Neighan - Eigh ahm sangan's LIGHT bruddah

[thekazu4u]

[img]http://yugico.com/customcard/23659.jpg[/img]
Neighan (DNEX-EN19 - Super Rare)
LIGHT Level 4 Monster
Fiend/Effect
When this card is sent to the Graveyard: Add one LIGHT Fiend-Type Monster with 1500 or less ATK from your Deck to your hand except "Neighan."
ATK / 1000 DEF / 600
[img]http://yugico.com/customcard/23784.jpg[/img]

This card can attack your opponent's Life Points directly. When this card inflicts damage to your opponent's Life Points: Select and activate one of the following effects by Banishing one LIGHT Fiend-Type monster in your Graveyard:
•Select 1 Banished LIGHT Fiend-Type monster and add it to your hand.
•Discard 1 random card from your opponent's hand.

[Blake]

So, it works with Foolish Burial/Xyz, Tour Guide grabs it, it's LIGHT.

Bad card design, though not necessarily broken right now.

I mean, I love the fact I can instantly add Kushano or Krus to hand, don't get me wrong, but the fact it pretty much says "Getting plusses off of Xyz is good", is horrendous ._.

It doesn't have a lot of targets at the moment, but what it does have can abuse it, though not as much as it will be eventually able to be abused.

And here's the problem- To nerf it is to run the integrity of the design. Considering it's meant to be a Sangan knockoff, my advice is to make it when sent from the field, only =/

I also don't understand the reason for "Neighan"

[thekazu4u]

I do not accept this "in the future it will be abused" idea. If they don't want it to be abused in the future, then they will be careful in the future and if they mess up it will result in a limit and/or ban.

Also I have created an extra card ;0

[ragnarok1945]

typical, reminds me of Sangan, just more specific

not sure if that was what you were aiming at when you made this effect or something

[Blake]

[quote name='thekazu4u' timestamp='1328575559' post='5801182']
I do not accept this "in the future it will be abused" idea. If they don't want it to be abused in the future, then they will be careful in the future and if they mess up it will result in a limit and/or ban.

Also I have created an extra card ;0
[/quote]
Then you're being ignorant ._.

Mind Control was balanced before Synchros, but it's broken now.

We're supposed to make cards that don't deserve a limit or a ban, and it's idiotic to make them and say "OH IT WOULD BE LIMITED", because cards on the banlist are bad design, for the most part =/

Needs to be field only. The fact it makes a +1 Xyz with TGU or +0 on its own is too much.

[thekazu4u]

[quote name='ragnarok1945' timestamp='1328575673' post='5801187']
typical, reminds me of Sangan, just more specific

not sure if that was what you were aiming at when you made this effect or something
[/quote]

yes it was what I was aiming at


[quote name='Relius Clover' timestamp='1328575803' post='5801194']
Then you're being ignorant ._.

Mind Control was balanced before Synchros, but it's broken now.

We're supposed to make cards that don't deserve a limit or a ban, and it's idiotic to make them and say "OH IT WOULD BE LIMITED", because cards on the banlist are bad design, for the most part =/

Needs to be field only. The fact it makes a +1 Xyz with TGU or +0 on its own is too much.
[/quote]

Kindly refrain from posting more comments on my thread(s). Things that are limited are balanced when limited but not when at 3 i.e. they give power to a deck that needs it, without giving it too much power. This card is not generic and it can easily be monitored what decks it supports and which it does not. Fabled needs the support as well as other Fiend-Type LIGHT monsters I am going to make, so therefore they deserve this card. Another archetype does not, so those archetypes do NOT get it. If/When this archetype no longer needs 3 and only needs 2 in order to balance the archetype, it will be semi-limited. If/When it needs only 1, it will be limited. If/When it does not need the support at all, it will be banned. This says NOTHING about the design of the card, it just says the game changes which it does.

[Blake]

[quote name='thekazu4u' timestamp='1328576576' post='5801236']
Kindly refrain from posting more comments on my thread(s).
[/quote]
Why?

[quote name='thekazu4u' timestamp='1328576576' post='5801236']
Things that are limited are balanced when limited but not when at 3 i.e. they give power to a deck that needs it, without giving it too much power.
[/quote]
Limiting a card doesn't make it balanced. The banlist only exists because of idiotic mistakes that aren't balanced. In an ideal game there IS no banlist.

