Chris Makes/Loosely Predicts a banlist

[Mr. guy]

Chain material

[Suibon]

[quote][b]Exodia the Forbidden One and Final Countdown[/b]: Both of these are skill-less alternate win conditions that discourage player interaction. These are both absolutely terrible things for the game and to discourage them entirely both deserve to be banned.[/quote]

[center]Never mind skill-less -- what's wrong with having alternative win conditions? For both decks to win, the Exodia or Final Countdown player must stall and/or draw relentlessly, which means they don't usually mess up with opposing developments, maining little or no removal that doesn't aid in the achievement of said win conditions.[/center]

[This Account is Unplayable]

[quote name='Suibon' timestamp='1341707787' post='5969998']
[center]Never mind skill-less -- what's wrong with having alternative win conditions? For both decks to win, the Exodia or Final Countdown player must stall and/or draw relentlessly, which means they don't usually mess up with opposing developments, maining little or no removal that doesn't aid in the achievement of said win conditions.[/center]
[/quote]

Can you not read? I want to promote skill in the game, and encourage player interaction. Both decks remove this. Simple as that.

[Suibon]

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1341707844' post='5969999']
Can you not read? I want to promote skill in the game, and encourage player interaction. Both decks remove this. Simple as that.
[/quote]

[center]I can read, thank you. It's just that you cannot base your reasoning on a term as vague as 'skill'.[/center]

[This Account is Unplayable]

[quote name='Suibon' timestamp='1341708469' post='5970006']
[center]I can read, thank you. It's just that you cannot base your reasoning on a term as vague as 'skill'.[/center]
[/quote]

Er, yes I can. And it wasn't even the only basis. Player interaction is a thing too. (Well, it's not when you play those decks but that's kinda my point)

[Sleepy]

I like this list enough to use it instead of the actual Advance Format list.

Suggestions:

-Fusion Gate: I've seen some "The Shining" abuse with it. The 3200 ATK monster was able to be destroyed, so the Materials come back to be banished again for another.

-Dragged Down into the Grave: It's worse than Confiscation in Dark Worlds.

[This Account is Unplayable]

[quote name='Sleepy' timestamp='1341712639' post='5970090']
I like this list enough to use it instead of the actual Advance Format list.
Suggestions:
-Fusion Gate: I've seen some "The Shining" abuse with it. The 3200 ATK monster was able to be destroyed, so the Materials come back to be banished again for another.
-Dragged Down into the Grave: It's worse than Confiscation in Dark Worlds.
[/quote]

I don't see anything wrong with Fusion Gate, it's susceptible to 3 MSTs, and relies on 3+ card combos to work. Easy-ish to accomplish in Heroes, but I still can't see it being bad at all.

Dragged Down gives the deck power, not absurdity, especially with only 1 Snoww, the deck will likely have to resort to non-DW cards to obtain their field presence, making it less consistent too.

[The Warden]

What about the likes of Infernities; even without Brio wouldn't they still be able to pull off their 20 minute turns?

[This Account is Unplayable]

[quote name='BrokenHeart15' timestamp='1341713528' post='5970105']
What about the likes of Infernities; even without Brio wouldn't they still be able to pull off their 20 minute turns?
[/quote]

I was considering banning Launcher for that reason entirely, actually. But Infernities are just so bad an inconsistent right now it didn't seem too necessary.

Would rather other peoples' thoughts on this though, I didn't play Infernity format and still don't even know any of the loops or combos the deck has.

[CNo.101 S.H. Death Knight]

There is no need, considering all loops infernity plays are with Brionac, which banned.

[The Warden]

Well, one of their major toys involved looping Trishula with Brio, but, with the theoretical format having both banned, that wouldn't be too huge and issue. But right now, they can use Leviair to recycle Mirage.

