[DISC] Overpowered Monster

[Lemniscate]

But what is the probability of the OTK? They are not bannable because the chance of them bringing about consistent OTK's is negligible.

[Bakura Vessal]

Yeah' date=' Albus, when I was talking about effects that would be waiting to rip this apart in competitive duels, I wasn't talking about Man-Eater Bug. And Garzett doesn't have a built-in piercing effect, and if it did Man-Eater Bug wouldn't stop you from losing.

 

Corporal, how do they "focus on removing the facedown" if they have 3 BEWDs, Poly, Heavy, and Garzett? Their error was not building a proper Deck, not not removing the facedown monster.

 

The point is, if you're going into a competitive torunament and wasting cards to get a high lolATK'd Garzett, you'll lose.

[/quote']

 

I was using Man-Eater Bug as a example, and because I like Man-Eater Bugs.

[Lemniscate]

OK, Man-Eater Bug. I'm sorry, but no.

 

 

They win the duel. What more do you want in return' date=' a match win?

[/quote']

 

technically, any card could theoretically win a duel, you could win with a Frog the Jam at some point. Does that make Frog the Jam bannable?

[-Lightray Daedalus-]

But you can't win a duel with frog the jam in One turn...

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Yeah' date=' Albus, when I was talking about effects that would be waiting to rip this apart in competitive duels, I wasn't talking about Man-Eater Bug. And Garzett doesn't have a built-in piercing effect, and if it did Man-Eater Bug wouldn't stop you from losing.

 

Corporal, how do they "focus on removing the facedown" if they have 3 BEWDs, Poly, Heavy, and Garzett? Their error was not building a proper Deck, not not removing the facedown monster.

 

The point is, if you're going into a competitive torunament and wasting cards to get a high lolATK'd Garzett, you'll lose.

[/quote']

Or the fact that that's a terrible way to get out Garzett and you can get him out with 3 or more cards in your hand?

[CrabHelmet]

Let's pretend that one of the worst ways of using a card also happens to be the only way of using it.

 

For example, take Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning. To use him, you would need to activate three copies of Different Dimension Capsule and wait for them to add Mokey-Mokey, Skull Servant, and The Cheerful Coffin to your hand. And then you would need to activate The Cheerful Coffin to discard Mokey-Mokey, Skull Servant, and a Shapesnatch that are currently in your hand. And then you would remove two monsters from the grave to Special Summon Blast Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning. And then you would remove himself from play with his own effect. Good job, you just wasted five cards on nothing.

 

Clearly, this proves logically and rationally that Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning should be put back to 3. Seriously, guys, it's practically useless. Look at how useless I just proved it was. Of course, I was assuming that whoever was using it was a complete moron, but that's mainly because I've been generalizing from myself, which is perfectly excusable in my book.

 

 

They win the duel. What more do you want in return' date=' a match win?

[/quote']

 

technically, any card could theoretically win a duel, you could win with a Frog the Jam at some point. Does that make Frog the Jam bannable?

 

Poison of the Old Brimley

[Normal Spell]

Activate only while you control 2 face-up monsters. Inflict 8000 damage to your opponent's Life Points.

 

Guys, it may be able to win the game under certain conditions, but Frog the Jam could too under certain conditions, so it's all okay. I have decided to close my eyes to all other factors.

 

Also, I love how you've removed the original context of my quote in my post. As usual, the point goes high enough over your head to go into orbit around the planet Pluto Neptune.

[Lemniscate]

and i love the way that in my original post further up the page, when you quoted me, you decided to split up the idea into tiny little parts so that your brain could digest them, instead of reading them as a whole, where the actual meaning is.

To put in terms you'll understand:

It's like ripping a tennis ball to pieces, and then wondering why it doesn't bounce, and then attempting to explain it, but yet missing the fact that you caused it to happen in the first place.

[CrabHelmet]

and i love the way that in my original post further up the page' date=' when you quoted me, you decided to split up the idea into tiny little parts so that your brain could digest them, instead of reading them as a whole, where the actual meaning is.

To put in terms you'll understand:

It's like ripping a tennis ball to pieces, and then wondering why it doesn't bounce, and then attempting to explain it, but yet missing the fact that you caused it to happen in the first place.

[/quote']

 

I only have one post on this page, and in it I quoted your post in a single block of text and responded to it all at once.

 

Also, I think you'll find that unlike in manufacturing, where the whole ought to be greater than the sum of the parts, in logic the whole cannot exceed the sum of the parts - and if any of the parts are faulty (or, which is more likely in your posts, if all of the parts are faulty), the final conclusion is invariably meaningless.