[quote name='thekazu4u' timestamp='1328576576' post='5801236']
This card is not generic and it can easily be monitored what decks it supports and which it does not.
[/quote]
That doesn't make it balanced ._.

Rescue Rabbit has a ton of restrictions, but it's not balanced.

[quote name='thekazu4u' timestamp='1328576576' post='5801236']
Fabled needs the support as well as other Fiend-Type LIGHT monsters I am going to make, so therefore they deserve this card. [/quote]
No, they don't.

Broken Support =/= Good design, no matter restrictions

And this barely supports Fableds, overall ._. All the LIGHT Fiends sans Grimro, Kushano, and Krus are bad, Grimro has 1700, Kushano wants to be in the Grave more often than not and Krus shouldn't be run at more than 1.

[quote name='thekazu4u' timestamp='1328576576' post='5801236']
Another archetype does not, so those archetypes do NOT get it. If/When this archetype no longer needs 3 and only needs 2 in order to balance the archetype, it will be semi-limited. If/When it needs only 1, it will be limited. If/When it does not need the support at all, it will be banned.
[/quote]
Fableds are playable. They don't need this, they can run as they are. Are they tier 1? No, but not every archetype needs to be.

[quote name='thekazu4u' timestamp='1328576576' post='5801236']
This says NOTHING about the design of the card, it just says the game changes which it does.
[/quote]
The card is badly designed, just like Sangan, and if it's based on a banned card jsut like Rescue Rabbit is based on cat, it's likely bad design. Especially when it's basically copy/paste with the only restriction removed plus more specific targets ._.

As is it makes +1 and +0 Xyz, which is a stupid concept in and of itself, whether cards that exist accomplish it or not. Did you PLAY when Sangan could search upon being detached?

The new card's bad. It's only going to plus if you attack with it, but you'd never even want to do that because then you'd waste some of your Synchro potential. It's also a knockoff of Spell Striker, except worse, because it's a level 1, and the only place that used Spell Striker was Wind-up loop. +0 monsters from hand are meh and watts direct attack better.

[CDDRodrigo]

Well, we have a lot of badly designed cards in the game today.

But why?

Because when they were designed, it wasn't bad.

The game evolves. The game changes. Older cards can either become crap or overpowered.

But that's not an excuse to make a badly designed card. Cards need to be well-designed for the current moment, and currently Neiku-Deiru is a bad design card. It's basically "Special Summon this from the hand, inflict 300 damage to your opponent, and either set up a massive play or disrupt theirs".

[thekazu4u]

[quote name='Mu-12' timestamp='1328578838' post='5801431'] Well, we have a lot of badly designed cards in the game today. But why? Because when they were designed, it wasn't bad. The game evolves. The game changes. Older cards can either become crap or overpowered. But that's not an excuse to make a badly designed card. Cards need to be well-designed for the current moment, and currently Neiku-Deiru is a bad design card. It's basically "Special Summon this from the hand, inflict 300 damage to your opponent, and either set up a massive play or disrupt theirs". [/quote]
You are right, I sorta made that card in a rush I think I should make it:
[color=#5A5A5A][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]
This card can attack your opponent's Life Points directly. When this card inflicts damage to your opponent's Life Points you can activate one one of the following effects by Banishing one LIGHT Fiend-Type monster in your Graveyard you can activate one of the following effects:
-Discard 1 Random card from your opponent's hand.
-Add 1 Banished LIGHT Fiend-Type monster in your Graveyard to your hand.[/size][/font][/color][color=#5A5A5A][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]
That way it still can mess up their play or set up your own, but it takes a turn to do it. Better?[/size][/font][/color][color=#5A5A5A][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]
And Relius, as for WHY you should not post on my threads anymore I will give you this answer: I do not agree with your views and will not respond to your posts from this point on. Kindly spew your endless wisdom elsewhere.[/size][/font][/color]

[Blake]

[quote name='thekazu4u' timestamp='1328580516' post='5801569']
You are right, I sorta made that card in a rush I think I should make it:

[color=#5A5A5A][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]This card can attack your opponent's Life Points directly. When this card inflicts damage to your opponent's Life Points you can activate one one of the following effects by Banishing one LIGHT Fiend-Type monster in your Graveyard you can activate one of the following effects:
-Discard 1 Random card from your opponent's hand.
-Add 1 Banished LIGHT Fiend-Type monster in your Graveyard to your hand.[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#5A5A5A][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]That way it still can mess up their play or set up your own, but it takes a turn to do it. Better?[/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]
But the original version was still bad, this is just worse ._.