[Tiger Tracks]

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1341694176' post='5969694']
I will briefly state that this list is designed to encourage a skilful format and player interaction. I intend to alleviate the presence of interaction-denying decks and cards and decks that require minimal understanding of the game to achieve anything with.[/quote]

Good starting place

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1341694176' post='5969694'][b]Wind-Up Hunter[/b]: Only way Wind-Ups can strip a player of their entire hand. It serves no purpose outside of that.[/quote]

I have yet to be convinced that Wind-Up Hunter is the problem with the loop. Yes, I know it is directly reasonable for the loop and it’s useless outside of said loop. This is normally the perfect criteria for banning something – ban the useless monster that offers nothing to the game and leave the enabler that potentially offers something to the game alone. Except the other part of the loop is not good for the game. Wind-Up Zenmaity is a skill-less, omnipresent, two card investment that floods the field and can almost OTK by itself. Hell, it can with Limiter Removal, which is also bannable. Zenmaity is what is responsible for the loop, you can’t get rid of more than a couple of cards without it. Zenmaity is, in the end, nothing more than a skill-less field swarming engine that has no place in the meta you’re trying to create.

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1341694176' post='5969694'][b]Gaia Dragon, the Thunder Charger[/b]: Essentially removes any restriction of any Rank 5/6 Xyz. This in itself should be reason enough to ban it, what makes it worse is the 2600 body.[/quote]

I hate this argument. Your argument is essentially: Activating Ring of Destuction or using a pimpin’ Dragon-type RotA on a stick is perfectly acceptable it shouldn’t be able to summon a 2600 beater too. If you honestly believe that the mere beatstick it the problem and not the monster that is basically a walking Ring of Destruction or Super Dragon RotA, then I don’t think you should be trying to make a banlist. Thunder Charger doesn’t get around restrictions in any practical sense as the “restrictions” on these Xyz monsters aren’t restrictions. If you think of it as activating Ring of Destruction or Super Dragon RotA (as traps or spells) and then Xyz-ing into a 2600 beatstick with piercing than what is the problem? It’s the 2600 beatstick, right?


[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1341694176' post='5969694'][b]Snoww, Unlight of Dark World[/b]: Take out Dark World's only method to consistency and they don't dominate the metagame, while remaining viable because they still have 3 Grapha.[/quote]

No. When trying to create a skill intensive format hitting consistency engines is not what you should be doing, unless the engine is broken. Snoww is not broken. That skilless, invincible, infinite plussing monster that has enough attack by itself to break important attack barriers and is stronger than pretty much everything with its favorite field spell that you think is mandatory for DWs to be good, however, is broken. Grapha is what should be banned
Put Snoww to three and limit Grapha

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1341694176' post='5969694'][b]Miracle Fusion[/b]: Free 3200 floaters are bad for the game, imo. I see no reason to keep this at higher than 1, it's absolutely insane, especially in a format where Heroes could already be very potent.[/quote]
There is no reason for this to be limited. The Shining is at best a +1 floater with 3200 attack. While quite a bit it is still less than most of the other boss monsters still available. If you wanted to limit Miracle Fusion because you thought The Shining [i]and[/i] Absolute were broken you’d have a better argument. I would agree with that assessment of Absolute Zero but disagree with The Shining. In fact I’d say that the shining is the best designed Omni-Hero. Even I were to agree with that Absolute Zero and The Shining were too good for the meta I’d just say ban the broken fusions and leave the poor fusion card alone. Seriously, Miracle Fusion is not the problem – the card it brings out is.
If you are genuinely worried that Heros would be too good in the format then you ban Elemental HERO Stratos. Even being as old as it is and being limited it is still one of the best floaters in the game. Stratos is the kind of engine that should be banned when I was talking about Snoww.

Trust me, Heroes are my favorite deck but even I can (reluctantly) put my biases aside and say that Stratos is the source of any problems when comes to HERO decks

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1341694176' post='5969694'][b]Semi-Limited[/b][/quote]
lol semi-limits

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1341694176' post='5969694'][b]Gladiator Beast Bestiari[/b]: Makes it much less susceptible to only 1 BTH. It's something GBs need @2 to be viable.[/quote]
Ban Gyzarus and put this to three. Gyzarus is broken and is ultimately the reason why Bestiari was wrongfully put to one. Also get over the notion that decks [i]needs[/i] something to be viable.

