The Forbidden List From the Void ~ Improved!

[jamief]

darklord aerato dosn't need to be banned

[Exiro]

darklord aerato dosn't need to be banned

 

Nope, it doesn't need to be banned.

 

However, it surely deserves it.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

Ok' date=' but seriously, why shouldn't cards be semi'd? It significantly cuts the chances of drawing them.

[/quote']

 

The obligation of any player who supports an argument in favor of semilimiting a card...

 

is to successfully argue two points.

 

1) You must prove that the card needs that reduction in drawing.

 

2) You must also prove that the card does not need the same reduction as Limitation would give.

 

 

To date, you have not completely done either in this topic.

[Sander]

What the funk? D.D. Scout Plane limited? Seriously, what the funk are you on Void?

 

Give me a good reason why Scout Plane is limited, and don't bother with CCV or Macroplasmer.

[Void Old]

What the f***? D.D. Scout Plane limited? Seriously' date=' what the f*** are you on Void?

 

Give me a good reason why Scout Plane is limited, and don't bother with CCV or Macroplasmer.

[/quote']

 

I am on...a chair. XD

 

Scout Plane needs Limiting because it's so easy to remove it from play and get free Tribute fodder and also because of its repetitive summons in macro, which brings Monarchs out quite easily. It has the potential to become unlimited card advantage in Macro and gives huge field presence and card advantage when used with Allure/Dark Nephthys, etc.

 

Exiro:

Why the heck are D.D. Scout Plane, Elemental Hero Prisma, Fossil Dyna Pachycephalo, Reasoning, Reinforcement of the Army, and Royal Oppression limited?!

You haven't put a reason for any of them.

A good opponent should be able to deal with Pachycephalo and Oppression, at least something in the side deck.

Reasoning has a high chance to be a plain -1.

Please give reasons for these as well.

 

Void:

 

D.D. Scout Plane:

 

As I said to Elsandero, Scout Plane needs Limiting because it's so easy to remove it from play and get free Tribute fodder and also because of its repetitive summons in macro, which brings Monarchs out quite easily. It has the potential to become unlimited card advantage in Macro and gives huge field presence and card advantage when used with Allure/Dark Nephthys, etc.

 

Elemental Hero Prisma:

 

Very searchable and too good for Fusion Summons. Also to cut down on Herak a little without having to ban it.

 

Fossil Dyna Pachycephalo:

 

Many, if not the majority of summons are Special Summons, in the right deck, it can be Raigeki.

 

Royal Oppression:

 

A continuous Bottomless Trap Hole. Forcing eachj player to Normal Summon can be highly abused in Decks like gadgets etc to the point of unfairness.

 

Reasoning:

 

Turbo decks and Sixsam. Although with PoC out and Grandmaster limited I suppose I could unlimit it. I'll think about it.

 

Reinforcement of the Army:

 

Spell form of an improved Stratos effect. Too fast and too furious to be semi'd. This can search out half or more of many people's Decks.

 

Phaoroah Atem: [elegance]Arguments for Semi-Limiting or GTFO.[/elegance]

 

Allure of Darkness:

 

To keep DARK decks balanced. They'd have a really tough time were I to limit it, but they'd be too fast with it in threes. It's those tiny things that can make or break certain Decks, and an extra/1 less Allure could make or break DARK Decks. It's more balanced with it limited.

 

Book of Moon:

 

Essentially, it's Solemn's "little brother". It can prevent monsters from walking all over players since they'd need to be face-up for their effects to work, but lacks Solemn's removal and prevention of Spell/Trap Cards. In 3s, it would control the duel too well, and prevent too much, but in 2s, it's still a good card, but doesn't control the duel. If I were to limit it, players wouldn't have enough to stop effect monsters and attacks from overwhelming them, but in 2s it offers a balance. Players can't control the game but have enough to stop effects from walking all over them.

