A Legitimate discussion on Dark Magician of Chaos

[Lonk]

[IMG]http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120531133824/yugioh/images/5/57/DarkMagicianofChaos-BP01-EN-R-1E.png[/IMG]

I think he should come back at 1.

Before people say "Oh hell no!", listen to the reasoning:

Most decks this format do not really have a way of summoning DMoC this format. Even if they could tech in ways to bring him out, it would require forms of Deck Dedication that they wouldn't want to use. Now, how many decks could actually run DMoC?

Ever since [url=http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Spellbook]Spellbooks[/url] were released, I was thinking that DMoC would make a very good boss in the deck. Frognarchs can also run DMoC and support their ways as well.

So now, discuss.

[Toffee.]

5$ Says everyone starts maining 3 Call of the Haunted.
Of course, I'm just randomly speculating, but still...

[Blake]

So... because Spellbooks that maintain advantage can get this out easily are getting better... This should come to 1?

It's bad design any way you look at it. Even if it doesn't define the meta, why do Spellbooks and/or Frognarchs DESERVE a boss monster like this?

[Lonk]

[quote name='Armadilloz' timestamp='1341353325' post='5966612']
5$ Says everyone starts maining 3 Call of the Haunted.
Of course, I'm just randomly speculating, but still...
[/quote]

6$ says that Call of the Haunted's usage still remains the same. One would need to have deck dedication to send Magician from Deck/Hand to Graveyard anyways, There is Dark Grepher, so his usage might increase.

[quote name='Yuzuru Otonashi' timestamp='1341353595' post='5966616']
So... because Spellbooks that maintain advantage can get this out easily are getting better... This should come to 1?

It's bad design any way you look at it. Even if it doesn't define the meta, why do Spellbooks and/or Frognarchs DESERVE a boss monster like this?
[/quote]

It really isn't that bad of a design as per say. The current format is much too fast to try to find a way to add in DMoC without disrupting the natural synergy of most decks. Plus, being banished when removed from field would prevent abuse (unless if you use it for Xyz) of its effect. It is safe for DMoC to come back this format since he wouldn't be gamebreaking unless if Konami decides to make him so. Besides, you know how much Konami loves to sell their products, and DMoC would be a good way of doing so.

[Blake]

It's a spell back from the grave that's abusable with Xyz and has the banishing thing as a cherry on top. It's an example of a card doing too much at once, so it is undeniably bad design.

And you completely ignored how I said even if it isn't meta, why do Spellbooks or anything else deserve this?

Lavals never deserved Rekindling, Dragons never deserved REDRUM or FuFu, and Spellbooks don't deserve this.

[Lonk]

[quote name='Yuzuru Otonashi' timestamp='1341354966' post='5966637']
It's a spell back from the grave that's abusable with Xyz and has the banishing thing as a cherry on top. It's an example of a card doing too much at once, so it is undeniably bad design.

And you completely ignored how I said even if it isn't meta, why do Spellbooks or anything else deserve this?

Lavals never deserved Rekindling, Dragons never deserved REDRUM or FuFu, and Spellbooks don't deserve this.
[/quote]

Lavals were made around the idea of Rekindling (that has a degree of pointless in a comment), REDRUM was created the way it was because of fanboyish "competitive players" do not want to see an epic dragon receive a terrible effect, and FuFu wouldn't even be relevant without REDRUM.

Spellbooks deserve DMoC because Temperance and Justice effects targeting Level 5 or higher LIGHT or DARK Spellcaster-Type monsters foreshadows Konami wanting to take DMoC off the list. If it was just "Level 5 or higher Spellcaster-Type monster", then they wouldn't think about DMoC in the slightest. It would be a good target for Spellbooks to use outside of Priestess and Sorciere de Fleur.

