Gorz is the biggest troll around

[GenzoTheHarpist]

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

[/quote']

 

No, I think it's typically a characteristic of people who run nukes... skilled play =/= nuking.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

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

[/quote']

 

No, I think it's typically a characteristic of people who run nukes... skilled play =/= nuking.

 

You're just using terrible logic here. We have bannable cards that nuke the field. Instead of banning bannable cards that nuke the field we keep those and keep around counters to bannable cards that are themselves bannable.

 

1 Wrong + 1 Wrong =/= 1 Right

[werewolfjedi]

gorz is a good card, no debating that.

but banable? that's questionable.

the main problem with gorz is that it powerful enough that people think they should try to leave their field open on purpose to play it. this is bad playing, we can all agree on that, yes?

 

ok then, what about the good player using it? s/he has a field, it's good, (let's say it's set-up turn 3 gemini plants, so giga, ty, and some level 4 beatstick, facedown dark bribe.)

and then the opponent special summons into a black rose synch, and then sets up a decent attack power with 2-3 monsters, and hits him in the face with the first, and he drops gorz. this stops the attack.

then plant man here attacks on his next turn, and (run into mirror force :D ) destorys 2 of their monsters, one of which with a token suicide.

is that fair and balanced?

[Tronta]

@genzo

3-0 only works if you rewrite cards often. this is a costly process and thus not good for konami.

i personally have no problem with limit and semilimits, as long as they make sense. cards like night assailant could easily be fixed with an errata, but cards like cydra not so much. at least cydra back in teh day. now we dont seem to care anymore.

[Professional Duelist]

Don't know why this is a debate when we have Battle Fader or Tragoedia.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

[Example]

 

Err... you need some basic English lessons, I barely understood what you said. And from what I could understand, it sounds like you need some basic card game lessons too.

 

From what I understand, you gave some example using actual cards or w/e, But beyond that I have no idea what you were trying to prove. Uhh... it's unfair for a bannable card like Blackrose Dragon to exist? Okay. You need some basic rhetoric and discourse as well.

[werewolfjedi]

ok then, short version.

I have a decent field and gorz in hand.

my opponent wipes me and attacks directly.

I drop gorz and on my turn attack him back.

 

is that fair?

[Professional Duelist]

yes.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

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

[/quote']

 

No, I think it's typically a characteristic of people who run nukes... skilled play =/= nuking.

 

You're just using terrible logic here. We have bannable cards that nuke the field. Instead of banning bannable cards that nuke the field we keep those and keep around counters to bannable cards that are themselves bannable.

 

1 Wrong + 1 Wrong =/= 1 Right

 

If someone has a decent size field, the only way they're going to lose it in one turn is a nuke, and that's the only time Gorz is rewarding a field wipe. So without nukes, this is no problem.

[Psycho Shocker Android]

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' date=' right? And being unable to keep field presence down is a characteristic of a bad player, right?

 

[b']You're wrong there field presence means nothing when you're playing with cards. Card advantage does. Spell cards never stay on the field yet they are powerful and effect the game greatly. That's why a player may commit less cards on the field to keep some of them from harm's way so he can play them when needed only. (aka conservative play)[/b]

 

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?

 

The idea is the same here if you can consistently clear the field then Gorz and it's token should be no problem since they have no effect on the field just big atk points. If you can clear the field only once and are betting on that for an easy win then you should be punished for that.

 

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

 

The banlist is the problem here not the game, limiting a card that has the sole attribute of being strong is retarded. Having only one copy of a said card means you have to get more lucky to draw it. When you have 3 copies it's not uncommon to draw it. One of the best player I know once said to me : "you were really lucky this game you drew all the 1 of". He hadn't seen any limited cards during the duel and that's why I won, I got better cards. Putting everything at 3 would level the playing field since the games are so short you often only get to draw the cards near the top of your deck. This would give more chance to the players to draw their power cards during the match. That would standardize the duels. You should only limit a card that intercact with itself and ban those who are broken.

 

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?

 

Why can your options only be bad ones in these situations. (I'm not sure I clearly understand the point you were trying to make here I hope my answer was a good one)

 

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.

