Magician of Faith

[Psycho Shocker Android]

thats not really a loop.. thats just a good hand...

 

No it's actually loop, you always trade 2 cards for pot of greed cycling your deck until you get what you need.

[Tronta]

but you're assuming you continuously draw moon and taiyou. thats not really a loop, especially when it terminates after 3 iterations (number of taiyous). that's just luck and a good hand. a true loop is continuous of its own momentum and rather... perpetual. usually not luck based either, as that would be.

[Psycho Shocker Android]

That's what I said, it's a generic way to cycle through your deck, making it more consistant. It's not infinite but you can loop a couple times.

[Eury]

Magician of Faith + Book of Moon + Spell Absorption = Profit? :?

[~Wright~]

Magician of Faith + Book of Moon + Royal Magical Library + Exodia= OTK?

Idk, would that work?

[CrabHelmet]

Magician of Faith + Book of Moon + Royal Magical Library + Exodia= OTK?

 

Flip Summoning is a manual position change, and one monster can only have its position manually changed once per turn.

[~Wright~]

Ok, never mind.

[b0b3rt]

It doesn't matter if we ban Heavy Storm because for the purpose that's mainly used (clearing for OTK), Giant Trunade works just as well and Cold Wave can be an acceptable substitute.

[Sleepy]

Heavy Storm should be banned. Giant Trunade is a good enough replacement for clearing the field and wouldn't really be broken at 3 if OTK problem cards were banned as well. Plus, it goes without saying that there are enough replacements already, slightly more situational but not as horrible as people think, just eclipsed by heavy, that's a reason people looks down at them.

 

Saying that, Heavy shouldn't be an excuse to keep this card banned.

[-Griffin]

Heavy should NOT be banned, it's non-situational-ness and the fact it actually destroys is what makes it threatening enough that people don't just set all traps they draw and that there's some strategy to putting things in the backrow. Trunade does none of that, only helping OTKs, and the other substitutes aren't as good as Heavy, thus not as threatening and won't have the impact.

 

Basically, anything worse than Heavy can't substitute for Heavy.

[Tronta]

there's too much generic and st destruction in this meta, it limits the scope of the game by reducing the amount of non-playable cards that are usable. most decks that rely on continuous or field cards are mid-tier at highest, and with never be top tier. anti meta being the obvious exception to the first clause, just because it's designed to dick with high tier.

 

point is, limited scope of card selection reduces the variety of the game, an overall bad effect.

removing heavy will still leave breaker at 3, not to mention countless other cards that should probably be banned. these are more than sufficient to deal with over-extension.

[Wizarus]

there's too much generic and st destruction in this meta' date=' it limits the scope of the game by reducing the amount of non-playable cards that are usable. most decks that rely on continuous or field cards are mid-tier at highest, and with never be top tier. anti meta being the obvious exception to the first clause, just because it's designed to dick with high tier.

 

point is, limited scope of card selection reduces the variety of the game, an overall bad effect.

removing heavy will still leave breaker at 3, not to mention countless other cards that should probably be banned. these are more than sufficient to deal with over-extension.

[/quote']

 

Breaker is not nearly as splashable as Heavy Storm. Nor is it as threatening. Heavy Storm is needed to punish stupidity. A 1 for 1 will never replace mass destruction, because you aren't punishing anything if both you and your opponent lose the same amount of card advantage.

 

Giant Trunade and Cold Wave(which is equally as bannable) do absolutely nothing to card advantage, which is why they will fail to prevent anyone from overextending.

[Sleepy]

Letting aside the Heavy topic and coming back to the Magician of Faith topic. I don't see why the Spells prevent such card from being un-banned.

 

And on that note: Why is Magical Stone Excavation semi-limited again?

[DARKPLANT RISING]

I don't see a reason for the ban list itself.

 

You see, banning bans thrill as well. The scene never really changes.

[jabber2033]

I don't see a reason for the ban list itself.

 

You see' date=' banning bans thrill as well. The scene never really changes.

[/quote']

 

...you don't see a reason for the ban list? I just don't know what to say to that...

