[Leaderboard] UltimateIRS vs Striker

[Nathanael D. Striker]

*sigh* I'm going to do something I rarely, if ever, do and use my veto powers to validate Excalibur's vote. For Card A, he makes a connection between L1T and Card A. While I would like that to be expanded on further, I feel that being able to recognize it is C- adequate, which is enough to let it through this time. For Card B, all his posts on that progress to show his understanding on how it wouldn't be worth to run it. He even brought specific comparisons to defend his argument.

[UltimateIRS]

*sigh* I'm going to do something I rarely, if ever, do and use my veto powers to validate Excalibur's vote. For Card A, he makes a connection between L1T and Card A. While I would like that to be expanded on further, I feel that being able to recognize it is C- adequate, which is enough to let it through this time.

 

He did state that it is kind of like Lose 1 Turn, however that is like stating that Cardcar D is kind of like Pot of Greed. It can be useful to state that a card is similar to another card in framing an argument, however it is necessary to state what those similarities are and where those similarities end in order for it to constitute an argument. He has not done that.

 

For Card B, all his posts on that progress to show his understanding on how it wouldn't be worth to run it. He even brought specific comparisons to defend his argument.

 

I think that said comparisons fall flat, as the cards he mentions have completely different materials and lack an effect other than their respective destruction effects, things he does not address in his comparison. On a related note, he still has yet to specifically address the floodgate effect at all.

[Excalibur the Divine]

The floodgate effect is nice, and it helps Kozmos more easily defeat PEPE, but I still vote for Card A

[UltimateIRS]

The floodgate effect is nice, and it helps Kozmos more easily defeat PEPE, but I still vote for Card A

 

At this point, my understanding of your reasoning for Card B is that it might be nice to have against Pendulum decks, but the maintenance cost would often have to be paid with important cards that one may want to use for other things, which may very well keep it from actually being very useful. I can accept this reasoning.

 

However, you have not provided a sufficient assessment of Card A. You have stated that it is kind of like Lose 1 Turn, but that is not an assessment in and of itself. I would suggest talking about how it is similar and how it is different, assessing the advantages and disadvantages it has, something along those lines.

[Excalibur the Divine]

At this point, my understanding of your reasoning for Card B is that it might be nice to have against Pendulum decks, but the maintenance cost would often have to be paid with important cards that one may want to use for other things, which may very well keep it from actually being very useful. I can accept this reasoning.

 

However, you have not provided a sufficient assessment of Card A. You have stated that it is kind of like Lose 1 Turn, but that is not an assessment in and of itself. I would suggest talking about how it is similar and how it is different, assessing the advantages and disadvantages it has, something along those lines.

Compared to lose one turn, Card A:

Advantges: Has a secondary effect that allows you to shuffle a monster into the deck and draw one card

Disadvantages: Uses up a summon

Other: This card does not only affect Special Summons, like lose 1 turn, but it also affects normal summons

[Nathanael D. Striker]

I am satisfied with Excalibur's vote. What about you, IRS?

[UltimateIRS]

I don't think he's said enough about how much it respectively hurts each player to conclude that it could be worth using.

[Excalibur the Divine]

I feel like I have said enough already; I'm starting to feel like you will never be satisfied.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

I don't think he's said enough about how much it respectively hurts each player to conclude that it could be worth using.

I think he has said enough about both cards to validate his vote. And my veto is technically stronger than yours.

[Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin]

Here you go IRS pal here's a vote from another person since Excalibur is clearly not ever going to reach your desired level of analysis.

 

A is like a Lose 1 Turn in monster form, except that it hits every kind of summon. The advantages of Lose 1 Turn itself are that the likes of Qliphorts and Yosenjus could/can employ it to devastating effect because of it being a trap and not affecting their own plays at all. This being a monster does not lend itself to such uses. Yosenjus simply can't run because it takes their normal summon and without it they can't function outside of shite like Double Summon, but at that point you're jumping through hoops to make a decent floodgate monster usable while there's an already existing trap card that does essentially the same thing.

 

As for Qliphorts they're dead in the water, but they could use this if they so wished as it allows a big pendulum summon, but they tend not to make such plays unless they're setting up for a tribute summon anyway so I don't see it being used their.

 

In general stun/lockdown/annoying decks this could see use, but overall it doesn't do particularly enough. 1700 is a decent number but the majority of decks can bat over it. The Mathematician-esque draw effect is perfectly fine, but in terms of making it a more usable card than the trap from which it plagiarises, it's not entirely sufficient. However those decks do tend towards bricking or general slowness of establishing board presence, so recycling and getting a draw off it being popped is a plus point.

 

Now, for B.

 

It works in Kozmos and nothing else, like there is no other deck capable of making this that conventionally exists, so that for me is a point against it because the idea of this criteria and these competitions in general is, as I see it, to have generic (or at least somewhat splashable) cards that fit the requirements. It's not a huge detriment but it's something I'd be inclined to count against it. That and it's a -1 on summon with no inherent protection, if it destroyed the materials or something that'd give it some fun interactions.

 

That aside, it's basically Kozmo Shogun Shien, except it only hits spells. I get that the idea behind it is to help Kozmos against pendulum decks, blocking them from setting up scales and being able to swarm you to death before you can really get anything done. The inbuilt MST is alright but nothing else. I mean, Kozmos could nearly afford to run Anti-Spell Fragrance if you're really so afraid of pendulums because all they use is Kozmotown and E-Tele, one of which is chainable anyway. The fact that this has a maintenance cost for an effect that, while relatively powerful, isn't particularly devastating, does not make sense to me, especially when Kozmos don't have a single card you want to be dropping.

 

Overall a vote for A because what it does hurts far more decks than B, it has broader application, its floodgate is more disruptive, and it's searchable by RotA which boosts it a bit even with that card at 1.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

2-1 A. Objections?

[UltimateIRS]

None at all, and as you have more votes past the cutoff, this would be your win.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Alrighty, 2-1 Striker.