[DISC] Dark Armed Dragon

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

Ultimate Destiny' date=' give us reasons or your point is invalid.

 

Have you even seen how fast the Meta is, and how quickly people lose?

[/quote']

 

OK the reason for not slowing down the meta is that if we do then any old deck will be a good one, a good deck today needs real work and that is what makes tournament play so fun!

I'm pretty sure that there are tons and tons of decks that still would not make it to SJC, simply because you still need to have skill, and the right cards in your deck. Plus there would still be faster decks than others.

 

Besides, what's so bad about more decks being playable? =/

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

ITT: lulz.

 

Change of Heart wasn't the problem in Chaos, therefor Change of Heart shouldn't be banned.

 

Chaos Sorcerer is inferior to BLS-EotB. Chaos Sorcerer shouldn't be banned.

[SephirothKirby]

10/10 Thread, would read again.

[CrabHelmet]

Ultimate Destiny' date=' give us reasons or your point is invalid.

 

Have you even seen how fast the Meta is, and how quickly people lose?

[/quote']

 

OK the reason for not slowing down the meta is that if we do then any old deck will be a good one, a good deck today needs real work and that is what makes tournament play so fun!

 

I love how people think that Toons will become meta the moment most duels start reaching Turn 6.

[Colonel]

What Are we discussing about DAD? His banworthyness? How hes not banned yet? The great deal the Topic Creator got?

 

I would really like to know.

[Saiyan Knight]

What Are we discussing about DAD? His banworthyness? How hes not banned yet? The great deal the Topic Creator got?

 

I would really like to know.

We're not. At this point it's just a bunch of kids too fascinated with hypotheticals and how things look on paper with no field experience arguing blindly about too many tangents at once.

 

Just write it off as hopeless and move along. J=

[GenzoTheHarpist]

AKA Saiyan Knight will just write off all the valid points crab raised as being bad by virtue of the thread.

[Saiyan Knight]

Crab also doesn't think that the Meta has anything to do with whether or not a card should be banned, which is laughable.

[Tabris]

Crab also doesn't think that the Meta has anything to do with whether or not a card should be banned' date=' which is laughable.

[/quote']

 

Which isn't.

 

You can't measure a card's banworthiness by exposing it to the proverbial elements, when the variables could change at any time, if only due to Konami's caprices.

 

Dimension Fusion, for instance. It finally got banned when TDN came out, but the banworthiness of the said card was - and still is - clear as day LONG BEFORE anyone thought of an OTK with Dimension Fusion.

 

"Activate only when you have 2100 Life Points or more. Special Summon 5 monsters and attack for game."

 

That much.

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

Saiyan Knight, will you quit being ignorant and listen to other people, or are you going to continue trying to look like a bad-A, and failing miserably at making anyone think you're right?

[Saiyan Knight]

Except nothing GOOD was used before Dark Armed came out that removed that many monsters. Bazoo was it, and it certainly had it's hay-day, but Dimension Fusion wasn't good enough without Dark Armed around to make it deserve the ban-hammer.

---

Saiyan Knight' date=' will you quit being ignorant and listen to other people, or are you going to continue trying to look like a bad-A, and failing miserably at making anyone think you're right?

[/quote']

I'm hardly concerned about making anyone believe anything on THIS site. It's a lot like pressing coal to diamonds, but the coal won't let itself be pressed. =/

 

I only made posts after "Write it off as hopeless" because I was directly drug in by name afterward.

 

At this point, whether or not you silly paper-proxy players think that it's in the way of needing a ban or not is moot to me.

[Megaworm]

I have 1 Dark Armed Dragon. Because i was buying packs from hastings and a chinese-ish guy at the Wii Counter said. "Do you play yugioh?" and i was like "yeah." and he pulled this card out of his shirt (it was tied around his neck like a millenium puzzle or some sheet) "Take it. It kicks ass."

 

I looked at it and thought "oh god not another god damn dragon card." and then i used it in the tournaments and filler deck tournaments in montana (since there has NEVER been a Yugioh tournament or anything of that sort EVER IN MONTANA) and i realized that i was the only person with a dark armed dragon. Nobody else even knows what the hell it is or there was a set called "Phantom Darkness" except for the fact that them and their overpopulation of Necroface's seems to stunt them.

