Pyramids attempt at ban list. FIRST DRAFT

[CrabHelmet]

Since I'm certain that you don't understand why Semi-Limiting should not exist, I will explain it:

 

If a card is bad for the game at 3, then in general (I'll get to the exceptions in a moment) it is bad for the game at 1 or 2 as well. The majority of all cards in the game fall into this category, and thus are 3-or-0 cards. Konami throws around Limits and Semi-Limits like candy, because it believes that, if a card is seeing play, it should be available in fewer copies, as this will reduce the chance of drawing it. However, that card will still exist, and would still be able to hurt the game in the same manner; Semi-Limiting and Limiting generally tries to delay taking real action rather than providing a real solution.

 

Take Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning. At 3, it is unacceptable. But at 1, it can't be drawn consistently, so it should be Limited, since then it won't be as big a problem, right? Wrong. Why? Because it only takes one Black Luster Soldier to do what Black Luster Soldier does. Even if the problem's frequency has been reduced, the problem is still there.

 

This is actually a real-life example of this flawed thinking. Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning remained Limited for two years before Konami finally conceded its mistake and banned it in September 2005. (It took them another year to ban Chaos Sorcerer, which had until then been unlimited.)

 

In fact, Limiting and Semi-Limiting cards that are bad for the game increases their reliance on luck. Thus, it causes the game to reward luck over skill even more.

 

So why do we Limit cards? There are a few cards that are exempt from 3-or-0 logic for special reasons. These can be divided into three categories:

 

1) Cards that are too much at 3 but do provide some benefit to the game at 1.

2) Cards that combo unacceptably with another copy of themselves but that are otherwise fine.

3) Cards that can only be at 1 for gameplay reasons.

 

A good example of Case 1 is Mirror Force. At 0, there's insufficient punishment of reckless overextending and attacking; at 3, aggro in general is hurt too much to be viable, and OTKs are promoted. However, at 1, Mirror Force punishes overextending and encourages caution in attacking, but doesn't murder aggro. Because it provides additional benefit to the game at 1 that promotes skilled play, Mirror Force can stay legal.

 

A good example of Case 2 is Night Assailant. At 3, it can be used with a second copy of itself to provide limitless discard fodder. Even Sinister Serpent was not this strong; Sinister Serpent only replaces itself in the Standby Phase, but Night Assailant replaces itself instantly. However, at 1, this combo is impossible, so there's no reason to ban it.

 

A good example of Case 3 is Twin-Headed Behemoth. In fact, it's the only example that comes to mind; Case 3 essentially exists because of Twin-Headed Behemoth. However, if Konami makes another card that has problems comparable to those of Twin-Headed Behemoth, it might need to be Limited under Case 3 as well.

 

So, we have all of these reasons for Limiting. Is there any reason at all to Semi-Limit?

 

Yes and no.

 

In theory, Case 2 could be extended to apply to cards that combo unacceptably with two other copies of themselves. There are currently cards that combo with multiple other copies of themselves, including:

 

Thunder Dragon

Volcanic Scattershot

7

3-Hump Lacooda

 

However, no existing card that combos with multiple other copies of itself does so in a way that is harmful to the game, and therefore there is currently no need to Semi-Limit any cards.

 

However, Konami is still making cards, so it is possible that it could make a card like this at some point in the future:

 

 

In that case, Semi-Limiting could be appropriate. But given the current card pool, there is no call for it.

 

So yes, Semi-Limiting is theoretically viable, but no, no list made today should feature it.

 

At any rate, the point is that you Limit cards too much for no valid reason. Don't. Outside of the three cases listed above, a card that hurts the game at 3 still hurts it at 1. It hurts it less consistently, but it still hurts it.

 

METAMORPHOSIS would of been abused but i am thinking that may of been to cautious.

 

What sort of abuse are you worried about? Explain why you think this would be a problem.

 

In fact' date=' explain why Metamorphosis itself needs to be Limited.

 

^

Bad arguments' date=' but that's for Crab to handle.

 

 

 

I still await answers to 2 questions.

[/quote']

 

sorry the point of limiting cold wave was to take away abit of power of gb decks, plus their is two popular s/t annoyance cards and they are limited this is a popular plus abusable at three.

 

"A is Limited, so Limit B as well" is a bad argument. Don't use it.

 

If you want to hit Cold Wave at all, show that it hurts the game at 3. If you want to Limit it, show that it hurts the game at 3 but still provides some benefit at 1.

 

the reason i made the list was to see if i understand how list format is meant to work' date=' and what where the problems with it. since i was no where near making a half decent ban list, i think the results a conclusive.

[/quote']

 

Yes.

 

no i didnt mean what crab meant. im just saying that if you can keep summoing ladd you can destroy your opponent quicker' date=' so why do we need two? i was thinking it should be banned but it would be a borderling ban card.

[/quote']

 

If you can summon 2 BEWD, you can also destroy your opponent quicker, so why do we need two?

 

Show that LADD hurts the game.

[.:pyramid:.]

thank you for posting that it now makes abit more sense