Phantom of Chaos' place on a good list.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

In your opinion, where does Phantom of Chaos belong on a good (read: non-Konami) list?

[iAmNateXero]

4 per deck.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

4 per deck.

 

I don't stand for unfunny trolls. Either grow a sense of humor, or get the **** out.

[Silencerleader]

4 per deck.

 

Q4T...unless a player has the brains to figure its potential in the Turbo style manner.

[iAmNateXero]

Why so Serious?

I think its you who needs a sense of humor. In my opinon, Poc does encourage skill less duels, but doesn't help to contribute to the otk. (simply because it inflicts no damage.) I believe 3 per deck would be okay, just ban the banworthy.

[CrabHelmet]

LOL GUYZ 37 PER DECK LOL LOL LOL IM FUNNY GUYZ LOL LOL ROFL

[Silencerleader]

Why so Serious?

I think its you who needs a sense of humor. In my opinon' date=' Poc does encourage skill less duels, but doesn't help to contribute to the otk. (simply because it inflicts no damage.) I believe 3 per deck would be okay, just ban the banworthy.

[/quote']

 

It's all right at 2...

lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

LOL GUYZ 37 PER DECK LOL LOL LOL IM FUNNY GUYZ LOL LOL ROFL

 

Epic win. I would run 37 per deck too.

 

But seriously, I like PoC at 2. I actually think it works better at 2 for some reason. It is a great effect monster photocopier. Some people think it should be at 0 but I guess I can understand why. It has so many uses and can help so many OTK's.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Why so Serious?

I think its you who needs a sense of humor. In my opinon' date=' Poc does encourage skill less duels, but doesn't help to contribute to the otk. (simply because it inflicts no damage.) I believe 3 per deck would be okay, just ban the banworthy.

[/quote']

 

You couldn't have started off with a post like the one I quoted? Although the matter of your humor is debatable, the fact that you were trolling is not.

 

And, in any case, why don't you list these so-called "banworthy" targets, and explain how they would remain so without PoC?

[CrabHelmet]

...where does 2 magically pop up as the perfect number for this?

[iAmNateXero]

Why so Serious?

I think its you who needs a sense of humor. In my opinon' date=' Poc does encourage skill less duels, but doesn't help to contribute to the otk. (simply because it inflicts no damage.) I believe 3 per deck would be okay, just ban the banworthy.

[/quote']

 

You couldn't have started off with a post like the one I quoted? Although the matter of your humor is debatable, the fact that you were trolling is not.

 

And, in any case, why don't you list these so-called "banworthy" targets, and explain how they would remain so without PoC?

 

Even though each card needs to be handled individually' date=' I find that, in general, most cards are banworthy for one (or more) of these five conditions:

 

1) The card gives too large a reward too easily for too small a cost. Most of these cards are splashable, but not all; a theme support card that lets you draw 7 cards for no real cost would be banworthy under this, despite not being splashable. Example: Raigeki.

 

2) The card enables one or more OTK's and/or FTK's to be accomplished easily. Often, these cards are used solely for the purpose of OTK's and/or FTK's. Example: Magical Explosion.

 

3) The card invalidates a basic mechanical part of the game by effectively preventing it from ever being used with any merit; a good game does not turn its back on its basic mechanics. Example: Nobleman of Crossout (invalidates Flips).

 

4) Similar to number 3, the card invalidates a certain playstyle that would otherwise contribute to the game. Example: Cyber Dragon (invalidates Stall).

 

5) The underlying idea of the card's effect is, as a matter of principle, completely unacceptable in any form. Example: Victory Dragon.

 

Condition 1 covers the vast majority of banworthy cards, with Condition 2 being the next largest. Arguably, Conditions 3-5 could probably be combined into a single condition, but there's no harm in spreading it out like this.

 

And, since I'm here, I may as well list my ideas for the conditions of Limiting:

 

A) The card cannot remain at 3 due to one or more of the banning conditions (probably Condition 1) but provides some benefit to the game at 1 that allows it to remain. Example: Mirror Force.

 

B) The card cannot remain at 3 due to an unacceptable interaction with another copy of itself; at 1, however, it cannot interact with itself, and thus can remain legal. Example: Night Assailant.

 

C) The card cannot remain at 3 for purely mechanical reasons that make multiple copies of it impossible; however, it can remain at 1, where there are no other copies with which to conflict. Example: Twin-Headed Behemoth.