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1341694176' post='5969694'][b]T.G. Striker[/b]: 2 seems like the optimal number for the CyDra floating Tuner. Could go to 3 though, honestly.[/quote]

Because it seems right is stupid reasoning, and you ulitmately no justification for this place put it at this list position. Since you have no justification for it to be at two and don't want it at one, it should go to three.

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1341694176' post='5969694'][b]The Agent of Mystery - Earth[/b]: 2 Makes Agents viable and a bit more consistent, 3 would be too much though. 1 was obviously too little. 2 seems like the perfect number.[/quote]
Without having a basis for what too consistent or not consistent enough is you don't have any justification to put this at three. Again, you do not ban consistency engines when you are trying to make a skillful meta game. The Agent engine is not a problem, the various broken monsters that feed off of the engine are.

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1341694176' post='5969694'][b]Skill Drain[/b]: Its name kind of says it all. It's a way of alleviating the skill of the game although more so in the deck building stage. One can just throw 3 in a deck and call it anti-meta, which is terrible for player development and for the game itself.[/quote]
No. The reason Skill Drain is so good right now is because Konami is making the game more monster centric. In order for them to be able to be successful in this objective they need to make monsters with better effects. Skill Drain is one of the best ways to negate these overpowered effects. If monsters and their effects were not at the magnitude they were I'd be inclined to agree with you.
Also, no one throughs 3 Skill Drains into a deck randomly and calls it an anti-meta deck. Skill Drain is only played in decks where the monster of the deck can be played effectively with Skill Drain on the field and when it is not. Turning your entire deck building process in order to effectively use Skill Drain in your deck is far from skilless.
Most decks don't even play more than two copies of Skill Drain anyway. Putting it at two is just another case (and perhaps the best) of an lolsemilimit.

[Blake]

[quote name='Tiger Tracks' timestamp='1341716004' post='5970173']
I hate this argument. Your argument is essentially: Activating Ring of Destuction or using a pimpin’ Dragon-type RotA on a stick is perfectly acceptable it shouldn’t be able to summon a 2600 beater too. If you honestly believe that the mere beatstick it the problem and not the monster that is basically a walking Ring of Destruction or Super Dragon RotA, then I don’t think you should be trying to make a banlist. Thunder Charger doesn’t get around restrictions in any practical sense as the “restrictions” on these Xyz monsters aren’t restrictions. If you think of it as activating Ring of Destruction or Super Dragon RotA (as traps or spells) and then Xyz-ing into a 2600 beatstick with piercing than what is the problem? It’s the 2600 beatstick, right?
[/quote]
Um... You know that, after Atums, the biggest source of Gaia Dragon abuse is an otherwise fine 1000/1000 Scrap Dragon, right? Not Volca?

Gaia Dragon removes the limits that balance Volcasaurus and keep Atums from OTKing, plus makes a 2600 piercer with a free pop out of Exa-Beetle. Without Gaia Dragon, that doesn't happen.

You can't even BEGIN to compare it to the S/T versions when they work differently. They're apples and oranges. Volca can't attack directly without Gaia Dragon (And isn't even better than Tiras without him) and Exa-Beetle is just a 1000 beater that'll die in no time. I'm not gonna say Atums isn't still horrific, though.

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1341714453' post='5970128']
I was considering banning Launcher for that reason entirely, actually. But Infernities are just so bad an inconsistent right now it didn't seem too necessary.

Would rather other peoples' thoughts on this though, I didn't play Infernity format and still don't even know any of the loops or combos the deck has.
[/quote]
In a sheer debate of design, absolutely.

[Tiger Tracks]

[quote name='Yuzuru Otonashi' timestamp='1341717824' post='5970201']
Um... You know that, after Atums, the biggest source of Gaia Dragon abuse is an otherwise fine 1000/1000 Scrap Dragon, right? Not Volca?