 

How would you feel with everyone running 3 Pot of Greed, 3 Monster Reborn, 3 Raigeki, and whatever else? The Ban List tries to make the game more balanced. With no ban list, there will be so many OTKs and FTKs isn't even funny.

 

OT: It'd be good to see MoF back. I'd like more spell recovery. The only things I can think of off the top of my head are A Feather of the Phoenix and Hidden Book of Spell.

[Tronta]

just a real quick back to heavy storm:

punishing over-extension should come second to increasing the variety of the game.

furthermore, breaker isnt exactly one for one destruction because he still exists as a monster after going off. he's actually a +1 in those terms. a weak one who will likely die, but still. furthermore he isnt as splashable as heavy storm, but other cards exist. mst, trunade, twister, dust tornado, all these are still out there. get over it. over-extension will still be penalized, i just don't believe a deck should be capable of blowing up the st field at will and repeatedly. which all meta decks are.

 

 

OT: @sleepy, MoF would still probably be bannable if reborn or pot of greed existed. as it stands, the worst thing it can reuse is a heavy storm.

@jabber, you forget mse and endymion and probably a few more, but there's still a huge lack of it. would easier spell reclamation damage the game so much?

might increase the consistency of decks like empty jar, explosion, tempest and even exodia, but ftks can be fixed otherwise. mainly by banning the namesakes of all of those decks.

[Wizarus]

just a real quick back to heavy storm:

punishing over-extension should come second to increasing the variety of the game.

furthermore' date=' breaker isnt exactly one for one destruction because he still exists as a monster after going off. he's actually a +1 in those terms. a weak one who will likely die, but still. furthermore he isnt as splashable as heavy storm, but other cards exist. mst, trunade, twister, dust tornado, all these are still out there. get over it. over-extension will still be penalized, i just don't believe a deck should be capable of blowing up the st field at will and repeatedly. which all meta decks are.[/quote']

 

All the cards you mention will never be able to replace Heavy Storm combined. Breaker forces you to waste a Normal Summon just to take out 1 Spell/Trap on the field. You can't compare that to Storm.

 

If Heavy Storm has the potential to be more than a +1,(or a +0 for that matter) you will, AND DESERVE, to be punished. If you play a Continuous Spell/Trap heavy deck, and fail to use cards like Dark Bribe to protect them, you will, AND DESERVE, to be punished. Heavy Storm doesn't ruin the variety of the game, it promotes skill and timing. If anyone's having a problem with maintaining card advantage from Heavy Storm, they're playing the game wrong.

[Flame Dragon]

just a real quick back to heavy storm:

punishing over-extension should come second to increasing the variety of the game.

furthermore' date=' breaker isnt exactly one for one destruction because he still exists as a monster after going off. he's actually a +1 in those terms. a weak one who will likely die, but still. furthermore he isnt as splashable as heavy storm, but other cards exist. mst, trunade, twister, dust tornado, all these are still out there. get over it. over-extension will still be penalized, i just don't believe a deck should be capable of blowing up the st field at will and repeatedly. which all meta decks are.

[/quote']

Breaker should be banned.

 

just a real quick back to heavy storm:

punishing over-extension should come second to increasing the variety of the game.

furthermore' date=' breaker isnt exactly one for one destruction because he still exists as a monster after going off. he's actually a +1 in those terms. a weak one who will likely die, but still. furthermore he isnt as splashable as heavy storm, but other cards exist. mst, trunade, twister, dust tornado, all these are still out there. get over it. over-extension will still be penalized, i just don't believe a deck should be capable of blowing up the st field at will and repeatedly. which all meta decks are.[/quote']

 

All the cards you mention will never be able to replace Heavy Storm combined. Breaker forces you to waste a Normal Summon just to take out 1 Spell/Trap on the field. You can't compare that to Storm.

 

If Heavy Storm has the potential to be more than a +1,(or a +0 for that matter) you will, AND DESERVE, to be punished. If you play a Continuous Spell/Trap heavy deck, and fail to use cards like Dark Bribe to protect them, you will, AND DESERVE, to be punished. Heavy Storm doesn't ruin the variety of the game, it promotes skill and timing. If anyone's having a problem with maintaining card advantage from Heavy Storm, they're playing the game wrong.

