Lavaval Chain

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

2 Level 4 monsters

Once per turn: You can detach 1 Xyz Material from this card to activate 1 of these effects;

● Send 1 card from your Deck to the Graveyard.

● Choose 1 monster from your Deck and place it on top of your Deck.

 

 

One of the most controversial bans on TCG side in my opinion. So summarize my thoughts on this, I'd like to reply to a comment that Black made in reaction to my criticism of this cards banning

 

 

I had a big ass post addressed to darkness, then it somehow got deleted when I brb'd, so I'mma tl;dr.

 

 

First off, there are many more decks that chain has been part of.

Clownblade (which had far more TCG prospect than OCG, pre-DOCS), which utilized both stacking AND milling, in addition to being comprised entirely of cards too new to a product cycle to be hit, with the limit not being enough.

Nekroz

Volcanic was relevant, and is another example of the stacking power

Assorted FTKs. No, you cannot write them off as "but not good", because, eventually, it would get an FTK that's good.

 

You list 4 decks and claim that's all there is, and just refuse to acknowledge other decks of note. Then you're completely ignorant of why the stacking effect matters in Nekroz, while putting TCG players down for no f***ing reason.

 

You stack Jus OR side mosnters. Retaliating/Maxx, Veiler, Lancea, and so forth. And what else does this do? You summon Valk, you sack Valk and Chain, you draw your side card +1 more, then you search with your Ritual Spells from the grave. It's in no way comparable to Upstart+Chain.

 

The Stratos argument is just you, as usual, trying to divert an argument in order to bolster your own. Why you do this every time is beyond me.

 

The Dragon Ruler argument is just out of place. It's not comparable. The fact that Lavalval Chain makes tons of good cards even better... Doesn't mean it's not the problem.

 

This isn't a perfect f***ing world. You and Mido need to stop f***ing acting like decks that come around are going to be balanced. Lavalval Chain has the power to make or break a deck by being the enabler it needs. Without Chain, Infernity f***ing suck. Sure, the Igknightfernity deck is a thing, but it never showed much. It has tons of potential, but it's exactly the same boat as Chain. 

 

Chain increases the consistency and power of decks that can use it exponentially. And limiting it does not solve the problem, as many of those decks only need 1, though they'd want more for sure.

 

And the second half of the Ruler argument is also half-assed, considering you ignore product cycles. It has nothing to do with game health or anything, but cards are given lifespans. As long as they make money in some way, or their set is a certain amount of new, they live.

 

Dark Matter Dragon comes across very much planned, and given how Mythic Rulers were a thing, they planned to use it to milk the rulers one final bit before killing them. That's why they lasted so long. And even then, they got hit repeatedly WITHIN their product cycle, to calm them down a bit. Banned? No, they still made money, but semi'd and limited.

 

It was banned because limiting it does not eliminate it. You seem to ignore this fact, and choose to overlook it in order to advance your argument, but it doesn't work.

 

You know what else Chain actually breaks? Clownblade. When you can use Clownblade as  stupidly efficient R4 engine, there's an issue. Hell, it's efficient as hell without Chain in a number of places, OCG just wasn't as innovative with it. With it, it is an absurdly consistent engine, in addition to the assorted buffs the varying Clown engines offer.

 

And a card doesn't even have to "Break" a deck to be broken, anyways. Lavalval Chain is a generic pseudo-searcher for decks that can use it... but in a way that's better than that. Milling is far stronger in the decks that use it than a search. It's easy as piss to make, it can set you up for an entire game after 1-2 uses, and it puts you in an infinitely better position than the opponent. This has nothing to do with breaking a deck, this has to do with accelerating and empowering decks beyond what they should be. It didn't "break" Infernity, but damn if it didn't give it the power and consistency it needed.

 

That is as far as comparability to Stratos goes. One of these is an extremely consistent and generic searcher. The other is a maindeck monster you have to NS to make and only works in one deck.

 

A better comparison is Foolish Burial. It has to be drawn, it's not as versatile, and it's limited. Lavalval Chain is far more generic than Foolish ("but R4 only!" isn't a thing, most things can R4), far more efficient, and it's actually versatile.

 

You try to point out how cards it interacts with are unfair... That is f***ing Yu-Gi-Oh! you moron. Hell, that's f***ing card games. If everything is fair and fine, then the game is boring as s***. And YGO uses the accelerated level of unfairness as its draw, as it enables you to play very strongly. It's not a problem with the game or anything, just how it is.

 

Lavalval Chain is the glue that ties unfair cards together. Seraphs and Clowns have nothing to do together without Chain, yet they're absurd together. Hell, the only deck that CAN use Seraphs is Shaddolls. They're not fair cards, but without being able to dump them/revive them or some new way to search them, they're clunky and more likely to COST games than win them, given how s*** a card Chair is.

