Lemniscate Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Here I will compile a test based on arguements as to when and why a card should be banned. Only well supported arguements will be included.I will start the list once enough arguements have been given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Fail topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 I created this because people often argue in other threads as to when a card should be banned, and so I would like to compile a list and a test to show the arguements and reasoning so that people can reference them. It will just help people on this site with ideas, and stop threads from turning into 5 page debates on whether such-and-such card should be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabris Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Please be clear: what do you want us to do here, on this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 To give arguements as to when cards should be banned, what constitutes a ban, giving examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BulletMan Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 We should banned DAD... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 I am not taking about going through case-by-case examples as to WHAT cards should be banned, I am discussing about WHEN and WHY cards should be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabris Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 For a simplistic overview: Cards should be banned when card design indicates that the effect(s) is/are banworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 You do realize that just saying "No" over and over is spam right? Here is an arguement for what card to ban in a two-card combo.-Ban the card that helps the meta less.e.x. Butterfly Dagger- Elma & Gearfried the Iron KnightThey created a combo that was ban worthy, but Butterfly Dagger- Elma helped the meta less, so it was banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 For a simplistic overview: Cards should be banned when card design indicates that the effect(s) is/are banworthy. Cards should be banned when they're bannable. A+ logic ITT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 For a simplistic overview: Cards should be banned when card design indicates that the effect(s) is/are banworthy. Cards should be banned when they're bannable. A+ logic ITT. I am looking for a definition for bannable that includes examples as to bans, and why they were banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Cards should be banned when they damage the game if not banned. Any litmus test for banning that is more detailed than the above statement will be flawed. There isn't really anything else to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Cards should be banned when they damage the game if not banned. Any litmus test for banning that is more detailed than the above statement will be flawed. There isn't really anything else to say. Even if we have the ultimate power of Crab on our side?ARE YOU ADMITTING MORTALITY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!But really, I don't accept your premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Cards should be banned when they damage the game if not banned. Any litmus test for banning that is more detailed than the above statement will be flawed. There isn't really anything else to say. Even if we have the ultimate power of Crab on our side?ARE YOU ADMITTING MORTALITY?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Nah' date=' I was just pulling your leg. However, today I am far too busy accomplishing even simpler feats like breaking the light barrier, preventing the heat death of the universe, and making TCGPlayer the best site on the internet. I'll get around to constructing this litmus test tomorrow once I've finished proving that black is white, one is seven, and Bill Clinton is a devilishly handsome man. But really, I don't accept your premise. In that case, I suppose Five Conditions would be close to what you're looking for, even if it is so desperately in need of revision that it should be cut down to Four Conditions in order to even be adequate - and even then it would still be fundamentally flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabris Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 For a simplistic overview: Cards should be banned when card design indicates that the effect(s) is/are banworthy. Cards should be banned when they're bannable. A+ logic ITT. I suppose you aren't acquianted with mine old friends (somewhat) from Pojo and DGZ, who think that banworthiness is relative to the metagame. I made the statement to underline mine belief that card design ALONE is paramount at deciding a card's banworthiness, as opposed to metagame relativism or any hybrid of the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 So should the test include metagame relativism or not?Also, how would that be included? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 So should the test include metagame relativism or not?Also' date=' how would that be included?[/quote'] In some instances, the manner in which a card's presence would shift the fundamental nature of the game that results from the newly constructed banlist - for example, Cyber Dragon invalidating defensive play, and Heavy Storm creating the concept of s/t overextension - could be taken into account. However, this only applies to a small portion of the cards; most cards worthy of list attention are banned for simpler reasons, such as providing large rewards for little effort in a way that reduces the impact of Skill on the game (read: being overpowered), or permitting easy OTK's. The metagame of Konami's lists is virtually irrelevant; if anything, long-term trends can be used with reservation to provide supporting evidence to certain (read: very few) list decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.