Because this game is terrible and I want everything that is even remotely good banned

[123hriwu3beofuf89383y]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT MAGE POWER!

[-Lightray Daedalus-]

Also, you banned Neo-Daedalus, but not Levia Dragon. Granted, Neo is WAY worse in terms of power, having Chaos Emperor's effect minus burn and sparing itself, but it has difficult summoning conditions (Levia itself) and requires you to run Umi/Legendary Ocean. Levia nukes the whole field but itself (Like JD) for a small cost (a field spell), yet unlike a bunch of field nukers, this isn't banned.

 

He banned Ocean Lord Because of Phantom Of Chaos...Notice he also Banned Norleras...

 

Also Banning Daed is Bullshit...XD....*Fanboy RAEG*

 

This List left too much out still...If more "this Meta" seems to be pretty Broken IMO

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Not all of your so called Special Summon abominations are banworthy.

 

Oh?

 

Grandmaster. It requires you to run a Six Samurai Deck to be good and aside from that' date=' it has a fair Effect. Not banworthy.[/quote']

 

Dropping Zanji, GM, Shien, and Shien is totally fair because to do so you need a Six Samurai Deck. Cyber Dragon on the other hand...

 

REDMD. It requires you to run a Dragon heavy Deck to be playable, it is designed well since it can't interact with itself and it is just a better Gigaplant for Dragons. Not banworthy.

 

An instant 5800 ATK worth of Special Summons which keeps on giving at the cost of single card is reasonable?

 

Cyber Dragon however rewards bad play and on top of that it is a relatively splashable beatstick. Banworthy.

 

What's "bad play"?

 

I don't really have much of a problem with easy to summon beatsticks but when they're abominations like Dark Armed Dragon (easy to summon beatstick + instant +3 when played and the Deck dedication required to use it is a joke)' date=' Chaos Sorcerer (easy to summon, free enough once per turn removal, with the existence of Synchros and Monarchs, it is a ridiculous card to use and like Dark Armed Dragon, the Deck dedication required to use it is a joke).[/quote']

 

Just because ATK points don't win these days because it's all FTKs doesn't mean they can't potentially, and for a less-than-sufficient cost.

 

Do Miracle Fusion' date=' Miracle Synchro Fusion or Dragon's Mirror reward bad play? No.[/quote']

 

OHWOWLOL.

 

"Bad play" isn't "rewarded", that's what makes it "bad play" in the first place. "Bad play" loses. Dropping Cyber Dragon isn't a bad play at all. If it were, why is it so successful? Similarly, dropping FHD, all the abominable massive MSE beatsticks, and large Elemental Hero beatsticks isn't technically "bad play" either. Abusing low-cost to high-benefit ratios is GOOD play, but when the costs are too low, the cards in question are overpowered and require banning.

 

They increase the playability of Decks that rely on Fusion Monsters or whatever.

 

Judgment Dragon increases the playability of LS or whatever. Substitoad increases the playability of Frog FTK or whatever.

 

If there is a problem with them, the problem if anything would lie in the Fusion Monsters that they are used to Summon more than anything.

 

In most cases they can be legitimately Summoned through alternative methods.

 

As for type killers they are just that (they kill 1 type of Monster) but Chimeratech Fortress Dragon is that on top of being an easy to summon beatstick. Even with Cyber Dragon gone, you still have stuff like Proto-Cyber Dragon and Cyber Dragon Zwei that can still take advantage of Machine heavy Decks with Fortress Dragon.

 

Raigeki's banworthy and there's no need to have cards of a certain type punished if they aren't necessarily broken. Cards like Warrior Elimination either lie dormant and unused or are used with great benefit for little cost, a similar effect to Raigeki. No real reason they shouldn't be banned.

[Flame Dragon]

Dropping Zanji, GM, Shien, and Shien is totally fair because to do so you need a Six Samurai Deck. Cyber Dragon on the other hand...

Your always going to have those 4 cards in your hand at once.

 

What's "bad play"?

