Duel Portal March Tournament Banlist [Discussion Thread]

[VampireofDarkness]

I'm not sure if I said this already, but since I just saw a situation of this happening and thus I feel like I should address it. I feel like cards such as Rekindling and Number 95 that essentially tell anyone designing that "You can't make *this* because *this* card exists". For example, Renkindling says you can't make FIRE monsters with 200 DEF despite being other valuable support for FIRE monsters with 200 DEF, such as Flamvell Counter, 95 essentially says "You cannot make a Dragon Deck", and DAD closing the door on DARK banishing support (Though imho I am completely fine with DAD staying, just an example)

[Love of Ghibli]

Also just to be clear this current tournament is a no EVO card tournament correct?

[-Noel-]

Also just to be clear this current tournament is a no EVO card tournament correct?

Yeah, EVO cards are not permitted in this tournament (and presumably all tournaments from now on) due to their natures.

[Cirrus]

DAD is fine because it's at 1 and isn't easily searched. DARK banishing support, if you're talking about effects that proc off of costs, are best used sparingly anyway since we have stuff like Dark Creator and Beginning of the End.

[Darj]

Correct, EVO cards shouldn't be allowed in the next tournament.

 

Anyways, I agree with Grandmaster in hitting cards that restrict card making, namely #95/Dark Matter Dragon and the previously mentioned Ptolemaios.

And while Dark Matter Dragon is harder to use since it needs a Dragon deck with access to Rank8s, it still screams of Dragon Ruler abuse.

But I'm not really concerned on Rekindling because if a DP archetype abuses it, their DEF can easily be changed; can't really say the same with Dark Matter Dragon, as turning an entire dragon archetype into Wyrms just to prevent Dark Matter abuse would be quite the drastic change and possibly conflict with flavor.

 

So, to recap:

 

Forbidden

Raigeki

Vanity's Emptiness

Skill Drain?

Ptolemaios?

 

Limited

Instant Fusion

Galaxy Cyclone? (Because of its "2 cards in 1" perk)

 

Book of Moon*

One for One*

 

 

* = In TCG they are Limited but in DP they are not. This is more of a reminder and to make "official" that they should be Limited.

[VampireofDarkness]

DAD is fine because it's at 1 and isn't easily searched. DARK banishing support, if you're talking about effects that proc off of costs, are best used sparingly anyway since we have stuff like Dark Creator and Beginning of the End.

DAD was just an example, however, in general you are correct. It just was the first thing I could think up off the top of my head cause see member title

Correct, EVO cards shouldn't be allowed in the next tournament.

Anyways, I agree with Grandmaster in hitting cards that restrict card making, namely #95/Dark Matter Dragon and the previously mentioned Ptolemaios.
And while Dark Matter Dragon is harder to use since it needs a Dragon deck with access to Rank8s, it still screams of Dragon Ruler abuse.
But I'm not really concerned on Rekindling because if a DP archetype abuses it, their DEF can easily be changed; can't really say the same with Dark Matter Dragon, as turning an entire dragon archetype into Wyrms just to prevent Dark Matter abuse would be quite the drastic change and possibly conflict with flavor.

So, to recap:

Forbidden
Raigeki
Vanity's Emptiness
Skill Drain?
Ptolemaios?

Limited
Instant Fusion
Galaxy Cyclone? (Because of its "2 cards in 1" perk)

Book of Moon*
One for One*


* = In TCG they are Limited but in DP they are not. This is more of a reminder and to make "official" that they should be Limited.

I'm all for these outside of Cyclone, as the killing off Vanity makes the card much less impactful since we don't have a card that if you don't destroy, you instantly lose to. I would rather see its impact before hitting it immediately. Also, we should message Sea about fixing that

[Cirrus]

Galaxy Cyclone is quite a bit more situational than MST - great for the sidedeck but not always for the maindeck. Why would you run Galaxy Cyclone except to keep down floodgates and Field Spells (which is generally fine)? It's a Normal Spell and thus lacks a bunch of the vectors of play that MST does, plus if you want to instantly kill a floodgate you have to wait a turn compared to MST.

 

Why not Limit Vanity and Drain? That's what happened to Macro and D-Fissure and they're barely a problem. IIRC Drain is Limited in the OCG.

 

I vote that Dark Hole be brought back to 1 in light of Raigeki getting hit.