Gaia Dragon removes the limits that balance Volcasaurus and keep Atums from OTKing, plus makes a 2600 piercer with a free pop out of Exa-Beetle. Without Gaia Dragon, that doesn't happen.

You can't even BEGIN to compare it to the S/T versions when they work differently. They're apples and oranges. Volca can't attack directly without Gaia Dragon (And isn't even better than Tiras without him) and Exa-Beetle is just a 1000 beater that'll die in no time. I'm not gonna say Atums isn't still horrific, though.
[/quote]

I feel that somewhere you're missing my point.

And yes I understand that Volcasaurus isn't used too often; I was just using it, and will contiue to use it, as an easy to understand example.

For what it matters, I can most cetainly comapare the Xyz monsters to their spell and trap equilents. They are doing the same things that there comparisons are. Volcanasaurus is doing the exact same thing as Ring of Destruction, the only difference being it is a monster instead of a trap. Atum is acting just like a Dragon RotA but it's a monster not a spell. Sure Volcasaurus can't attack but neither can a RoD. Sure Charger allows Atum to OTK but are you really saying that amassing that large field presence is ok? (Rhetorical question; you don't seem to)

However Thunder Charger is just a 2600 beater.

Yes, Thunder Charger effectively lets Volcasaurus attack. But even without having the attack restriction, Volcasaurus is still acting as a Ring of Destruction. But destroying a monster and attacking is what the percieved problem is. What is silly here is that using an omnipresent Ring of Destruction is percieved as fine but using an omnipresent Ring of Destruction and attacking isn't.

Gaia Dragon doesn't break any of the cards. The cards it's used with were broken from the get go. Atum is not okay even without Charger, nor is Volcasaurus, or Exa-Beetle, or any other card that people are coplaining about.

It is the monster who acutally has an effect that is a problem. The restrictions that these Xyzs have are laughable. Not attacking is restiction, you using the monster to act as a spell card for you. Low stats don't matter when you're using that monster plus [i]and [/i]set up.

There is not a single person arguing that Thunder Charger with his 2600 attack and piercing effect is broken. What they're saying is the problem is using Thunder Charger with another monster who has a broken effect is the problem and then say the reason why that first Xyz is broken is because Charger exists. It is Atum and company that are the problem and who should be banned, not Gaia.

[Agro]

I'm surprised Pika hasn't locked this yet.

Banlist is nice, but inevitably unrealistic.

Konami's goal is to eliminate the top meta and cycle in the next while simultaneously eliminating problem cards. Anything past won't be looked at twice.

[Doc.]

[quote name='Chris' timestamp='1341705045' post='5969932']
idc if Konami want us to "forget" about it. Fact is it's broken.
[/quote]

They unbanned it last year, they want us to forget it, but with such and iconic and broken card like Envoy of the Beggining.
I also dont get why Konami banned Dark Gaia the minute he was released, if you dont want us to use him, why make him?

[.Rai]

I kinda want Tragoedia @0, but it's a preference thing.

I do really like the format though. Kinda wanna test it out on DN.

[Suibon]

[quote]Wind-Up Zenmaity is a skill-less, omnipresent, two card investment that floods the field and can almost OTK by itself.[/quote]

[center]By 'Wind-Up Zenmaity' you mean Wind-Up Rat, right? Since that's the one actually spamming the Exceeds and whatnot?[/center]

[center]Just saying.[/center]

[This Account is Unplayable]

[quote name='Tiger Tracks' timestamp='1341716004' post='5970173']
I have yet to be convinced that Wind-Up Hunter is the problem with the loop. Yes, I know it is directly reasonable for the loop and it’s useless outside of said loop. This is normally the perfect criteria for banning something – ban the useless monster that offers nothing to the game and leave the enabler that potentially offers something to the game alone. Except the other part of the loop is not good for the game. Wind-Up Zenmaity is a skill-less, omnipresent, two card investment that floods the field and can almost OTK by itself. Hell, it can with Limiter Removal, which is also bannable. Zenmaity is what is responsible for the loop, you can’t get rid of more than a couple of cards without it. Zenmaity is, in the end, nothing more than a skill-less field swarming engine that has no place in the meta you’re trying to create.[/quote]

Right, Limiter Removal is what I was forgetting. And honestly Zenmaity should be fine @2 by that reasoning too, it prevents it from flooding the field half as much, without virtually destroying Wind-Ups as a whole.

