Darkerai Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 Discuss it's relation to the banlist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 Could be at 1 for 1 format for the lulz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 inb4:"Should be @3, because what's the danger if it can only grab non-bannable spells."That logic would mean that:|Normal Spell||Add 1 card from your Deck to your hand.|Is perfectly balanced in an ideal meta, because it only gets non-banworthy cards. Getting a choice of cards is what makes this so good. It's an amazing card, and I'd quite like to see it move around for a format or two, but I just hate the above logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Rrey Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 Discuss it's relation to the banlist... Maybe it's good where it is??Although having this at 1 for a lone format could be very fun x D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Unclean One: VK Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 Keep it banned. No one wants me to have 2 Heavy Storms. No one. Or two One for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 Should be at 3. The problems are what it can grab. Not the card itself. Next discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Nu-13 Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 Should be @1. It's flip effect, so it's slow. Also, meta decks now mostly destroy by effects, so fli effects won't work. Should be @1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Expelsword Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 Should be at 3. The problems are what it can grab. Not the card itself. Next discussion. But by that logic, the card is broken for what it allows you to do... So it SHOULD be banned I wanna see Tsukuyomi return over this, personally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Nu-13 Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 Unban this, Tsukuyomi and Disk Commander (ok, last one is joke) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 Should be at 3. The problems are what it can grab. Not the card itself. Next discussion. But by that logic' date=' the card is broken for what it allows you to do... So it SHOULD be banned I wanna see Tsukuyomi return over this, personally[/quote'] Remember, not all Spell recursion is equal. Beyond being able to fetch a Spell Card from your Graveyard, Magician of Faith is a weak Flip Effect Monster. Also, the problem with what Magician of Faith can get back is that the majority of the stuff worth mentioning it can get back is banworthy itself for one reason or another. Oh and Tsukuyomi isn't banworthy either. Unban this' date=' Tsukuyomi and Disk Commander (ok, last one is joke)[/quote'] I could see Disk Commander at 3 on a good list that doesn't have banworthy win conditions or generic revival at anything other than 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Unclean One: VK Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I can get behind Tsukuyomi. Seriously. Just limit or semi her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Expelsword Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 The thing is... Tsukyomi + MoF = Swords lock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 ^ And how reliable is said lock? Also, is it really a lock? I can get behind Tsukuyomi. Seriously. Just limit or semi her. lolSemi-Limits in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 The ability to recycle @1 spells is enough to keep this @0. I guess one format of, OMG PUT THIS BACK @0, I CAN'T DEAL WITH THE HEAVY STORMS would be enough for people to get the picture though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkerai Posted July 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 The ability to recycle @1 spells is enough to keep this @0. I guess one format of' date=' OMG PUT THIS BACK @0, I CAN'T DEAL WITH THE HEAVY STORMS would be enough for people to get the picture though.[/quote'] So you saying that instead of running starlight road or chainables or any other number of solutions(like realizing what they get with mof and planning for it) your saying that people will just flat out complain instead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas★Zero Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I say 1 as its only a spell version of mask of darkness and being a flip effect monster with little stats its not really gunna be fast or that threating I mean all it is, is a +1 in terms of recycling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 At 1 should be ok to test it. I don't expect it to be banned again after that chance, kind of like what happened to Chaos Sorcerer. I don't think this is all that banworthy, nor Tsukuyomi. Although about the Disc Comander part, too much card advantage so, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 inb4:"Should be @3' date=' because what's the danger if it can only grab non-bannable spells."That logic would mean that:|Normal Spell||Add 1 card from your Deck to your hand.|Is perfectly balanced in an ideal meta, because it only gets non-banworthy cards. [/quote'] ITT: A flip effect and a normal spell are the same thing.ITT: A spell card and any card are the same thing.ITT: Your deck and the graveyard are the same thing. Sorry, try again. The ability to recycle @1 spells is enough to keep this @0. I guess one format of' date=' OMG PUT THIS BACK @0, I CAN'T DEAL WITH THE HEAVY STORMS would be enough for people to get the picture though.[/quote'] So you saying that instead of running starlight road or chainables or any other number of solutions(like realizing what they get with mof and planning for it) your saying that people will just flat out complain instead... ITT: Pro duelists only attack face down mons when they have Mind Crush set. Also, Pro Duelists never flip their own monsters face up on their own turn. Also, Pro Duelists let their opponent keep their monsters on their field to sac for Caius or Synchro summon. Also, if you can't activate your facedown s/t at ANY given moment in time you deserve to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 inb4:"Should be @3' date=' because what's the danger if it can only grab non-bannable spells."That logic would mean that:|Normal Spell||Add 1 card from your Deck to your hand.|Is perfectly balanced in an ideal meta, because it only gets non-banworthy cards. [/quote'] ITT: A flip effect and a normal spell are the same thing.ITT: A spell card and any card are the same thing.ITT: Your deck and the graveyard are the same thing. Sorry, try again. I didn't say that it shouldn't be @3. I just said that the above logic as a complete argument was horrid. It being a flip is part of the reason it shouldn't be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The ReBeL Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 just grab a pot with this and your good or the heavy. this format but at 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zauls Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 Doesn't deserve to be banned in the current meta. She could be @2 and nobody would care. Really, she should have been put @1 this format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mehmani Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 It could work @1. I say put this and Tsukiyomi @1 for a couple of months. If worst comes to worst you just ban 'em again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Cakey Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 Should be @1. It's flip effect' date=' so it's slow. Also, meta decks now mostly destroy by effects, so fli effects won't work. Should be @1.[/quote'] ITT: Ryko/Morphing Jar is bad, because they are flip effects. Cool, that's the first time I've ever used ITT. Anyway, after having read the arguments, I think experimenting with MoF @ 1 for a format seems like a reasonable idea. I sense a not happen, however. EDIT: And Tsukuyomi please go to 1, nao. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugiohmasterobelisk Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 no but you see dr cakey they dont liek reviving spell cards i mean my freind says that there are only like 2 spell revivers in the whole game and they are all bad and they are all a -1 so you see it wont happen. and also i like that you watch dbz abrdged it was a very good tv show until nappa was killed by vegeta. and i like the part where he says hey vegeta. we're in prison vegeta.hes very funny and he reminds people of me but i hope i dont get killed like him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkel Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 Can be at 3 when its banworthy targets are banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.