 

I don't necessarily agree on the lack of hit to Rekindling; the 200 DEF bar is much, much more relevant than one would think - plus, as Tricky mentioned, it makes it so that other support can't be used (he mentioned Flamvell Counter in Pyranger's thread). Why does it even exist? I'd rather a card like this replace Rekindling in daily usage: [square bracketed expansion of use optional]

 

Stoke the Flames

Normal Spell

Target up to 2 FIRE monsters with 200 [or lower?] DEF in your Graveyard; Special Summon those targets, but their effects are negated and they cannot attack. During the End Phase, send any monsters Special Summoned by this effect to the Graveyard.

[Darj]

Well, I once read some sort of "0 or 3" logic going for floodgates hits, which is why I suggest them to be forbidden, but I'm not against testing a Semi-Limit/Limit first.

 

On Rekindling, as long as players don't abuse the 200 DEF in FIREs, I think it should be fine, and it can remain as a cute pseudo-Soul Charge if used with moderation (e.g. a FIRE archetype with a single 200 DEF monster). Sure, they won't have access to support like the aforementioned Flamvell Counter, but they shouldn't miss them either and if someone wants those cards that badly, they can always make archetype variants of them instead.

[Cirrus]

I understand your reasoning, but I just want to note that Rekindling has seen play in degenerate combo decks in the past, which is why I am rather concerned about its uses in an archetype. (Oh right it was Lavals.dek. With Quasar. Heat Transmission Wave -> Lavals -> random Synchro plays for basically free, 5 targets in Graveyard.) Flamvell Counter and its friends are pretty mediocre to bad if unreliable, but it being reliable significantly ups the abuse potential for Rekindling, which is, well... not the best, to say the least. Plus the monsters from Rekindling can both use effects and attack (the latter you can't do with Soul Charge) and can be pulled at any time, as opposed to Soul Charge's 1k LP per monster cost and skipping the Battle Phase. 

 

My "Pretty OK Rekindling Lite" shuts out abuse cases while being less punishing (doesn't banish at eot), so in reasonable situations it's, uh, pretty okay. It could even not negate the effect and would still be balanced.

[VampireofDarkness]

My beef with limiting Vanity is whereas Soul Drain and other floodgates are impossible to abuse and are more for holding back, Vanity has been abused in the fashion of Royal Oppression already, and drawing your 1 of Vanity is basically telling you "Ok, now I go all in so my opponent can't do a thing", which I think shouldn't be promoted whatsoever. I feel the same with Rekindling. I had a few matches against the Pyrangers and it was calm, but the moment Rekindling was drawn and played, dropped 4 monsters, and I quickly lost because I couldn't keep up

In light of the 200 DEF, I disagree with Counter itself being bad, but he does bring up a point and if you ask me, having such things keeps a positive thinking. If Rekindling was banned and FIRE Decks took the 200 DEF route here, I think we could see some interesting ways to put other said cards to work if there is anything that is potentially valuable.

[Darj]

Yeah, Lavals did awful things with Rekindling, but I doubt anyone would be fine with having a Quasar.dek in DP and would most likely be nerfed upon request.

I wouldn't call Flamvell Counter mediocre: it is basically a costless Dark Bribe, and that's pretty good in my opinion; personally, the less the deck that can use it, the better. Aside Counter, there are not many FIRE 200 DEF support worth of being played (Hedgehog and Poun?) so it's not like FIRE decks lose that much for not having 200 DEF.

 

Hmm... I will have to agree on this one. While FIRE DP archetypes can easily prevent Rekindling abuse by simply not having 200 DEF, that won't stop players from importing official cards that could potentially take advantage of it in combination with their archetypes; thus, Rekindling remains as a problem.

[VampireofDarkness]

Yeah, Lavals did awful things with Rekindling, but I doubt anyone would be fine with having a Quasar.dek in DP and would most likely be nerfed upon request.
I wouldn't call Flamvell Counter mediocre: it is basically a costless Dark Bribe, and that's pretty good in my opinion; personally, the less the deck that can use it, the better. Aside Counter, there are not many FIRE 200 DEF support worth of being played (Hedgehog and Poun?) so it's not like FIRE decks lose that much for not having 200 DEF.

Hmm... I will have to agree on this one. While FIRE DP archetypes can easily prevent Rekindling abuse by simply not having 200 DEF, that won't stop players from importing official cards that could potentially take advantage of it in combination with their archetypes; thus, Rekindling remains as a problem.