When you loss your monsters because your playing poorly, overextending, attacking stupidly, only to laugh because you'll still get an easy 2100 ATK beatstick.

[Catterjune]

It is trash outside of Synchro usage. Why would it need list attention or is it just that?

"Derp, Chaos Emperor Dragon is trash outside of a deck without light and dark monsters. JD is trash in a deck without Lightsworn."

 

When was a recurring Book of Moon with legs that uses up your Normal Summon ever in need of list attention?

Drastic Drop Off + Tsuk + Mask of Darkness

[evilfusion]

It's a pet peeve of mine when people label something as 'bad play', when in fact, most situations are everyday scenarios in any typical match.

 

Cyber Dragon "rewards" bad play, how exactly? You have no monsters out and the opponent does. You went second and this is turn 2. OMG, BAD PLAY! You're not being "rewarded" for going second, you just have the opportunity due to the state of the game.

 

Your monster(s) were just killed in battle and you play Cyber Dragon. Did you lose your monsters by bad play? NO! It's the objective of the game to destroy your opponent's monsters! Maybe your facedowns were better off conserved or you didn't have a facedown to deal with that. Is that bad play? Or maybe, *gasp* You deliberately let your monster die in battle so you could play Cyber Dragon, plus conserve your facedowns. Bad play?

 

Cyber Dragon isn't bannable because of its SS abilities, nor does it reward bad play. If it rewarded bad play, the conditions would reflect this better than your opponent having a monster and you not. It's an extremely common occurrence in a game like this. Cyber Dragon is bannable because of its fusions. Cyber Twin Dragon, Cyber End Dragon, and the two Chimeratechs are all OPed, OTK engines and the fact Cyber Dragon is splashable makes them worse. Cyber Dragon itself is not much of a problem aside from being Light (Honest), Machine (Limiter Removal), and having easy summoning conditions. Aside from that, it is nothing more than a vanilla beatstick that doesn't take up a Normal Summon. And if you HAVE monsters? It's dead weight in your hand until you don't.

 

Now, the "bad play" argument is much more valid with Gorz, only in the sense of a player deliberately leaving their field exposed. Oh wait, that's not bad play, either. Wait, what the hell IS bad play and where do you cross the line between "bad play" and "your opponent nuked your field". Gorz is inexcusably OPed, though. A 2700 + X token for simple conditions is evil. I've seen some terrific plays with Gorz, like using a sole S/T to alter the game state (MST something) and have an attack continue to trigger Gorz. Gorz doesn't reward bad play as much as spit in a good player's face.

[Catterjune]

bad play

 

Depends on what card you're talking about. In Cyber Dragon's case, it's not about rewarding bad playing and luck, but also punishing good playing and skill. It leans more towards the second then the first.

[Zyirth]

It's a pet peeve of mine when people label something as 'bad play', when in fact, most situations are everyday scenarios in any typical match.Cyber Dragon "rewards" bad play, how exactly? You have no monsters out and the opponent does. You went second and this is turn 2. OMG, BAD PLAY! You're not being "rewarded" for going second, you just have the opportunity due to the state of the game.Your monster(s) were just killed in battle and you play Cyber Dragon. Did you lose your monsters by bad play? NO! It's the objective of the game to destroy your opponent's monsters! Maybe your facedowns were better off conserved or you didn't have a facedown to deal with that. Is that bad play? Or maybe, *gasp* You deliberately let your monster die in battle so you could play Cyber Dragon, plus conserve your facedowns. Bad play?Cyber Dragon isn't bannable because of its SS abilities, nor does it reward bad play. If it rewarded bad play, the conditions would reflect this better than your opponent having a monster and you not. It's an extremely common occurrence in a game like this. Cyber Dragon is bannable because of its fusions. Cyber Twin Dragon, Cyber End Dragon, and the two Chimeratechs are all OPed, OTK engines and the fact Cyber Dragon is splashable makes them worse. Cyber Dragon itself is not much of a problem aside from being Light (Honest), Machine (Limiter Removal), and having easy summoning conditions. Aside from that, it is nothing more than a vanilla beatstick that doesn't take up a Normal Summon. And if you HAVE monsters? It's dead weight in your hand until you don't.

