is it just me, or are spellcasters becoming...

[burnpsy]

Bottomless doesn't stop JD's nuke. Further, there is no reason for any deck to run all of those aside from JD's presence.

 

There's protecting yourself, then there's wasting space.

 

Also, wasn't there an OTK involving the nuke with JD? I think it was JD -> JD -> Lumina -> any 1000+ ATK LS. Even without the second JD and Lumina Limited, something along those lines can still consistently happen. JD's ATK by itself isn't enough to really be an issue, but 6000+ is.

 

Regardless, this isn't a discussion thread about JD.

[TheTurtleOnceCalledGod]

Bottomless doesn't stop JD's nuke. Further' date=' there is no reason for any deck to run all of those aside from JD's presence.

 

There's protecting yourself, then there's wasting space.

 

Also, wasn't there an OTK involving the nuke with JD? I think it was JD -> JD -> Lumina -> any 1000+ ATK LS. Even without the second JD and Lumina Limited, something along those lines can still consistently happen. JD's ATK by itself isn't enough to really be an issue, but 6000+ is.

 

Regardless, this isn't a discussion thread about JD.

[/quote']

 

That is what we have Battle Fader, Gorz, Tragodaea, and others for.

[Wizarus]

They were just examples of what could could stop JD. The point is, if you are going to extend the field using a Spell Counter deck, then you should have a way to counter a nuke, or don't be upset when you lose. And yes, this is a little off track from the discussion. Sorry about that.

[Canadian]

Wow guys. This thread about spellcaster got turned AGAIN into another

 

JD is/isn't broken fail arguments. Also, fyi, the "This card isn't banable, because this card can stop it" argument is kinda out of date (I should know).

[Dark_Armed_Zombie]

Spell counters are Spellcasters mana, it makes sense... I like spell counters, they make Spellcasters interestingly awesome.

[werewolfjedi]

Spell counters are Spellcasters mana' date=' it makes sense... I like spell counters, they make Spellcasters interestingly awesome.

[/quote']

 

yeah, it's interesting to think of it that way.

[Bringerofcake]

Spell counters are Spellcasters mana' date=' it makes sense... I like spell counters, they make Spellcasters interestingly awesome.

[/quote']

 

yeah, it's interesting to think of it that way.

 

Especially when you can get into all of the ways to make and generate Spell Counters, and ways to manipulate them. Personally, I'm currently unopposed to running Anti-Spell, simply because it's a +0 Magic Jammer (obviously there are better cards, but my point remains semi-valid).

 

Also, @ the JD argument:

4) [Broken Card X] should not be banned because it can be countered by [Card S].

[GenzoTheHarpist]

They were just examples of what could could stop JD. The point is' date=' if you are going to extend the field using a Spell Counter deck, then you should have a way to counter a nuke, or don't be upset when you lose. And yes, this is a little off track from the discussion. Sorry about that.

[/quote']

 

This is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. By that logic, no card in existence should be banned because it's just the other players fault for not countering it.

[Wizarus]

This is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. By that logic' date=' no card in existence should be banned because it's just the other players fault for not countering it.

[/quote']

 

Granted JD is broken' date=' but it doesn't change the fact that he is still in the game.

[/quote']

 

I'm also not arguing that JD isn't broken, so there is no need to post random "[broken Card X] should not be banned" quotes.

[werewolfjedi]

This is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. By that logic' date=' no card in existence should be banned because it's just the other players fault for not countering it.

[/quote']

 

Granted JD is broken' date=' but it doesn't change the fact that he is still in the game.

[/quote']

 

I'm also not arguing that JD isn't broken, so there is no need to post random "[broken Card X] should not be banned" quotes.

stop.

topic change.

DISCUSS FORTUNE LADIES NOW YOU TWO.

[Bringerofcake]

This is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. By that logic' date=' no card in existence should be banned because it's just the other players fault for not countering it.

[/quote']

 

Granted JD is broken' date=' but it doesn't change the fact that he is still in the game.

[/quote']

 

I'm also not arguing that JD isn't broken, so there is no need to post random "[broken Card X] should not be banned" quotes.

stop.

topic change.

DISCUSS FORTUNE LADIES SPELL COUNTER CARDS NOW YOU TWO.

 

Actually, a serious question. If Spell Power Grasp could be played three times in a turn, would that affect how speedily Spell Counter Decks run? And thus affect their status as Tier 3/2?

[werewolfjedi]

This is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. By that logic' date=' no card in existence should be banned because it's just the other players fault for not countering it.

