3-0 Banlists

[arkel]

[spoiler=Explanation of 3-0 Logic]

A card's either bad for the game or not' date=' take your pick. Cards like Judgment Dragon don't suddenly become less broken just because they're put at one as opposed to being at two or three.

 

A card's balance doesn't change by Limiting or Semi-Limiting it the vast majority of the time. It only changes when Limited or Semi-Limited if it interacts with other copies of itself, like Malicious, Stratos, Night Assailant, et cetera.

 

All you're doing by Limiting or Semi-Limiting is reducing the chances of that card being drawn. Does that fix the card? Nope. Now your opponent just has to be a little more lucky to nuke and swing for massive damage than they did before, luck promotion being bad for the game by being counter-productive when one of the main goals here is to promote skill.

[/quote']

 

 

[spoiler=Guidelines for placing a card on the list.]

PROHIBITED

 

Category 1) The card gives too large a reward too easily for too small a cost. Most of these cards are splashable' date=' but not all; a theme support card that lets you draw 7 cards for no real cost would be banworthy under this, despite not being splashable. Example: Raigeki.

 

Category 2) The card enables one or more OTK's and/or FTK's to be accomplished easily. Often, these cards are used solely for the purpose of OTK's and/or FTK's. Example: Magical Explosion.

 

Category 3) The card invalidates a basic mechanical part of the game by effectively preventing it from ever being used with any merit; a good game does not turn its back on its basic mechanics. Example: Nobleman of Crossout (invalidates Flips).

 

Category 4) Similar to number 3, the card invalidates a certain playstyle that would otherwise contribute to the game. Example: Cyber Dragon (invalidates Stall).

 

Category 5) The underlying idea of the card's effect is, as a matter of principle, completely unacceptable in any form. Example: Victory Dragon.

 

LIMITED

 

Category A) The card cannot remain at 3 due to one or more of the banning conditions (probably Condition 1) but provides some benefit to the game at 1 that allows it to remain. Example: Mirror Force.

 

Category B) The card cannot remain at 3 due to an unacceptable interaction with another copy of itself; at 1, however, it cannot interact with itself, and thus can remain legal. Example: Night Assailant.

 

Category C) The card cannot remain at 3 for purely mechanical reasons that make multiple copies of it impossible; however, it can remain at 1, where there are no other copies with which to conflict. Example: Twin-Headed Behemoth.

 

SEMI-LIMITED

 

Category X) The card cannot remain at 3 due to an unacceptable interaction with two other copies of itself; at 2, however, it cannot interact with two other copies of itself, and thus can remain Semi-Limited. Example: [none available']

 

Again, these classifications reflect the logic, and not the other way around; furthermore, each card is an individual case, so even if a card might seem to fall into a category, it might not belong in that place on the list - or even on the list at all. They're simply there to describe trends in logic, not set concrete policy. Category C is an example of this, since it was created specifically to reflect the treatment of one specific card, and applies to no other cards in the card pool; it was not decided on in advance and then used to determine the fate of Twin-Headed Behemoth.

 

Because each card is handled individually, it is impossible to give an accurate summary of the reasoning involved without delving into each individual card on (or not on) the list. The above categories are the best I could do to give a general idea of what the logic typically involved.

 

 

[spoiler=Example 3-0 List]Listed are only changes to the current list:

 

