Imprisonment of the Dimensions [/DISC]

[archie17]

Soo.... fissure should be semi-limited? Smashing ground? Any and all other +0s?

 

Fissure destroys it does not remove. It comes down to do you think removing a card is far more damaging than destroying.

---

Maybe then Semi-Limited might be more appropriate.

 

Mirror Force is limited / it can get rid of 5 potentially / face-up only / destroyed not removed / no cost

 

This at semi-limited / it can get rid of 1 only / face-up only / removed from play / no cost

 

Mirror destroys more' date=' but this removes 1, everything is about the same beside those, so I'm thinking it should be semi-limited atleast.

[/quote']

 

Semi-limiting this card is pointless.

 

Why?

 

Bobs post explains it all. Also it only gives a slight more advantage because it can get past stardust/prime material ect easy. It's because most +0s are pretty balanced and aren't anything game breaking. Just because it removes from play doesn't mean it should just have a semi-limit which there are always better cards to put on the banlist.

 

I personally think the restricted list needs to be increase, but that's another matter.

 

I will say this having 3 of these can atleast help you divert Lightsworns and Zombie decks for awhile.

---

Because if it's broken it should be banned. The only reason to semi-limit cards is if they interact with other copies of themselves (Malicious' date=' Mezuki).

 

Also, this isn't guaranteed to remove a monster. You have to set it, wait a turn, get your opponent to attack, and hope that he hasn't destroyed it in the meanwhile because it's not even chainable.[hr']

Soo.... fissure should be semi-limited? Smashing ground? Any and all other +0s?

 

No' date=' they should be banned. Fissure and Smashing Ground anyway. +0s aren't necessarily criminal.

[/quote']

 

No.

 

Ah I see your point about the semi-limited interaction bit.

[b0b3rt]

Soo.... fissure should be semi-limited? Smashing ground? Any and all other +0s?

 

No' date=' they should be banned. Fissure and Smashing Ground anyway. +0s aren't necessarily criminal.

[/quote']

 

No.

 

Oh yes.

 

A spell's easier to Summon than a monster, MUCH easier to Summon than certain monsters, so why is it that they should be able to 1-for-1 these monsters?

 

No, you're arguing the wrong way. The question is why shouldn't they be allowed to 1-for-1 a monster. If you can argue that being able to waste up to 3 of your opponent's normal summons is game-breaking, then do so. But obviously having Fissure and Smashing Ground at 3 hasn't broken the meta.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Soo.... fissure should be semi-limited? Smashing ground? Any and all other +0s?

 

No' date=' they should be banned. Fissure and Smashing Ground anyway. +0s aren't necessarily criminal.

[/quote']

 

No.

 

Oh yes.

 

A spell's easier to Summon than a monster, MUCH easier to Summon than certain monsters, so why is it that they should be able to 1-for-1 these monsters?

 

No, you're arguing the wrong way. The question is why shouldn't they be allowed to 1-for-1 a monster. If you can argue that being able to waste up to 3 of your opponent's normal summons is game-breaking, then do so. But obviously having Fissure and Smashing Ground at 3 hasn't broken the meta.

 

lol dood ur arguing rong

 

What has broken the meta? Oh, and I edited my previous post since apparently we have to review some basics.

[archie17]

Soo.... fissure should be semi-limited? Smashing ground? Any and all other +0s?

 

No' date=' they should be banned. Fissure and Smashing Ground anyway. +0s aren't necessarily criminal.

[/quote']

 

No.

 

Oh yes.

 

A spell's easier to Summon than a monster, MUCH easier to Summon than certain monsters, so why is it that they should be able to 1-for-1 these monsters?

 

No, you're arguing the wrong way. The question is why shouldn't they be allowed to 1-for-1 a monster. If you can argue that being able to waste up to 3 of your opponent's normal summons is game-breaking, then do so. But obviously having Fissure and Smashing Ground at 3 hasn't broken the meta.

 

I think they made Fissure unlimited again because of how today's meta is with the special summoning craziness going on these days.

But remove from play is kind of harsh to me, how many means of recovery from the "Different Dimension" are there today anyways?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Soo.... fissure should be semi-limited? Smashing ground? Any and all other +0s?

 

No' date=' they should be banned. Fissure and Smashing Ground anyway. +0s aren't necessarily criminal.

