CrabHelmet Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 Breaker is good' date=' but Lyla is better, you can call priority and use her effect[/quote'] Lyla can't then run over whatever the opponent has out with 1600 ATK, and due to her weak DEF she's also virtually guaranteed to die next turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tickle Me Emo Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 Breaker is good' date=' but Lyla is better, you can call priority and use her effect[/quote'] Lyla can't then run over whatever the opponent has out with 1600 ATK, and due to her weak DEF she's also virtually guaranteed to die next turn.true but Lyla also mills your deck, which is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 In most cases, an extra +1 advantage or a 1/5 LP swing is more useful than 3 cards of random mill during the End Phase. It's only because he can both use his effect and attack that Breaker is...broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusofChaos™ Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 In most cases' date=' an extra +1 advantage or a 1/5 LP swing is more useful than 3 cards of random mill during the End Phase. It's only because he can both use his effect and attack that Breaker is...broken.[/quote'] Please show me how playing Breaker wins you the game. Breaker is not broken, it is just a good card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orochi Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 a card doesn't need to win the game alone for being broken... take as an example painful choice or disc commander... just need to give you advantage for free or a very ridiculous cost... in this case, breaker can destroy a S/T for free, and still attack... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusofChaos™ Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 "Broken" refers to a card that is so powerful or game-breaking that it is actually considered to be overpowered, giving one player an enormous advantage, quite often resulting in an unstoppable win. Breaker does not give enormous advantage and does not result in an unstoppable win. Painful Choice sets up a unstoppable win. When Breaker was limited before it was not game breaking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 "Broken" refers to a card that is so powerful or game-breaking that it is actually considered to be overpowered' date=' giving one player an enormous advantage, quite often resulting in an unstoppable win. Breaker does not give enormous advantage and does not result in an unstoppable win. Painful Choice sets up a unstoppable win. When Breaker was limited before it was not game breaking[/quote'] You agree that Cydra should be banned, correct? Does Cydra result in an unstoppable win? Is there absolutely no way to overcome a 2100 ATK beatstick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusofChaos™ Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 "Broken" refers to a card that is so powerful or game-breaking that it is actually considered to be overpowered' date=' giving one player an enormous advantage, quite often resulting in an unstoppable win. Breaker does not give enormous advantage and does not result in an unstoppable win. Painful Choice sets up a unstoppable win. When Breaker was limited before it was not game breaking[/quote'] You agree that Cydra should be banned, correct? Does Cydra result in an unstoppable win? Is there absolutely no way to overcome a 2100 ATK beatstick? You agree Treeborn frog should be banned, correct? Does Treeborn frog result in an unstoppable win? Is there absolutely no way to overcome a graveyard recursion tribute machine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 "Broken" refers to a card that is so powerful or game-breaking that it is actually considered to be overpowered' date=' giving one player an enormous advantage, quite often resulting in an unstoppable win. Breaker does not give enormous advantage and does not result in an unstoppable win. Painful Choice sets up a unstoppable win. When Breaker was limited before it was not game breaking[/quote'] You agree that Cydra should be banned, correct? Does Cydra result in an unstoppable win? Is there absolutely no way to overcome a 2100 ATK beatstick? You agree Treeborn frog should be banned, correct? Does Treeborn frog result in an unstoppable win? Is there absolutely no way to overcome a graveyard recursion tribute machine? No, it doesn't. Good, we're in agreement that the "unstoppable win" definition of "broken" is flawed. (Unless, of course, you don't feel that Treeborn Frog is "broken".) Of course, the phrase "counterability does not imply balance" could have proven that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusofChaos™ Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 "Broken" refers to a card that is so powerful or game-breaking that it is actually considered to be overpowered' date=' giving one player an enormous advantage, quite often resulting in an unstoppable win. Breaker does not give enormous advantage and does not result in an unstoppable win. Painful Choice sets up a unstoppable win. When Breaker was limited before it was not game breaking[/quote'] You agree that Cydra should be banned, correct? Does Cydra result in an unstoppable win? Is there absolutely no way to overcome a 2100 ATK beatstick? You agree Treeborn frog should be banned, correct? Does Treeborn frog result in an unstoppable win? Is there absolutely no way to overcome a graveyard recursion tribute machine? No, it doesn't. Good, we're in agreement that the "unstoppable win" definition of "broken" is flawed. (Unless, of course, you don't feel that Treeborn Frog is "broken".) Of course, the phrase "counterability does not imply balance" could have proven that