 

Cyber Dragon:

 

In 3s, we could see problems like the full revival of Cyber-Twin Dragon, which wouldn't be good with the speed in which Twins can OTK. It'd also give LIGHT decks too much field advantage and beatstick power, they have enough already from cards like Dimensional Alchemist, Jain, Garoth, Blue Thunder T-45, etc. In 1s, it'd kill Machine decks, and lower the chance of players who were getting beaten from making a comeback, duels wouldn't be as interesting. At 2, it's a compromise.

 

Destiny Draw:

 

As most of us know very well, the Destiny Hero Draw engine provided an insane amount of card advantage. This and Disk Commander were the main reasons. In 3s, you could run a Destiny engine and destroy any chances of a Deck without a Destiny engine from getting a hand advantage over you. As such, Destiny Draw couldn't be left alone. I was considering limiting it, but this would damage Destiny engines too much, and DARK Decks would lose their hand advantage over LS. With D-Draw and Allure at 2, DARK decks have 4 draw cards to LS's 3, Solar Recharges. The extra draw card makes up for LS's mill speed power, yet 1 extra draw card is enough. 2 D-Draws keeps balance vetween DARK Decks and LS, so they can still compete, but don't prevent other Decks from being able to compete.

 

Destiny Hero - Malicious:

 

It's Allurable, D-Drawable, and Special Summonable by its own effect, which is already good. In 3s, it's effectiveness is doubled since you get 2 Special Summons, but in 1s, it's effect doesn't work at all and it would be utterly useless.

 

I'll edit this post later as time permits.

[JesusofChaos™]

Pachy should be no where near the limit list. Anyone who sets pachy is a bad player

[「tea.leaf」]

I feel like killing this because it's so stupid.

 

Should I?

[CrabHelmet]

All of the bans are good.

 

All of the limits are bad.

 

EDIT: I misread. MOST of the bans are good. Not all.

[Void Old]

tea.leaf: I'd rather you not kill my thread. I worked hard on it, if you feel it's stupid please give me explanations on how to improve it.

 

Crab Helmet: Ah, I thought you were gone, nice to finally meet you. I've been meaning to ask you something, why are semi-limits pointless?

[CrabHelmet]

If a card is bad for the game at 3' date=' then [i']in general[/i] (I'll get to the exceptions in a moment) it is bad for the game at 1 or 2 as well. The majority of all cards in the game fall into this category, and thus are 3-or-0 cards. Konami throws around Limits and Semi-Limits like candy, because it believes that, if a card is seeing play, it should be available in fewer copies, as this will reduce the chance of drawing it. However, that card will still exist, and would still be able to hurt the game in the same manner; Semi-Limiting and Limiting generally tries to delay taking real action rather than providing a real solution.

 

Take Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning. At 3, it is unacceptable. But at 1, it can't be drawn consistently, so it should be Limited, since then it won't be as big a problem, right? Wrong. Why? Because it only takes one Black Luster Soldier to do what Black Luster Soldier does. Even if the problem's frequency has been reduced, the problem is still there.

 

This is actually a real-life example of this flawed thinking. Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning remained Limited for two years before Konami finally conceded its mistake and banned it in September 2005. (It took them another year to ban Chaos Sorcerer, which had until then been unlimited.)

 

In fact, Limiting and Semi-Limiting cards that are bad for the game increases their reliance on luck. Thus, it causes the game to reward luck over skill even more.

 

So why do we Limit cards? There are a few cards that are exempt from 3-or-0 logic for special reasons. These can be divided into three categories:

 

1) Cards that are too much at 3 but do provide some benefit to the game at 1.

2) Cards that combo unacceptably with another copy of themselves but that are otherwise fine.

3) Cards that can only be at 1 for gameplay reasons.

 

A good example of Case 1 is Mirror Force. At 0, there's insufficient punishment of reckless overextending and attacking; at 3, aggro in general is hurt too much to be viable, and OTKs are promoted. However, at 1, Mirror Force punishes overextending and encourages caution in attacking, but doesn't murder aggro. Because it provides additional benefit to the game at 1 that promotes skilled play, Mirror Force can stay legal.

