that has Spiritualism near one end and Dark Spirit Art - Greed near the other end. If a card can be negated by Counter Traps, that's fairly meaningless in terms of balance; if, however, it can be negated by the opponent revealing any Spell Card or fulfilling some similar condition, that is much more significant.

 

I completely agree on the fact that a card that kills a certain type of cards permanently shouldn't be legal if your opponent needs another particular type of card to deal with it. These type of cards basically say you win unless your opponent top decks.

 

I know anti meta players don't want to lose their best weapon but ask them how they feel when facing a royal decree.

 

The big difference I see between oppression and let's say pachycephalo is that when you attack fossil dyna, sure you risk your monster, but if you destroy the threat, your monster is still there. On the other hand with oppression you lose a mst or fairy wind and you probably lost another monster when oppression was activated.

[CrabHelmet]

Wow' date=' this whole thread you people have been saying "it doesn't matter how good RO is, it's a type killer so it needs to be banned" and when I bring up fossil dyna (which is actually even more of a type killer, as it stops even in the damage step) all you can say is "well it's not as good as RO".

 

How "good" does a type killer need to be to be banworthy? You're going to have to define that clearly before you can say RO is banworthy but fossil dyna isn't.

[/quote']

 

Fossil Dyna and Jowgen, being monsters with less-than-amazing stats, have an inherent destruction condition - death by battle - that Royal Oppression lacks. This makes them trivial to remove regardless of the player's hand or deck, whereas Royal Oppression can mean game if the opponent hasn't drawn into any s/t removal yet.

 

It's related to the sliding scale of counterability that has Spiritualism near one end and Dark Spirit Art - Greed near the other end. If a card can be negated by Counter Traps, that's fairly meaningless in terms of balance; if, however, it can be negated by the opponent revealing any Spell Card or fulfilling some similar condition, that is much more significant.

 

I completely agree on the fact that a card that kills a certain type of cards permanently shouldn't be legal if your opponent needs another particular type of card to deal with it. These type of cards basically say you win unless your opponent top decks.

 

I know anti meta players don't want to lose their best weapon but ask them how they feel when facing a royal decree.

 

The big difference I see between oppression and let's say pachycephalo is that when you attack fossil dyna, sure you risk your monster, but if you destroy the threat, your monster is still there. On the other hand with oppression you lose a mst or fairy wind and you probably lost another monster when oppression was activated.

 

Eh, it's possible to float outside of battle. To me, the difference is not that removing Oppression is more expensive but rather that a player cannot reasonably expect to always have a counter to Oppression available (whereas a player should always be able to muster up some way of running over a 1400 ATK beatstick).

[Tempest Dahlia]

Ok, since it's apparent that i'm right, yet so stupid for being just that, l won't say anything else.

 

But l will stand with my decision- This card dosen't even deserve a semi. Whatever, l guess i'm wrong for that too, so l won't argue it any further.

[Psycho Shocker Android]

Ok' date=' since it's apparent that i'm right, yet so stupid for being just that, l won't say anything else.

 

But l will stand with my decision- This card dosen't even deserve a semi. Whatever, l guess i'm [i']wrong[/i] for that too, so l won't argue it any further.

 

What's your oppinion of royal decree, imperial order and crush card virus?

[Tempest Dahlia]

Why?

 

Decree- Fine. Not banworthy.

IO- Already banned. Not really sure if it's banworthy anymore...

CCV- Already banned. Banworthy.

[BulletMan]

@~P O L A R I S~: do you go to a locals, or such, or have you played against RO decks before?

 

I remember the time when half of everybody I went against at mine had sometype of anti-meta, mainly with opressions, and I was running Gigaplant. >_<

 

But, did you truthfully run into any problems with it?

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Wow' date=' this whole thread you people have been saying "it doesn't matter how good RO is, it's a type killer so it needs to be banned" and when I bring up fossil dyna (which is actually even more of a type killer, as it stops even in the damage step) all you can say is "well it's not as good as RO".

 

How "good" does a type killer need to be to be banworthy? You're going to have to define that clearly before you can say RO is banworthy but fossil dyna isn't.

[/quote']

 

Fossil Dyna and Jowgen, being monsters with less-than-amazing stats, have an inherent destruction condition - death by battle - that Royal Oppression lacks. This makes them trivial to remove regardless of the player's hand or deck, whereas Royal Oppression can mean game if the opponent hasn't drawn into any s/t removal yet.

 

It's related to the sliding scale of counterability that has Spiritualism near one end and Dark Spirit Art - Greed near the other end. If a card can be negated by Counter Traps, that's fairly meaningless in terms of balance; if, however, it can be negated by the opponent revealing any Spell Card or fulfilling some similar condition, that is much more significant.

 

Cool, but in no way does that respond to the main point I was making. All that argument is is another, more detailed way of saying "Oppression is better than fossil dyna so it deserves to be banned and FD doesn't"... once again without any standards for defining where exactly the scale turns for type killers, this is a baseless argument, and is essentially a variant of "[broken Card X] should not be banned because it is not as broken as [banned Card C]."