too. I believe in banworthy cards there are 2 catergories, maybe 3.Catergory 1: Cards which are not broken but are unbenefical to the meta Catergory 2: Cards which are broken Catergory 3: Cards which are borderline banworthy (i.e. can be at 3 or 0) Treeborn and Cydra fall into catergory 1 PoC, JD, DAD fall into catergory 2 Malicious falls into catergory 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 I generally use "broken" to include all banworthy cards. Your definition of "broken" is flawed. Pot of Greed doesn't give "enormous" advantage or yield an "unstoppable" win. It's still broken. Also, Treeborn Frog isn't banworthy because it has a bad influence on the meta; it's banworthy because the card itself is ridiculously overpowered, regardless of how it influences the meta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusofChaos™ Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 Well im never going to use broken again because my definition of it was explained. From now on im just going to use the word banworthy. *Reprograms Brain* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 So, back on topic: Breaker is banworthy. Note that in addition to being practically a +2 (break a s/t, kill a monster), Breaker can (and possibly will) be splashed into virtually any deck, and as long as he remains, non-chainable s/t's are virtually unplayable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusofChaos™ Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 Splashed into Glads: Check Splashed into DAD: CheckSplashed into LS: Here Im not sure Splashed into any tier 2 deck: check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 Forget the current meta. The meta is completely different in a proper format. And, somehow, I don't see DAD dominating in a proper format. The massive advantage that Breaker provides removes most incentive *not* to run him. And if almost everyone runs Breaker, non-chainable spells and traps don't get used. Also, consider where he would go if he didn't go to zero. 1? Why to 1? He doesn't combo with himself; I can't think of any benefit he provides at 1 to the game; and he's not Twin-Headed Thunder Dragon. So maybe he should go to 3 then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusofChaos™ Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 But you have to think, should MST go to 3? 1 Breaker allows players to run some non chainables. 3 means that non chainables will see no play which is unbenefical for the meta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 But you have to think' date=' should MST go to 3?[/quote'] Yes. MST can't then kill a monster or swing for 1/5th LP. Also, MST can "pre-negate", which hurts chainables as well as non-chainables. Breaker can't do that, so he promotes chainables far more than MST does. 1 Breaker allows players to run some non chainables. 3 means that non chainables will see no play which is unbenefical for the meta So we're significantly damaging an entire category of card...in order to preserve a copy of a +2 monster that has already been deemed unacceptable at 3? Even if he harms the game less at 1, he still harms it. Also, with Breaker legal (alongside 3 MST and Heavy Storm), non-chainables would be virtually nonexistent. There's Mirror Force, true, but just about everything else would still be unplayable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusofChaos™ Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 I know the present meta isnt a good example but im going to use it anyway, presently we have 3 dusts, 1 MST and 1 Heavy storm. However we still see many non chainable traps being used. Will one more addition to that family really have that much effect? Breaker is not searchable thus cannot be called upon when needed (e.g. with RoTA). Thus 1 breaker will punish playing too many cards to the back row which bad players do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 Dusts and MST can prenegate chainables as well, and, as far as I know, Dusts aren't exactly staples. 1 Breaker isn't mass removal, so it doesn't punish Setting large numbers of cards. It punishes Setting a single card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 Dust and MST are pretty incomparable in my opinion... Granted their effects are similar, one's a trap and one's a quick play spell. And that has made all the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 Actually, since Dust can't be activated from the hand, it is used almost exclusively for prenegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusofChaos™ Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 Dusts are only semi staple in side deck. Being punished for setting 1 card surely is unbeneficial to the meta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 Dusts are only semi staple in side deck. Being punished for setting 1 card surely is unbeneficial to the meta Good, so we agree that Breaker should be banned. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tickle Me Emo Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 Dusts are only semi staple in side deck. Being punished for setting 1 card surely is unbeneficial to the meta Good' date=' so we agree that Breaker should be banned. Case closed.[/quote'] No Breaker should not be banned. It is not a broken card. Im not saying its not good but its not broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 Dusts are only semi staple in side deck. Being punished for setting 1 card surely is unbeneficial to the meta Good' date=' so we agree that Breaker should be banned. Case closed.[/quote'] No Breaker should not be banned. It is not a broken card. Im not saying its not good but its not broken. Go back and read the discussion that JoC and I just had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.