SJC Atlanta Top 16

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

Someone should set all the world's Dark Armed Dragons on fire. It's a very annoyingly meta-ruining card. Wasn't Chaos Sorcerer banned a lot faster than this? And he didn't have uses like Trade-In and Allure of Darkness back then. Plus, it's apparently harder to get 1 LIGHT and 1 DARK in the grave nowadays than the three needed DARK monsters >>

[armageddon08]

I guess Konami is getting stupider and stupider with all that weed they're buying from the sales of that card.

[Flame Dragon]

Malicious literally just produces synchro material from thin air. It's synchros for nothing. No effort at all. Makes the game unskilled. Use first Mali' date=' E-tele for synchro, use second and normal summon for second.

 

When you use malicious all the tuners in your hand (or e-teles) literally become synchros that you can summon straight from your hand. Let's say that Krebons effect was "sacrifice this monster to summon one level 8 synchro of your choice." That's broken. And with Malicious, that's exactly what the effect is.

[/quote']

It could make the game unskilled at 3 since you can synchro when ever you want with not possible penalty because you could simpily use the second one in your grave for another synchro when you need to. However if he was at 2 you won't be able to synchro carelessly because your opponent can do a number of things stop the monster you summon meaning you need to put thought into when and into what you synchro summon in to.

 

Since the worse that can happen is your opponent gets 1 Stardust if he was a 2 that isn't broken.

 

 

1Limit Malicious: Clearly there is no use in banning DAD if Teledad just morphs into Dark-Synchro sans-DAD. Limiting Malicious will remove the backbone of the deck's strength.

 

2Ban JD: This guy is more powerful than DAD. That's saying something.

1) Why do people want this limited. Putting it at 1 removes all of it's use. This is one of the few cards that could be put at 2' date=' and right now it is close to that. I know that this is better then 0, but still I can't see why people would want this at something other than 3 or 2.

 

2) JD is "more powerful" then DAD, but because DAD is far more splaseable he is better.

[/quote']

 

1) Clearly you don't realize that we want it to lose all of its use. If it's put at two, there's pretty much no difference, and putting it at 0 would be pointless.

 

2) Lightsworn are still getting into the top 16, so obviously we need to take care of them too.

1) Why do you want him to lose use? The worse 2 things that I can think of that he can do is your opponent gets Stardust or another level 8 synchro or they tribute him for a level 5 or 6 monster.

 

2) Just because their in the top 16 means we need to "take care of them." We need to "take care of them" because JD is any easy to summon monster with a overpowered effect.

 

1) Malicious is Level 6. It is for that reason also he needs to be Limited.

 

2) If Tele-DAD dies, Lightsworns will be able to take over the meta. Banning Judgment Dragon might be enough to do that.

1) I'll say it again, what is so bad about your opponent getting 1 Stardust?

 

2) You don't know if Lightsworns would take over. They could, but acting on what could happen is an ineffective way to do things. Also just because a deck does well doesn't mean you need to do any thing to it.

[Phantom Roxas]

1Limit Malicious: Clearly there is no use in banning DAD if Teledad just morphs into Dark-Synchro sans-DAD. Limiting Malicious will remove the backbone of the deck's strength.

 

2Ban JD: This guy is more powerful than DAD. That's saying something.

1) Why do people want this limited. Putting it at 1 removes all of it's use. This is one of the few cards that could be put at 2' date=' and right now it is close to that. I know that this is better then 0, but still I can't see why people would want this at something other than 3 or 2.

 

2) JD is "more powerful" then DAD, but because DAD is far more splaseable he is better.

[/quote']

 

1) Clearly you don't realize that we want it to lose all of its use. If it's put at two, there's pretty much no difference, and putting it at 0 would be pointless.

 

2) Lightsworn are still getting into the top 16, so obviously we need to take care of them too.

1) Why do you want him to lose use? The worse 2 things that I can think of that he can do is your opponent gets Stardust or another level 8 synchro or they tribute him for a level 5 or 6 monster.

 

2) Just because their in the top 16 means we need to "take care of them." We need to "take care of them" because JD is any easy to summon monster with a overpowered effect.

 

1) Malicious is Level 6. It is for that reason also he needs to be Limited.

 

2) If Tele-DAD dies, Lightsworns will be able to take over the meta. Banning Judgment Dragon might be enough to do that.

1) I'll say it again, what is so bad about your opponent getting 1 Stardust?

 

2) You don't know if Lightsworns would take over. They could, but acting on what could happen is an ineffective way to do things. Also just because a deck does well doesn't mean you need to do any thing to it.

 

1) Destiny Draw+Malicious+2 Tuners=Two Synchro's right off the bat.

 

2) The only two Decks getting into the top 16 are DAD and Lightsworn. Think about it.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Wasn't Chaos Sorcerer banned a lot faster than this?

Nope. Chaos Sorcerer actually stayed around for almost three years. He's also not a target for Trade-in like you said, and it's certainly no harder to get a light and a dark in the grave than three darks.