[quote]I hate this argument. Your argument is essentially: Activating Ring of Destuction or using a pimpin’ Dragon-type RotA on a stick is perfectly acceptable it shouldn’t be able to summon a 2600 beater too. If you honestly believe that the mere beatstick it the problem and not the monster that is basically a walking Ring of Destruction or Super Dragon RotA, then I don’t think you should be trying to make a banlist. Thunder Charger doesn’t get around restrictions in any practical sense as the “restrictions” on these Xyz monsters aren’t restrictions. If you think of it as activating Ring of Destruction or Super Dragon RotA (as traps or spells) and then Xyz-ing into a 2600 beatstick with piercing than what is the problem? It’s the 2600 beatstick, right?[/quote]

Seriously, I should have just stuck a giant "TCG" over the OP. .-. Volcasaurus doesn't exist in it, so idk why you went on about it so much. Gaia Dragon removes any and all restrictions the rest have, which are actually balanced otherwise. Seriously, it's such a terribly designed card and so restrictive when it comes to card design it should get the axe regardless.

[quote]No. When trying to create a skill intensive format hitting consistency engines is not what you should be doing, unless the engine is broken. Snoww is not broken. That skilless, invincible, infinite plussing monster that has enough attack by itself to break important attack barriers and is stronger than pretty much everything with its favorite field spell that you think is mandatory for DWs to be good, however, is broken. Grapha is what should be banned
Put Snoww to three and limit Grapha[/quote]

The deck can be similarly consistent by running cards like Armageddon Knight and the like. With Snoww the deck is too fast and churns out huge fields way too quickly. The deck essentially cannot function without Grapha, and I'm not setting my sights on killing decks, but merely watering them down so that they're not herp derp broken. With only 1 Grapha, the deck would essentially die to 1 D.D. Crow, and that seems like it's promoting skill to you?

[quote]There is no reason for this to be limited. The Shining is at best a +1 floater with 3200 attack. While quite a bit it is still less than most of the other boss monsters still available. If you wanted to limit Miracle Fusion because you thought The Shining [i]and[/i] Absolute were broken you’d have a better argument. I would agree with that assessment of Absolute Zero but disagree with The Shining. In fact I’d say that the shining is the best designed Omni-Hero. Even I were to agree with that Absolute Zero and The Shining were too good for the meta I’d just say ban the broken fusions and leave the poor fusion card alone. Seriously, Miracle Fusion is not the problem – the card it brings out is.
If you are genuinely worried that Heros would be too good in the format then you ban Elemental HERO Stratos. Even being as old as it is and being limited it is still one of the best floaters in the game. Stratos is the kind of engine that should be banned when I was talking about Snoww.
Trust me, Heroes are my favorite deck but even I can (reluctantly) put my biases aside and say that Stratos is the source of any problems when comes to HERO decks[/quote]

Er, Miracle Fusion is the problem when it comes to Heroes in a format like the one I'm ideally trying to create. A free 3200 floater is a huge problem with this. Stratos is far from a broken card and makes the deck incredibly consistent, which is a good thing. The difference with it and Snoww is that Heroes can survive without a giant boss monster, since they can control the field so well and cards like Bubbleman (and thus Blade Armor Ninja, etc) exist. Stratos also doesn't directly search for the boss monster.