 

I think that the problem with Cydra is that aside from being a free special summon that rewards having no monsters on the field, it gets a crapton of support. it's not just Honest or Machine Dupe: Cyber Dragon fits well in machine decks, like Machinas or Gadgets. by "rewards having no monsters on the field", I mean that the opponent is actually killing down "useful" monsters, or stuff that you should have on the field for it to work. there's stuff like searchers or the like that you can keep on the field that need to be destroyed by battle, yeah, but there's always going to be times when that's going to be worked around by the opponent. and then you'd lose field advantage plus any potential hand advantage or play that the monster could've enabled, wasting the summon. then its your turn. you draw, and then you go "Cydra DERP" on the opponent. if you're playing monarchs, it essentially means a free monarch which will instantly generate advantage, most of the the time. if you're using synchros, it means at the most a Lv. 8 synchro, meaning SDD, RDA, TRA, or any other you could think of.

 

the dead weight point is kinda moot when you consider that if you're using stuff like Machina Fortress you can dump Cydra into the grave to get one of those out. or you could use it for several cards that require hand costs, like Divine Wrath, Quickdraw Synchron or the like, in which the card cost would well be worth a Cyber Dragon.

 

so yeah. this is all IMO; feel free to refute or whatnot. just my two cents.

[evilfusion]

I think that the problem with Cydra is that aside from being a free special summon that rewards having no monsters on the field, it gets a crapton of support. it's not just Honest or Machine Dupe: Cyber Dragon fits well in machine decks, like Machinas or Gadgets. by "rewards having no monsters on the field", I mean that the opponent is actually killing down "useful" monsters, or stuff that you should have on the field for it to work. there's stuff like searchers or the like that you can keep on the field that need to be destroyed by battle, yeah, but there's always going to be times when that's going to be worked around by the opponent. and then you'd lose field advantage plus any potential hand advantage or play that the monster could've enabled, wasting the summon. then its your turn. you draw, and then you go "Cydra DERP" on the opponent. if you're playing monarchs, it essentially means a free monarch which will instantly generate advantage, most of the the time. if you're using synchros, it means at the most a Lv. 8 synchro, meaning SDD, RDA, TRA, or any other you could think of.

 

the dead weight point is kinda moot when you consider that if you're using stuff like Machina Fortress you can dump Cydra into the grave to get one of those out. or you could use it for several cards that require hand costs, like Divine Wrath, Quickdraw Synchron or the like, in which the card cost would well be worth a Cyber Dragon.

 

so yeah. this is all IMO; feel free to refute or whatnot. just my two cents.

 

No, you're definitely correct on those points. Cydra's main push is that it has 2100 ATK with no downside or restriction. And it's true that I overlooked Machina Fortress in uses for Cydra, banning it because it's a decent level Machine is not the best argument when Machina Fortress itself could be considered more dangerous than Cyber. I think Cyber Dragon alone or in a specific combo should decide how broken or not it is. The fact it's so splashable contributes greatly to it, but even in Machine-focused decks, without the fusions, Cyber is mostly just a medium beatstick or tribute fodder. The mediocre Cyber Dragon support from SOI and PTDN doesn't contribute much to its issues.

 

I disagree mostly on the Tribute fodder and Synchro comments because Vice Dragon and Oracle of the Sun can do the exact same thing as 5 star monsters with Special Summon conditions identical to Cyber's. Granted, Vice Dragon loses half its stats and Oracle is a defense-focused monster (1000/2000), whereas Cyber's strength is in the 2100 ATK. And any card can serve the use of discard costs. That's usually a good strategy: Pitching the dead-weight cards.

 

The question I want to know is why people claim that cards like Cyber are bad for the game due to "punishing good play" or "rewarding bad play". It does neither. It's a Special Summon beatstick that has no effect afterwards. The fusions and machine support are the real concerns I have in regards to Cyber. I'm not saying it's not some sort of problem, but I feel there are far WORSE cards to worry about than a Special Summon monster. Maybe it'd wreak havoc in a way I can't truly appreciate, considering all the banlist changes this "format" is suggesting.

