[OCG] September 2013 Banlist.

[El Majishan]

It's not bad for slow decks to be viable, but slow =! backrow dependant. The reason the game is so fast is because there's no stoppers on how many monsters you can play in a turn. That's how you slow down the fucking game. The thing with S/Ts is that you can always play as many of them in a turn as you want, including setting 5. It's more mindless than having the option between monster a and monster b because you only get 1 NS a turn. March 2011 is the perfect example of this, really. In general, decks were overall slow because they had to adapt to the lack of heavy and it created a degenerate spiral, where more and more decks were resorting to heavier and heavier backrows. When traps rule the format, very few people are happy with the game.
 
Trunade is ONLY there for the OTK, it has no other actual use outside of incidental value.

 

While I do agree that Trunde is bad for the game and leads to OTK (so does Heavy Storm btw), I actually happen to enjoy heavy back row formats as it slows down the game and it forces you to think in order to play around their set cards. I absolutely LOVED the Saber format for this very reason (even though cold wave was derp). The game has enough back row hate to go without Heavy (MST, Night Beam, Tarp Stun, Lance, Dust Tonado, Twister, ect ect)

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

If you want to slow down the game, stop with the degenerate monsters in stead. It's simple and doesn't cause the game to degenerate in the other direction, but to balance out.

[Aerion Brightflame]

While I do agree that Trunde is bad for the game and leads to OTK (so does Heavy Storm btw), I actually happen to enjoy heavy back row formats as it slows down the game and it forces you to think in order to play around their set cards. I absolutely LOVED the Saber format for this very reason (even though cold wave was derp). The game has enough back row hate to go without Heavy (MST, Night Beam, Tarp Stun, Lance, Dust Tonado, Twister, ect ect)

 

It's not mass backrow removal. Which is the difference. Mass backrow removal punishes people who overextend without protection. 1 for 1 removal does not. Heavy causing OTK's is an acceptable side effect compared to the good it does. Namely preventing the attrition based formats, and putting more skill into the game overall.

 

To slow the game down, you don't promote more backrow ,you slow it down by hitting decks that are far to quick. Namely consitent OTK's and the like. It keeps the game healthy and slow.

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

Namely preventing the attrition based formats, and putting more skill into the game overall.

No, this is the fault of the monsters, not Heavy.

Attrition is one of the most skillful of ultimatums, since it actually requires players to value their cards properly, and understand how and why card advantage is a powerful thing, which is exactly what a lot of yugioh players don't understand.

[.Leo]

I would honestly rather have Heavy Storm then Trunade, because the meta game is going to be extremely trap heavy and ridiculous.

 

Honestly I think Evilswarm might the top tier deck going into next format, maybe Agents could do well again, at least that is what I will be playing.

[DarkWithin9867]

Heavy has won so many games, for me and my opponents. 1 for up to 6 is a very unfair advantage, and the whole point of spells/traps (more of just traps, and I play trap-heavy decks) is to set them. The ability to wipe that danger out with one cost-free move is game-breaking.

Allow me to compare the format to something similar.

A new, expensive restaurant opens up, and a few people try it in hopes that it'll be good. When it is, they tell their friends, and their friends will continue this cycle until the restaurant's popularity skyrockets.

A while later, after this, a new restaurant opens across the street. A few people try it and like it, but most of them prefer the one across the street, which has been popular and is incredible. Eventually, that restaurant opens up more locations and spreads to more people. The trouble is, only those who can afford it can enjoy it. The others are forced (be it laziness, a dead-end job, whatever,) to eat at the less popular, lower quality restaurant. Some like it, but most go there because they can't afford to go to the bigger chain.

Eventually, the less popular, lower quality restaurant will go out of business.

Do you see the analogy I'm trying to make? The trouble is a lack of balance in this game. People on a smaller budget who can't afford the heavy-hitting T1 decks suffer because their weaker cards have no chance. Something has to be done to restore some resemblance of balance.

The same goes for individual cards that have too much power. They need to be weakened to restore balance and open up the game to more people, which will in the long run result in more money for Konami. Everybody wins!

[Therrion]

I believe Heavy needs to be limited, honestly. Trunade is just OTK fuel, while Heavy, as stated before, actually punishes over extension and thus players won't lay down their whole hand in the backrow. Set 5 go format is behind us, and I hope for damn certain it stays that way.

Heavy, a psychological card of which dissuades overextension > Trunade, a card only for the OTK/Push that doesn't punish over extension.

 

@DarkWithin

Were you playing the set 5 go format? It was boring, stupid, and whole duels were decided by traps and traps alone. If they banned Heavy, it'd spiral back into that. As it stands, you set 2, which for a good player should be enough. If not, run Starlight Road/other mass destruction prohibitors. Oh, and Heavy isn't expensive at all.

[DarkWithin9867]

So screw all decks that are backrow-heavy? Speed the format up even more?

