tonisanoob Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 just because a card isnt chainable dosnt make it bad -.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamief Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 it is an okay card, the fact that it isn't chainable , drops it playability alot Mirror force is not an important card in every deck, leaving mirror force out of a deck does no harm at all. torrential tribute > mirror force CCV > mirror force brain control > mirror force Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Yeah. I thought it was a bug deal before I had it. Now I dont see the big deal with having Mirror Force. It just isnt that good in this format. Torrential seems to do a better job. Dont get me wrong. Mirror Force is still a good card. Crush Card is better, yes. It can really stuff up your opponent. Combined with the other Viruses, your opponent is basically locked for 3 turns and that's enough time for most decks to win. But thats a different story. Torrential can eliminate JD or DAD as soon as they hit the field even though they get to use their effects but they still get eliminated. It also doesnt target, well Mirror Force doesnt either. This format is all about chainability. I wouldnt go as far as saying Brain Control is better. It is faster yes but it also targets but that doesnt really matter too much. Its not like everyone runs cards that stop cards that target. Brain Control can indeed cost the opponent monster advantage. Ive started running it in all my non-Traditional Decks. Its just that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 We dont have the so called "Perfect Meta". Why use that as reasoning? I am so sick of people using that as reasoning. I'm not going to get on anyones case about it though. Not unless I'm a part of the discussion. Even with cards like Dark Armed Dragon and Judgment Dragon. Those are indeed banworthy but they are not banned now are they? I just think it needs to be said. I play using Konami's list whether I like it or not. Mirror Force is powerful but it is balanced where it is on the list. It wouldnt be good at 3. But remember that, when you're discussing where a card should go on a banlist, you need to take into account the other changes that you've made. For example, Dark Armed Dragon is obviously banworthy, so you can't use the fact that Allure of Darkness makes Dark Armed Dragon extremely fast and consistent in order to prove that Allure needs to be banned, since if you were to make changes to the list you would make them all simultaneously, and there would be no DAD left for Allure to support, making Allure's support of DAD a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixty Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Oh no' date=' I have been reported to the local board moderator! The horror! Oh, wait. I [i']am[/i] the local board moderator. lol Mirror Force is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koumori~Dragon Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 awesome card is awesomeAwesome quote is awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Light of Destruction Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 Meh card is meh, compare this to Dark Mirror Force and Mirror Force is wwwwaaaaaayyyyyy better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tickle Me Emo Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 We dont have the so called "Perfect Meta". Why use that as reasoning? I am so sick of people using that as reasoning. I'm not going to get on anyones case about it though. Not unless I'm a part of the discussion. Even with cards like Dark Armed Dragon and Judgment Dragon. Those are indeed banworthy but they are not banned now are they? I just think it needs to be said. I play using Konami's list whether I like it or not. Thats exactly what i been saying ever since crab was using his perfect meta. just because a card isnt chainable dosnt make it bad -.- I didnt say it was bad, I said its not very playable in this meta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 We dont have the so called "Perfect Meta". Why use that as reasoning? I am so sick of people using that as reasoning. I'm not going to get on anyones case about it though. Not unless I'm a part of the discussion. Even with cards like Dark Armed Dragon and Judgment Dragon. Those are indeed banworthy but they are not banned now are they? I just think it needs to be said. I play using Konami's list whether I like it or not. Thats exactly what i been saying ever since crab was using his perfect meta. Don't worry, you're bound to figure out your mistake eventually. If Card A and Card B interact unacceptably, you don't need to ban both of them, as banning one of them would solve the problem. However, if you base it purely on the current banlist, you'd look at Card A, see an unacceptable combo with Card B, and ban Card A; then you'd look at Card B, see an unacceptable combo with Card A, and ban Card B. If Konami used your logic, they'd have banned both Butterfly Dagger - Elma and Gearfried the Iron Knight. This indicates that Konami is better at banlist construction than the two of you are - a truly depressing thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tickle Me Emo Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 We dont have the so called "Perfect Meta". Why use that as reasoning? I am so sick of people using that as reasoning. I'm not going to get on anyones case about it though. Not unless I'm a part of the discussion. Even with cards like Dark Armed Dragon and Judgment Dragon. Those are indeed banworthy but they are not banned now are they? I just think it needs to be said. I play using Konami's list whether I like it or not. Thats exactly what i been saying ever since crab was using his perfect meta. Don't worry' date=' you're bound to figure out your mistake eventually. If Card A and Card B interact unacceptably, you don't need to ban both of them, as banning one of them would solve the problem. However, if you base it purely on the current banlist, you'd look at Card A, see an unacceptable combo with Card B, and ban Card A; then you'd look at Card B, see an unacceptable combo with Card A, and ban Card B. If Konami used your logic, they'd have banned both Butterfly Dagger - Elma and Gearfried the Iron Knight. This indicates that Konami is better at banlist construction than the two of you are - a truly depressing thought.