The Crimson King Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 I sent this letter to Konami, wonder how they'll respond. [spoiler=My letter]Dear Konami I do not personally agree with the new Advanced Format banlist, and I believe that it should be edited in order to adjust to the American metagame, not the Japanese one. I say this because in Japan cards have been released that were bot released in America, and vice versa. I know there is a Konami headquarters here in America, and I do not understand why the Konami judges at the higher end competitions(Jumps, nationals, etc) cannot assess the decks that consistently win, and make it so the other decks at least have a chance. The thing that should be banned in this new list is Judgment Dragon, as his impact on the game is horrendous, and his summoning condition is easily fulfilled within the first few turns. In other words, he is just as overpowered(if not more) than the original Chaos monsters. I also believe that Charge of the Light Brigade should be limited, as it gives the Lightsworn player insane advantage, milling four cards from their deck, AND searching a level four or lower Lightsworn monster from their deck to their hand. I would also like a clarification on one thing: why is it that Japan gets cards in lower rarities than the US? I know that Honest was supposed to be released in the Gold Series 2, and the Advent of the Emperor structure deck was supposed to have all of the common Monarch monsters, so why did neither of these things happen, and why is a card like Plaguespreader Zombie rare in Japan, and and ultra in America? I do not personally believe that YuGiOh should be all about how much money a player should spend in order to win, but about how much a player can do with an even playing field. This shows that only the richer players can win, and the players who do not have that money usually do poorly on a competitive level. A game should be about the competitive spirit on an even playing field, not a battle of the wallets. I am a veteran player, but because I have a budget and because a lot of the good cards are so expensive I am forced to play a tier 2 deck, and I have never gotten the chance to even try out Lightsworns or any variation of a DAD(Dark Armed Dragon) deck. Also, let's discuss how good GB's will be next format, and how many new Blackwing varients we might see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iAmNateXero Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 if you limit charge, JD doesn't need touching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crimson King Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 if you limit charge' date=' JD doesn't need touching.[/quote']I still think that JD needs to be at one because it would still be abusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
「tea.leaf」 Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 kdgs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crimson King Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 kdgs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
「tea.leaf」 Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 kdgs? Konami doesn't give a shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crimson King Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 kdgs? Konami doesn't give a shit.Well, I'll post the response. My last letter about the test cards got a response, so this one might too. I'm just curious to know what the hell they have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Shocker Android Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 CotLB mills 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 COTLB to 1? When Konami ignores your letter, it will be a classic case of the blind attempting and failing to lead the blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 kdgs? Konami doesn't give a shit.Well' date=' I'll post the response. My last letter about the test cards got a response, so this one might too. I'm just curious to know what the hell they have to say.[/quote']What did they say about the test card? Just curious. Also your suggestions are as bad as konami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Limit Charge? Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iAmNateXero Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Limit Charge? Lol. I never got why people lol the mentioning of limiting charge, its the equivalent of 3 foolish burials and a rota. And have you ever seen a LS deck come close to winning without charge? I haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Limit Charge? Lol. I never got why people lol the mentioning of limiting charge' date=' its the equivalent of 3 foolish burials and a rota. And have you ever seen a LS deck come close to winning without charge? I haven't.[/quote'] It's because 3 foolish + rota is either broken or it isn't... it's not going to be less broken at one. BTW it is not like 3 foolishes. Or else LS running three needlebug nest would be like 15 foolishes. The utility is not the same in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iAmNateXero Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Limit Charge? Lol. I never got why people lol the mentioning of limiting charge' date=' its the equivalent of 3 foolish burials and a rota. And have you ever seen a LS deck come close to winning without charge? I haven't.[/quote'] It's because 3 foolish + rota is either broken or it isn't... it's not going to be less broken at one.Your right. 9 foolish + 3 rota = 3 Foolish + rota. BTW it is not like 3 foolishes. Or else LS running three needlebug nest would be like 15 foolishes. The utility is not the same in any way.I guarantee you, if needlebug nest was a Spell, it would be ran in every LS deck. Ls is made for speed and quick recovery, thus the small trap count amongst LS decks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Limit Charge? Lol. I never got why people lol the mentioning of limiting charge' date=' its the equivalent of 3 foolish burials and a rota. And have you ever seen a LS deck come close to winning without charge? I haven't.[/quote'] Nate, I knew you were an idiot, but I never realized that you were unable to distinguish random mill from a Foolish effect. Next you'll be likening Jar of Greed to a version of Gold Sarcophagus that doesn't have the four-turn lag. Also, I have seen Lightsworns win without Charge. However, that mainly occurred before Charge was released; after Charge was released, Lightsworns always ran Charge. This is because Lightsworns with Charge are stronger than Lightsworns without Charge, so running Charge is logical. This does not make Charge broken; the term for a card that is worth using and improves its deck is "playable". Incidentally, if Charge were actually a problem, 0 would be the appropriate position, not 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iAmNateXero Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Limit Charge? Lol. I never got why people lol the mentioning of limiting charge' date=' its the equivalent of 3 foolish burials and a rota. And have you ever seen a LS deck come close to winning without charge? I haven't.