[DISC] Royal Oppression

[GenzoTheHarpist]

So should we ban acid rain, warrior elimination etc? Those have no inherent destruction conditions.

 

Should we ban skill drain? That has no inherent destruction conditions, is continuous, and can kill decks that rely on monster effects.

 

How about the light and dark mirrors, are those banworthy?

[Psycho Shocker Android]

So should we ban acid rain' date=' warrior elimination etc? Those have no inherent destruction conditions.

 

[b']They kill themselves when played. And they don't prevent warriors from being played after.[/b]

 

Should we ban skill drain? That has no inherent destruction conditions, is continuous, and can kill decks that rely on monster effects.

 

It doesn't kill the monsters, it stops their effects. I can still put my zombie master on the field I just can't use him to revive.

 

How about the light and dark mirrors, are those banworthy?

 

See skill drain.

 

I have 2 questions for you. Do you think royal oppression is banworthy? Do you think fossil dyna pachycephalo is banworthy? Take a look at spell canceller and imperial order. And don't say I can't remove spell canceller like imperial order it's easy to tribute it or synchro with it when I need to play spells for game.

 

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' date=' someone can't beat a card and they skip right to shunning it >_>

[/quote']

 

Now you are in for my biggest rant of the year. (read the sentence written in caps with the voice of the bully in the twisted sister video clip you'll see it's fun)

 

You think I can't beat that card. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, WHO THE funk ARE YOU TO SAY THIS. I've been playing this game since it came out I've went against the worst cards of them all I've triumphed over DUO, CED, BLS, CCV and you think I can't beat oppression. I know duelists who played anti meta their whole dueling career and I beat them even with oppression out. I've managed to pull wins out of nowhere. Managed to stay in the game long enough to finally get around this piece of crap. I'm not saying it's banworthy because I don't like the card HELL I SIDE THIS RIGHT NOW AGAINST GLADIATORS. I certainly wouldn't want to lose it unless we get a full good banlist. It's just that I'm able to see a flaw in it's conception something that makes it bannable. But you are way to stupid to see this. There's clearly something wrong with a card when a noob can flip this, in a machine deck running ancient gear gemini sheet and cyber esper and win, vs a good player with a GB deck, because he couldn't draw an out during a dozen turns. You can use this again and again and your opponent can't do sh*t unless he has so form of trap removal. I like CCV I know it's banworthy but I could say it's your problem, becuase you don't like it, because you can't beat it, if you don't like it, run gadgets they don't have 1500 atk so we can bring CCV back. I like DMoC, I mean I LOVE that card I played DDT for as long as I could until konami banned DMoC. I could beat the card, I was even playing the card and I knew it was too strong I was even admitting it was banworthy when my opponent said DMoC was too strong. It's clear that when oppression you can't play your monsters when you rely on sp summons you have no way to protect yourself unless you draw a way to get rid of this. Even worst when you draw the card to get rid of it then I hear my opponent jabroni about how I got lucky and that's it's just because of LUCK that I won. WELL IT'S YOUR FKING PROBLEM FOR TURNING THE GAME INTO A GAME OF MAJOR LUCK HAX PROBABILITY WITH YOUR ROYAL OPPRESSION. Oppression is stupid, you are placing your bet on a single card. Your deck loses unless you get it and you auto lose if your opponent can destroy it. You are just saying this because you know you're beaten, you're a quitter and you have nothing left but trying to attack the people who have destroyed your miserable arguments. You even think imperial order could come back. Go play dice it's a game of luck where the mechanics are easy enough for you to understand.

[Rose]

So should we ban acid rain' date=' warrior elimination etc? Those have no inherent destruction conditions.

 

[b']They kill themselves when played. And they don't prevent warriors from being played after.[/b]

 

Should we ban skill drain? That has no inherent destruction conditions, is continuous, and can kill decks that rely on monster effects.

 

It doesn't kill the monsters, it stops their effects. I can still put my zombie master on the field I just can't use him to revive.

 

How about the light and dark mirrors, are those banworthy?

 

See skill drain.

 

I have 2 questions for you. Do you think royal oppression is banworthy? Do you think fossil dyna pachycephalo is banworthy? Take a look at spell canceller and imperial order. And don't say I can't remove spell canceller like imperial order it's easy to tribute it or synchro with it when I need to play spells for game.