 

YUGIOH!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

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

 

Sometimes it's a risk you have to take. Or you have to make reads. I can attack directly vs an open field, without any answers for gorz, because I've just used them against something else, when my opponent didn't drop gorz a turn earlier. I'm willing to take the risk of him having drawn gorz that turn since the chances are slim. It's an element that's part of the game and you have to play accordingly.

[Tronta]

omg giant quote fights

[Professional Duelist]

omg giant quote fights

 

LOLIK

[Tronta]

omg giant quote fights

 

LOLIK

 

time for a quote pyramid!

[Guest PikaPerson01]

If someone has a decent size field' date=' the only way they're going to lose it in one turn is a nuke, and that's the only time Gorz is rewarding a field wipe. So without nukes, this is no problem.[/quote']

 

You have to be pretty damn mentally impaired to consider this a valid argument.

 

I'll make it brief; you're argument fails at the six word. Namely, you make a huge assumption, that the only time Gorz comes out is when a person is playing well, then the opponent drops a field nuke and they respond with Gorz. However, it's very, very possible that the player dropping Gorz could very well just be a garbage player with a garbage deck. And garbage players deserve to lose duels more, not win.

 

 

You're wrong there field presence means nothing when you're playing with cards. Card advantage does.

 

 

Hilarious.

 

If you can clear the field only once and are betting on that for an easy win then you should be punished for that.

 

And if your opponent purposely makes it easy, because they're a bad duelist? You deserve to be punished for...?

 

The banlist is the problem here not the game, limiting a card that has the sole attribute of being strong is retarded.

 

You're right. Banning a card that harms the metagame is much better. The rest of what you said in the rest of your thing is stupid, and you should feel bad for saying it.

 

Why can your options only bad ones in these situations.

Why can your posts only basic grammar errors in this topic?

 

I couldn't follow the rest of your post. Something about tauntologies and circular reasoning. I couldn't decipher it.

[CrabHelmet]

If someone has a decent size field' date=' the only way they're going to lose it in one turn is a nuke, and that's the only time Gorz is rewarding a field wipe. So without nukes, this is no problem.

[/quote']

 

Indeed. In a game with broken nukes removed, Gorz is useless to good players who can consistently maintain decent field presence, and can only give its disproportionately powerful aid to idiots who become exposed despite the complete absence of nukes.

 

...wait a minute, this was supposed to be an argument that Gorz is not a problem without nukes?

[GenzoTheHarpist]

If someone has a decent size field' date=' the only way they're going to lose it in one turn is a nuke, and that's the only time Gorz is rewarding a field wipe. So without nukes, this is no problem.[/quote']

 

You have to be pretty damn mentally impaired to consider this a valid argument.

 

I'll make it brief; you're argument fails at the six word. Namely, you make a huge assumption, that the only time Gorz comes out is when a person is playing well, then the opponent drops a field nuke and they respond with Gorz. However, it's very, very possible that the player dropping Gorz could very well just be a garbage player with a garbage deck. And garbage players deserve to lose duels more, not win.

I'm saying that that IS the usual situation gorz is used in, that is following a nuke. Because without nukes, it's usually not going to have a field totally cleared in one turn, especially with more protection we have now like starlight road. A bad player with a bad deck will lose anyway, I have never seen a good player lose because of gorz unless a. it was a nuke situation, or b. they had an awful hand and were on the track to inevitable failure anyway.

 

All you can do against Gorz, it's just a beatstick. Gadgets can kill it easy, GBs laugh in it's face, most decks in general have outs against Gorz. It is not a game changer, at all, it's only purpose pretty much is to give the win to someone who had the cards and advantage needed to win, but were going to lose from an OTK. So that actually increases the skill element.

---

If someone has a decent size field' date=' the only way they're going to lose it in one turn is a nuke, and that's the only time Gorz is rewarding a field wipe. So without nukes, this is no problem.

[/quote']

 

Indeed. In a game with broken nukes removed, Gorz is useless to good players who can consistently maintain decent field presence, and can only give its disproportionately powerful aid to idiots who become exposed despite the complete absence of nukes.

 

...wait a minute, this was supposed to be an argument that Gorz is not a problem without nukes?

