CrabHelmet Posted November 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 What I don't understand is why they think DAD is no problem when in this SJC we have 11 Tele-DAD decks. Anyone know how many Tele-DAD decks were in the top 16 in the other SJC's? Even more; the one before this had 13, if I remember correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 What I don't understand is why they think DAD is no problem when in this SJC we have 11 Tele-DAD decks. Anyone know how many Tele-DAD decks were in the top 16 in the other SJC's? Even more; the one before this had 13' date=' if I remember correctly.[/quote'] Actually, I'm pretty sure it was 15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chaos Pudding Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 So are we all in agreement that something(s) has to be done about TeleDAD? I recommend banning DAD, banning CCV, banning Sangan, banning Monster Reborn, and possibly Semi-Limiting Malicious. Anyone else got any other cards that they feel need mentioning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted November 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 What I don't understand is why they think DAD is no problem when in this SJC we have 11 Tele-DAD decks. Anyone know how many Tele-DAD decks were in the top 16 in the other SJC's? Even more; the one before this had 13' date=' if I remember correctly.[/quote'] Actually, I'm pretty sure it was 15. 15 was the one before that. The one with 13 was the one with a Little City in there. So are we all in agreement that something(s) has to be done about TeleDAD? I recommend banning DAD' date=' banning CCV, banning Sangan, banning Monster Reborn, and possibly Semi-Limiting Malicious. Anyone else got any other cards that they feel need mentioning?[/quote'] Breaker the Magical Warrior and Brain Control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 My suggestions for what to do about the current situation: Ban DAD: This is a no brainer. Clearly he is the strength behind the variety of Zombie-DAD builds and helps Teledad as well. Limit Malicious: Clearly there is no use in banning DAD if Teledad just morphs into Dark-Synchro sans-DAD. Limiting Malicious will remove the backbone of the deck's strength. Ban CCV: This isn't what's causing the current situation, but it's ridiculously broken nonetheless. Ban JD: This guy is more powerful than DAD. That's saying something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 1Limit Malicious: Clearly there is no use in banning DAD if Teledad just morphs into Dark-Synchro sans-DAD. Limiting Malicious will remove the backbone of the deck's strength. 2Ban JD: This guy is more powerful than DAD. That's saying something.1) Why do people want this limited. Putting it at 1 removes all of it's use. This is one of the few cards that could be put at 2, and right now it is close to that. I know that this is better then 0, but still I can't see why people would want this at something other than 3 or 2. 2) JD is "more powerful" then DAD, but because DAD is far more splaseable he is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 I want it limited because even at two it is far too abusable with synchro monsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iAmNateXero Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 I want it limited because even at two it is far too abusable with synchro monsters.Yes, the same way cyber dragon gets used in dad Syncro. 1 shell is clearly enough to do Loadz of damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 I want it limited because even at two it is far too abusable with synchro monsters.How is he to abusable. Malicious is level 6 so the worse that can happen is your opponent gets Stardust or another level 8 synchro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 What I don't understand is why they think DAD is no problem when in this SJC we have 11 Tele-DAD decks. Anyone know how many Tele-DAD decks were in the top 16 in the other SJC's? Even more; the one before this had 13' date=' if I remember correctly.[/quote'] Actually, I'm pretty sure it was 15. 15 was the one before that. The one with 13 was the one with a Little City in there. Littly City made it into the top 16? 1Limit Malicious: Clearly there is no use in banning DAD if Teledad just morphs into Dark-Synchro sans-DAD. Limiting Malicious will remove the backbone of the deck's strength. 2Ban JD: This guy is more powerful than DAD. That's saying something.1) Why do people want this limited. Putting it at 1 removes all of it's use. This is one of the few cards that could be put at 2' date=' and right now it is close to that. I know that this is better then 0, but still I can't see why people would want this at something other than 3 or 2. 2) JD is "more powerful" then DAD, but because DAD is far more splaseable he is better.[/quote'] 1) Clearly you don't realize that we want it to lose all of its use. If it's put at two, there's pretty much no difference, and putting it at 0 would be pointless. 2) Lightsworn are still getting into the top 16, so obviously we need to take care of them too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fh-Fh Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 Dad needs to go. Nao. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 Dad needs to go. Nao. Only I may do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fh-Fh Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 [quote='Phantom Roxas' pid='1389813' dateline='1227505916'] [quote='Fh-Fh' pid='1389791' dateline='1227505262'] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s[/url] Dad needs to go. Nao. [/quote] Only I may do that. [/quote] I started it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Shocker Android Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 Bah I'm starting to think the problem isn't just related to the cards now. With plague we should have seen a much more diversified top 16 but everyone stick to their old deck. Players (specially good players) seem to be too lazy to think about something else and just play what everybody else play. It's not that there isn't other competitive decks available. When you think about it if 75% of a tournament consist of a certain competitive deck its chances at topping are high compared to another one who's only played by 5%. And even if you play a good innovative deck you still need some skill to be able to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tickle Me Emo Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 I think that is true...but they raise the rarity which cause the cards to get more expensive What part of "Konami and UDE gain no profit from the secondary market" do you not understand? Making rare and powerful cards simply makes people more likely to buy more card packs. Konami doesn't care how much you spend on DAD on eBay. they probably do' date=' since the more expensive the card is, the more itll be wanted and the more people will spend on the packs for it. My suggestions for what to do about the current situation: Ban DAD: This is a no brainer. Clearly he is the strength behind the variety of