Rescue Cat: Discussion

[Pharaoh_Atem]

It is just as likely for Cat w/o Airbellun to become a problem... as it is for Airbellun w/o Cat to become a problem.

 

Rescue Cat without Airbellum becomes a problem if any Level 3 Beast-Type Tuner is released that does not come with a restrictive effect akin to that of Debris Dragon.

 

Airbellum without Rescue Cat becomes a problem if any card is released that instantly places Airbellum and another Level 1 to 3 monster on the field without requiring any significant cost or setup.

 

The former case seems significantly more probable than the latter.

 

The same applies to the Phantom versus Plasma case. Phantom without Plasma becomes a problem if any monster is released that' date=' like Plasma, is balanced by its Summon Condition or other conditions necessary to use its effect that Phantom can bypass. Plasma without Phantom becomes a problem if any monster is released that has the ability to copy its effect while bypassing the inherent cost included in Plasma's Summon Condition.[/quote']

 

No, not if you actually bother to think about the matter.

 

Card creation is limitless; the game's own rules are subjugated to the will of card effects, leaving us with no bounds. Cards can even violate the supposedly-unbreakable Game Mechanics, if they be made to do so. One would think that you would actually learn such on your own from the surroundings of this site.

 

Just because it may seem more likely because of any number of factors to create a card that fits the former case... does not make the case more likely; any seeming correlation between "factors" and "likelihood of creation" is explained by the words "correlation does not imply causation"; your case here boils down to the fallacy of "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" (with this therefore by this).

 

Your application of the Plasma Phantom case is flawed in the same way - because infinitely many effects can be created, and nothing in the world can be shown to truly prove a greater "likelihood of creation" one way or the other, saying "this seems more likely" is to walk into the aforementioned fallacy. As there is no real way to predict likelihood of creation, and infinitely many can be made, it is just as likely for any one card to be made a problem... as any other card, be the cards Cat and Airbellun, be they Plasma and Phantom.

 

The reason why you distort Plasma and Phantom... is because the game already has a batch of cards that serve to make the case for eliminating Phantom instead of Plasma. This is why you distort Cat and Airbellun - Phantom and Cat are both the tricky weak little things that serve to give the bigger cards a boost, and it is that boost that you find fault in.

 

This shredding of your points is thereby summed up in one sentence; "You are not thinking about this from all angles, and as a result, you cannot see properly, so you have fallen into bits reminiscent of soundbytes."

 

Soundbytes do not a strong position make. Your argument is one that tries to frame the matter as "Ban Cat, or ban X number of Tuners." Because the game only has one Cat, and only one Tuner that fits the descriptions needed.... the "ban 1 or ban X" framework fails us. It is "ban 1 or ban 1".

 

For Cat itself to be guaranteed as equivalent to a Synchro' date=' Cat needs to be able to search a Tuner that can Tune to the other monster. There is no need to prohibit all Level 3 Beast-Type Tuners, but just ones that can Tune to whatever else Cat summons, if your only complaint with Cat is "Cat = Lv_ to Lv6 Synchro".

[/quote']

 

In other words, all Level 3 Beast-Type Tuners should have restrictive effects like that of Debris Dragon in order to prevent Rescue Cat abuse?

 

LV3 or below. Remember Cat's precise details, or you'll get nowhere. The clause need only be something that forces a Tuning w/ Lv4s or higher only, or only with certain Types or Attributes, or so on; Debris is only the example we reach toward because of its recent announcement.

 

If you favor keeping us away from those restrictions, you still have no strong argument to punish Cat in the here-and-now.

 

Cat serves the game outside of Airbellun, as recently evidenced with some sparse Baboon, Test Tiger, and Black Panther attempts. Airbellun serves the game only as its Tuning self, its effect being part of itself. Airbellun's elimination hurts everyone; Cat's loss hurts particulars that we must consider either to be worth sparing or worth hurting along with Cat.

