Gorz is the biggest troll around

[Guest PikaPerson01]

Player 1: I summon Summoner Monk' date=' discard Mind Control, and Special Summon Flamvell Magician. Then I Synchro Summon Stardust Dragon.

Player 2: I end.

Player 1: (What could he POSSIBLY be planning????)

 

[/debate']

 

In other words... "I end" is a terrible play, and as such it shouldn't be rewarded with a 2700 and 2500 beatstick? I wholeheartedly agree.

[bakupenguin]

won me a tournament against my last game with gadget solidarity swarm.

[Dr. Cakey]

Player 1: I summon Summoner Monk' date=' discard Mind Control, and Special Summon Flamvell Magician. Then I Synchro Summon Stardust Dragon.

Player 2: I end.

Player 1: (What could he POSSIBLY be planning????)

 

[/debate']

 

In other words... "I end" is a terrible play, and as such it shouldn't be rewarded with a 2700 and 2500 beatstick? I wholeheartedly agree.

 

The play isn't what's rewarded - it's your opponent stumbling into the play.

 

And I'm definitely not disputing that a first turn Stardust is bad, it's just that most people haven't figured out that you have to use Debris Dragon to summon it.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

The play isn't what's rewarded - it's your opponent stumbling into the play.

 

In other words, your opponent playing... just about the only meta-worthy way of playing - by reducing your opponent's life points to zero, should be punished for playing that way?

 

Okay...

[arkel]

The play isn't what's rewarded - it's your opponent stumbling into the play.

 

Ending your turn with an open field when your opponent has high-ATK monsters out is an awful play. Gorz rewards this.

[Umbra]

The play isn't what's rewarded - it's your opponent stumbling into the play.

 

In other words' date=' your opponent playing... just about the only meta-worthy way of playing - by reducing your opponent's life points to zero, should be punished for playing that way?

 

Okay...

[/quote']

 

Let's assume the above situation, but Player 2 sets one card instead. If that card turned out to be Mirror Force or Torrential Tribute, would you say the same thing? In both cases Player 1 are simply trying to reduce their opponent's LP to zero, and are punished by it. Are Mirror Force and Torrential bad plays because of that?

 

@Arkel:

Unless you have Gorz, in which it makes a perfectly acceptable play.

[arkel]

Let's assume the above situation' date=' but Player 2 sets one card instead. If that card turned out to be Mirror Force or Torrential Tribute, would you say the same thing? In both cases Player 1 are simply trying to reduce their opponent's LP to zero, and are punished by it. Are Mirror Force and Torrential bad plays because of that?

 

[b']Against a good player, Force and Torrent reap much less reward than Gorz.[/b]

 

 

Unless you have Gorz, in which it makes a perfectly unacceptable, broken play.

[Umbra]

Right, I forgot that good players don't use monsters and run a 40-card deck consisting entirely of Counter Traps.

[arkel]

Right' date=' I forgot that good players don't use monsters and run a 40-card deck consisting entirely of Counter Traps.

[/quote']

 

I have no clue where you pulled that ludicrous idea from.

[Umbra]

Right' date=' I forgot that good players don't use monsters and run a 40-card deck consisting entirely of Counter Traps.

[/quote']

 

I have no clue where you pulled that ludicrous idea from.

 

Why, from your post.

 

The basis of Mirror Force and Torrential; the more monsters your opponent has, the more you benefit from it. Gorz is a +1, granting that you take Battle Damage and that we count the Token as a card.

According to your post, Mirror Force and Torrential will therefore naturally be +0's or less, meaning that they're either:

A)always countered.

or

B) in the case of Torrential, used on your own monster.

[.Gideon.]

Gorz rewards bad players who were raped by good player's JD

[burnpsy]

Don't even bother pulling this argument about what makes sense in a "good" or "perfect" format or what is or isn't something a "good" player would do. This is all subjective, and subjectivity kills arguments right from the beginning.

 

As it currently stands, this card has not become a major threat and as all but a select few in this thread have stated, it is easy to play around. Note that this is also a format where mass field-clear from Brionac and company or from a large amount of one for one destruction is easy as pie to pull off - it's needed for those situations right now. Whether or not this format is a "perfect" format is completely irrelevant, as a "perfect" format will never happen, perfection is impossible. Even what most claim would be a "perfect" format is all just opinion.

 

If you can't look at things the way they are, as opposed to from a utopic standpoint, I suggest that you just stop discussing cards, as almost any argument that may come from your involvement will be meaningless.