[TechnoDoomedOne]

Furthermore, whilst Konami lists change the meta decks that are played every year or so, most all user-created banlists would only be updated to ban new offensive cards, leaving certain decks reign over others without any plan of changing that. That's the only reason that, while mid-decent to bad, I find Konami lists to be slightly better in that regard.

[Catterjune]

The question I want to know is why people claim that cards like Cyber are bad for the game due to "punishing good play" or "rewarding bad play". It does neither.

 

Sure it does.

 

In your example of a player going second, the first player, logically, doesn't wanna take a life point hit so summoning or setting a monster is a "good" play. However, the fact that he summoned left him open to a Cyber Dragon special summon, who runs over his facedown, and a normal summon, which hits his life points directly.

 

The first player gets punished for performing a bad play, by getting hit in the life points, and punished for a good play, by having Cyber Dragon special summoned and then taking a life point hit.

 

It punishes good plays man.

[BehindTheMask]

Frog Monarchs are still the most viable deck.

 

This list punishes good playing as well.

 

I set monster(like a floater/recruiter) and my opponent drops Soul Exchange Thestalos. I immediately concede as I just lost that match, outside my own soul exchange thestalos play.

 

How is that a good format?

[evilfusion]

Any deck that has swarming capabilities can do similarly on turn 2. Should you ban those or is Cyber only hit because it's not archetype specific, like Sirroco the Dawn + Bora, or the Six Samurai?

[Flame Dragon]

Furthermore, whilst Konami lists change the meta decks that are played every year or so, most all user-created banlists would only be updated to ban new offensive cards, leaving certain decks reign over others without any plan of changing that. That's the only reason that, while mid-decent to bad, I find Konami lists to be slightly better in that regard.

Wouldn't the fact that we get new card every 3 months also cause some changes in the meta.

 

Frog Monarchs are still the most viable deck.

 

This list punishes good playing as well.

 

I set monster(like a floater/recruiter) and my opponent drops Soul Exchange Thestalos. I immediately concede as I just lost that match, outside my own soul exchange thestalos play.

 

How is that a good format?

Assuming it's first turn you still have 4 other cards at your disposal and almost all your life points, so how can that one play mean you lost the match?

[Toffee.]

When you loss your monsters because your playing poorly, overextending, attacking stupidly, only to laugh because you'll still get an easy 2100 ATK beatstick.

More specifically, Episode 1 of Yugimonz.

Yugi wins because he miraculous top-decked Exodia

 

.................owait, Exodia is on this B& list already

[TechnoDoomedOne]

Wouldn't the fact that we get new card every 3 months also cause some changes in the meta.

 

Not quite. You see, you make changes on the list, so a few new decks top and take their right to claim themselves as Tier 1 decks. Then, unless new support for another decktype makes that deck as powerful as those Tier 1 decks, as no more banlist attention will be taken over those currently Tier 1 decks, they will continue to reign. Unless like Konami you are every list or two going to hit some stuff of those decks to let others take that place.

[BehindTheMask]

Assuming it's first turn you still have 4 other cards at your disposal and almost all your life points, so how can that one play mean you lost the match?

 

Because my only out is either to spin thestalos with Raiza/PWWB or get it off the field with 1-4-1 destruction.

 

Either way, both situations put me in a horrible position in the game state.

 

I have to spend two resources on a thestalos, just to have my opponent be able to counteract my aggressive move, as he will have card advantage(my 3 cards + Raiza or just 3 cards vs his 4 cards + in hand thestalos on his turn). He then can easily just use his Card Advantage to beat me, even though I made no bad moves.

 

If I use a one for one destruction card like Fissure or Smashing. I will then still be losing as its 4 cards to 5 cards. I'd have to then make an aggressive move to make the one for one play worthwhile. my opponent then can set his floater or recruiter to not only make my aggression worthless, and work against me, but also allows him to drop a monarch next turn or have more cards to work with.

