[Broken Card X] should not be banned because...

[Father Wolf]

ITT: The only legal cards should be Kirboh and De-Spell

 

Deck

Monsters 20

Kirboh x20

 

Spells

De-Spells x20

 

in fact Kirboh is broken because he hides in the hand

 

Spells 40

De-Spells x40

 

but de-spell is broken because it can kill de-spells

 

Deck x0

Time to quite giving a sheet about a card game and start getting laid.

[Toffee.]

lol@FW

 

Broken Topic X should be banned because users on YCM tend to be joke accounts

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Argument 7 works with COTH' date=' Monster Reborn, and Premature... it's the less of 3 evils and one of those three are necessary for the game.

[/quote']

 

No, generic costless revival is not necessary for the game. On the contrary it harms the game by even existing. Being sent to the Graveyard, once cause for alarm, is now cause for celebration. This almost assuredly stems from the advent of easy-to-use generic revival, among other things, such as Chaos-esque monsters, which rely on cards in the Graveyard in order to be Summoned/used.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

3) [Broken Card X] should not be banned because it has a high monetary cost.

 

This one always seemed to me more like an argument about why it should be banned (not that it's valid either way).

[daboss144]

Argument 7 works with COTH' date=' Monster Reborn, and Premature... it's the less of 3 evils and one of those three are necessary for the game.

[/quote']

 

No, generic costless revival is not necessary for the game. On the contrary it harms the game by even existing. Being sent to the Graveyard, once cause for alarm, is now cause for celebration. This almost assuredly stems from the advent of easy-to-use generic revival, among other things, such as Chaos-esque monsters, which rely on cards in the Graveyard in order to be Summoned/used.

 

I'm looking from a Konami standpoint. They will NEVER ban all 3 at once.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Argument 7 works with COTH' date=' Monster Reborn, and Premature... it's the less of 3 evils and one of those three are necessary for the game.

[/quote']

 

No, generic costless revival is not necessary for the game. On the contrary it harms the game by even existing. Being sent to the Graveyard, once cause for alarm, is now cause for celebration. This almost assuredly stems from the advent of easy-to-use generic revival, among other things, such as Chaos-esque monsters, which rely on cards in the Graveyard in order to be Summoned/used.

 

I'm looking from a Konami standpoint. They will NEVER ban all 3 at once.

 

Says you. And, even if that was true, why does it matter in this context. This topic is about logical fallacies in regards to the players, not Konami. They have another perspective on the game, one that mere players aren't privy to.

[CrabHelmet]

Argument 7 works with COTH' date=' Monster Reborn, and Premature... it's the less of 3 evils and one of those three are necessary for the game.

[/quote']

 

I will pass over the problem that none of those cards actually needs to be legal (and that the only evidence supporting their position is what you think Konami will do, which implies that you don't know what the word "should" means) and accept for the sake of argument the position that one of those three will be legal in order to examine the validity of Argument 7 in this situation.

 

The argument in question is not "Call of the Haunted should be legal because it is less broken than Monster Reborn and Premature Burial" but rather "Call of the Haunted should be legal because some form of super-recursion is necessary for the game and Call of the Haunted is the least-damaging form of such super-recursion". The key feature is the argument that one of those three needs to be legal in the first place, and as such the position being supported is not "Call of the Haunted should be legal, not banned!" but rather "Out of these three, the one that should remain legal is Call of the Haunted" - an important distinction, as it is being used not to save a card but rather to decide which card should be saved, and as such the argument's premise and conclusion are different, making it an entirely different argument that uses similar wording.

 

In other words, Argument 7 is not valid here, and it is not even being used here. Another argument that is related to Argument 7 is both used and valid here. The question here is not "Ban or not ban?" but "Ban which?"

 

3) [Broken Card X] should not be banned because it has a high monetary cost.

 

This one always seemed to me more like an argument about why it should be banned (not that it's valid either way).

 

In the interests of the reality that I by and large ignore, I would actually condone giving the benefit of the doubt to borderline cheap cards while not doing so for borderline expensive cards. Making the game less of a money game is a positive improvement, and while I construct lists on the assumption that everyone has an unlimited card pool (presumably they use YVD?) in my judgment of balance, someone who cares about real life should feel free to be a bit less forgiving toward the cards that not everyone can afford, as doing so increases equality of access to cards and thus improves the game state.

[-Griffin]

2) [Broken Card X] should not be banned because [Decktype L] is too weak without it.

 

I agree with this in LS and GBs case' date=' but I'm not sure it's always invalid - such as Short Circuit for Batterymen

 

Is this always true Crab of infinite wisdom? And can you explain to us in a bit more detail why it is [i']always[/i] true?

[CrabHelmet]

2) [Broken Card X] should not be banned because [Decktype L] is too weak without it.

 

I agree with this in LS and GBs case' date=' but I'm not sure it's always invalid - such as Short Circuit for Batterymen

 

Is this always true Crab of infinite wisdom? And can you explain to us in a bit more detail why it is [i']always[/i] true?

 

If a card is to remain legal, then giving a specific decktype a boost is not the reason - or at least not a valid reason - for keeping it legal. In the case of Short Circuit, it is generally left unbanned because the setup required is demanding enough, and the associated OTK weak enough, that it is not considered a problem in the first place; buffing Batterymen was never a factor.