[/quote'] -.- You really think Id cut the resources and ban the real problem if I made the banlist? If I made the banlist Id just cut off the problem and leave teh resources as is. All Im saying is that when you compare a card to the meta compare it to how damaging it is in THIS meta, not your imaginary perfect meta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Shocker Android Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 Mirror Force This card is so overrated (not bad it's quite a good card to be honest) but lets face the facts it's not chainable and this makes mirror force very fragile. Every deck has a good way of dealing with it. (DAD, JD, Lyla, Yaichi, DW lightning, Bestiari, Gyzarus, Heraklinos, Breaker, Snipe Hunter and the list goes on and on and on...) It's true that given the right situation this card can cripple an opponent and it has a good purpose of punishing overextension. So where should it be banned? limited? lolsemi'd? or even 3? I think we should give it a test run in semi but right now it's good at 1 because we have other cards such as torrential tribute and having to many mass removal would be bad for the game. (it's already bad enough like this) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bury the year Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 Good card... Wonder when it came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Shocker Android Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 metal raider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bury the year Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 metal raider Sarcasm. Albeit not very good. I'm losing my touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samer_13 Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 Who ever doesn't have this card in their decks fails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 We dont have the so called "Perfect Meta". Why use that as reasoning? I am so sick of people using that as reasoning. I'm not going to get on anyones case about it though. Not unless I'm a part of the discussion. Even with cards like Dark Armed Dragon and Judgment Dragon. Those are indeed banworthy but they are not banned now are they? I just think it needs to be said. I play using Konami's list whether I like it or not. Thats exactly what i been saying ever since crab was using his perfect meta. Don't worry' date=' you're bound to figure out your mistake eventually. If Card A and Card B interact unacceptably, you don't need to ban both of them, as banning one of them would solve the problem. However, if you base it purely on the current banlist, you'd look at Card A, see an unacceptable combo with Card B, and ban Card A; then you'd look at Card B, see an unacceptable combo with Card A, and ban Card B. If Konami used your logic, they'd have banned both Butterfly Dagger - Elma and Gearfried the Iron Knight. This indicates that Konami is better at banlist construction than the two of you are - a truly depressing thought.[/quote'] -.- You really think Id cut the resources and ban the real problem if I made the banlist? If I made the banlist Id just cut off the problem and leave teh resources as is. All Im saying is that when you compare a card to the meta compare it to how damaging it is in THIS meta, not your imaginary perfect meta. You cannot ignore the consequences of your actions; indeed, if you have no idea what consequences your actions will have, you should not be constructing a banlist, as the purpose of constructing a banlist is to obtain superior consequences. Konami's format tells us virtually nothing, partly because it is constantly dominated by one overpowered card or another. But you must also bear in mind what makes a card broken. A card is not broken by what it does in tournaments. Dark Armed Dragon, for example, is banworthy because of his effect, not because his deck won a tournament. Relying on Konami's format to decide the banlist is what brought us such "brilliant" decisions as Limiting Raiza. IT got used in the Konami meta, so clearly it needs to be on the banlist, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archbaron Larry Posted September 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 it is an okay card' date=' the fact that it isn't chainable , drops it playability alot Mirror force is not an important card in every deck, leaving mirror force out of a deck does no harm at all. torrential tribute > mirror force CCV > mirror force brain control > mirror force[/quote']Well if that's the case (even that I think that Mirror Force is perfect,) should it stay at 1, or go to 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indestructible Chaoserver Posted September 1, 2008 Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 Who ever doesn't have this card in their decks fails. What a silly statement. Some decks it is terrible in, lightsworn decks definetley don't need to run it as it will probably get milled and gardnas can protect your monsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamief Posted September 1, 2008 Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 Who ever doesn't have this card in their decks fails. LOL you Fail for saying that. anyway, its fine where it is on the list, it 'aint having an impact on the Meta , and never will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.