 

Condition C is a good example of how each card needs to be handled individually; to my knowledge, Twin-Headed Benemoth is the only card that falls under Condition C, and it is certainly the reason that Condition C was created.

 

And, since we may as well cover Semi-Limits while we're at it:

 

X) The card cannot remain at 3 due to an unacceptable interaction with two other copies of itself; at 2, however, it cannot interact with two other copies of itself, and thus can remain Semi-Limited.

 

X is the only Semi-Limit condition that I can think of possibly happening; Condition A doesn't extend to Semi-Limiting, since it applies to cards that we want to exist but as little as possible, and I can't see Condition C extending either. I give no example of Condition X because I don't believe that any such card currently exists. If you want examples of cards that Condition X might theoretically cover, look at Thunder Dragon and Volcanic Scattershot; however, as their effects are not unacceptable, they don't need to be Semi-Limited.[/quote']

Lets use this rubric and basically say Any effect monsters that falls into this category.

[CrabHelmet]

Lets use this rubric and basically say Any effect monsters that falls into this category.

 

Yeah, Destiny Hero - Disk Commander is a totally broken target for Phantom of Chaos.

 

Do you not understand the concept of "list"?

[Skuldur]

I want PoC at 1, it helps OTKs too much, just mill JD and then use his effect, then swarm for win

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Why so Serious?

I think its you who needs a sense of humor. In my opinon' date=' Poc does encourage skill less duels, but doesn't help to contribute to the otk. (simply because it inflicts no damage.) I believe 3 per deck would be okay, just ban the banworthy.

[/quote']

 

You couldn't have started off with a post like the one I quoted? Although the matter of your humor is debatable, the fact that you were trolling is not.

 

And, in any case, why don't you list these so-called "banworthy" targets, and explain how they would remain so without PoC?

 

Even though each card needs to be handled individually' date=' I find that, in general, most cards are banworthy for one (or more) of these five conditions:

 

1) The card gives too large a reward too easily for too small a cost. Most of these cards are splashable, but not all; a theme support card that lets you draw 7 cards for no real cost would be banworthy under this, despite not being splashable. Example: Raigeki.

 

2) The card enables one or more OTK's and/or FTK's to be accomplished easily. Often, these cards are used solely for the purpose of OTK's and/or FTK's. Example: Magical Explosion.

 

3) The card invalidates a basic mechanical part of the game by effectively preventing it from ever being used with any merit; a good game does not turn its back on its basic mechanics. Example: Nobleman of Crossout (invalidates Flips).

 

4) Similar to number 3, the card invalidates a certain playstyle that would otherwise contribute to the game. Example: Cyber Dragon (invalidates Stall).

 

5) The underlying idea of the card's effect is, as a matter of principle, completely unacceptable in any form. Example: Victory Dragon.

 

Condition 1 covers the vast majority of banworthy cards, with Condition 2 being the next largest. Arguably, Conditions 3-5 could probably be combined into a single condition, but there's no harm in spreading it out like this.

 

And, since I'm here, I may as well list my ideas for the conditions of Limiting:

 

A) The card cannot remain at 3 due to one or more of the banning conditions (probably Condition 1) but provides some benefit to the game at 1 that allows it to remain. Example: Mirror Force.

 

B) The card cannot remain at 3 due to an unacceptable interaction with another copy of itself; at 1, however, it cannot interact with itself, and thus can remain legal. Example: Night Assailant.

 

C) The card cannot remain at 3 for purely mechanical reasons that make multiple copies of it impossible; however, it can remain at 1, where there are no other copies with which to conflict. Example: Twin-Headed Behemoth.

 

Condition C is a good example of how each card needs to be handled individually; to my knowledge, Twin-Headed Benemoth is the only card that falls under Condition C, and it is certainly the reason that Condition C was created.

 

And, since we may as well cover Semi-Limits while we're at it:

 

X) The card cannot remain at 3 due to an unacceptable interaction with two other copies of itself; at 2, however, it cannot interact with two other copies of itself, and thus can remain Semi-Limited.

 

X is the only Semi-Limit condition that I can think of possibly happening; Condition A doesn't extend to Semi-Limiting, since it applies to cards that we want to exist but as little as possible, and I can't see Condition C extending either. I give no example of Condition X because I don't believe that any such card currently exists. If you want examples of cards that Condition X might theoretically cover, look at Thunder Dragon and Volcanic Scattershot; however, as their effects are not unacceptable, they don't need to be Semi-Limited.[/quote']

Lets use this rubric and basically say Any effect monsters that falls into this category.