 

On rare cases I actually can Soul Exchange Thestalos him back, I "reset" the game and put my opponent in this position, but he also will have had the disruption of hitting a card out of my hand first, and can set cards based upon the card I lost.

 

You can make the case that "you can always set a Bottomless Trap Hole/Torrential/Etc." However, this is also a bad play. Even though my opponent loses his momentum of making a huge play, I also lose another card(especially in the case of Torrential Tribute). This is especially harmful as I am down to 4 cards(including the draw on my turn) vs his 4 cards in hand + his draw on his turn. Even in a format with Torrential at 3, summoning a monarch turn 2/3 is incredibly game breaking as it allows the owner of the monarch a huge advantage over his opponent.

 

I've essentially lost, as my opponent now has control over the match, card advantage, and the ability to set up more on me.

[evilfusion]

With all due respect, that logic makes almost no sense. Either I'm missing how this banlist crippled every deck's most basic moves, or you put an extremely high stake on a random card, and your deck is ill-equipped to handle monsters. Monarch decks run on the kind of momentum you seem to be describing, consistently creating the fodder to form another Monarch and push for more card advantage. It doesn't mean you've lost because he got Thestalos out. Are you saying whatever deck you're running has no chance of coming back from a single monarch, particularly one that aims at hand advantage and is essentially a vanilla once its out?

 

You must be assuming that the Monarch player will be able to keep a steady supply of fodder and counters and prevent you from doing a thing, just because you're a card or two down. Unless he's a prodigy at deckbuilding and drawing perfect cards every round, there's always a chance you can come back by killing Thestalos and pushing for damage of your own. It's not like he JDed a field of cards and has 3 cards in hand to your one.

[BehindTheMask]

With all due respect, that logic makes almost no sense. Either I'm missing how this banlist crippled every deck's most basic moves, or you put an extremely high stake on a random card, and your deck is ill-equipped to handle monsters. Monarch decks run on the kind of momentum you seem to be describing, consistently creating the fodder to form another Monarch and push for more card advantage. It doesn't mean you've lost because he got Thestalos out. Are you saying whatever deck you're running has no chance of coming back from a single monarch, particularly one that aims at hand advantage and is essentially a vanilla once its out?

 

You must be assuming that the Monarch player will be able to keep a steady supply of fodder and counters and prevent you from doing a thing, just because you're a card or two down. Unless he's a prodigy at deckbuilding and drawing perfect cards every round, there's always a chance you can come back by killing Thestalos and pushing for damage of your own. It's not like he JDed a field of cards and has 3 cards in hand to your one.

 

You're obviously bad at this game/never played against good monarch players/don't understand momentum and/or card advantage.

 

Think of cards as "resources." Each player has 40 resources at the start of the game. The point of this game is to reduce your opponent's resources and gain more resources yourself. One of the easiest ways to do this is by battle. By killing a monster, you not only reduce their resources by 1, you also have the ability to reduce their life points(a pseudo-resource). The reason that card advantage is hugely important is that without it, you have less outs to your opponents cards, and therefore, have a harder time to reduce their resources. On my first turn, I set a monster(as I'd play Apprentice Monarchs), which in this format, would probably be a recruiter like Apprentice Magician, or I'd probably even set Crystal Seer. This allows me to make a big play on my next turn. However, my opponent immediately nullifies any chance of me making optimal plays as I take a -1 card advantage.

 

On turn 2 of the game, I am put in a hugely bad position, just by setting a monster. How is that fair?

 

Thestalos may be a "vanilla" after he is summoned, however he has a 2400 body. There are almost no 4 star monsters outside Chainsaw Insect that can get rid of Thestalos. Outside of playing my own Thestalos via Soul Exchange there are almost no outs to this. At best I'd set a recruiter and pray he doesn't drop Raiza.

[Jesus]

You're obviously bad at this game/never played against good monarch players/don't understand momentum and/or card advantage.