The words "Discard" and "Battle Damage" are what make it bad. You don't want to use cards that wait until after the battle phase to Synchro, especially when they're this weak. You want to use things like Guaiba, Shura, and Firedog over bad direct attackers that deal piddling damage.

[quote name='thekazu4u' timestamp='1328580516' post='5801569']
[color=#5A5A5A][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]And Relius, as for WHY you should not post on my threads anymore I will give you this answer: I do not agree with your views and will not respond to your posts from this point on. Kindly spew your endless wisdom elsewhere.[/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]
It doesn't matter if you agree with my views or not, I have every right to post and tell you to stop making broken crap =/

Especially considering what may come, you should get used to me posting on your threads, and stop being so non-compliant to people trying to help.

[thekazu4u]

Neiku-Deiru is now updated.

[.Nu-13]

Neighan is very bad design, as Black said. While it doesn't have that many good targets now, yes, it still gives you pluses off Xyz'ing, which isn't a good thing. Tour Guide is already a +0 Xyz, with this, it's a +1. Not healthy. It also makes Foolish Burial a +1, and so on...you get the point? Especially as there are a few decent targets. Not broken, but decent. You should really make it work just from field, and no, "They could limit it" is not an argument in the slightest. Cards on the banlist are badly designed.

Neiku-Deiru seems ok, mainly because of such low stats it won't last long, but Watts have pretty low stats too and are somehow playable, so wouldn't hold my breath on that argument. But then again, it's Level 1 LIGHT, so you have giant number of revival options, Honest, Lumenize, and such. As in Neighan's case, there aren't that many good LIGHT Fiends, but still, it's a +1 upon attacking. No idea what to do with this one really.

[thekazu4u]

[quote name='.Nu-13' timestamp='1328605060' post='5802241']
Neighan is very bad design, as Black said. While it doesn't have that many good targets now, yes, it still gives you pluses off Xyz'ing, which isn't a good thing. Tour Guide is already a +0 Xyz, with this, it's a +1. Not healthy. It also makes Foolish Burial a +1, and so on...you get the point? Especially as there are a few decent targets. Not broken, but decent. You should really make it work just from field, and no, "They could limit it" is not an argument in the slightest. Cards on the banlist are badly designed.

Neiku-Deiru seems ok, mainly because of such low stats it won't last long, but Watts have pretty low stats too and are somehow playable, so wouldn't hold my breath on that argument. But then again, it's Level 1 LIGHT, so you have giant number of revival options, Honest, Lumenize, and such. As in Neighan's case, there aren't that many good LIGHT Fiends, but still, it's a +1 upon attacking. No idea what to do with this one really.
[/quote]

How about "from hand or field" because I really want it to work with Fabled. And I do not see how Foolish Burial is a +1? Isn't it using up Foolish Burial to get a search or is there some target I am forgetting about?

[Blake]

[quote name='thekazu4u' timestamp='1328639299' post='5802656']
How about "from hand or field" because I really want it to work with Fabled. And I do not see how Foolish Burial is a +1? Isn't it using up Foolish Burial to get a search or is there some target I am forgetting about?
[/quote]
Fableds don't discard non-fableds, generally ._.

Only card that really does is One for One

"From hand" just supports weird OTK things, not fabled.

And it's not, it makes foolish a +0

[Ieyasu Tokugawa]

[quote name='thekazu4u' timestamp='1328580516' post='5801569']
[color=#5A5A5A][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]And Relius, as for WHY you should not post on my threads anymore I will give you this answer: I do not agree with your views and will not respond to your posts from this point on. Kindly spew your endless wisdom elsewhere.[/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]
I love how retarded this is.

Do not ignore a person because you "don't agree with them". You're using bullsh*t logic to make yourself feel better and should kindly discuss with Black instead of ignoring him. Tell us why it isn't broken and we'll listen and tell you why we think it is. Tell us we're retarded and we'll return the favor.

[thekazu4u]

[quote name='Ieyasu Tokugawa' timestamp='1328639989' post='5802669']
I love how retarded this is.

