CrabHelmet Posted December 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 I should probably know what it means but... IIRC? If I Remember/Recall Correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 14) [broken Card X] should not be banned because it sucks. Also, my Magic fan of a friend constantly says that the banlist is another way to make money every time I tell him that the banlist is an attempt to make the game more balanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Void Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 The only one I'm a bit iffy on is Number 8 but for different reasons and only on a few certain cards...otherwise I do agree with this list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 14) [broken Card X] should not be banned because it sucks. Also' date=' my Magic fan of a friend constantly says that the banlist is another way to make money every time I tell him that the banlist is an attempt to make the game more balanced.[/quote'] Fun Fact: In Yu-Gi-Oh, the first cards to be forbidden were forbidden as an attempt to make money (With "health of the metagame" as a secondary plus). Since everyone already had their 1x of every (currently limited) super broken card (Pot of Greed, Graceful, Premature, Harpy's Feather Duster etc etc.) there was no reason to go out and buy the newer, less broken and less powerful cards. The only one I'm a bit iffy on is Number 8 but for different reasons and only on a few certain cards...otherwise I do agree with this list. Which specific card is it that troubles you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted December 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 14) [broken Card X] should not be banned because it sucks. Also' date=' my Magic fan of a friend constantly says that the banlist is another way to make money every time I tell him that the banlist is an attempt to make the game more balanced.[/quote'] Fun Fact: In Yu-Gi-Oh, the first cards to be forbidden were forbidden as an attempt to make money (With "health of the metagame" as a secondary plus). Since everyone already had their 1x of every (currently limited) super broken card (Pot of Greed, Graceful, Premature, Harpy's Feather Duster etc etc.) there was no reason to go out and buy the newer, less broken and less powerful cards. Other Fun Fact: In Yu-Gi-Oh, the banlist is still there to make money, albeit less directly; players will buy more cards if the game is less terrible. (Alternately, it could still be a direct source of money through broken card cycling. Release something broken like DAD, have everyone buy up lots of packs to get copies, Limit DAD and introduce Gyzarus, have everyone buy up lots of packs to get stuff for a completely different deck, Limit Bestiari and introduce Blackwings and DSF, ban DSF and Limit Gale... as long as the top deck changes often enough, people need to constantly buy the new broken stuff.) The only one I'm a bit iffy on is Number 8 but for different reasons and only on a few certain cards...otherwise I do agree with this list. Which specific card is it that troubles you? I suspect he is thinking of things like Heavy Storm and Mirror Force, in which case he is confusing Argument 8 with a different argument that is actually valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 14) [broken Card X] should not be banned because it sucks. Actually, that's not that bad of an argument. Outside of Exodia and Victory Dragon, I can't really think of any banworthy cards that also suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 14) [broken Card X] should not be banned because it sucks. Actually' date=' that's not that bad of an argument. Outside of Exodia and Victory Dragon, I can't really think of any banworthy cards that also suck.[/quote'] Arguably; Nobleman of Crossout, All Out Attack, Final Attack Order, Arcana Force [Roman Numeral] - The World, Imperial Iron Wall, Super Alloy Beast - Whatever, Treeborn Frog and Chimeratech Fortress Dragon are banworthy cards that also suck. The logic is that just because a card sucks in this format doesn't mean that it wouldn't be harmful in the format you are creating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Alot of those cards suck this format, but in a format with most of the most blatantly broken cards banned would be good. I'm trying to think of cards that would be objectively bad in just about any conceivable format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Alot of those cards suck this format' date=' but in a format with most of the most blatantly broken cards banned would be good.[/quote'] But Argument 14 of course implies "this format". It's just less funny and flows awkwardly if the last two words are added in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 I guess. But argument 14 makes perfect sense if you're applying it to say, Sparks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 But you wouldn't exactly classify Sparks under the banner "Broken Card X" now would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 No. But if somebody was saying it was broken, argument 14 would be a good counterargument. Any argument saying something isn't broken is stupid when we're supposing that the card is "Broken Card X". If that's the key assumption, this thread is retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 A card isn't broken just by someone declaring it's broken (there's a whole nother Crab copypasta on what decides whether a card is broken or not floating around, and even then it's mildly outdated). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 If a card is "objectively broken", then any argument saying it's not broken is wrong, and the arguments in this thread are not of any particular stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazer Yoshi Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 "7) [broken Card X] should not be banned because it is not as broken as [banned Card C]."Sir Crab Helmet has done it again. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rose Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 2) [Broken Card X] should not be banned because [Decktype L] is too weak without it. My friend wants rainbow dragon banned.The crystal beast user said what you just said crab.The crystal beast user also thinks stardust dragon sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 [Statement X] is correct because [Member CH] said it is. Anyways, supported. I'm sick of n00bs using these arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Lightray Daedalus- Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Wierd that nobody mentioned.... [X]....That card should not be banned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAtlus Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Wierd that nobody mentioned.... [X]....That card should not be banned The above post proves how awesome I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 If a card is "objectively broken"' date=' then any argument saying it's not broken is wrong, and the arguments in this thread are not of any particular stupidity.[/quote'] Err... maybe it's my fault because I'm trying to multitask here and not paying enough attention but... what the hell argument are you trying to make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 I am seeing a rather alarming of posts lately saying that Judgment Dragoon should remain legal because losing it weakens Lightlords too much, or that Gyzarus should stay because losing him hurts Gladiator Beasts. It seems you guys need a reminder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffee. Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 I am seeing a rather alarming of posts lately saying that Judgment Dragoon should remain legal because losing it weakens Lightlords too much' date=' or that Gyzarus should stay because losing him hurts Gladiator Beasts. It seems you guys need a reminder.[/quote']At least its not Schrödinger's Format, in which we try and re-make season 1 of Yugimonz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnpsy Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 Argument 13 can make sense if someone thinks that something like BEWD should be banned after losing to it. >____> Anyways, I remember this thread. Yeah, the whole GB conversation isn't too smart at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 Argument 13 can make sense if someone thinks that something like BEWD should be banned after losing to it. >____> No. None of these arguments are ever valid, whether or not the card in question is actually banworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daboss144 Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Argument 7 works with COTH, Monster Reborn, and Premature... it's the less of 3 evils and one of those three are necessary for the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.