 

Think of cards as "resources." Each player has 40 resources at the start of the game. The point of this game is to reduce your opponent's resources and gain more resources yourself. One of the easiest ways to do this is by battle. By killing a monster, you not only reduce their resources by 1, you also have the ability to reduce their life points(a pseudo-resource). The reason that card advantage is hugely important is that without it, you have less outs to your opponents cards, and therefore, have a harder time to reduce their resources. On my first turn, I set a monster(as I'd play Apprentice Monarchs), which in this format, would probably be a recruiter like Apprentice Magician, or I'd probably even set Crystal Seer. This allows me to make a big play on my next turn. However, my opponent immediately nullifies any chance of me making optimal plays as I take a -1 card advantage.

 

On turn 2 of the game, I am put in a hugely bad position, just by setting a monster. How is that fair?

 

Thestalos may be a "vanilla" after he is summoned, however he has a 2400 body. There are almost no 4 star monsters outside Chainsaw Insect that can get rid of Thestalos. Outside of playing my own Thestalos via Soul Exchange there are almost no outs to this. At best I'd set a recruiter and pray he doesn't drop Raiza.

 

WAIT GUISE DIS GUY IS OBVSLY BAID HEI FARGOGHT ARMOUR EXEE AND GIANZT KOIZAIKY

 

[/troll]

[Catterjune]

I have to spend two resources on a thestalos,

Smashing Ground = 2 Resources

Fissure = 2 Resources

Book of Moon = 2 Resources

 

just to have my opponent be able to counteract my aggressive move, as he will have card advantage(my 3 cards + Raiza or just 3 cards vs his 4 cards + in hand thestalos on his turn). He then can easily just use his Card Advantage to beat me, even though I made no bad moves.

 

Draw 5, draw one for draw phase. Set one. 5 cards in hand. Loose monster + card in hand to Thestalos + Soul Exchange. Four cards in hand. Draw phase, five cards in hand. Smashing/Fissure/etc, Four cards in hand. Opponent also has 4 cards, and no field.

 

Your arithmetic is as unsound as your logic.

 

I'd have to then make an aggressive move to make the one for one play worthwhile. my opponent then can set his floater or recruiter to not only make my aggression worthless, and work against me, but also allows him to drop a monarch next turn or have more cards to work with.

 

Why would you be unable to set your own floater or recruiter?

 

On rare cases I actually can Soul Exchange Thestalos him back, I "reset" the game and put my opponent in this position, but he also will have had the disruption of hitting a card out of my hand first, and can set cards based upon the card I lost.

 

... Is your argument entirely against Soul Exchange? You could have just skipped this failpile of tl;dr by writing "Soul Exchange is bannable".

 

On rare cases I actually can Soul Exchange Thestalos him back, I "reset" the game and put my

You can make the case that "you can always set a Bottomless Trap Hole/Torrential/Etc." However, this is also a bad play. Even though my opponent loses his momentum of making a huge play, I also lose another card(especially in the case of Torrential Tribute). This is especially harmful as I am down to 4 cards(including the draw on my turn) vs his 4 cards in hand + his draw on his turn. Even in a format with Torrential at 3, summoning a monarch turn 2/3 is incredibly game breaking as it allows the owner of the monarch a huge advantage over his opponent.

 

I've essentially lost, as my opponent now has control over the match, card advantage, and the ability to set up more on me.

 

... I was gonna do some stupid "Derp, [parody of your logic]" thing, but after reading this I realized your own post is already a huge parody. You go off on an irrelevant tangent starting from an already flawed opening assumption.

[BehindTheMask]

Smashing Ground = 2 Resources

Fissure = 2 Resources

Book of Moon = 2 Resources

 

Draw 5, draw one for draw phase. Set one. 5 cards in hand. Loose monster + card in hand to Thestalos + Soul Exchange. Four cards in hand. Draw phase, five cards in hand. Smashing/Fissure/etc, Four cards in hand. Opponent also has 4 cards, and no field.

 

Your arithmetic is as unsound as your logic.

 

You obviously missed the sentence about Raiza/PWWB to get rid of thestalos.