Do not ignore a person because you "don't agree with them". You're using bullsh*t logic to make yourself feel better and should kindly discuss with Black instead of ignoring him. Tell us why it isn't broken and we'll listen and tell you why we think it is. Tell us we're retarded and we'll return the favor.
[/quote]

I have tried to tell clover many things and each time he entirely ignores any logic I present him with. I have yet to see him give a positive comment to anybody. He (and you too it seems) believes that anything on the limited is bad for the game. I do NOT agree with this view, and I would not like my cards judged to this standard, thus I told him to stay away from my threads. I never intended for this card to be unlimited for all eternity, nor would it be if it was released. Thus, telling me that it is bad card design because it would be limited is nothing more than pointless spam. I would reference back to clover's "ideal" game, and show how this game is not at all ideal.

[QUOTE] [color=#5A5A5A][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]The banlist only exists because of idiotic mistakes that aren't balanced. In an ideal game there IS no banlist. [/QUOTE] [/size][/font][/color]
I am assuming this means banned/limited list. Imagine a game where everything was available at 3, and no cards were forced into being at 2 or 1. Most decks in order to increase "consistency" would play 3 copies of every card, essentially reducing the number of cards in a deck to 14 (where 1 card is only played at 1). I think we can all agree that designing a deck is one of the most fun part of the game and only having 14 cards to work with is much less interesting than having 40. Some of you may be saying that not all cards that can be played at 3 right now are not, but this is partially due to the ban list as well. Cards like "effect veiler" would probably see much more play at 3 (instead of the typical 2) if the banlist did not exist and cards that need LIGHT monsters were more plentiful. Also, when performing the obligatory search of all YCS decks finding one that would prove this theory wrong, note that some cards will be played at 2 or 1 simply because the number 40 minus staples does not evenly divide into 3s. (Also, glow up bulb and spore do not count their effects essentially limit themselves) Also, as a side note, not having a banlist forces designers to make all cards balanced at 3 (which is essentially what you are trying to make me do). This limits the amount of balance between archetypes the designers can produce, and also destroys key parts of the game like "boss monsters" which are typically (and should be IMO) at 1.


Anyways, back to whether my card is bad for the game. My views are roughly represented in this thread: [url="http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/231964-on-card-design/"]http://forum.yugiohc...on-card-design/[/url]

Although I do not agree entirely with all views expressed in the thread, it generally expresses my views especially on this subject accurately.
[Quote][b][u]"Generic Card X should be banned because it's OP'd" is a fallacy[/Quote][/u][/b]
In this case, of course, we are deciding if it is bad card design or not and are extending this view to non-generic cards. I believe that OP'd cards are good for the game if the set/group it supports is NOT Op'd AND OR it encourages playing in a way that encourages player interaction and/or promotes a certain style of playing that should be encouraged (because it is interesting etc...)

Focusing in on Neighan, we can look at the points outlined in the "on card design" thread, as well as my point above, if the card supports an archetype that is OP'd.

1. Player-Player Interaction: this is debatable, but does [b]not [/b]reduce interaction more than any other searcher.
2. Slippery Slope & Lame Duck: It does [b]not [/b]cause this style of situation.
3. It causes too much luck: [b]No[/b], it decreases the amount of luck. (This is why I love searchers.)
4. It interferes with something outside the current duel: [b]No[/b].
5. It interferes with the way a good player will play the game negatively: [b]No[/b], if anything it will just open up more new play-styles for them to test out. Some may say that being able to generate pluses through XYZs is a negative side effect, but I do not believe so because (1) most decks these days do this anyway and (2) having a game in which advantage can be gained or lost quicker can reduce the number of slippery slope situations and increase the excitement of the game.
6. It makes starting conditions unequal: [b]No[/b], it does not "counter" any specific deck or strategy.
7. Does it help an archetype that needs its support: [b]Yes[/b], it helps the underplayed category LIGHT Fiends.

I look at my cards and see if they fit in these guidelines, and if they do, I like them, if they do not I change them. If somebody points out to me a way of improving the card so it does fall better into these guidelines (which they have) I change my card. If they do not, then I keep the card the same. What I cannot stand is Clover expressing his endlessly negative views when basing them on a system that I never intended to follow. He may as well be saying "that card has over 8 lines of text, therefore it is unplayable because the text is too small." If the maker of the card does not believe in this system, then posting such a view on his thread is simply a waste of time. I do NOT agree with his system, I never intended to follow his guidelines and nor will I ever try to.