[/quote']

 

Granted JD is broken' date=' but it doesn't change the fact that he is still in the game.

[/quote']

 

I'm also not arguing that JD isn't broken, so there is no need to post random "[broken Card X] should not be banned" quotes.

stop.

topic change.

DISCUSS FORTUNE LADIES SPELL COUNTER CARDS NOW YOU TWO.

 

Actually, a serious question. If Spell Power Grasp could be played three times in a turn, would that affect how speedily Spell Counter Decks run? And thus affect their status as Tier 3/2?

 

tempest otks get a lot easier, that's for sure.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

1: If your deck is completely targeted towards stopping JD, you're gonna find yourself losing much more often when not against JD. (Blackwings, Gadgets, Zombies)

 

2: If you think an LS deck only needs JD in order to win, your sadly mistaken. Between Garoth for drawing, Celestia for mass destruction, Honest for beatstickery, possibly Vayu and other odd things, JD is just the cherry on top. (Or... a whole entire second sundae, depending on where you think JD deserves to be on the banlist)

 

3: I preferred it more when there were decent, splashable spellcasters around. Now you need to dedicate your entire deck to them.

[werewolfjedi]

1: If your deck is completely targeted towards stopping JD' date=' you're gonna find yourself losing much more often when not against JD. (Blackwings, Gadgets, Zombies)

 

2: If you think an LS deck only needs JD in order to win, your sadly mistaken. Between Garoth for drawing, Celestia for mass destruction, Honest for beatstickery, possibly Vayu and other odd things, JD is just the cherry on top. (Or... a whole entire second sundae, depending on where you think JD deserves to be on the banlist)

 

3: I preferred it more when there were decent, splashable spellcasters around. Now you need to dedicate your entire deck to them.

[/quote']

 

I have to say, most things these days you have to dedicate your whole deck too.

it's getting annoying really.

it hurts my explantions as to why I tell certain people to use certain cards when I've told others to use the cards I'm now telling them not to.

(I meaning the new archtypes and support mostly.)

very complatcated mess it makes.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

I have to say' date=' most things these days you have to dedicate your whole deck too.

it's getting annoying really.[/quote']

 

Agreed. Hence why I made sure the deck I run this format requires very little deck specialization. It's a Monarch deck BTW... (Called Minarchs! <3)

[TheTurtleOnceCalledGod]

If they released a spellcaster, or a spell counter based trap that negates monster effects/summons, then I would be more interested. Otherwise, they are just too slow for the meta (doesn't mean they can't sit happily as a strong casual deck, though).

[werewolfjedi]

I have to say' date=' most things these days you have to dedicate your whole deck too.

it's getting annoying really.[/quote']

 

Agreed. Hence why I made sure the deck I run this format requires very little deck specialization. It's a Monarch deck BTW... (Called Minarchs! <3)

 

that does sound like you.

 

I'm experimenting with fortune ladies myself.

if I can just find a way to use them in my citadel deck relibly, I've got a new engine that most decks shouldn't be able to use, since they won't focus on casters.

with the reduction of speed from this new banlist, it may give me exactly what I need to win.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

I have to say' date=' most things these days you have to dedicate your whole deck too.

it's getting annoying really.[/quote']

 

Agreed. Hence why I made sure the deck I run this format requires very little deck specialization. It's a Monarch deck BTW... (Called Minarchs! <3)

 

that does sound like you.

 

... Umm... what? <_<

 

Do I like... know you or something? <_<

[werewolfjedi]

I have to say' date=' most things these days you have to dedicate your whole deck too.

it's getting annoying really.[/quote']

 

Agreed. Hence why I made sure the deck I run this format requires very little deck specialization. It's a Monarch deck BTW... (Called Minarchs! <3)

 

that does sound like you.

 

... Umm... what? <_<

 

Do I like... know you or something? <_<

 

I don't think so, not IRL, but I saw you around on DMU remember? we dueled a couple of times.

 

the name you gave it sounds like what you would name a deck.

 

plus, I'm good at reading people, it is part of why I'm good at this game, and over time, with all the posts people make here, I do figure a few things out, not much, just things like common habits with the game from here.

 

it would be funny though if we really did know each other IRL.

you don't go to henry ford comminty college in michigain do you?

[Dr. Cakey]

I know where you all live.

 

I think I mentioned this in some other thread, but I don't like how a number of important Spell Counter 'casters can't receive Spell Counters (Endymion, for example). I use a largely unmodified Spellcaster's Command, though, which isn't exactly up to par with a properly constructed deck.

 

P.S. Machinas are the new meta.