 

Why would you be unable to set your own floater or recruiter?

 

Because, it leaves me open to a dropped Raiza/Caius on his turn. Even if he doesn't drop Raiza/Caius on me, 99% of the time, my opponent would attack with the thestalos, see what the recruiter was(especially if it was Ryko/OVM/Apprentice), and then set their own floater or recruiter. In the best case, I trade my recruiter for their monarch, and then they set their recruiter, and I have to hope to get a monarch on board to put them in this position.

 

My logic is based on playing in a 3-0 list that is similar to this, in the monarch mirror match.

 

It's really my bad, for understanding how this game works, and how Monarchs are supposed to be run. It really is. :(

[evilfusion]

You're obviously bad at this game/never played against good monarch players/don't understand momentum and/or card advantage.

 

Think of cards as "resources." Each player has 40 resources at the start of the game. The point of this game is to reduce your opponent's resources and gain more resources yourself. One of the easiest ways to do this is by battle. By killing a monster, you not only reduce their resources by 1, you also have the ability to reduce their life points(a pseudo-resource). The reason that card advantage is hugely important is that without it, you have less outs to your opponents cards, and therefore, have a harder time to reduce their resources. On my first turn, I set a monster(as I'd play Apprentice Monarchs), which in this format, would probably be a recruiter like Apprentice Magician, or I'd probably even set Crystal Seer. This allows me to make a big play on my next turn. However, my opponent immediately nullifies any chance of me making optimal plays as I take a -1 card advantage.

 

On turn 2 of the game, I am put in a hugely bad position, just by setting a monster. How is that fair?

 

Thestalos may be a "vanilla" after he is summoned, however he has a 2400 body. There are almost no 4 star monsters outside Chainsaw Insect that can get rid of Thestalos. Outside of playing my own Thestalos via Soul Exchange there are almost no outs to this. At best I'd set a recruiter and pray he doesn't drop Raiza.

 

I go with that option, as the others aren't true.

 

I lost track of what the hell you're saying now. What exactly is your point? That a hypothetical situation is impossible for you to play out of because you have to expend resources to kill a monarch, and since it's a monarch player, you're screwed on card advantage no matter what you do? My only conclusion that suggests your post is rational is you think Soul Exchange is broken, but Soul Exchange is not broken.

 

All hypothetical situations so far assume you dont set any cards, but yours is particularly odd because you imply that, no matter what cards are in your hand, a first turn Thestalos, no matter what it hits and leaves in your hand, is completely impossible for you to level the playing field from. And evidently Special Summons, recruiters, Synchro summons via Special Summons, etc are the only things you can do. If the game has de-volved to the state where ATK means you're doomed, then run equips in your deck because monster removal is out of the question.

 

I still have no idea how your Thestalos situation relates to the topic. It's an enormous tangent that assumes too much about your opponent, their deck, their hand, and your deck, hand, and moves. But hey, go ahead and scoop turn 3 when facing a single monster and having identical hand advantage.

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

Yes, it will break Dark World.

 

Malicious I just shrug at.

 

Are all Synchros banned? It's still a temporary removal card that can work on facedown monsters and lets you use them for Synchros.

 

Did you ban Mask of Darkness and Drop Off/Drastic Drop Off? I'm a little too lazy to check.

 

Yeah I think it will too. IDK. Would Limiting Card Destruction help? Probably but aside from that, I wouldn't really know what to do with it unless I ban it for some reason like the fact it allows players to toss out a hand for a new one and the fact it breaks Dark Worlds.

 

With Synchros, only the blatantly banworthy ones are banned.

 

Mask of Darkness and Drop Off/Drastic Drop Off are not banned on this list. I admit I did miss the fact Tsukuyomi can loop with those cards too in a rather bad way. All those cards seem to give more to the game than a continuous low ATK Book of Moon with legs that uses up your Normal Summon.