Reason for edit: for some reason post was made twice

[Blake]

1. Player-Player Interaction: Eh, like you said, no more than any searcher
2. Slippery Slope & Lame Duck: It definitely causes a slippery slope ._. It automatically refunds itself by adding combo pieces to your hand.
3. It causes too much luck:Instead you remove pretty much all luck, which is also bad ._.
4. It interferes with something outside the current duel: This is a stupid way to rate a card ._.
5. It interferes with the way a good player will play the game negatively: Hey genius, this increases slippery slope plays and jsut breaks Tour Guide further. Did you even PLAY when Sangan could search when detached?
Arguing that decks "do it anyways" is bad logic in and of itself. We don't want to break the game MORE. Well, anyone with half an idea of card design doesn't.
6. It makes starting conditions unequal: Rather, it just makes you GOGOGOGOGOGO, which gives you an unfair amount of advantage ._. Make a Stratos/Agent Earth, sure, but... Not SANGAN.
7. Does it help an archetype that needs its support: You realize Fableds have topped in the past, yes?

I pointed out a way to make the card fit more. You ignored me. Repeatedly. Like a stubborn child.

You keep arguing subjective matters when this is an OBJECTIVE manner. Neighan is broken beyond belief as is, and is a MOREMOREMORE for advantage. I'd never say a card with 8 lines is unplayable, and that doesn't relate at all, that's just you shoving your head up your rump =/

Furthermore, no banlist is GOOD. But, sadly, we have idiotically designed cards that require one. Like Chaos Emperor Dragon.

Cards are run at less than 3 for consistency. Even with no banlist ,not every card would be run @3. Some cards are just techs while others clog when run in higher numbers.

To help you along, Fableds run only 11 fableds, generally.
2 Grimro
1 Krus
2 Kushano
3 Cerburrel
2 Chawa
2 Ganashia

Extra deck excluded

Anything else is a tech, though most are bad. If you look at the list, Krus tends to clog at more than 1 or 2, and 1 is better as a Grimro target that can speed up plays without dead drawing. Grimro, Chawa, and Ganashia are best at 2 or you start dead drawing them. Kushano's @2 because 3 is dead and Tour Guide exists.

Now, all Fabled cards are @3, yet they don't even run the max, so what were you saying?

Most decks wouldn't run 3 because, if you knew anything about deck building, cards tend to clog at 3 and only certain cards, like Cerb, Tour Guide, searchers, tend to hit 3, in most cases.

[thekazu4u]

[quote name='Relius Clover' timestamp='1328649652' post='5802981']
3. It causes too much luck:Instead you remove pretty much all luck, which is also bad ._.
[/quote]
It is debatable if removing [I] all [/I] is bad, but saying it removes [I] all [/I] luck is an exaggeration. It just gives you one more search, not any worse than any other searcher.
[quote]
4. It interferes with something outside the current duel: This is a stupid way to rate a card ._.
[/quote]
In all fairness, this was just put here to justify Victory Dragon being banned. In every day discussion, this can be ignored.
[quote]
5. It interferes with the way a good player will play the game negatively: Hey genius, this increases slippery slope plays and jsut breaks Tour Guide further. Did you even PLAY when Sangan could search when detached?
Arguing that decks "do it anyways" is bad logic in and of itself. We don't want to break the game MORE. Well, anyone with half an idea of card design doesn't.
[/quote]
I knew you were going to fight on this point. I did play when Sangan could search when detached (in "testing" games because it was never official that it could) and it was pretty bad. But there is a difference between a generic searcher and a specific searcher. A very very big difference. And what I was trying to point out when saying that decks "do it anyways" is that [b]a deck that does not take advantage of tour guide does not have a chance in the current meta. [/b]Your definition of "breaking the game MORE" is making cards that are as good or are better than the present meta. (BTW even with this card Fabled would not be as good as plants/wind up) If Konami followed this rule, plants & wind up etc... would be teir 1 forever. The fun of the game is the CHANGING meta, thus your logic fails. There is an inherent power creep associated with any TCG that wants to replace older decks with newer ones - whether that is breaking the game more or not, we just have to deal with it.
[quote]
6. It makes starting conditions unequal: Rather, it just makes you GOGOGOGOGOGO, which gives you an unfair amount of advantage ._. Make a Stratos/Agent Earth, sure, but... Not SANGAN.
[/quote]
This is just a continuation of your previous argument, so I have addressed it.
[quote]
7. Does it help an archetype that needs its support: You realize Fableds have topped in the past, yes?
[/quote]
Vanilla decks have topped in the past too. Things [b]CHANGE[/b]. Now they need support.