 

I think i am the only person in Montana that runs Dark Armed Dragon and has a Judgment Dragon in their binder.

[Tabris]

Except nothing GOOD was used before Dark Armed came out that removed that many monsters. Bazoo was it' date=' and it certainly had it's hay-day, but Dimension Fusion wasn't good enough without Dark Armed around to make it deserve the ban-hammer.

[/quote']

 

Still, you have a card that is fundamentally designed to OTK asnd nothing else - from DMoC-Mass Driver/Shadowpriestess of Ohm/whatever builds to Chimeratech Overdragon builds to Bazoo Return builds to DAD builds. All it needed was a card that could RFG massive amounts of monsters while capable of massive advantage by itself.

 

Why wait for a card to become broken - when it is obviously designed for OTKs and nothing else, or has its OTK components overwhelm the non-OTK ones - when you could ban it?

[Saiyan Knight]

Except nothing GOOD was used before Dark Armed came out that removed that many monsters. Bazoo was it' date=' and it certainly had it's hay-day, but Dimension Fusion wasn't good enough without Dark Armed around to make it deserve the ban-hammer.

[/quote']

 

Still, you have a card that is fundamentally designed to OTK asnd nothing else - from DMoC-Mass Driver/Shadowpriestess of Ohm/whatever builds to Chimeratech Overdragon builds to Bazoo Return builds to DAD builds. All it needed was a card that could RFG massive amounts of monsters while capable of massive advantage by itself.

 

Why wait for a card to become broken - when it is obviously designed for OTKs and nothing else, or has its OTK components overwhelm the non-OTK ones - when you could ban it?

Because without that outside component it obviously wasn't broken. It was "Pay 25% of your life and get some of your little removed monsters back. What's the worst that could happen?" Nothing was around to remove them, and in it's only good format before Phantom Darkness, the Bazoo-Return format, there was no sense in running so many big monsters. The biggest sheet you'd bring back was maybe a Jinzo and a handfull of D.D. Assailants or something. Without dragging it to turn 15, you wouldn't be removing anything that mattered.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Even without DAD or infinite loops, Dimension Fusion was bannable. It does what it does. The effect wasn't changed. Banworthy cards always will be banworthy, they are always problems waiting to happen.

 

The problem with only using the meta is that problems have to reach "crisis-level" before something is done about them. The old adage "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is very applicable here. If Dimension Fusion had been examined for the banworthy card it is, then there never would have needed to be an emergency banlist change, because the problem would have been stopped before it started.

[Megaworm]

Even without DAD or infinite loops' date=' Dimension Fusion was bannable. It does what it does. The effect wasn't changed. Banworthy cards always will be banworthy, they are always problems waiting to happen.

 

The problem with only using the meta is that problems have to reach "crisis-level" before something is done about them. The old adage "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is very applicable here. If Dimension Fusion had been examined for the banworthy card it is, then there never would have needed to be an emergency banlist change, because the problem would have been stopped before it started.

[/quote']

 

So it will go along like in that South Park Episode making a parody of Warcraft? Where they made the "Sword Of A Thousand Truths" but it was too powerful to use so they stuck it on a 1GB flashdrive. They should do that for some of their too powerful cards and think the effects through.

 

"hmmm, a card that allows you to send your hand to the graveyard and search for cards in your deck to add to your hand that are two cards higher than the hand you actually had.....do you think we should just print it to ruin the meta?"

 

"YES."

 

"What about another dead subtype with art that kicks ass but the cards suck?"

 

"Why Not? We're Rich."

 

"What about more DARK monsters?"

 

"yes, i'm sure these skater punk shoplifters will love em."

[CrabHelmet]

Failing to deal with problem cards until after they've spent months ruining the game results in a banlist that responds eternally in lag. Those capable of rational thought can identify problems before they happen. In contrast, those incapable of rational thought are forced to watch the game be ruined for several months because they are unable of analyzing something without having thousands of actors play it out right in front of their eyes. It also leads to what is known in statistics as "Confounding", which is a fancy word for the reason people think Metamorphosis is banworthy.