PROHIBITED

ALL-OUT ATTACKS

ALLURE OF DARKNESS

ARCANA FORCE XXI - THE WORLD

ARMED SAMURAI - BEN-KEI

BATTLE MANIA

BLACK ROSE DRAGON

BLACK WHIRLWIND

BRAIN CONTROL

BRAIN RESEARCH LAB

BREAKER THE MAGICAL WARRIOR

BRIONAC, DRAGON OF THE ICE BARRIER

CALL OF THE HAUNTED

CHAOS SORCERER

CHIMERATECH FORTRESS DRAGON

CHIMERATECH OVERDRAGON

COLD WAVE

CYBER DRAGON

CYBER END DRAGON

CYBER TWIN DRAGON

DARK ARMED DRAGON

DARKLORD ZERATO

DECK DEVASTATION VIRUS

DEMISE, KING OF ARMAGEDDON

ERADICATOR EPIDEMIC VIRUS

EVIL HERO DARK GAIA

EXODIA THE FORBIDDEN ONE

FIVE-HEADED DRAGON

GLADIATOR BEAST GYZARUS

GORZ THE EMISSARY DARKNESS

GOYO GUARDIAN

GRAVITY BIND

IMPERIAL IRON WALL

INFERNITY LAUNCHER

JUDGMENT DRAGON

LEVEL LIMIT - AREA B

LIFE EQUALIZER

LIMITER REMOVAL

MACHINE DUPLICATION

MAGIC CYLINDER

MAGICAL EXPLOSION

MARSHMALLON

MEGAMORPH

MIND CONTROL

MORPHING JAR

NECROFACE

NOBLEMAN OF CROSSOUT

PLAGUESPREADER ZOMBIE

POWER BOND

RAGING MAD PLANTS

RESCUE CAT

RETURN FROM THE DIFFERENT DIMENSION

REVERSAL QUIZ

SELF-DESTRUCT BUTTON

SKY SCOURGE NORLERAS

SNIPE HUNTER

SPIRIT REAPER

STARDUST DRAGON

SUBSTITOAD

THE IMMORTAL BUSHI

TRAGOEDIA

TRAP DUSTSHOOT

TREEBORN FROG

ULTIMATE OFFERING

UNITED WE STAND

WULF, LIGHTSWORN BEAST

XX-SABER GOTTOMS

XX-SABER HYUNLEI

 

LIMITED

DESTINY HERO – MALICIOUS

 

UNRESTRICTED

Advanced Ritual Art

Bottomless Trap Hole

Burial from a Different Dimension

Card Destruction

Card Trooper

Charge of the Light Brigade

Dandylion

Destiny Draw

Emergency Teleport

Foolish Burial

Future Fusion

Giant Trunade

Gladiator Beast Bestiari

Gold Sarcophagus

Green Baboon, Defender of the Forest

Honest

Left Arm of the Forbidden One

Left Leg of the Forbidden One

Lonefire Blossom

Lumina, Lightsworn Summoner

Magical Stone Excavation

Magician of Faith

Mask of Darkness

Metamorphosis

Mezuki

Mind Crush

Mind Master

Monster Gate

Mystical Space Typhoon

Necro Gardna

Neo-Spacian Grand Mole

Ojama Trio

One for One

Overload Fusion

Reasoning

Right Arm of the Forbidden One

Right Leg of the Forbidden One

Royal Decree

Royal Oppression

Scapegoat

Skill Drain

Summoner Monk

Swords of Revealing Light

Wall of Revealing Light

 

 

Discuss 3-0 lists as well as the placement of generic synchros on the banlist.

[-Griffin]

No. Dislike the 'logic'. Forgets things. Can't be bothered to go into it.

[TechnoDoomedOne]

As for the 3-0 banlist, is stupid.

People that do not know what the banlist is will not care about certain card being at 0, 1, 2, 3 or 40.

 

People that already knows the banlist and knows how the play the game understands that there are cards that do not deserve more restrictions, but cannot either go at 3 again.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

No. Dislike the 'logic'. Forgets things. Can't be bothered to go into it.

 

Then why bother posting?

 

As for the 3-0 banlist' date=' is stupid. [/b']

People that do not know what the banlist is will not care about certain card being at 0, 1, 2, 3 or 40.

 

People that already knows the banlist and knows how the play the game understands that there are cards that do not deserve more restrictions, but cannot either go at 3 again.

 

Why is it stupid? Why is it that you think that all people who know how to play the game think as you do when clearly, they don't? The evidence is right in the first post. I know how to play the game, and I'm pretty sure Crab knows too. Your claims are based on no substance whatsoever and oppose irrefutable evidence, and so there's no reason whatsoever for anyone to take you seriously.

[Toffee.]

B&:

Cyber End

Cyber Twin

Chimeratech Fortress

Chimeratech Overdragon

 

@3:

Cyber Dragon

Metamorphasis

 

.....Something like that? O,o

[CrabHelmet]

I like how -Griffin's logic for why 3-0 is stupid is "Can't be bothered to actually give any reasons" and TechnoDoomedOne's logic for why 3-0 is stupid is essentially "It's stupid because everyone knows 3-0 is stupid". Great arguments, guys. 11/10.