 

I can start my proof by assuming that 2 + 2 = 5 and can from there prove just about anything, but no matter how clever my proof is from that point onward it will still be wrong because there's a huge error contained somewhere in it.

[Lemniscate]

and i love the way that in my original post further up the page' date=' when you quoted me, you decided to split up the idea into tiny little parts so that your brain could digest them, instead of reading them as a whole, where the actual meaning is.

To put in terms you'll understand:

It's like ripping a tennis ball to pieces, and then wondering why it doesn't bounce, and then attempting to explain it, but yet missing the fact that you caused it to happen in the first place.

[/quote']

 

I only have one post on this page, and in it I quoted your post in a single block of text and responded to it all at once.

 

Also, I think you'll find that unlike in manufacturing, where the whole ought to be greater than the sum of the parts, in logic the whole cannot exceed the sum of the parts - and if any of the parts are faulty (or, which is more likely in your posts, if all of the parts are faulty), the final conclusion is invariably meaningless.

 

I can start my proof by assuming that 2 + 2 = 5 and can from there prove just about anything, but no matter how clever my proof is from that point onward it will still be wrong because there's a huge error contained somewhere in it.

 

okay then.

 

 

Let's pretend that one of the worst ways of using a card also happens to be the only way of using it.

 

For example' date=' take Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning. To use him, you would need to activate three copies of Different Dimension Capsule and wait for them to add Mokey-Mokey, Skull Servant, and The Cheerful Coffin to your hand. And then you would need to activate The Cheerful Coffin to discard Mokey-Mokey, Skull Servant, and a Shapesnatch that are currently in your hand. And then you would remove two monsters from the grave to Special Summon Blast Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning. And then you would remove himself from play with his own effect. Good job, you just wasted five cards on nothing.

 

Clearly, this proves logically and rationally that Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning should be put back to 3. Seriously, guys, it's practically useless. Look at how useless I just proved it was. Of course, I was assuming that whoever was using it was a complete moron, but that's mainly because I've been generalizing from myself, which is perfectly excusable in my book.

 

 

They win the duel. What more do you want in return' date=' a match win?

[/quote']

 

technically, any card could theoretically win a duel, you could win with a Frog the Jam at some point. Does that make Frog the Jam bannable?

 

Poison of the Old Brimley

[Normal Spell]

Activate only while you control 2 face-up monsters. Inflict 8000 damage to your opponent's Life Points.

 

Guys, it may be able to win the game under certain conditions, but Frog the Jam could too under certain conditions, so it's all okay. I have decided to close my eyes to all other factors.

 

wow, and this years Emmy for Most Absurd Instance of Missing the Point goes to.... Crab Helmet.

seriously, i never once suggested closing my eyes to other factors, the reason i used Frog the Jam was to show that the reasoning you supplied, which was that any card that wins the game is bannable, is absolutely false. Many cards can win the game, OTK or not is irrelevant, in other threads you have stated that the possibibilities for OTK's are so numerous, that it would be absurd to ban them all. Yet here you attempt to say that if a card is in an OTK, it should be bannable. As stated in your previous post, an arguement is the sum of its parts. This part doesn't stand up, therefore, your arguement doesn't stand up.

 

Also, I love how you've removed the original context of my quote in my post. As usual, the point goes high enough over your head to go into orbit around the planet Pluto Neptune.

[CrabHelmet]

and i love the way that in my original post further up the page' date=' when you quoted me, you decided to split up the idea into tiny little parts so that your brain could digest them, instead of reading them as a whole, where the actual meaning is.

To put in terms you'll understand:

It's like ripping a tennis ball to pieces, and then wondering why it doesn't bounce, and then attempting to explain it, but yet missing the fact that you caused it to happen in the first place.

[/quote']

 

I only have one post on this page, and in it I quoted your post in a single block of text and responded to it all at once.

 

Also, I think you'll find that unlike in manufacturing, where the whole ought to be greater than the sum of the parts, in logic the whole cannot exceed the sum of the parts - and if any of the parts are faulty (or, which is more likely in your posts, if all of the parts are faulty), the final conclusion is invariably meaningless.

 

I can start my proof by assuming that 2 + 2 = 5 and can from there prove just about anything, but no matter how clever my proof is from that point onward it will still be wrong because there's a huge error contained somewhere in it.

 

okay then.

 

 

Let's pretend that one of the worst ways of using a card also happens to be the only way of using it.