You also seem to say that Rank 8 Xyz Summons are commonplace and easy to perform like Rank 4- Xyz Summons. Grabbing a Spell back from Graveyard wouldn't be gamebreaking unless the deck has:

1) A valuable spell that would be incredibly useful in the situation that DMoC is summoned
2) The Deck can consistently get out DMoC.

And, before you say, DMoC wouldn't be broken in Spellbooks because Konami actually took many steps to make sure that each card is balanced, yet playable.

[Blake]

[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341355676' post='5966643']
Lavals were made around the idea of Rekindling (that has a degree of pointless in a comment), REDRUM was created the way it was because of fanboyish "competitive players" do not want to see an epic dragon receive a terrible effect, and FuFu wouldn't even be relevant without REDRUM.
[/quote]
This says absolutely nothing. They still don't deserve it at all. And FuFu has other uses besides Dragons that don't deserve it.

[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341355676' post='5966643']
Spellbooks deserve DMoC because Temperance and Justice effects targeting Level 5 or higher LIGHT or DARK Spellcaster-Type monsters foreshadows Konami wanting to take DMoC off the list. If it was just "Level 5 or higher Spellcaster-Type monster", then they wouldn't think about DMoC in the slightest. It would be a good target for Spellbooks to use outside of Priestess and Sorciere de Fleur.
[/quote]
So your reasoning is that they deserve it because Konami is hinting they might pull DMoC off of the list and that their effects work for it. That doesn't mean they deserve it AT ALL. Spellbooks have 2 solid targets as is that aren't broken like DMoC.

[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341355676' post='5966643']
You also seem to say that Rank 8 Xyz Summons are commonplace and easy to perform like Rank 4- Xyz Summons. Grabbing a Spell back from Graveyard wouldn't be gamebreaking unless the deck has:


1) A valuable spell that would be incredibly useful in the situation that DMoC is summoned
2) The Deck can consistently get out DMoC.
[/quote]
You think they AREN'T incredibly easy to summon? Maybe not in Spellbooks, but Rank 8s are easy to get out.

1. Monster Reborn, Necromicon
2. Spellbooks

And, again, why do you keep going back to the metagame? Are you even reading the points I'm making?

[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341355676' post='5966643']
And, before you say, DMoC wouldn't be broken in Spellbooks because Konami actually took many steps to make sure that each card is balanced, yet playable.
[/quote]
No, it's not balanced at all. It's still terrible design that does too much and it is still broken. A card does not magically stop being broken. You even said that grabbing the spell back isn't gamebreaking unless it meets Criteria, [i]which Spellbooks do. [/i]They do not deserve a boss like this. Nothing does.

I can see it coming back, but it deserves to stay dead.

[Dementuo]

Play this in Infernities.
Grepher this to the grave, flip CoTH, get back Launcher.
lol

[WhoAreYou?]

ONE, NO. IT'S BROKEN.
TWO, IT'S EASY TO SUMMON.
THREE, I LIKE CAPS LOCK.
FOUR, IMPERIAL IRON WALL + MONSTER REBORN + DMOC = INVINCIBLE (ADD CANNON SOLDIER AND YOU HAVE A LOLOTK)

There, I ruined the thread.

[Lonk]

[quote name='Yuzuru Otonashi' timestamp='1341356884' post='5966656']
This says absolutely nothing. They still don't deserve it at all. And FuFu has other uses besides Dragons that don't deserve it.

[b]Says more than what you are currently posting tbh. Plus, the only other uses FuFu has is with the FTK (inconsistent), E-HEROs (don't really need for win despite being useful for them to run) and Machines (method is now currently dead).[/b]

So your reasoning is that they deserve it because Konami is hinting they might pull DMoC off of the list and that their effects work for it. That doesn't mean they deserve it AT ALL. Spellbooks have 2 solid targets as is that aren't broken like DMoC.
[b]Sorciere is only a half-decent target that is ran because she can be useful (while not always going into the same High Priestess Plays). DMoC will add more variety to what Spellbooks can play, which makes them quite deserving.[/b]

You think they AREN'T incredibly easy to summon? Maybe not in Spellbooks, but Rank 8s are easy to get out.

