[DISC] Royal Oppression

[BulletMan]

We can't make it banned, only konami can. And even so, on a fair list, this wouldn't be effected, cause it doesn't do squat but slows down.

[Sleepy]

We can't make it banned' date=' only konami can.

[/quote']

 

Being able to make it banned =/= Admiting it is broken

 

And even so' date=' on a fair list, this wouldn't be effected, cause it doesn't do squat but slows down.

[/quote']

 

Slows down your opponent. Promotes an easy way to slow down your opponent's Deck to a big extent.

And gain advantage while doing so, in 1 card....

[BulletMan]

...That can be countered easily and forces you to have cards that work with it, but are slower.

 

If RO was broken, it would be meta.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

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.

 

OK, so you're saying type killers are only banworthy if they destroy cards now? RO doesn't stop you from summoning zombie master either, just from using his effect. It and Shadow mirror have the same effects in that case.

 

How about this theoretical continuous trap:

While this card is on the field, monsters special summoned cannot attack, use their effects, be tributed, be used for synchro or fusion material, be counted towards ATK or DEF boosts by the effect of other cards, or sent to the graveyard or removed from play by effects or costs of effects. If a special summoned monster is the only monster on a player's side of the field, their opponent can attack directly.

 

That one doesn't destroy anything, but I doubt you would consider RO banworthy and not this, despite the "destruction" litmus test you were using earlier. And like skill drain and the mirrors, you can still put monsters on the field.

 

For the record, I don't think fossil dyna or RO are banworthy, and I certainly don't think the logic supplied so far is sufficient to ban one and not the other.

[Wizarus]

@ GenzoTheHarpist - "In that case" is the key phrase. You can not make the argument that SIM and RO work the same way; because that would be false. And Zombie Master was a bad example, because it's one of the few cards that can Special Summon and can actually be of use if RO is on the field.

 

What seperates RO from both of those Continuous Traps you mention, is the fact that RO serverly limits the number of monsters you are allowed to summon. You can't Synchro, Ritual, Fusion, Summon any nomi, or Special Summon from your hand, deck, or graveyard. Do you know how many cards/decks are knocked out by this effect? This is too wide of an effect that counters broken cards, but also punishes decks for doing what they're suppose to do.

 

One card>Entire deck=Banworthy.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Guys, Breath of Light, Warrior Elimination, Last Day of Witch, Exile of the Wicked, Acid Rain, etc are incredible broken. Raigeki's uncalled for, why shouldn't those be just because they happen to punish an opponent for playing a Type which doesn't necessarily have to be broken.

 

If RO was broken' date=' it would be meta.

[/quote']

 

I simply stood there. Rooted to the spot, as if in paralysis. Jaw agape.

[CrabHelmet]

Is it just me, or do most of the last forty or so posts of this topic consist of a couple of morons congratulating themselves on their non-existent rebuttals and on how they're super-geniuses because they can't distinguish the word "should" from the words "will" and "are"?

 

Guys' date=' Breath of Light, Warrior Elimination, Last Day of Witch, Exile of the Wicked, Acid Rain, etc are incredible broken. Raigeki's uncalled for, why shouldn't those be just because they happen to punish an opponent for playing a Type which doesn't necessarily have to be broken.

[/quote']

 

I'm afraid I'm going to have to turn against you here. The cards you list have neither utility nor locking power.

[evilfusion]

I've never played against Royal Oppression, but I can easily see where the problems come from. Previously, I never considered it a problem at all, due to the cost. Weakening yourself by 800 lifepoints every time your opponent special summons seemed like a fair and balanced trade-off and it can be used as anti-swarm. In addition, your opponent can do the same to you. The thing is, if so many decks focus on swarming these days, this card does neutralize them and that's likely why it's so...debated about. The card has the potential to screw people's decks over because the meta (I think) has become so fast paced and aggressive.

 

Is this a huge problem? Yes and no.

 

From what I gathered, certain themes thrive because of incredibly fast special summoning, such as Blackwings, with several of them being able to be special summoned if you have another one out (Gale, Bora, etc) and others work off special summoning others. This card slows the deck down but doesn't immediately thrash it.

 

Then there's Lightsworn and the JD or DAD issue and this card is nice to be able to stop free special summons for a small cost. Gladiator Beasts get crushed completely, since their entire game mechanic revolves around getting effects by special summoning them. This makes this card rather overpowered, as Glads have almost nothing going for them if they can't special summon.

 

It can be worked around, by dealing enough damage to your opponent so that paying the cost is too risky, or by negating or destroying it, but you're still going to lose something if your opponent used it in response to a special summon.