 

How do you ever lose to someone wielding Gorz? If you were about to go for OTK, you likely have cards stronger than Gorz anyway... you would only lose because the other player has other cards in hand that enable them to strike back after being spared an unfair OTK. A player with only Gorz vs a player with decent advantage = gorz loses every time.

[Professional Duelist]

I have to think PIkaPerson doesn't know ygo but knows logic. One cannot simply run and summon Gorz while having nothing and sucking and win. The suckish person who summoned Gorz deserved to win because the other people lost to this suckish people.

 

Can we /thread?

[GenzoTheHarpist]

I know the jargon all too well... look at any of my banlist threads and i'll spew it like no other, but i'm not finding it persuasive here like I used to.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

I'm saying that that IS the usual situation gorz is used in' date=' that is following a nuke.[/quote']

 

 

Because without nukes' date=' it's usually not going to have a field totally cleared in one turn,[/quote']

 

Sure you can. You start the bloody duel with an empty field, don't you? All you have to do is not at all commit to the field in any way. This could be because you're some super cool guy hoping to summon Gorz, or some random smuck who drew an opening hand of 3 Caius, 2 Cydra, and a Gorz.

 

A bad player with a bad deck will lose anyway' date='[/quote']

 

Depends how lucky he is, or how unlucky his opponent is. But I digress.

 

I have never seen a good player lose because of gorz unless a. it was a nuke situation' date=' or b. they had an awful hand and were on the track to inevitable failure anyway.[/quote']

I've seen it happen dozens of times. A field full of Monsters, and not one above 2700. Monarchs, Stardust, Brionac.

 

All you can do against Gorz' date=' it's just a beatstick. Gadgets can kill it easy, GBs laugh in it's face, most decks in general have outs against Gorz.[/quote']

 

Any meta where you MUST have an out to ANY possible threat or you WILL lose is a meta I don't want any part of.

[Professional Duelist]

i FEEL sad I was not quoted. Saddened.

 

tbh gorz isnt even that good. i allure it usually. or i did.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

You didn't say anything worth replying to.

[Professional Duelist]

Okay. If you lose to a person to a bad person that dropped Gorz. You suck. Or you drew bad, but then who draws bad 2 games, AND gets sacked by Gorz.

 

You hurt me.

---

 

 

I have never seen a good player lose because of gorz unless a. it was a nuke situation' date=' or b. they had an awful hand and were on the track to inevitable failure anyway.[/quote']

I've seen it happen dozens of times. A field full of Monsters, and not one above 2700. Monarchs, Stardust, Brionac.

 

 

 

OMGOMGOMG LOLOLOLOL

 

You have to be kidding me. Bounce Gorz and win.

[Zauls]

The card is practically staple now. With all the nuking going around with BRD, JD and other stuff, then Gorz has really become almost staple. I don't think it will get banned though, 1 is the place it will remain at for a long time.

[Professional Duelist]

I haven't seen JD.

[Psycho Shocker Android]

Why can your options only be bad ones in these situations.

Why can your posts only basic grammar errors in this topic?

 

Yeah' date=' I was missing a word there. I'm sorry if my English is bad. You must have guessed that it is not my first language.

 

Any meta where you MUST have an out to ANY possible threat or you WILL lose is a meta I don't want any part of.

 

I understand that but Gorz is easy to deal with (at least should be). It's a monster with 2700 atk points. That's like saying you don't want to be part in a meta where any monster with more than 2700 atk can be played.

 

Now here's a little something to think about:

 

There's some big problems in this game. Card advantage is incredibly important and with that we have little to no cards that are able to clear 2 big vanilla monsters alone. Treacherous Trap Hole is the only one that comes to mind. Hand Control is dead (well almost we still have that lone trap dustshoot and mind crush) only random hand destruction remains. We also have a very small amount of cards inflicting direct damage that are playable. Our burn spells can't deal with monsters like MTG. Traps and Quick Play Spells played competitively are consisting of a large amount of cards that can deal with monsters and a small amount of S/T removal. Attacking when your opponent has no monsters, but S/Ts that can't deal with monsters becomes a pretty rare situation. All of that creates an environnement where Gorz is a strong card. That's why many people see it as broken.

 

Anyway, I feel like most people won't change their mind about it. I personally don't find gorz harmfull for the game right now. If it ever becomes a problem then I'd probably be willing to ban it.