LOCK NAO!!!!!

[GenzoTheHarpist]

If possible limiting should be done before banning.

[Bakura Vessal]

why the hell is call of the haunted banned and not monster reborn?

[Queen Of Chaos]

This ban list is weird, why ban morphing jar, both players gain, and lose from his effect.

[Bakura Vessal]

why not ban reborn its the cheapest card besides snipe hunter

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

Call of the Haunted is Jinzo abuse. Jinzo no longer needs to be limited because of Shrink. I wouldnt ban Monster Reborn unless I have a good reason to re-limit Magician of Faith. Magician of Faith = Monster Reborn abuse. CoSR is now banned. Manticore wont be Limited.

[Bakura Vessal]

Call of the Haunted is Jinzo abuse. Jinzo no longer needs to be limited because of Shrink. I wouldnt ban Monster Reborn unless I have a good reason to re-limit Magician of Faith. Magician of Faith = Monster Reborn abuse. CoSR is now banned. Manticore wont be Limited.

 

uhh wouldnt call of the haunted not work on jinzo?

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

It works if Jinzo is in the Graveyard and not on the field. Once Jinzo is on the field, it isnt bound to Call of the Haunted which means if Call of the Haunted gets destroyed, Jinzo is still alive. Shrink screws Jinzo over as it cant get negated by Jinzo because it's a Spell. This means that Jinzo is now vulnerable to get destroyed by a weaker Monster.

[Bakura Vessal]

It works if Jinzo is in the Graveyard and not on the field. Once Jinzo is on the field' date=' it isnt bound to Call of the Haunted which means if Call of the Haunted gets destroyed, Jinzo is still alive. Shrink screws Jinzo over as it cant get negated by Jinzo because it's a Spell. This means that Jinzo is now vulnerable to get destroyed by a weaker Monster.

[/quote']

 

but how is that diffrent to someone using monster reborn?

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

Call of the Haunted on Jinzo is like Monster Reborn as a Trap. As for the banning of Reborn, got any suggestions on Limiting Magician of Faith?

[Bakura Vessal]

Call of the Haunted on Jinzo is like Monster Reborn as a Trap. As for the banning of Reborn' date=' got any suggestions on Limiting Magician of Faith?

[/quote']

 

arnt spells better than traps?

 

and besides you can bring back monster reborn many diffrent ways besides magition of faith just watch marik in yu gi oh duel (i think they put that to show why they banned monster reborn)

 

also you can also reborn your opponants monsters with monster reborn and call of the haunted only acts without bad effects on jinzo

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

Magician of Faith is one of the best ways of bringing back Spells. Magician of Faith is Monster Reborn abuse. If I unban Magician of Faith without Banning Reborn there will be so much Monster Reborn abuse. If I ban Reborn and not Limit Magician of Faith, there will be so much disadvantage in the Game. Macro decks would pretty much rule the Meta. Its sort of a way of balancing the Meta. Currently the best ways of abusing Reborn in the Traditional Format is Dark Magician of Chaos or Magician of Faith. Magical Stone Excavation has a rather heavy cost and is a -2 just to get back a Spell card. Spell Reproduction is worse.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Cards of Safe Return should be unlimited and manticore should be limited. CoSR is a useful card for many decktypes and you are limiting deck construction unnecessarily by banning it. Manticore will continue to be broken and unless limited will not only require the banning of CoSR but also of any future card of the "When a card is special summoned x effect activates" type.

[Exiro]

Ban Darklord Zerato, Gold Sarcofag, Monster Reborn, Snipe Hunter, Trap Dustshoot.

 

Unlimit Grand Mole, Future Fusion, Chain Strike.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Cards of Safe Return should be unlimited and manticore should be limited. CoSR is a useful card for many decktypes and you are limiting deck construction unnecessarily by banning it. Manticore will continue to be broken and unless limited will not only require the banning of CoSR but also of any future card of the "When a card is special summoned x effect activates" type.

