Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 with most decks maining Solemn Judgment' date=' Dark Bribe and Stardust Dragon (in Gladiator Beasts, also Gladiator Beast Heraklinos), Lightning Vortex should not be a problem.[/quote'] Counterability =/= Balance. Regardless Lightning Vortex should be at 3. If you get hit by this after overextending you deserve to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 with most decks maining Solemn Judgment' date=' Dark Bribe and Stardust Dragon (in Gladiator Beasts, also Gladiator Beast Heraklinos), Lightning Vortex should not be a problem.[/quote'] Counterability =/= Balance. Regardless Lightning Vortex should be at 3. If you get hit by this after overextending you deserve to lose. However, it is also important to note that counterability does contribute to balance. A lot of borderline cards would become substantially less borderline if they had a Spiritualism clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smeg Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Lightning Vortex is not broken in any way. If the discard cost was eliminated then it would be banworthy. True' date=' but shouldn't monster removal be limited on some level? I don't understand why Fissure is banned since Lightning Vortex has more potential.[/quote'] Fissure isn't banned. Also, Lightning Vortex only targets face-ups and has a discard cost. Those balance it. As far as Monster removal being Limited or rather banned, it should be taken in a case by case basis. Take Raigeki for example. It has no cost and destroys all monsters your opponent controls. Easily banworthy. Take Ring of Destruction. It may only destroy face-ups but it can target any face-up and the amount of damage it can cause can create an easy OTK with Barrel Behind the Door. Banworthy. Yes...but it still doesn't make sense to limit Fissure if it takes out less... Konami is stupid. Most of their decisions don't make sense. Fissure is one-for-one removal that only hits face-ups and deserves to be at 3. For one, fissure has no cost. Which highers it's bar.LV is really only used in side (not anymore D: ) and urgent dumping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Lightning Vortex is not broken in any way. If the discard cost was eliminated then it would be banworthy. True' date=' but shouldn't monster removal be limited on some level? I don't understand why Fissure is banned since Lightning Vortex has more potential.[/quote'] Fissure isn't banned. Also, Lightning Vortex only targets face-ups and has a discard cost. Those balance it. As far as Monster removal being Limited or rather banned, it should be taken in a case by case basis. Take Raigeki for example. It has no cost and destroys all monsters your opponent controls. Easily banworthy. Take Ring of Destruction. It may only destroy face-ups but it can target any face-up and the amount of damage it can cause can create an easy OTK with Barrel Behind the Door. Banworthy. Yes...but it still doesn't make sense to limit Fissure if it takes out less... Konami is stupid. Most of their decisions don't make sense. Fissure is one-for-one removal that only hits face-ups and deserves to be at 3. For one' date=' fissure has no cost. Which highers it's bar.[/quote'] Fissure has a cost. That cost is Fissure itself: the loss of a card. That's why it's 1-for-1 removal instead of 1-for-0 removal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smeg Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 By cost I mean discard/tribute/-LP/+LP.I know it's a minus one, people on this forum already talk about -1 +1 crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chaos Pudding Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 I wasn't aware that any deck consistently ran more than 1 Lightning Vortex... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Wolf Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 I wasn't aware that any deck consistently ran more than 1 Lightning Vortex... THIS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonisanoob Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 noone good even mains lightning vortex, unless they have an ultimate one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Wolf Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 noone good even mains lightning vortex' date=' unless they have an ultimate one[/quote'] what does rarity have to do with play ability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlickimenT Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Lighting Vortex is a amazing card, and I am happy that its unlimited. I have one 5 times against my friend with it, then I took 1 out, and lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordtyson Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 what Lightning Vortex is unlimited?how come no one told me I like that card, I kills big monsters Lol just kidding LV has never been on the list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werewolfjedi Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 noone good even mains lightning vortex' date=' unless they have an ultimate one[/quote'] what does rarity have to do with play ability? it's just to show off. I run one, mostly just because I want certain cards in the grave, and it gives a good trade off for doing it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowKyogre Posted May 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Yes...but it still doesn't make sense to limit Fissure if it takes out less... Fissure should be at 3' date=' but your argument is still flawed. You are looking only at how many monsters the card is capable of removing, but are ignoring other factors, like how heavily it depends on the opponent's actions and what the cost is. According to your own train of logic, it makes no sense to ban Pot of Greed when Beginning of the End makes you draw more.