Ban Lists!!

[bozotehpwns]

AHA we will make the half forbidden list... Cards on the list can be put in the deck ONLY if they are first Ripped In Half, that way you can't play it but the idiots will stop complaining because they can have it in their deck

[Corporal]

AHA we will make the half forbidden list... Cards on the list can be put in the deck ONLY if they are first Ripped In Half' date=' that way you can't play it but the idiots will stop complaining because they can have it in their deck

[/quote']

 

What?.....

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

I'll just say one last thing, which probably has been explained, but I feel is one of the most important things to include: Monster Reborn rewards you for much more idiotic moves, or just in general make balances or otherwise worthless moves into a more of an advantage.

 

"I activate Dark Core. Then I use Monster Reborn to bring back the Dark Lord Zerato from my hand :D"

 

"I use D-Draw and discard Dasher, then use Monster Reborn on him. Oh, and I summon a Tuner, use Malicious, grab another one, and then I run over your Dark Armed Dragon and attack directly with my Synchro."

 

"I set a card (monster reborn). I activate Card Destruction. Then I use Reborn on one of the cards I discarded."

 

"I Tribute Exiled Force to destroy your face-down Sangan, then use Monster Reborn and use his effect again. Yeah, then I'll attack directly with my other monster."

 

"You destroyed my Newdoria and now your monster is dead? Well, I activate Monster Reborn and bring back your monster."

 

"I use Foolish Burial and then Monster Reborn to Special Summon any monster from my deck."

 

"Knight of Armageddon.."

 

"Hey, thanks for discarding your monster for Lightning Vortex while you had a face-down monster, now I can summon it."

 

Those are just some examples of how Monster Reborn can turn a situation in your favor.

[CrabHelmet]

Monster Reborn while free has some good for this game. Your opponent now has to think on what he puts in his grave. When monster reborn was ban you could just dump any monster in your graveyard safely (like green baboon and DMoC).

 

Don't be ridiculous. A year ago' date=' anyone who suggested legalizing Monster Reborn would have been laughed off of any half-intelligent forum. Monster Reborn's text hasn't changed since then.

[/quote']

 

After playing it for more than six months I think it's perfect where it is. Some cards needs to be tested in the advanced format to see if it would really affect this game or not. They've done it before with Snatch Steal and we all saw that it was wrong. They fixed it on the following ban list. This time I think Monster Reborn passed the test.

 

Just because Konami is too bloody stupid to re-ban it doesn't mean that Monster Reborn has passed some sort of invisible test and is somehow balanced. The game has never had a need for entirely costless generic revival, and Monster Reborn is as costless and generic as revival gets. It was banworthy from the start and nothing has changed to make it acceptable. Konami just kept it legal because people like you think that you have a right to plop a piece of costless generic recursion into every deck you make, and they know that people like you would complain if they felt that this right had been violated.

 

Well I pretty much agree with you, the meta has sort of gone past the point where just having some over-powered card will help you. With all the new cards that have come out, there are so many ways to negate Monster Reborn.

 

Also, they really did need a generic revival card(IDK why, ask Konami), and all the others had ways to be abused and constantly reused.

 

Banning Monster Reborn isn't the only change that needs to be made, and it is most certainly lower in priority than other changes, like banning DAD. The presence of other, more broken cards doesn't justify keeping Monster Reborn legal; Chaos Emperor Dragon - Envoy of the End is more broken than Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning, but that doesn't mean that BLS should be legal.

 

As for why Konami thinks that Monster Reborn needs to stay legal, again, it's because of whiny kids who want their generic recursion.

[JesusofChaos™]

This topic is filled with fail but im going to pick and handful of espically lulz worthy quotes

Premature is banned because of its effect.

If a player can return it to the hand' date=' he/she can use it again without having the equipped monster destroyed.

[/quote']

 

*Claps slowly*

 

I think Solemn should be semi-limit' date=' as it's not much of a cost when you have less than 1000 life points and can negate just about anything...

[/quote']

 

Get back to your section

 

What if there was a Super Monster Reborn like there is a Super Polymerization?

 

Just stop trying

 

*Edit why not put monster reborn at 3

for the same reason you don't have 3 mirror force/heavy storm/brain control... like those cards monster reborn is strong but not enough to be ban

 

*Edit no2

after rereading what crab said no you don't get incredible advantage by playing monster reborn you usually get a 0 or a +1 (just like breaker and brain control) and you can even get -1 if you don't have anything good to revive. Try giving me 1 good monster you can revive who can give you an incredible advantage?