 

CoSR has more OTKs than just Manticore Loop. And it rewards players for overextending.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

The overabundance of bad opinion in this thread tempts me to smash all of the bad opinion I can.

[Purple Dinosaur]

Call of the Haunted on Jinzo is like Monster Reborn as a Trap. As for the banning of Reborn' date=' got any suggestions on Limiting Magician of Faith?

[/quote']

 

arnt spells better than traps?

 

and besides you can bring back monster reborn many diffrent ways besides magition of faith just watch marik in yu gi oh duel (i think they put that to show why they banned monster reborn)

 

also you can also reborn your opponants monsters with monster reborn and call of the haunted only acts without bad effects on jinzo

 

Well, Magician of Faith is Banned, but Mask of Darkness is unlimited. Therefore, more chances of reviving it.

 

Then, there is also the fact that Call of the Haunted can be activated ANYTIME you want except for the turn it was Set or in a Chain.

 

I think... That's what I saw at first glance.

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

Ban Darklord Zerato' date=' Gold Sarcofag, Monster Reborn, Snipe Hunter, Trap Dustshoot.

 

Unlimit Grand Mole, Future Fusion, Chain Strike.

[/quote']

Reasons?

The overabundance of bad opinion in this thread tempts me to smash all of the bad opinion I can.

Your posts are becoming spammy. Either stop spamming or get lost or I will report you.

Cards of Safe Return should be unlimited and manticore should be limited. CoSR is a useful card for many decktypes and you are limiting deck construction unnecessarily by banning it. Manticore will continue to be broken and unless limited will not only require the banning of CoSR but also of any future card of the "When a card is special summoned x effect activates" type.

If I unlimit Card of Safe Return, I should probably ban Manticore of Darkness and kill the Manticore Loop completely while still allowing decks to function with Card of Safe Return. It would theoretically be better to kill one strategy than kill many. Anyway at the moment my decision to ban Card of Safe Return stands. I will however think about unlimiting it.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

The overabundance of bad opinion in this thread tempts me to smash all of the bad opinion I can.

Your posts are becoming spammy.

 

No' date=' they aren't.

 

There is an overabundance of bad opinion in the topic.

 

This bad opinion stems from a lack of logic within said opinions.

 

When a list is constructed through the opinions of others, the quality of opinions is what determines the quality of the constructed list.

 

Your list is the focal point of this topic.

 

You are taking some opinions into account when constructing your list.

 

Some or all of those opinions you take into account... have a lack of logic to them, and therefore happen to be bad.

 

 

Discussion of the opinions in the thread... is actually right on topic. This is because the opinions are instrumental to your list, and your list IS the topic matter.

 

Spam, by definition, is never on topic. If we assume that my post is spammy, while also knowing the content of my post, there is a contradiction.

 

Contradictions mean that something has to change; either the content of the post has to change in order to make it spammy, or the description of the post has to change in order to reflect the quality of the content.

 

The post's content will not be changing any time soon. Therefore, the description must change in order to avoid a contradiction.

 

However, you support keeping the description the same. You do this by believing that my post is spammy. By believing such and supporting such, you believe that the contradiction is correct or preferable.

 

It is wrong to believe a contradiction as correct or preferable.

 

Therefore, you are wrong.

 

 

Either stop spamming or get lost or I will report you.

 

Because your accusations have no grounds, nothing you can do will make any meaningful difference.

 

That's the drawback to being wrong; it voids your viewpoint until you stop being wrong.

 

You can think I'm spamming until you're blue in the face, and it'll do you no good, because it's wrong to think such.

 

 

I'll swing by in a bit and take care of all the bad opinion in the thread.

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

Fine. Instead of whining and complaining, voice your opinions and get lost.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

I think trolling/baiting would be a better description than spamming.

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

Should I report?

[Pharaoh_Atem]

Fine. Instead of whining and complaining' date=' voice your opinions and get lost.