[Coffee Black]

I never like the whole counter broken cards with broken cards idea, but unfortunately that's what the game comes to. Unfortunately, we have to use powerful cards to deal with the opponents powerful plays. Gorz gives its user too much, sure, and is clearly broken. But since the game is full of easy destruction and field clearing, Gorz is necessary. shouldn't be banned IMO

[Guest PikaPerson01]

Let's assume the above situation' date=' but Player 2 sets one card instead. If that card turned out to be Mirror Force or Torrential Tribute, would you say the same thing?[/quote']

 

Troll answer: Well... Stardust would negate it...

 

Actual answer: I'm unsure what, if anything, your argument is. Normal summoning isn't required to win the duel, not after you've got something ready anyway. Attacking with more then one monster also isn't a requirement in your attempts to reduce life points to zero.

 

You speak much about 'playing around' Gorz, when Mirror Force and Torrential Tribute are far, far easier to play around. If they Mirror Force a single monster, then... that's no worse then Sakuretsu Armor or Widespread Ruin.

 

Gorz rewards bad players who were raped by good player's JD

 

Bannable cards counterin' bannable cards.

[-Berserker-]

Gorz is my muse...

 

 

[CrabHelmet]

Don't even bother pulling this argument about what makes sense in a "good" or "perfect" format or what is or isn't something a "good" player would do. This is all subjective' date=' and subjectivity kills arguments right from the beginning.

[/quote']

 

Unless, of course, you define what constitutes a "good" format through logical arguments. In that case, it is only subjective in the sense that all arguments are subjective, and if all arguments are subjective then the present argument has no objectivity to be killed in the first place.

 

As it currently stands' date=' this card has not become a major threat and as all but a select few in this thread have stated, it is easy to play around. Note that this is also a format where mass field-clear from Brionac and company or from a large amount of one for one destruction is easy as pie to pull off - it's needed for those situations right now. Whether or not this format is a "perfect" format is completely irrelevant, as a "perfect" format will never happen, perfection is impossible. Even what most claim would be a "perfect" format is all just opinion.

[/quote']

 

Stop using the word "perfect"; it is a straw man. The words you want are "better" and "improved". Sadly, you've decided to go for an idiotic straw man argument that amounts to saying that, since we can't have a perfect format, we can't have any format better than the current one, and thus the current format is the only one worth discussing. This assumption - that if something can't be perfected it should never be improved - is called the Perfect Solution Fallacy. As the name implies, it's a fallacy.

 

If you can't look at things the way they are' date=' as opposed to from a utopic standpoint, I suggest that you just stop discussing cards, as almost any argument that may come from your involvement will be meaningless.

[/quote']

 

Of course, in reality the opposite is true. Gorz is where it is in the current format, and the idea of changing it requires the idea of moving to a format other than the current one, which you have already ruled out through your nonsense Perfect Solution Fallacy argument. As such, any argument that uses the current Konami list as the One True Format is incapable of going anywhere, since making any changes takes you out of the current, One True Format. The only way to discuss where cards should be on the banlist is to, uh, allow discussion of where cards should be on the banlist.

 

The idea of examining each card's list position under the assumption that all other cards remain where they are on Konami's list is patently nonsense. The most blatant problem is: why? What's the point of assuming that you can change the position of one card but of no other cards? But the problems become even more obvious when you look at the results.

 

Think back to when Butterfly Dagger - Elma and Gearfried the Iron Knight were both legal. Suppose we're trying to figure out how to improve the format. Let's see where the Screw-Utopians-We-Allow-Only-One-Change logic takes us. We discuss Butterfly Dagger - Elma. Well, obviously it should be banned. It combos abusively with Gearfried, and Gearfried is legal. Then we go and discuss Gearfried. Well, obviously it should be banned. It combos abusively with Elma, and Elma is legal. Any claims that that's irrelevant because Elma is banworthy are laughed away because they're made by utopian perfectionist communists. Then we turn to Royal Magical Library. Better ban it; it's involved in a broken combo with Gearfried and Elma, and both of those are legal...

 

The end result is that you attempt to compose a list without letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing. This produces results that are blatantly awful, but this Only Move One Card nonsense - call it Nash Logic, for its ability to lock the list's state in an awful Nash Equilibrium-style state, as described below - deems it the only effective method of card discussion.