I don't approve of mass removal cards in general, but heavy hits close to home when you have a trap-heavy play style.

And set 5 go is an extreme that, even without heavy OR Trunade, wouldn't happen with the immense amount of balanced 1-for-1 and 1-for-2 cards. If Heavy Storm came with a decent cost (sure it destroys your backrow as well, but if you're smart you play heavy THEN set backrow) that balanced the damage it can do to your opponent this wouldn't be a problem.

[El Majishan]

No, this is the fault of the monsters, not Heavy.

Attrition is one of the most skillful of ultimatums, since it actually requires players to value their cards properly, and understand how and why card advantage is a powerful thing, which is exactly what a lot of yugioh players don't understand.

 

Took the words right out of my mouth. Good job sir.

 

Being able to play out an attrition based game is something that takes a lot more skill than say "heavy storm/trunade push for game." As LaDD said it forces you to value your cards when making a play. With heavy back row you have to anticipate that they have an answer to your play, therefor knowing which cards to used in order to bait out their answers without losing too much advantage is key to winning.

 

Also mass backrow removal is not something that is needed when we can have cards that simply stun the back row for a turn. The best example I can think of is Trap Stun. This is card IMO is one of the best designed back row control cards to date. It does not punish you for protecting yourself yet it gives a player blanket protection against traps (leaving Quick Play Spells as an option for the defending player) the turn it is activated unlike Heavy that just says "fuck your two set cards, I'm going for game"

[.Leo]

So screw all decks that are backrow-heavy? Speed the format up even more?

I don't approve of mass removal cards in general, but heavy hits close to home when you have a trap-heavy play style.

 

You can play trap heavy decks in formats with Heavy Storm. You just don't set 5 go, you have to be smarter with your traps.

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

Took the words right out of my mouth. Good job sir.
 
Being able to play out an attrition based game is something that takes a lot more skill than say "heavy storm/trunade push for game." As LaDD said it forces you to value your cards when making a play. With heavy back row you have to anticipate that they have an answer to your play, therefor knowing which cards to used in order to bait out their answers without losing too much advantage is key to winning.
 
Also mass backrow removal is not something that is needed when we can have cards that simply stun the back row for a turn. The best example I can think of is Trap Stun. This is card IMO is one of the best designed back row control cards to date. It does not punish you for protecting yourself yet it gives a player blanket protection against traps (leaving Quick Play Spells as an option for the defending player) the turn it is activated unlike Heavy that just says "fuck your two set cards, I'm going for game"

Mass backrow removal is a brilliant part of attrition. Obviously, only at 1, though. It makes you actually have to value your S/Ts too, which seems to be something you missed.

[DarkWithin9867]

(I added to my above post)
The point it, mass removal isn't a necessity. It's an easy way out that allows massive turnarounds and undeserved wins. Like I said, set 5 go is an extreme that won't come back unless most of our balanced removal also leaves.

[El Majishan]

I believe Heavy needs to be limited, honestly. Trunade is just OTK fuel, while Heavy, as stated before, actually punishes over extension and thus players won't lay down their whole hand in the backrow. Set 5 go format is behind us, and I hope for damn certain it stays that way.

Heavy, a psychological card of which dissuades overextension > Trunade, a card only for the OTK/Push that doesn't punish over extension.

 

@DarkWithin

Were you playing the set 5 go format? It was boring, stupid, and whole duels were decided by traps and traps alone. If they banned Heavy, it'd spiral back into that. As it stands, you set 2, which for a good player should be enough. If not, run Starlight Road/other mass destruction prohibitors. Oh, and Heavy isn't expensive at all.

 

 

The problem with Heavy is that, based on the game state, even setting 2 may not be enough with all the back row hate we already have. There are time where you would get double mst'd and lose use because you didn't set the 3 card due to the fear of being Heavy'd. 

 

Playing around backrow is one of the most satisfying ways to win a game, it leads you to believe you actually outplayed your opponent with skill and intelligent moves. The mind game Heavy provides may have been a valid argument when we had a lack of back row hate, but now that we don't, it's hardly something.

[.Leo]

(I added to my above post)
The point it, mass removal isn't a necessity. It's an easy way out that allows massive turnarounds and undeserved wins. Like I said, set 5 go is an extreme that won't come back unless most of our balanced removal also leaves.

 

It will happen with Trunade, because people won't be afraid of their cards being destroyed by Heavy Storm. Heavy Storm is better for the game than Giant Trunade and unfortunately Konami doesn't see it that way.

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

The problem with Heavy is that, based on the game state, even setting 2 may not be enough with all the back row hate we already have. There are time where you would get double mst'd and lose use because you didn't set the 3 card due to the fear of being Heavy'd. 
 
Playing around backrow is one of the most satisfying ways to win a game, it leads you to believe you actually outplayed your opponent with skill and intelligent moves. The mind game Heavy provides may have been a valid argument when we had a lack of back row hate, but now that we don't, it's hardly something.