[/quote']

 

What do you think I've been doing? Everything I've said up until now has either been fact instead of opinion, and posting said things *is* how one voices them.

 

The reason you want me to "get lost" is because you don't like what I have to say, although all I've done is tell it how it is. This would make you irrational, which only serves as more evidence as to why you have no business making lists.

 

Quite literally, you have no good reason to want me out, so I'll be staying put.

 

Further, there's no whining or complaining in telling the truth.

 

This just isn't your day, now is it?

 

 

I think this ban list is not the best though' date=' because why would they limit Breaker again? That is just stupidity.

[/quote']

 

This post contains bad opinion in two ways.

 

1) It makes the assumption that [the companies] would not make a stupid move in regard to the List. The companies do that quite frequently - they've done it with every list in the game's nearly-ten-year history of Lists, through either taking away the wrong things, not taking away the right things, or a combination of both.

 

2) It makes the claim that it would be stupid to Relimit Breaker, without supporting the claim. Unlike several cards on the list, Breaker actually isn't a card deemed "prohibitable without explicit justification". It actually needs explanation, as it's nowhere near the level of cards that we know need no explanation.

 

 

How bout I just ban Malicious.

 

This post contains bad opinion because it doesn't justify the Prohibition' date=' nor does it justify the earlier Semilimit.

 

Since another poster mentioned "Malicious abuse", I'll address that argument before you raise it.

 

Just saying "it was abused" is not a justification. Making accusations like that requires proof.

 

Displaying the card's effect is not a justification. We all know what the card does; our opinions are not those of people ignorant to the card's position in the game.

 

Malicious saw play. What you have to PROVE is as follows:

 

1) How was that play it saw... bad for the game?

 

Now, once 1) is proven, you must prove 2).

 

2) It was bad for the game. How is this specific card guilty of the blame, instead of another card or cards?

 

 

I say it is. Glad Beasts would rule the Meta if it wasnt banned.

 

This post contains bad opinion through its ignorance of how the game actually is at the moment, and through its lack of support.

 

You say that Heraklinos is prohibitable, because Gladiators would "rule" if it were not. This implies that Gladiators "ruling" would be bad.

 

"Rule" is a term vague enough that you can bend it to fit your needs at any time, depending on how slick with words you can be. However, what you mean in that statement is that "it would be bad if Gladiators controlled, guided, directed, and/or exercised sway or influence over" the game.

 

This is incorrect of you.

 

By definition, EVERY COMPETITIVE CARD has a degree of control, guidance, direction, sway, and influence... over the game.

 

To say that a certain group of cards, in this case Gladiators, should not have a hand in how the game rolls... is biased beyond rational thought.

 

However, you'll probably say right now that I am misrepresenting your words, that your issue is not with Gladiators ruling, but with them ruling over too much.

 

That problem lies with how vague your statement is. Gladiators ruling over the game does not imply other decks being excluded from that rule; to think such shows that you're misusing the word "rule".

 

You'll probably think that I'm still misrepresenting your words, that your issue is still not with them ruling, but moreso with the impact of Heraklinos being legal.

 

If you cite the current metagame as an example, you would be wrong, because Heraklinos is just-about-useless right now while the opponent has a decent number of viable monster effects to use. At present, the most important and most numerous of viable effects just-so-happen to be effects that rip Heraklinos a new one, leaving you with a generally unfavorable position in the game once Hera is dead.

 

The lone Gladiator Beast that defines the decktype at present is Gyzarus, not Heraklinos. You have no proof that GBs would rule if Hera were legal, and without proof, the claim falls flat on its face.

 

 

personally i think exodia shouldnt be banned because it is really easy to stop' date=' limited yes but banned no.[/quote']

 

This post has bad opinion thanks to the lack of justification.

 

It being "really easy to stop" is an awful subjective way of looking at the matter.

 

Imagine what'd happen if I said that CED should be Relimited because it is "really easy to stop" - everyone worth speaking to would start laughing, and they should start laughing, because it'd a ridiculous thing to suggest that CED should be Relimited because of the ease of stopping it.

