Confirmed March 2010 List

[CrabHelmet]

But whats it use at one? Tomato?

 

Who cares what the use at 1 is? If it's not broken at 1, which it clearly isn't, then there is no need to put it at 0.

 

All cards should be permitted with as many copies as possible without damaging the game. 1 Malicious does not damage the game, and thus we do not need to resort to putting Malicious to 0. There is nothing banworthy about being not-terribly-useful.

[Scatty]

It was forbidden for a year. Have you forgotten already what it was like before?

 

I was one of the people that mained Breakers, so frankly, it was great for me.

[CrabHelmet]

It was forbidden for a year. Have you forgotten already what it was like before?

 

I was one of the people that mained Breakers' date=' so frankly, it was great for me.

[/quote']

 

I ran Dark Armed Return. Let's bring back the age of 3 DAD, 3 RFTDD, DMoC, and Dimension Fusion. After all, as long as I'm running it, it's helping me, and the banlist exists solely to support my own personal selfish short-sighted interests and... oh, forget it, you're just an incurable idiot with all the perspective of a rock.

[El Majishan]

But whats it use at one? Tomato?

 

 

Who cares what the use at 1 is? If it's not broken at 1' date=' which it clearly isn't, then there is no need to put it at 0.

 

All cards should be permitted with as many copies as possible without damaging the game. 1 Malicious does not damage the game, and thus we do not need to resort to putting Malicious to 0. There is nothing banworthy about being not-terribly-useful.

[/quote']

 

I know its not broken at 1, but the whole point of Mali is to search himself out of the deck for some use (Tribute fodder, Synchro fodder) so putting him at 1 is just making it a useless card. Maybe I'm just not explaining myself right

[Scatty]

Hey, just because banning Breaker is a fair decision, it doesn't mean that I must like it!

[CrabHelmet]

But whats it use at one? Tomato?

 

 

Who cares what the use at 1 is? If it's not broken at 1' date=' which it clearly isn't, then there is no need to put it at 0.

 

All cards should be permitted with as many copies as possible without damaging the game. 1 Malicious does not damage the game, and thus we do not need to resort to putting Malicious to 0. There is nothing banworthy about being not-terribly-useful.

[/quote']

 

I know its not broken at 1, but the whole point of Mali is to search himself out of the deck for some use (Tribute fodder, Synchro fodder) so putting him at 1 is just making it a useless card. Maybe I'm just not explaining myself right

 

 

No, you're explaining your stance perfectly. Your stance just happens to be stupid and wrong.

 

You do not ban a card just because it is useless. Otherwise, the list would be flooded with weak Vanillas. Similarly, you do not leave a card at unacceptably high numbers just because it would be useless otherwise. Pot of Greed is useless at 0.

 

Hey' date=' just because banning Breaker is a fair decision, it doesn't mean that I must like it!

[/quote']

 

And just because you don't need to like it doesn't mean I can't look down on you for being so short-sighted and selfish.

[El Majishan]

So 2 Malicious is Bad for the game? And why is that because he gives easy access to Lv 8 synchro or is it because it works with D-Draw?

 

Patent the Dark Clown has a similar effect if I'm not mistaken at its left a 3, why not ban him?

[CrabHelmet]

So 2 Malicious is Bad for the game?

 

 

Oh, so this is the side you were doubting? Then why on earth did you complain about Malicious not being at 0, rather than him not being at 2? This isn't so much you just "not explaining yourself right" as you not explaining yourself at all and in fact saying something completely unrelated to your actual thoughts, leading to everyone wasting time because you aren't saying anything.

 

At any rate, it is very late at night and I have no desire to debate the acceptability of 2 Malicious with someone who thinks that Malicious is pretty much equivalent to Peten the Dark Clown. Someone more awake and more tolerant of dullards can explain.

[El Majishan]

So 2 Malicious is Bad for the game?

 

Oh' date=' so this is the side you were doubting? Then why on earth did you complain about Malicious not being at 0, rather than him not being at 2? This isn't so much you just "not explaining yourself right" as you not explaining yourself at all and in fact saying something completely unrelated to your actual thoughts, leading to everyone wasting time because you aren't saying anything.

 

At any rate, it is very late at night and I have no desire to debate the acceptability of 2 Malicious with someone who thinks that Malicious is pretty much equivalent to Peten the Dark Clown. Someone more awake and more tolerant of dullards can explain.

[/quote']

 

So I'm a dullard because I asked you to explain your point of view on a card game? Really now? Your attitude truly is amusing Crab.

[-Lightray Daedalus-]

Still nobody gives reasoning of Dustshoot being at 3.

[BehindTheMask]

Nobleman of Crossout

Kills flips

 

Why is that bad?