 

For example' date=' take Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning. To use him, you would need to activate three copies of Different Dimension Capsule and wait for them to add Mokey-Mokey, Skull Servant, and The Cheerful Coffin to your hand. And then you would need to activate The Cheerful Coffin to discard Mokey-Mokey, Skull Servant, and a Shapesnatch that are currently in your hand. And then you would remove two monsters from the grave to Special Summon Blast Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning. And then you would remove himself from play with his own effect. Good job, you just wasted five cards on nothing.

 

Clearly, this proves logically and rationally that Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning should be put back to 3. Seriously, guys, it's practically useless. Look at how useless I just proved it was. Of course, I was assuming that whoever was using it was a complete moron, but that's mainly because I've been generalizing from myself, which is perfectly excusable in my book.

 

 

They win the duel. What more do you want in return' date=' a match win?

[/quote']

 

technically, any card could theoretically win a duel, you could win with a Frog the Jam at some point. Does that make Frog the Jam bannable?

 

Poison of the Old Brimley

[Normal Spell]

Activate only while you control 2 face-up monsters. Inflict 8000 damage to your opponent's Life Points.

 

Guys, it may be able to win the game under certain conditions, but Frog the Jam could too under certain conditions, so it's all okay. I have decided to close my eyes to all other factors.

 

wow, and this years Emmy for Most Absurd Instance of Missing the Point goes to.... Crab Helmet.

 

Yeah, no.

 

seriously' date=' i never once suggested closing my eyes to other factors,

[/quote']

 

You equated being practically built to OTK with being able to finish off an almost-dead opponent under certain conditions. There are very few factors that you didn't ignore there.

 

the reason i used Frog the Jam was to show that the reasoning you supplied' date=' which was that any card that wins the game is bannable, is absolutely false.

[/quote']

 

"They win the duel. What more do you want in return, a match win?" was posted in response to an assertion that the reward for using them isn't great enough. I'd have thought that this nice little context clue would have cleared things up for you.

 

By the way, thanks for putting words in my mouth fingers and setting up a laughable Straw Man argument.

 

Many cards can win the game' date=' OTK or not is irrelevant,

[/quote']

 

Don't be ridiculous. OTK or not is highly relevant.

 

in other threads you have stated that the possibibilities for OTK's are so numerous' date=' that it would be absurd to ban them all. Yet here you attempt to say that if a card is in an OTK, it should be bannable.

[/quote']

 

You clearly haven't read my posts in other threads properly. I could restate them here using one-syllable words, but given your track record for reading comprehension you'd probably somehow twist that into saying that all future SJC's should take place in Cuba.

 

As stated in your previous post' date=' an arguement is the sum of its parts. This part doesn't stand up, therefore, your arguement doesn't stand up.

[/quote']

 

I heard that most chairs don't stand up if someone comes along and replaces all four legs with water. In case you didn't know, Straw Man arguments are inherently fallacious.

[Lemniscate]

and i love the way that in my original post further up the page' date=' when you quoted me, you decided to split up the idea into tiny little parts so that your brain could digest them, instead of reading them as a whole, where the actual meaning is.

To put in terms you'll understand:

It's like ripping a tennis ball to pieces, and then wondering why it doesn't bounce, and then attempting to explain it, but yet missing the fact that you caused it to happen in the first place.

[/quote']

 

I only have one post on this page, and in it I quoted your post in a single block of text and responded to it all at once.

 

Also, I think you'll find that unlike in manufacturing, where the whole ought to be greater than the sum of the parts, in logic the whole cannot exceed the sum of the parts - and if any of the parts are faulty (or, which is more likely in your posts, if all of the parts are faulty), the final conclusion is invariably meaningless.

 

I can start my proof by assuming that 2 + 2 = 5 and can from there prove just about anything, but no matter how clever my proof is from that point onward it will still be wrong because there's a huge error contained somewhere in it.

 

okay then.

 

 

Let's pretend that one of the worst ways of using a card also happens to be the only way of using it.

 

For example' date=' take Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning. To use him, you would need to activate three copies of Different Dimension Capsule and wait for them to add Mokey-Mokey, Skull Servant, and The Cheerful Coffin to your hand. And then you would need to activate The Cheerful Coffin to discard Mokey-Mokey, Skull Servant, and a Shapesnatch that are currently in your hand. And then you would remove two monsters from the grave to Special Summon Blast Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning. And then you would remove himself from play with his own effect. Good job, you just wasted five cards on nothing.

 

Clearly, this proves logically and rationally that Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning should be put back to 3. Seriously, guys, it's practically useless. Look at how useless I just proved it was. Of course, I was assuming that whoever was using it was a complete moron, but that's mainly because I've been generalizing from myself, which is perfectly excusable in my book.