Yep! There are a ton of good FIRE supports and unlike say EARTH where you can eliminate most 95 synergy by making it Wyrm, FIRE has a lot of tools and 2 previously Tiered Decks of I recall correctly. One way or another it'll be an issue, so we just have to straight up say f that

[Cirrus]

I never said Counter itself was bad. What I did say was that Counter would be bad if you only had 1 target for it in an archetype, which is rather different; although Counter's not exactly amazing either, it's more "alright" to "pretty good". (Dark Bribe is basically terrible in anything but Counter Fairies, where it's ok.) You also missed one of the best pieces of 200 DEF support, also known as EL TIGRE aka Flamvell Firedog. What a baller card.

 

I also support my Rekindling-lite import alongside the banning of Rekindling; it's probably not mandatory but it's nice to have.

 

EDIT: Bring Noden to 1 or 0 please.

[Darj]

I guess we misunderstood you because you didn't mention you meant an archetype with a single 200 DEF FIRE.

I didn't bring Firedog because it works on monsters with 200 or less DEF, so you could give your FIREs 0~100 DEF for Firedog support without benefiting from Rekindling.

Dark Bribe is bad because of the cards draw for the opponent; take that out and you get a solid card vs. backrow AND Spell cards, which can ruin the day to Ritual and Fusion-based decks.

 

Not a fan of your Rekindling-lite because it is a Bujincarnation/Advanced Heraldry Art/etc. for FIREs; with such card available, and at 3, pretty much all FIRE DP archetypes will want their monsters with 200 DEF, and we will have the Rekindling syndrome (so to speak) all over again.

[Self-Destruct Button]

I hope any pray this card will be banned from or severely altered before the tourney. It kills every Archetype there ever is, and only affects your opponent. Bringing this up because it's on DP, and every card on DP is supposed to be "fair game", as such was said.

 

Edit: It has been altered to affect both players and be a trap right after my post. Yay.

[Cirrus]

It's intended as a stand-in for Rekindling so that existing decks aren't negatively affected by it (most notably any Flamvell decks, but also Fire Kings). Even Pyrangers, after losing their Rekindling. DP archetypes should not attempt to abuse it, as it plays a similar role to Rekindling - it's a design choice -they- make when abusing it, and occupies the same niche as Rekindling without being broken. With your argument, why even have RotA? Why have good generic support at all? The most overpowered archetype will just abuse all the best support. It's a design choice that can be tuned.

 

It's not much of an issue either way though. I don't mind.

[Darj]

My main point was that a Rekindling-lite would have a similar effect to original Rekindling (encourage players to make 200 DEF FIREs in order to use/abuse it, etc.), and I thought that by banning Rekindling the idea was to make 200 DEF FIREs less abusable; a Rekindling-lite certainly wouldn't contribute to that. I can see the replacement argument, but is it really necessary? Fire Kings and Pyrangers shouldn't need this nor original Rekindling in order to function; Flamvell variants may need it, though, even if they are not as relevant.

 

Also, I'm not saying good generic support shouldn't be allowed: stuff like ROTA, Salvage, etc. should be fine; but I would say that this Rekindling-lite is at a different level than those cards: as long as they have 200 DEF, it can even revive beaters, plus unlike Salvage it straight Summons them.

[Cirrus]

It can't revive beaters because the monsters can't attack, and their effects are also negated. Did you even read the card I posted? I liked the comparison to Bujincarnation etc but c'mon. You have to use it for a Synchro / Xyz play or use it as fodder for, say, Fire King Fire Cycle, and that's about it. They still get dumped to the 'yard at EOT, just not banished.

[VampireofDarkness]

Shouldn't we update this now since we have discussed some things already, I don't see it in the main thread. As it stands now:

 

Banned:

Number 95: Galaxy Eyes Dark-Matter Dragon?

Planetellarknight Ptolemaios

Raigeki

Rekindling

Skill Drain

Vanity's Emptiness

 

Limited:

Instant Fusion

Book of Moon*

One for One*

[Darj]

I did overlook that it stopped attacks, but you later mentioned that it would still be balanced if it didn't negate effects, so I took the latter into consideration. Plus if said beater has a cute float/grave effect, it would trigger at the end of the turn. But, you can make the card and see how it does in DP; I don't really mind; if it does end a a problem, it can be fixed/nerfed/scrapped/etc.

 

 

Back to topic, yeah, it would be neat if the OP was updated with the list of the hits and suspects.

And to bring something to discussion: Thoughts on "Mask Change II"?

It is dangerous card in my opinion because, similar to Ptolemaios, it enables decks to splash Masked HEROes, and some of them can be truly disruptive, such as Dark Law. It does need ED space dedication and the card itself can be costly with the discard, but I think Dark Law is worth the trouble, plus if a floater is used for the tribute, the cost can be mitigated.