 

I never like the whole counter broken cards with broken cards idea' date=' but unfortunately that's what the game comes to. Unfortunately, we have to use powerful cards to deal with the opponents powerful plays. Gorz gives its user too much, sure, and is clearly broken. But since the game is full of easy destruction and field clearing, Gorz is necessary. shouldn't be banned IMO

[/quote']

 

And here we see how Nash Logic locks us in a perpetual state where we cant fix any problems because fixing only one exacerbates other problems and where we need to keep broken cards around so they can brokenly counter other broken cards - let's call such a state Code Trainwreck, since the logic behind it can be likened to trying to fix a trainwreck by shooting more trains at it. Now, the game has a lot of broken cards in it that are thought to have this state, so let's try to simplify the scenario by creating two fictional cards that will simulate this broken-counters-broken state of Code Trainwreck: Lefthand and Righthand.

 

Lefthand

[Normal Spell Card]

Inflict 8000 damage to your opponent and remove from play all cards your opponent controls. This effect cannot be negated and is unaffected by the effects of cards other than "Righthand", and effects other than the effect of "Righthand" cannot be activated in response to this effect. When your opponent activates "Righthand", you can remove this card in your hand, Deck, or Graveyard from play to reduce the damage it inflicts to 0.

 

Righthand

[Normal Spell Card]

Inflict 8000 damage to your opponent and remove from play all cards your opponent controls. This effect cannot be negated and is unaffected by the effects of cards other than "Lefthand", and effects other than the effect of "Lefthand" cannot be activated in response to this effect. When your opponent activates "Lefthand", you can remove this card in your hand, Deck, or Graveyard from play to reduce the damage it inflicts to 0.

 

Yes, the actual game state is more complicated than this - the broken cards are not quite as broken, there are more broken cards, the conflicts are less direct than this, yadda yadda yadda. I know. However, the same principles of Code Trainwreck apply, and Nash Logic produces exactly the same result for exactly the same reasons; this is simply a more obvious and extreme example created as an illustration of the underlying shortcomings of Nash Logic, particularly when the game is in Code Trainwreck.

 

Suppose Lefthand and Righthand are both legal - we'll say they're both Limited, because Konami likes Limiting things - and apply Nash Logic. Can we ban Lefthand? No, we can't. Without Lefthand to counter it, Righthand is too broken, since it instant-wins instead of just being very powerful. Can we ban Righthand? No, we can't. Without Righthand to counter it, Lefthand is too broken, since it instant-wins instead of just being very powerful. Can we ban both of them? No, we can't. Nash Logic forbids it. We can only look at one card at a time and must assume that all other cards remain at their current positions.

 

The result of Nash Logic is that we're stuck in Code Trainwreck; Lefthand and Righthand both must remain in the game, even though they are horribly broken cards and the game would clearly be much better off if they were both banned. It's a twisted Nash Equilibrium; changing either status hurts us, and we only look at each status while assuming that the other status is static.

 

Extend this logic to the real game. If we need Brionac around to counter Gorz and Gorz around to counter Judgment Dragoon and et cetera et cetera et cetera, then Nash Logic claims that we should leave them all where they are because banning any single one of them might hurt the game. But why not solve the whole send-broken-to-counter-broken, shoot-more-trains-to-clear-up-the-trainwreck nonsense by just banning all the broken cards and being done with this Code Trainwreck mess?

[Canadian]

Good card is good. Great side or even maindeck depending on your build (final countdown anybody?)

 

Anyways, what about the damage effect? Is that even used?

[burnpsy]

I only used the word "perfect" because it was used several times by the previous posters. While I have no real issue with discussing moving a card's place on the list, it's all of this talk about what it's like on a "good list" that's getting me pissed off.

[Psycho Shocker Android]

Here's a question for those against gorz. Why isn't bannable? Some people tried to prove it was fair but nobody tried to prove it should be banned.

 

Gorz is a threat that requires you to forfeit field presence and a fair amount of life point for you to be able to drop it, while also having to survive a full MP2 for you to be able to use it. It also provides players a way to bluff with a bad starting hand in an attempt to get an extra turn.

 

Leaving an empty field can also be bad. It's a risk you have to calculate. What if this lack of agression lets your opponent synchro summon a stardust dragon and back him up with many S/T. Then you've wasted a turn and let your oponnent improved it's position. You might have been able to stop it with an attack or with a bottomless trap hole / book of moon. Your opponent could also place 8k+ dmg with 1 monster or with monsters that would destroy gorz and the token it creates if you use it to survive.