[/quote']

 

No.

 

Oh yes.

 

A spell's easier to Summon than a monster, MUCH easier to Summon than certain monsters, so why is it that they should be able to 1-for-1 these monsters?

 

No, you're arguing the wrong way. The question is why shouldn't they be allowed to 1-for-1 a monster. If you can argue that being able to waste up to 3 of your opponent's normal summons is game-breaking, then do so. But obviously having Fissure and Smashing Ground at 3 hasn't broken the meta.

 

I think they made Fissure unlimited again because of how today's meta is with the special summoning craziness going on these days.

But remove from play is kind of harsh to me, how many means of recovery from the "Different Dimension" are there today anyways?

 

Unlimiting cards like Fissure hardly does anything to prevent cheap and easy Summons, but rather stamps on cards like Machina Force which have greater Summoning costs and cards which can only be utilized effectively without Normal Summoning them or cards which can only be Normal Summoned.

[burnpsy]

But remove from play is kind of harsh to me' date=' how many means of recovery from the "Different Dimension" are there today anyways?

[/quote']

 

More than you're implying.

[b0b3rt]

@Polaris:

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

@FANtom:

 

As I already explained, Fissure and Dimensional Prison aren't really comparable. You get fissure, the only thing the opponent can do is negate it (and in the process either lose half his LP or give you another draw). You set Dimensional Prison, and your opponent can do a lot. Destroy it, send it back to your hand, send it back to your deck, negate it, or even choose not to attack. The fact that the net result of it's effect is better is irrelevant.

[Rose]

Soo.... fissure should be semi-limited? Smashing ground? Any and all other +0s?

 

No' date=' they should be banned. Fissure and Smashing Ground anyway. +0s aren't necessarily criminal.

[/quote']

 

No.

 

Oh yes.

 

A spell's easier to Summon than a monster, MUCH easier to Summon than certain monsters, so why is it that they should be able to 1-for-1 these monsters?

 

No, you're arguing the wrong way. The question is why shouldn't they be allowed to 1-for-1 a monster. If you can argue that being able to waste up to 3 of your opponent's normal summons is game-breaking, then do so. But obviously having Fissure and Smashing Ground at 3 hasn't broken the meta.

 

I think they made Fissure unlimited again because of how today's meta is with the special summoning craziness going on these days.

But remove from play is kind of harsh to me, how many means of recovery from the "Different Dimension" are there today anyways?

 

Same goes with Smashing Ground. If you think Dimensional Prision is harsh, there are worst.

[archie17]

@Polaris:

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

@FANtom:

 

As I already explained' date=' Fissure and Dimensional Prison aren't really comparable. You get fissure, the only thing the opponent can do is negate it (and in the process either lose half his LP or give you another draw). You set Dimensional Prison, and your opponent can do a lot. Destroy it, send it back to your hand, send it back to your deck, negate it, or even choose not to attack. The fact that the net result of it's effect is better is irrelevant.

[/quote']

 

fair enough

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

@Polaris:

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

Your lack of an argument isn't the only thing mine's benefitting from in this discussion, I've also given my evidence to support it, being that Fissure and Smashing Ground are a problem by heavily punishing cards which actually take effort to Summon.

[burnpsy]

@Polaris:

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

Your lack of an argument isn't the only thing mine's benefitting from in this discussion' date=' I've also given my evidence to support it, being that Fissure and Smashing Ground are a problem by heavily punishing cards which actually take effort to Summon.

[/quote']

 

It comes with being difficult to summon. Other monsters existing that can be summoned more easily and do better than them (note that Machina Force is horrible even after it hits the field) could be seen as a negative for those kinds of cards. Not necessarily just the broken stuff either.

 

The same argument you're using could be used to ban any half-decent cards that gets something off of the field. Compulsory, a -1 trap, is also a card that goes against difficult summoning conditions...

[OrangePeel]

@Polaris:

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

Your lack of an argument isn't the only thing mine's benefitting from in this discussion' date=' I've also given my evidence to support it, being that Fissure and Smashing Ground are a problem by heavily punishing cards which actually take effort to Summon.

[/quote']

 

What I think you are getting at is you think destruction cards should have a cost of some sort or be situational to force more skill in the game. Right?