[b]They aren't outside of decks that focus predominately on summoning Rank 8s 0_0. Even then, that kind of deck would require too much deck dedication to build and will not win many games in the fun section. Name one Deck (outside of Dark Worlds) that can make Rank 8s easily and still win.[/b]

1. Monster Reborn, Necromicon
2. Spellbooks

[b]Are you implying that Spellbooks would be broken with DMoC existing? Also, Necronomicon is good card design while Reborn in that situation wouldn't do much if you summon DMoC with Temper on the same turn. Regardless, it is a nice cache for the Deck.[/b]

And, again, why do you keep going back to the metagame? Are you even reading the points I'm making?

[b]I am reading your points. However, I'm talking about the current gamestate as a whole. The gamestate (including the undermeta) states that you should run cards that matches the natural rhythm of the Deck you are building. Unless if easy to use or abused, retrieving Spells from Graveyard by making deck dedication really wouldn't affect the gamestate.[/b]


No, it's not balanced at all. It's still terrible design that does too much and it is still broken. A card does not magically stop being broken. You even said that grabbing the spell back isn't gamebreaking unless it meets Criteria, [i]which Spellbooks do. [/i]They do not deserve a boss like this. Nothing does.

[b]Spellbooks meet the criteria, but the way they are designed makes his use slower (i.e. you can only activate this book once per turn), which in turn makes the Spell Retrieval helpful and kept away from the banlist (Unless if you are grabbing a generic spell. Then it would be useful, but the situation of the summon wouldn't make it a gamebreaking situation). DMoC had time to stew and have his broken nature broken. It is like what happened to cards like Marauding Captain and Call of the Haunted, which were considered broken in their day.[/b]

I can see it coming back, but it deserves to stay dead.

[b]That's more or less the point of this thread, to see if DMoC can return without doing any damage to the gamestate[/b]
[/quote]

[quote name='DJVD' timestamp='1341358200' post='5966672']
ONE, NO. IT'S BROKEN.

[b]You really shouldn't make a point about the card unless if you have proof backing it up[/b]

TWO, IT'S EASY TO SUMMON.

[b]Exactly how is it easy to summon? Last time I have checked, Level 8 Effect monsters have a difficult time of being summonex except by Special Methods[/b]

THREE, I LIKE CAPS LOCK.

[b]I can dig that[/b]

FOUR, IMPERIAL IRON WALL + MONSTER REBORN + DMOC = INVINCIBLE (ADD CANNON SOLDIER AND YOU HAVE A LOLOTK)

[b]So you are using an inconsistent 3-card combo that doesn't result in game, and by adding another card that you have to summon alongside a monster during the same turn, you make game? Doesn't really seem like it would do anything.[/b]

There, I ruined the thread.

[b]No, you didn't really give good examples on your points. Thefore, you have failed to ruin the thread[/b]
[/quote]

[WhoAreYou?]

K

[Blake]

[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341358958' post='5966685']
Says more than what you are currently posting tbh. Plus, the only other uses FuFu has is with the FTK (inconsistent), E-HEROs (don't really need for win despite being useful for them to run) and Machines (method is now currently dead).
[/quote]
No it doesn't. You said they exist so they deserve them. That's not true in the least.

Gem-Knights as well, and a few other things. Just because it's not needed to win doesn't mean it's not a 1-card OTK or multi-foolish. I've yet to see how anything deserves that.

[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341358958' post='5966685']
Sorciere is only a half-decent target that is ran because she can be useful (while not always going into the same High Priestess Plays). DMoC will add more variety to what Spellbooks can play, which makes them quite deserving.
[/quote]
No, it doesn't make them deserving. They have 2 at least decent monsters that they can use. By this logic, Rabbit is fine because it adds versatility and the Evolzars are the problem, but that's not true because the Evolzars are an issue thanks to Rabbit, predominately.

