Tabris Posted January 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 ^ Point taken long time ago, Atem. Anyhow, some updates: Stardust Dragon/Assault Mode is WAY busted in playtestin'; the costs of summoning the Buster do not balance the effect itself. Not at all. Cathedral of Nobles is unlimited. At its very best, it makes Trap Monsters playable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Shocker Android Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 On the trap monster case, you have metamorphosis at 3, cyber end dragon at 3 and metal reflect slime at 3 isn't that a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabris Posted January 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 No. Not here. Unless somebody explains to me why a 4000 ATK trampler is a problem here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Just consider "Particle-Wave Cannon" for a moment. Banworthy? What Particle-Wave Cannon? My mistake' date=' I meant Particle-Motion Cannon. Particle-Motion Cannon[[i']Continuous Spell Card[/i]]During each of your Standby Phases, inflict 1000 points of damage to your opponent's Life Points. Also: Gellenduo does the same. Its you-take-damage-you-die effect has three main ways of activating: 1) Direct attackers... which bypass Marshmallon/Reaper/Fool as well' date=' and don't care about having attacks blocked. 2) Tramplers... which bypass Marshmallon/Reaper/Fool as well, and don't care about having attacks blocked. 3) Burn effects... which bypass Marshmallon/Reaper/Fool as well, and are far more common in decks that don't care about having their attacks blocked. By keeping Gellenduo at 3 but banning Marshmallon/Reaper/Fool, you are saying that decks should not be required to run monster removal, but that they should be required to run either monster removal or burn. Taro is the same: by keeping him around, you are saying that decks should not be required to run monster removal, but that they should be required to run either monster removal or another type of removal that counts as a destruction effect.[/quote'] Second of all' date=' if this claim is true, it merely makes Judgment Dragoon even more banworthy. Without this claim, it does nothing but provide skillless lucksack victories to a deck that itself takes no skill to run. With this claim, it does nothing but provide skillless lucksack victories to badly-built versions of a deck that itself takes no skill to run.[/quote'] I'm still waiting for responses to, like... all of these. >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabris Posted January 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 The Taro-Duo debacle: Taro's practically impossible to play without havin' to main some form of removal - except in decks utilizin' this and Mystic Box (in which case somethin' might be said for Ameba, etc. being better targets). Gellenduo, meanwhile, is more of a problem, somethin' I can't pin down in playtestin'. On Judgment Dragon: I tested. PM'd. Everythin' to lay a definite finger on somethin', whether JD is banworthy or not. And, finally, I come up with an answer: YES. On W-MC: Let's go with "I banned W-MC for well-nigh-completely arbitrary reasons". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 No. Not here. Unless somebody explains to me why a 4000 ATK trampler is a problem here. Joke account? If not, lol. On-topic: Large amount of battle damage wins games. A piercer with 4000 attack and a two card combo to bring it out, who's 2 card components can still be used to some degree separate, is grossly overpowered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabris Posted January 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Joke? No. Never was, never is, never will be. On CED: Well, obviously, you'd consider all other big Fusions, and some others with outright removal effects, as banworthy. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Would depend on the ease in which to summon and how quickly they could be gotten rid of before they caused irreparable damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Taro's practically impossible to play without havin' to main some form of removal - except in decks utilizin' this and Mystic Box (in which case somethin' might be said for Ameba' date=' etc. being better targets).[/quote'] I can't tell what you're saying here. >_> Gellenduo' date=' meanwhile, is more of a problem, somethin' I can't pin down in playtestin'.