X-Saber Airbellum: Discussion

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

I submit that getting a Level 4-7 Synchro at the cost of a Normal Summon, a little deck dedication, and a few Spells is not a problem combo. Anyone care to challenge my view?

 

Oh, and discuss, I guess.

[Tabris]

^

 

Agree fully.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

It's tragic for your rhetoric that your rhetoric ignores the full consequence, and, as a result, has no place in the matter.

 

Effectively, every deck in this game requires dedication to something; acting like dedication is some sort of drawback when the strategy has rule over the game that is irrevocable bar a meaningful change in the card pool is foolish. Airbellun doesn't have that rule, but only for the cards most distant from competitive play does dedication become a truly immense drawback. The better a plan is, the less of a risk dedication is, and as a result, being part of the #2 premise ends any talk of dedication meaning anything more than running the right cards in the right place ~ only when all other factors are able to be taken as completely equal can we return to this with any sort of actual traction. Cat's fetching competitive cards, or you may as well auto-surrender on grounds of running trash, and since it's doing the best it can, it cannot be assumed that much risk is being taken here outside of saying (in the present format) "I'm not running Tele, ergo I'm either profound, or I'm stupid and shall lose for it." [Other formats have equivalent statements for intentionally going rogue vs. an obvious dominator.]

 

The Normal Summon described obscures the rare non-Normal Summon - small infraction, but one that still exists nonetheless.

 

The Spell(s) described obscures the inessentiality of Priest. This is a greater infraction, especially since you effectively ignored the Special Summons above; contradictions, vagueness, and other faults are unwelcome.

 

The greatest infraction is an ignorance of the multi-step process involved, and its consequences, through your lack of stating such things. This is what cripples your case, bar people 1) conforming to the above either by submission, 2) being mouthpieces under your request or control, or 3) genuinely coming to those conclusions themselves.

 

 

Examining the most convoluted circumstance around this situation, we begin w/ Priest. We trade a Spell to try for a Cat. Provided that we get the Cat, or that we started with Cat in the first place, we try trading the Cat for monsters. Provided that we get the monsters, or that we started with them, we are free to do lots of things, based upon the monsters we get. It is at this point that we try to do those things, and not mentioning them is a problem as well.

 

We also mention the Grave setup formed by what we've done so far, and how it can be improved through further steps, such as Synchros. We also mention the Synchros themselves, and how the range is not simply 4-7, but depends upon the actual number of cards invested, and whether or not we start with Priest - starting with Cat yields investing Cat for Beasts which may be Tuned for a 4-6 range: starting with Priest yields investing a Spell for Cat for Beasts, one or both of which may be Tuned, with or without Priest, for a 4-7 range... with the resulting Synchro Tunable with a possible remaining Beast to kick us to a 7-10 range.

 

If we Tune only Cat's quarry with one another, the range is 4-6; half of Cat's quarry along with Priest gives us our lowend 7, and all of Cat's quarry alongside Priest nails us the full gamut. Tuning only Cat's quarry, or half that w/ Priest, means that we in all practical sense traded only one card for one Synchro, although if any of Cat's monsters remain, they'll soon die.

 

Only when going highend do we actually Synchro up and pay the usual cost out of the situation - the usual cost being 2 cards. Remember how we ignored what those monsters can do outside of Tuning - one such thing being lining up the perfect setup for Goyo.

 

This is where Airbellun seemingly steps in, but the context is inextricable from the card, hence why the lack of detail is such a problem... your case does your position injustice solely because you're not repping that position well.

 

Oft-mentioned abstractions such as "let's reward players for X, Y, and Z" come up here, but these same abstractions work for the other side of the argument - "let's reward players for X, Y, and Z" always maintains a base amount of validity, no matter the game state, and thus it hasn't stopped us before.

 

Further, the abstraction of "the cards should be unpunished until it can be proven otherwise" also comes to mind; this also works for the other side, as this abstraction is ALWAYS a tacit assumption to the companies. Just as the companies may be wrong, so may we; players' assumptions that they know better oft go uncontested, as it is that assumption that seemingly serves as the entire basis for this field of discussion. That assumption is not the basis; the basis is "Prohibitions and Limitations exist, and thus may be discussed." Lo, the assumption that "players know better than the companies" is the very FIRST battleground, although one where it is unlikely that anyone bar myself is willing to be smart enough to seek answer there (as the companies don't have to answer to anyone, and the players seemingly care more about their present convictions than ensuring their present holdings are proper.)

 

I'm the original espouser of "Cat + Airbellun = Awesome, so let's see what happens." I know this matter; I know people as well. Suffice it to say that there's far too much for most to cover here; I even have difficulty with the matter, and I've been dealing w/ logic applied to this form of discussion with enough force as to possibly be indirectly responsible for this thread, although that chain of responsibility goes further back than me if it reaches me, and

 

The REAL discussion is NOT just about what can be done with the cards, but also what must be done to trigger these happenings; the devil is in the details, and Torrential Tribute has much more relevance here than we may think - oh, let's not forget the other familiars like Mirror and Heavy and the remaining gamut, although it is the recent flavor for folks to say that they should be prohibited.

 

The point: You are doing what I did years ago, that thing being the execution of the "I'm able to sophist my way through everything you all throw at me" thread. You get no actual solution to the discussion in this way, nor any other benefit, and the real kicker is that you've got someone who knows the method giving you trouble. It would be wise for you to simply meld whatever new info you have into the giant amalgamation of info I carry to this matter, and then give what analysis you can.