You can't replace something like RAIGEKI, does that mean we should keep that?

 

It's a +1 when you only have 2 cards in your backrow. Your telling me they should be punished for playing 2 cards?

 

Even if you run cards like Bribe, you won't always have them. Now what? Your telling me you should be punished because your oppoent got a lucky draw?

 

Please tell me what skill their is in using Storm. It's mindless destruction.

[Wizarus]

just a real quick back to heavy storm:

punishing over-extension should come second to increasing the variety of the game.

furthermore' date=' breaker isnt exactly one for one destruction because he still exists as a monster after going off. he's actually a +1 in those terms. a weak one who will likely die, but still. furthermore he isnt as splashable as heavy storm, but other cards exist. mst, trunade, twister, dust tornado, all these are still out there. get over it. over-extension will still be penalized, i just don't believe a deck should be capable of blowing up the st field at will and repeatedly. which all meta decks are.

[/quote']

Breaker should be banned.

 

just a real quick back to heavy storm:

punishing over-extension should come second to increasing the variety of the game.

furthermore' date=' breaker isnt exactly one for one destruction because he still exists as a monster after going off. he's actually a +1 in those terms. a weak one who will likely die, but still. furthermore he isnt as splashable as heavy storm, but other cards exist. mst, trunade, twister, dust tornado, all these are still out there. get over it. over-extension will still be penalized, i just don't believe a deck should be capable of blowing up the st field at will and repeatedly. which all meta decks are.[/quote']

 

All the cards you mention will never be able to replace Heavy Storm combined. Breaker forces you to waste a Normal Summon just to take out 1 Spell/Trap on the field. You can't compare that to Storm.

 

If Heavy Storm has the potential to be more than a +1,(or a +0 for that matter) you will, AND DESERVE, to be punished. If you play a Continuous Spell/Trap heavy deck, and fail to use cards like Dark Bribe to protect them, you will, AND DESERVE, to be punished. Heavy Storm doesn't ruin the variety of the game, it promotes skill and timing. If anyone's having a problem with maintaining card advantage from Heavy Storm, they're playing the game wrong.

You can't replace something like RAIGEKI, does that mean we should keep that?

 

It's a +1 when you only have 2 cards in your backrow. Your telling me they should be punished for playing 2 cards?

 

Even if you run cards like Bribe, you won't always have them. Now what? Your telling me you should be punished because your oppoent got a lucky draw?

 

Please tell me what skill their is in using Storm. It's mindless destruction.

 

I never once said it wasn't broken. I said it's needed for the game. Yugioh needs a generic card that states "Overextension will be punished", and right now Heavy Storm is the only card that does that. Once we get a "Lightning Vortex" for face-down Spell/Trap cards, then I'll jump on the "ban Heavy Storm" bandwagon.

 

You can't take the luck factor out of Yugioh. People will luckily draw Giant Trunade the same way they luckily draw Heavy Storm.

 

I never said it takes skill to use Heavy Storm. It takes skill to play against Heavy Storm. It's that type of skill that makes the game good.

 

What reason will anyone have NOT to overextend once Heavy is gone? Mystical Space Typhoon?

[Tronta]

err.. duh? yes? i'm sorry, i'm failing to see what the horrible horrible crime is of over extension.

let's use some examples to help clarify:

 

say i set waboku.

is that over extension?

no, that's one card. even if it wasn't just one card, it's still chainable.

say i set mirror force instead.

is that over extension?

no, that's one card. but it isn't chainable, so heavy storm blows it up. i wonder why very few people run this card these days.... oh yea. since it isnt chainable, it gets cut from the roster. that isn't punishment, that's just limiting the card pool.

 

say i set waboku and oppression. is that over extension? doesnt seem like it. both are playable from any point in the game, usable at turn 1. sounds solid.

say i set oppression and play swords. is that over extension? still doesnt seem like it, because swords is just a 3 turn waboku (ignoring some of the finer nuances of each card). but heavy storm still blows it up. so once again we've limited the card pool to punish me for using a non chainable card. not for over extending.