 

A good example of Case 2 is Night Assailant. At 3, it can be used with a second copy of itself to provide limitless discard fodder. Even Sinister Serpent was not this strong; Sinister Serpent only replaces itself in the Standby Phase, but Night Assailant replaces itself instantly. However, at 1, this combo is impossible, so there's no reason to ban it.

 

A good example of Case 3 is Twin-Headed Behemoth. In fact, it's the only example that comes to mind; Case 3 essentially exists because of Twin-Headed Behemoth. However, if Konami makes another card that has problems comparable to those of Twin-Headed Behemoth, it might need to be Limited under Case 3 as well.

 

So, we have all of these reasons for Limiting. Is there any reason at all to Semi-Limit?

 

Yes and no.

 

In theory, Case 2 could be extended to apply to cards that combo unacceptably with two other copies of themselves. There are currently cards that combo with multiple other copies of themselves, including:

 

Thunder Dragon

Volcanic Scattershot

7

3-Hump Lacooda

 

However, no existing card that combos with multiple other copies of itself does so in a way that is harmful to the game, and therefore there is currently no need to Semi-Limit any cards.

 

However, Konami is still making cards, so it is possible that it could make a card like this at some point in the future:

 

 

In that case, Semi-Limiting could be appropriate. But given the current card pool, there is no call for it.

 

So yes, Semi-Limiting is theoretically viable, but no, no list made today should feature it.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

Allure of Darkness:

 

To keep DARK decks balanced.

 

Prove how Allure at 3 somehow "unbalances" DARK.dek when accompanied by the other changes you propose.

 

Also note that the term "balanced" is subjective' date=' and therefore vulnerable to various interpretations. Subjective arguments are not good enough to prove a case - you need to appeal to a higher standard to actually be worth listening to.

 

The whole "let's keep X balanced" argument is flawed via its susceptibility to interpretation, as concepts of balance themselves don't have any empirical weight.

 

Be smart and try a different angle - you have to prove why any other choice than 2x is "bad for the game"; the judgment of something being bad for the game or not... isn't open to interpretation, as unlike concepts of balance, folks can just be right or wrong about matters of whether or not something is good or bad for the game.

 

They'd have a really tough time were I to limit it,

 

No one smart cares. If a deck has a tough time without something bad-for-the-game helping them in multiples, well, the deck should have a tough time.

 

But you've not even given anything conclusive as to why Allure should not be at 3, let alone 1 or 0, so don't get hasty in your thought.

 

but they'd be too fast with it in threes.

 

Prove it. Prove how they are "too fast".

 

It's those tiny things that can make or break certain Decks' date='[/quote']

 

This is a contradiction in terms - It's a lie to ever describe the factors that create a deck's fundamental method of construction as "tiny".

 

and an extra/1 less Allure could make or break DARK Decks.

 

So what? You prove nothing here - you just waste time by saying a more elaborate version of the "it should be Semi'd for being a good card" argument' date=' which in and of itself is not able to prove anything.

 

It's more balanced with it limited.

 

Balanced in relation to what?

 

In relation to the other decks possible under your list? That's a laugh - all you've really done with this list is punish what you see as the present-day problems, which is no better than what Konami's been doing this whole time.

 

Frankly, your list is something Konami would probably enact, if it had the balls to do about twice the amount it usually does. We'd be no better off for it - Konami doesn't balance anything, so much as just kill what wins because it won a lot; and since your choices are nothing more than a sped-up version of Konami's own possible moves, your choices are effectively as worthless as theirs.

 

Oh, but you could have meant something else by the term "balanced" - but because you're being so demonstratively vague as to use terms like balanced (which may be interpreted in a huge fortitude of ways), there's a distinct possibility that you can't even be appreciably specific about exactly how 2x Allure is superior to any other amount.

 

This is why the "balance" argument falls apart - it's completely open to the weakness that is opposing interpretation. It's literally asking for the opposition to interpret balance in their own way, and then use that interpretation to shred yours. Because of that weakness, it's useless and a waste of our time; it proves nothing and instead creates a perpetual logical struggle.

