Jump to content

S/T Overextention

Chaos Pudding

Recommended Posts

Guest Chaos Pudding

Guest Chaos Pudding

Posted
Posted

I understand that setting more than 2 S/T at a time before your opponent plays Heavy Storm is considered to be a risky (at best) move. But, in an environment without Heavy Storm, S/T overextention doesn't even exist. Sure, there could be the random Giant Trunade, but that doesn't even cost you any advantage.

 

Yet, whenever I suggest banning Heavy Storm (usually in response to Unlimiting MST), the main complaint is that people can now Set as many S/T as they want without fear of consequences. Yet, no one can tell me why that is a bad thing. Isn't it a basic rule of the game that you are allowed to Set as many S/T as you want each turn? When did that suddenly become a bad thing without Heavy in the picture to wipe the field? The only difference between Setting a S/T and keeping it in the hand is basically exchanging protection from field disruption for protection from hand disruption.

 

Can anyone give me a clear reason why Setting multiple S/T in one turn is a bad thing in a post-Storm environment?

 

Posted this on Pojo and DGZ, and I forsee them both getting locked from my own stupidity. Might as well post it here and complete the trifecta of stupidity by wasting my time on a forum that won't get me responses that I can use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest Chaos Pudding

Guest Chaos Pudding

Posted
Posted

I think that its a fine idea. Heavy needs the ban if you ask me.

 

That's what I mean by responses I don't need: random validation of my ideas without actually addressing my topic's point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CrabHelmet Newbie

CrabHelmet

Posted
Posted

The reason people object is that the absence of mass s/t removal makes it not just legal to Set as many as you want but rather optimal strategy to do so - an area where actual thought would otherwise be required is lost.

 

This argument falls flat on its face for three reasons:

 

1) Heavy legal creates a double-bind scenario of "set 1, get spot removal'd; set 2+, get Heavy'd and die" where the "skillful play" is just gambling on whether or not the opponent has been lucky enough to draw into Heavy.

 

2) Heavy's game-swinging power makes this minor strategic sacrifice worthwhile.

 

3) More balanced mass s/t removal that is actually worth using has been released in recent times - Celestia, Anti-Reverse, Arcanite - making Heavy's function less significant than ever.

 

Conclusion: it can be safely banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
-Lightray Daedalus- Newbie

-Lightray Daedalus-

Posted
Posted

3) More balanced mass s/t removal that is actually worth using has been released in recent times - Celestia' date=' Anti-Reverse, Arcanite[/b'] - making Heavy's function less significant than ever.

 

Conclusion: it can be safely banned.

 

So you are saying that at most, only Lightsworns, Blackwings and Spellcounter deck deserve mass removal?

What about other types of decks that do not have those balanced mass s7t removal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CrabHelmet Newbie

CrabHelmet

Posted
Posted

3) More balanced mass s/t removal that is actually worth using has been released in recent times - Celestia' date=' Anti-Reverse, Arcanite[/b'] - making Heavy's function less significant than ever.

 

Conclusion: it can be safely banned.

 

So you are saying that at most, only Lightsworns, Blackwings and Spellcounter deck deserve mass removal?

What about other types of decks that do not have those balanced mass s7t removal?

 

I was giving three examples, not a comprehensive list of every piece of non-spot-removal.

 

However, it is true that not every deck deserves to have an infinitely splashable s/t nuke that lacks a significant downside. That's pretty much why Heavy needs to go.

 

Decks without themed mass s/t removal will need to make do with what they can use. We wouldn't want to keep Monster Reborn legal just because not every deck has a Rite of Spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
-Lightray Daedalus- Newbie

-Lightray Daedalus-

Posted
Posted

3) More balanced mass s/t removal that is actually worth using has been released in recent times - Celestia' date=' Anti-Reverse, Arcanite[/b'] - making Heavy's function less significant than ever.

 

Conclusion: it can be safely banned.

 

So you are saying that at most, only Lightsworns, Blackwings and Spellcounter deck deserve mass removal?

What about other types of decks that do not have those balanced mass s7t removal?

 

I was giving three examples, not a comprehensive list of every piece of non-spot-removal.

 

However, it is true that not every deck deserves to have an infinitely splashable s/t nuke that lacks a significant downside. That's pretty much why Heavy needs to go.