 

It has already been agreed that Dimension Fusion was a problem during the times that it was used. During the periods when it was not used, however, it was indistinguishable from being banned; Larvae Moth may not be on the banlist, but it has a de facto ban due to its lack of use. Hence, banning Dimension Fusion only has an effect during the times when it is used, id est the times in which it was a problem; as such, banning it would have no effect whatsoever except to remove a problem from the game. Removing problems from the game is the purpose of the banlist.

 

On another note, "Jinzo and a handfull [sic] of D.D. Assailants" may not sound like a lot, but it is 7500 ATK worth of monsters (you know, almost enough for an OTK), which together lock down all traps and can suicide if necessary to eliminate the opponent's problem monsters. Being able to do this at the cost of a mere 2000 Life Points is not a good thing for the game.

 

 

But I am going to veer completely away from this topic and discuss something else, namely Saiyan Knight himself. To avoid being seen as falling into argumentum ad hominem myself, I would first like to establish that this is not relevant to the question Dark Armed Dragon (with the possible exception of the opening section enumerating his logical fallacies, since such errors are actual holes in his argument rather than negative aspects of the user himself that, in turn, leave his argument with a negative stigma by association).

 

 

Saiyan Knight's laundry list of logical fallacies, including (but not limited to) argumentum ad verecundiam, proof by assertion, argumentum ad hominem, and a variant of two wrongs make a right (specifically, two wrongs make a right and a wrong), is nicely rounded off by the fact that his basic style of banlist construction easily lends itself to cum hoc ergo propter hoc, particularly when employed by those prone to making logical fallacies. The fact that he actually openly encourages all others to use ipse dixit shows that he has no interest whatsoever in rational discourse.

 

This raises the question of what is meant by "it" in "Just write it off as hopeless and move along", since "it" obviously cannot refer to promoting logical thought - the only thing worth really promoting - as his actions clearly have the opposite effect. His real motivation comes across with statements such as "Know your place, hold your tongue, and never question my logic again" - what he seeks is not to spread intelligent thought but rather to amass a legion of parrots who will agree with whatever he happens to say on the grounds that, as he is so very fond of reminding us, he went to Nationals. What he seeks is not to help people think but to get them to believe in him personally, to the point where he has actually claimed to have infallibility in the same way that the papacy has throughout history in the official Catholic dogma. Behind a transparent veil of trying to "help" he seeks only to inflate his own ego while causing the rest of the forum to degenerate into even more mediocrity than it already contains. Of course, to be fair, he could easily have sufficient self-delusions to believe that teaching people not to think for themselves but instead to mindlessly believe whatever someone tells them is actually a good thing, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here, although it's not clear exactly how large a "benefit" it is to be a delusional egotistical maniac rather than a malevolent egotistical maniac.

 

This is the problem with Saiyan Knight. It is not that he disagrees with me - everyone knows that I have a tendency to shoot down bad arguments presented by those in agreement with me - but because of his methods and motives. Somehow he has taken his participation at Nationals and, through some form of extrapolation, has concluded that he is some sort of deity of card games, and that blind worship of this deity's every syllable is the only path to rational thought - a laughable claim, since blind agreement annihilates the need for thought altogether. His ultimate goal, whether or not he understands himself well enough to see it, is to damage the logical reasoning abilities of many children in order to satisfy his narcissism by having a cult following on an internet forum about a card game.

 

That's right, this is what gives him pride. Or, to be more accurate, it's what would give him pride if he didn't completely fail at it.

 

You really have to feel sorry for him.

 

 

(Incidentally, some of this may sound ironic coming from me, considering that some of our forum's more feeble-minded members treat myself and certain others here in the way that Saiyan Knight would apparently love to be treated. The difference is that, whereas Saiyan Knight sees such allegiance as a best-case scenario and actively encourages it, I have constantly made it clear that I am fallible, that I have been wrong in the past, and that agreeing with someone simply because it was they who said it rather than because a convincing logical argument happens to exist is stupid and prevents growth and learning; I have even taken to occasionally posting arguments that I know perfectly well to be horribly fallacious, such as the Let's Semi-Limit Toon Table of Contents argument in Roxas's banlist topic, purely for the purpose of reminding people that accepting something as true simply because of its speaker is a bad thing.)

[Megaworm]

The thing crab helmet said.

