Skill in Removal?

[MarbleZone]

You might know by now that I'm not half as good in this game as I should be to start certain discussions, but this came to mind recently and I wanted to hear some thoughts.

 

People support Smashing Ground at 3, Fissure at 3, MST at 3, etc. Simple 1-for-1 removal.

 

Now, imagine we did have all those at 3. Imagine a meta where people could run 3 Smashing, 3 Fissure, 3 MST, 3 Shield Crush (yes, I know, it's subpar, but I'm trying to make a point), 3 Bottomless, 3 of each Monarch, Torrential, Mirror Force, Nobleman, Breaker, Heavy Storm (EDIT: these last ones not being 1-for-1, but still costless removal), etc, etc.

 

Wouldn't every turn essentially consist of blowing up whatever the opponent has, summon and set your own stuff, having it blown up on your opponent's turn, lather, rinse and repeat? How is costless removal involved in any way with skill? Some cards are banned on grounds that they take no skill to be abused. I can't help but wonder if a meta where blowing things up one by one and having your own stuff last one turn in play as well wouldn't make for a tremendously boring game, as well as bury decktypes that rely on actual field presence to work - for example, each and every type of burn/stall deck.

 

Discuss costless removal and how the game would be if most of it was allowed to be ran in 3's. The way I see it, generic removal isn't much better than generic recursion - it doesn't promote skill in any way, and while it shouldn't be eradicated, by no means, it should, the way I see it, be kept in check.

[Exiro]

Stardust Dragon.

 

 

 

Now' date=' imagine we did have all those at 3. Imagine a meta where people could run 3 Smashing, 3 Fissure, 3 MST, 3 Shield Crush (yes, I know, it's subpar, but I'm trying to make a point), 3 Bottomless, 3 of each Monarch, [u']Torrential, Mirror Force, Nobleman, Breaker, Heavy Storm[/u], etc, etc.

 

Those aren't 1-for-1 removal.

[MarbleZone]

Yeah, way to discuss the topic - point out removal cards that aren't 1-for1 instead of elaborating on the obvious proposed discussion. Thanks for the useful post. :/

 

For Stardust, there are other types of removal. I didn't specifically mention destruction, either. Be that as it may, are most types of generic removal allowed to go unchecked by the sole existence of Stardust Dragon, then?

[tonisanoob]

the skill in 1-1 frmoval is knowing when to activate it, deciphering what it hits and possibly what to take out first.

 

the best example of a 1-1 card that requires skill would be soul taker, as you need to work out what monster would be better off the field ect...

[SephirothKirby]

When testing my banlist, I came to a conclusion.

 

- There isn't enough room to fit in that much removal.

- 3 Torrential is boring as hell. It doesn't punish overextension, it punishes playing cards in general. I actually believe it and Mirror Force deserve to be at 1, because it punishes over extension while allowing their to be an actual field.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

the skill in 1-1 frmoval is knowing when to activate it' date=' deciphering what it hits and possibly what to take out first.

 

the best example of a 1-1 card that requires skill would be soul taker, as you need to work out what monster would be better off the field ect...

[/quote']

 

Ugh, can't believe I actually agree with tonisanoob for once. <_<

 

On another note, skill also comes in deck building.

[Toffee.]

because it punishes over extension while allowing their to be an actual field.

 

Duah, The game would be boring and not worth even picking up your deck, Knowing your opponet Top-Decked 3 Mirror Force

[CrabHelmet]

As if it would actually be worthwhile to run three of every piece of 1-for-1 removal available. Even Gadget decks don't max out their Hammer Shots, and they're known for being big on 1-for-1 removal.

 

It also helps that several of the non-1-for-1 cards - certainly Breaker, and some combination of Nobleman, Heavy, Mirror, and Torrential, depending on who is designing the list - would not be legal.