The List of Lists.

[Tabris]

Surprisingly' date=' Pojo's one of the better YGO forums. What else is there, TCGPlayer?

 

Pika, you should actually read the list; a few of the card choices seem a little odd, but it's based on largely the same logic that Atem's uses.

 

This is Quiff's list, right?

 

The biggest thing that I don't like about the logic behind the list is that it assumes that requiring support implies balance, and makes pre-emptive strikes against cards "just in case" something comes along that can abuse them (such as by Limiting Manticore with COSR banned).

[/quote']

 

The one who posted this was, well, a woman.

 

And, should you inquire about Manticore's rotting in the Banned, the poster gave what methinks is a good reason for its limiting - have 2 or 3 of this and you have a Treeborn-esque beatstick.

---

The World' date=' Great Maju Garzett and Reversal Quiz all can OTK, but it wouldn't be consistent enough to be damaging for the meta. They can be unbanned if you ask me.

 

Why is Machine Duplication banned? Because of Valley? That one needs a limit anyway IMO, but if you don't do that, Machine Duplication still shouldn't be banned.

 

Heavy Storm limited, it's good for the game at one.

 

WMC unlimited, it's slow and inconsistent.

 

I didn't see Royal Magical Library, so I guess this is Quiff's list, and not Nuuuuf's.

[/quote']

 

Wrong. Quiff banned RML in his most recent list.

 

And, yes, Dup should be banned, not only because of Valley (LOL at your wanting Valley banned, but I'd like to hear your reasons), but because of Card Trooper.

 

The World and GMG touch upon mechanics deemed dangerous by the majority of players, and sadly, their restrictions just aren't enough for them to be put at any number other than 0.

 

Reversal? It dances to the whim of an OTK. Besides, this list has WoRL unlimited.

---

One of the greatest minds in Pojo's history unveiled this list a while back:

 

Stopped reading here. There's a reason people always say: "Lol Pojo." Because everyone on Pojo' date=' without exception, is stupid.

 

I spent some time on Pojo, and could literally feel my own braincells committing suicide, not wanting to continue reading this crap.

 

In all seriousness though, I can pretty much guarantee it's going to be a terrible list, and since I like keeping my braincells, I'm gonna avoid reading this nonsense, because even the best players on Pojo are depressingly laughable.

[/quote']

 

I'm sorry about your brain cells, but there are actually good players there. So I ask you to read the list. You judged it already without even looking at the list.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

Quiff and Nuuuf mostly use the same logic I do, with exception to how we implement it. Seeing how the logic first came from me, and was then left up to them as I departed for greener pastures, this was to be expected.

 

The flaw with this list's reasoning is a more nuanced flaw, one that mostly stems from its creator(s). It's honestly the same flaw that you would expect from one of mine, except in a more pronounced quality; because Quiff, Nuuuf, and I all more-or-less ignore SOME arguments from SOME people, based upon the quality of the arguments, no list we create will be perfect.

 

In contrast, a perfect product will address every argument posed against it, no matter how inane or frustrating. For example, I have checked their reasoning as to some certain choices that are... distressing. They have logic, but their proofs are incomplete, and I look forward to the day that they either assemble complete proofs, or release the distressing cards.

 

As of late, their arguments for Heavy Storm seem a little lacking. Perhaps I'm reading the wrong arguments, but it seems to boil down to a dash of the 3/0 ethic, combined with something else. As the first person I know of to have even began espousing the 3/0 ethic, I know better than all other folks that it isn't an absolute rule, but merely an argumentative structure, one to be used or dismantled as appropriate from card to card.

 

There are some other distressed arguments to note, but they may wait.

 

As it is, it seems that leaving things to them was not the smartest of ideas, especially since they seem to at-the-core be no more sophisticated or advanced in reasoning since a few months ago; the greener pastures I left for were ones that took my reasoning up a grand few notches, and it's ridiculously safe for me to say that I'm leagues ahead of how I was when I left them.