 

The other problem with this card is that, as already mentioned, being a continuous trap makes it harder to be rid of. Other cards, like Jowgen and Fossil Dyna have the ability to lock special summons, but they are monsters and are therefore subject to being killed in battle with subpar stats as well as the plethora of monster removal bouncing around everywhere. With Breaker at 3, Oppression could get removed easily, depending on how devoted a deck is to special summoning vs S/T removal.

 

One more problem I see with Oppression is in regards to Synchros being the big thing. This locks down Synchros indefinitely, also wasting all the resources and effort into summoning it if you chained this in response. Fusions and Rituals also get beaten by this and any deck using those types of cards are being kicked in the teeth.

 

As far as the comparisons to Breath of Light, etc and calling them broken...that's completely absurd. Who puts a one-use normal spell that destroys faceup monsters of ONE particular type of monster (including ones on your field) in their deck with the hopes that their opponent will swarm the field with that type of monster in order to actually give that card merit? Lightning Vortex can do the same thing to ALL faceup OPPOSING monsters for a single discard, but I dont hear people saying that's broken, so an incredibly conditional singular-type card with no cost isn't even close on the scale of brokenness. Oppression has a cost, but it locks off an entire game mechanic and is reusable so long as you have at least 801 lifepoints left.

 

I'm kind of borderline on saying Oppression is BROKEN, but it's definitely a problem that, with the Synchro mechanic and the tendency to special summon more to accomodate Synchros faster, it's bannable on the principle that it can completely demolish decks and can gain a huge advantage for the user.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

@ GenzoTheHarpist - "In that case" is the key phrase. You can not make the argument that SIM and RO work the same way; because that would be false. And Zombie Master was a bad example' date=' because it's one of the few cards that can Special Summon and can actually be of use if RO is on the field.

 

What seperates RO from both of those Continuous Traps you mention, is the fact that RO serverly limits the number of monsters you are allowed to summon. You can't Synchro, Ritual, Fusion, Summon any nomi, or Special Summon from your hand, deck, or graveyard. Do you know how many cards/decks are knocked out by this effect? This is too wide of an effect that counters broken cards, but also punishes decks for doing what they're suppose to do.

 

One card>Entire deck=Banworthy.

[/quote']

 

OK, do you think that the theoretical card I posted is banworthy then? You can still do all the things you just mentioned, but I have a feeling you'd find my theoretical "royal restriction" to be just as banworthy as RO.

[Wizarus]

Your example is essentially what RO does. Except RO does it better, since a monster doesn't even have the chance of getting on the field while RO is acitvated. Of course, It would be banned, but I'm not seeing how your example has anything to do with RO not being broken.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Your example is essentially what RO does. Except RO does it better' date=' since a monster doesn't even have the chance of getting on the field while RO is acitvated. Of course, It would be banned, but I'm not seeing how your example has anything to do with RO not being broken.

[/quote']

 

You said that type killers were banworthy only if they destroyed monsters/stopped monsters from reaching the field. I proved your logic was flawed by demonstrating how a more complete "mirror" type effect would, in your eyes, also be banworthy, which eliminates your explanation for why RO should be banned but not shadow imprisoning mirror.

 

I first brought up fossil dyna to question you, and you said it was not banworthy due to it having an inherent destruction condition. I then brought up warrior elimination, and you said it was not continuous, and thus should not be banned while RO should. Then I brought up Shadow Mirror, which is continuous, has no inherent destruction condition, and is a type killer, and you claimed that a type killer is only banworthy if, in addition to the earlier traits, it destroys monsters or prevents them from being summoned. This, with my theoretical card, I have proved that explanation is lacking. Try harder.

[CrabHelmet]

To give you a serious answer: How you deal with Type-Killers varies with what philosophy you use. To me, for a philosophy to be internally consistent and ban Royal Oppression, it also needs to ban the Imprisoning Mirrors - especially since the latter cards are infinitely more degenerate in their design, being characteristic of Konami's let's-"balance"-broken-stuff-by-releasing-stupidly-powerful-counters - unless the distinction is drawn based on utility, with Royal Oppression being at least somewhat effective against pretty much everything that isn't also an Oppression deck but the Imprisoning Mirrors being completely ineffective against anything except the decks against which they are geared and thus being either confined to the Side Deck or a dead draw against most matchups.

 

The issue of utility is a very important one when it comes to Type-Killers, because it determines how strong their impact is. A Type-Killer that lacks utility will merely be pulled in as a counter; a Type-Killer that does not lack utility, however, will be used normally and thus preclude the very existence of the decks it counters, "killing" them.