 

(Consider the old Metamorphosis matters. Punishing Metamorphosis hurts particulars, those particulars being the Morph-assisted Fusions. Punishing a Fusion hurts only that Fusion, as the competitiveness of a Fusion's Materials... is always independent of the Fusion's competitiveness-with-Morph. We only sided with Morph at the moment because of the logic behind the discussion... If Morph ever becomes the problem [somehow], we will go after it, and then might reconsider the cards that were banned for it.)

 

In this case, Cat is the Morph-analogue, and Airbellun the Fusion-analogue. Consider the prospects and thoughts wisely, as while Cat may seem to be the card to kill, there's a lot you're ignoring here.

 

 

There is no real reason to go for Cat over Airbellun at the moment; thus, we may eliminate Airbellun because of its lower usefulness... Cat needs Airbellun less than Airbellun needs Cat. Should another Tuner come by that fits Airbellun's role, we can revisit the matter.

 

 

Lastly, we note that the guideline of bringing the "most cards into the game" needs to keep its proper place.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

Right now' date=' there aren't any Synchros that Kitty can bring out that warrant any action on any part of the combo.

[/quote']

 

Strong claim. Prove it.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

What? That's asking to prove a negative.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

Precisely - if the claim isn't provable, we might as well toss it out.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

He never even made a claim though. That "claim" was a challenge to the threads central dogma: that there is something banworthy about the cat/airbellum combo.

 

Is there any proof that anything in this combo is banworthy to begin with? If none exists then this whole thread was pointless discussion.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

He never even made a claim though.

 

Yes' date=' he did.

 

http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50040639?query_type=word&queryword=claim&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=2&search_id=D4PB-04N9nM-20234&hilite=50040639

 

claim, v.

2. c. ‘Often loosely used (esp. in U.S.) for: Contend, maintain, assert’. (F. Hall.)

5. To call, name, proclaim (with complement); passing in later use into the sense ‘assert a claim to be (some one or something)’. Obs.

 

That "claim" was a challenge to the threads central dogma: that there is something banworthy about the cat/airbellum combo.

 

Yes, hence why I asked him to get started upon chipping away at that dogma in a more meaningful way than simply saying

Right now, there aren't any Synchros that Kitty can bring out that warrant any action on any part of the combo.

 

Or, in short, it's why I asked him to prove his case; if he proves his case, he thereby saves us all the trouble of losing any copies of Cat or Airbellun.

 

Is there any proof that anything in this combo is banworthy to begin with? If none exists then this whole thread was pointless discussion.

 

Regardless of the other legal cards, it is viewed as problematic to be able to convert one single card into one Synchro of any level equal to or greater than 4, but less than 7. Doing so while thinning the deck and prepping the Grave only adds to the lustre of the play. Namely, it is because no known cure exists through unlimiting other cards... that we consider punishment. We have exhausted all other options, both of the mental and practical sorts.

 

In short, yes, I've run all the observations already, and no, there's no way to fix this without cutting something.

 

It is smart to consider the Synchros themselves, but the harsh reality here is that even the tamer Synchros are outlandish through this, barring Magical Android and Arms Aid, which have nearly no reason to be used anyway.

 

You are welcome to run the observations yourself.

[bury the year]

I doubt this will be banned before Summon Priest. Let's see what others think. =/

 

This' date=' in my opinion, is one of the few cards that should be banned because of another card(s). In this situation, [b']Ally of Justice Cyclone Creator[/b] and Neo-Spacian Dark Panther, two powerful (effect-wise) monsters, can be searched out incredibly easily with Rescue Cat, which can be searched out incredibly easily with Summon Priest. Cat Synchro would be the top Deck in the TCG if we had Summon Priest.

 

Did anyone else realize the fact that AOJ-Cyclone Creator's NOT A BEAST?!

[GenzoTheHarpist]

I'm not sure of that. There are plenty of cards that can enable instant-synchros that are not yet considered banworthy. If you have a Gigaplant and Nettles in your graveyard (or Lonefire) then swing of memories=level eight synchro, but no one seems to consider that banworthy. None of the three cards in that combo are banworthy, so the combo isn't considered banworthy either. There doesn't seem to be anything bannable about Rescue Cat since without Airbellum it can't synchro. I don't really see Airbellum as being at fault here either since it's only crime is that it's searchable by rescue cat. That would be a case almost like banning every card of under 1500 defense so you could unlimit WotBF.