 

Of course, you might say "but CED is better" or "CED wins more often" or "CED would be much more powerful in this metagame."

 

To be honest, said claims are unsupported.

 

CED doesn't mean a thing if a format exists such that Exodia T1s are the most effective method; thus, the "CED is better/wins more/is more powerful" claim fails, as under the proper conditions, Exodia can even be made better than CED.

 

You may claim that appealing to the hypothetical is not logical. That claim would contradict the entire concept of attempting to create a list better than one that the companies would make, thereby contradicting this topic.

 

Also of note; losing to CED and losing to Exodia have no meaningful difference. All an Exodia player need do is somehow keep five very tutorable cards in-hand; it's no difficult task. All a CED player need do is ignite and successfully apply CED's effect when said effect would bring the opponent to 0 LP. This much is easy too.

 

The post is also ignorant of the needs of other cards. To legalize Exodia, you may have to limit a Limb or Limbs.

 

Legalization forces at least one more Limitation on the players. Limitations and Prohibitions are always bad, and must only be undertaken when absolutely necessary. They are only necessary when they are less bad than the alternatives.

 

With each Limb you Limit somehow, you increase the number of cards lost to the players in order to legalize Exodia.

 

We note that Exodia is nothing special in terms of skill, or ability, or much of anything else.

 

When legalizing a card requires the limitation of others, you must prove how it is superior to legalize that one card instead of keep the others as they are.

 

If you were to suggest legalizing the head while unlimiting the limbs, well, that'd be a different kennel of fish.

 

 

oh my gosh kid

take into account your own words "you're jumping to stupid conclusions about what I do or don't think. It'd best serve you to cool off before you reply."

 

I could have sworn I already dismantled this post. It turns out I didn't. I'll do it now.

 

There was no need for me to take my own advice' date=' as I was calmly, concisely, and expertly handing your own ass to you on a platter back there.

 

I was cooled off...

 

No, you were not.

 

Here's why:

 

oh my gosh kid

 

"Oh my gosh" is an expression of exasperation - an expression of emotion. The only time it's ever used is when someone's riled up about something. Namely' date=' it is the proof that you were not "cooled off" at the time.

 

Here's more.

 

wow, how do you think the actual ban-list was made?

 

The only time you'd ever have any reason to jump to such an idiotic conclusion would be at a time when your mental faculties were impaired.

 

Emotion has the ability to impair mental faculties. Considering your other emotional responses, it's not hard to put together the pieces of the puzzle.

 

Here's more:

 

no one is perfect

stop going around and acting like it...

 

Again' date=' the only time you'd ever have any reason to jump to such an idiotic conclusion would be at a time when your mental faculties were impaired, and emotion can impair.

 

You may think you were cooled off. The facts show that you were not. Perhaps you have cooled off by now, since you've been away from this thread.

 

dont jump to the conclusion that I was not

 

As I have shown above, I did not jump to the conclusion. Your posts made it evident to myself and every other reader of the topic; namely, all I've ever done is state the facts, whether you like the facts or not.

 

and as for the ban list thing

you only proved my point further above... way up there ^

 

No' date=' I didn't. If anything, I shredded it.

 

Your post's only expressed point was to insinuate that I denounced "thinking about what to put on a list." If that was the point you meant to make, good job; you gave me a point to shred.

 

If that was NOT the point you meant to make, you screwed up in expressing yourself, thanks to how your post can quite literally only mean to insinuate that I denounced "thinking about what to put on a list."

 

My post made it clear that you obviously didn't comprehend what I said. Perhaps you didn't comprehend because you were emotional about the matter. However, that's your problem, not mine.

 

 

This ban list is weird, why ban morphing jar, both players gain, and lose from his effect.

 

This post has bad opinion thanks to its ignorance of the game.

 

To think that both players gain and lose... is a GROSS oversimplification.