 

1) When does a card deem to become strong, is there some sort of invisible barrier where a card suddenly goes from good to strong and to overpowered.

 

2) Advantage =/= everything

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Glad I didn't make the list.

[CrabHelmet]

"The problem is not the monster you get back. The problem is that anyone who draws the card can instantly get back any monster of their choice."

 

You could apply this logic to any card limited to 1 "anyone who draws _______ get _______".

 

Indeed' date=' you can.

 

That's why Limitation shouldn't be thrown around casually like you idiots do.

 

"Although activating Monster Reborn is not equivalent to declaring victory, whoever does activate it immediately gets a sizable advantage as a reward for skillfully...being the player lucky enough to draw Monster Reborn. The fact that it moves the emphasis of the game from skillful plays to lucky draws is why it damages the game and needs to go."

 

I can say that's a good argument but it doesn't automatically give you a sizable advantage.

 

Yes, it does.

 

I agree this can be a lucky draw but again it can be dead early in the game.

 

How early is "early"? Turn 1 you have five other cards in your hand' date=' and with the amount of graveyard manipulation available you still have a good chance of already having something in the grave. After Turn 1, the graveyard will always have a target available.

 

Oh, and if Monster Reborn is a dead draw, then so is Chaos Emperor Dragon - Envoy of the End.

 

Stop trying to make Monster Reborn look situational.

 

It's also not 100% skill-less.

 

You're right about this one. When I activate Monster Reborn, it's very difficult; sometimes I'll accidentally put Monster Reborn in the Field Spell Zone instead of the Spell and Trap Zone when I activate it, due to my immense lack of skill.

 

I saw a lot of bad duelist reborn for nothing or reborn crap when they could have done way better with it.

 

Hmm' date=' let's see, I have Darklord Zerato and Needle Worm in the graveyard. Which one of them should I revive with Monster Reborn?

 

That said, a player who draws Monster Reborn and misplays it is STILL better off than the player who doesn't draw Monster Reborn at all - another testament to Monster Reborn's banworthiness.

 

"The same could be said of Last Will.

 

Let's put Last Will at 3."

 

Ummm no we don't have access to 3 monster reborn.

 

Fine, Last Will at 1 then.

 

We could test this limited but i don't think it would be a good idea' date=' since it would clearly advantage decks that uses syncro.

[/quote']

 

God forbid the card pool contain any Synchro support! Quick, ban Instant Fusion! Oh, and while we're attacking cards for supporting specific decktypes, let's ban Rare Value. It would clearly advantage decks that use Crystal Beast monsters!

 

Also, you are aware that Monster Reborn supports Synchro decks too, right?

 

Plus 6 months is a long period (let's face it 6 months of snatch steal was bad) we'd only need a couple weeks to see the bad things last will can do...

 

And then the shaman raised his skull staff high into the air and declared' date=' "Last Will be an evil spirit that shall haunt our people if it return!"

 

"Anyone with half a brain doesn't limit cards for the crime of being good."

 

I know it was just to sum up everything that had been said.

 

And the fact that your entire argument for Limiting Monster Reborn can be summed up as "it is good" shows that your entire argument for Limiting Monster Reborn is idiotic.

 

"Mirror Force and Heavy Storm provide benefit to the game at 1 by punishing overextension' date=' but at 3 would murder aggro and non-chainables respectively. Brain Control is only at 1 because of the moronic Konami policy that you espouse."

 

Monster Reborn can punish mindlessy sending a monster to the grave.

[/quote']

 

Overextending needs to be punished to keep the game from becoming a mindless whoever-fills-the-field-first-wins game. Having at least one monster in the graveyard is not a horrible misplay that needs punishing.

 

Note that Heavy Storm and Mirror Force are entirely mediocre cards unless the opponent extends too much. If the opponent has only one Spell or Trap, then Heavy Storm is a Normal Spell version of MST that backfires if you yourself have any Spells or Traps. If the opponent has only one Attack Position monster when they attack, then Mirror Force is another Sakuretsu Armour. However, Monster Reborn doesn't depend on the opponent to extend for you to be able to use it; as long as either player has at least one monster in the graveyard, Monster Reborn is able to work to its full potential. It doesn't even need to rely on the opponent at all (unlike Mirror Force and Heavy Storm), since you can just revive your own big monster as easily as you can revive the opponent's - and since your own big monster is more likely to be useful to you, this is what is usually done.