[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341358958' post='5966685']
They aren't outside of decks that focus predominately on summoning Rank 8s 0_0. Even then, that kind of deck would require too much deck dedication to build and will not win many games in the fun section. Name one Deck (outside of Dark Worlds) that can make Rank 8s easily and still win.
[/quote]
Photon Sanctuary

[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341358958' post='5966685']
Are you implying that Spellbooks would be broken with DMoC existing? Also, Necronomicon is good card design while Reborn in that situation wouldn't do much if you summon DMoC with Temper on the same turn. Regardless, it is a nice cache for the Deck.
[/quote]
No, using your logic to show you how flawed said logic is.

... Are you insane? The brokenness with Reborn is that you constantly have a beater, in a Grapha-esque sense.

Necromicon allows R8 access and 2 can loop DMoC.


[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341358958' post='5966685']
I am reading your points. However, I'm talking about the current gamestate as a whole. The gamestate (including the undermeta) states that you should run cards that matches the natural rhythm of the Deck you are building. Unless if easy to use or abused, retrieving Spells from Graveyard by making deck dedication really wouldn't affect the gamestate.
[/quote]
It IS easily abused. Grabbing Spells back is ALWAYS easily abused. As long as the staple spells exist, it will be.

[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341358958' post='5966685']
Spellbooks meet the criteria, but the way they are designed makes his use slower (i.e. you can only activate this book once per turn), which in turn makes the Spell Retrieval helpful and kept away from the banlist (Unless if you are grabbing a generic spell. Then it would be useful, but the situation of the summon wouldn't make it a gamebreaking situation). DMoC had time to stew and have his broken nature broken. It is like what happened to cards like Marauding Captain and Call of the Haunted, which were considered broken in their day.
[/quote]
He's still broken. Call of the Haunted and Marauding are different examples, because they aren't bad design to this day. They were bad design in slower metagames, whereas grabbing back a spell can still change the very tide of the game, considering it doesn't take much/any effort and it's fast.

[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341358958' post='5966685']
That's more or less the point of this thread, to see if DMoC can return without doing any damage to the gamestate
[/quote]
REDRUM and Rekindling did no damage to it for the longest while. They still are now on the chopping block. Immediate damage can never be used as an argument when the card is badly designed =/

All your posts and I've yet to see 1 solid reason they deserve a broken card like this.

[WhoAreYou?]

GAISE, STOP IT *cries*

OT: Derp, this stays banned.
http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/743-whatcha-gon-do-bout-it-fa****.jpg

[Lonk]

[quote name='Yuzuru Otonashi' timestamp='1341359959' post='5966695']
No it doesn't. You said they exist so they deserve them. That's not true in the least.

[b]Why else would Konami have designed the archtype (mainly Temperance) to begin with? They have more of an eye on DMoC than you think, while wanting to not make it abusable by FTKs[/b]

Gem-Knights as well, and a few other things. Just because it's not needed to win doesn't mean it's not a 1-card OTK or multi-foolish. I've yet to see how anything deserves that.

[b]That's because DMoC is no longer a 1-card OTK or multi-foolish. At most, it is a 1-time Spell Recycler that would need more deck dedication to return it back.[/b]


No, it doesn't make them deserving. They have 2 at least decent monsters that they can use. By this logic, Rabbit is fine because it adds versatility and the Evolzars are the problem, but that's not true because the Evolzars are an issue thanks to Rabbit, predominately.

[b]The logic you have stated is different from my logic I have stated. That's because you made Rabbit the subject rather than the Rank 4 Xyz Rabbit can use, which would be my logic. Since you have used different logic, I am afraid that this counter-point is shot down.[/b]


Photon Sanctuary

[b]Didn't know they can make easy Rank 8s.[/b]

No, using your logic to show you how flawed said logic is.