 

the other thing crab helmet said.

 

I agree completely, even though i have already stated my opinion in my first post, i think they should stray away from printing cards that had effects that didn't exist before without checking them for meta-destroying epic-game rapeage. It doesn't matter if it's going to be a cashcow or not. Common Solemn Judgments, Mirror Forces, Raigeki's, DADs and JDs would make the game a little bit less destructive to the metagame, because once they get banned people wont be getting into a jabronifit because they can't use their 900 dolla decks in tournaments. Economically, no, it wouldn't be a good idea to make some cards common, but then again, the rare crap is still hanging around right? they can sell the commons for 59 cents, and the rare cards for 45 dolla.

 

you probably killed Saiyan Knight's brain after writing that, and i shall worship you for that, and not because YOU said it.

 

Because i'm Megaworm For Christ's Sake.

[Saiyan Knight]

Actually, sir, I would like to make a counter-statement, sans the italic terms that.

 

Moreso then a "delusional egotistical maniac", I would say that I'm more proud of my accomplishment in the competitive world of the TCG, and that it holds some water as to whether or not I know what I'm talking about. It's similar to basing the ability of an attorney on the number of cases won in the past. I make no hesitation to assume that you WILL find some problem with this statement, since that's basically what you exemplify in all cases that come to mind when dealing with anyone.

 

I could sit here and find irrational flaws in your posting or arguments, such as the use of terms that many of the users here I'm sure would have to look up, such as "Ipse Dixit", and other Latin derivative terms to increase the appearance of being superiority educated or more knowledgeable in the subject by osmosis. Or to say that you make almost freudian assumptions on my personality via semi-permeable interpretations of meaning and intent.

 

That's just fine though, as I will continue to make rational, sound, and beneficial fixes to decks in the Your Deck forum when I have time, post my own tournament-caliber decks and a few fun ideas, and still be looked upon with no difference in the regard that my fixes are often vastly superior to those of your own group of GameFAQ migrants.

 

It's almost like dealing with Seto_Kiaba_1 again, but in a visually different arena. Lord knows I've but heads with him my fair share of times.

 

Also, by "it", I was referring to the cause of imparting upon your masses a rationalized view of why cards are limited and restricted realistically, from the angle of a tournament veteran. Note that "tournament veteran" here is meant to imply experience under my belt, not a blatant swinging around of weight. Typically, in the real world, a person's say on a matter is weighed against their experience with the subject, evidenced by the opinion of an "expert witness" in court being recognized as fact and evidence, rather than opinion, by which a normal person would be discarded.

 

Note that, even from your point of view, that of my "egotistical megalomania", my "irrational argument" can and most likely will include an insult or quick jab at someone's intelligence, but never a focused effort on my part to formulate in calculated plan of attack on someone's personality or thought process to cut down their credibility and view in the eyes of others, such as that of your post. Could it then be said, in the same fashion as what you said to me, a direct, assumed personal attack, that you gain personal feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction in attempting to get across a point by directly bashing the character of another? That you go out of your way to use terms unfamiliar to many of your forums participants to seem more intelligent and thus exude a more persuading aura? Hmm. Just something to think about, I suppose.

 

To be blunt, I take pride on only that I, personally, know that I am quite good at this game. Not infallible as you so claim to have understood me to present myself, as evidenced just recently at a silly mistake in the forums, but quite good. And with this knowledge, when I see a pack of sheep led to believe only what you believe, such as that a card's worthiness to be banned is completely unaffected by the state of the meta, and should be based on the cards individual ability, I tend to get excited to make a rebuttal. Excited, not in the sense of glee or enjoyment, but in the sense of anxiousness, because you yourself promote that which you sling at the name of others. You have an argument, I will give you this, but your argument is irrational and based on making yourself sound well-versed and convincing while still being completely off-base.

 

I won't bring politics into the matter directly, but I will say that it is very similar in that it is reminiscent of two sides trying to say the masses during time of election.

 

Additionally to this, no, don't feel sorry for me. Don't feel anything for me, if you don't like what I have to say. You can be my guest and go about your business unaffected. I will, however, embark knowledge into those that I can, with the desire to further the game's development and progress, while building numbers of good players.