[quote]lol semi-limits[/quote]

idgi

[quote]Ban Gyzarus and put this to three. Gyzarus is broken and is ultimately the reason why Bestiari was wrongfully put to one. Also get over the notion that decks [i]needs[/i] something to be viable.
Because it seems right is stupid reasoning, and you ulitmately no justification for this place put it at this list position. Since you have no justification for it to be at two and don't want it at one, it should go to three.[/quote]

Hey look, something you're right about. I can agree with this entirely. Irked by your notion that I can't give decks cards to be viable, since I want to make stuff viable when they've been made wrongly unviable in the current format. .-. Still, Gyzarus to 0 and Besti to 3 makes sense.

[quote]Without having a basis for what too consistent or not consistent enough is you don't have any justification to put this at three. Again, you do not ban consistency engines when you are trying to make a skillful meta game. The Agent engine is not a problem, the various broken monsters that feed off of the engine are.[/quote]

Those "various broken monsters" are now just 3 Hyperions and 1 Kristya. I still find that Earth creates too much of an "overly consistent" feel to the deck. While consistency is good, the ability to 1-up a player that many times seems absolutely ridiculous and would likely push Agents too far if they had 3. 2 allows for smarter deck building, players have to actively decide whether they need certain cards, or certain cards at certain numbers.

[quote]No. The reason Skill Drain is so good right now is because Konami is making the game more monster centric. In order for them to be able to be successful in this objective they need to make monsters with better effects. Skill Drain is one of the best ways to negate these overpowered effects. If monsters and their effects were not at the magnitude they were I'd be inclined to agree with you.
Also, no one throughs 3 Skill Drains into a deck randomly and calls it an anti-meta deck. Skill Drain is only played in decks where the monster of the deck can be played effectively with Skill Drain on the field and when it is not. Turning your entire deck building process in order to effectively use Skill Drain in your deck is far from skilless.
Most decks don't even play more than two copies of Skill Drain anyway. Putting it at two is just another case (and perhaps the best) of an lolsemilimit.
[/quote]

You do realise that people DO throw in 3 Skill Drains into decks that can run it and call it anti-meta, right? And the format this list provides still has some of those monster-heavy decks, because they're not bad for the game funnily enough. The thing is, I want skill to be present at all stages of the game, from deck building to when one player's life points hit 0. You can currently create a deck in 5 seconds, with monsters with no real effects or hindering effects, or effects that resolve off the field, and just slap in 3 Skill Drains. The decks that make best use of it use it at 1 or 2. So why SHOULDN'T it be at 2?

[TheTurtleOnceCalledGod]

Remember, this is a wishlist, a prediction list must take into account that Konami does not want to kill their money-makers just yet (I.E. they probably won't hit Rabbit [i]yet[/i]).

[Toffee.]

Book goes back to 3, I can be happy.
Same with Striker being@2 again, which makes for hilarious decks.

[Canopy Star - Eon Sphere]

I suppose most people get defensive when they see their deck being hit. I used to get angry about people wanting to ban REDRUM, but honestly I see their point. The list seems comprehensive, if optimistic, and I have seen many of the cards you wish to ban in their prime and agree that [i]something[/i] needs to be done about them.

Slightly off topic, but what do you guys think about spell and trap removal? Is the format good with 3 MST and Heavy allowed? I mean, I like to destroy set cards as much as the next guy, buy on top of all the cards these days that destroy any kind of card, are they a bit much? This applies to Dark Hole as well.

[ihop]

Personally I think Leviair should be banned as it defies the point of banished cards and summons a banished card way too easily for way too little input.
Also I'm iffy about banning Gaia Dragon so early on as it hasn't really proven to be purely broken yet, and although I agree that the Chaos Xyz summon method is kind of broken it's hardly a threat and needs quite a big cost. The reasoning behind the ban seems solid though so maybe you're right.

[This Account is Unplayable]

What's wrong with leviair without TGU abusing it? .-.

[mido9]

[quote name='Kabasaurus' timestamp='1341769264' post='5970694']
Personally I think Leviair should be banned as it defies the point of banished cards and summons a banished card way too easily for way too little input.
[/quote]
Then make it require input.