Under_Age_User Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 And treeborn could possibly be banned, though I doubt it, it is easily countered IF you draw into a DD Crow. DD Crow is used primarily ONLY for Treeborn Frog. If someone has to actually physically limit their deck building to accommodate one card, then shouldn't that tell you something about whether or not the card in question should be banned? On topic: It shouldn't be, but it's UDE. They limited Fissure and Smashing Ground. >< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sartorius Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Raiza, or none of the Monarchs for that matter will ever be banned. To run monarchs well, your deck has to be suited for it, which is both an advantage and disadvantage. Just summoning a monarch without tributing a "floater" monster, causes you to lose potential advantage, despite the move could be a game-winning one. Monarchs will always be at 3 as there's enough cards out there able to dodge their effects and enough bad players using them out there. Oh and they have low DEF and are practically unsearchable. Sartorius has spoken. Sartorius speaks the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b7hamma Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Now... what about Frog? Please direct your thoughts in the appropriate topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azuh Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Frog will not be banned there is no point in it being banned at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark One Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 I'm not saying that UDE should kill the Monarch Deck. I'm just saying that they should limit it a bit. It would be interesting if a new category of limitation was created. Like you can only run 4 Monarchs in a deck or something. I have a feeling that would make the ban list to complex, but I do think it would be interesting. Oh, and Underage, I do agree that that would generally indicate that the card has too much influence, but I'm trying to be practical. Monarchs have shown themselves to be counterable, it has simply become a part of the Metagame to design your deck to compete against Monarchs. I don't think it should be that way. But it doesn't really affect the balance of the game nearly as much as, say, Chaos did. I hope treeborn is banned, but I don't think it will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sartorius Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Cards have been made to counter monarchs. There's enough cards already existing to do the job for you, as well. Rug, Solemn, Skill Drain, Forced Back - Just some examples. This is why they won't be touched. SAME for frog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b7hamma Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 That's a cop out Sartorius. A card being counterable is by no means ground to keep it unbanned. I'm pretty sure you could name 3-4 counters to every card on the banlist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sartorius Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Heh, that's very true, by my argument is still valid. Unlike some of the banned cards, there's no Monarch OTK, there's no Monarch Lock, there's no Monarch Deck which is the best deck. No monarch build is perfect. There's no broken monarch combo either. That's why they won't be touched. You can have a build, but still it'll fail in some areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b7hamma Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Don't worry, I think that anyone with a basic understanding of the game will agree that the Monarchs do not need to be touched. There will be no battle of wits on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sartorius Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Got it. Btw, ever heard of Joe Whittaker (AKA: Joejoe)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belgian Blue Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 that's because the reason is the same. He's not broken, he doesn't end or turn around games by himself, he is a tribute monster with a trigger effect. he is the best single-tribute monster and probably always will be (there is no upside to seeing cards spun, ever), but then doesn't there always have to be a best ? Tributing for a a one-time effect is fair and balanced. Or at least it is when tributing actually means something. To that effect brain control was limited (should be banned really) and snatch was banned. Now if they make froggy bite the dust, then tributing actually expends resources again and its a perfectly fair card. And those who say froggy is easily countered, if froggy comes back even once for a free monarch summon, he's done his job and created an advantage for the opponent. he does it twice and he's costing you cards left and right. You won't always have crow when they have frog, not with all the ways to search and dump frog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elonkudden Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 1 word: NO! Monarch will never' date=' I repeat never be limited, banned or semi-limited[/quote'] I'll second that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.