[宇佐見 蓮子@C94]

Alright, updated the OP. As for Mask Change II, the main problem is deck space dedication, but yeah, I see where you're coming from. It allows Dark Law for, like every DARK deck on DP. I don't think it's dangerous enough to warrant a hit, but Dark Law for everyone is definitely a problem.

[Cirrus]

Can we not hit every card that people don't like playing against?

 

Instant Fusion isn't a problem unless Noden is taken into account. Thus, ban Noden if you think it's the problem (and it largely is) since nobody is playing Lovecraft.dek. Otherwise Instant Fusion is quite balanced. If Mask Change II interacts poorly (as you seem to think it does) with floaters, then that's the floater's problem and not Mask Change II's. It costs 2 other cards to make a Masked HERO! How would this even require a hit at all? I thought the goal of the banlist was to hit cards that would otherwise define formats, and I wouldn't even run Mask Change II in every deck that ran DARK monsters because it's not always worth the investment; it's certainly worth some consideration in single-attribute decks but never always even a good choice.

 

EDIT: Number 95 makes Mythic Rulers better. I'd like to see what the OCG does with Ptolemaios and it in April, as Mythic Ruler w/ No 95 is vastly superior in the OCG. However, I doubt it's actually good enough to even reach tier 1 and any build with it seems like the deck itself'd get stopped by a decent side deck or some disruption (which people don't seem to run much of).

 

I still think Vanity and Drain should be tried at one first.

[VampireofDarkness]

I did overlook that it stopped attacks, but you later mentioned that it would still be balanced if it didn't negate effects, so I took the latter into consideration. Plus if said beater has a cute float/grave effect, it would trigger at the end of the turn. But, you can make the card and see how it does in DP; I don't really mind; if it does end a a problem, it can be fixed/nerfed/scrapped/etc.

 

 

Back to topic, yeah, it would be neat if the OP was updated with the list of the hits and suspects.

And to bring something to discussion: Thoughts on "Mask Change II"?

It is dangerous card in my opinion because, similar to Ptolemaios, it enables decks to splash Masked HEROes, and some of them can be truly disruptive, such as Dark Law. It does need ED space dedication and the card itself can be costly with the discard, but I think Dark Law is worth the trouble, plus if a floater is used for the tribute, the cost can be mitigated.

I'm on and off about this one. I would normally agree, but I saw no one play it in the tournament except Self Destruct Button. I saw people even talking about siding Xyz, but heard nothing about how good MCII was. I do agree that Dark Law is a pretty busted card, but perhaps we are both missing some sort of link that could be brought up by somebody else. I would love to hear from someone who could have used it explain why they didn't

I did overlook that it stopped attacks, but you later mentioned that it would still be balanced if it didn't negate effects, so I took the latter into consideration. Plus if said beater has a cute float/grave effect, it would trigger at the end of the turn. But, you can make the card and see how it does in DP; I don't really mind; if it does end a a problem, it can be fixed/nerfed/scrapped/etc.

 

 

Back to topic, yeah, it would be neat if the OP was updated with the list of the hits and suspects.

And to bring something to discussion: Thoughts on "Mask Change II"?

It is dangerous card in my opinion because, similar to Ptolemaios, it enables decks to splash Masked HEROes, and some of them can be truly disruptive, such as Dark Law. It does need ED space dedication and the card itself can be costly with the discard, but I think Dark Law is worth the trouble, plus if a floater is used for the tribute, the cost can be mitigated.

I'm on and off about this one. I would normally agree, but I saw no one play it in the tournament except Self Destruct Button. I saw people even talking about siding Xyz, but heard nothing about how good MCII was. I do agree that Dark Law is a pretty busted card, but perhaps we are both missing some sort of link that could be brought up by somebody else. I would love to hear from someone who could have used it explain why they didn't

[Cirrus]

Mask Change II is using 3 cards to get 1 card (Dark Law or Koga or whatever - Acid also seems to be pretty good). Not everyone can afford to do this. In fact a lot of people can't. The power of MCII is being vastly overestimated - like it's good, but it's not -that- good as to warrant any hits.

[宇佐見 蓮子@C94]

Eh, I think we're mostly just worried about Dark Law, not MCII. Nobody is overestimating its power, because it requires main and extra deck dedication to use, which you can barely afford in the last tourney what with 3x MST being a staple. I could've used it in Mikos to summon Koga, but I didn't because I need the ED to fit my toolbox of Rank 4s.