[b]The logic of this thread is to discuss how DMoC would interact with Spellbooks and see if DMoC can be put into this format.[/b]

... Are you insane? The brokenness with Reborn is that you constantly have a beater, in a Grapha-esque sense.

Necromicon allows R8 access and 2 can loop DMoC.

[b]Yep, definitely implying that Spellbooks would be broken with DMoC's existence. You also seem to be saying that DMoC would immediately become an Xyz Material. In order to do so, the proper sacrifices have to be made in order to do so immediately.[/b]

It IS easily abused. Grabbing Spells back is ALWAYS easily abused. As long as the staple spells exist, it will be.

[b]According to the logic of the gamestate, a Level 5 or higher monster that doesn't have an easy inherent Special Summon built in is not worth running, unless if you have built the deck around said card (Synchro Summons are inherent Special Summons, so most of them dodge the rule).[/b]

He's still broken. Call of the Haunted and Marauding are different examples, because they aren't bad design to this day. They were bad design in slower metagames, whereas grabbing back a spell can still change the very tide of the game, considering it doesn't take much/any effort and it's fast.

[b]You really can't say he is broken unless if the proper tests against the gamestate are given. Call and Maurading are the same situation because they were bad design in their day, yet they slowly became good design as the game progressed. You also seem to be saying that DMoC would be ridiculously easy to summon that it would be a gamechanger if put to limited[/b]

REDRUM and Rekindling did no damage to it for the longest while. They still are now on the chopping block. Immediate damage can never be used as an argument when the card is badly designed =/

[b]Like I said, the thread is to discuss how it would interact with the gamestate. After all, it has a good chance of coming back, and players should be preparing for that.[/b]

All your posts and I've yet to see 1 solid reason they deserve a broken card like this.

[b]I think you are much too confident in the fact that you know exactly what DMoC would do to the gamestate if put into Limited to not see my points. I am certain that Konami designed Spellbooks so that they wouldn't rape DMoC's use in unimaginable ways while most other decks would have trouble even running it It would be safe for it come back for a format to test its effect on the gamestate. If it turns out to be a horrible idea, Konami will ban it right back.[/b].
[/quote]

[quote name='DJVD' timestamp='1341360476' post='5966700']
GAISE, STOP IT *cries*

OT: Derp, this stays banned.
[url="http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/743-whatcha-gon-do-bout-it-fa****.jpg"]http://www.myfacewhe...t-it-fa****.jpg[/url]
[/quote]

Mah boi, these kinds of threads and arguments are what all true forum members strive for. If you seriously cannot take no herpderppost threads, then you really could not call yourself a forum member. This is the true form of idea exchange.

[Blake]

[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341361667' post='5966716']

Why else would Konami have designed the archtype (mainly Temperance) to begin with? They have more of an eye on DMoC than you think, while wanting to not make it abusable by FTKs
[/quote]
You have yet to explain why they DESERVE IT. Just because they hint at it getting unbanned doesn't mean it deserves it. I mean, BLS still deserves to be @0.


[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341361667' post='5966716']

That's because DMoC is no longer a 1-card OTK or multi-foolish. At most, it is a 1-time Spell Recycler that would need more deck dedication to return it back.
[/quote]
A free spell recovery, no matter the meta usage, is terrible design that doesn't need to live. It's not 1 time, there are plenty of ways to reuse it.



[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341361667' post='5966716']

The logic you have stated is different from my logic I have stated. That's because you made Rabbit the subject rather than the Rank 4 Xyz Rabbit can use, which would be my logic. Since you have used different logic, I am afraid that this counter-point is shot down.
[/quote]
No, I'm saying that versatility is a terrible argument and you should feel bad for saying broken cards should exist in the name of it.