 

What each player gains and loses depends upon every other thing that has happened in that game.

 

For example, a player w/ a low or empty hand loses little or nothing, and stands to gain a lot. A player with a large hand loses a lot, and stands to gain little, nothing, or even lose out.

 

Through understanding tactics and knowing how to play the game well, we know that Morphing Jar's effect, by its very nature, benefits comparatively bad players more than it benefits comparatively good players.

 

Good players will have low hands some of the time. Bad players will also.

 

However, bad players will more often have low hands because they were outplayed, as good players by definition outplay bad players.

 

Through this, we ascertain that Jar does a lot more for the bad than the good; the idea of cards helping bad players more than good players... contradicts one of the reasons to play the game in the first place.

 

That contradicted reason is "so that the best may hopefully win". That is why Jar is best rid of us.

 

 

why not ban reborn its the cheapest card besides snipe hunter

 

This post has bad opinion because of the belief that an Lv4 1500 ATK beatstick with a 2/3 shot at turning any card into a tradeoff...

 

is somehow "cheaper" than the three lead monsters of the format' date=' in any way other than cost of purchase on the secondary market.

 

 

I wouldnt ban Monster Reborn unless I have a good reason to re-limit Magician of Faith. Magician of Faith = Monster Reborn abuse.

 

This post has bad opinion because it implies that Magician of Faith is somehow equivalent to or the cause of "Monster Reborn abuse", when all evidence actually shows Monster Reborn to be the only card possible of leading to "Monster Reborn abuse."

 

It also implies that you need a reason to downgrade a card's punishment, which just-so-happens to be incorrect. Reasons are only needed to punish; a lack of sufficient reason to punish... demands an end to punishment.

 

As you seem to have given no reasons to punish Faith...

 

Ah, WAIT, FOUND ONE. We can't go without examining it, though.

 

Magician of Faith is one of the best ways of bringing back Spells.

 

So what? To say that we aren't allowed to have good ways of bringing back spells... would indicate irrational bias.

 

Magician of Faith is Monster Reborn abuse.

 

No' date=' Magician of Faith is a Lv1 LIGHT Spellcaster-Type Flip Effect Monster Card with 300 ATK and 400 DEF, whose effect reads as "FLIP: Select 1 Spell Card from your Graveyard. Add the selected card to your hand."

 

Monster Reborn isn't even Monster Reborn abuse.

 

Cards are not their own abuses. Cards LEAD to their own abuses. The only card that leads to a Reborn-contained problem... is Reborn.

 

If I unban Magician of Faith without Banning Reborn there will be so much Monster Reborn abuse.

 

This is true. It's probably the smartest thing you've said during the entire thread.

 

If I ban Reborn and not Limit Magician of Faith' date=' there will be so much disadvantage in the Game.[/quote']

 

Prove it. No, really. Prove how Faith would be a problem; prove how the "disadvantage" you see here is 1) real, and 2) bad for the actual game, instead of merely bad for any biases and or predispositions you have.

 

Macro decks would pretty much rule the Meta.

 

Another claim you actually need to prove.

 

Its sort of a way of balancing the Meta.

 

Yet ANOTHER claim that you need to prove. You don't seem too good at this.

 

Currently the best ways of abusing Reborn in the Traditional Format is Dark Magician of Chaos or Magician of Faith.

 

So what? How is this relevant to how a "good" format should be constructed' date=' when a "good" format would be MILES AWAY from how Traditional behaves?

 

Further, let's talk about Traditional for a bit. How are DMoC and Faith to blame for "Reborn abuse" there, when Reborn's the card that does the ressurecting?

 

 

Cards of Safe Return should be unlimited and manticore should be limited.

 

This post has bad opinion because it hasn't been thought all the way through.

 

CoSR is a useful card for many decktypes and you are limiting deck construction unnecessarily by banning it.

 

Chaos Emperor Dragon is a useful card for many decktypes and you are limiting deck construction unnecessarily by banning it.