 

Furthermore, Heavy Storm and Mirror Force attack the opponent's active resources - the attacking monsters and the Spells and Traps they have on the field. As such, both give the opponent the option of using other cards to protect their resources - Counter Traps in both cases, and Spell and Trap removal in the case of Mirror Force. However, the monsters in the graveyard are expended resources that no longer benefit the player, and while creating a price to swarming in order to avoid losing large numbers of monsters is perfectly fine, forcing the opponent to always have protection available to prevent the opponent from taking easy advantage of the monsters that no longer help them anyhow doesn't promote anything even remotely resembling skill.

 

Also, what on earth is "mindlessly sending a monster to the grave" supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that the proper thing to do is to never send any monsters to the graveyard? And are you suggesting that doing so will stop the opponent from being able to use Monster Reborn?

 

"So' date=' I ask again: how does Monster Reborn become an unacceptable broken menace at 3 but transform into something perfectly fine at 1?"

 

Having multiple copies of this card at the same time can easily give you "sizable advantage" to use your words. It lets you special summon enough beatsticks to give you a large LP advantage or could let you combo multiple monsters to aquire advantage over your opponent that 1 monster reborn alone couldn't do (It's not like double raiza but it's the only thing i can think of for the moment).

[/quote']

 

Awesome, I'll Special Summon a Monarch (other than Kreis) and then activate its effect! What a pro move!

 

There is no synergy involved in using multiple Monster Reborns together; using two Monster Reborns at the same time is no different from using two Monster Reborns at completely unrelated times. This contrasts with cards that actually do combo in multiples, such as Night Assailant.

 

If two Monster Reborns give sizable advantage in an unacceptable manner, then one Monster Reborn gives sizable advantage in an unacceptable manner.

 

"Advantage in a duel isn't measured purely in terms of +'s and -'s. Graceful Charity is a +0. If you cannot understand this' date=' then you are bad at this game."

 

Bad example see darkwolds...

[/quote']

 

Are you implying that, if Dark World monsters did not exist, Graceful Charity would be fine at 3? If you are, then you're an idiot. If you aren't, then your statement is a waste of time for both of us, and therefore you're still an idiot.

 

But i get the point lol. I meant tangible advantage unlike thunder dragon.

 

You said that Monster Reborn was usually just a +0 and often a -1.

 

Methinks you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

 

I played the game when it was ban and I didn't care.

 

I played the game when it was banned and I was glad that it was banned because it was obviously a broken card.

 

This' date=' of course, was back before Konami unbanned it and a bunch of people started trying to justify Konami's decision using the most laughable excuses for reasoning imaginable.

 

Now that it's back I haven't felt that it should be banned like snatch steal or ring of destruction. I think it really is a bordeline card

 

I DONT REALLY NO Y I JUST FEEL IN MAH BONES THAT IT R OK THERE4 IT R OK B/C I SED SO LOL

 

That said, the period where Monster Reborn has been legal has been filled with broken cards like DAD that overshadow Monster Reborn. No matter how broken Monster Reborn is, it's not as broken as a field wipe followed by a direct attack for at least 2800, or possibly even an OTK.

 

just like you said it can be topdecked but the required cards need to be in the grave. In terms of advantage what this card can do is situational.

 

Yeah, you're right. It's really situational. I mean, it's not like the game mechanics send virtually every card to the graveyard after use, and it's not like things like discard costs or milling send monsters to the graveyard by other means. The graveyard is an extremely obscure and minor part of the game, and it requires an immense amount of dedication and skill to set up a scenario where it actually contains a monster. The other day, I was in a duel, and I was playing Lightlords and my opponent was playing Zombies, and I had Monster Reborn in my hand for like five turns and I wasn't able to use it because neither of us ever had any monsters in our graveyards. In the end, his Giant Kozaky went to the graveyard, so I was finally able to use Monster Reborn on that, but even so, it showed how situational Monster Reborn is. Personally, I'm going to be taking it out of all my decks and replacing it with Book of Moon or something, because it's just too situational to warrant use, and it's a dead draw ninety percent of the time.