[Blake]

[quote name='thekazu4u' timestamp='1328651060' post='5803018']
It is debatable if removing [i] all [/i] is bad, but saying it removes [i] all [/i] luck is an exaggeration. It just gives you one more search, not any worse than any other searcher.

In all fairness, this was just put here to justify Victory Dragon being banned. In every day discussion, this can be ignored.

I knew you were going to fight on this point. I did play when Sangan could search when detached (in "testing" games because it was never official that it could) and it was pretty bad. But there is a difference between a generic searcher and a specific searcher. A very very big difference. And what I was trying to point out when saying that decks "do it anyways" is that [b]a deck that does not take advantage of tour guide does not have a chance in the current meta. [/b]Your definition of "breaking the game MORE" is making cards that are as good or are better than the present meta. (BTW even with this card Fabled would not be as good as plants/wind up) If Konami followed this rule, plants & wind up etc... would be teir 1 forever. The fun of the game is the CHANGING meta, thus your logic fails. There is an inherent power creep associated with any TCG that wants to replace older decks with newer ones - whether that is breaking the game more or not, we just have to deal with it.

This is just a continuation of your previous argument, so I have addressed it.

Vanilla decks have topped in the past too. Things [b]CHANGE[/b]. Now they need support.
[/quote]
Not all decks even USE Tour Guide ._.

I play fableds. I'm THE Fabled guy on YCM, sans one other guy. This barely even supports Fableds, I told you, but that doesn't make it any less of a terrible design =T

And yes, changing metas are fun.. .But not when the meta is ADVANTAGE GOGOGOGOGOGO. The game's gotten out of hand and that's why many have left it. It needs to be reined in, again, and cards like this push it further into being an exploitable MESS of a game. My logic doesn't fail, you offered nothing to defeat it except your view

Fableds topped LAST FORMAT...

And "Vanilla decks" top now. ._.

Considering everything you've said: Is REKINDLING broken?

[.Rai]

A couple of points to address:

- Yu-Gi-Oh! is the only TCG is undergo power creep as it's the only one with a banlist. The other TCGs have rotational formats, so past formats don't contribute to the meta. However, because of 'extended formats', the TCGs actually try to implement subtle reverse power creep.
- If something is Limited, it may be balanced [b]for the game[/b], but not as an individual card. It's the balance and design of an individual card that usually matters, because other formats exist and changes to the meta mean constant change for the banlist. If you were to print a better designed card, these problems would be alleviated.
- Good design is timeless. If it ever needs a place on the banlist, it's because the designers did not have the foresight to predict the game state later in time.
- To be honest, Griffin's guide to design is awkwardly missing a lot of stuff. It's just a ton of subpoints related to how design works in an environment. It's important to look at design when in a vacuum environment. Is Neighan bad design? Yes. I shall disregard balance for the time being as balance is but a small factor of design. Take these 10 golden rules. Does the card follow them?