 

 

As it is, the list's creator is not "one of the greatest minds in Pojo's history". There is no "Pojo history" database for there to be a repository of "great minds", nor does being more argumentatively tenacious make one a "great mind". The only mystique surrounding lists like this are how the players somehow stopped thinking of them as an attempt to discuss how things "should be", and started thinking of them instead as the exercise of "great minds". This exercise makes no mind greater than any other; it is a matter of simple logic, nothing to be praised.

 

So, I'll tell you and any other people who seem to nearly-fellate the Listmaking Posters on websites... the same thing that I tell anyone who nearly-fellates me: quit it, you look like a dunce when you do that.

[Tabris]

Heavy Storm? The latest argument coming up from the two (and mirrored by T-Drag) is that:

 

Why does this Heavy Storm issue keep reemerging? Heavy Storm counters overextension no more than Harpie's Feather Duster does and I have never seen anyone explain why setting multiple S/T is a play so horrendously bad that it merits being "punished." Also, how can anyone think that a game in which we have cards like Gyzarus, DAD, JD, the Synchros, etc. etc., will EVER regress to the boring 1-for-1 trades of old if we do something like ban Heavy Storm?

 

This one's from T-Drag, but it expresses Nuuuuf's and The Quiff's sentiments on the matter.

[CrabHelmet]

Surprisingly' date=' Pojo's one of the better YGO forums. What else is there, TCGPlayer?

 

Pika, you should actually read the list; a few of the card choices seem a little odd, but it's based on largely the same logic that Atem's uses.

 

This is Quiff's list, right?

 

The biggest thing that I don't like about the logic behind the list is that it assumes that requiring support implies balance, and makes pre-emptive strikes against cards "just in case" something comes along that can abuse them (such as by Limiting Manticore with COSR banned).

[/quote']

 

The one who posted this was, well, a woman.

 

Oh, Nuuuuf's then. Still, they both seem to agree on everything.

 

And' date=' should you inquire about Manticore's rotting in the Banned, the poster gave what methinks is a good reason for its limiting - have 2 or 3 of this and you have a Treeborn-esque beatstick.

[/quote']

 

I fail to see how you have a "Treeborn-esque beatstick". Manticore requires a discard/tribute in order to come back to life; the fact that Treeborn's revival came free was the biggest problem with it. Using it as tribute fodder doesn't do anything beyond turning Beasts in your hand into Fiend's Sanctuaries. Furthermore, he can be used that way in a single copy.

 

The only way that having 2 or 3 Manticores would be more dangerous than 1 would be if their combo with one another was somehow a threat - having one revive the other doesn't do anything unless you have something like COSR out. Since COSR is banned, that loop is obviously gone.

 

The World' date=' Great Maju Garzett and Reversal Quiz all can OTK, but it wouldn't be consistent enough to be damaging for the meta. They can be unbanned if you ask me.

 

Why is Machine Duplication banned? Because of Valley? That one needs a limit anyway IMO, but if you don't do that, Machine Duplication still shouldn't be banned.

 

Heavy Storm limited, it's good for the game at one.

 

WMC unlimited, it's slow and inconsistent.

 

I didn't see Royal Magical Library, so I guess this is Quiff's list, and not Nuuuuf's.

[/quote']

 

Wrong. Quiff banned RML in his most recent list.

 

And, yes, Dup should be banned, not only because of Valley (LOL at your wanting Valley banned, but I'd like to hear your reasons), but because of Card Trooper.

 

1 Card Trooper + 3 Machine Duplication = 4 cards.

3 Card Trooper + 0 Machine Duplication = 3 cards.

 

4 cards > 3 cards.

 

Reversal? It dances to the whim of an OTK. Besides' date=' this list has WoRL unlimited.

[/quote']

 

Plus, Reversal Quiz cannot be used in any way EXCEPT to OTK.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

Heavy Storm? The latest argument coming up from the two (and mirrored by T-Drag) is that:

 

Why does this Heavy Storm issue keep reemerging? Heavy Storm counters overextension no more than Harpie's Feather Duster does and I have never seen anyone explain why setting multiple S/T is a play so horrendously bad that it merits being "punished." Also' date=' how can anyone think that a game in which we have cards like Gyzarus, DAD, JD, the Synchros, etc. etc., will EVER regress to the boring 1-for-1 trades of old if we do something like ban Heavy Storm?[/i']

 

This one's from T-Drag, but it expresses Nuuuuf's and The Quiff's sentiments on the matter.

