Magician of Faith

[CrabHelmet]

even so' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

You're looking at this backwards. You're thinking, "It's a bad play, but without Heavy Storm it isn't punished". However, look at it in reverse: with Heavy Storm gone, the plays in question are not punished. If the plays in question are not punished, they are not bad plays, are they? It is equivalent to say that a play is bad and to say that a play is punished.

[Tronta]

if you look at it from that definition of the ambiguous word "bad" then i see your point.

[Wizarus]

err.. duh? yes? i'm sorry' date=' 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 [s']heavy storm[/s] (insert any card that destroys S/T cards here) 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. You're not understanding a basic concept of the game. Continuous Spell/Trap cards were MEANT to be this vulnerable. If you play 2 Continuous cards without a protection card backing them up, then yes, you should be punished.

 

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?

Yes, you should, assuming that your opponent even has Heavy Storm in his/her hand.

 

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.(This is assuming that you had a bad hand since you didn't Summon/Set a monster. Because if it isn't, you should be punished) What happens if he doesn't and instead special summons multiple times? Alternatively, what if your opponent Normal summons Lyla while you have Bottomless on the field?

 

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.The entire game is based on gambles; if it wasn't you'd be able to see what your opponent has in his/her hand, Monsters set on the field, or cards set in his/her Spell/Trap Zone. Your suppose to play mind games, keep costs down to a minimum, and make intellectual hypotheses based on the current situation.

 

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!Bribe was just an example. And if you're running Skill Drain, it WILL be in the form of a Spell/Trap. Even if you aren't running Skill Drain, running Bribe is hardly guessing, since it clears out 2/3 of the possible destruction paths.

 

isnt setting another card like that a form of overextension? a form of gambling no less.Ignoring the gambling part, yes it is. What's your point?

 

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.Then the problem is not Heavy Storm, since it's at one, and cannot be used more that once. Besides, you're acting as if cards like Starlight Road don't exist

 

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!That's like saying Mechanicalchaser, which was good back in the day, is useless now. They are outdated.

 

is it overextension being punished? no. it's promoting a chainable, narrow meta based on probability and gambling. Yes, because every deck that is not meta runs mulitple continuous Spell/Trap cards(nothing better emphasizes this than ls vs ls in the sjc)Lightsworn decks are broken and are based around luck themselves. That is a horrible example.

 

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.Unfortunately, this logic is flawed. There is absolutely no way anyone can hit every single important set face-down. This in fact, REALLY turns into a "guessing game", and goes against your whole argument.

 

punishment =/= 1-2 card advantage. I disagree, losing that much card advantage is just as bad as loosing a key card.

punishment = losing a card you needed because you played bad. I.E. Heavy Storm blowing away 2 Continuous Spell/Trap Cards without protection

 

Heavy Storm adds the risk factor to overextending, just like getting swarmed by monsters adds the risk factor to not extending enough. The point is to make decisions based on the situation so that the risk factors are as small as possible. Like I said before, Heavy Storm is broken and should be banned, after Konami makes a replacement.

---

even so' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

You're looking at this backwards. You're thinking, "It's a bad play, but without Heavy Storm it isn't punished". However, look at it in reverse: with Heavy Storm gone, the plays in question are not punished. If the plays in question are not punished, they are not bad plays, are they? It is equivalent to say that a play is bad and to say that a play is punished.

 

So you're saying Heavy Storm is a bad card, because if it wasn't created at all, overextending wouldn't be a problem because everyone would be overextending?

[Tronta]

i dont think removing it from the game will have a horribly adverse affect on it. in fact i believe that it will promote a wider range of decks. a replacement could be made, but it is not necessary. punishing bad plays are not a necessary facet of this game. promoting a diverse and entertaining game environment is. at least in my opinion.

 

a few notes on your responses:

i'm missing nothing. there's a difference between vulnerable and useless. this meta has too much general and st destruction.

 

your counter to my lyla-lumina-etc example proves the excessive chance involved.

 

yes i know the game is based on gambles, but luck should be reduced.

 

what about decks that rely on fields that arent endymion or gear town. or counter trap decks just getting eaten alive by it all. granted these sorts of decks would be much more powerful without cards like heavy keeping them at bay, but there must be a middle ground between useless and broken.

 

starlight road doesnt exist. not in english at least. funk the japanese, they can suck a 2 dollar crush card for all i care.

 

mechanical chaser is still solid in gear town, and to my knowledge was never limited for it's overpoweredness. regardless, mirror force and cylinder remain on the limited list. personally, i believe a meta that's too fast for mirror force is broken up the ass.

 

 

a guessing game created by your opponent via bluffs or.. magical hats.. is fine, imo. guessing games inherent in the game's design are bad. intellectual hypotheses are still gambles, just like people who count cards are still gambling. it's an imperfect art, but my point wasnt necessarily that a gamble was bad for the game. my point was that heavy storm doesnt necessarily punish bad plays, it just adds a level of paranoia, fear and luck to the game that i dont appreciate.