 

When it comes right down to it, I will refuse to do any form of mudslinging as you've engaged in in attacking my "motives" and "intent" without proper knowledge, because it means more to me to uphold the personal knowledge that I'm above such slanderous behavior.

 

I will continue to make occasional sarcastic jabs, sometimes in jest, sometimes in malicious ways, but I will not inaccurately presume that I know what someone thinks, why they think it, or how they process thoughts to reach such assumed conclusions.

 

From here, now, at this point, you may take your opinion on Dark Armed Dragon, which was the original point, and do what you will with it. I believe that it should be limited to 1 or remain at 2, but stay in the game. If you do not agree, this is fine. As I've said before to many people, whether or not you advance in the world of competition is irrelevant to me.

 

Either way, do not make another post in the same fashion as before.

---

The thing crab helmet said.

 

the other thing crab helmet said.

 

I agree completely' date=' even though i have already stated my opinion in my first post, i think they should stray away from printing cards that had effects that didn't exist before without checking them for meta-destroying epic-game rapeage. It doesn't matter if it's going to be a cashcow or not. Common Solemn Judgments, Mirror Forces, Raigeki's, DADs and JDs would make the game a little bit less destructive to the metagame, because once they get banned people wont be getting into a jabronifit because they can't use their 900 dolla decks in tournaments. Economically, no, it wouldn't be a good idea to make some cards common, but then again, the rare crap is still hanging around right? they can sell the commons for 59 cents, and the rare cards for 45 dolla.

 

you probably killed Saiyan Knight's brain after writing that, and i shall worship you for that, and not because YOU said it.

 

Because i'm Megaworm For Christ's Sake.

[/quote']

 

Oh, and no, my brain didn't die.

[Megaworm]

Actually' date=' sir, I would like to make a counter-statement, sans the italic terms that.

 

Moreso then a "delusional egotistical maniac", I would say that I'm more proud of my accomplishment in the competitive world of the TCG, and that it holds some water as to whether or not I know what I'm talking about. It's similar to basing the ability of an attorney on the number of cases won in the past. I make no hesitation to assume that you WILL find some problem with this statement, since that's basically what you exemplify in all cases that come to mind when dealing with anyone.

 

I could sit here and find irrational flaws in your posting or arguments, such as the use of terms that many of the users here I'm sure would have to look up, such as "Ipse Dixit", and other Latin derivative terms to increase the appearance of being superiority educated or more knowledgeable in the subject by osmosis. Or to say that you make almost freudian assumptions on my personality via semi-permeable interpretations of meaning and intent.

 

That's just fine though, as I will continue to make rational, sound, and beneficial fixes to decks in the Your Deck forum when I have time, post my own tournament-caliber decks and a few fun ideas, and still be looked upon with no difference in the regard that my fixes are often vastly superior to those of your own group of GameFAQ migrants.

 

It's almost like dealing with Seto_Kiaba_1 again, but in a visually different arena. Lord knows I've but heads with him my fair share of times.

 

Also, by "it", I was referring to the cause of imparting upon your masses a rationalized view of why cards are limited and restricted realistically, from the angle of a tournament veteran. Note that "tournament veteran" here is meant to imply experience under my belt, not a blatant swinging around of weight. Typically, in the real world, a person's say on a matter is weighed against their experience with the subject, evidenced by the opinion of an "expert witness" in court being recognized as fact and evidence, rather than opinion, by which a normal person would be discarded.

 

Note that, even from your point of view, that of my "egotistical megalomania", my "irrational argument" can and most likely will include an insult or quick jab at someone's intelligence, but never a focused effort on my part to formulate in calculated plan of attack on someone's personality or thought process to cut down their credibility and view in the eyes of others, such as that of your post. Could it then be said, in the same fashion as what you said to me, a direct, assumed personal attack, that you gain personal feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction in attempting to get across a point by directly bashing the character of another? That you go out of your way to use terms unfamiliar to many of your forums participants to seem more intelligent and thus exude a more persuading aura? Hmm. Just something to think about, I suppose.