[CrabHelmet]

I have to say, I'm actually convinced here. Rescue Cat does provide more benefit to the game than X-Saber Airbellum does by making otherwise useless cards like Sea Koala or Crystal Beast Amethyst Cat useful. The fact that banning Rescue Cat also imposes de facto bans on a variety of other cards (whereas X-Saber Airbellum does not promote any otherwise impossible strategies or grant playability to otherwise useless cards) is enough that, even if multiple low-level Beast-Type Tuners (without Debris Dragon-esque restrictions) existed, it would still be preferable to ban them instead of Rescue Cat, since the latter helps the game much more than they would.

 

I'm not sure of that. There are plenty of cards that can enable instant-synchros that are not yet considered banworthy. If you have a Gigaplant and Nettles in your graveyard (or Lonefire) then swing of memories=level eight synchro' date=' but no one seems to consider that banworthy. None of the three cards in that combo are banworthy, so the combo isn't considered banworthy either.

[/quote']

 

One key difference is that this combo requires setup - Gigaplant and Nettles must both already be in the graveyard. It also does nothing to thin the deck or to set up the graveyard for other combos in the future.

 

There doesn't seem to be anything bannable about Rescue Cat since without Airbellum it can't synchro. I don't really see Airbellum as being at fault here either since it's only crime is that it's searchable by rescue cat.

 

According to this chain of reasoning' date=' we should have both Butterfly Dagger - Elma and Gearfried the Iron Knight unlimited, as neither can OTK without the other.

 

If a combo between two cards is found to be unacceptable to the extent that said combo cannot be allowed to remain legal, then one of those two cards must be banned even if it would not be even remotely up for consideration for being banned if the other card did not exist. This is a practical matter - even if neither card alone would deserve to be banned, the fact remains that some card does indeed need to be banned in order to stop the combo.

 

That would be a case almost like banning every card of under 1500 defense so you could unlimit WotBF.

 

You have a very loose definition of "almost".

[GenzoTheHarpist]

I have to say' date=' I'm actually convinced here. Rescue Cat does provide more benefit to the game than X-Saber Airbellum does by making otherwise useless cards like Sea Koala or Crystal Beast Amethyst Cat useful. The fact that banning Rescue Cat also imposes [i']de facto[/i] bans on a variety of other cards (whereas X-Saber Airbellum does not promote any otherwise impossible strategies or grant playability to otherwise useless cards) is enough that, even if multiple low-level Beast-Type Tuners (without Debris Dragon-esque restrictions) existed, it would still be preferable to ban them instead of Rescue Cat, since the latter helps the game much more than they would.

That's preposterous. There is absolutely no way you can justify the banning of every beast tuner just to save rescue cat. I'm actually glad you said this because it makes my WotBF analogy much more accurate. This is the kind of logic you trashed when fools said TER should be unbanned to make Idol playable. This is the sort of thought process you mocked when people said the Exodia pieces should stay limited so The Forbidden one could remain unbanned. You just don't ban a whole collection of cards just so you can leave one card of dubious benefit legal.

 

I'm not sure of that. There are plenty of cards that can enable instant-synchros that are not yet considered banworthy. If you have a Gigaplant and Nettles in your graveyard (or Lonefire) then swing of memories=level eight synchro' date=' but no one seems to consider that banworthy. None of the three cards in that combo are banworthy, so the combo isn't considered banworthy either.

[/quote']

 

One key difference is that this combo requires setup - Gigaplant and Nettles must both already be in the graveyard. It also does nothing to thin the deck or to set up the graveyard for other combos in the future.

That's true. But then again you have to draw Summon Priest to use Rescue cat to max potential (or draw rescue cat itself.) Literally all you need here is to draw Lonefire and Swing-The rest follows naturally because of Lonefire's searching ability (which thins the deck BTW. Actually much like Rescue Cat itself.)

 

There doesn't seem to be anything bannable about Rescue Cat since without Airbellum it can't synchro. I don't really see Airbellum as being at fault here either since it's only crime is that it's searchable by rescue cat.