 

For example, compare Acid Raid to Chimeratech Fortress Dragon. Acid Rain is decent against Machines, being a Lightning Vortex without a discard cost - but it is useless in every other matchup and thus lacks the utility to have a large impact. However, consider Chimeratech Fortress Dragon. Treating the Fusion Deck space used as negligible, it has the same utility as Cyber Dragon, which - assuming for argument's sake that it is legal in the constructed format - is a card with high utility. This makes its impact on Machine decks much more powerful, since the problem is no longer "people can side against us" but rather "people are maining stuff that makes us all die".

 

An easier example: A popular target for some 3/0 lists to attack as a Type-Killer is Nobleman of Crossout, for its effect on Flip Effect Monsters. However, the only reason Nobleman of Crossout is considered a threat is the utility it has. Consider a similar card - call it "Squire of Crossout" - that has the same effect as Nobleman of Crossout if it hits a Flip Effect Monster but that, should it hit any other monster, simply returns it to its original face-down Defense Position on the field. Squire of Crossout and Nobleman of Crossout have identical effects against Flip Effect Monsters, but most people who would want Nobleman of Crossout banned would not care about Squire of Crossout at all. Why? Because Nobleman of Crossout has far more utility and Squire of Crossout does not.

 

Of course, utility is not the only factor. There are plenty of others to consider. For example: Royal Oppression requires deck dedication, whereas the Imprisoning Mirrors can be splashed into anything; hence, Royal Oppression makes for one bad matchup for Special Summon-heavy decks, but the Imprisoning Mirrors potentially make Duels 2 and 3 of every matchup a problem for DARK- or LIGHT-heavy decks. Such a distinction is a very important one; after all, Macro Cosmos and Dimensional Fissure are crippling to Graveyard-reliant decks like Zombies and Lightlords, but their impact is greatly weakened by the fact that they require the user's deck to be structured to accommodate them.

 

However, these distinctions have significant meaning. The distinctions that theend123 is drawing - whether the card limits how many monsters you can summon; whether the card imposes direct destruction; whether the card prevents the wearing of sunglasses on Tuesdays - are really not meaningful, as they draw arbitrary lines between the different forms that Type-Killers can take, instead of getting to the heart of the matter.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

I knew the whole time there were good arguments he could have been making (though I still would have disagreed), but I participated in this to see if he could come up with anything worthwhile on his own. Thanks, though.

[Wizarus]

Alright, my argument was proven false. Although RO is better SIM, there is no way that you can ban RO and not ban SIM. But Genzo does bring up an interesting point; how would you draw the line between exceptable Type Killers, and Type Killers that are bad for the game?

 

I think that continuous TKs should be banned. That includes Fossil DNA, the example Genzo presented. TKs that can provide instant advantage through knowledge of your opponent's deck before the game should also be banned; as this is bad for the game in general.

 

With that being said, I'm going to have to agree with Polaris. Type Killers like the one's he mention will always be a +0, and could potentially become a +4, just by knowing what type of deck your opponent is running. That is definately bad for the game, regardless of it's lacking utility.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Alright' date=' my argument was proven false. Although RO is better SIM, there is no way that you can ban RO and not ban SIM. But Genzo does bring up an interesting point; how would you draw the line between exceptable Type Killers, and Type Killers that are bad for the game?

 

I think that continuous TKs should be banned. That includes Fossil DNA, the example Genzo presented. TKs that can provide instant advantage through knowledge of your opponent's deck before the game should also be banned; as this is bad for the game in general.

 

With that being said, I'm going to have to agree with Polaris. Type Killers like the one's he mention will always be a +0, and could potentially become a +4, just by knowing what type of deck your opponent is running. That is definately bad for the game, regardless of it's lacking utility.

[/quote']

 

So you think all continuous type killers should be banned? You're proposing banning all of the following:

 

Jowgen

Fossil Dyna

Shadow Imprisoning Mirror

Light Imprisoning Mirror

Royal Oppression

Skill Drain

Spell Canceler

Jinzo

Horus LV 8

Sky Scourge Invincil

End of Anubis

Dimensional Fissure

Macro Cosmos

Banisher of the Radiance

Banisher of the Light

Necrovalley

Invader of Darkness

Royal Command

The Emperor's Holiday

GB Hunter

Imperial Iron Wall

Des Wombat

Prime Material Dragon

Dimension Fortress Weapon

 

No, somehow I still don't think you're fully thinking this through.