 

It's smarter to just be definitive and end the need to deliberate in as few strokes as possible - this requires the abandonment of vague terms like "balance", and more factual, concrete, not-open-to-interpretation things.

 

We're waiting for you to actually create a carefully reasoned argument.

 

 

Book of Moon:

 

Essentially' date=' it's Solemn's "little brother".[/quote']

 

So what? You've proven nothing about

 

1) Whether or not this analogy is factual

 

2) Whether or not this analogy is relevant

 

3) Whether or not this analogy can be an effective part of a logically sound argument

 

(The answer is "no" to all three.)

 

It can prevent monsters from walking all over players since they'd need to be face-up for their effects to work' date='[/quote']

 

So what?

 

but lacks Solemn's removal and prevention of Spell/Trap Cards.

 

Welcome to why your analogy failed so hard.

 

In 3s' date=' it would control the duel too well, and prevent too much,[/quote']

 

Prove it

 

but in 2s' date=' it's still a good card, but doesn't control the duel.[/quote']

 

Prove it

 

If I were to limit it' date=' players wouldn't have enough to stop effect monsters and attacks from overwhelming them,[/quote']

 

Prove it

 

Notice a pattern?

 

You make a LOT of justification-requiring claims, but you don't justify a lot of them.

 

but in 2s it offers a balance.

 

There we go with that "balance" crap again.

 

Guess what? Some folks find "balance" at 3' date=' others at 1, and still others at 0.

 

Your "balance" point fails; stop using that useless stuff, and get concrete. Show us - prove to us with logic - that 2x is ideal.

 

Players can't control the game but have enough to stop effects from walking all over them.

 

Prove how 3x is a problem. You cite vague stuff like "control the game", and do no work further than that.

 

No, it is not obvious how 3x would be any sort of problem; in fact, it's mindnumbingly obvious that Book of Moon itself could not be a problem, simply because it depends on other cards so much that all problems traceable to Book are traceable to those others as well.

 

The key is proving that those other cards' existence in certain amounts... requires a cut for Book.

 

You have not done that; ergo your case is incomplete and is tossed out.

 

Cyber Dragon:

 

In 3s' date=' we could see problems like the full revival of Cyber-Twin Dragon, which wouldn't be good with the speed in which Twins can OTK.[/quote']

 

Prove to me how this requires that "Cyber Dragon" be punished.

 

It'd also give LIGHT decks too much field advantage and beatstick power' date='[/quote']

 

Prove how it's "too much".

 

they have enough already from cards like Dimensional Alchemist' date=' Jain, Garoth, Blue Thunder T-45, etc.[/quote']

 

Prove how they already have "enough".

 

Further, let's suppose that you are right about them already having "enough". This REQUIRES that the current fortitude of LIGHT decks be "perfect" - that is, that there need be no more cards created to boost any sort or variant of LIGHT decks, as any other sort of change would ruin that "perfection".

 

The "enough" argument requires that a perfect state be reached and preserved indefinitely. The nature of CCGs is such that they continue growing in all ways indefinitely, which requires that all states of the game eventually change. "Perfection" does not exist; "enough" does not exist.

 

In 1s' date=' it'd kill Machine decks,[/quote']

 

So? No one smart gives a damn about Machines if the only way Machines could ever win would be through making the game worse.

 

and lower the chance of players who were getting beaten from making a comeback' date='[/quote']

 

Prove how CyDra helps comebacks in any meaningful way.

 

Oh, wait, I know what most folks would say - "The opponent has an established field presence, and you do not. CyDra helps."

 

Well, guess WHAT?

 

The way that CyDra helps... is nothing more than by *establishing your own field presence while simultaneously making it easy to ruin your opponent's field presence*. CyDra helps YOU in that instance, yes.

 

Guess what you said, though?

 

It "lowers the chances of players who were getting beaten from making a comeback". Your statement was neutral. It applied to both you and your opponent.