[Toffee.]

I like how -Griffin's logic for why 3-0 is stupid is "Can't be bothered to actually give any reasons" and TechnoDoomedOne's logic for why 3-0 is stupid is essentially "It's stupid because everyone knows 3-0 is stupid". Great arguments' date=' guys. 11/10.

[/quote']

 

Thing is Crab, 3-0 lists are hard to figure out.

As its a matter of trying to "re-set"(or so to say) the game, in which not every B& card is really ban worthy.

 

Like how Magician of Faith would be@3 if all abusable spell cards were B&.

(Mostly the drawing ones, I think)

[CrabHelmet]

The thing is, even that ridiculously ancient post of mine that arkel dug up directly addresses the issue that, yes, there are some cards that need to stay at 1 or maybe even 2, so TechnoDoomedOne's post is refuted by just reading the opening post of the topic.

 

Though it must be said that 3-0's biggest weakness is probably that its name is misleading; the name implies that it does not have Limited or Semi-Limited sections, when it actually does have them (albeit much smaller than Konami's). The key basis of 3-0 logic is that problems must be eliminated entirely and non-problems need not be restricted at all; hence, when you do something like Limiting Night Assailant, what you're really doing is banning the Night Assailant + Night Assailant combo. It just does away with Konami's way of sending cards like Brain Control to 1 for basically no good reason at all.

[arkel]

@Crab: You changed your avvie =[

 

@Arm: If CyDra was at 3 no one could play stall. Then again, it's questionable whether or not stall is actually good for the game.

[Toffee.]

Crab has a new Avatar.

[/zomg]

 

Though it must be said that 3-0's biggest weakness is probably that its name is misleading; the name implies that it does not have Limited or Semi-Limited sections' date=' when it actually does have them (albeit much smaller than Konami's). The key basis of 3-0 logic is that problems must be eliminated entirely and non-problems need not be restricted at all; hence, when you do something like Limiting Night Assailant, what you're really doing is banning the Night Assailant + Night Assailant combo. It just does away with Konami's way of sending cards like Brain Control to 1 for basically no good reason at all.

[/quote']

Though with Konami, and how they tend to think, they want some sort of "challange" aspect to the game, which gives them an excuse to put broken cards at 1 or 2.

Because they think: "The lower the number of said card, the harder it will be to draw into it".

But when a deck ends up 'stacked'(or so to say), with a hand that contains broken cards X, Y, and Z, its pretty much game.

[arkel]

Though with Konami' date=' and how they tend to think, they want some sort of "challange" aspect to the game, which gives them an excuse to put broken cards at 1 or 2.

Because they think: "The lower the number of said card, the harder it will be to draw into it".

But when a deck ends up 'stacked'(or so to say), with a hand that contains broken cards X, Y, and Z, its pretty much game.

[/quote']

 

And that's one of the biggest problems when discussing 3-0 lists. Most people just say "Konami will never do it so it must not be a problem" when in fact the people saying this are even more idiotic than Konami themselves.

[CrabHelmet]

Considering that I haven't used Chimeratech for about two and a quarter years, a change seemed rather in order.

[Toffee.]

Though with Konami' date=' and how they tend to think, they want some sort of "challange" aspect to the game, which gives them an excuse to put broken cards at 1 or 2.

Because they think: "The lower the number of said card, the harder it will be to draw into it".

But when a deck ends up 'stacked'(or so to say), with a hand that contains broken cards X, Y, and Z, its pretty much game.

[/quote']

 

And that's one of the biggest problems when discussing 3-0 lists. Most people just say "Konami will never do it so it must not be a problem" when in fact the people saying this are even more idiotic than Konami themselves.

Actually, I wasnt saying "Konami would never do that", I was just agreeing with Crab's logic, on how Konami tends to be stupid that way.

Thing is, they prefer money over actual "skill", and lets people go running around with broken cards for more profit :/

 

Considering that I haven't used Chimeratech for about two and a quarter years' date=' a change seemed rather in order.

[/quote']

Quick-question: Which anime/show/what-ever is your avatar from?

