GenzoTheHarpist Posted May 13, 2010 Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 Limiting Infernity Archfiend would solve the problem. Infernity Launcher is good but it's certainly not broke. How would that even remotely come close to solving the problem... you only need one of those to OTK. It's kind of like how limiting bestiari made GB counterable enough for them to not screw up the meta. With one archfiend sure you can still set up an otk but then if your archfiend gets removed you auto lose. It then becomes incredibly risky to run infernity in tournament' date=' up to a point where it isn't a viable option anymore.[/quote'] Or we could just ban one of the cards instead of de facto banning the whole archetype. BTW, limiting Bestiari wouldn't have mattered if Stardust hadn't been released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth_The_Legend Posted May 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 and which card of the lot would you ban? Mirage, Archfiend or Launcher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Shocker Android Posted May 13, 2010 Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 Why kill a card/deck when you can solve the problem without killing it. It's the reason why we lose players. The whole point is to have a decent meta with many viable deck type. The question here isn't if the GB problem was solved by limiting bestiari, but if limiting archfiend would push down infernities in the tier list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth_The_Legend Posted May 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 not really. all you need is 1 archfiend. 3 just makes it faster, thats all. Mirage > SS Archfiend and Beetle and search LauncherBeetle > 2 more BeetlesSync play Launcher > SS Archfiend and Beetle and so and so forth. GB are still strong, just a tad slower thats all. if you limit Launcher, the entire combo kinda ceases. although its still powerful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyosuke Kiryu Posted May 13, 2010 Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 Launcher should've had Zero-Max's effect and vice versa, that would've made it much less broken IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth_The_Legend Posted May 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 then they could have called Zero-Max, Infernity Launcher and never made zero. they should have included in launcher that you can't conduct your battle phase that turn. much better imo. but im guessing thats what your saying right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilfusion Posted May 13, 2010 Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 I think he's saying switch the names of Zero-Max and Infernity Launcher. Thus, what is Zero-Max would be searchable by Archfiend (because it's called Infernity Launcher) while what is Infernity Launcher would not (because it's called Zero-Max). This would severely lower the brokenness of the combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth_The_Legend Posted May 14, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 that works too.but i reckon if you incorpate the "you cannot conduct your Battle Phase this turn" for both cards. It would make it slightly better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.