Raigeki

[Agro]

[Aix]

Completely balanced. Should come back @3.

 

Randomly wipes your opponent's field. Enables OTKs and whatnot.

 

I dunno wut else to say.

[Toffee.]

The saying "Put up or shut up" comes into play here. If putting it to 1 would be that broken, then show us how it would be. Give us a quantitative mathematical description of how a deck with 1 Raigeki in it would even be remotely feasible, even in the most casual of circumstances. What is the raw probability of this card occurring? How susceptible is it to interruption from the opponent? Cards are innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof is on those advocating its ban. So far, no one has actually given a quantitative reason for why Raigeki shouldn't be legal. If you give one and it is mathematically sound, then sure, I'll be the first to concede your point and commend you for it.

[Aerion Brightflame]

The saying "Put up or shut up" comes into play here. If putting it to 1 would be that broken, then show us how it would be. Give us a quantitative mathematical description of how a deck with 1 Raigeki in it would even be remotely feasible, even in the most casual of circumstances. What is the raw probability of this card occurring? How susceptible is it to interruption from the opponent? Cards are innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof is on those advocating its ban. So far, no one has actually given a quantitative reason for why Raigeki shouldn't be legal. If you give one and it is mathematically sound, then sure, I'll be the first to concede your point and commend you for it.

 

Armz I loves ya for this.

 

If anyone tries to defend this card, they must have amazing logic. Because yeah... It should never come back. Of course some say we have dark hole, which is basically the same as this. What's the worst that can happen bringing this back (!)

[Toffee.]

Armz I loves ya for this.

I'm just going to save that block of text to Notepad, and Copy-pasta it whenever I see fit.

But seriously, I had to.

[Sora1499]

There's no reason for this. We have dark hole, which is the same thing but less mindless and more balanced.

[Wildflame]

The discussion this card can generate is as simple as its onle liner effect: No, don't ever come back.

[Legend Zero]

The saying "Put up or shut up" comes into play here. If putting it to 1 would be that broken, then show us how it would be. Give us a quantitative mathematical description of how a deck with 1 Raigeki in it would even be remotely feasible, even in the most casual of circumstances. What is the raw probability of this card occurring? How susceptible is it to interruption from the opponent? Cards are innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof is on those advocating its ban. So far, no one has actually given a quantitative reason for why Raigeki shouldn't be legal. If you give one and it is mathematically sound, then sure, I'll be the first to concede your point and commend you for it.

I have already gave you very good advise and you decided to piss it away...and you punks better show me more respect than that because i did not suffer threw madness and death to have preadolescent noobs like yourself talk to me in that manner......

[Just Crouton]

The saying "Put up or shut up" comes into play here. If putting it to 1 would be that broken, then show us how it would be. Give us a quantitative mathematical description of how a deck with 1 Raigeki in it would even be remotely feasible, even in the most casual of circumstances. What is the raw probability of this card occurring? How susceptible is it to interruption from the opponent? Cards are innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof is on those advocating its ban. So far, no one has actually given a quantitative reason for why Raigeki shouldn't be legal. If you give one and it is mathematically sound, then sure, I'll be the first to concede your point and commend you for it.

____

 

MATHEMATICALLY speaking, it's a topdeck that blows up your opponent's front row for no cost

MATHEMATICALLY speaking, it gives you a massive advantage over the opponent for no cost

MATHEMATICALLY speaking, it helps F/OTKs

MATHEMATICALLY speaking, what's the point of this thread?

MATHEMATICALLY speaking, he came from the streets where everyone's meet. Guns in the night, but you wonder why she can't love no-one. 'Cause he's on the run. Sleeps in the alley, wakes by the sun. Listen to the sirens, thinkin' they're for me. It's a lonely life for Grandmaster B. Yes, a lonely life for Grandmaster B.

[玄魔の王]

The saying "Put up or shut up" comes into play here. If putting it to 1 would be that broken, then show us how it would be. Give us a quantitative mathematical description of how a deck with 1 Raigeki in it would even be remotely feasible, even in the most casual of circumstances. What is the raw probability of this card occurring? How susceptible is it to interruption from the opponent? Cards are innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof is on those advocating its ban. So far, no one has actually given a quantitative reason for why Raigeki shouldn't be legal. If you give one and it is mathematically sound, then sure, I'll be the first to concede your point and commend you for it.

And thus a meme is born.

 

OT: I don't even need to justify this answer, because anybody could. The card will rot on the list forever. It just will.

[Superdoopertrooper]

The saying "Put up or shut up" comes into play here. If putting it to 1 would be that broken, then show us how it would be. Give us a quantitative mathematical description of how a deck with 1 Raigeki in it would even be remotely feasible, even in the most casual of circumstances. What is the raw probability of this card occurring? How susceptible is it to interruption from the opponent? Cards are innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof is on those advocating its ban. So far, no one has actually given a quantitative reason for why Raigeki shouldn't be legal. If you give one and it is mathematically sound, then sure, I'll be the first to concede your point and commend you for it.