 

All you do with CyDra is take your own problem and make it your opponent's problem instead.

 

CyDra gives YOU a comeback, sure, but it also puts the opponent in need of an immediate comeback.

 

Further, guess what?

 

ALL cards work exactly that same way. ALL cards have a certain amount of ability to give their user a way to initiate a comeback; all cards ALSO force the opponent to initiate a comeback as well.

 

It's useless to use "it initiates comebacks" as a point of argument, as initiating comebacks is NOT this oh-so-special factor that somehow dictates that the card should or shouldn't be messed with. Using "it initiates comebacks" is effectively as useful an argument as saying "don't mess with it, it should stay legal because it has more than 2 ATK".

 

duels wouldn't be as interesting.

 

Prove it.

 

At 2' date=' it's a compromise.[/quote']

 

So? That doesn't prove it to be the best position.

 

Destiny Draw:

 

As most of us know very well' date=' the Destiny Hero Draw engine provided an insane amount of card advantage. [/quote']

 

Coincedentally, most players don't understand the point of the "card advantage" thought process worth a damn at all. They think that a card's worth is somehow measured in silly little numerical +s and -s. It's pathetic.

 

That said, it's because players misunderstand the thought process that folks misunderstand the significance of Destiny Heroes.

 

You've not proven any reason as to why Destiny Draw shouldn't be at 3x.

 

This and Disk Commander were the main reasons.

 

Stop wasting time with stuff everyone knows already.

 

In 3s' date=' you could run a Destiny engine and destroy any chances of a Deck without a Destiny engine from getting a hand advantage over you. [/quote']

 

So what? Players can run a Destiny engine and destroy their chances of maintaining a "hand advantage" over their opponents, as well. It's simply a matter of who runs the deck - overt dumbasses, or players who aren't overt dumbasses.

 

Even then, you're being vague, what with terms like "a hand advantage", and seeing how you do NOTHING to show how that "hand advantage" is something that shouldn't let Destiny Draw be at 3, your claim that "it couldn't be left alone" is unproven.

 

Really, all you're doing now is saying a more elaborate form of "I'm Semi-ing it because I think it should be Semi'd, because players shouldn't be able to build "a hand advantage", or gain card advantage". It's crappy reasoning, at best. PROVE something, why don't ya?

 

I was considering limiting it' date=' but this would damage Destiny engines too much,[/quote']

 

Prove it

 

and DARK Decks would lose their hand advantage over LS.

 

No one smart has a good reason to care about which of the two is better than the other

 

With D-Draw and Allure at 2' date=' DARK decks have 4 draw cards to LS's 3, Solar Recharges. The extra draw card makes up for LS's mill speed power, yet 1 extra draw card is enough.[/quote']

 

There are several problems here.

 

1) You haven't proven why DARK.dek and LS.dek must "balance" each other in terms of anything.

 

2) You haven't proven why your suggestion somehow balances things. You've posted a supposition, but you haven't proven anything, and suppositions are a waste of our time when unproven.

 

You're being vague again, too - you do nothing to define exactly how "powerful" a speed card is.

 

If you define the speed of each deck to be defined by how each deck moves cards out of the deck and into either the hand, field, or Grave, your suggestion that 1 more speed card somehow "makes up for" what LLs have... is wrong.

 

Destiny Draw and Allure both move two cards out of the deck and into the hand, while also getting 1 card from the hand to some other place where it may be useful later. 2 of each legal = 4 total legal = 8 cards total from D to H, while 4 cards total from H to _____.

 

Solar moves 2 from D to H, 1 from H to ______, and 2 from D to _____. 3 legal = 6 from D to H, 3 from H to _____, and 6 from D to _____.

 

3x Solar STILL moves a lot more cards out of the deck and into better places - thanks to the mill. No, "one card" does not make up for it.

 

2 D-Draws keeps balance vetween DARK Decks and LS' date=' so they can still compete, but don't prevent other Decks from being able to compete. [/quote']

 

You haven't even proven how other decks are unable to compete.