 

Don't believe me?

 

1) Every decktype capable of running a decent amount of DARK and LIGHT monsters' date=' while also getting those cards safely into the Grave, can use CED well. That's a LOT of decktypes.

 

2) No Limitations or Prohibitions are EVER necessary.

 

Nothing about the game is necessary.

 

The game itself is not necessary.

 

It is because the entire game is an unnecessary thing, that no one thing within the game can be necessary.

 

Manticore will continue to be broken

 

Prove how Manticore itself is broken.

 

and unless limited will not only require the banning of CoSR but also of any future card of the "When a card is special summoned x effect activates" type.

 

CoSR is prohibitable not just because of Manticore.

 

CoSR makes it impossible for its user to "over"-extend' date=' when used properly.

 

Overextension must remain possible for YGO to be a good game - otherwise, players are free to extend without thought, and without concern that they might just lose for extending... by definition, overextending is "the action of extending too far or to too great a degree." When "too far" does not exist, it means that there is no limit to how far one can go.

 

When it comes to a game where it takes as little as five attacks from a competitive card to kill you, and upwards of two or more attacks come per turn, extension MUST have appreciable risk, or the game turns into "the player to extend fastest wins in most cases".

 

I think trolling/baiting would be a better description than spamming.

 

You think wrongly. There's nothing trolling or baiting about what I've said in this thread; all I've done is state facts and heavily supported opinions.

 

If people think that antagonistic things have been said by me, they're wrong to think it, as there's nothing antagonastic about the truth.

 

If people think that I'm baiting them into posting, they're also wrong to think it, as they're the ones controlling their bodies, not me. If they feel that they must, that's their doing alone; perhaps they should try to stop being so emotional as to feel so trapped, if they feel baited.

 

Since he asked about reporting, what must be noted is that all it'd do would give any rational persons a good laugh at his expense.

 

They'd quite literally come in here and read everything, and see it all to be utterly harmless. There's never harm in telling the truth, after all.

 

 

 

 

 

There was a lot more than I'd planned for.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

You have a good point about Manticore though I am not entirely convinced. But baiting doesn't mean that you succeeded in getting people to post, it just means you attempted to do so. Yes we are in control of our own bodies and need not respond to baiting, but the fact that the baiting was attempted is the crime, not whether or not people responded.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

You have a good point about Manticore though I am not entirely convinced.

 

The point was moreso about Safe Return permitting limitless extension in the proper players' hands.

 

Limitless extension is intolerable; the consequence would be an immediate end to meaningful skill in the game.

 

Unlike any problem with Manticore Selfrevival' date=' the concept of extension is ALWAYS going to be around, no matter what.

 

Manticore loops depend upon some sort of non-Manticore card entering the scenario to cause a problem.

 

Extension needs no specific cards to dictate how good or bad a format is; it only needs the game to exist.

 

Thus, Manticore doesn't need punishment until a meaningful loop is proven problematic to a point where Manticore deserves the blame moreso than the other card(s) in the loop.

 

Limitless Extension always needs to be prevented.

 

It's a matter of knowing WHEN to tackle a problem. Manticore doesn't have a call to be tackled at the present time, if ever. Limitless Extension always has a call to be prevented.

 

But baiting doesn't mean that you succeeded in getting people to post, it just means you attempted to do so.

 

And what proof do you have?

 

Baseless accusations do nothing but make your voice less worth listening to.

 

Yes we are in control of our own bodies and need not respond to baiting' date=' but the fact that the baiting was attempted is the crime, not whether or not people responded.

[/quote']

 

Aye. It's not like trolling, where someone must actually be trolled for anyone to be accused of it.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Someone has to be baited for it to be a crime. The baited person doesn't have to respond though. Likewise everyone could take the high ground and ignore a troll, but he would still be guilty of trolling.

 

Manticore will necessitate the banning of any card that says "when a monster is special summoned do x" if not limited, CoSR being a perfect example.