 

 

 

i do endorse a replacement, however. maybe.. discard one card, nuke your opponents st field. sounds solid enough, -2 for an up to +5. overall of -2 to +3, most likely around the 0 to +1 area.

 

 

heavy isnt necessary, though. not given the number of alternatives. not when you have breaker, lyla, best, gyz, ryko, celest, jd, caius, snipe hunter, dad, delta crow, trunade, mst, twister, dust tornado, black rose, raiza, norleras, demise, poc becoming any of the monsters listed and probably much more i missed. if we did something about a few of those guys, then we can talk. and i didnt even get into people who negate.

 

you know what voltanis' req is for general destruction? tributing fairies at it's summon. i think that's fair. you know what jd's is? a 1000 lp and having 4 ls in the grave being at the end of turn one. that's just stupid.

[Psycho Shocker Android]

Here's a problem with over-extension of trap cards. If you manage to back anything up with a couple traps, you're pretty much guaranteed to get +1 next turn because it's almost impossible to remove the threat. This is horrible for the game because anyone who wins the dice roll is allowed to set up first thus winning. That's why we need cards to punish over-extension. Cards like delta crow are irrelevant since you can't activate it if you can't keep a blackwing on the field. I do think heavy storm is bad because it's costless and prevents anyone from setting more than 1 card. The thing is, it's the only card we have now and we need it. Sure if we had a card that said "discard a card, destroy all S/T your opponent controls" or, "skip your battle phase and destroy all S/T on the field" we could ban heavy storm. It's somewhat similar to the fact that we have torrential tribute, mirror force and lightning vortex, so dark hole isn't needed to punish the over-extension of monsters.

 

Edit: Hey it's still a topic on magician of faith, I beleive that even with heavy storm MoF could exist in the same environnement, the real problem is brain control/mind control. If you attack a MoF that recycles heavy you can still set 1 chainable in MP2 to bait it out. But, if it gets something control they will take your monster next turn.

[Tronta]

true dat. brain control is a bit funked up.

[Raikoh]

@Psycho Shocker Android: One of those exsists. Its called Malevolent Catastrophe. Its like a Mirror but for S/T cards instead.

[Tronta]

not chainable. useless. isn't that stupid?

[Psycho Shocker Android]

@Psycho Shocker Android: One of those exsists. Its called Malevolent Catastrophe. Its like a Mirror but for S/T cards instead.

 

Not it's not like Mirror because it destroys your traps too. Thus defeating the purpose of it. You need your opponent to attack to activate it but you'll be destroying what you have to protect yourself from the onslaught in the process. It's not good enough and if your opponent doesn't attack because he's running some sort of stall burn deck you won't even be able to activate it.

 

It's a good counter to Macro Cosmos and Mark of the Rose but that's about it. Malevolent Catastrophe will always be side deck material at best.

 

Edit: I think the title should be changed to : OH NOEZ THIS GOT WRONG AND IS NOW ABOUT HEAVY STROM AGAIN!!!

[Raikoh]

Yeah, MC isn't good mained but I mentioned it cuz unfortunely, it does exsists like a Storm (but not up to par with it). But I do agree with banning Storm then remake Heavy Storm with a discard cost. That way its a little harder to play and makes it so you can't just top-deck it (without a hand).

 

On the MoF topic: Magician of Faith shouldn't be banned. Its still too slow to play and most of the time it's destroyed way before it flips . It should be back at least to 1.

[Tronta]

.. it's like a mirror force because an attack triggers it.

 

anyway, i think we're all in agreement that mof is fine and wont impact the meta or make any terrible loops. that we know of.

speaking of which, new topic variation:

can we make a current meta functioning infinite loop with the assumption that mof exists at any number?

maybe:

magician of faith + mask of darkness + needle worm + eclipse + sunlight... sheet i didnt think that through. not one turn.

err...

any thoughts?

[Raikoh]

That move is too slow and doesn't seem consistent.

[.Gideon.]

Ban BC and return this back to life

[Raikoh]

Brain Control needs to be banned period.

[werewolfjedi]

MoF, yeah, bring it back, maybe at 1, since we are allowed to have endymion's effect, which is basicly the same thing at a different cost, why not have the little caster that did it first before her dad came to play.

 

and on the heavy storm front, I don't like heavy being around, and I would galdly trade it away for unlimited mst OR unlimited giant trunade with no other changes, even if trunade messes me up more than others, that's only because of my card choices.

[Fraz]

Brain Control needs to be banned period.

 

Yay somebody on YCM actually said something smart! +Rep 4 u

[Raikoh]

Brain Control needs to be banned period.

 

Yay somebody on YCM actually said something smart! +Rep 4 u

 

Thanks for the +rep!