[/quote'] Nate, I knew you were an idiot, but I never realized that you were unable to distinguish random mill from a Foolish effect. Next you'll be likening Jar of Greed to a version of Gold Sarcophagus that doesn't have the four-turn lag. Also, I have seen Lightsworns win without Charge. However, that mainly occurred before Charge was released; after Charge was released, Lightsworns always ran Charge. This is because Lightsworns with Charge are stronger than Lightsworns without Charge, so running Charge is logical. This does not make Charge broken; the term for a card that is worth using and improves its deck is "playable". Incidentally, if Charge were actually a problem, 0 would be the appropriate position, not 1. Im no idiot, I just play, understand, and witness the game from a competitors point of view. LS without charge ran triple reasoning to compensate. The foolish term was nothing but a realization of a possible 9 monster mil to 9 random cards. Either way, shortening the deck for a possible 9 cards to speed the spam of a theme slaved nuker is what keeps LS at the top. Take that away now, and LS are dead. You always have a way of turning things into a "pwove diz cawd iz bwokin" discussions where it doesn't need to be. I don't recall claiming charge to be broken. Im trying to figure out why people lol the idea of slowing down one of the fastest decks topping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Limit Charge? Lol. I never got why people lol the mentioning of limiting charge' date=' its the equivalent of 3 foolish burials and a rota. And have you ever seen a LS deck come close to winning without charge? I haven't.[/quote'] Nate, I knew you were an idiot, but I never realized that you were unable to distinguish random mill from a Foolish effect. Next you'll be likening Jar of Greed to a version of Gold Sarcophagus that doesn't have the four-turn lag. Also, I have seen Lightsworns win without Charge. However, that mainly occurred before Charge was released; after Charge was released, Lightsworns always ran Charge. This is because Lightsworns with Charge are stronger than Lightsworns without Charge, so running Charge is logical. This does not make Charge broken; the term for a card that is worth using and improves its deck is "playable". Incidentally, if Charge were actually a problem, 0 would be the appropriate position, not 1. Im no idiot, I just play, understand, and witness the game from a competitors point of view. LS without charge ran triple reasoning to compensate. The foolish term was nothing but a realization of a possible 9 monster mil to 9 random cards. Either way, shortening the deck for a possible 9 cards to speed the spam of a theme slaved nuker is what keeps LS at the top. Take that away now, and LS are dead. You always have a way of turning things into a "pwove diz cawd iz bwokin" discussions where it doesn't need to be. I don't recall claiming charge to be broken. Im trying to figure out why people lol the idea of slowing down one of the fastest decks topping. If Lightsworns cannot survive without Judgment Dragoon, then Lightsworns deserve to die. However, I think you will find that this is not the case - particularly when the broken cards of other decks, such as Gyzarus, have also been removed from circulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 You always have a way of turning things into a "pwove diz cawd iz bwokin" discussions where it doesn't need to be.When discussing a card being at a lower position then the default of three' date=' the discussion is ALWAYS going to be "prove this card is broken". Otherwise, if a card isn't broken, why bother putting it at a lower number? I don't recall claiming charge to be broken. Im trying to figure out why people lol the idea of slowing down one of the fastest decks topping.There are other ways to go about it, maybe by... oh say... getting rid of their "theme slaved nuker"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iAmNateXero Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 If Lightsworns cannot survive without Judgment Dragoon' date=' then Lightsworns deserve to die.[/quote'] Agreed, but how else would you regulate LS without killing it? You always have a way of turning things into a "pwove diz cawd iz bwokin" discussions where it doesn't need to be.When discussing a card being at a lower position then the default of three' date=' the discussion is ALWAYS going to be "prove this card is broken". Otherwise, if a card isn't broken, why bother putting it at a lower number?[/quote']To troll. I don't recall claiming charge to be broken. Im trying to figure out why people lol the idea of slowing down one of the fastest decks topping.There are other ways to go about it' date=' maybe by... oh say... getting rid of their "theme slaved nuker"?[/quote']Whoa! I said slow down, not completely and utterly destroy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azuh Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 This is what people should be complaining about, yes JD does deserve a banning, but this needs love for the unlimited side of the list. Konami killed two prominent deck types by limiting this: The Warrior Toolbox and Six Samurai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iAmNateXero Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 I don't believe Rota needed to be limited, but I could honestly care less if it was unlimited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
necrofearless Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Slowing down a top tier deck wont make anyone happy, or make any sense. i hate lightsworns, as they are always rival decks. however i would hate to see their deck slowed down like that. jd at 1 should be the only changes but its not necessary. if you have a problem with a certain deck. then do wat failnami wants you to do and spend the extra cash tobuild a better deck =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 If Lightsworns cannot survive without Judgment Dragoon' date=' then Lightsworns deserve to die.[/quote'] Agreed, but how else would you regulate LS without killing it? Why would you think the death of Judgment Dragon would "kill" them? For all your "personal anecdotes", I've seen plenty of duels end to a Celestia play or a triple Honest play or a DSF FTK much more often then a JD play. You always have a way of turning things into a "pwove diz cawd iz bwokin" discussions where it doesn't need to be.When discussing a card being at a lower position then the default of three' date=' the discussion is ALWAYS going to be "prove this card is broken". Otherwise, if a card isn't broken, why bother putting it at a lower number?[/quote']To troll. If you've already admitted you're only here to troll, then there's not really any reason to bother with this discussion. Whoa! I said slow down' date=' not completely and utterly destroy it.[/quote']If their theme nuker is causing harm to the game, it deserves to die, simple enough. If the decktype can not survive without their theme nuker, it deserves to die, simple enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Whoa! I said slow down' date=' not completely and utterly destroy it.[/quote']If their theme nuker is causing harm to the game, it deserves to die, simple enough. If the decktype can not survive without their theme nuker, it deserves to die, simple enough. This looks sorta like exactly what I said earlier, except Nate forgot to read it the first time because he's retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiro Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 This is what people should be complaining about' date=' yes JD does deserve a banning, but this needs love for the unlimited side of the list. Konami killed two prominent deck types by limiting this: The Warrior Toolbox and Six Samurai[/quote'] Little City too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.