 

So, Lightsworns lost Judgement Dragon but regained 3 Lumina, 3 Honest, 3 Charge of the Light Brigade, 3 Necro Gardna and 3 Bekoning Light.Also, they kept 3 Celestia, 3 Wulf and 3 Lyla. (this last one, note that Breaker is banned but this one at 3)Sweet. ;D

 

Breaker and Lyla are not quite the same. With Breaker, you can Attack after you have destroyed something. With Lyla, after you have destroyed something, it can't attack and it is left vulnerable in Defense position or you have to risk an attack that can blow up in your face if you want to attack with her and destroy something in the same turn unless I'm missing some BKSS ruling on Lyla.

 

That use is a major one.

 

Lots of loops.

 

List needs Wolf, Armor Master, FDG, and Red-Eyes Darkness. Wolf is totally luck dependent free 2100 beatstick. Armor Master is Mallon on steroids. The fact that he needs a Blackwing tuner is mute since Gale is one of the best level 3 tuner. FGD speaks for itself with Future Fusion at 3. Red-Eyes Darkness is basically Call of the Huntered that can be used over and over again, much like Faultroll only he can take a lot more monsters.

 

Reasons for Black Rose Dragon, PSZ, and Trishula.

 

Mind Control is banworthy for that then?

 

When you put REDMD that way. The rest seem like good arguments for banning too.

 

Black Rose Dragon is banworthy because it is essentially a field nuke at an easy cost. PSZ is an easily Special Summoned Tuner that requires no real deck dedication to fill that role. IDK I'll test it to see if it is indeed a problem. Trishula is kinda like Caius + Thestalos + D.D. Crow all in 1 card. IDK if that is really a reason for it to be banned though.

 

Also, you banned Neo-Daedalus, but not Levia Dragon. Granted, Neo is WAY worse in terms of power, having Chaos Emperor's effect minus burn and sparing itself, but it has difficult summoning conditions (Levia itself) and requires you to run Umi/Legendary Ocean. Levia nukes the whole field but itself (Like JD) for a small cost (a field spell), yet unlike a bunch of field nukers, this isn't banned.

 

Neo-Daedalus is like a Chaos Emperor Dragon except it doesn't go down with everything else and it is without the burn at the end. How is that not banworthy? Levia however doesn't quite break that fine line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. I'll test but in the past, I have seen that Levia can indeed be deadly with a few field nukes although back then it was limited to up to 3 field nukes per game and that is enough to really get close to if not allow you to win the duel.

 

He banned Ocean Lord Because of Phantom Of Chaos...Notice he also Banned Norleras...Also Banning Daed is Bullshit...XD....*Fanboy RAEG*

 

This List left too much out still...If more "this Meta" seems to be pretty Broken IMO

 

I figured that I left some things out but the problem is that there are so many damn banworthy cards that it is impossible to get them all in one swoop. Oh and Norleras is banned because it is a reset button that promotes top-deck victories as well as the fact it can be used with Phantom of Chaos just for its banworthy effect. Phantom of Chaos at best can only increase the playability of otherwise rather unplayable cards. I don't really have a problem with that unless said unplayable or whatever card has an Effect I deem banworthy.

[Flame Dragon]

Mind Control is banworthy for that then?

Yes. With the advent of synchros Mind Control suddenly becomes 1 for 1 removal that makes one of your tuners a synchro.

 

Black Rose Dragon is banworthy because it is essentially a field nuke at an easy cost.

The problems with BR is timing. He is easiest to summon when your winning, however at that time you won't nuke. When your losing, it becomes a lot harder to summon a synchro, even harder to do anything after you nuke the field.

 

PSZ is an easily Special Summoned Tuner that requires no real deck dedication to fill that role.

you get 1 use of the return, and even that comes at a cost. Grow Up Bulb is a lot like it, only it's level 1 but easier to summon. Also if theirs a problem with this, odds are what ever synchro this is something is more at fault.

 

Trishula is kinda like Caius + Thestalos + D.D. Crow all in 1 card.

Trishula comes at the cost of 2 cards meaning your not gaining any advantage when you summon it. And while he is 3 monsters in one, you need 3 monsters to get him out.