[White Void]

I feel the problem with a 3-0 list isn't in the logic behind it but in the idea of Konami actually managing it appropriately, with the number of promotional cards and TCG exclusives released between the new lists the lists themselves would have to be updated on a far more active basis, say every 2 months instead of every 6 which in itself would create an entirely different environment in the game. If a 3-0 list is not taken into account when designing new cards and actively updated, we'll quickly just get back into the problems of the current environment within this game. Not even going into the whole "Konami likes sales" mentality, I'm not sure if they could manage such a list appropriately with the way they handle the game at the moment. It'd require somewhat of a "different" Konami for a 3-0 list to work, the list itself doesn't really have any innate problems from the logic as I see it. I hope what I'm trying to say is clear.

[RyanAtlus]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Crab's theory on banlists is pretty solid.

But not everyone will aggree on some things, such as whether recycling cards or stalling are bad for the game. (e.g. Where should Dark Magician of Chaos and Swords be respectively?)

[CrabHelmet]

I feel the problem with a 3-0 list isn't in the logic behind it but in the idea of Konami

 

Stopped reading there.

[TechnoDoomedOne]

If you actually cared to read your own posts and mine, you would have seen that there are cards that as you mention, Crab, cannot be at 3 because how they interact with the 2 copies of that card, or how some cards interact with any other copies of themselves and therefore must at 1.

 

Sure, let's ban those cards! So we have our 3-0 banlist!

FIRST.- Those cards do not deserve further restriction. Only broken cards or cards that are part of broken combos/decks should be banned. Because a card is fine at 1 or 2 does not mean that it should be either in 3 or 0, also because...

SECOND.-...deciding where a card belongs is not so easy, and most important, isn't your decision either, but Konami's. Also, it is radical, and as far I know, NO EXTREMES are good, NEVER

 

So, to sum it up, there are cards that are fine at their position now, there are cards that cannot be at 3 but do not deserve to be at 0, and pretending all cards should be at either 3 or 0 is being close-minded and radical. Unless...

 

Though it must be said that 3-0's biggest weakness is probably that its name is misleading; the name implies that it does not have Limited or Semi-Limited sections' date=' when it actually does have them (albeit much smaller than Konami's). The key basis of 3-0 logic is that problems must be eliminated entirely and non-problems need not be restricted at all; hence, when you do something like Limiting Night Assailant, what you're really doing is banning the Night Assailant + Night Assailant combo. It just does away with Konami's way of sending cards like Brain Control to 1 for basically no good reason at all.

[/quote']

 

You keep some of the cards at Limited and Semi, not going at extremes.

Then, you have a point. Even if I don't agree 100% with it, but you have it.

[White Void]

I feel the problem with a 3-0 list isn't in the logic behind it but in the idea of Konami

 

Stopped reading there.

 

Shoulda kept reading, it's not the usual "Why this won't work because of Konami" statement. I appreciate the generalization though, what's the point of a topic if everything that isn't "3-0 Banlist Logic is Entirely Fantastic" logic is dismissed?

[CrabHelmet]

If you actually cared to read your own posts and mine' date=' you would have seen that there are cards that as you mention, Crab, cannot be at 3 because how they interact with the 2 copies of that card, or how some cards interact with any other copies of themselves and therefore must at 1.

 

Sure, let's ban those cards! So we have our 3-0 banlist!

[b']FIRST.-[/b] Those cards do not deserve further restriction. Only broken cards or cards that are part of broken combos/decks should be banned. Because a card is fine at 1 or 2 does not mean that it should be either in 3 or 0, also because...

 

If you had actually read the very first post of the thread, you would have already understood that 3-0 lists do indeed leave cards at 1 or 2 when they interact unacceptably with other copies of themselves. The one who has failed to read here is you, not I.

 

SECOND.-...deciding where a card belongs is not so easy' date='

[/quote']

 

Oh no, something that isn't easy - or at least, isn't easy for someone who has proven his inability to read properly! Let's all give up and go drown our sorrows in whiskey. Anything that isn't unspeakably easy is obviously not worth trying.

 

and most important' date=' isn't your decision either, but Konami's.