 

Your comparison of Chaos Emperor Dragon to Butterfly Dagger and your out-of-context quote only accentuates your ignorance.

 

There is a monumental difference between a card which an entire deck revolves around (Elmaloop.dek) and a card like CED, which already powerful decks can use to become even better and don't have to rely on to win. Elma would probably never see play in any deck outside of its loop deck, because it's an incredibly sub-par card. Therefore, it falls into the category of an alt-win card, which are evaluated in a somewhat different manner to cards used by 'regular' decks. If an alt-win deck is inconsistent to the point where playing the deck will result in you losing significantly more games than you win, the deck is fine, regardless of how degenerate its win condition may be. There are already many existing decks that can alt-win which have relatively low probabilities of occurring, such as the Flintlock loop which requires a 4-card combo. Now, why do you never see these decks in tournaments? Because people want to win. Why would anyone want to use a deck which is mathematically guaranteed to lose them much more games than they win? I'd much rather face a crappy deck designed to be able to otk with an alt-win than face any tier 2 deck that most other people consider to be "non-degenerate", because I have a better chance of winning. They might have a 20% chance of FTK/OTK'ing me just through pure chance, but that equally means I have an 80% chance of winning just through pure chance as well. The odds are greatly in my favor, so why would I give a damn? I have a better chance of winning against those decks than I do against any other regular deck, so if anything I'd be happy. Not to mention that no-one would play this deck in the first place purely because it sucks.

 

Any loop deck with 1 Elma in it would be incredibly bad, and no-one would use it. Cards should be at the highest number they can be on the list before they become an actual problem. For Elma, that number is at least 1. Why ban a card that doesn't need to be and would make no difference to the game if it were at 1? That's why the different stages of the list exist in the first place, to put cards in the spots they should be before they start causing problematic damage. If a card is fine at 2, why put it to 1? If a card is fine at 1, why put it to 0?

[Canadian]

MATHEMATICALLY speaking, it's a topdeck that blows up your opponent's front row for no cost

MATHEMATICALLY speaking, it gives you a massive advantage over the opponent for no cost

MATHEMATICALLY speaking, it helps F/OTKs

MATHEMATICALLY speaking, what's the point of this thread?

MATHEMATICALLY speaking, he came from the streets where everyone's meet. Guns in the night, but you wonder why she can't love no-one. 'Cause he's on the run. Sleeps in the alley, wakes by the sun. Listen to the sirens, thinkin' they're for me. It's a lonely life for Grandmaster B. Yes, a lonely life for Grandmaster B.

 

[Canopy Star - Eon Sphere]

I got this in a sealed pack Battle Pack tournament.

 

I came third. Most of my victories were because of this at some point, or Morphing Jar decking them out.

 

Stay back in 2003 where you belong.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Your comparison of Chaos Emperor Dragon to Butterfly Dagger and your out-of-context quote only accentuates your ignorance.

 

There is a monumental difference between a card which an entire deck revolves around (Elmaloop.dek) and a card like CED, which already powerful decks can use to become even better and don't have to rely on to win. Elma would probably never see play in any deck outside of its loop deck, because it's an incredibly sub-par card. Therefore, it falls into the category of an alt-win card, which are evaluated in a somewhat different manner to cards used by 'regular' decks. If an alt-win deck is inconsistent to the point where playing the deck will result in you losing significantly more games than you win, the deck is fine, regardless of how degenerate its win condition may be. There are already many existing decks that can alt-win which have relatively low probabilities of occurring, such as the Flintlock loop which requires a 4-card combo. Now, why do you never see these decks in tournaments? Because people want to win. Why would anyone want to use a deck which is mathematically guaranteed to lose them much more games than they win? I'd much rather face a crappy deck designed to be able to otk with an alt-win than face any tier 2 deck that most other people consider to be "non-degenerate", because I have a better chance of winning. They might have a 20% chance of FTK/OTK'ing me just through pure chance, but that equally means I have an 80% chance of winning just through pure chance as well. The odds are greatly in my favor, so why would I give a damn? I have a better chance of winning against those decks than I do against any other regular deck, so if anything I'd be happy. Not to mention that no-one would play this deck in the first place purely because it sucks.

 

Any loop deck with 1 Elma in it would be incredibly bad, and no-one would use it. Cards should be at the highest number they can be on the list before they become an actual problem. For Elma, that number is at least 1. Why ban a card that doesn't need to be and would make no difference to the game if it were at 1? That's why the different stages of the list exist in the first place, to put cards in the spots they should be before they start causing problematic damage. If a card is fine at 2, why put it to 1? If a card is fine at 1, why put it to 0?