[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341361667' post='5966716']

The logic of this thread is to discuss how DMoC would interact with Spellbooks and see if DMoC can be put into this format.
[/quote]
Which is a stupid thing to discuss because it can't be put back. Just because it's not 100% game breaking doesn't mean it should come back. Look at cards like FuFu, Brionac, Rekindling, REDRUM, etc. Ticking Time Bombs waiting to be exploited. You shouldn't bring something that will sit right beneath the surface and wait to devour a format back.


[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341361667' post='5966716']

Yep, definitely implying that Spellbooks would be broken with DMoC's existence. You also seem to be saying that DMoC would immediately become an Xyz Material. In order to do so, the proper sacrifices have to be made in order to do so immediately.
[/quote]
I'm saying that Spellbooks meet both criteria you set forward, yet you still refuse to see the abuse

What sacrifices? You just use a Necromicon and laugh.



[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341361667' post='5966716']

According to the logic of the gamestate, a Level 5 or higher monster that doesn't have an easy inherent Special Summon built in is not worth running, unless if you have built the deck around said card (Synchro Summons are inherent Special Summons, so most of them dodge the rule).
[/quote]
But Spellbooks don't care about that and it comes out automatically. They wouldn't just start topping out of the blue, but it might as well be inherent. And Sorciere doesn't have an inherent, either.


[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341361667' post='5966716']

You really can't say he is broken unless if the proper tests against the gamestate are given. Call and Maurading are the same situation because they were bad design in their day, yet they slowly became good design as the game progressed. You also seem to be saying that DMoC would be ridiculously easy to summon that it would be a gamechanger if put to limited
[/quote]
No, recycling a spell is NEVER going to be good design. Notice how few cards actually do recycle them. It's not like monsters or traps, they're instant powerful effects more often than not. DMoC is just as bad design as ever. And the fact that Spellbooks COULD pull it out as a game changer or as a constant beater kinda proves the point it is. You seem too intent on it and the current meta.


[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341361667' post='5966716']

Like I said, the thread is to discuss how it would interact with the gamestate. After all, it has a good chance of coming back, and players should be preparing for that.
[/quote]
Like I said, Time Bomb.


[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341361667' post='5966716']

I think you are much too confident in the fact that you know exactly what DMoC would do to the gamestate if put into Limited to not see my points. I am certain that Konami designed Spellbooks so that they wouldn't rape DMoC's use in unimaginable ways while most other decks would have trouble even running it It would be safe for it come back for a format to test its effect on the gamestate. If it turns out to be a horrible idea, Konami will ban it right back..
[/quote]
Because you have yet to answer WHY they deserve it. Konami designing things that work with it being a reason to deserver means that I shall demand Card of Safe Return because it interacts with Fableds. No, it's not exactly the same, but it's a similar premise. It's clear to see what it would do to the game state, and it wouldn't be much different than Brionac. A card that will lurk, and wait, and will one day be able to rip things to shreds, in this case again.

BLS is banned right now? And, again, stop being so damn intent on the META. You know they don't hit bad ideas that aren't meta enough.

Again, I dont see how they DESERVE this to come back. Konami, versatility, etc. aren't reasons.

[Just Crouton]

[quote name='Yuzuru Otonashi' timestamp='1341364961' post='5966747']
Again, I dont see how they DESERVE this to come back. Konami, versatility, etc. aren't reasons.
[/quote]

Because, there's money in it. And money is the best reason for anything.

[Blake]

[quote name='God Machismo!!!!!' timestamp='1341365258' post='5966752']
Because, there's money in it. And money is the best reason for anything.
[/quote]
That's not a reason they deserve it ._.

It's incentive for Konami, yes, I'm not denying that. But they don't deserve this card any more than Chaos Dragons deserve CED.

[HSektor]

You know what? I think that Konami WILL brink back it or another "so called" like Cyber Jar JUST to see what happens.

We all know that they don't give a s*** about "what is good for the game", if they do they would never make Hornet or Tour Guide.

[Agro]

Define "deserves".