 

Or rather, Fossil Dyna should not be banned because it is not as broken as (ideally banned) Royal Oppression.

[Sleepy]

"[Broken Card X] should not be banned because it is not as broken as [banned Card C]."

 

^That argument is only applied when the bolded is true. You are talking about an effect monster's effect. Your opponent won't even make the attempt of Special Summoning when looking at that sitting on the field. Its stats are too low to survive most battles and its Type and Attribute most likely unrelated to most Decks you want to use it in, that's a major point to have into account. You cannot compare them in temrs of playability.

[Psycho Shocker Android]

Wow' date=' this whole thread you people have been saying "it doesn't matter how good RO is, it's a type killer so it needs to be banned" and when I bring up fossil dyna (which is actually even more of a type killer, as it stops even in the damage step) all you can say is "well it's not as good as RO".

 

How "good" does a type killer need to be to be banworthy? You're going to have to define that clearly before you can say RO is banworthy but fossil dyna isn't.

[/quote']

 

Fossil Dyna and Jowgen, being monsters with less-than-amazing stats, have an inherent destruction condition - death by battle - that Royal Oppression lacks. This makes them trivial to remove regardless of the player's hand or deck, whereas Royal Oppression can mean game if the opponent hasn't drawn into any s/t removal yet.

 

It's related to the sliding scale of counterability that has Spiritualism near one end and Dark Spirit Art - Greed near the other end. If a card can be negated by Counter Traps, that's fairly meaningless in terms of balance; if, however, it can be negated by the opponent revealing any Spell Card or fulfilling some similar condition, that is much more significant.

 

Cool, but in no way does that respond to the main point I was making. All that argument is is another, more detailed way of saying "Oppression is better than fossil dyna so it deserves to be banned and FD doesn't"... once again without any standards for defining where exactly the scale turns for type killers, this is a baseless argument, and is essentially a variant of "[broken Card X] should not be banned because it is not as broken as [banned Card C]."

 

Or rather, Fossil Dyna should not be banned because it is not as broken as (ideally banned) Royal Oppression.

 

There is a way to destroy pachycephalo without the use of any special type of cards, you just need to attack it, something any deck can do. In the case of oppression you need "S/T destruction". This isn't a built in way to destroy it.

 

It's like if fossil dyna said "to destroy me, attack with a monster that has more than 1200 atk". (or 1300 if he's in def position) This isn't specific. How do you kill your opponent? By attacking him.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

"[Broken Card X] should not be banned because it is not as broken as [banned Card C]."

 

^That argument is only applied when the bolded is true. You are talking about an effect monster's effect. Your opponent won't even make the attempt of Special Summoning when looking at that sitting on the field. Its stats are too low to survive most battles and its Type and Attribute most likely unrelated to most Decks you want to use it in' date=' that's a major point to have into account. You cannot compare them in temrs of playability.

[/quote']

 

Again, i'm not trying to say that fossil dyna is as good as RO, which nobody here seems to get. What i'm saying is that the "type killer" argument fails without a strict definition of how good a type killer needs to be to be banworthy.

 

Both you and Psycho Shocker are trying to argue based on "RO is better than fossil dyna"... the exact argument my posts were saying was essentially meaningless.

[Manjoume Thunder]

Wow. I actually expected some serious discussion. Not this "BAN GOOD CARDS" bullshit.

[Tempest Dahlia]

Wow. I actually expected some serious discussion. Not this "BAN GOOD CARDS" bullshit.

 

Is that the sound of /fact words?

Why yes it is.

As usual, someone can't beat a card and they skip right to shunning it >_>

[Psycho Shocker Android]

"[Broken Card X] should not be banned because it is not as broken as [banned Card C]."

 

^That argument is only applied when the bolded is true. You are talking about an effect monster's effect. Your opponent won't even make the attempt of Special Summoning when looking at that sitting on the field. Its stats are too low to survive most battles and its Type and Attribute most likely unrelated to most Decks you want to use it in' date=' that's a major point to have into account. You cannot compare them in temrs of playability.

[/quote']

 

Again, i'm not trying to say that fossil dyna is as good as RO, which nobody here seems to get. What i'm saying is that the "type killer" argument fails without a strict definition of how good a type killer needs to be to be banworthy.

 

Both you and Psycho Shocker are trying to argue based on "RO is better than fossil dyna"... the exact argument my posts were saying was essentially meaningless.

 

Pachycephalo is different than oppression you can't destroy oppression via battle. It doesn't mean pachycephalo is weaker vs sp summons than oppression, it's actually better since you don't need to pay any LP and you even prevent stuff like Vayu. It seems like we are saying it's weaker to you because it can be destroyed by battle, but in reality what we are saying it's that the card's power is kept in check with a way to destroy it.

 

If you want a definition of that : Type Killers aren't banworthy if they have an inherent destruction condition.