 

Cyber Dragon

Allows for poor play.

 

In a list trying to make it a skill based format' date=' why is allowing bad players to play bad a bad thing?[/b']

 

Chimeratech Fortress Dragon

Kills machines.

 

Why is that a bad thing?

 

Snipe Hunter

If you can get lucky turns every card in your hand into a 1 for 1 removal.

 

OH NOEZ 1 for 1 removal BAN BAN BAN

 

Inferno Tempest

Necroface combo

 

If Necroface was the problem' date=' why not ban him? I mean, you can still deck people out with Necroface Turn 1. [/b']

 

Sangan

Can search out a large number of a decks monsters

 

Why is this a bad thing?

 

Imperial Iron Wall

Easy OTK

 

Easy enough to not be seen at all. xD

 

Machine Duplication

I'm assuming Card Trooper is at 3

 

Morphing Jar

It's a +5.

 

At best' date=' its a +5. But that also allows said player running jar to have Bad Hand management, and over extend. Royal Tribute can be a +5(or higher), that leaves your opponent handless, where is it on the ban list?[/b']

 

Brionac' date=' Dragon of the Ice Boundary

[/quote']

Clears field for any easy push for game

 

By discarding 1 card, and returning 1 card. It causes the player a -1, in hopes that they can ridiculously over extend, and mindlessly swarm. Which shouldn't happen on a good list

 

Brain Research Lab

Use with Mind Master for FTK and OTKs

 

Destiny Hero - Malicious' date='

[/quote']

Easy synchros.

 

@2 its perfectly fine.

 

Necroface

Tempest is banned

 

Why is tempest such a problem?

 

Raiza the Storm Monarch' date=' Neo-Spacian Grand Mole

[/quote']

1 for 1s.

 

Except Raiza can time-walk your opponent, and then next turn, use your Raiza for another Raiza.

 

Card Trooper

Dupe is at 0.

 

Dupe is @ 0' date=' because Trooper is @ 3...but Trooper is @ 3 because Dupe is 0. Lolcircular reasoning.[/b']

 

Magician of Faith

Broken targets are gone.

 

At three' date=' with 3 pot of avarice, and no way to get around it. Magician of Faith nullifies Deckout Strategys. Also, Allure is @ 3 on this list. Lolwut.[/b']

 

Blackwing - Gale the Whirlwind

It's a Shrink' date=' but most times it will only get one use, so it's Shrink, that happens to last more then a turn. It's just good

 

[b'] Its a walking shrink, that can be allure'd and icarus attack'd. Has so much support w/ Blackwings (including BWW and Kalut). Can be pulled w/ Shura, has a swarm effect and allows every deck access to BW Synchros. .

 

Plaguespreader Zombie

It's a 1 for 1 price. Plus if things shouldn't be at 3 it's the synchros.

 

Except for the fact LightLords can abuse PSZ to keep themselves from decking out

[daboss144]

Morphing Jar

It's a +5.

 

At best' date=' its a +5. But that also allows said player running jar to have Bad Hand management, and over extend. Royal Tribute can be a +5(or higher), that leaves your opponent handless, where is it on the ban list?[/b']

Actually, it can be a +8 or higher if combined with Dark Worlds. Discard Broww, Silva, Gold, etc.=win.

[Tronta]

i once -8'd my opponent with morphing jar.

figure that one out.

[Dark_Armed_Zombie]

i once -8'd my opponent with morphing jar.

figure that one out.

 

Gren and the other DW that destroys cards on the field? That would cause the -8

[Tronta]

no, he actually had 13 cards in hand.

[Dark_Armed_Zombie]

no' date=' he actually had 13 cards in hand.

[/quote']

 

*facepalm* He deserved that -8

[Flame Dragon]

First let me say I don't agree with all of these moves, I was just saying why they would be put at the place they were at. Also I'm lazy and really don't want to argue that much so I'll still just talk about cards that interest me, or easy to make arguments

 

In a list trying to make it a skill based format' date=' why is allowing bad players to play bad a bad thing?[/b']

Because Cyber takes away skill. You wouldn't mind watch all your monster get destoryed since you'll just end up with an easy 2100 attack beatstick next turn.

 

Why is that a bad thing?

It makes a whole type next to unplayable at the cost of no deck space.

 

OH NOEZ 1 for 1 removal BAN BAN BAN

The fact that it makes every card in your hand either a MST or Smashing Ground/Shield Crush is what makes this very different from the basic 1 for 1. The fact that their is no limit (a side from the obvious hand limit) to the number of times it can be used only makes it worse.

 

Easy enough to not be seen at all. xD

TBQH I only know about it because of a thread when it first came out. It's basicly This + Quillbolt Hedgehog + Any Tuner + Mass Driver (and other cards like it).