[Technicolour Genocide]

On the subject of Oppression, can someone tell me what a good Oppression Monarch looks like?

 

I'm not too clear on the details, but isn't it basically just Stun?

[Wizarus]

Well Horus LV8 can't get banned, because he's 1 of my favorite monsters[/sarcasm]

 

Maybe I should rethink this. I'll start from the beginning, and I'll work my way forward. RO should be banned because the it negates SS, which is needed, because most decks require SS for their strategy to succeed. It's not the fact that it locks your opponent down, it's that it instantaneously locks your opponent down. It requires no set up at all, and If you activate it during your opponent's first turn(or their first SS) it puts most decks in an almost unwinnable situation, untill he/she is able to draw a removal card. This will force players to adjust to a single card in the game.

 

Only 1 of the cards you listed instantaneously hampers a basic concept of the game: RO. Monsters that are instantaneous, like Fossil DNA, require protection from being destroyed by battle.

 

I must be missing something; how is this not bannable?

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Skill Drain hampers a basic concept of the game. It's instantaneous (as much as any trap can be). It's cost will probably end up being less than RO's. It requires no set up. It has no inherent destruction condition.

 

Ban skill drain?

[CrabHelmet]

Skill Drain hampers a basic concept of the game. It's instantaneous (as much as any trap can be). It's cost will probably end up being less than RO's. It requires no set up. It has no inherent destruction condition.

 

Ban skill drain?

 

To be quite honest' date=' I'd be interested in seeing the rationale behind a banlist that [i']didn't[/i] have Royal Oppression and Skill Drain at the same position. It seems to me that internal philosophical consistency would force them to be in the same slot. The only work-around that comes to mind is something based around the "SKILL DRAIN STILL LETS MONSTERS HIT STUFF UNTIL THE STUFF DIES" train of thought, but I am very much not buying it. Perhaps some argument could be made based on Skill Drain permitting the user to still use effects that dodge it while the opponent (having not built a deck around it) cannot use effects at all, but Royal Oppression has an analogous impact with its Damage Step limitation, and perfect two-sidedness was never the heart of the matter in either case, since it as always assumed from the start that the user would be less inconvenienced. At any rate, I'm really not convinced that a list can reasonably separate Royal Oppression and Skill Drain without being arbitrary and inconsistent.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

I agree 100%...

 

And furthermore, by the logic theend is using, half the (terrible) cards on that list I made should be banned as well.

[CrabHelmet]

I agree 100%...

 

And furthermore' date=' by the logic theend is using, half the (terrible) cards on that list I made should be banned as well.

[/quote']

 

Eh, he's allowing locks caused by monsters, locks requiring any setup, locks that are slow, locks that kill some decks but not most decks, and getting a Royal Fizzbin with two Jacks if it's Friday. Under the rules he has set, I think every card bar Skill Drain on your list is permissible. The question is whether the rules he has set actually make sense.

 

(For example, "large" monsters are not as easy to run over as "small" monsters - a 3000 ATK behemoth like Horus LV8 essentially forces removal. And Some Decks versus Most Decks is a gross oversimplification of the concept of utility; Nobleman of Crossout doesn't murder Most Decks, after all. I'm honestly not sure what Willis he's talking about when he refers to things being slow or requiring setup, especially since Royal Oppression has been called "slow" earlier in this thread by pretentiousnumbersreborn and requires a full deck's worth of setup.)

[Wizarus]

Skill Drain hampers a basic concept of the game. It's instantaneous (as much as any trap can be). It's cost will probably end up being less than RO's. It requires no set up. It has no inherent destruction condition.

 

Ban skill drain?

 

Most decks can operate despite the fact that Skill Drain is on the field. It's just affects the monsters directly on the field' date=' It does nothing to hamper field presence. RO affects monsters, traps, and spells. I also does hamper field presence.

 

RO doesn't just negate Summons. It also negates effects that are jumbled in with the SS. For instance, [s']if I were running a Crystal Beast deck, it would negate Ancient City - Rainbow Ruins because 1 out of the 5 effects includes a "Special Summoning"[/s]. The same goes with Black Rose Garden, Starlight Road, and Crystal Abundance just to name a few.

 

Edited.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

RO doesn't just negate Summons. It also negates effects that are jumbled in with the SS. For instance' date=' if I were running a Crystal Beast deck, it would negate Ancient City - Rainbow Ruins because 1 out of the 5 effects includes a "Special Summoning". The same goes with Black Rose Garden, Starlight Road, and Crystal Abundance just to name a few.

[/quote']

 

WRONG