 

Destiny Hero - Malicious:

 

It's Allurable' date=' D-Drawable, and Special Summonable by its own effect, which is already good.[/quote']

 

So what? Prove how that's a reason to Semi.

 

In 3s' date=' it's effectiveness is doubled since you get 2 Special Summons, but in 1s, it's effect doesn't work at all and it would be utterly useless.

[/quote']

 

Congratulations, you've proven how Limiting Malicious is equally as useful as Prohibiting Malicious (barring giving stupid people the right to maindeck 1x Malicious). We all knew that already. Stop wasting our time and prove how Malicious should be at 2x.

[Void Old]

Look, I don't have the stamina to defend semi-limitation, so I'll just drop it and keep the one that only works by being semi'd. I also made some improvements to the limited list.

 

You haven't even proven how other decks are unable to compete.

 

Destiny Hero - Malicious:

 

It's Allurable' date=' D-Drawable, and Special Summonable by its own effect, which is already good.[/quote']

 

So what? Prove how that's a reason to Semi.

 

In 3s' date=' it's effectiveness is doubled since you get 2 Special Summons, but in 1s, it's effect doesn't work at all and it would be utterly useless.

[/quote']

 

Congratulations, you've proven how Limiting Malicious is equally as useful as Prohibiting Malicious (barring giving stupid people the right to maindeck 1x Malicious). We all knew that already. Stop wasting our time and prove how Malicious should be at 2x.

 

At 1, it's useless, at 3, it's twice as effective where it already was good, in other words, too good. Our options are: 3: too good, 2: balanced, but still good, and 1/0: useless.

 

It's not broken enough to be rendered completely useless, it's too good in 3s because it offers 2 free Special Summons. So, 0,1, and 3 aren't the proper place for Malicious, we have to find another number between 0 and 3. Oh, I know, 2!

[CrabHelmet]

Look' date=' I don't have the stamina to defend semi-limitation,

[/quote']

 

It's really funny when people use this sort of argument. They're basically saying "I'M RIGHT, I CAN'T GIVE ANY REASON THAT I'M RIGHT, BUT TRUST ME, I'M STILL RIGHT SOMEHOW!"

 

so I'll just drop it and keep the one that only works by being semi'd. I also made some improvements to the limited list.

 

Improvements? None of the cards that have been newly added to the Limited list deserve to be there.

 

At 1' date=' it's useless, at 3, it's twice as effective where it already was good, in other words, too good. Our options are: 3: too good, 2: balanced, but still good, and 1/0: useless.

 

It's not broken enough to be rendered completely useless, it's too good in 3s because it offers 2 free Special Summons. So, 0,1, and 3 aren't the proper place for Malicious, we have to find another number between 0 and 3. Oh, I know, 2!

[/quote']

 

You still haven't done anything to show that it would be "too good" if Unlimited. All you've done is restate its effect and declare yourself correct.

[Void Old]

Right now Malicious can Special Summon once, instantly once it hits the Graveyard, any time you want, like a slightly different, arguably better version of Cyber Dragon.

 

That's already a good thing.

 

A double Special Summon with no significant cost in which the monsters Special Summoned can be used as Tribute fodder or for any purpose you may need them for is better than a good thing. And THAT is where it needs to be semi'd.

 

And by improvements to the limited list I meant by taking stuff off. I only added 2 or 3 cards brought in from the semi list which I got rid of.

[JesusofChaos™]

It is not a double instant special summon. Once the first is removed another goes to the field, thus you cannot get another till that 2nd one hits the grave . If you think an instant special summon of a monster with 800 atk is semi-able then semi evil hero infernal prodigy as that also provides instant tribute fodder

[CrabHelmet]

Right now Malicious can Special Summon once' date=' instantly once it hits the Graveyard, any time you want, like a slightly different, arguably better version of Cyber Dragon.