[/quote']

 

Really? Wow, thanks for telling me that! For some reason, I thought that whatever I posted on this forum would be officially implemented by the game designers as the worldwide banlist for the TCG and OCG! I somehow forgot that I wasn't Konami! It's a good thing you warned me about that easy-to-miss detail, since I was totally under the delusion that I was Konami! Of course, you obviously figured out that we couldn't possibly be creating these banlists as thought-experiments and for the purpose of variant formats outside of officially-sanctioned tournaments; obviously, we totally thought we were Konami. Thanks for clearing that up!

 

Also' date=' it is radical, and as far I know, NO EXTREMES are good, NEVER

[/quote']

 

Argument to moderation is a pretty awesome Wikipedia page, since it includes lines like these:

 

"Some would say that arsenic is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet, but others claim it is a toxic and dangerous substance. The truth is somewhere in between..."

 

"Bill owns a cake. Jake would like to have the cake. Bill wants to keep it. Therefore, 1/2 of the cake should be given to Jake."

 

"Jane says she is not pregnant, but Bill says that she is. Jane is therefore exactly one-half pregnant."

 

"Jane and Bill are married. Jane believes they should be monogamous, but Bill would like to have an extramarital affair. As a compromise, Bill offers to be faithful on weekdays and only spend weekends with his lover."

 

"Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration."

 

Also, I think you'll find that the statement that "NO EXTREMES are good, NEVER" is itself extreme - which means that it can't be true, since if it were true, it would by its own argument be false.

 

So' date=' to sum it up, there are cards that are fine at their position now, there are cards that cannot be at 3 but do not deserve to be at 0, and pretending [u']all cards[/u] should be at either 3 or 0 is being close-minded and radical. Unless...

 

Though it must be said that 3-0's biggest weakness is probably that its name is misleading; the name implies that it does not have Limited or Semi-Limited sections' date=' when it actually does have them (albeit much smaller than Konami's). The key basis of 3-0 logic is that problems must be eliminated entirely and non-problems need not be restricted at all; hence, when you do something like Limiting Night Assailant, what you're really doing is banning the Night Assailant + Night Assailant combo. It just does away with Konami's way of sending cards like Brain Control to 1 for basically no good reason at all.

[/quote']

 

You keep some of the cards at Limited and Semi, not going at extremes.

Then, you have a point. Even if I don't agree 100% with it, but you have it.

 

Maybe if you had actually read the first post of the thread, you wouldn't have this sort of confusion, you fool.

 

I feel the problem with a 3-0 list isn't in the logic behind it but in the idea of Konami

 

Stopped reading there.

 

Shoulda kept reading' date=' it's not the usual "Why this won't work because of Konami" statement. I appreciate the generalization though, what's the point of a topic if everything that isn't "3-0 Banlist Logic is Entirely Fantastic" logic is dismissed?

[/quote']

 

Certainly looks like the standard Konami-can't-handle-it logic: you're saying that it won't work because Konami won't support it (we know already and we don't care) and because Konami's card design would require the list to be updated more than every six months (which is fine, since there's no reason for us to be tied to Konami's list-releasing schedule; it's accepted among the listmaking community that list updates may be required anytime a new set of cards is released).

 

Also, not everything that isn't "3-0 Banlist Logic is Entirely Fantastic" is automatically dismissed; it's just that you people can't seem to construct a decent argument against it, so the only things you have actually posted are being dismissed because they're stupid. Decent arguments will be acknowledged, but so far the strongest counterargument has consisted of "It might need to be updated more often!" - and pretty much all the other arguments have been idiots like TechnoDoomedOne refusing to actually read.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

If you actually cared to read your own posts and mine' date=' you would have seen that there are cards that as you mention, Crab, cannot be at 3 because how they interact with the 2 copies of that card, or how some cards interact with any other copies of themselves and therefore must at 1.

 

Sure, let's ban those cards! So we have our 3-0 banlist!

[b']FIRST.-[/b] Those cards do not deserve further restriction. Only broken cards or cards that are part of broken combos/decks should be banned. Because a card is fine at 1 or 2 does not mean that it should be either in 3 or 0, also because...