 

1) There's a misconception of the term overextension here; overextension is not something that we want to "counter", although folks think it's something that needs to be "stopped" because they think "overextension = play lots of cards and win".

 

What we want is to make Overextension possible.

 

Overextension, by definition of the OED, is the act of extending too much. Extension is the act of "play lots of cards". Overextension = "Ow, I extended too much because of my own stupidity, and now I pulled my goddamn hamstring muscle."

 

Overextension is a concept not stopped by cards like HFD, Storm, and others like them, but promoted by such cards. Removal of all cards like that... makes Overextension impossible, and through making overextension impossible, it becomes impossible for Regular Extension to have any drawback large enough to force players to play carefully.

 

With that misconception cleared up, we can move to step 2.

 

2) Storm makes overextension possible in nearly twice as many ways as HFD does - it makes it possible for both your opponent AND you to overextend in such a way that you both feel the sting. HFD does not have that; it merely forces the opponent to play a bit better, instead of forcing both players to play a bit better.

 

That's the raw numbers, sure, but what about the game status given? We worry less about numbers and moreso about the situation each player is in - and Storm just wiped the field's STs.

 

We assume that it's easier to attack with the STs cleared, yeah, but it has not been proven that Storm is to be punished for this. Its impact is not the same as that of HFD; we cannot treat them the same, no matter how similar they are. An actual case needs to be made explaining why Storm must be punished, instead of other action being taken.

 

Further, he claims that he has "never seen anyone explain why setting multiple S/T is a play so horrendously bad that it merits being "punished."" This is of little relevance. First, he notes that setting multiple STs is sometimes seen as horrendously bad; however bad or good the play is... is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

This is not a case where the "Deprohibit" side need prove why Storm need stay legal; Prohibiters always need prove their case, lest the card be deprohibited solely because the Prohibiter cannot prove his case. The "Deprohibit" side need only show that the Prohibiter has not proven his case.

 

Now, we apply the same "burden of proof" logic to the idea of "punishing plays" - The "Deprohibit" side need not prove why setting multiple STs needs to be punished. He says he has "never seen anyone explain why setting multiple S/T ... merits being "punished"." It doesn't matter whether he has or hasn't; because he wants a Prohibition, he needs to prove why Storm shouldn't be able to punish it.

 

Namely, a card should always be as legal as possible, unless we can logically prove why it should be constrained in a certain way. The same goes for tactics - a tactic should be as legal as possible, unless we can logically prove why it should be constrained in a certain way.

 

Punishing STs is a tactic; we do not need anyone to explain why it needs to be viable as a tactic. The burden of proof lies on the player who wants that tactic diminished or removed somehow.

 

The ball's in his court; it has been there the whole time. Unless he can prove his case, though, his call for that prohibition must be ignored.

 

As it is, you (Tabris) have shown us nothing of his case's proof. The court demands it be added to your testimony, if possible.

 

3) His last claim about folks worrying about "returning to the boring days of 1-1 trades" is a waste of his time.

 

If YGO is better off with such trades being a more important part of gameplay, then YGO is better off, and anyone who is bored by such a thing can simply either learn to enjoy it, or cast off for a different port. The boredom of one faction does not necessarily create a worse game; if the game is ever truly worse, it will be in an objective sense, one provable by logic. Until the logical proof is constructed, he need not worry.

 

Further, his claim is slightly weakened when using at least one card that I remember his having deemed prohibitworthy as an example - last I checked, none of the lot of them thought DAD to be good for the game.

 

Amend your testimony, Tabris, to reflect which of those four cards they believe to be good for the game.

[tonisanoob]

this looks alright

 

i dont like 3 tt or disk

 

although if this was the current format duels would be really boring xD