Now, see, you're going from "Heavy is bad for the game" to "Playing a million backrow removal spells is good deckbuilding".

Neither of these are true. Just saying.

[DarkWithin9867]

I don't like Trunade either. I think they just wanted to compensate for the loss of Heavy Storm. In this Domination-Submission format (I'm calling it that because one side grabs advantage and it's pretty much over) Heavy is just an unnecessary benefit. It adds insult to injury more than anything.
We need to rewind the format somewhat. Not to set 5, but it needs to hit the brakes.

Also, only an idiot (or exodia player) sets 5. You set 4 so you have a zone to play any normal spells you may have in hand xD

[El Majishan]

Mass backrow removal is a brilliant part of attrition. Obviously, only at 1, though. It makes you actually have to value your S/Ts too, which seems to be something you missed.

 

Mass removal is not really attrition IMO. It's more like a reset button that puts the game back in your favor at little to no cost.  

[.Leo]

I don't like Trunade either. I think they just wanted to compensate for the loss of Heavy Storm. In this Domination-Submission format (I'm calling it that because one side grabs advantage and it's pretty much over) Heavy is just an unnecessary benefit. It adds insult to injury more than anything.
We need to rewind the format somewhat. Not to set 5, but it needs to hit the brakes.

Also, only an idiot (or exodia player) sets 5. You set 4 so you have a zone to play any normal spells you may have in hand xD

 

But if you pass the turn to your opponent you don't need that fifth slot and you are most likely going to use one of your five backrows that turn, so after dropping your entire hand, if you happen to draw a normal spell card, you can activate it.

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

Mass removal is not really attrition IMO. It's more like a reset button that puts the game back in your favor at little to no cost.  

But you only get one use, and it's not one-sided.

When you actually look at how and when to play Heavy Storm the proper way, the decision trees are endless and a lot of the time, people play it when it's not right to anyway, and throw away the game like that. It's a surprisingly skill intensive card, for both sides of the board.

[El Majishan]

Now, see, you're going from "Heavy is bad for the game" to "Playing a million backrow removal spells is good deckbuilding".

Neither of these are true. Just saying.

 

Now, see, I didn't say that. If heavy was to be banned people would just replace it with a Trap Stun or two...that hardly takes away from the current deck building model. The point I am making is that we have enough options to replace Heavy.

But you only get one use, and it's not one-sided.

When you actually look at how and when to play Heavy Storm the proper way, the decision trees are endless and a lot of the time, people play it when it's not right to anyway, and throw away the game like that. It's a surprisingly skill intensive card, for both sides of the board.

 

Just because people use a card poorly does not make it not one sided. When a good player uses Heavy it usually wins them the game then and there.

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

Now, see, I didn't say that. If heavy was to be banned people would just replace it with a Trap Stun or two...that hardly takes away from the current deck building model. The point I am making is that we have enough options to replace Heavy.

Trap Stun isn't nearly as quick or impactful as Heavy Storm is. It doesn't gain you any card advantage (actually the opposite) and doesn't stop absolutely everything they have permanently. It doesn't prevent them from overextending and clogs up your own deck while diluting from the goal it wishes to achieve. The same goes for decks playing 3 MST + other backrow removal. These cards are just 1-for-1 spells that don't actually forward your game plan and can be absolutely awful when you put too many of them in one deck. Unless you like just blowing up all their backrow while doing nothing.

[DarkWithin9867]

But if you pass the turn to your opponent you don't need that fifth slot and you are most likely going to use one of your five backrows that turn, so after dropping your entire hand, if you happen to draw a normal spell card, you can activate it.

True, true, but in my experience drawing for backrow is one of the worst dead hands imaginable.

So here's my point: It was losing mass removal, or losing individual removal. With both, the format was just too fast.

I personally miss the 2005 Control format where you locked your opponent down instead of wiping their field and OTKing. You can't do good control anymore.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Now, see, I didn't say that. If heavy was to be banned people would just replace it with a Trap Stun or two...that hardly takes away from the current deck building model. The point I am making is that we have enough options to replace Heavy.

 

That's because Heavy is seen primarly as an OTK enabler, and not as what it actually is, which is a tool to help punish overexertion. Stun does not do that, it's closer to Trunade in that regard than to Heavy. (Loose comparason I know, but it suits it's purpose)

 

Stun and Heavy do different things fundamently. One removes backrow as an element for one turn, allowing plays to be easier, and one punishes players who run to much backrow without considering protection, and again as Chris says, it's a very skill intensive card.

[DarkWithin9867]

I feel it actually removes an element of skill from the game because you don't have to think before you act. Drop Heavy and you're free to attack, summon, and play your own cards almost without fear of reprisal (unless they have a monster that can punish you for any of those actions.)

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

And then your Heavy is gone. Forever. You can no longer use it and your opponent no longer has to fear it. They can set as much backrow as they like and there's nothing you can do about it.