Mystical Space hole of killing spells and traps...thingu(DISC:Mystical space typhoon)

[Fader]

mystical space typhoon: destroy 1 spell or trap card on the field

 

 

duscuss

[Flame Dragon]

Perfectly balanced 1 for 1. It shouldn't be at 1.

[Great Unclean One: VK]

A quick play that kills Spells and Traps.

 

Limited for no reason I know of.

 

Once, Blakie dust tornadoed my MST, which I chained and killed his MST.

[Sleepy]

Its not a banworthy card at all. Its just good. Sort of like Book of Moon and others were limited in the past, I think there will eventually be a time when this gets unlimited.

 

I guess Konami wants us to use more S/T removal that is less generic and splashable?

Dust Tornado says hi. Then again, Dust Tornado is slower.

[Toffee.]

It shouldn't be at 1.

Heck, even @2 would be nice.

 

But with Konami's logic, they currently are leaving it@1

[TechnoDoomedOne]

Perfect card for S/T removal, even if it's a 1-for-1.

It stays at 1, I say.

 

Why run any of the alternatives we have if this card has all pros but no cons?

IMO, no balanced cards should have no cons. Therefore, MST is not balanced.

[Flame Dragon]

Perfect card for S/T removal, even if it's a 1-for-1.

It stays at 1, I say.

 

Why run any of the alternatives we have if this card has all pros but no cons?

IMO, no balanced cards should have no cons. Therefore, MST is not balanced.

So your saying stuff like Hammer Shot, Smashing Ground, Fissure, and so on aren't balanced?

[Sleepy]

Look at this card everyone:

http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Double_Cyclone

 

MST @3 next format? maybe?

[TechnoDoomedOne]

So your saying stuff like Hammer Shot, Smashing Ground, Fissure, and so on aren't balanced?

 

Hammer Shot can work on both fields, so that balances it.

Fissure takes the weakest enemy, not the strongest, so it is balanced too.

Smashing Ground takes normally a powerful monster, so not balanced.

 

IMO, Smashing Ground should be at 1 or 2 at most, but never at 3.

[Toffee.]

Look at this card everyone:

http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Double_Cyclone

 

MST @3 next format? maybe?

Cyclone cant target itself for the effect.

 

Yea, I know.

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

Should be at 3.

[metalflygon08]

If heavy went to 0 would this go to 3?

[Flame Dragon]

Hammer Shot can work on both fields, so that balances it.

Fissure takes the weakest enemy, not the strongest, so it is balanced too.

Smashing Ground takes normally a powerful monster, so not balanced.

 

IMO, Smashing Ground should be at 1 or 2 at most, but never at 3.

Why would you use Hammer if you have you have a stronger monster? It's negative point is a mute one.

 

Fissure weak point is mute if your opponent only has 1 monster. But it is the most balanced of the lot.

 

How does putting Smashing at 1 change it. It can still come out of no where and destroy a monster. Also what about killing 1 strong monster at the cost of one of your card unfair?

 

Cyclone cant target itself for the effect.

 

Yea, I know.

It should, but still simply chaining it to one of your own cards basically make a new MST.

[Sephiroth_The_Legend]

If heavy went to 0 would this go to 3?

 

It would have to. Or there wouldnt be any good generic S/T removal left.

 

But both will stay at 1, they been at 1 for so long....

[TechnoDoomedOne]

Why would you use Hammer if you have you have a stronger monster? It's negative point is a mute one.

 

Fissure weak point is mute if your opponent only has 1 monster. But it is the most balanced of the lot.

 

How does putting Smashing at 1 change it. It can still come out of no where and destroy a monster. Also what about killing 1 strong monster at the cost of one of your card unfair?

 

 

It should, but still simply chaining it to one of your own cards basically make a new MST.

 

1st.- There is no mute point. The card can backfire on you if you are not careful, so it needs a bit more of skill than the others.

2nd.- Fissure works great against 1 monster... But what about if you're dealing with a swarm of monsters? Not that good.

3rd.- Smashing Ground cannot backfire, and works to take out the strongest threat even in swarmed fileds. Just because it is 1-4-1 doesn't make a card balanced.

 

This game goes beyond card advantage, something people tend to forget. If you pack half your deck with 1-4-1 cards, how many of those can your opponent resist until his/her resources goes out for 1 or 2 turns, normally enough to OTK? Or what, must a deck be able to resist a constant destruction of all cards put to play? Is it even fun, or normal to play when any card you play is destroyed instantly or next turn?

 

Just because a card is 1-4-1 doesn't make it balanced. You're taking out an opponent's card at no cost in the end, except for a Spell that was used to make its job. And when said Spell has no downsides, it's something that should be avoid to be abused, IMO. That makes the game fairier.

[Manjoume Thunder]

So your saying stuff like Hammer Shot, Smashing Ground, Fissure, and so on aren't balanced?

 

They do not let you chose your target and cannot be played on your opponent's turn. The comparison is stupid.

[.Gideon.]

It's only place IS @1 !

 

a quickplay s/t removal with no cost is splashable and will ruin the game @3.

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

It's only place IS @1 ! a quickplay s/t removal with no cost is splashable and will ruin the game @3.

 

How is it bad for the game if it were to be at 3 and why isn't it bad for the game at 1?

[Flame Dragon]

1st.- There is no mute point. The card can backfire on you if you are not careful, so it needs a bit more of skill than the others.