 

Except the point of quoting your post is because, well as Legend Zero said, the card has already been convicted. You're the one who has to provide all the mathematical evidence if you are that obsessed on it.  I would point out that the 3 cards in the Elma loop are all searchable by multiple methods. And that hell, you don't even need Gearfried for it with Rod of Silence, which is also a searchable equip at 3, which is at 3. But this is a thread on Rageki, not Elma.

 

You say that Elma should be at 1? Prove it. Prove that it'll make no difference and that the deck will be inconsistent to the point where no one will use it. And if you can't do that, then take your own advice. Since your the one insistent on 'put up or shut up'

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

I think I just died laughing.

[Resident Fascist]

I think I just died laughing.

 

Spoke my exact mind.

[Toffee.]

Oh god, my sides xD This topic became absolutely hilarious over night

There's no reason for this. We have dark hole, which is the same thing but less mindless and more balanced.

It's only "less mindless" because nobody uses it while they control a monster; This can do that, and basically becomes a highly splashable "win-moar" card.
 

And thus a meme is born.

Trooper's logic is flawed, yes, but I wouldn't go that far.
 

Post

Thing is, Trooper, you need to recognize sarcasm.

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

He doesn't need to learn sarcasm. He just needs to know what fucking logic is.

[Superdoopertrooper]

The irony is that whatever "logic" you guys think you're using is obviously flawed, because the outcome of that "logic" reaches a false conclusion (that Elma going to 1 would spawn a deck that is overly problematic for the game). If you'd actually bother to empirically test your claims, you would find that Elma decks are a mess and not worth running.

[Resident Fascist]

The irony is that whatever "logic" you guys think you're using is obviously flawed, because the outcome of that "logic" reaches a false conclusion (that Elma going to 1 would spawn a deck that is overly problematic for the game). If you'd actually bother to empirically test your claims, you would find that Elma decks are a mess and not worth running.

 

However, Elma is only good for loops and thus the mere fact they exist is a problem. Stop being bad please.

[Superdoopertrooper]

However, Elma is only good for loops and thus the mere fact they exist is a problem. Stop being bad please.

 

I could list over 50 different loops which exist in the game. You want every single one of them banned as well? You want Flintlock banned?

 

You have this moronic phobia of the word "loop". You are playing a trading card game, a type of game which inherently carries a large of degree of luck, no matter what deck you're playing. If these so-called "loop decks" have a much lower probability of winning than what normal decks do (which they should, and do), then the problem is in your head, not with the decks.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I could list over 50 different loops which exist in the game. You want every single one of them banned as well? You want Flintlock banned?

 

You have this moronic phobia of the word "loop". You are playing a trading card game, a type of game which inherently carries a large of degree of luck, no matter what deck you're playing. If these so-called "loop decks" have a much lower probability of winning than what normal decks do (which they should, and do), then the problem is in your head, not with the decks.

 

Chain material OTK, a loop that does disagree with you as the guy at YCS Austin demonstrated because that deck is consistent. But that's a bad example, since it shouldn't exist.

 

Dude. Stop acting like you are better than all of us. Either give us your mathematical proof for why this loop should be in the game, or just stop. It's getting tiresome.

[Resident Fascist]

I could list over 50 different loops which exist in the game. You want every single one of them banned as well? You want Flintlock banned?

 

You have this moronic phobia of the word "loop". You are playing a trading card game, a type of game which inherently carries a large of degree of luck, no matter what deck you're playing. If these so-called "loop decks" have a much lower probability of winning than what normal decks do (which they should, and do), then the problem is in your head, not with the decks.

 

I play Infernity, I ain't got no phobia of loops. Loops are only bad if Infinite and/or cause large irrepairable game state damage. Someone repeating the same action a few times to achieve a net result isn't a problem. Someone looping for a good hour to draw Exodia is. Guess what Elma does?

[Superdoopertrooper]

I play Infernity, I ain't got no phobia of loops. Loops are only bad if Infinite and/or cause large irrepairable game state damage. Someone repeating the same action a few times to achieve a net result isn't a problem. Someone looping for a good hour to draw Exodia is. Guess what Elma does?

Infernity loops are infinitely better than Elma loops because the deck doesn't necessarily have to loop to win, it's a bonus. And as if looping to get 3 Barriers, a Break, Doom Dragon and a Void Ogre is "repairable". And looping for an hour? The loop would take probably 3 minutes, if that, to draw your deck.

[Resident Fascist]

Infernity loops are infinitely better than Elma loops because the deck doesn't necessarily have to loop to win, it's a bonus. And as if looping to get 3 Barriers, a Break, Doom Dragon and a Void Ogre is "repairable". And looping for an hour? The loop would take probably 3 minutes, if that, to draw your deck.

 

Lrn2figureofspeech, also why the shit are you explaining my main deck to me? I never said Infernity loops were good for the game, quite the opposite, but the deck exists and I enjoy it so hence I will play it.