[b0b3rt]

Not only destruction cards, apparently.

 

Using Compulsory on a 2-tribute normal summoned monster is a +1, but that doesn't mean that we should ban compulsory because it makes 2-tribute monsters unusable.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

@Polaris:

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

 

Your lack of an argument isn't the only thing mine's benefitting from in this discussion' date=' I've also given my evidence to support it, being that Fissure and Smashing Ground are a problem by heavily punishing cards which actually take effort to Summon.

[/quote']

 

What I think you are getting at is you think destruction cards should have a cost of some sort or be situational to force more skill in the game. Right?

 

 

That's the general gist of it. If cards have to use destructive effects, they should be strictly for cards which deserve being hit by destructive effects, like Level 4 or lower cards as they don't often have massive Summoning conditions. Or cards Special Summoned without having sent any other cards to the Graveyard to do so. That'd make for a nice card. A heavy cost to make up for their crime would also work, but it should actually be a heavy cost.

 

Not only destruction cards' date=' apparently.

 

Using Compulsory on a 2-tribute normal summoned monster is a +1, but that doesn't mean that we should ban compulsory because it makes 2-tribute monsters unusable.

[/quote']

 

Why not? Compulsory isn't proportioned to respect higher levelled cards with higher levelled Summoning conditions, which results in massive unbalance and unfariness towards those who'd use them. And why shouldn't they use them? They are the most hyped and respected monsters, given chants, support, anime characters, and many more forms of hype.

[b0b3rt]

In general I'd agree with you, except I can't even think of a monster that would be worth using if it wasn't for Fissure, Smashing Ground, CED, or the like.

 

You see, most of these monsters either:

 

a) Are not worth using in the first place

b) Have summoning conditions too difficult to fulfill to make them worth using, even ignoring Fissure/CED

c) Can easily be Special Summoned a different way, thus reducing the advantage that one gains from destroying it or sending it back to their opponent's hand.

[Dark_Armed_Zombie]

Wait, by that logic, Trap Hole should be banned? It invalidates all Normal Summons, which POTENTIALLY means a high lvl monster... BAN ALL 1-4-1!!! <

[OrangePeel]

@Polaris:

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

Your lack of an argument isn't the only thing mine's benefitting from in this discussion' date=' I've also given my evidence to support it, being that Fissure and Smashing Ground are a problem by heavily punishing cards which actually take effort to Summon.

[/quote']

 

What I think you are getting at is you think destruction cards should have a cost of some sort or be situational to force more skill in the game. Right?

 

That's the general gist of it. If cards have to use destructive effects, they should be strictly for cards which deserve being hit by destructive effects, like Level 4 or lower cards as they don't often have massive Summoning conditions. Or cards Special Summoned without having sent any other cards to the Graveyard to do so. That'd make for a nice card. A heavy cost to make up for their crime would also work, but it should actually be a heavy cost.

 

Not only destruction cards' date=' apparently.

 

Using Compulsory on a 2-tribute normal summoned monster is a +1, but that doesn't mean that we should ban compulsory because it makes 2-tribute monsters unusable.

[/quote']

 

Why not? Compulsory isn't proportioned to respect higher levelled cards with higher levelled Summoning conditions, which results in massive unbalance and unfariness towards those who'd use them. And why shouldn't they use them? They are the most hyped and respected monsters, given chants, support, anime characters, and many more forms of hype.

 

Bye-bye Penguin Soilder

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Wait' date=' by that logic, Trap Hole should be banned? It invalidates all Normal Summons, which POTENTIALLY means a high lvl monster... BAN ALL 1-4-1!!! <<

[/quote']

 

Bye-bye Penguin Soilder

 

You people're treating it as ridiculous because it's radical' date=' but think about it for a few seconds and it actually makes a lot of sense if we're to have the game headed in the right direction. Oh, and yeah, they should both be banned.

 

In general I'd agree with you, except I can't even think of a monster that would be worth using if it wasn't for Fissure, Smashing Ground, CED, or the like.

 

You see, most of these monsters either:

 

a) Are not worth using in the first place

b) Have summoning conditions too difficult to fulfill to make them worth using, even ignoring Fissure/CED

c) Can easily be Special Summoned a different way, thus reducing the advantage that one gains from destroying it or sending it back to their opponent's hand.