 

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' date=' someone can't beat a card and they skip right to shunning it >_>

[/quote']

 

Now you are in for my biggest rant of the year. (read the sentence written in caps with the voice of the bully in the twisted sister video clip you'll see it's fun)

 

You think I can't beat that card. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, WHO THE f*** ARE YOU TO SAY THIS. I've been playing this game since it came out I've went against the worst cards of them all I've triumphed over DUO, CED, BLS, CCV and you think I can't beat oppression. I know duelists who played anti meta their whole dueling career and I beat them even with oppression out. I've managed to pull wins out of nowhere. Managed to stay in the game long enough to finally get around this piece of crap. I'm not saying it's banworthy because I don't like the card HELL I SIDE THIS RIGHT NOW AGAINST GLADIATORS. I certainly wouldn't want to lose it unless we get a full good banlist. It's just that I'm able to see a flaw in it's conception something that makes it bannable. But you are way to stupid to see this. There's clearly something wrong with a card when a noob can flip this, in a machine deck running ancient gear gemini s*** and cyber esper and win, vs a good player with a GB deck, because he couldn't draw an out during a dozen turns. You can use this again and again and your opponent can't do sh*t unless he has so form of trap removal. I like CCV I know it's banworthy but I could say it's your problem, becuase you don't like it, because you can't beat it, if you don't like it, run gadgets they don't have 1500 atk so we can bring CCV back. I like DMoC, I mean I LOVE that card I played DDT for as long as I could until konami banned DMoC. I could beat the card, I was even playing the card and I knew it was too strong I was even admitting it was banworthy when my opponent said DMoC was too strong. It's clear that when oppression you can't play your monsters when you rely on sp summons you have no way to protect yourself unless you draw a way to get rid of this. Even worst when you draw the card to get rid of it then I hear my opponent b**** about how I got lucky and that's it's just because of LUCK that I won. WELL IT'S YOUR FKING PROBLEM FOR TURNING THE GAME INTO A GAME OF MAJOR LUCK HAX PROBABILITY WITH YOUR ROYAL OPPRESSION. Oppression is stupid, you are placing your bet on a single card. Your deck loses unless you get it and you auto lose if your opponent can destroy it. You are just saying this because you know you're beaten, you're a quitter and you have nothing left but trying to attack the people who have destroyed your miserable arguments. You even think imperial order could come back. Go play dice it's a game of luck where the mechanics are easy enough for you to understand.

 

Imperial Order should never come back.

[Wizarus]

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

 

If by good you mean broken' date=' then yes we should definately "BAN GOOD CARDS"

 

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 >_>

 

That wasn't a fact it was an opinion. And you once again decided to cheer on the sidelines when someone agrees with you, without providing any counterarguments as to why your opinion is right. Instead all your statements have been, "Well...I'm still right even though you proved my argument to be invalid"

[Tempest Dahlia]

@PSA

Feeling guilty, apparently. l never said you specifically. Oh, and that little rant you had there? lt was very retarded. When did you hear me say l hated ccv jabroni? Hmm? When did you hear me say lO should come back? Where the f*ck do DMoC even come from?

Your attempt to rant made me lol hard. Just STFU. Srsly, before my guts explode.

 

@Theed

You really want to be cool don't you? l gave my argument in that post but you skipped straight to trying to find a flaw. Lol.

Read it again.

[Sleepy]

@PSA

Feeling guilty' date=' apparently. l never said you specifically. Oh, and that little rant you had there? lt was very retarded. When did you hear me say l hated ccv a******? Hmm? When did you hear me say lO should come back? Where the f*ck do DMoC even come from?

Your attempt to rant made me lol hard. Just STFU. Srsly, before my guts explode.

[b']You can't see that those were mere examples?, if he reworded something wrong or not, the point of that post still stands and you should see it. It almost deserves a +REP xD

Also, didn't you say you weren't going to comment anymore but would still keep your opinion about this discussion? Your arguments have all been proven invalid, you DON'T LISTEN (see Crab referense here?). Just wait for someone to make a statement saying they kind of have the same point of view even if the comment is not backed up with any facts.

[/b]

 

@Theed

You really want to be cool don't you? l gave my argument in that post but you skipped straight to trying to find a flaw. Lol.

Read it again.

lol what he says covers your hole argument, the "flaw" in your post is the only thing to talk about in response because there wan't really anything else, save for the last sentence that sounds to me like a statement that has already been proved wrong before, probably about twice since the topic started. (I mean, one time you said all your points and Polaris proved all them invalid, and they had already been invalid at that point)

[Wizarus]

@Theed

You really want to be cool don't you? l gave my argument in that post but you skipped straight to trying to find a flaw. Lol.

Read it again.

 

Lol at suggesting that I actually care what LOLYCM thinks about me.:D

 

Is that the sound of /fact words?

Why yes it is.

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

[/quote']

 

But that's off topic. I reposted your post, and I still fail to see the point of it. All you did was comment on how someone else agrees with you, and concluded that your arguments were completely supported because of this agreement. The last part of your post was just a slur suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you can't stop RO, which once again, has already been proven false. Maybe you, yourself, need to reread some of the posts that were stated earlier before accusing me of skipping your "argument".