SECOND.-...deciding where a card belongs is not so easy, and most important, isn't your decision either, but Konami's. Also, it is radical, and as far I know, NO EXTREMES are good, NEVER

 

So, to sum it up, there are cards that are fine at their position now, there are cards that cannot be at 3 but do not deserve to be at 0, and pretending all cards should be at either 3 or 0 is being close-minded and radical. Unless...

 

Though it must be said that 3-0's biggest weakness is probably that its name is misleading; the name implies that it does not have Limited or Semi-Limited sections' date=' when it actually does have them (albeit much smaller than Konami's). The key basis of 3-0 logic is that problems must be eliminated entirely and non-problems need not be restricted at all; hence, when you do something like Limiting Night Assailant, what you're really doing is banning the Night Assailant + Night Assailant combo. It just does away with Konami's way of sending cards like Brain Control to 1 for basically no good reason at all.

[/quote']

 

You keep some of the cards at Limited and Semi, not going at extremes.

Then, you have a point. Even if I don't agree 100% with it, but you have it.

 

The first post of the thread addressed that already. You attacked something that nobody on the entire site has ever been in favor of.

[Toffee.]

Guys, would it be easier if we start with a B& list, and then adjust it accordingly to what we find?

[TechnoDoomedOne]

Crab, nowhere on the first post says that your quote is part of the 3-0 banlist argument. I thought that as the post says to discuss the 3-0 banlist logic, arkel was giving the two sides of the story. Then, I saw that it was not that way in my second post, on the last part. Sorry for beign such an stupid that I cannot see things that are not posted at first glance.

 

Also... are you always such a moron? You always seem to search for an excuse to argue with someone. Not to say you always think you have the last word and that you aren't wrong. In fact, I have yet to see a post where you say you might not have reason, or give the reason to anyone else that isn't you (or agrees with you).

 

At least, Crab, I was giving you the reason when I saw I was wrong, even if I didn't agree with it. I know what modesty is.

 

[spoiler=Defending points]

If someone says that something is not easy, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be thought about it, it means that it should be thought about it more carefully, and not only one people or a group of them, but a large collective. I don't know if it is the case, but I don't think I am the only one to think the 3-0 banlist logic is flawed.

 

Also, I know you don't think you're Konami. You're not stupid, even if it seems that I am by your logic. I was only stating that there are people that would really like to see this banlist applied, when it certainly will not. But, hey, I must be some kind of retard to ever dare to write that line (or any line of my post).

 

"NO EXTREMES are good, NEVER" = statement of balance

I will not accept Philosophy as an argument to anything, because Philosophy cannot be proved. Science can, and it is a quite commonly accepted standard that extremes are not good. You can see that in biology, medicine, chemestry... Also, and if you want to recurr to philosophy, I could say that everything is relative, so no one has reason.

 

[arkel]

Also... are you always such a moron? You always seem to search for an excuse to argue with someone. Not to say you always think you have the last word and that you aren't wrong. In fact' date=' I have yet to see a post where you say you might not have reason, or give the reason to anyone else that isn't you (or agrees with you).

[/quote']

 

You have absolutely no right talking to Crab like that. Every single time he's posted in this topic it's been full of solid logic, support for his argument, reasons why your argument is invalid, and, albeit, a bit of sarcasm. Your posts have been walls of senseless blather.

[TechnoDoomedOne]

You have absolutely no right talking to Crab like that. Every single time he's posted in this topic it's been full of solid logic' date=' support for his argument, reasons why your argument is invalid, and, albeit, a bit of sarcasm. Your posts have been walls of senseless blather.

[/quote']

 

As far as support for his argument goes, I have only seen references of the first post, a link to Wikipedia about another thing that is not this discussion and an explanation of where is this list going to be used.

 

As far as my posts go, I said that I find an strict 3-0 banlist stupid (which is an acceptable opinion, even if contrary to the popular one), a post explaining why, and the last part of Post 2 saying that I was wrong about how I read the first post of this topic and that he has a point, therefore making my reasoning invalid until I post new reasons (which would be based on the real 3-0 banlist, because I made a mistake understanding the topic). However, I will not post new reasons right now, as I am too focused on defending myself from the insults.

 

I am an stupid and a fool by Crab's words. I gave a mistaken opinion that was made on a mistake I made and I have already said and recognized. Sorry to all of you, I did not want this to derivate in an argument.