 

According to this chain of reasoning' date=' we should have both Butterfly Dagger - Elma and Gearfried the Iron Knight unlimited, as neither can OTK without the other.[/quote']

I'm just saying that neither the card nor the combo seems banworthy to me. Plants are capable of similar feats. And don't even get me started on the synchro potential with Malicious. IIW + Plaguespreader = as many synchros as you damn well want.

 

However, if there's one thing that's bannable here, it's certainly not Airbellum, which has no fault other then being searchable by Cat's effect... it's cat here that enables the fast-synchros. However any Beast-Tuner without restrictions would do for the combo. To keep Rescue cat off you'd have to ban a whole army of potential cards, or put unnecessary restrictions on them. And just for the sake of one card?

 

That would be a case almost like banning every card of under 1500 defense so you could unlimit WotBF.

 

You have a very loose definition of "almost".

It's the same actually. In both cases you'd need to ban a whole host of cards all for the sake of keeping one broken card. Though I do admit the Exodia situation is probably a better metaphor.

[CrabHelmet]

I have to say' date=' I'm actually convinced here. Rescue Cat does provide more benefit to the game than X-Saber Airbellum does by making otherwise useless cards like Sea Koala or Crystal Beast Amethyst Cat useful. The fact that banning Rescue Cat also imposes [i']de facto[/i] bans on a variety of other cards (whereas X-Saber Airbellum does not promote any otherwise impossible strategies or grant playability to otherwise useless cards) is enough that, even if multiple low-level Beast-Type Tuners (without Debris Dragon-esque restrictions) existed, it would still be preferable to ban them instead of Rescue Cat, since the latter helps the game much more than they would.

That's preposterous. There is absolutely no way you can justify the banning of every beast tuner just to save rescue cat.

 

Then it's a very good thing that that is not what I am supporting.

 

What I actually am supporting is the banning of every Level 3 or lower Beast-Type Tuner Monster that does not come with a restriction on its ability to be Special Summoned, the monsters with which it can Tune, the Synchro Monsters it can Synchro Summon, or any other form of drawback that would preclude its use with Rescue Cat in the manner which has previously been demonstrated to be unacceptable.

 

And even that only applies if all such monsters fail to satisfy one additional criterion, described below.

 

Note that this is not a case of an entire category being banned to save one card. Rather, it is a case of two separate categories - one consisting of the monsters described above, and one consisting of cards with the ability to Special Summon 2 Level 3 or lower Beast-Type Monsters from the deck - whose mutual existence cannot be permitted, and thus one entire category must inevitably be sacrificed to preserve the other entire category.

 

I'm actually glad you said this because it makes my WotBF analogy much more accurate.

 

You seem to have forgotten that' date=' given a choice between two categories of cards, if one category of cards is unambiguously at fault, then it is the culprit category that should be eliminated, not the other category. Unlike the case of Cat/Airbellum, where no single culprit exists, Witch of the Black Forest is unambiguously the problem here.

 

The additional criterion, which I will get to in a moment, gives another explanation for why this does not apply.

 

This is the kind of logic you trashed when fools said TER should be unbanned to make Idol playable.

 

No, it is not. In this scenario, we are given a choice between two categories of cards, neither of which can easily and unambiguously be identified as the culprit, and so it makes sense to next look at which would result in the fewest de facto bans. Thousand-Eyes Restrict, however, is not in a which-one-do-we-kill-to-save-the-other scenario, and is unambiguously the culprit; thus, the need to remove it from the game trumps whatever degree of playability it might have granted Thousand-Eyes Idol.

 

In short, the de facto unbans are essentially a tiebreaker used to decide which set of cards should remain and which should be banned when other factors, such as which category of cards is the culprit, cannot be used to choose between them. No such scenario exists for Thousand-Eyes Restrict.

 

This is the sort of thought process you mocked when people said the Exodia pieces should stay limited so The Forbidden one could remain unbanned.