[Tempest Dahlia]

Why does it sound like everyone here is COMPLETELY IGNORING all it's negatives and skipping right to the one thing it's pretty good at?

 

And l knew it. The minute opposition comes into the room everyone wants to squash it. So because it has 4 very bad drawbacks and 1 ok effect it's banworthy!? Are you serious!? THAT IS VERY RIDICULOUS. "Let's ban this card because l keep losing to it." Oh please >_>

All this "Ban this! And this! And this!!" is getting out of hand. Stop complaining or stop playing.

[Sleepy]

Why does it sound like everyone here is COMPLETELY IGNORING all it's negatives and skipping right to the one thing it's pretty good at?

 

And l knew it. The minute opposition comes into the room everyone wants to squash it. So because it has 4 very bad drawbacks and 1 ok effect it's banworthy!? Are you serious!? THAT IS VERY RIDICULOUS. "Let's ban this card because l keep losing to it." Oh please >_>

All this "Ban this! And this! And this!!" is getting out of hand. Stop complaining or stop playing.

 

Read. The. Previews. Posts.

You've lasted to the 5th page of the discussion merely by doing exactly what you say we all have been doing. Skipping the points of the other side of the argument.

 

Of course we post our opposed points of view, isn't this card posted here for discussion anyways? Now you want it easy?

[Tempest Dahlia]

NO. That is not what i'm saying. l'm saying that it's something like-

 

ME- I think it shouldn't be banned bla bla...

YOU- No. (Reason). Automatically your argument is invalid.

ME- No, it has all that, but (Reason).

YOU- Invalid.

 

See how that's going? Ocassionaly l agree with someone and THAT'S invalid! l'm not just pulling that out my ass, it's true. I post why l think it shouldn't be banned and some of you start spitting fire.

 

And AGAIN, l have an opposing opinion and now i'm skipping points. >_>

[Great Unclean One: VK]

Why does it sound like everyone here is COMPLETELY IGNORING all it's negatives and skipping right to the one thing it's pretty good at?

 

And l knew it. The minute opposition comes into the room everyone wants to squash it. So because it has 4 very bad drawbacks and 1 ok effect it's banworthy!? Are you serious!? THAT IS VERY RIDICULOUS. "Let's ban this card because l keep losing to it." Oh please >_>

All this "Ban this! And this! And this!!" is getting out of hand. Stop complaining or stop playing.

 

Reborn is getting jumped here.......

 

Your doing the same thing dude. Your just focusing on the bad parts of the card, not the good one. Both the cost and effect is balanced, what are you complaining about?

[Tempest Dahlia]

VK, I don't agree on the balanced part, but since you do i'll go off that:

 

EXACTLY. lt's a balanced card. What lS there to complain about? I'm NOT complaining, quite the contrary since l see no reason for it to be banned.

[Sleepy]

NO. That is not what i'm saying. l'm saying that it's something like-

 

ME- I think it shouldn't be banned bla bla...So far so good.

YOU- No. (Reason). Automatically your argument is invalid. If the "YOU" side gave a reason' date=' O don't see what's wrong with this action.[/b']

ME- No, it has all that, but (Reason).

YOU- Invalid. You forget the "(Reason)" part in this sentence, we haven't said anything without a reason as far as I know.

 

See how that's going? Ocassionaly l agree with someone and THAT'S invalid! l'm not just pulling that out my ass, it's true. I post why l think it shouldn't be banned and some of you start spitting fire.

I could quote a couple of comments that say hi to this part >_> you should know what I'm talking about.

 

And AGAIN, l have an opposing opinion and now i'm skipping points. >_>

You sound offended here, you are the one that started saying it in the first place with no real explanation. The reason I said that, you have been just recycling your same reasons regardless of how many times other people explain why "not".

 

 

Why does it sound like everyone here is COMPLETELY IGNORING all it's negatives and skipping right to the one thing it's pretty good at?

 

And l knew it. The minute opposition comes into the room everyone wants to squash it. So because it has 4 very bad drawbacks and 1 ok effect it's banworthy!? Are you serious!? THAT IS VERY RIDICULOUS. "Let's ban this card because l keep losing to it." Oh please >_>

All this "Ban this! And this! And this!!" is getting out of hand. Stop complaining or stop playing.

 

Reborn is getting jumped here.......

 

Your doing the same thing dude. Your just focusing on the bad parts of the card' date=' not the good one. Both the cost and effect is balanced, what are you complaining about?

[/quote']

 

emmm... ummm...ammmm....hmmmm....⌐_⌐"

I find it difficult to know what side you are on, I thought I saw a comment saying something opposite earlier somewhere... (might have been my imagination..)... ummm....errrmmm...