[/quote'] Pot of Greed can be splashed into any deck while Beginning of the End requires a (somewhat) dedicated deck for it to be run since you need 7+ DARK monsters just to activate the card. Discarding a card, like Lightning Vortex's cost, can be achieved in any deck, which is why it's more splashable. Generic costs/conditions vs specific costs/conditions determines the card's splashability and whether it is bannable or not (obviously in my own opinion). @other people who say it wasn't on the ban list at all: I clearly remember it being on the ban list. It's just I can't find a database of previous ban lists to show that it was limited. @PikaPerson: I know...I clearly remember it being limited. Some people don't get that I never said it was banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonisanoob Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 rararity DRASTICALLY changes the playability of lightning vortex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Yes...but it still doesn't make sense to limit Fissure if it takes out less... Fissure should be at 3' date=' but your argument is still flawed. You are looking only at how many monsters the card is capable of removing, but are ignoring other factors, like how heavily it depends on the opponent's actions and what the cost is. According to your own train of logic, it makes no sense to ban Pot of Greed when Beginning of the End makes you draw more.[/quote'] Pot of Greed can be splashed into any deck while Beginning of the End requires a (somewhat) dedicated deck for it to be run since you need 7+ DARK monsters just to activate the card. Discarding a card, like Lightning Vortex's cost, can be achieved in any deck, which is why it's more splashable. Generic costs/conditions vs specific costs/conditions determines the card's splashability and whether it is bannable or not (obviously in my own opinion). Are you saying that a cost or condition only matters if it affects a card's splashability, and can be ignored if it is generic? Or are you drawing a distinction for no reason relevant to this topic? @other people who say it wasn't on the ban list at all: I clearly remember it being on the ban list. It's just I can't find a database of previous ban lists to show that it was limited. It used to be Limited, but was returned to unlimited in September 2006. Your first post makes it sound like this is some new and horrifying development rather than one that occurred three bloody years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishncrabs Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 LV should not be limited. As for Raigeki being limited, holy crap, play it and its KTHXBAI to everything - heaps better than Dark Hole, which is restricted too O_oI do run one LV in some decks, its nice to f up some swarmers, but overall, its not that great. As for fissure, I never run it. It only owns the worst monster on the field. Smashing, however, should probably stay limited as it usually smacks down the best monster on the field, and no side effects.A lot of the time, though, when I draw LV, I would have much rather of drawn something else. Usually its better to keep on the offensive, and losing two cards form your hand ain't too good, especially when you're going all out and have no cards left in your hand.There are better cards that can remove three or more monsters on your opponent's field, but I personally think just destroying two cards with LV aint bad. Its an even ratio, and boom, you can attack that turn. Also, even on one monster, it is sometimes okay. For instance, using it on Snipe Hunter, Krebons or some other pesky thing that gets on your nerves, is always good.Overall, though, I don't think LV should be limited, and Rageiki should DeFiNaNtLy not come off the restricted list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docomodake Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 TC is stupid and bad at this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 It's not a good enough card to make it ban worthy' date=' if it was good enough people would use the thing.[/quote'] A card can be terrible and still be banworthy. Victory Dragon is a good example of that. I guess thats what you would call... *takes off sunglasses* A broken piece of sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonisanoob Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 fishcrabs is TERRIBLE o_o also i dont run lightning vortex however if i had an ultimate rare one i would use it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santi :D Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Lighting Vortex is a amazing card' date=' and I am happy that its unlimited. I have one 5 times against my friend with it, then I took 1 out, and lost.[/quote'] Omg thats like incredible because its like the exact opposite where I am from like omg. Also I have no idea what fissure had in relevance to lightning. Either way lightning is a balanced card that should remain in your side-deck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishncrabs Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 tonis. why am i terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonisanoob Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 oh nvm i misread a lot of that big paragraph you posted :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.