 

Stop being lazy, and start proving your points. Quoting something that you hardly looked at, not to mention understand, isn't helping your argument.

[CrabHelmet]

I want PoC at 1' date=' it helps OTKs too much, just mill JD and then use his effect, then swarm for win

[/quote']

 

Show how it helps at 1 but hurts at 3.

 

Also, ban JD.

[iAmNateXero]

wait crab, Disk commander exist on a good list? o.O

[Skuldur]

I want PoC at 1' date=' it helps OTKs too much, just mill JD and then use his effect, then swarm for win

[/quote']

 

Show how it helps at 1 but hurts at 3.

 

Also, ban JD.

 

it would be okay at 3 if konami would get off their fat asses and Ban all the broken cards in this meta.

 

until they do that i say either ban it or limit it

[CrabHelmet]

wait crab' date=' Disk commander exist on a good list? o.O

[/quote']

 

You said "This category". I assumed you meant the banworthy ones. Apparently you meant the legal ones instead.

 

Yeah, that Armed Ninja is a great PoC target.

 

Now, how about you start creating actual arguments instead of your typical juvenile antics?

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

wait crab' date=' Disk commander exist on a good list? o.O

[/quote']

 

Now I know you had no idea what your quote meant. And stop avoiding the matter at hand. List, or GTFO.

---

I want PoC at 1' date=' it helps OTKs too much, just mill JD and then use his effect, then swarm for win

[/quote']

 

Show how it helps at 1 but hurts at 3.

 

Also, ban JD.

 

it would be okay at 3 if konami would get off their fat asses and Ban all the broken cards in this meta.

 

until they do that i say either ban it or limit it

 

Did you not read the first ****ing post?

[Skuldur]

wait crab' date=' Disk commander exist on a good list? o.O

[/quote']

 

Now I know you had no idea what your quote meant. And stop avoiding the matter at hand. List, or GTFO.

---

I want PoC at 1' date=' it helps OTKs too much, just mill JD and then use his effect, then swarm for win

[/quote']

 

Show how it helps at 1 but hurts at 3.

 

Also, ban JD.

 

it would be okay at 3 if konami would get off their fat asses and Ban all the broken cards in this meta.

 

until they do that i say either ban it or limit it

 

Did you not read the first ****ing post?

 

I did read the ****ing first post, my opinion is that it should be either banned or limited, Crab just wanted me to show how it's bad at 3.

[CrabHelmet]

wait crab' date=' Disk commander exist on a good list? o.O

[/quote']

 

Now I know you had no idea what your quote meant. And stop avoiding the matter at hand. List, or GTFO.

---

I want PoC at 1' date=' it helps OTKs too much, just mill JD and then use his effect, then swarm for win

[/quote']

 

Show how it helps at 1 but hurts at 3.

 

Also, ban JD.

 

it would be okay at 3 if konami would get off their fat asses and Ban all the broken cards in this meta.

 

until they do that i say either ban it or limit it

 

Did you not read the first ****ing post?

 

I did read the ****ing first post, my opinion is that it should be either banned or limited, Crab just wanted me to show how it's bad at 3.

 

To say that Card A should be banned because of the way it interacts with banworthy Card B and banworthy Card C is fallacious. If you can make a change to the list and ban Card A, then you can just as easily ban Cards B and C instead.

[iAmNateXero]

Why so Serious?

I think its you who needs a sense of humor. In my opinon' date=' Poc does encourage skill less duels, but doesn't help to contribute to the otk. (simply because it inflicts no damage.) I believe 3 per deck would be okay, just ban the banworthy.

[/quote']

 

You couldn't have started off with a post like the one I quoted? Although the matter of your humor is debatable, the fact that you were trolling is not.

 

And, in any case, why don't you list these so-called "banworthy" targets, and explain how they would remain so without PoC?

 

Even though each card needs to be handled individually' date=' I find that, in general, most cards are banworthy for one (or more) of these five conditions:

 

1) The card gives too large a reward too easily for too small a cost. Most of these cards are splashable, but not all; a theme support card that lets you draw 7 cards for no real cost would be banworthy under this, despite not being splashable. Example: Raigeki.

 

2) The card enables one or more OTK's and/or FTK's to be accomplished easily. Often, these cards are used solely for the purpose of OTK's and/or FTK's. Example: Magical Explosion.