[/quote'] Cards like Taro/Marsh/Reaper/Fool/Gellenduo are, I believe, largely not decisions that can be made with such a heavy emphasis on playtesting. The real question is a more fundamental one, i.e. whether "if I use this card and you don't run piercing/direct attacks/burn/removal then you lose" is a permissible effect. On W-MC: Let's go with "I banned W-MC for well-nigh-completely arbitrary reasons". ...that rather shuts off the possibility of rational discussion, does it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabris Posted January 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 I can't tell what you're saying here. >_> Basically, it would be impossible for a player to main Taro without also maining some form of removal to protect whatever win condition is at stake. That's Taro's weakness. Cards like Taro/Marsh/Reaper/Fool/Gellenduo are, I believe, largely not decisions that can be made with such a heavy emphasis on playtesting. The real question is a more fundamental one, i.e. whether "if I use this card and you don't run piercing/direct attacks/burn/removal then you lose" is a permissible effect. My testin' says otherwise, but for impendin' queries on battle immunity bein' permissible I say no, unless coupled with a downside (which would - or, as seems more likely, should - also derail that card's playability in the process). ...that rather shuts off the possibility of rational discussion, does it not? I said nigh. For W-MC's bannin' I submit this: 1) that what it inflicts, or even potentially inflicts, per turn, is too high, and that 2) it potentially does so per turn.Would depend on the ease in which to summon and how quickly they could be gotten rid of before they caused irreparable damage. Well then: Gatling DragunMaster of OzBlue Eyes Ultimate Dragonetc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Oh yeah...Banning The Fool...Really mature! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Oh yeah...Banning The Fool...Really mature! Dont question a good list unless you know what you are talking about. Personally I think The Fool deserves to be Limited because it promotes the stall playstyle which is good for the game although falling into one or more of the ban categories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Would depend on the ease in which to summon and how quickly they could be gotten rid of before they caused irreparable damage. Well then: Gatling DragunMaster of OzBlue Eyes Ultimate Dragonetc. Level 8, level 9, and level 12 respectably. Closest thing to a decent combo would be Beast King Barbaros and Metamorphosis for Gatling Dragon, but even then Gatling Dragon itself can be a liability, especially since it must destroy monsters, including ones on it's controller's side of the field. In my opinion, Gatling Dragon is not bannable. Master of Oz and BEUD are both much more difficult to get out, and have less of a positive effect, or no effect at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabris Posted January 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Oh yeah...Banning The Fool...Really mature! One must ponder why "maturity" even matters in the makin' of a banlist' date=' unless, of course, Mr. Cotter here is pointin' towards the physical age of the OP... ... I'm 18, sir. A rational person, dare I say. If you can't bring anything rational here, then please shut the funk up.[hr']Would depend on the ease in which to summon and how quickly they could be gotten rid of before they caused irreparable damage. Well then: Gatling DragunMaster of OzBlue Eyes Ultimate Dragonetc. Level 8' date=' level 9, and level 12 respectably. Closest thing to a decent combo would be Beast King Barbaros and Metamorphosis for Gatling Dragon, but even then Gatling Dragon itself can be a liability, especially since it must destroy monsters, including ones on it's controller's side of the field. In my opinion, Gatling Dragon is not bannable. Master of Oz and BEUD are both much more difficult to get out, and have less of a positive effect, or no effect at all.[/quote'] Just askin', then, since I'm curious. Since you venture to say that Cyber End Dragon is broken due to its immense size AND its trampling, what would be the ceiling, then, for piercers in general, as well as for piercer Fusions that could be fetched via Metamorphosis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 lets juss say we ban ced for arbitrary reesuns ohohoho On a more serious note, it is difficult to produce a single number for piercers in general, since it depends upon the summoning conditions; 4000 would be fine if it was a regular Effect Monster that could not be Special Summoned and could only be Normal Summoned by tributing 1 Aqua-Type, 1 Sea Serpent-Type, 1 Fish-Type, 1 Insect-Type, and 1 Rock-Type monster you control. It also depends on one's stance toward OTK's; as this list leaves The Dark Ruler at 3, it seems improbable that an absolute cap exists that could not be balanced out by the rest of its effect. As for those that Metamorphosis can summon, another factor, the Level, becomes important; 4000 would be fine if the monster were Level 11 or 12 instead of 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.