 

That's already [i']a good thing.[/i]

 

A double Special Summon with no significant cost in which the monsters Special Summoned can be used as Tribute fodder or for any purpose you may need them for is better than a good thing. And THAT is where it needs to be semi'd.

 

And by improvements to the limited list I meant by taking stuff off. I only added 2 or 3 cards brought in from the semi list which I got rid of.

 

The only new thing you've said is that "If A is better than B and B is decent then A is overpowered", which is a logical fallacy.

 

Beyond that, you've still done nothing but restate the cards' effects.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

At 1' date=' it's useless, at 3, it's twice as effective where it already was good, in other words, too good.[/quote']

 

Prove how it's "too good".

 

Our options are: 3: too good' date=' 2: balanced, but still good, and 1/0: useless. [/quote']

 

You've not proven how 3x is "too good", so your "options" are a lie.

 

It's not broken enough to be rendered completely useless' date=' it's too good in 3s because it offers 2 free Special Summons.[/quote']

 

OH NO, 2 FREE SPECIAL SUMMONS

 

You STILL haven't proven why we shouldn't have those free Special Summons. Stop wasting our bloody time and get to something useful.

 

So' date=' 0,1, and 3 aren't the proper place for Malicious, we have to find another number between 0 and 3. Oh, I know, 2!

[/quote']

 

 

Void, all you've been doing is saying the SAME thing over and over - you've been saying a wordy version of "Semi it because it's good". You've not proven why it being good is grounds for semilimitation.

[Flame Dragon]

Void, if you fear Malicious so much, why is Treeborn Frog at 1.

 

Malicious, at it's best, gives 2 free tributes. Treeborn does that far more effectively

[Void Old]

It is not a double instant special summon. Once the first is removed another goes to the field' date=' thus you cannot get another till that 2nd one hits the grave . If you think an instant special summon of a monster with 800 atk is semi-able then semi evil hero infernal prodigy as that also provides instant tribute fodder

[/quote']

 

 

I never said it was an instant double special summon, I said it was an instant special summon, which would be a double special summon in 3s, double special summons and double instant special summons aren't the same. Infernal Prodigy is different because it doesn't search out another by removing itself. It can't provide free Special Summons with a simple Foolish/ArKnight. It's not compatible with D-Draw.

 

Crab and Atem: Alright, I've tried anologies, apparantly that wasn't sufficient. In what way am I supposed to "prove" things to you? Hmm?

[JesusofChaos™]

Void' date=' if you fear Malicious so much, why is Treeborn Frog at 1.

 

Malicious, at it's best, gives 2 free tributes. Treeborn does that far more effectively

[/quote']

 

This

[Void Old]

Ah, I meant to ban Treeborn, anyway, it's done. ^_^

[Pharaoh_Atem]

Crab and Atem: Alright' date=' I've tried anologies, apparantly that wasn't sufficient. In what way am I supposed to "prove" things to you? Hmm?

[/quote']

 

prove' date=' v.

 

I. To demonstrate, establish.

1. trans. To establish as true; *to make certain*; to demonstrate the truth of by evidence or argument.

In this sense the past participle proven (orig. Sc.) is often used. In Sc. Law the verdict ‘Not proven’ is admitted, besides ‘Guilty’ and ‘Not guilty’, in criminal trials.

a. With subordinate clause, or object and complement.

b. With simple object.

2. trans.

a. To show the existence or reality of; to give demonstration or proof of by action; to evince. Usually with object modified by possessive adjective: to demonstrate (some quality or condition possessed by the subject).

b. refl. with adjective, noun, or infinitive as complement. Of a person or thing: to demonstrate (oneself, itself) to be something; to show (oneself) by trial, action, or experience to be the thing specified.

3. intr.

d. With adjective, noun, or infinitive as complement. To show oneself or itself to be (something); to turn out to be, to be shown or found by experience or trial to be (the thing specified). Sometimes with reflexive object implied: cf. sense 2b.

5. trans.

a. Law. To establish the genuineness and validity of (a will); to obtain probate of.