[daboss144]

Argument 7 works with COTH' date=' Monster Reborn, and Premature... it's the less of 3 evils and one of those three are necessary for the game.

[/quote']

 

I will pass over the problem that none of those cards actually needs to be legal (and that the only evidence supporting their position is what you think Konami will do, which implies that you don't know what the word "should" means) and accept for the sake of argument the position that one of those three will be legal in order to examine the validity of Argument 7 in this situation.

 

The argument in question is not "Call of the Haunted should be legal because it is less broken than Monster Reborn and Premature Burial" but rather "Call of the Haunted should be legal because some form of super-recursion is necessary for the game and Call of the Haunted is the least-damaging form of such super-recursion". The key feature is the argument that one of those three needs to be legal in the first place, and as such the position being supported is not "Call of the Haunted should be legal, not banned!" but rather "Out of these three, the one that should remain legal is Call of the Haunted" - an important distinction, as it is being used not to save a card but rather to decide which card should be saved, and as such the argument's premise and conclusion are different, making it an entirely different argument that uses similar wording.

 

In other words, Argument 7 is not valid here, and it is not even being used here. Another argument that is related to Argument 7 is both used and valid here. The question here is not "Ban or not ban?" but "Ban which?"

Ok, understood. Although im not sure that COTH is the least broken of the 3, it can be bounced just like premature by brionac and company. Is reborn really more broken than that?

[Guest PikaPerson01]

Is reborn really more broken than that?

 

lolycm

[Toffee.]

Is reborn really more broken than that?

 

lolycm

With Konami's logic?

And how they keep switching between which one, of the 3, is Limited

[Mehmani]

Agreed.

[CrabHelmet]

Although im not sure that COTH is the least broken of the 3' date=' it can be bounced just like premature by brionac and company. Is reborn really more broken than that?

[/quote']

 

This is entirely off-topic, since Argument 7's status is the same regardless of which of the three is argued to be less of a problem, but since I have nothing better to do, I'll respond anyhow: Call, unlike Prem, destroys the monster if it gets bounced; Call, unlike Prem, cannot be recycled by Arms Hole; Call, unlike Prem and Reborn, needs to be Set in advance; and Brionac is banworthy anyhow. Monster Reborn is clearly a bigger problem. Still, all three should be banned, so it doesn't really matter.

[ihop]

Nº 2 works for BWW/Blackwings.

And 10 is just Crab.

[CrabHelmet]

Nº 2 works for BWW/Blackwings.

 

I'd love to hear about how an entire style of invalid argumentation somehow becomes valid in this specific case.

 

The arguments listed here are so listed because they are fundamentally flawed. If you wish to claim that a case exists in which they are valid' date=' you must explain what makes them applicable to that case; I'm afraid I can't read your mind and determine what moon-logic makes you think Blackwings are somehow the exception to the rule.

 

And 10 is just Crab.

 

Sadly, I have actually seen 10 used a lot as a serious "counterargument".

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Nº 2 works for BWW/Blackwings.

And 10 is just Crab.

 

1st is totally wrong.

2nd is an argument, it's used by traditional players all the time.

[//Zeromaru//]

The only one I think you should take out of there is number 6.

All the others your spot on with.

[CrabHelmet]

The only one I think you should take out of there is number 6.

All the others your spot on with.

 

Consider the fallacy that Argument 6 assumes that [Legal Broken Card D] actually deserves to be legal - which' date=' if [[i']Legal Broken Card D[/i]] is indeed broken and not [Legal Balanced Card D], it probably doesn't. Back when the Invasion of Chaos set first came out, Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning was not as broken as Chaos Emperor Dragon - Envoy of the End. However, that didn't change the fact that both Envoys deserved to be banned from the moment they were printed. Argument 6 is primarily used today to say that Card X shouldn't be banned because it isn't as broken as Dark Armed Dragon.

 

If Card D is not actually banworthy, Argument 6 can actually be a somewhat valid argument of transitivity, though it still leads to problems with things like the popular "Heavy Storm Clause". However, in that scenario, since Card D is not itself banworthy, the argument in question is no longer Argument 6, but another argument concerning [Legal Balanced Card D].

[daboss144]

Is reborn really more broken than that?

 

lolycm

 

Rhetorical Question <.<

[Ririkun]

Good thread, lol I don't think I did any of these when making up my own list of cards.

[Valkyrie Lupia Blitzer]

These fallacies need to be quoted all over. :/

[Lolimar]

3) [Broken Card X] should not be banned because it has a high monetary cost.

 

By that, you mean it costs lots of money? Lol too lazy to look up monetary :P

[Wizarus]

3) [Broken Card X] should not be banned because it has a high monetary cost.

 

By that' date=' you mean it costs lots of money? Lol too lazy to look up monetary :P

[/quote']

 

The card's maintenance cost. Now please, listen to the fail song.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg-rmRfotCw

[Lolimar]

3) [Broken Card X] should not be banned because it has a high monetary cost.

 

By that' date=' you mean it costs lots of money? Lol too lazy to look up monetary :P

[/quote']

 

The card's maintenance cost. Now please, listen to the fail song.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg-rmRfotCw

 

That is a bad fail song, listen to this fail song instead.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW0tDA8wIw8