Card destruction, is it that broken?

[Tronta]

does it deserve to be limited?

 

i was going to make a case, but then i realized i dont care.

 

argue ycm! argue!

[zombiepromking]

Don't think so. No one Uses DW's anymore. Zombies have had it at our disposal and we haven't run it soooo-- maybe putting it back @ 3 would allow for some struggling decks to get on their feet.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

IDK about this one. It's definitely a three or zero card.

[RyanAtlus]

Well then...at 3.

It's a -1 for you and a +0 for your opponent, but can form the necessary setup for some cards.

[JG.]

I'd also say 3, it isn't that broken.

[玄魔の王]

It's a -1 for you and a +0 for your opponent

 

...And that's all I care about. F**K this S**T.

[Manjoume Thunder]

This @3 = More FTKs.

[Canadian]

If we ran 3 of these in mill decks.. I'd make a necroface fsjal.

[Spiff!]

1 is not enough.

3 is too many.

 

Thus, the Semi-Limit was born.

[.Leo]

1 is not enough.

3 is too many.

 

Thus' date=' the Semi-Limit was born.

[/quote']

 

That would be the smart move.

[Great Unclean One: VK]

1 is not enough.

3 is too many.

 

Thus' date=' the Semi-Limit was born.

[/quote']

 

That would be the smart move.

 

Agreed. Semi Limit is good enough.

[Spiff!]

:D I was quoted for something smart!

[jabber2033]

And Tronta gets himself banned again...

 

OT: I wouldn't mind having Card D @ 2 or 3, then again, I never use it, so...

[OnSlaUghT]

Agreed, semi'ed

[SmallieBigs]

2 or 3 is the best for this card. I'm not sure about this but you can get your opponent ssssssscreeeeeewwwwwwwwwd by discarding their whole hand when they have an OTK set up then you OTK them, low chances but when it happens it would be lolsome.

[Manjoume Thunder]

Semi-limiting this will be funking stupid.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Where the hell did the consensus this thing should be semi'd come from? Either the card is broken (banworthy), or it's not. Does the card's level of broken change depending on using multiple copies (like Night Assailant)? I SERIOUSLY doubt anyone can come up with a legit explanation of why this card fits into that category, let alone why TWO copies is fine but THREE somehow the card becomes "OMG broken!"

[The Dark Megacyber]

1 is not enough.

3 is too many.

 

Thus' date=' the Semi-Limit was born.

[/quote']

 

That would be the smart move.

[Eury]

Whether you semi or unlimit it doesn't matter, it'll still promote more FTKs. Leave it at 1 or ban it.

[Mister Sir]

1 is not enough.

3 is too many.

 

Thus' date=' the Semi-Limit was born.

[/quote']

 

Great explanations for why.

 

Really, topnotch work.

[evilfusion]

Card Destruction would be too dangerous at 2 or 3, but it's not so bad as to get banned, so I think it's fine where it is.

 

Dark World may not be that powerful now, but if you give them multiple Card Destructions, they'll become extremely powerful. Mill decks would just love more Card Destruction. Nothing is quite as hilarious as flipping Morphing Jar, then using multiple Card Destructions.

 

Card Destruction doesn't usually give a large benefit to players who use it, except ditch dead cards and hope for better ones. The draw power is only as powerful as the amount you lose. But what with all the cards that thrive from being in the graveyard (Mezuki, Plaguespreader, Treeborn, Necro Gardna, etc etc etc) or from being discarded (Dark World), putting this in multiple copies would give those decks a major boost.

 

Also, Card Destruction is in no way limited to themed decks. Indeed, any deck that wants to gather certain cards as fast as possible can throw this in, provided they don't mind tossing everything else they have. Exodia FTK or any OTK would be able to utilize the additional copy if it was semi or unlimited.

 

Card Destruction and Reload have more or less the same effect (Reload is one sided), but the difference is that Card Destruction puts the cards in the grave, not the deck. It's far easier to retrieve cards from the graveyard than the deck, and Card Destruction likewise thins your deck whereas Reload doesn't. Card Destruction is far more abusable, despite the -1.

 

It thins your deck, your opponent's deck, they lose the cards they had along with most strategies they were preparing for, and it can set up the grave. Morphing Jar does the same thing, but with a set amount of draw power, whereas Card Destruction can net you a variable amount. I remember an Exodia deck I used where I used Card Destruction to draw 10 cards. Giant Trunade is a fun combo with it.

 

Is it broken? No. Limit-worthy? Yes. Should it be semi- or unlimited? No. No. No! It'd be nice if it was, but it would be worse off.

 

On a side note, saying "This theme (Dark World) can abuse it, but no one plays that" is not the best argument for unlimiting a card. People would play it more if the abusable card is allowed additional copies.

[BulletMan]

If it's OTKs/FTKs you're worried about, ban the cards for this rather than this. This also demotes OTKs/FTKs for both players. It also gives a successful type of draw card for weaker decks. But I would luv this at 2 with Skilltown. <3

 

I couldn't say it will move anywhere soon, but I can see konami either doing a ban or a semi limit.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Card Destruction would be too dangerous at 2 or 3' date=' but it's not so bad as to get banned, so I think it's fine where it is.

 

Dark World may not be that powerful now, but if you give them multiple Card Destructions, they'll become extremely powerful. Mill decks would just love more Card Destruction. Nothing is quite as hilarious as flipping Morphing Jar, then using multiple Card Destructions.

 

Card Destruction doesn't usually give a large benefit to players who use it, except ditch dead cards and hope for better ones. The draw power is only as powerful as the amount you lose. But what with all the cards that thrive from being in the graveyard (Mezuki, Plaguespreader, Treeborn, Necro Gardna, etc etc etc) or from being discarded (Dark World), putting this in multiple copies would give those decks a major boost.