 

say i set waboku, oppression, and bottomless. is that over extension? yes, actually. i think it is, just because these are somewhat redundant in nature. should i deserve to be -2'd just because i wanted to be careful? eh, that's iffy. actually, from this standpoint, it doesnt promote good gameplay. it promotes luck gameplay. if i hold those three in my hand, which route do i take? i can set waboku, that's fully chainable. but oppression or bottomless? if i play bottomless i'm betting that my opponent will only special up to one monster, with base 1500 attack. so if they normal summon lumina, pitch lyla for lyla, priority and blow up bottomless, i guess i can respond with it, but i'm still taking some direct unless i waboku. i kind of break even, but it isnt a big play in my favor. the alternative is that i could wager that he will attempt to special summon multiple times, and set oppression. but what happens when his opening move is normal lyla, blow up st.

knowing a bit about my opponent, his deck and what cards he's used already will help me shift the odds in my favor, but there's no punishment for bad playing to be seen here. this isn't punishing over extension, it's punishing guessing incorrectly

if i had set all 3 cards, i could have dealt with any combination of situations. however then i have to fear the heavy storm, who decides that it wants my plays to be gambles, rather than strategic.

 

 

heavily st reliant decks like oppression and skill drain barely get by because they, by their nature, kill most of the st and general destruction cards. but they have no protection against heavy. dark bribe is your suggestion? but my boy, you've just suggested that i set a card based on a guess! you're assuming he will play an st form of st destruction! isnt setting another card like that a form of overextension? a form of gambling no less.

st reliant decks, except for skill drain and oppression based decks, are dead. a deck made these days has to assume it's st field will get blown up any and every turn. this drastically limits the scope of usable cards. a strong card like mirror force or cylinder, that was once and still is limited has to be thrown into the binder like so many kuribohs just because it isnt chainable! is it overextension being punished? no. it's promoting a chainable, narrow meta based on probability and gambling. (nothing better emphasizes this than ls vs ls in the sjc)

 

sure the idiot that sets his whole hand when a lot of it is unusable deserves to be punished, but that says nothing about the guy who's trying to prepare for the inevitable by oppressing lumina /or/ bottomlessing lyla. honestly, trunade just sets up for a big retarded otk. he's not much better. unlimit mst and ban trunade and heavy and i think we'll be fine. a one for one can still punish overextension by hitting a key card the opponent set foolishly.

 

punishment =/= 1-2 card advantage.

punishment = losing a card you needed because you played bad.

[Flame Dragon]

I never once said it wasn't broken. I said it's needed for the game. Yugioh needs a generic card that states "Overextension will be punished"' date=' and right now Heavy Storm is the only card that does that. Once we get a "Lightning Vortex" for face-down Spell/Trap cards, then I'll jump on the "ban Heavy Storm" bandwagon.

[/quote']

What is wrong with overextension of spell and traps?

 

You can't take the luck factor out of Yugioh. People will luckily draw Giant Trunade the same way they luckily draw Heavy Storm.

You can't take luck out of yugioh' date=' but you want to cut it down as much as you can.

 

I never said it takes skill to use Heavy Storm. It takes skill to play against Heavy Storm. It's that type of skill that makes the game good.

It takes skill to play against CED.

 

What reason will anyone have NOT to overextend once Heavy is gone? Mystical Space Typhoon?

Again, what is wrong with overextening spell and traps?

[CrabHelmet]

Overextending Spells and Traps is by definition bad; if it wasn't bad, it wouldn't be overextending, just extending. As such, overextending is still punished even without Heavy Storm; however, what constitutes overextending changes.

[Tronta]

there's a gap in that logical train crabs.

it goes from "it's bad" to "it's still punished" as though A implied B.

[CrabHelmet]

there's a gap in that logical train crabs.

it goes from "it's bad" to "it's still punished" as though A implied B.

 

"Bad" here means "a bad play".

[Tronta]

even so, you lack the chain link between a "bad play" and "it's punished". how is it punished if heavy storm is gone? I'm not disagreeing with you, it would still be punished, but johnny over there is gonna rage in a second about how heavy storm is the only card that punishes over extension.