[Blake]

[quote name='Agro' timestamp='1341366201' post='5966769']
Define "deserves".
[/quote]
It's obvious =/

1. If a deck needs a broken card to live, the deck deserves to die. Future Fusion, Rekindling, etc.
2. If a deck(s) can abuse a card realistically, unlike Call of the Haunted or Marauding Captain, the card is still broken and doesn't deserve to live. FuFu, DMoC, Yata, Brio.

Some cards fit both of these. Cards that fit neither tend to come off of the list, unless it's a move like unbanning BLS for cash and they're scared of unbanning some like Tsukuyomi, which many feel could come back. Like I said, I am not saying Konami doesn't have a good chance of unbanning DMoC, and that they DO have incentive to do so, but that does not mean it deserves to live again.

DMoC is faster than ever with Spellbooks. It's still the same bad design as ever. It's not slow-ish like CotH and it's not an effect that doesn't create advantage like Captain. Things steadily come off the list because of this, though Konami is scared of some card coming off the list despite them passing both of the above criteria. Look at it and you'll see. DMoC was/was approaching being slower, then Spellbooks revved it right back up. Will it be immediately meta defining? I don't think so. Will it lurk and wait? You bet it will.

[Just Crouton]

Frogs are old. Why would Konami bring back a card to help out old cards that aren't being marketed anymore?

[quote name='HSektor' timestamp='1341366093' post='5966766']
You know what? I think that Konami WILL brink back it or another "so called" like Cyber Jar JUST to see what happens.

We all know that they don't give a s*** about "what is good for the game", if they do they would never make Hornet or Tour Guide.
[/quote]

They don't have to care what's good for the game. What matters is that it's good for business. A smart company's goal is to make money. Hornet and Tour Guide make money. Shi-En made money. Dark Magician of Chaos made money. People buy crazy-broken cards because they want to win, and Konami knows this. But, the reason why the Plant Tuners, TG Striker, and Agents got hit was because people weren't buying the Xyzs, and instead buying old cards from the 5D's era that aren't being promoted anymore.

Bringing this back may be bad for the game, but like BLS, it's good for business.

[quote name='Yuzuru Otonashi' timestamp='1341365677' post='5966759']
That's not a reason they deserve it ._.

It's incentive for Konami, yes, I'm not denying that. But they don't deserve this card any more than Chaos Dragons deserve CED.
[/quote]

Well yeah. We could get it back @1, but yes, it's not something Prophecy's really "deserve." In fact, it could be bad for business if players decide not to buy the Prophecy's in place of some crazy-broken deck that centers around DMoC and runs just a couple Prophecys and the Spellbooks.

[Agro]

Ok, black. Just fix your usage. The decks deserve the broken cards. It's the broken cards that don't deserve a deck.

[Lonk]

Besides, DMoC won't break Spellbooks in the slightest, but it would match-up to their natural speed. Black even said himself that DMoC was on the path to being balanced because he was slow in the current gamestate.

[DARKPLANT RISING]

It's not coming back because it's not going to do anything good to the game even if it does.

Nuff said

[Blake]

[quote name='Koloktos' timestamp='1341410365' post='5967127']
Besides, DMoC won't break Spellbooks in the slightest, but it would match-up to their natural speed. Black even said himself that DMoC was on the path to being balanced because he was slow in the current gamestate.
[/quote]
Way to twist words and take them out of context.

No, I said he was approaching being slower, not balanced. I also said that Spellbooks kinda screwed that over and made him faster than ever before, and thus more volatile. Maybe not in any given meta, but thanks to Spellbook's he has a smaller time on his bomb, provided he gets unbanned. Actually read posts before you make a point off of them.

It will never be balanced. It will either be busted or underpowered (Which is FAR off) at any given time. There's no middle line with a card like it. Balanced "in a deck" is a stupid idea, especially when that deck abuses it more than ever and that you STILL have yet to offer 1 reason they deserve DMoC to exist.