 

3) The card invalidates a basic mechanical part of the game by effectively preventing it from ever being used with any merit; a good game does not turn its back on its basic mechanics. Example: Nobleman of Crossout (invalidates Flips).

 

4) Similar to number 3, the card invalidates a certain playstyle that would otherwise contribute to the game. Example: Cyber Dragon (invalidates Stall).

 

5) The underlying idea of the card's effect is, as a matter of principle, completely unacceptable in any form. Example: Victory Dragon.

 

Condition 1 covers the vast majority of banworthy cards, with Condition 2 being the next largest. Arguably, Conditions 3-5 could probably be combined into a single condition, but there's no harm in spreading it out like this.

 

And, since I'm here, I may as well list my ideas for the conditions of Limiting:

 

A) The card cannot remain at 3 due to one or more of the banning conditions (probably Condition 1) but provides some benefit to the game at 1 that allows it to remain. Example: Mirror Force.

 

B) The card cannot remain at 3 due to an unacceptable interaction with another copy of itself; at 1, however, it cannot interact with itself, and thus can remain legal. Example: Night Assailant.

 

C) The card cannot remain at 3 for purely mechanical reasons that make multiple copies of it impossible; however, it can remain at 1, where there are no other copies with which to conflict. Example: Twin-Headed Behemoth.

 

Condition C is a good example of how each card needs to be handled individually; to my knowledge, Twin-Headed Benemoth is the only card that falls under Condition C, and it is certainly the reason that Condition C was created.

 

And, since we may as well cover Semi-Limits while we're at it:

 

X) The card cannot remain at 3 due to an unacceptable interaction with two other copies of itself; at 2, however, it cannot interact with two other copies of itself, and thus can remain Semi-Limited.

 

X is the only Semi-Limit condition that I can think of possibly happening; Condition A doesn't extend to Semi-Limiting, since it applies to cards that we want to exist but as little as possible, and I can't see Condition C extending either. I give no example of Condition X because I don't believe that any such card currently exists. If you want examples of cards that Condition X might theoretically cover, look at Thunder Dragon and Volcanic Scattershot; however, as their effects are not unacceptable, they don't need to be Semi-Limited.[/quote']

Lets use this rubric and basically say Any effect monsters that falls into this category.

 

Stop being lazy, and start proving your points. Quoting something that you hardly looked at, not to mention understand, isn't helping your argument.

In a nut shell, I agree with this rubric. On topic, You asked about poc, and where it should be. I answered it. On a good list, Poc isn't a problem IMO. Make it 3.

 

wait crab' date=' Disk commander exist on a good list? o.O

[/quote']

 

You said "This category". I assumed you meant the banworthy ones. Apparently you meant the legal ones instead.

 

Yeah, that Armed Ninja is a great PoC target.

 

Now, how about you start creating actual arguments instead of your typical juvenile antics?

It should have been "This Rubric."

 

wait crab' date=' Disk commander exist on a good list? o.O

[/quote']

 

Now I know you had no idea what your quote meant. And stop avoiding the matter at hand. List, or GTFO.

---

I want PoC at 1' date=' it helps OTKs too much, just mill JD and then use his effect, then swarm for win

[/quote']

 

Show how it helps at 1 but hurts at 3.

 

Also, ban JD.

 

it would be okay at 3 if konami would get off their fat asses and Ban all the broken cards in this meta.

 

until they do that i say either ban it or limit it

 

Did you not read the first ****ing post?

1.Did you?!

2. Don't you ever Mini Mod, or get on somebody when you cant even stay on topic in your own thread. Post something useful, or GTFO!

[Silencerleader]

...where does 2 magically pop up as the perfect number for this?

 

Because Phantom/Mech. Snail Turbo is the way to do it Crab...

[CrabHelmet]

In a nut shell' date=' I agree with this rubric.

[/quote']

 

It's not a rubric.

 

You don't even know what it is or why it was created, so you can't possibly be in informed agreement with it.

 

1.Did you?!

 

Yes.

 

2. Don't you ever Mini Mod' date=' or get on somebody when you cant even stay on topic in your own thread. Post something useful, or GTFO!

[/quote']

 

That's funny, I seem to remember a useless reply to this thread where some n00b suggested putting PoC at 4. I must be misremembering.

[.:pyramid:.]

as much as i love poc, its effect shows no regard for the banlist and being able to interact with monsters that are limited that would have more power with multiple copies, even if it is for a turn. so by that it should be banned.

 

disclaimer

 

i have no i dear whether that is a valid argument Xd