 

And no, the clowns do not have problems on their own. At least, not Damage Juggler, Hat Tricker, and Trick Clown. Trick Clown is only broken while Chain exists (or Shaddoll Fusion, but different story altogether). It's just a good card without it. Same for Damage Juggler, and Hat Tricker is a little generic but not a problem card. Foolish in multiples would boost the deck, but that's still not as strong as even 1 Chain makes it.

 

And I forget where you said this, but Nekroz isn't a "problem deck". It's a fine deck to compete against. Sure, some people feel the format is boring with how stagnant it's become on the whole, but that doesn't mean Nekroz is a problem. It's the best deck, but it's hardly something that a myriad of other decks can't compete against, and this just seems to be something you cannot grasp, no matter how hard you try. Chain and Djinn were the major problems, and Trish is a b****, but it is not a problem on the whole.

 

To wrap this up:

You keep trying to argue with a subset of decks to make your point, but all it does is come across as a shallow attempt to bolster your point within your own area, instead of stepping onto the grand stage.

 

You need to stop f***ing bashing TCG. You're posting in a section for TCG, yet all you do is whine about it. Go post somewhere with OCG sections. I appreciate when you give valid insight, but you spend so much God damn time whining, it's impossible to take you seriously. And others here are guilty of similar... but guess what? They're also impossible to take seriously.

 

It wasn't a senseless ban, and I don't give a f*** about Ravine. It was a completely sensible ban, as limiting it did almost nothing, and it was too good at what it did.

 

 

Ok, let's start at the top of the list. You listed a few more decks in which Chain has been relevant in. That's fair. Clownblade is a problem with Chain for the simple reason that you can stack Seraphs and create the blade combo and essential turn chain into a free +1.

 

The problem here is not with the Clown, although Juggler being limited will be necessary due to the impacts of m&m's

 

Definitely not the fault of Blades. I personally feel the + potential of Stick/Chair is just too powerful and makes any 3 material rank 4 problematic. Granted TCG never had to deal with Stick Chair Shock, but Stick Chair Infinity will hopefully prove my point. I think it's quite unfair to pin the Stick Chair combo on Lavaval's stacking.

 

Without fully functional Seraphs, I think you would find that Chain in CB isn't all that devastating, a power play? Sure.

 

Volcanic are relevant the same way Heroes are in TCG, when they can make top 16 often, then I will admit that they are relevant. Many decks CAN use Chain. Hell Shaddolls can use it with Noden can't they? The query was how many deck has Chain been vital in create a meta shifting effect in.

 

I think you will find my original calculation will stand there, with the addition of nekroz. 

 

Now, I do owe an apology here as I came off a little too biting on TCG with regards to the banning of chain, it was never my intention to criticize the players or to the decisions made to the degree that came out, I am not a subtle person, and I will work on that fault.

 

Now lets get to Nekroz in a Djinn-less world, (for the record, not a fan of banning the Djinn, as Nekroz will remain a problem regardless of that slap on the wrist, but less sidetracking)

 

Ju stacking or the stacking of side cards: This is not that much stronger than Upstart + Chain due to the simple fact it involves more cards. Yes you get one extra card of the draw, but it also requires you 1) Special Summon 2 monsters 2) Succeed at TWO monster effects, which even in TCG's limited (not a negative qualifier) trap line up won't be a give in a post Notice world.

 

Upstart is much harder to stop as it's less easy to read, you might not want to veiler a Chain, but the moment you see the valk summon, you will be able to read that play, upstart, or even lizard draw is a little more difficult to read from the start, which is why I made that comparison.

 

Was I ignorant? Sure, I knew of the play, but it's not been very dominant in OCG, mainly due to the OCG trend to run multiple Djinns and not use the stack effect and the OCG trend (pre-october list) to only run 1-2 valks. And for this I will accept your criticism

 

The Stratos argument was not me trying to divert the argument at all. It may not have been the strongest argument as Stratos is rightfully banned in TCG, but idea was that:

 

Stratos was banned to allow a great many other cards to remain at 3. Based on OCG, these would include Shadow Mist, ROTA, and Malicious, (faulty argument here, and what I would have capitalized on a critique of my original post instead of accusing me of deviating, Stratos should be banned for the second effect, not the first, but deviating)

 

Similar with Chain, banning Chain to save cards such as Stick Chair or Norden, or soon to be CB ft. Ptolo/Infinity is not sound in my eyes. Why? The amount of decks those three card will be problematic in will be more than those Chain are problematic in.