 

At best' date=' its a +5. But that also allows said player running jar to have Bad Hand management, and over extend. Royal Tribute can be a +5(or higher), that leaves your opponent handless, where is it on the ban list?[/b']

Are you agreeing with the move then?

 

Tibute is situational and it is very situational that it will be a +5.

 

By discarding 1 card' date=' and returning 1 card. It causes the player a -1, in hopes that they can ridiculously over extend, and mindlessly swarm. Which shouldn't happen on a good list[/b']

You don't need to ridiculously over extend and mindlessly swarm for this to be affective though since I'm not talking about going for an OTK. With just this + random 1800 ATK beatstick you can swing for a little more then half damage allowing the controller to have an easy win should the opponent have taken some damage, or bring the controller a lot closer to victory. This kind of easy push has no skill.

 

Dupe is @ 0' date=' because Trooper is @ 3...but Trooper is @ 3 because Dupe is 0. Lolcircular reasoning.[/b']

Well the reasoning for both of their places it based on the other. Trooper and Dupe at 3 alllows for a very easy swarm of 1900 ATK beatsticks (even if said beatsicks only last for your turn) that also give you a draw when they are destoryed. This is a problematic combom and so to two fixs would be putting Trooper at 1 and leaving Dupe at 3 or putting Cupe at 0 to put Trooper at 1.

 

At three' date=' with 3 pot of avarice, and no way to get around it. Magician of Faith nullifies Deckout Strategys. Also, Allure is @ 3 on this list. Lolwut.[/b']

This I'll give you.

 

Except for the fact LightLords can abuse PSZ to keep themselves from decking out

LS using this to not deck out will not work well at all. At best it might get you 3 more turns. Over all it will, or at least should, make little difference.

[CrabHelmet]

So 2 Malicious is Bad for the game?

 

Oh' date=' so this is the side you were doubting? Then why on earth did you complain about Malicious not being at 0, rather than him not being at 2? This isn't so much you just "not explaining yourself right" as you not explaining yourself at all and in fact saying something completely unrelated to your actual thoughts, leading to everyone wasting time because you aren't saying anything.

 

At any rate, it is very late at night and I have no desire to debate the acceptability of 2 Malicious with someone who thinks that Malicious is pretty much equivalent to Peten the Dark Clown. Someone more awake and more tolerant of dullards can explain.

[/quote']

 

So I'm a dullard because I asked you to explain your point of view on a card game? Really now? Your attitude truly is amusing Crab.

 

No, you're a dullard because you waste time complaining about things that we both know aren't the real issue - i.e. claiming that Malicious should be at 0 on the grounds that he isn't useful at 1 anyhow - and then proceed to argue that Malicious should be fine because he's pretty similar to Peten the Dark Clown. If you're going to take that long to get to such a simple point and are going to make such blatantly fallacious comparisons, you are a dullard.

 

Malicious is an interesting topic, but if you cannot understand the differences between him and Peten the Dark Clown - and this includes the case in which you delude yourself into thinking that Destiny Draw and Stratos are the only meaningful difference - then I have no interest in participating in the discussion myself for the same reason that I have no interest in teaching linear algebra to a primary school student. I leave that task to someone with far more patience than I.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Why should "massive swarms deserve to die if they attack blindly"? As long as the swarm was generated through legit means' date=' the swarm's controller should be rewarded with being able to attack with the field advantage they legitimately built on their opponent. I don't get all the jaws agape with horror and disgust when I call out cards like Grandmaster of the SS. A pound of prevention in banning sources of "reckless swarming" is worth much more than an ounce of cure in a single Mirror Force generalizing all field advantage as bad.

[/quote']

 

 

Why should people who commit large numbers of cards to the field and then attack into unknown set Spells and Traps face the risk of losing their swarm? Maybe because actions, especially extravagant actions, must have risk? Maybe because mindless play that completely ignores obvious, unknown opponent-controlled factors is bad? Maybe because this isn't Solitaire?

 

Why is it that field development has to be mindless? Why is it that we're shunning the opportunity to control and designate which types of cards are in fact mindless and punishing them accordingly? And its all in favor of calling any type of monster development "BAD MINDLESS PLAY" based on recent trends of top Decktypes and allowing an opponent to inflict fatal damage with 1-for-1+ Spell and Trap Cards, which unlike most monsters, often have the benefit of being played without risk several times per turn. These Spell and Trap Cards punish their opponent savagely for minor "infractions", if that's even an appropriate term here for Summoning and attacking. Mirror Force has no Summoning condition at all.