Is that any better?

 

Also, this is not the first time I see Crab argue ignoring other people's comments (unless for arguing more) and thinking he has the last word. I have seen plenty of his posts doing so, and as I am the one to be insulted I have all the right to fight back.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Crab' date='[/b'] nowhere on the first post says that your quote is part of the 3-0 banlist argument. I thought that as the post says to discuss the 3-0 banlist logic, arkel was giving the two sides of the story. Then, I saw that it was not that way in my second post, on the last part. Sorry for beign such an stupid that I cannot see things that are not posted at first glance.

 

Also... are you always such a moron? You always seem to search for an excuse to argue with someone. Not to say you always think you have the last word and that you aren't wrong. In fact, I have yet to see a post where you say you might not have reason, or give the reason to anyone else that isn't you (or agrees with you).

 

At least, Crab, I was giving you the reason when I saw I was wrong, even if I didn't agree with it. I know what modesty is.

 

You're expected to make the inference here based on the context.

 

If someone says that something is not easy' date=' it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be thought about it, it means that it should be thought about it more carefully, and not only one people or a group of them, but a large collective. I don't know if it is the case, but I don't think I am the only one to think the 3-0 banlist logic is flawed.[/quote']

 

Those within "the large collective" must validate their "opinions" with substantial arguments backed with logic and evidence. Many of those within "the large collective" do not, take you and Griffin for example, and so their "opinion" cannot be taken seriously. If nine trillion people were to claim that 2+2=5 without any substantial arguments backed with logic and evidence, they should not be taken seriously. Konami doesn't provide arguments in their list, and many of those that could legitimately based on the placements they've given can be inferred and labeled "unsound" for our purposes, the interests of the promotion of skill in the game.

 

Also' date=' I know you don't think you're Konami. You're not stupid, even if it seems that I am by your logic. I was only stating that there are people that would really like to see this banlist applied, when it certainly will not. But, hey, I must be some kind of retard to ever dare to write that line (or any line of my post).[/quote']

 

To state what is obviously assumed is wholly unnecessary and serves only to waste everyone's time. These're OBVIOUSLY theoretical experiments and we OBVIOUSLY don't have influence on the official list. You're basically filling your posts with what's the equivalent to "ABOVE THIS ROOF THERE LIES A SKY".

 

If you actually cared to read your own posts and mine' date=' you would have seen that there are cards that as you mention, Crab, cannot be at 3 because how they interact with the 2 copies of that card, or how some cards interact with any other copies of themselves and therefore must at 1.

 

Sure, let's ban those cards! So we have our 3-0 banlist!

FIRST.- Those cards do not deserve further restriction. Only broken cards or cards that are part of broken combos/decks should be banned. Because a card is fine at 1 or 2 does not mean that it should be either in 3 or 0, also because...

SECOND.-...deciding where a card belongs is not so easy, and most important, isn't your decision either, but Konami's. Also, it is radical, and as far I know, NO EXTREMES are good, NEVER

 

So, to sum it up, there are cards that are fine at their position now, there are cards that cannot be at 3 but do not deserve to be at 0, and pretending all cards should be at either 3 or 0 is being close-minded and radical. Unless...

[/quote']

 

It is not entirely 3-0, it is just labeled as such because the vast majority of cards listed are banned as opposed to being limited to fewer copies; only a few exceptions aren't banned. It's generally 3-0, but it's much easier to just call it "3-0" than "generally 3-0" and have the "generally" part implied.

 

"NO EXTREMES are good, NEVER" is retarded because upon being drawn, a card is either bad for the game or not and being legal in different number of copies does not usually change this, it just makes it more or less hard to draw. The card would still be as broken/as balanced as ever. Therefore, it must be subjected to an "extreme".

 

Let's say a card lets me win the game instantly upon being activated for little cost. "NO EXTREMES ARE GOOD NEVER"? It must be subjected to an extreme.

 

As far as Crab posts continues' date=' I am an stupid and a fool.

[/quote']

 

My heart bleeds.

 

The main reason you're coming under fire is for plunging yourself into a long-disputed issue while knowing very little of its context.