 

 

They win the duel. What more do you want in return' date=' a match win?

[/quote']

 

technically, any card could theoretically win a duel, you could win with a Frog the Jam at some point. Does that make Frog the Jam bannable?

 

Poison of the Old Brimley

[Normal Spell]

Activate only while you control 2 face-up monsters. Inflict 8000 damage to your opponent's Life Points.

 

Guys, it may be able to win the game under certain conditions, but Frog the Jam could too under certain conditions, so it's all okay. I have decided to close my eyes to all other factors.

 

wow, and this years Emmy for Most Absurd Instance of Missing the Point goes to.... Crab Helmet.

 

Yeah, no.

 

seriously' date=' i never once suggested closing my eyes to other factors,

[/quote']

 

You equated being practically built to OTK with being able to finish off an almost-dead opponent under certain conditions. There are very few factors that you didn't ignore there.

 

the reason i used Frog the Jam was to show that the reasoning you supplied' date=' which was that any card that wins the game is bannable, is absolutely false.

[/quote']

 

"They win the duel. What more do you want in return, a match win?" was posted in response to an assertion that the reward for using them isn't great enough. I'd have thought that this nice little context clue would have cleared things up for you.

 

By the way, thanks for putting words in my mouth fingers and setting up a laughable Straw Man argument.

 

Many cards can win the game' date=' OTK or not is irrelevant,

[/quote']

 

Don't be ridiculous. OTK or not is highly relevant.

 

how so, there are so many that i see then as a natural common occurence, they shouldn't attract attention so much as they do. The only reason that OTK's are seen as important as they are is that people who can't perform them correctly or have them used against them complain, and then attempt to form arguements to support their points.

 

in other threads you have stated that the possibibilities for OTK's are so numerous' date=' that it would be absurd to ban them all. Yet here you attempt to say that if a card is in an OTK, it should be bannable.

[/quote']

 

You clearly haven't read my posts in other threads properly. I could restate them here using one-syllable words, but given your track record for reading comprehension you'd probably somehow twist that into saying that all future SJC's should take place in Cuba.

 

well, it depends what you say. and i would rather you not insult me by saying i can't understand what you're saying, it is taking advantage of my inability to understand. oh, wait.....

 

As stated in your previous post' date=' an arguement is the sum of its parts. This part doesn't stand up, therefore, your arguement doesn't stand up.

[/quote']

 

I heard that most chairs don't stand up if someone comes along and replaces all four legs with water. In case you didn't know, Straw Man arguments are inherently fallacious.

 

if you're prepared to call your arguement a Straw Man arguement, be my guest.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

 

Also' date=' advantage is significantly less important when OTK's are involved.

 

[b']No. you need a significant amount of card advantage generation to set up your OTK, and if the OTK doesn't work, and you wasted even more card advantage, you'll lose.[/b]

 

and do not give that much in return.

 

They win the duel. What more do you want in return' date=' a match win?

 

[b']No, they don't just "win the duel." If you tribute Treeborn for Garzett you haven't won the duel. If you remove two monsters for Chimera you haven't won the duel. Even if you get them way over 8000 you haven't won the duel, not by a long shot. If your beatstick is lost, which it likely will be in competitive play, you'll lose. In competitive play, they lose the duel. What more do I want? Not losing.[/b]

 

Dark Edo Phoenix thinks that cards are only bannable if they dominate the meta.

 

I never said that, they don't have to dominate the meta, they just have to worsen competitive play to earn banworthiness imo. Garzett and Chimera don't worsen competitive play and aren't banworthy.

 

[Lemniscate]

 

Also' date=' advantage is significantly less important when OTK's are involved.

 

[b']No. you need a significant amount of card advantage generation to set up your OTK, and if the OTK doesn't work, and you wasted even more card advantage, you'll lose.

 

and do not give that much in return.

 

They win the duel. What more do you want in return' date=' a match win?

 

[b']No, they don't just "win the duel." If you tribute Treeborn for Garzett you haven't won the duel. If you remove two monsters for Chimera you haven't won the duel. Even if you get them way over 8000 you haven't won the duel, not by a long shot. If your beatstick is lost, which it likely will be in competitive play, you'll lose. In competitive play, they lose the duel. What more do I want? Not losing.[/b]

 

Dark Edo Phoenix thinks that cards are only bannable if they dominate the meta.

 

I never said that, they don't have to dominate the meta, they just have to worsen competitive play to earn banworthiness imo. Garzett and Chimera don't worsen competitive play and aren't banworthy.

 

 

exactly