 

a) The "first place" would be very different, and I reckon that they would be worth using after problems were dealt with. Not only that, but further development for the game would be set for less chaos and sets without a border between unused and broken cards like PTDN, as proportions would be established for destructive effects.

b) This's owing to our using cards because they're so easy to throw out onto the field like E-Tele, CyDra, Gale, Grandmaster of the SS, etc. Ideally, the standards would be much different and we'd have heavy Summoning Conditions conducted.

c) Cards like "A Hero Emerges" and the like which do so without a reasonable cost involved would also be hit.

[burnpsy]

You people're treating it as ridiculous because it's radical' date=' but think about it for a few seconds and it actually makes a lot of sense if we're to have the game headed in the right direction. Oh, and yeah, they should both be banned.

[/quote']

 

I thought about for a good hour, and my only answer is that you're trolling.

[Dark_Armed_Zombie]

Yeah...

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

You couldn't have possibly actually stopped to think about it for more than 4 minutes upon having conducted your post.

 

I'm actually not trolling for real because this is a reasonable ideal and would benefit the game by evening the balance of power throughout the levels and allow for correct proportions upon further releases. You guys just can't accept it because it seems ridiculous because of all the cards you know and love/laugh at would be banned, but it actually makes sense. Prove me wrong or agree.

[Dark_Armed_Zombie]

Lets ban a card that stops Normal Summons in a game where you can go an entire match without Normal Summoning, that makes sense. I understand where you are coming from, but still.

[burnpsy]

You couldn't have possibly actually stopped to think about it for more than 4 minutes upon having conducted your post.

 

I'm actually not trolling for real because this is a reasonable ideal and would benefit the game by evening the balance of power throughout the levels and allow for correct proportions upon further releases. You guys just can't accept it because it seems ridiculous because of all the cards you know and love/laugh at would be banned' date=' but it actually makes sense. Prove me wrong or agree.

[/quote']

 

You're the one making the point. You have to prove your own assumption about what I think. Clearly impossible as you're not a professional psychologist. So yeah, the last two sentences are stupid assumptions.

 

Also, bolded is a logic fail. You posted the idea more than an hour ago.

[Archelaus]

I lol'd when I read that Trap Hole should be banned. +0s Destruction effects shouldn't be banned because you also waste resources on using them. Even then, Special Summoning is easy in this meta. You could have remove it from play but your opponent can also use DDR or RotDD. Situational?, yes. Possible?, yes.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Lets ban a card that stops Normal Summons in a game where you can go an entire match without Normal Summoning' date=' that makes sense. I understand where you are coming from, but still.

[/quote']

 

You shouldn't be able to. =/

 

You couldn't have possibly actually stopped to think about it for more than 4 minutes upon having conducted your post.

 

I'm actually not trolling for real because this is a reasonable ideal and would benefit the game by evening the balance of power throughout the levels and allow for correct proportions upon further releases. You guys just can't accept it because it seems ridiculous because of all the cards you know and love/laugh at would be banned' date=' but it actually makes sense. Prove me wrong or agree.

[/quote']

 

You're the one making the point. You have to prove your own assumption about what I think. Clearly impossible as you're not a professional psychologist. So yeah, the last two sentences are stupid assumptions.

 

Also, bolded is a logic fail. You posted the idea more than an hour ago.

 

Why else can't you accept it? Seems like a logical explanation about why you're being so defensive about the point here. Or rather, as to why you're being so defensive in making issues around the statements I make about the point here which don't actually relate to the point here. You're evading the main point and scrapping with me on semantic issues because you've nothing to say about the main point. Or haven't demonstrated having said anything about the main point anyway. Care to say something about the main point after having thought about it for over an hour now?

 

(I could just as easily have thought you were responding to my post when you were talking about having thought about it and not the main point, Mr. Psychologist. ;))

 

I lol'd when I read that Trap Hole should be banned. +0s Destruction effects shouldn't be banned because you also waste resources on using them. Even then' date=' Special Summoning is easy in this meta. You could have remove it from play but your opponent can also use DDR or RotDD. Situational?, yes. Possible?, yes.

[/quote']

 

The whole point in using them in the first place is that you use less resources. That's why they're so "good".