[CrabHelmet]

Why should "massive swarms deserve to die if they attack blindly"? As long as the swarm was generated through legit means' date=' the swarm's controller should be rewarded with being able to attack with the field advantage they legitimately built on their opponent. I don't get all the jaws agape with horror and disgust when I call out cards like Grandmaster of the SS. A pound of prevention in banning sources of "reckless swarming" is worth much more than an ounce of cure in a single Mirror Force generalizing all field advantage as bad.

[/quote']

 

 

Why should people who commit large numbers of cards to the field and then attack into unknown set Spells and Traps face the risk of losing their swarm? Maybe because actions, especially extravagant actions, must have risk? Maybe because mindless play that completely ignores obvious, unknown opponent-controlled factors is bad? Maybe because this isn't Solitaire?

 

Why is it that field development has to be mindless? Why is it that we're shunning the opportunity to control and designate which types of cards are in fact mindless and punishing them accordingly? And its all in favor of calling any type of monster development "BAD MINDLESS PLAY" based on recent trends of top Decktypes and allowing an opponent to inflict fatal damage with 1-for-1+ Spell and Trap Cards, which unlike most monsters, often have the benefit of being played without risk several times per turn. These Spell and Trap Cards punish their opponent savagely for minor "infractions", if that's even an appropriate term here for Summoning and attacking. Mirror Force has no Summoning condition at all.

 

If you're spending the resources to commit three or more monsters to the field - which will almost always have a total ATK of at least half the opponent's starting Life Points, which means the payoff is large - but are paying so little attention to the opponent's actions that you haven't taken any precautions to deal with obvious threats, then yes, that is mindless play.

 

And having three monsters out whose value is significant (as opposed to, say, Scapegoat tokens) and attacking with all of them yet failing to provide any protection whatsoever is not a "minor infraction" in any sense of either word.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Why should "massive swarms deserve to die if they attack blindly"? As long as the swarm was generated through legit means' date=' the swarm's controller should be rewarded with being able to attack with the field advantage they legitimately built on their opponent. I don't get all the jaws agape with horror and disgust when I call out cards like Grandmaster of the SS. A pound of prevention in banning sources of "reckless swarming" is worth much more than an ounce of cure in a single Mirror Force generalizing all field advantage as bad.

[/quote']

 

 

Why should people who commit large numbers of cards to the field and then attack into unknown set Spells and Traps face the risk of losing their swarm? Maybe because actions, especially extravagant actions, must have risk? Maybe because mindless play that completely ignores obvious, unknown opponent-controlled factors is bad? Maybe because this isn't Solitaire?

 

Why is it that field development has to be mindless? Why is it that we're shunning the opportunity to control and designate which types of cards are in fact mindless and punishing them accordingly? And its all in favor of calling any type of monster development "BAD MINDLESS PLAY" based on recent trends of top Decktypes and allowing an opponent to inflict fatal damage with 1-for-1+ Spell and Trap Cards, which unlike most monsters, often have the benefit of being played without risk several times per turn. These Spell and Trap Cards punish their opponent savagely for minor "infractions", if that's even an appropriate term here for Summoning and attacking. Mirror Force has no Summoning condition at all.

 

If you're spending the resources to commit three or more monsters to the field - which will almost always have a total ATK of at least half the opponent's starting Life Points, which means the payoff is large - but are paying so little attention to the opponent's actions that you haven't taken any precautions to deal with obvious threats, then yes, that is mindless play.

 

And having three monsters out whose value is significant (as opposed to, say, Scapegoat tokens) and attacking with all of them yet failing to provide any protection whatsoever is not a "minor infraction" in any sense of either word.

 

Counterability does not imply balance, "protection" from mass damage from cards without Summoning conditions shouldn't be nearly as required. Spells and Traps don't have very different Summoning conditions to many monsters these days due to all the Boras, Zombie Masters, Grandmasters, what have you, but they should. Spells' and Traps' benefits of being played en masse should come with a price of their effects not resulting in the automatic gain of a monster, which as a result of being harder to Summon should naturally be worth more. Monster-swarming the way swarming happens today should not exist.

 

The payoff is indeed large for generating a swarm of monsters, but the speed at which one can do so and the capacity for the opponent to match your number of monsters would be different. It should in fact be extremely difficult to generate a field of monsters with a high sum of ATK, but one's opponent would be the one to blame for not keeping them at bay with their own resources.

[Father Wolf]

Far banlist =/= Fun Banlist =/

[jabber2033]

I can still OTK with Crystal Abundance! Yay! That means CB decks will be meta now!

[burnpsy]

I can still OTK with Crystal Abundance! Yay! That means CB decks will be meta now!

 

I can still OTK with Morphs! They will be meta! [/doesn'tmeananything]

[jabber2033]

[/doesn'tmeananything]

 

Was just pointing out that with this list being made to prevent OTKs, he forgot Abundance. And my last sentence was sarcasm.