 

The Dragon Ruler comparison is very valid. Instant Noden making Lavaval a free foolish in Shaddolls is more an attest to Norden being a degenerate free R4. Lavaval being able to stack a stick for chair effect or such is an attest to how potent the stick chair engine is. Will it shine like it did in OCG with 3 Soul Charge, Reborn, and Shock, likely not, but I'll be damned if it doesn't make Ptolo/Infinity good. To get back on topic, it's not about making good cards better, basically ever shaddoll is a good card, its about making broken cards, more reliable, ei. Noden, Stick/Chair

 

No, this isn't a perfect world, I don't think I ever said that, or even implied it, (please correct me if I am incorrect in this claim). Now a hypothetical deck that's utter trash without Chain, but suddenly becomes amazing due to it. This might be a reason to ban chain, but I don't think such a deck exists. Seraph Clown Blade? Maybe. But I think I have explained my opinion on where the problem lies there. Which leads to the question, should you ban a card that is perfectly fair in many more decks than it is broken in one? In which case you're hanging the masses for the actions of one meta deck. However since you're already counting many non meta decks in Chain's list of crimes, you really cannot have it both ways, do you care about the Meta or the game "health" from a distance?

 

I'm going to assume that I will hear a Future Fusion reference here (cause I have heard this one before)? Not comparable. Future Fusion being tame in Disaster Dragon does not excuse it since there were two meta decks at the time (Alive Heroes and Chaos Dragons) quiet good in a third meta deck (Hieratics pitch the normals) and would have been godly in future meta decks like Rulers or Shaddolls or even BA. Being 5x foolish burial is not in anyway comparable to what chain can do. If you were not going to make the Future fusion argument, please disregard this paragraph.

 

Many decks would use Chain? Sure, many decks would use most of the R4 tookbox anyway, when will the ban Castel train depart sir? How many decks break chain and negatively impact the meta? Not. that. f***ing. many.

 

In a stick chairless world, in a world where Nekroz would actually get hits to the engine, I think you will find that your clownblade deck is far less potent and that the valk chain play is quite subpar. But by all means, if you think that leaving Unicore at 3, and moving Brio to 2 is not the reason for Nekroz's consistency and that a half-ass play in a post Djinn word with Chain is, then so be it.

 

I will not disagree with you that chain can chain together decks that otherwise would lack it, but I think you will once again find it quite difficult to find me a deck that chain can glue together that was not already quite strong (Nekroz) or had a strong component built into it (Seraphs)

 

Infernity show Chain's benevolence the best. The deck fell apart post Arch limit with or without chain. Chain's consistency and glue could not save it. Hell the deck fell apart post Soul Charge limit, and you could have kept arch at 3 and nothing would happen. HELL, even with barrier at 3 the deck can't perform. Why? Chain is f***ing fragile, relying on it to be glue is pathetic and not going to carry a meta deck unless the deck already had potential. 

 

The problem is not with chain, or any of the mages in the context of clown blade, remove Noden, Stick Chair, and Ptolo/CDI, and show me a clown deck that can go head to head with meta. m&m's for the record are not a "clown" deck since the problem there lies with Wizard +Mascot and the deck works without chain due to the Pal draw engine post bosh.

 

It was banned because simply put, Tewart wanted to make money off the soon to come Insta/Noden, not hit their meta decks, and have some odd fetish for stick chair.

 

Nekroz aren't a problem deck? Can you get the majority of the players to corroborate that claim? Cause it seems that Nekroz are the bane of most decks from the ranting of TCG players in general. Also is it not the best performing deck? THAT IS A PROBLEM Black. (I'm curious on how Trishula went from THE PROBLEM card in Nekroz alongside Djinn, July banlist banters, to being just a b****.

 

Now here is where I will criticize a trend I have seen among TCG players. Y'all are too damn dramatic in a lot of cases, which is where I think chain got hanged in, remember when Goyo got unbanned, everyone was up in arms? Or about White Trishula? If the TCG r/d was more willing to experiment, the players might realize that this will hold true with quite a few cards)

 

Rant/

 

In conclusion, please move Chain to one, it's not the damn problem

 

[Lizardonx]

I see it as similar to ptolemaeus.

 

No one ever wins a game because of ptolamaeus himself, but because of what he ranks up into.

 

Chain by itself may not seem too bad, it just enables too many decks both broken and not and people will find more and more ways to abuse it as the cardpool increases. It limits future card design.

[Tinkerer]

(Requesting an update to the rant with the new banlist)

 

I don't personally have a real opinion on whether it should be banned or not, but the fact that it is an on-demand foolish is what gets me. Also, since putting it down to one doesn't really remedy that fact, it really is just an on-off switch in my opinion.

[TheTurtleOnceCalledGod]

Personally, I'm glad it is gone. Is it easier to kill everything that can abuse the hell out of it, or kill one card to weaken a ton of decks which are degenerate overpowered through use of grave mechanics.