 

Decks without themed mass s/t removal will need to make do with what they can use. We wouldn't want to keep Monster Reborn legal just because not every deck has a Rite of Spirit.

 

Yeah that's True...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Static Newbie

Static

Posted
Posted

Posted this on Pojo and DGZ' date=' and I forsee them both getting locked from my own stupidity.

[/quote']

 

Pojo is god awful aside from the very few good players.

 

 

Though it's fair to say that I agree with you. We should have MST, Breaker, Bestiari and the lot of s/t destruction at 3 and Storm should be banned because of it's less selective nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunshine Jesse Newbie

Sunshine Jesse

Posted
Posted
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Static Newbie

Static

Posted
Posted
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toffee. Newbie

Toffee.

Posted
Posted
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunshine Jesse Newbie

Sunshine Jesse

Posted
Posted
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Chaos Pudding

Guest Chaos Pudding

Posted
Posted
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dragonzord Newbie

Dragonzord

Posted
Posted
Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Majishan Newbie

El Majishan

Posted
Posted

So...decks that don't have access to theme mass removal will be forced to make room for 3x MST giving up space for other useful cards? And decks like Oppression Drain and such don't suffer anything. I think Heavy is fine at one. Yes it can swing the game, but until more balanced mass removal comes along..its needed due to its splashability.

 

Maybe I'm stupid or "doing it wrong" but that's just how I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Curium Newbie

Curium

Posted
Posted

So...decks that don't have access to theme mass removal will be forced to make room for 3x MST giving up space for other useful cards? And decks like Oppression Drain and such don't suffer anything. I think Heavy is fine at one. Yes it can swing the game' date=' but until more balanced mass removal comes along..its needed due to its splashability.

 

Maybe I'm stupid or "doing it wrong" but that's just how I see it.

[/quote']

 

I'm having a thought that perhaps, S/T removals are not a must.

Wouldn't considering the facedown S/Ts your opponent has, and whether or not to go for game or holdback resources, make moves base on what your opponent might has (especially on game 2 and game 3 in a match, where you have basic knowledge on your opponent's deck), requires much more skill than whether or not you draw that limited Heavy Storm in your 40-card-deck and swing for game by mindlessly over-extending your field with Blackwings?

 

Also, sidedeck exists, mass face-up S/T removals exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Static Newbie

Static

Posted
Posted
Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Majishan Newbie

El Majishan

Posted
Posted

So...decks that don't have access to theme mass removal will be forced to make room for 3x MST giving up space for other useful cards? And decks like Oppression Drain and such don't suffer anything. I think Heavy is fine at one. Yes it can swing the game' date=' but until more balanced mass removal comes along..its needed due to its splashability.

 

Maybe I'm stupid or "doing it wrong" but that's just how I see it.

[/quote']

 

I'm having a thought that perhaps, S/T removals are not a must.

Wouldn't considering the facedown S/Ts your opponent has, and whether or not to go for game or holdback resources, make moves base on what your opponent might has (especially on game 2 and game 3 in a match, where you have basic knowledge on your opponent's deck), requires much more skill than whether or not you draw that limited Heavy Storm in your 40-card-deck and swing for game by mindlessly over-extending your field with Blackwings?

 

Also, sidedeck exists, mass face-up S/T removals exist.

 

There is always a need for S/T removal, things like bottomless, MF and TT and other non-chainable traps are still played .Its not fair to other decks that theme decks have main deck options of mass removal while other dont. I reall dont think a person should be allowed to set 3-4 cards per turn and have notthing to worry about. So while I agree Storm is ban worthy, we need a balanced replacement before it can be banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Curium Newbie

Curium

Posted
Posted

So...decks that don't have access to theme mass removal will be forced to make room for 3x MST giving up space for other useful cards? And decks like Oppression Drain and such don't suffer anything. I think Heavy is fine at one. Yes it can swing the game' date=' but until more balanced mass removal comes along..its needed due to its splashability.

 

Maybe I'm stupid or "doing it wrong" but that's just how I see it.

[/quote']

 

I'm having a thought that perhaps, S/T removals are not a must.

