Ban Lists!!

[CrabHelmet]

I'm starting to think that Pojo might be better at banlist construction than this site' date=' and Pojo has people who want Imperial Order, Witch of the Black Forest, and Thousand-Eyes Restrict legalized.

[/quote']

 

Thousand-Eyes Restrict would be fun to see legalized...oh wait no Metamorphosis thus no impact...

 

Instant Fusion exists, you simple-minded fool. This game doesn't need an additional Change of Heart legalized.

 

anyway with everyone talking about banning stuff it makes you wonder about the fact that when al is said and done if everyone got their wish on what should banned then no one would play as all the cards would be banned.

 

That's why we should only ban the cards that deserve to be banned, instead of listening to every idiot out there who cries "BAWWW I LOST A DUEL TO CRYSTAL ABUNDANCE BAN IT NAO NAO NAO".

 

I love how you Traditionalists always seem to equate banning any cards at all with banning every card in the game.

[Darkerai]

I'm starting to think that Pojo might be better at banlist construction than this site' date=' and Pojo has people who want Imperial Order, Witch of the Black Forest, and Thousand-Eyes Restrict legalized.

[/quote']

 

Thousand-Eyes Restrict would be fun to see legalized...oh wait no Metamorphosis thus no impact...

 

Instant Fusion exists, you simple-minded fool. This game doesn't need an additional Change of Heart legalized.

 

anyway with everyone talking about banning stuff it makes you wonder about the fact that when al is said and done if everyone got their wish on what should banned then no one would play as all the cards would be banned.

 

That's why we should only ban the cards that deserve to be banned' date=' instead of listening to every idiot out there who cries "BAWWW I LOST A DUEL TO CRYSTAL ABUNDANCE BAN IT NAO NAO NAO".

 

I love how you Traditionalists always seem to equate banning any cards at all with banning every card in the game.

[/quote']

 

First off I am not a Traditionalist and second I was mainly saying that once someone gets Regeki banned then they want Dark Hole banned then all of a sudden the next best card in that catagory is banned continueing down the line.

Although I did phrase my comment wrong as not every card would be banned just the ones that generate advantage while not requiring a special condition.

Oh and as to the instant fusion comment I admit it was very stupid of me not to think of that.

[CrabHelmet]

I'm starting to think that Pojo might be better at banlist construction than this site' date=' and Pojo has people who want Imperial Order, Witch of the Black Forest, and Thousand-Eyes Restrict legalized.

[/quote']

 

Thousand-Eyes Restrict would be fun to see legalized...oh wait no Metamorphosis thus no impact...

 

Instant Fusion exists, you simple-minded fool. This game doesn't need an additional Change of Heart legalized.

 

anyway with everyone talking about banning stuff it makes you wonder about the fact that when al is said and done if everyone got their wish on what should banned then no one would play as all the cards would be banned.

 

That's why we should only ban the cards that deserve to be banned' date=' instead of listening to every idiot out there who cries "BAWWW I LOST A DUEL TO CRYSTAL ABUNDANCE BAN IT NAO NAO NAO".

 

I love how you Traditionalists always seem to equate banning any cards at all with banning every card in the game.

[/quote']

 

First off I am not a Traditionalist and second I was mainly saying that once someone gets Regeki banned then they want Dark Hole banned then all of a sudden the next best card in that catagory is banned continueing down the line.

 

The conclusion of your argument seems to be that nothing should be banned, as otherwise this would happen. Sure looks like Traditionalism to me.

 

Of course, this can be solved by actually using logical reasoning. Cards should never be banned for being good or being the best; they should be banned for damaging the game. Hence we can have Change of Heart at 0, but Brain Control at 3.

 

Although I did phrase my comment wrong as not every card would be banned just the ones that generate advantage while not requiring a special condition.

 

Thunder Dragon generates advantage while not requiring a Special Condition. Graceful Charity does not.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

You abandoned that argument when you admitted that the card could not be permitted at 3. By placing the card at 1' date=' you are admitting that the card has a problem.[/quote']

 

It's one of those cards that should exist but as little as possible.