[Psycho Shocker Android]

"Also, what on earth is "mindlessly sending a monster to the grave" supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that the proper thing to do is to never send any monsters to the graveyard? And are you suggesting that doing so will stop the opponent from being able to use Monster Reborn?"

 

Ever heard of dark grepher, FOOLISH burial, trade in, lightsworns, zombies, tuners... Monster Reborn actually give these cards/decks a risk factor. The grave isn't a safe palace that anybody can abuse while their opponent can't do a thing about.

 

"You said that Monster Reborn was usually just a +0 and often a -1."

 

Ummm no you just quoted half the things I said. It all depends on what you can do with the monster. You get to attack, defend, use it's effect or tribute it (these options aren't always all available). Attacking can give you a +1 if you kill a monster, 0 if you exchange your monster for a trap. Defending usually results in your monster dying for -1 or your opponent using something to kill it for 0. Using the effect depends on the monster you revived if the effect is broken then the problem isn't monster reborn it's the monster you are reviving. Tributing depends on what you use it for.

 

"Yeah, you're right. It's really situational. I mean, it's not like the game mechanics send virtually every card to the graveyard after use, and it's not like things like discard costs or milling send monsters to the graveyard by other means. The graveyard is an extremely obscure and minor part of the game, and it requires an immense amount of dedication and skill to set up a scenario where it actually contains a monster. The other day, I was in a duel, and I was playing Lightlords and my opponent was playing Zombies, and I had Monster Reborn in my hand for like five turns and I wasn't able to use it because neither of us ever had any monsters in our graveyards. In the end, his Giant Kozaky went to the graveyard, so I was finally able to use Monster Reborn on that, but even so, it showed how situational Monster Reborn is. Personally, I'm going to be taking it out of all my decks and replacing it with Book of Moon or something, because it's just too situational to warrant use, and it's a dead draw ninety percent of the time."

 

Your basically talking for nothing saying things even n00bs understand like monsters are sent to the grave when destroyed/discarded/milled and then repeating the same thing you are saying again : monster reborn gives you any monster from either players grave... It's the freakin' effect of monster reborn!!! What I'm saying is that "reviving any monsters" doesn't prove that monster reborn should be banned. You make it sounds so dramatic that the player who draws it gains automatically an unsurmountable advantage while it's completely false.

 

 

 

GenzoTheHarpist wrote :

-About it being at three, I believe it falls under condition A of your limiting criteria, Crab. That's just my point of view though.

 

"A) The card cannot remain at 3 due to one or more of the banning conditions (probably Condition 1) but provides some benefit to the game at 1 that allows it to remain. Example: Mirror Force."-

 

I think that too.

[Blade Knight]

I can live with the ban list and see your point but I only have a problem gyzarus not being on there due to It's Ownage rate.

[CrabHelmet]

"Guys, I'm going to stop playing Lightsworns because my opponent might use Monster Reborn on my milled Celestia!"

 

The fact that nobody has ever said this ruins your retarded MONSTER REBORN PROMOTES SKILL idea.

[Corporal]

Monster Reborn while free has some good for this game. Your opponent now has to think on what he puts in his grave. When monster reborn was ban you could just dump any monster in your graveyard safely (like green baboon and DMoC).

 

Don't be ridiculous. A year ago' date=' anyone who suggested legalizing Monster Reborn would have been laughed off of any half-intelligent forum. Monster Reborn's text hasn't changed since then.

[/quote']

 

After playing it for more than six months I think it's perfect where it is. Some cards needs to be tested in the advanced format to see if it would really affect this game or not. They've done it before with Snatch Steal and we all saw that it was wrong. They fixed it on the following ban list. This time I think Monster Reborn passed the test.

 

Just because Konami is too bloody stupid to re-ban it doesn't mean that Monster Reborn has passed some sort of invisible test and is somehow balanced. The game has never had a need for entirely costless generic revival, and Monster Reborn is as costless and generic as revival gets. It was banworthy from the start and nothing has changed to make it acceptable. Konami just kept it legal because people like you think that you have a right to plop a piece of costless generic recursion into every deck you make, and they know that people like you would complain if they felt that this right had been violated.

 

Well I pretty much agree with you, the meta has sort of gone past the point where just having some over-powered card will help you. With all the new cards that have come out, there are so many ways to negate Monster Reborn.

 

Also, they really did need a generic revival card(IDK why, ask Konami), and all the others had ways to be abused and constantly reused.