Go back 2 pages and read the comments, then you'll know what we are discussing.

[Great Unclean One: VK]

VK' date=' I don't agree on the balanced part, but since you do i'll go off that:

 

EXACTLY. lt's a balanced card. What lS there to complain about? I'm NOT complaining, quite the contrary since l see no reason for it to be banned.

[/quote']

 

*hugz*

 

I agree, it is balanced, thus meaning the agruement should stop after this post!

[Tempest Dahlia]

VK' date=' I don't agree on the balanced part, but since you do i'll go off that:

 

EXACTLY. lt's a balanced card. What lS there to complain about? I'm NOT complaining, quite the contrary since l see no reason for it to be banned.

[/quote']

 

*hugz*

 

I agree, it is balanced, thus meaning the agruement should stop after this post!

 

Agreed. ^-^

[Wizarus]

Reborn is getting jumped here.......

 

Your doing the same thing dude. Your just focusing on the bad parts of the card' date=' not the good one. Both the cost and effect is balanced, what are you complaining about?

[/quote']

 

You can't comment on my post saying that I overlooked the argument and I was "trying to look cool" without expecting me to comment back. But I apologize if it looked that way.

 

The cost and effect of RO is hardly balanced. The 800/Summon is nothing compared to the sheer amount of advantage it provides. The card is also ridiculously one-sided(because if you're running this, and RO is not one-sided, then you're obviously doing it wrong). It's also been stated that this card brings Gladiator Beasts decks, as well as many other decks, to it's knees. Sure you CAN stop it, but why waste a card in your deck for RO, when it can be used for your deck strategy?

 

One card>Entire deck. Yeah that has "balanced" written all over it....

[BulletMan]

To end this arguement, every thing abot what everyone said is dumb, because it's Konami who decides which cards to ban. >__>

 

Its just a good card. That's it. You can say it's bannible, but that doesn't mean it will.

[Tempest Dahlia]

To end this arguement' date=' every thing abot what everyone said is dumb, because it's Konami who decides which cards to ban. >__>

 

Its just a good card. That's it. You can say it's bannible, but that doesn't mean it will.

[/quote']

 

XD First part is true. Whatever konami say is important. apparently they agree it isn't bannable.

 

True everyone will continue to have their opinions on cards, but whether we like it or no... Konami dosen't care.

[Sleepy]

To end this arguement' date=' every thing abot what everyone said is dumb, because it's Konami who decides which cards to ban. >__>

 

Its just a good card. That's it. You can say it's bannible, but that doesn't mean it will.

[/quote']

 

XD First part is true. Whatever konami say is important. apparently they agree it isn't bannable.

 

True everyone will continue to have their opinions on cards, but whether we like it or no... Konami dosen't care.

 

By that logic, DAD and JD are not borken at all because Konami doesn't want to have them banned.

[BulletMan]

To end this arguement' date=' every thing abot what everyone said is dumb, because it's Konami who decides which cards to ban. >__>

 

Its just a good card. That's it. You can say it's bannible, but that doesn't mean it will.

[/quote']

 

XD First part is true. Whatever konami say is important. apparently they agree it isn't bannable.

 

True everyone will continue to have their opinions on cards, but whether we like it or no... Konami dosen't care.

 

By that logic, DAD and JD are not borken at all because Konami doesn't want to have them banned.

 

No, their just greedy, too.

[Tempest Dahlia]

By that logic, it also dosen't matter. Apparently konami dosen't think so.

[BulletMan]

And when you say "then by that logic, konami doesn't think DAD or JD are broken so their not banned", should mean that Royal Opression definitely doesn't deserve to get a limit, let alone banned.

[Sleepy]

And when you say "then by that logic' date=' konami doesn't think DAD or JD are broken so their not banned", should mean that Royal Opression definitely doesn't deserve to get a limit, let alone banned.

[/quote']

 

I don't see how [broken card x] Should not be banned because its not as bad as [/broken card y]

My "by that logic" statement is a lie. That's implied by the stupidly broken cards I used as the example. And you are agreeing with the fake statement so you can say "Royal Oppression doesn't deserve to be limited, let alone banned" ?

[BulletMan]

it's konami's decision. So it's their logic. IDK exactly what there logic is, but, they know it.

[Sleepy]

it's konami's decision. So it's their logic. IDK exactly what there logic is' date=' but, they know it.

[/quote']

 

This is about the REAL placement that the card should have in the list regardless of were it is, of Konami's desitions, or were it will come to be. A card does not stop being abusable just because someone says so (in this case, your "someone" being Konami).

Don't follow blindly..