 

Why? If there's nothing wrong with it, then why not put at 3? Basically, what you've just said here is that "It should be Limited because it should be Limited" - not exactly the best of reasons.

 

Drawing is a fundamental part of the game. Unban Pot of Greed.

 

Attacking is a fundamental part of the game. Unban Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning.

 

Searching is a fundamental part of the game. Unban Witch of the Black Forest.

 

Removal is a fundamental part of the game. Unban Ring of Destruction.

 

Recursion is a fundamental part of the game. Unban Premature Burial.

 

Just because some aspect of the game is a fundamental part of the game doesn't mean that every single card that relates to that aspect of the game automatically deserves to remain legal.

 

There are tons of draw cards that can be used in decks of all types. PoG stays banned.

 

All decks can include monsters of high attack capability. BLS stays banned.

 

Sangan works for searching. WotBF stays banned.

 

There are many' date=' many cards that create removal (like the earlier-mentioned smashing ground.) RoD stays banned.

 

There [b']aren't[/b] recursion cards to the point that any decktype can have one. Monster Reborn doesn't get banned, and PB stays banned since after all we have Monster Reborn.

 

First of all, Sangan is banworthy. However, since you can't even tell that Monster Reborn is banworthy, I don't expect you to understand that.

 

Your assumption that all decks are entitled to have recursion is fallacious; recursion is not so fundamental to gameplay as, for example, attacking, that every deck in existence deserves to have a piece of recursion. However, since you claim that no other generic recursion exists, let's take a look at a few examples of other generic recursion, shall we?

 

The Shallow Grave - Revives any of your monsters.

 

Spear Cretin - Revives any of your monsters.

 

Autonomous Action Unit - Revives any of your opponent's monsters.

 

Symbol of Heritage - Revives any of your monsters when you have three in the graveyard. (A proper list would only have a handful of Limited monsters and no Semi-Limited monsters, so those few that can't be run at 3 are negligible.)

 

The Creator - Revives any of your monsters.

 

Light and Darkness Dragon - Revives any of your monsters.

 

Limit Reverse - If any deck can include a monster of high ATK - which you admitted when saying that Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning should remain banned - then any deck can also include a monster of low ATK.

 

Black Garden - It requires Plants to use, but makes itself splashable by generating its own Plants. Not quite as splashable as some of the others due to only multiples of 800 being available, but these values (especially 2400) are not exactly uncommon.

 

Monster Reincarnation - Returns any monster in your graveyard to your hand.

 

A Feather of the Phoenix - Returns any card in your graveyard to the top of your deck.

 

Cyber Valley - Returns any card in your graveyard to the top of your deck.

 

Pot of Avarice - Allows you to recycle several monsters into your deck AND is a +1.

 

The Transmigration Prophesy - Allows you to recycle two cards of your choice. By the way, this card should be at 3.

 

All of these are forms of recursion; all of these are highly splashable. Monster Reborn is also better than all of them. Here is what you thought you were saying:

 

"Recursion is a fundamental part of gameplay, and therefore all decks are entitled to have the ability to include recursion."

 

However, what you were arguing was actually a far more narrow statement.

 

Any deck can toss in a The Shallow Grave. Why do The Shallow Grave and Spear Cretin not excuse the absence of Monster Reborn? Because they let the opponent revive a monster too. You want the recursion to be "one-sided" - benefiting only the user and not the opponent. Therefore, what your statement really said was:

 

"One-sided recursion is a fundamental part of gameplay, and therefore all decks are entitled to have the ability to include one-sided recursion."

 

Why doesn't Autonomous Action Unit count, then? Because it's from the opponent's graveyard and not your own.

 

"One-sided recursion from your own graveyard is a fundamental part of gameplay, and therefore all decks are entitled to have the ability to include one-sided recursion from their own graveyards."

 

Well, how about Monster Reincarnation? The Transmigration Prophesy? Cyber Valley? A Feather of the Phoenix? Pot of Avarice? Don't they count? No, of course not. Why? Because the recycled monster isn't Special Summoned.