2nd.- Fissure works great against 1 monster... But what about if you're dealing with a swarm of monsters? Not that good.

3rd.- Smashing Ground cannot backfire, and works to take out the strongest threat even in swarmed fileds. Just because it is 1-4-1 doesn't make a card balanced.

 

This game goes beyond card advantage, something people tend to forget. If you pack half your deck with 1-4-1 cards, how many of those can your opponent resist until his/her resources goes out for 1 or 2 turns, normally enough to OTK? Or what, must a deck be able to resist a constant destruction of all cards put to play? Is it even fun, or normal to play when any card you play is destroyed instantly or next turn?

 

Just because a card is 1-4-1 doesn't make it balanced. You're taking out an opponent's card at no cost in the end, except for a Spell that was used to make its job. And when said Spell has no downsides, it's something that should be avoid to be abused, IMO. That makes the game fairier.

1) How many ways can it back fire? Not many as far as I think.

2) I said Fissure is the weakest and I know it can't help against swarms.

3) And you just told me what the card does. You haven't told me what make it unfair.

 

If your opponent lot all their cards to 1 for 1s, then so did you. The cards have a cost, and it's itself. Your "half deck of 1 for 1s" example could never work because just destroying your opponent's monsters won't get you anywhere. Every time your opponent losses something you're losing something too so you'll never get that far a head of your opponent, so even if you make your opponent's resources 1 or 2, you'll have the same number meaning you won't be able to do much, let alone OTK.

 

 

So your saying stuff like Hammer Shot, Smashing Ground, Fissure, and so on aren't balanced?

 

They do not let you chose your target and cannot be played on your opponent's turn. The comparison is stupid.

They are all one for ones, much like this. And since you'll often use MST on face-downs, unless the meta is that different on a good list, your ability to chose makes little difference. However for a better comparison, Dust Tornado.

[Expelsword]

With Pot of Greed banned, this is the most splashable card

[.Gideon.]

2-3 msts in your hand = a heavy storm that can't be countered by Starlight road

 

and I'm sure the last thing a yu-gi-oh player wants is another heavy storm in every deck. <.<

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

2-3 msts in your hand = a heavy storm that can't be countered by Starlight roadand I'm sure the last thing a yu-gi-oh player wants is another heavy storm in every deck. <.<

 

Yeah....no. That's not how it is. Heavy Storm is a 1-card mass S/T removal. MST is 1-for-1 removal. Each S/T you want to remove costs you 1 card. Seems balanced enough right. Well it should be. I do realize not all 1-for-1 removal is balanced (Ring of Destruction and Nobleman of Crossout for example) but most of it certainly is and MST is.

[TechnoDoomedOne]

So your saying stuff like Hammer Shot, Smashing Ground, Fissure, and so on aren't balanced?

 

They do not let you chose your target and cannot be played on your opponent's turn. The comparison is stupid.

 

No, I'm saying that MST is a S/T removal 1-4-1 with no downsides, similar to how Smashing Ground is a monster removal 1-4-1 with no downsides. Obviously, MST > Smashing Ground in terms of playability, I am just saying that because a card is 1-4-1 doesn't make that card fair.

 

MST has to remain at 1 because it is a Staple card that everyone will play up to the maximum value that can be played, and it would ruin the game at 3 (maybe not at 2, seeing today's standards). Smashing Ground, IMO, should be at either 1 or 2, but never at 3 because how it can be abused.

 

1) How many ways can it back fire? Not many as far as I think.

Your opponent summons a monster with a powerful effect, yet you have a stronger (ATK-wise) monster on the field. You know for sure your monster won't stay next turn, but you cannot kill your opponent's monster because you have a stronger one and Hammer Shot would destroy yours.

 

This was just an example on how it can backfire, there are more. If you know how to use the card, obviously things like these are more likely to not happen, but it is still can backfire on you. It requires skill, so that's its downside.

 

3) And you just told me what the card does. You haven't told me what make it unfair.

It's a good card, unless its weaker counterparts it has no downside, and it can splashed and abused at 3. Tell what is not unfair about it? That it is 1-4-1, does that automatically make a card fair? Does that matters if you can clear your opponent's fied and not let them play a single monster? Lower Tiers (Tier 3 -sometimes, if unlucky-, Tier 4 and below) cannot afford so much loses.

 

 

If your opponent lost all their cards to 1 for 1s, then so did you. The cards have a cost, and it's itself. Your "half deck of 1 for 1s" example could never work because just destroying your opponent's monsters won't get you anywhere. Every time your opponent losses something you're losing something too so you'll never get that far a head of your opponent, so even if you make your opponent's resources 1 or 2, you'll have the same number meaning you won't be able to do much, let alone OTK.

Yet again you base all in card advantage. Game goes beyond it. If it was for card advantage alone Waboku would a bad card, yet it was still considered good last time I checked it. If your opponent cannot recover from your mass 1-4-1 and leaves the fied open, you can deal massive damage. When there are so many 1-4-1 cards and some also have no downsides, I think there's something wrong. The game should allow for plays to be played, not to destroy just everything that is played with ease.

[El-Rrey]

As many people said previously, i find this card perfectly balanced!

It should be at 3 IMO but i don't think many people would spalsh it at 3 if it was. 2 maybe but not 3.

[Expelsword]

I find it stange how "One for One" is 2-4-1