 

Also, Card Destruction is in no way limited to themed decks. Indeed, any deck that wants to gather certain cards as fast as possible can throw this in, provided they don't mind tossing everything else they have. Exodia FTK or any OTK would be able to utilize the additional copy if it was semi or unlimited.

 

Card Destruction and Reload have more or less the same effect (Reload is one sided), but the difference is that Card Destruction puts the cards in the grave, not the deck. It's far easier to retrieve cards from the graveyard than the deck, and Card Destruction likewise thins your deck whereas Reload doesn't. Card Destruction is far more abusable, despite the -1.

 

It thins your deck, your opponent's deck, they lose the cards they had along with most strategies they were preparing for, and it can set up the grave. Morphing Jar does the same thing, but with a set amount of draw power, whereas Card Destruction can net you a variable amount. I remember an Exodia deck I used where I used Card Destruction to draw 10 cards. Giant Trunade is a fun combo with it.

 

Is it broken? No. Limit-worthy? Yes. Should it be semi- or unlimited? No. No. No! It'd be nice if it was, but it would be worse off.

 

On a side note, saying "This theme (Dark World) can abuse it, but no one plays that" is not the best argument for unlimiting a card. People would play it more if the abusable card is allowed additional copies.

[/quote']

 

If the card is broken, it deserves to be banned. If it is not broken, then there is no problem and it must be at three. The only exception is a card that's broken only when it combos with other copies of itself, in which case it could be limited or semid. You have not proven this applies to card destruction.

[evilfusion]

If the card is broken' date=' it deserves to be banned. If it is not broken, then there is no problem and it must be at three. The only exception is a card that's broken only when it combos with other copies of itself, in which case it could be limited or semid. You have not proven this applies to card destruction.

[/quote']

 

To me, that comes off as selective and short-sighted reasoning at best. A card is most definitely broken if a single copy is considered a problem. But to say that if it's not broken, you should be able to run three unless it combos with itself doesn't seem like sound logic to me.

 

It is already debated whether limiting a Synchro monster does any good. Synchros, never being drawn, are always available. Your logic is sounder when it comes to Synchros, but with other cards, not so much. Dark Strike Fighter is broken and therefore banned. Black Rose Dragon allows instant field nukes and limiting was probably wiser to avoid massive changes in field advantage several times a duel. Goyo...limiting that was pointless, in the sense that all it does is limit the times you can Synchro Summon it. Black Rose only gets the nuke effect when it's Synchro Summoned. Those cards dont combo with themselves, but neither of them seem quite broken, so your logic suggests they should be allowed in 3s, or instead that they ARE broken.

 

Let's look at another few limited cards:

 

-Elemental Hero Stratos. It can combo with itself, so the limit is fine.

-Card Trooper also matches this logic.

-Future Fusion is only limited because of Chimeratech OTK. It could be fine at 3. Same as Overload Fusion if Chimeratech was killed off.

-Cyber Dragon has those OTK fusions.

 

Upon some inspection, your logic is fine for several of the limited cards, but some cards are more case-by-case basis, such as Level Limit-Area B and Gravity Bind. No one wants those at 3. Why MST is limited is beyond me.

 

Treeborn Frog? Its own effect prevents "combo with itself" issues. Is it limited because it's actually broken and deserves a ban? Debatable. I think it's limited because at 3 you're more likely to draw 1 and put in the grave and then tribute summon like mad each turn.

 

Okay, Card Destruction. Can it combo with itself? Sure. Play Card Destruction. You drew your second copy. Then play that. Ooh, you got your third. Play that. Your opponent could have lost any number of cards and be significantly closer to decking out. That sort of power helps Mill decks and Dark World decks love what they get from that. Is it broken? Not really. The power of it is variable on the cards in both players' hands, as well as the themes run. You could be helping your opponent, hurtng yourself, etc. But the power that card has in multiple copies is too great to ignore, but at 1, it's annoying, but no more than Morphing Jar. Is Morphing Jar banworthy?

 

The problem is, what makes a card "broken" can be incredibly subjective. With a 3/0 list. You'll either leave powerful cards unchecked, or ban cards left and right.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Yeah, you are right. There's another category that allows things to get limited, which I never got into. That category is "things that have banworthy effects, but must remain in the game because they have a positive impact on increasing skillful play." Mirror Force, Heavy Storm, and Torrential Tribute all fit into this category. I suppose the two stall cards could fit there as well, though I think they should be at three.

 

Treeborn frog is banworthy. And even if it wasn't, the proper place would be three, especially given it's literally impossible for it to interact with other copies. Limiting it was a stupid move.

 

Morphing jar is most certainly banworthy. It encourages you to just mindlessly put cards on the field regardless of whether they'll be vulnerable or not. Morphing Jar is almost the definition of a card that doesn't encourage skilled play. In fact, it actively discourages it by punishing people who play conservatively.

 

Card destructions "combo with itself" is just stupid. Any draw card could draw into more copies, which is entirely up to luck. Furthermore, if three copies mills more than is acceptable for three cards, then one copy mills too much for one card. This can be demonstrated algebraically.

 

3 = 3U > 3A

 

where 3 represents the number of cards, U represents what is unacceptable for cards to mill, and A represents what is acceptable. Since we're talking about the boundary for three cards, it's three times greater. Dividing all sides by three, we get:

 

1 = U > A

 

Yup, at one card, it still surpasses the boundary for what is acceptable for one card to do. If somethings broken when used three times, it's broken when used one time... that is, unless the cards interact in a way that causes synergy greater than simply adding the three cards together.