 

"One-sided recursion that Special Summons a monster from your own graveyard is a fundamental part of gameplay, and therefore all decks are entitled to have the ability to include one-sided recursion that Special Summon a monster from their own graveyards."

 

In that case, surely The Creator counts? Wait, he doesn't make up for Monster Reborn either? Why not? Because he has a cost; it costs a card or two to get him onto the field, and then another card as a discard to Special Summon something. Costs, apparently, aren't allowed either - at least not any remotely significant, since I suppose we can at least agree that 800 Life Points from Premature Burial doesn't qualify as a significant cost. Light and Darkness Dragon has the same problem; the two tributes and the field nuke are too expensive.

 

"One-sided recursion that Special Summons a monster from your own graveyard without requiring the payment of any significant cost is a fundamental part of gameplay, and therefore all decks are entitled to have the ability to include one-sided recursion that Special Summon a monster from their own graveyards without requiring the payments of any significant costs."

 

Black Garden and Limit Reverse should work, then, shouldn't they? No, of course you're not going to count them either. Those can only revive some of the monsters in your graveyard, and the recursion we're looking for apparently needs to have the ability to bring back any monster at all (unless a Summon condition like that of a Nomi would prevent this).

 

"One-sided recursion that Special Summons any monster from your own graveyard without requiring the payment of any significant cost is a fundamental part of gameplay, and therefore all decks are entitled to have the ability to include one-sided recursion that Special Summon any monster from their own graveyards without requiring the payments of any significant costs."

 

All right, all right. After all of this, Symbol of Heritage still works. It's one-sided. It Special Summons the monster. The monster comes from your own graveyard. The monster can be any monster in the card pool other than the handful of monsters that would be Limited on a proper list. It has no cost at all. Surely, surely, surely Symbol of Heritage makes up for Monster Reborn's absence. Alas, it does not. Symbol of Heritage requires setup to work, and the card we're looking for needs to be useful in any situation in which we have a monster in the graveyard and want it back. Any acceptable substitute for Monster Reborn apparently must require no significant setup (I say "significant" because having the copy of the monster that you want revived in the graveyard could be taken as "setup", but is most certainly insignificant).

 

So, we finally come to the final thesis:

 

"One-sided recursion that Special Summons any monster from your own graveyard without requiring the payment of any significant cost or requiring any significant setup is a fundamental part of gameplay, and therefore all decks are entitled to have the ability to include one-sided recursion that Special Summon any monster from their own graveyards without requiring the payments of any significant costs or requiring any significant setup."

 

Take a good long look at this thesis. Think about it carefully. What it says is that every deck in the game is entitled to the ability to run a monster recursion card with all of the following properties:

 

1) The monster in question must Special Summoned; no wishy-washy return-to-hand/deck allowed.

 

2) The monster in question must come from your own graveyard.

 

3) The monster in question must have the capacity to be virtually any monster in the card pool.

 

4) The recursion card must not require significant costs.

 

5) The recursion card must not require significant setup.

 

6) The recursion card must not let the opponent get a piece of the action.

 

And all of these properties must belong to a recursion card that can be splashed into virtually every deck in the game - and I only say "virtually" to exclude no-monsters decks, HOTU-Exodia, and other weird stuff of that nature. Remove any of the six restrictions above, and one of the cards I listed above can replace Monster Reborn.

 

I'm going to repeat your final thesis again, because it's important that you understand what you're really trying to say:

 

"One-sided recursion that Special Summons any monster from your own graveyard without requiring the payment of any significant cost or requiring any significant setup is a fundamental part of gameplay, and therefore all decks are entitled to have the ability to include one-sided recursion that Special Summon any monster from their own graveyards without requiring the payments of any significant costs or requiring any significant setup."