 

II. To make trial of; to try, test.

6. a. trans. To put (a person or thing) to the test; to test the genuineness or qualities of; (Sc.) to test by tasting, to sample. Now rare in general use (but cf. technical uses at senses 6b, 6f, etc.).

b. trans. To subject (any natural, prepared, or manufactured substance or object, now esp. a firearm) to a testing process.

7. trans. To find out, learn, or know by experience; to have experience of; to go through, undergo, suffer. Also with complement: to find by experience (a person or thing) to be (something). Cf. APPROVE v.1 9. Now rare (arch. in later use).[/quote']

[Exiro]

III. Semi-Limited Cards

 

You can ONLY use two of the following cards in the Deck & Side Deck combined:

 

(Content)

 

 

Wrong.

 

It does not matter how much content that line contains' date=' it is wrong as long as it contains content, and since there was still content there, I quoted it because it still applies.

 

If you want to keep that card there, then well, Atem and Crab already said it, prove why Malicious is ideal at 2 and not at 0, 1 or 3. [i']prove[/i] it.

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

Allure is reasonably balanced. As is Destiny Draw and Trade-In. They all have one thing in common. They are all +0 draw cards which means your hand doesnt increase even though the cards in it change. They all have some sort of cost involved. Pot of Greed on the other hand turns one card into 2 (making it a +1) that could potentially help you. 2 free cards with no cost. With Darklord Zerato, DMoC and Dark Armed Dragon banned Allure should be fine at 3. Explain why it wouldnt be fine at 3.

[CrabHelmet]

There's nothing whatsoever about Allure that is overpowered. However, the problem is its influence on the format: it incites speed.

 

Note that, unlike Trade-In, whose use comes at the cost of an unusual deck balance (running larger numbers of Level 8 monsters than one otherwise would is mandatory), and Destiny Draw, which forces the use of a specific theme (and without Disk, the Perfect Circle engine is dead), Allure doesn't have a real drawback; it simply requires you to run DARKs. DARKs are not a specific theme; they are an extremely broad range of monsters containing a large proportion of the best and most splashable monsters in the game - even if we ignore bannable monsters like DMoC, Sangan, DAD, Darklord Zerato, Snipe Hunter, Disk Commander, and so on, we still have Jinzo, Spirit Reaper, Caius, D.D. Survivor, and so on and so forth. DARK has always been the best attribute. It doesn't come at the cost of an unusual deck balance, since DARKs, unlike Level 8's, don't have problems with easy summoning, and most decks already run DARKs.

 

Because of this, Allure can do - and has done - something that the other Discard 1 Draw 2 cards cannot do. Specifically, its presence causes the entire format's speed to increase. It makes the entire game faster, and thus all decks, if they want to survive, must similarly become faster. I don't just mean slightly faster; I think we all remember the post-PTDN state of the TCG. Robbed of the easy methods of OTK, it would not be quite so fast, but the speed boost would still be easily noticeable. (For contrast, observe the post-PTDN state of the OCG, where, without Allure, the format never became turbocharged.)

 

Now, observe that the fastest formats are bad for the game. They depend on godhands and don't give players a chance to show any skill, since the duel ends after the first few turns.

 

Allure is in no way overpowered. However, its presence still has a negative influence on the game, and that's why it should go.

 

The question has been raised as to whether Allure of Darkness would need to be banned if we had Allure of Lightness, Allure of Waterness, and so on for the other attributes. In actual fact, this is an even less ambiguous case than the one that actually faces us. The presence of all of these Allures ensures that essentially every deck gets a speed boost. That would be far more of a mindless increase in format speed than the mere presence of Allure of Darkness would be; instead of many, many decks getting speed boosts and the others being forced to try to keep up, every single deck in the game gets a speed boost. In this case, all or most of the Allures would be banned; perhaps one or two for weaker attributes, such as Allure of Windness or Allure of Waterness, would remain, as such attributes have significantly fewer top splashable monsters and therefore using them would, as with Trade-In, put a balancing strain on the deck.