1. Good design is innovative. [b]Fundamentally, no. Yes, it does encourage new types of play, but it's just a searcher. Searchers only can act as catalysts rather than raw material for the TCG to work with to create new game states.[/b]
2. Good design makes a product useful. [b]Yes, but this comes to limit. It must be usable, but not to a point where abuse is a possibility in any amount. This has the potential to become abused.[/b]
3. Good design is aesthetic. [b]Yes, it's neat. It's sweet. Sure, I'll agree with you here. Upon first looks, it's good.[/b]
4. Good design helps us to understand a product. [b]Nah. It has not provided any new material in the game. It's just a searcher. Searchers fundamentally do very little for a game. Usually, they're harmful as too much searching can become redundant. This helps understand Xyzs to a point, but in a way ready for abuse.[/b]
5. Good design is unobtrusive. [b]It looks just too specific. Too engineered. Too artificial. It's 'conveniently' a Tour Guide target. It's 'conveniently' Fabled support. It 'conveniently' works with Xyzs. It's too obvious, and flavourless. It really barges into play far too much.[/b]
6. Good design is honest. [b]Completely disregarded this rule here. Not all cards [i]need[/i] to support something just for the sake of boosting it. The meta isn't the only thing in the whole world of Yu-Gi-Oh and people need to recognise that. This could have been good support for more unique Fabled builds and encouraging other obscure builds of deck. This false image of meta Tier 1 play is distracting and propaganda-esque.[/b]
7. Good design is durable. [b]It's durable, but it's unstable. Card Trooper and Mind Control were good examples. They were teetering into bad design territory, but stayed out of it at release. However, with a few cards being released, they were pushed into bad design territory. You just need to stay well within this line to keep it stable. That's important. Basically, you need to have foresight and give it a rating of how much abuse it could feed.[/b]
8. Good design is consequent to the last detail. [b]Detail in all the wrong places have been taken here. It would be far more interesting to give it conditions based on Synchroing instead, if you wished it to be Fabled support. Avoid trying to support tons of things at once just to disguise any design faults. It could lead to some interesting Missing the Timing situations, but healthily so, so that decisions need to be made in order to encourage skill. Pure searching isn't a measure of skill, as it reduces the amount of skill needed basically.[/b]
9. Good design is concerned with the environment.[b]You've taken great thought into this. Maybe over thought though. Especially when considering the meta. Consider casual play and sealed play and in custom formats too. You want the card to be fun to play, not just mindless cardboard.[/b]
10. Good design is as little design as possible. [b]May look like you've done little design, but you've implemented so much subconscious design. It being a Tour Guide target. Being Fabled support. Being a searcher, in essence, is obvious design. Make it au naturale, I guess.[/b]

[thekazu4u]

[quote name='.Rai' timestamp='1328660609' post='5803251']
A couple of points to address:

- Yu-Gi-Oh! is the only TCG is undergo power creep as it's the only one with a banlist. The other TCGs have rotational formats, so past formats don't contribute to the meta. However, because of 'extended formats', the TCGs actually try to implement subtle reverse power creep.
- If something is Limited, it may be balanced [b]for the game[/b], but not as an individual card. It's the balance and design of an individual card that usually matters, because other formats exist and changes to the meta mean constant change for the banlist. If you were to print a better designed card, these problems would be alleviated.
- Good design is timeless. If it ever needs a place on the banlist, it's because the designers did not have the foresight to predict the game state later in time.
- To be honest, Griffin's guide to design is awkwardly missing a lot of stuff. It's just a ton of subpoints related to how design works in an environment. It's important to look at design when in a vacuum environment. Is Neighan bad design? Yes. I shall disregard balance for the time being as balance is but a small factor of design. Take these 10 golden rules. Does the card follow them?