 

To be blunt, I take pride on only that I, personally, know that I am quite good at this game. Not infallible as you so claim to have understood me to present myself, as evidenced just recently at a silly mistake in the forums, but quite good. And with this knowledge, when I see a pack of sheep led to believe only what you believe, such as that a card's worthiness to be banned is completely unaffected by the state of the meta, and should be based on the cards individual ability, I tend to get excited to make a rebuttal. Excited, not in the sense of glee or enjoyment, but in the sense of anxiousness, because you yourself promote that which you sling at the name of others. You have an argument, I will give you this, but your argument is irrational and based on making yourself sound well-versed and convincing while still being completely off-base.

 

I won't bring politics into the matter directly, but I will say that it is very similar in that it is reminiscent of two sides trying to say the masses during time of election.

 

Additionally to this, no, don't feel sorry for me. Don't feel anything for me, if you don't like what I have to say. You can be my guest and go about your business unaffected. I will, however, embark knowledge into those that I can, with the desire to further the game's development and progress, while building numbers of good players.

 

When it comes right down to it, I will refuse to do any form of mudslinging as you've engaged in in attacking my "motives" and "intent" without proper knowledge, because it means more to me to uphold the personal knowledge that I'm above such slanderous behavior.

 

I will continue to make occasional sarcastic jabs, sometimes in jest, sometimes in malicious ways, but I will not inaccurately presume that I know what someone thinks, why they think it, or how they process thoughts to reach such assumed conclusions.

 

From here, now, at this point, you may take your opinion on Dark Armed Dragon, which was the original point, and do what you will with it. I believe that it should be limited to 1 or remain at 2, but stay in the game. If you do not agree, this is fine. As I've said before to many people, whether or not you advance in the world of competition is irrelevant to me.

 

Either way, do not make another post in the same fashion as before.[hr']

The thing crab helmet said.

 

the other thing crab helmet said.

 

I agree completely' date=' even though i have already stated my opinion in my first post, i think they should stray away from printing cards that had effects that didn't exist before without checking them for meta-destroying epic-game rapeage. It doesn't matter if it's going to be a cashcow or not. Common Solemn Judgments, Mirror Forces, Raigeki's, DADs and JDs would make the game a little bit less destructive to the metagame, because once they get banned people wont be getting into a jabronifit because they can't use their 900 dolla decks in tournaments. Economically, no, it wouldn't be a good idea to make some cards common, but then again, the rare crap is still hanging around right? they can sell the commons for 59 cents, and the rare cards for 45 dolla.

 

you probably killed Saiyan Knight's brain after writing that, and i shall worship you for that, and not because YOU said it.

 

Because i'm Megaworm For Christ's Sake.

[/quote']

 

Oh, and no, my brain didn't die.

 

haha! in your face crab helmet! his brain didn't die!

[Saiyan Knight]

haha! in your face crab helmet! his brain didn't die!

I can't tell if that's you playing around or if you're being cynical at me. :P

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Question: How will a "look at the meta" approach prevent bad banlists? It seems to me it can fix problems only after they have already become intolerable menaces.

[Megaworm]

haha! in your face crab helmet! his brain didn't die!

I can't tell if that's you playing around or if you're being cynical at me. :P

it's all in the eye of the beholder.

or in the eye of the Eyes of the Deep.

or in the cycloctopus.

[Saiyan Knight]

haha! in your face crab helmet! his brain didn't die!

I can't tell if that's you playing around or if you're being cynical at me. :P

it's all in the eye of the beholder.

or in the eye of the Eyes of the Deep.

or in the cycloctopus.

... I'm intrigued.

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

I don't think that you have a right to tell someone not to post. Especially a mod, or a highly distinguished member of this site who has been making valid points. Doing so only makes it look like you are afraid of them making you look bad, or that you are just full of yourself and think you can intimidate them into not posting. Either way, you do not have the power.

 

Also, using your own example: Can a person who is not a Lawyer and has not taken any cases still be as good as, or better than a lawyer? Simply because they did not choose to become a lawyer does not mean they do not have an ability equal to or greater than an actual lawyer. it just means that they have not done any cases. This also does not mean that they do not have some sort of experience. You can read online cases, for instance, or study books on being a lawyer to gain more knowledge and become a better lawyer, can you not?

 

If not, then how does a good lawyer become a good lawyer, not being able to become a better lawyer by reading books or learning how to be a lawyer? Magic, or maybe is it luck? Money?