 

This isn't just splashable recursion that you're saying is fundamental to the game - this is something far greater, a form of recursion that has a laundry list of additional properties and benefits. To say that something of this nature is "fundamental" to the game is ludicrous - the game wouldn't fall to pieces if setup was required, or costs were required, or one-sidedness wasn't required, or limitations on what can be summoned were allowed, or the opponent's graveyard was allowed, or the recursion didn't need to take the form of a Special Summoning. In fact, the majority of these properties don't seem even remotely fundamental to the game. Oh, and all of this is completely ignoring themed recursion, since you only asked for splashable recursion.

 

Yes, of course the cards that I'm listing aren't as powerful as Monster Reborn is. Do you think that means that I'm being unfair? Go back to the Pot of Greed and Graceful Charity argument, and look at why you said that they should remain banned:

 

There are tons of draw cards that can be used in decks of all types. PoG stays banned.

 

Do you think that those other splashable draw cards are as even nearly good as Pot of Greed? Is Upstart Goblin on the level of Graceful Charity? Hand Destruction' date=' perhaps? Or maybe Card Trooper? Is Dark World Dealings anything close to Graceful Charity? Is Jar of Greed even in the same league as its big brother Pot? No, of course not; none of them are as strong as Pot of Greed and Graceful Charity, nor are they as universally splashable. But that doesn't stop Pot of Greed and Graceful Charity from being worthy of the banhammer.

 

"[i']One-sided recursion that Special Summons any monster from your own graveyard without requiring the payment of any significant cost or requiring any significant setup is a fundamental part of gameplay, and therefore all decks are entitled to have the ability to include one-sided recursion that Special Summon any monster from their own graveyards without requiring the payments of any significant costs or requiring any significant setup.[/i]"

 

You can't really believe this. Because when you get right down to it, nothing about these conditions and constraints is fundamental to the game.

 

 

You have grown remarkably well. You're still very weak when it comes to the logics, but you're growing in a way equally important - you're gaining more and more potential in regards to learning how to not be weak at the logics.

 

I think I might just leave this section in your care, instead of watch over it like a hawk, ever ready to take over a topic in case you and your friends failed to be correct.

 

That said, be careful of argumentum ad logicam, one of the most dangerous logical fallacies.

 

I will also note that your stance on Brain Control may be greatly out of date - it may be so out of date as to be a relic from March 14.

[Blade Knight]

So... much text... eyes... going to... explode...

 

I think Premature was banned because of that new ice dragon coming out.

[Darkerai]

I'm starting to think that Pojo might be better at banlist construction than this site' date=' and Pojo has people who want Imperial Order, Witch of the Black Forest, and Thousand-Eyes Restrict legalized.

[/quote']

 

Thousand-Eyes Restrict would be fun to see legalized...oh wait no Metamorphosis thus no impact...

 

Instant Fusion exists, you simple-minded fool. This game doesn't need an additional Change of Heart legalized.

 

anyway with everyone talking about banning stuff it makes you wonder about the fact that when al is said and done if everyone got their wish on what should banned then no one would play as all the cards would be banned.

 

That's why we should only ban the cards that deserve to be banned' date=' instead of listening to every idiot out there who cries "BAWWW I LOST A DUEL TO CRYSTAL ABUNDANCE BAN IT NAO NAO NAO".

 

I love how you Traditionalists always seem to equate banning any cards at all with banning every card in the game.

[/quote']

 

First off I am not a Traditionalist and second I was mainly saying that once someone gets Regeki banned then they want Dark Hole banned then all of a sudden the next best card in that catagory is banned continueing down the line.

 

The conclusion of your argument seems to be that nothing should be banned, as otherwise this would happen. Sure looks like Traditionalism to me.

 

Of course, this can be solved by actually using logical reasoning. Cards should never be banned for being good or being the best; they should be banned for damaging the game. Hence we can have Change of Heart at 0, but Brain Control at 3.

 

Although I did phrase my comment wrong as not every card would be banned just the ones that generate advantage while not requiring a special condition.

 

Thunder Dragon generates advantage while not requiring a Special Condition. Graceful Charity does not.

 

OK I agree with everything your saying. (note to self: Must think about any possible way my comment can be shot down before posting)