 

Banning Monster Reborn isn't the only change that needs to be made, and it is most certainly lower in priority than other changes, like banning DAD. The presence of other, more broken cards doesn't justify keeping Monster Reborn legal; Chaos Emperor Dragon - Envoy of the End is more broken than Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning, but that doesn't mean that BLS should be legal.

 

As for why Konami thinks that Monster Reborn needs to stay legal, again, it's because of whiny kids who want their generic recursion.

You're right, the fact that other over-powered cards are allowed shouldn't mean that this card should be too.

 

Though, the whiny little kids you speak of probably pay no mind to the meta or the ban list and are just the people you find playing with no fusions, rituals or tributes.

[Psycho Shocker Android]

"Guys' date=' I'm going to stop playing Lightsworns because my opponent might use Monster Reborn on my milled Celestia!"

 

The fact that [i']nobody[/i] has ever said this ruins your retarded MONSTER REBORN PROMOTES SKILL idea.

 

Random milling is one of the things that makes lightsworn balanced for multiple factors one of them being monster reborn. Plus we see some LS played in other decks like ryko and lyla you won't automatically mill a celestia.

 

You're only using this example because it advantage your point of view.

 

Let's take armageddon knight who's currently seeing more play because of the past shonen jump.

 

Whenever I play him I carefully pick the dark I'm sending to the grave based on different factors, one being if Monster Reborn is in my opponent's grave or not.

 

If you can't understand that monster reborn has some good points for this game and that it's not broken unless you revive a broken monster well I will never be able to convince you that it should not be ban.

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

You are NOT going to NOT send a DARK to the Grave because your opponent does not have MR in their Graveyard.

[Psycho Shocker Android]

no but i probably will send sangan over something like darklord zerato

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Also if monster reborn was banned it would disadvantage many decktypes that have it as their only recursion card, thus limiting the games variety to those that have specialty ways of reviving like Zombies.

[CrabHelmet]

If you're not in a mirror match, then unless the opponent is looking to push for the last game-winning damage, they would usually prefer the themed card they can get from their own graveyard to the beatstick that doesn't support their theme that they can get from your graveyard. If you are in a mirror match, then they don't need your graveyard; they can get what they want from their own. Either way, it doesn't have any major effect. The 700 LP difference in cost wasn't the reason that everyone ran Premature Burial while it was legal and nobody ran Autonomous Action Unit.

 

Heavy Storm and Mirror Force undeniably affect gameplay; there's a good reason that people don't set their entire hand each turn. Monster Reborn does not significantly affect gameplay.

 

Also if monster reborn was banned it would disadvantage many decktypes that have it as their only recursion card' date=' thus limiting the games variety to those that have specialty ways of reviving like Zombies.

[/quote']

 

This is basically the same as the "unban Pot of Greed or Graceful Charity because otherwise the decks that don't have draw engines will be at a disadvantage" argument. I'll give you a chance to figure out on your own why it doesn't hold water.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

This is basically the same as the "unban Pot of Greed or Graceful Charity because otherwise the decks that don't have draw engines will be at a disadvantage" argument. I'll give you a chance to figure out on your own why it doesn't hold water.

 

Yeah alone that would be pretty silly but that is only a small part of the many reasons that Monster Reborn should remain limited. It's just one more reason, not the bulk of my argument by any means.

[CrabHelmet]

A fundamentally invalid argument cannot even constitute one reason amidst an ensemble.

 

Also, as far as I can tell, there are only two reasons proposed for keeping Monster Reborn legal:

 

1. It promotes skilled graveyard management (which it really doesn't, and which it certainly doesn't enough to justify its presence).

 

2. The Pot of Greed / Graceful Charity argument.

 

Did I miss anything?

[GenzoTheHarpist]

The "there's no problem with the card to begin with" argument and the "recursion is a fundamental part of the game" one.

[JesusofChaos™]

The "there's no problem with the card to begin with" argument and the "recursion is a fundamental part of the game" one.

 

Banning 1 Recurrsion card =/= getting rid of all recurrsion

[CrabHelmet]

The "there's no problem with the card to begin with" argument

 

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.

 

and the "recursion is a fundamental part of the game" one.

 

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.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

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.

 

 

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.

[CrabHelmet]

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.

[e_hero_captain_goldylocks]

disk commander was banned cause it was being abused and over used using premature, monster reborn, andn that card that revives lvl 2 monsters plus fear monger

[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...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.