 

Limiting the entire series was never seriously considered by anyone using a half-decent system of logic. Limitation to reduce consistency has never been the way to deal with combo OTK's; either the combo is not a problem' date=' in which it can go to 3, or it is a problem, in which case one piece must go to 0 and the others must go to 3. Once it has been decided that the latter option is correct, the card to be banned is selected based on which card is at fault. In this case, the head is unambiguously the card at fault.

 

You just don't ban a whole collection of cards just so you can leave one card of dubious benefit legal.

 

Yes, you do. Whichever option you choose, you are going to be banning one category of cards to save another category of cards. The only way way to avoid this would be to conclude that the original interaction between the two card categories is in fact acceptable and that therefore no category of cards needs banning, which is certainly not the case here.

 

Is it great that we need to eradicate a category of cards that would on its own be perfectly fine? In principle, no. However, every alternative option is even worse, so that's exactly what we must do.

 

I'm not sure of that. There are plenty of cards that can enable instant-synchros that are not yet considered banworthy. If you have a Gigaplant and Nettles in your graveyard (or Lonefire) then swing of memories=level eight synchro' date=' but no one seems to consider that banworthy. None of the three cards in that combo are banworthy, so the combo isn't considered banworthy either.

[/quote']

 

One key difference is that this combo requires setup - Gigaplant and Nettles must both already be in the graveyard. It also does nothing to thin the deck or to set up the graveyard for other combos in the future.

 

That's true. But then again you have to draw Summon Priest to use Rescue cat to max potential (or draw rescue cat itself.)

 

Precisely. All you need to do is draw either Summon Priest or Rescue Cat. That's a basic problem with the combo.

 

By the way, the effect produced by drawing Rescue Cat alone is enough of a problem. Summon Priest is merely the icing on the cake, making the Cat/Airbellum combo even more ridiculous.

 

Literally all you need here is to draw Lonefire and Swing-The rest follows naturally because of Lonefire's searching ability (which thins the deck BTW. Actually much like Rescue Cat itself.)

 

First of all' date=' by saying you need Lonefire and Swing, you have already turned this into a 2-card combo, making the combo more situational and thus bypassing one of the problems with Cat/Airbellum.

 

Second of all, by saying you need Lonefire and Swing, you have increased the number of cards spent from 1 to 2, decreasing the advantage gained and thus bypassing one of the problems with Cat/Airbellum.

 

Third of all, your combo requires at least two Normal Summons, which means that it cannot be pulled off instantaneously and thus bypassing one of the problems with Cat/Airbellum.

 

In short, Swing of Nettles is significantly slower, more situational, and more expensive - not comparable to Cat/Airbellum.

 

There doesn't seem to be anything bannable about Rescue Cat since without Airbellum it can't synchro. I don't really see Airbellum as being at fault here either since it's only crime is that it's searchable by rescue cat.

 

According to this chain of reasoning' date=' we should have both Butterfly Dagger - Elma and Gearfried the Iron Knight unlimited, as neither can OTK without the other.[/quote']

 

I'm just saying that neither the card nor the combo seems banworthy to me.

 

If you don't believe that the combo requires list attention, prove that the combo does not require list attention, or at least make some sort of effort to disprove the assertion that it does.

 

Plants are capable of similar feats.

 

Listing other combos that produce slower' date=' more situational, and more expensive versions of a similar effect does not constitute a proof.

 

And don't even get me started on the synchro potential with Malicious.

 

Malicious requires more setup.

 

Note also that the advent of Synchros means that Malicious is no longer quite so unambiguously balanced.

 

IIW + Plaguespreader = as many synchros as you damn well want.

 

This combo is slower' date=' as Royal Impregnable Fortress is a Continuous Trap. In contrast to the Plant combo, however, it is also much more vulnerable to removal.

 

This combo is more expensive, as, in addition to Imperial Iron Wall, you need to supply your own non-Tuners - the combo won't generate those for you - and pay a card from your hand each time you want to revive Zombie Carrier.

 

This combo is more situational, as it requires far more setup and cards to use.

 

However, if there's one thing that's bannable here, it's certainly not Airbellum, which has no fault other then being searchable by Cat's effect... it's cat here that enables the fast-synchros.