Zombie-DAD builds and helps Teledad as well. Limit Malicious: Clearly there is no use in banning DAD if Teledad just morphs into Dark-Synchro sans-DAD. Limiting Malicious will remove the backbone of the deck's strength. Ban CCV: This isn't what's causing the current situation, but it's ridiculously broken nonetheless. Ban JD: This guy is more powerful than DAD. That's saying something. DAD actually isnt the main problem in Tele-DAD its how abusable the cards that work together are. Im not saying dont ban it, its banworthy, Im saying its not going to do as much as you think. Limiting Malicious is probably the most crippling thing you can do to the deck, but Malicious himself doesnt deserve to be limited IMO. He is abusable, dont get me wrong, but hes probably the least banworthy card you mentioned. Banning Crush, no matter how broken and game winning it is, wouldnt harm Tele-DAD much at all. Banning JD isnt such a good idea... hes a great member on YCM! Anyway in all seriousness JD is banable and he should be but at this current time where lightlords arent winning in jumps or big tournaments, there is no chance in hell hes getting banned before Tele-DAD gets hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiro Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 What I don't understand is why they think DAD is no problem when in this SJC we have 11 Tele-DAD decks. Anyone know how many Tele-DAD decks were in the top 16 in the other SJC's? Even more; the one before this had 13' date=' if I remember correctly.[/quote'] Actually, I'm pretty sure it was 15. 15 was the one before that. The one with 13 was the one with a Little City in there. So are we all in agreement that something(s) has to be done about TeleDAD? I recommend banning DAD' date=' banning CCV, banning Sangan, banning Monster Reborn, and possibly Semi-Limiting Malicious. Anyone else got any other cards that they feel need mentioning?[/quote'] Breaker the Magical Warrior and Brain Control. Along with Trap Dustshoot.My suggestions for what to do about the current situation: Ban DAD: This is a no brainer. Clearly he is the strength behind the variety of Zombie-DAD builds and helps Teledad as well. DAD actually isnt the main problem in Tele-DAD its how abusable the cards that work together are. Im not saying dont ban it' date=' its banworthy, Im saying its not going to do as much as you think.[/quote'] Tele without DAD has a lot less answers against many situations.If they lose DAD, a lot less of those decks will make Day 2 because of random sheet that they're vulnerable to. Heck, they could even start losing against Burn/Stall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 1Limit Malicious: Clearly there is no use in banning DAD if Teledad just morphs into Dark-Synchro sans-DAD. Limiting Malicious will remove the backbone of the deck's strength. 2Ban JD: This guy is more powerful than DAD. That's saying something.1) Why do people want this limited. Putting it at 1 removes all of it's use. This is one of the few cards that could be put at 2' date=' and right now it is close to that. I know that this is better then 0, but still I can't see why people would want this at something other than 3 or 2. 2) JD is "more powerful" then DAD, but because DAD is far more splaseable he is better.[/quote'] 1) Clearly you don't realize that we want it to lose all of its use. If it's put at two, there's pretty much no difference, and putting it at 0 would be pointless. 2) Lightsworn are still getting into the top 16, so obviously we need to take care of them too.1) Why do you want him to lose use? The worse 2 things that I can think of that he can do is your opponent gets Stardust or another level 8 synchro or they tribute him for a level 5 or 6 monster. 2) Just because their in the top 16 means we need to "take care of them." We need to "take are of them" because JD is any easy to summon monster with a overpowered effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 Malicious literally just produces synchro material from thin air. It's synchros for nothing. No effort at all. Makes the game unskilled. Use first Mali, E-tele for synchro, use second and normal summon for second. When you use malicious all the tuners in your hand (or e-teles) literally become synchros that you can summon straight from your hand. Let's say that Krebons effect was "sacrifice this monster to summon one level 8 synchro of your choice." That's broken. And with Malicious, that's exactly what the effect is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armageddon08 Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 That's not the effect, but a use for it. And I agree, it's way too broken and should be limited or banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 1Limit Malicious: Clearly there is no use in banning DAD if Teledad just morphs into Dark-Synchro sans-DAD. Limiting Malicious will remove the backbone of the deck's strength. 2Ban JD: This guy is more powerful than DAD. That's saying something.1) Why do people want this limited. Putting it at 1 removes all of it's use. This is one of the few cards that could be put at 2' date=' and right now it is close to that. I know that this is better then 0, but still I can't see why people would want this at something other than 3 or 2. 2) JD is "more powerful" then DAD, but because DAD is far more splaseable he is better.[/quote'] 1) Clearly you don't realize that we want it to lose all of its use. If it's put at two, there's pretty much no difference, and putting it at 0 would be pointless. 2) Lightsworn are still getting into the top 16, so obviously we need to take care of them too.1) Why do you want him to lose use? The worse 2 things that I can think of that he can do is your opponent gets Stardust or another level 8 synchro or they tribute him for a level 5 or 6 monster. 2) Just because their in the top 16 means we need to "take care of them." We need to "take care of them" because JD is any easy to summon monster with a overpowered effect. 1) Malicious is Level 6. It is for that reason also he needs to be Limited. 2) If Tele-DAD dies, Lightsworns will be able to take over the meta. Banning Judgment Dragon might be enough to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armageddon08 Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 Then ban both JD and DAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 Then ban both JD and DAD. Thanks for the tip Mr. Obvious' date=' have a cookie.[/sarcasm'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armageddon08 Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 Then ban both JD and DAD. Thanks for the tip Mr. Obvious' date=' have a cookie.[/sarcasm']I wasn't sure what you were saying since it made no sence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 I'm saying that it's pain-stakingly obvious that Dark Armed Dragon and Judgment Dragon must be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armageddon08 Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 I get that now, but you made it seem like one or the other should be banned, not both of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.