 

Also, the argument that Gorz rewards bad plays is laughable. You'd have to be a really bad player to attack directly with a monster without anything to counter this knowing he exist. He makes people think of their actions like heavy storm or mirror force. Why not just wait until you get an answer for Gorz? Plus, it's like saying solemn judgment rewards bad players by letting them overextend freely since it will stop anything that would counter that.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

There is nothing wrong with Gorz... in most formats, he's not broken because lacking easy nukes fields will usually not be clear. Here there are nukes, so he's necessary. In neither case does he need to be banned.

[Coffee Black]

Nash Logic? Never heard of that.

I don't feel like making a huge thing out of this, but I think the basis of "Nash Logic" was that broken cards have to exist. The reality is that all the broken cards we have probably won't get banned. yes, I'm using what I believe Konami would do rather than what I personally want. No one controls the ban list except konami, and saying something like banning all broken cards is unrealistic. I understand that if we're being completley logical, "Nash Logic" is flawed. But in reality, that's the best we got.

[CrabHelmet]

Nash Logic? Never heard of that.

 

That's probably because I made up the name approximately one post ago.

 

I don't feel like making a huge thing out of this' date=' but I think the basis of "Nash Logic" was that broken cards have to exist.

[/quote']

 

And the justification for that claim is that, uh, broken cards have to exist. It's circular logic that is true only if we assume that it is true, so the obvious solution is to stop idiotically assuming that it's true in the first place.

 

The reality is that all the broken cards we have probably won't get banned. yes' date=' I'm using what I believe Konami would do rather than what I personally want. No one controls the ban list except konami, and saying something like banning all broken cards is unrealistic. I understand that if we're being completley logical, "Nash Logic" is flawed. But in reality, that's the best we got.

[/quote']

 

Find a dictionary. Look up the word "should". I'm sorry if you can't understand what that word means.

 

The other reality is that, regardless of where we say a card belongs on the banlist in a discussion, Konami won't read the topic here and then make the change accordingly. Therefore, if all we care about is reality as Konami's list has it, we should never discuss the position of any card ever.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

I always believed in 3-0 because I didn't see the meta redeeming itself from the awful ones I saw without massive intervention. But now lately we've been seeing more deck diversity than ever before in the game. The final SJC was the most ever I believe. And they're pretty skillful decks too, so I try and think in meta terms now.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

Here's a question for those against gorz. Why isn't bannable?

 

Being able to consistently clear the field is typically a characteristic of a good player, right? And being unable to keep field presence down is a characteristic of a bad player, right?

 

I mean, in just about any kind of a game. If I'm playing Chess, and I have more pieces, I'm generally considered to be the 'better' player. If I'm having a Pokemon battle, and I have more Pokemon currently alive, I'm winning. If I'm playing Connect Four and I have more pieces... well, I probably cheated, but if I connected four more times then anyone else, that generally means I'm a better player.

 

When it comes Yu-Gi-Oh, why is the idea reversed? That a good player, who can consistentally clear the field, is punished by then suddenly having to face a larger monster? And why is a bad player, who consistentally has their field blown away get rewarded by getting a huge 2700 monster and a token?

 

Any decent game creator should know that luck should play as little a role as possible.

 

It also provides players a way to bluff with a bad starting hand in an attempt to get an extra turn.

 

Because players who play badly deserve to win? Or are the current in-hand free turns (Battle Fader, the other guy) not good enough?

 

Your opponent could also place 8k+ dmg with 1 monster or with monsters that would destroy gorz and the token it creates if you use it to survive.

 

I think the fact that this is at all even considered a remote possibility is rather frightening for the state of the game.

 

Also, the argument that Gorz rewards bad plays is laughable. You'd have to be a really bad player to attack directly with a monster without anything to counter this knowing he exist.

 

"Lol, you're attacking his third dark monster, his fourth lightsworn, his first light monster and his first dark monster? You'd have to be a really bad player to attack without anything to counter DAD, JD, CED-Envoy, BLS-Envoy, or Chaos Sorceror knowing they exist."

 

See, I can make asinine comments too! =D

[meowyultimate]

It rewards bad play with 2 easy Beatsticks. If that isn't banworthy then what is? The current format improved with his existence. A better format would still have him banned. Rewards bad plays. Punishes good ones. Bannable.

 

Setting up the field so that you can use the best card in your hand is a bad play these days? Yes' date=' leaving the field empty would be a bad play in any situation where you [b']don't have Gorz[/b].

 

Even if you had tragoedia?