Wouldn't considering the facedown S/Ts your opponent has, and whether or not to go for game or holdback resources, make moves base on what your opponent might has (especially on game 2 and game 3 in a match, where you have basic knowledge on your opponent's deck), requires much more skill than whether or not you draw that limited Heavy Storm in your 40-card-deck and swing for game by mindlessly over-extending your field with Blackwings?

 

Also, sidedeck exists, mass face-up S/T removals exist.

 

There is always a need for S/T removal, things like bottomless, MF and TT and other non-chainable traps are still played .Its not fair to other decks that theme decks have main deck options of mass removal while other dont. I reall dont think a person should be allowed to set 3-4 cards per turn and have notthing to worry about. So while I agree Storm is ban worthy, we need a balanced replacement before it can be banned.

 

Regarding Mirror Force, you can always switch some monsters to DEF mode before attacking.

About Torrential Tribute, simply don't overextend.

Bottomless is a 1-for-1, again, it makes a person consider before summoning more monsters than he need.

 

The irony here is, by keeping Heavy Storm so that people have to hold back on setting S/Ts (with requires no cost to set), people don't have to hold back on over-extending their monster anymore (since they just clear their opponent's backrow and attack for game).

 

S/Ts are really great for mind games, and it definitely brings more joy to the game than seeing who can draw their OTK hands quicker, and mindlessly swarm + attack, in my opinion of course.

 

Amending what you said a little :

I really don't think a person should be allowed to special summon 3-4 monsters in a turn and then have nothing to worry about and attack for game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tronta Newbie

Tronta

Posted
Posted

one thing isnt addressed here, and thats the reason that i hate heavy.

 

what i hate about heavy is that it decreases the scope of cards used in this game.

people are deathly afraid of using nonchainable mts. this cuts the amount of cards used in this game nearly into an 1/8th

the traplineups on most decks consist of nothing or just roar/solemn/bribe

thats funking disgusting.

it modifies the whole game dynamic for no adequate reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Majishan Newbie

El Majishan

Posted
Posted

So...decks that don't have access to theme mass removal will be forced to make room for 3x MST giving up space for other useful cards? And decks like Oppression Drain and such don't suffer anything. I think Heavy is fine at one. Yes it can swing the game' date=' but until more balanced mass removal comes along..its needed due to its splashability.

 

Maybe I'm stupid or "doing it wrong" but that's just how I see it.

[/quote']

 

I'm having a thought that perhaps, S/T removals are not a must.

Wouldn't considering the facedown S/Ts your opponent has, and whether or not to go for game or holdback resources, make moves base on what your opponent might has (especially on game 2 and game 3 in a match, where you have basic knowledge on your opponent's deck), requires much more skill than whether or not you draw that limited Heavy Storm in your 40-card-deck and swing for game by mindlessly over-extending your field with Blackwings?

 

Also, sidedeck exists, mass face-up S/T removals exist.

 

There is always a need for S/T removal, things like bottomless, MF and TT and other non-chainable traps are still played .Its not fair to other decks that theme decks have main deck options of mass removal while other dont. I reall dont think a person should be allowed to set 3-4 cards per turn and have notthing to worry about. So while I agree Storm is ban worthy, we need a balanced replacement before it can be banned.

 

Regarding Mirror Force, you can always switch some monsters to DEF mode before attacking.

About Torrential Tribute, simply don't overextend.

Bottomless is a 1-for-1, again, it makes a person consider before summoning more monsters than he need.

 

The irony here is, by keeping Heavy Storm so that people have to hold back on setting S/Ts (with requires no cost to set), people don't have to hold back on over-extending their monster anymore (since they just clear their opponent's backrow and attack for game).

 

S/Ts are really great for mind games, and it definitely brings more joy to the game than seeing who can draw their OTK hands quicker, and mindlessly swarm + attack, in my opinion of course.

 

Amending what you said a little :

I really don't think a person should be allowed to special summon 3-4 monsters in a turn and then have nothing to worry about and attack for game.

 

 

I also have a prob with free swarms, thats why TT is played and T. Rroar but thats a differnt story. The usual opening move in most games are: Summon set 3 cards, at least 1 being a Solemn, Storm forces a player to think, lose my 3 S/T, or pay half to save two. with storm gone, the can set away and pretty mess up most of what you can do. What it comes down to is that this game needs to be balanced a lot more before storm can be banned, if it is only a few deck will be able to survive. (its already like that, it will just become worst)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...