 

However, if there's one thing that's bannable here, it's certainly not Cat, which has no fault other than being able to search Airbellum... it's airbellum here that enables the fast-synchros.

 

Both cards are necessary to perform the unacceptable combo. Neither card is even remotely questionable in the absence of the other. Neither card is unambiguously at fault here. However, since the combo itself cannot be tolerated, one of these cards - and with it its whole category - needs to be removed from legality. This is because the problem lies not in any individual card but rather in the combo produced by the intersection of two different cards.

 

However any Beast-Tuner without restrictions would do for the combo.

 

And any monster capable of Special Summoning 2 Level 3 or lower Beast-Type monsters from the deck would also do for the combo.

 

To keep Rescue cat off you'd have to ban a whole army of potential cards' date=' or put unnecessary restrictions on them. And just for the sake of one card?

[/quote']

 

Again, it's not between one card and an entire category of cards; it's between two categories of cards, each of which currently has a population of 1. No matter what, one otherwise innocuous category is going to be hurt; there is simply no way around this.

 

That would be a case almost like banning every card of under 1500 defense so you could unlimit WotBF.

 

You have a very loose definition of "almost".

 

It's the same actually. In both cases you'd need to ban a whole host of cards all for the sake of keeping one broken card.

 

That is not the case here; Rescue Cat is not an unambiguous culprit' date=' unlike Witch of the Black Forest. However, there is one further criterion that you seem to have overlooked, and which I may as well explain now.

 

The reason that Cat's category is favoured over that of Airbellum is that, from the samples of said categories currently in existence, the former allows the creation of more strategies and grants new playability to otherwise useless cards, while the latter on its own does no such thing - it is nothing more than Another Tuner Monster #47. Since no other valid basis, such as which category alone is the underlying problem (neither), on which to decide which category to save and which to destroy, we fall back on which category helps the game more as a tie-breaker of sorts.

 

Because Rescue Cat alone helps the game more than Airbellum alone does, it currently appears that keeping Rescue Cat legal would help the game more than keeping Airbellum legal.

 

However, it is unknown what stats, effects, or other factors will be present in whatever cards, if any, are added to each of these two categories. Thus, one category can only remain as The Legal One as long as it continues to be the category that provides greater benefit to the game. Currently, Rescue Cat holds that position, as its effect helps the game more than Airbellum does; however, if more cards are added to Airbellum's category whose effects as a whole do more for the game than the cards in Cat's category do, then the categories' roles will be reversed, and it will be the Cat category that is banned and the Airbellum category that remains legal. Of course, if all we get is Another Tuner Monster #48 - say, a 1100 ATK LIGHT Beast-Type Level 3 Normal Monster - then that would not be sufficient to tip the scales in favour of the Airbellum category, and the Cat category would remain the legal one.

 

In short, whichever category helps the game more at any given time is the category that will remain legal; the less helpful category will need to be sacrificed.

 

All in all, this hardly seems like an unreasonable proposal. Since no other factors apply to determining which category of cards deserves to be legal, why [i']not[/i] simply grant legality to whichever category happens to make the game more better at any given point in time?

 

Returning to the WOTBF example: Even if we were to overlook the fact that Witch of the Black Forest is clearly the culprit here, it seems clear that the combined benefits produced by every monster in the game with up to 1500 DEF vastly exceeds the benefits of Witch of the Black Forest's category of cards (whose current population happens to be 1 right now).

 

Though I do admit the Exodia situation is probably a better metaphor.

 

All the metaphors you listed were irrelevant to the current situation; in none of them do we have a conflict between two categories of cards, neither of which is the unambiguous culprit, where neither category of cards would be perfectly innocuous were it not for the presence of the other category.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

So, in other words, with a few small-ish posts, I've dismantled the original logic of pretty-much everyone who posted in the thread before I did.

 

I really think that the lot of you YCMers have no business discussing things like this, if someone like me can turn a topic on its head like this.

[Tsuki ni Mau Majin]

So' date=' in other words, with a few small-ish posts, I've dismantled the original logic of pretty-much everyone who posted in the thread before I did.[/quote']

 

LulzWIN. Sig'd.