1. Good design is innovative. [b]Fundamentally, no. Yes, it does encourage new types of play, but it's just a searcher. Searchers only can act as catalysts rather than raw material for the TCG to work with to create new game states.[/b]
2. Good design makes a product useful. [b]Yes, but this comes to limit. It must be usable, but not to a point where abuse is a possibility in any amount. This has the potential to become abused.[/b]
3. Good design is aesthetic. [b]Yes, it's neat. It's sweet. Sure, I'll agree with you here. Upon first looks, it's good.[/b]
4. Good design helps us to understand a product. [b]Nah. It has not provided any new material in the game. It's just a searcher. Searchers fundamentally do very little for a game. Usually, they're harmful as too much searching can become redundant. This helps understand Xyzs to a point, but in a way ready for abuse.[/b]
5. Good design is unobtrusive. [b]It looks just too specific. Too engineered. Too artificial. It's 'conveniently' a Tour Guide target. It's 'conveniently' Fabled support. It 'conveniently' works with Xyzs. It's too obvious, and flavourless. It really barges into play far too much.[/b]
6. Good design is honest. [b]Completely disregarded this rule here. Not all cards [i]need[/i] to support something just for the sake of boosting it. The meta isn't the only thing in the whole world of Yu-Gi-Oh and people need to recognise that. This could have been good support for more unique Fabled builds and encouraging other obscure builds of deck. This false image of meta Tier 1 play is distracting and propaganda-esque.[/b]
7. Good design is durable. [b]It's durable, but it's unstable. Card Trooper and Mind Control were good examples. They were teetering into bad design territory, but stayed out of it at release. However, with a few cards being released, they were pushed into bad design territory. You just need to stay well within this line to keep it stable. That's important. Basically, you need to have foresight and give it a rating of how much abuse it could feed.[/b]
8. Good design is consequent to the last detail. [b]Detail in all the wrong places have been taken here. It would be far more interesting to give it conditions based on Synchroing instead, if you wished it to be Fabled support. Avoid trying to support tons of things at once just to disguise any design faults. It could lead to some interesting Missing the Timing situations, but healthily so, so that decisions need to be made in order to encourage skill. Pure searching isn't a measure of skill, as it reduces the amount of skill needed basically.[/b]
9. Good design is concerned with the environment.[b]You've taken great thought into this. Maybe over thought though. Especially when considering the meta. Consider casual play and sealed play and in custom formats too. You want the card to be fun to play, not just mindless cardboard.[/b]
10. Good design is as little design as possible. [b]May look like you've done little design, but you've implemented so much subconscious design. It being a Tour Guide target. Being Fabled support. Being a searcher, in essence, is obvious design. Make it au naturale, I guess.[/b]
[/quote]
w0w. That is actually intelligent. When I looked at this thread I expected random hate (which I did get above your post) but this post is actually incredibly interesting although I do not really agree with lots of it. I think the base is the last rule (which sort of spilled over into other rules: "Good design is as little design as possible." Personally, I see some cards being like this (i.e. staples and other special generics) but non-staples should be more complex and integrated with other cards in order for a deck to feel comprehensive and "stuck together." Next I thought about the point you made about being "unobtrusive." I take this to mean that it is not immediately obvious what type of deck it would support. [b]I agree with this point entirely. However, it is unreasonable to think that developers can or will follow this rule. [/b]Why? because it makes everything 10 times harder. A while ago I tuned away from making archetypes which are exactly what you are trying to avoid here. I personally do NOT like archetypes, and feel they are boring and uninteresting, so we agree. However, designing semi-generics makes the design much more complicated, as the environment is much harder to monitor. Removing even the "obtrusive" design I have placed in this card is something that I should be striving for, but seeing how the card does NOT violate this rule as much as many of Konami's violations, I think I should keep it in my set for the time being (but perhaps with an edit.) The obvious question is how to make it less 'obtrusive' without changing what it supports and the goal it achieves. This is a complicated question which I will be thinking about, and may change this if I think of a solution. Finally I would like to point out that most formats other than Advanced are simply ignored by Konami and will continue to be ignored, and thus it is not worth my time trying to support an unsupported format. Plus, I have never played these formats and thus do not have any experience, making such design impossible for me. I personally like the persisting format best of any, which is why I like the generally unsupported vintage MTG format. The reason I like these longer term formats better is because it makes older cards actually worth something in the future, and Yugioh's Power Creep gets rid of the problems concerning new players.

Aside from what I addressed in the above wall of text, I agree with your guidelines and already tried to put it in this card. As for innovation, my radical idea of this card is Light Fiend-Type support. yea, not too great but that is what I was thinking :S I will try to follow your guidelines, but know there is degrees in all this, and to at least some degree, I have tried to follow most these guidelines when creating this card. If you have any recommendations for either increasing (1) creativity or (2) "unobtrusiveness" then that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for a truly interesting view, instead of the usual hate or simple "I like."

[Icy]

[quote name='thekazu4u' timestamp='1328576576' post='5801236']
Kindly refrain from posting more comments on my thread(s).
[/quote]

I'm not going to even bother reading your cards at this point. And a majority of these folk are my friends who do reply, they know how to reply to topics and they know that one mis-step and I'll ban them unapologetic-ally. And I have before too; many times at that.

However I will say this. Everything that Relius/Black has said so far, is not insulting, it isn't flaming, it isn't spam, and in a majority of his replies to you he compliments your card design quite a bit. Just because he decides to give you a run down on why it'd be negative (and that's kind of the idea of a proper review). And those negatives while word usage may be a bit less than hush puppy are still fairly calm overall. You will consider his opinion, and you will listen to me. The reviews you get are surprisingly NICE for newbies, especially ones like yourself. Count your blessings, Kazu.

Now... can I get back to my hamburger?