[CrabHelmet]

Genzo is correct. Chaos Sorcerer stayed not only legal but unlimited for three years before it was banned.

[Flame Dragon]

1Limit Malicious: Clearly there is no use in banning DAD if Teledad just morphs into Dark-Synchro sans-DAD. Limiting Malicious will remove the backbone of the deck's strength.

 

2Ban JD: This guy is more powerful than DAD. That's saying something.

1) Why do people want this limited. Putting it at 1 removes all of it's use. This is one of the few cards that could be put at 2' date=' and right now it is close to that. I know that this is better then 0, but still I can't see why people would want this at something other than 3 or 2.

 

2) JD is "more powerful" then DAD, but because DAD is far more splaseable he is better.

[/quote']

 

1) Clearly you don't realize that we want it to lose all of its use. If it's put at two, there's pretty much no difference, and putting it at 0 would be pointless.

 

2) Lightsworn are still getting into the top 16, so obviously we need to take care of them too.

1) Why do you want him to lose use? The worse 2 things that I can think of that he can do is your opponent gets Stardust or another level 8 synchro or they tribute him for a level 5 or 6 monster.

 

2) Just because their in the top 16 means we need to "take care of them." We need to "take care of them" because JD is any easy to summon monster with a overpowered effect.

 

1) Malicious is Level 6. It is for that reason also he needs to be Limited.

 

2) If Tele-DAD dies, Lightsworns will be able to take over the meta. Banning Judgment Dragon might be enough to do that.

1) I'll say it again, what is so bad about your opponent getting 1 Stardust?

 

2) You don't know if Lightsworns would take over. They could, but acting on what could happen is an ineffective way to do things. Also just because a deck does well doesn't mean you need to do any thing to it.

 

1) Destiny Draw+Malicious+2 Tuners=Two Synchro's right off the bat.

 

2) The only two Decks getting into the top 16 are DAD and Lightsworn. Think about it.

1) You can only normal summon once so that means unless you use E-Tele you'll only get one Synchro. Also if he was at two your opponent could only get 1 synchro regardless. Now if he could only get you 1 synchro you would have to be far more careful about when and into what ou synchro into.

 

2) With out DAD around other decks could start doing better, meaning the top 16 would be different.

[Phantom Roxas]

1) Malicious is also easy CCV food.

2) Maybe, that doesn't change the fact that Lightsworn is in the top 16.

[Flame Dragon]

1) Malicious is also easy CCV food.

2) Maybe' date=' that doesn't change the fact that Lightsworn is in the top 16.

[/quote']

1) Ban CCV

2) Being in the top 16 doesn't mean anything needs to be done.

[Father Wolf]

meh better than only GB or if u look back a year ago only monach decks.

[Phantom Roxas]

1) Malicious is also easy CCV food.

2) Maybe' date=' that doesn't change the fact that Lightsworn is in the top 16.

[/quote']

1) Ban CCV

2) Being in the top 16 doesn't mean anything needs to be done.

 

1) Forget it, I'll leave this up to Crab.

2) That may be true, but we should do something before something else happens.

[Flame Dragon]

1) Malicious is also easy CCV food.

2) Maybe' date=' that doesn't change the fact that Lightsworn is in the top 16.

[/quote']

1) Ban CCV

2) Being in the top 16 doesn't mean anything needs to be done.

 

1) Forget it, I'll leave this up to Crab.

2) That may be true, but we should do something before something else happens.

1) If I'm not mistaken the last I read shows Crab thinking that Malicious should be at 3.

2) Taking action based on assumtion on what could happen is normally a bad way to do things.

[CrabHelmet]

Phantom Roxas is arguing poorly here. Winning is not a crime, and interaction with banworthy cards is also not a crime.

 

Flame Dragon's memory is correct that, last time he heard, I thought Malicious should be at 3. What he doesn't remember is when I said that - many months ago, back when his Level was only significant in that it stopped him from being Normal Summoned and could Special Summon Dark Grepher. The issue of Malicious is one that I've put off deciding for a while now, but it's certainly not the clear-cut two-tributes-is-not-bad-for-the-game issue that it was a year ago.

 

*wanders off to actually think about Malicious*

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

Sorry, I had only started playing a while after Sorcerer came into existence, and I guess I forgot to do my research. :[

[The Dark One]

There is now actually a viable reason to put Malicious at 2, since the difference between 2 and 3 can mean the difference between dropping 1 Synchro or dropping 2. When you've got two different protection effects basically stacking up, things get a bit difficult to deal with.

 

It can also be noted that the genericness of the Synchros themselves is a problem. Konami shouldn't have made their best Synchro monsters splashable in any deck that can make room for Teleport and Krebons.

[Phantom Roxas]

Phantom Roxas is arguing poorly here. Winning is not a crime' date=' and interaction with banworthy cards is also not a crime.

 

Flame Dragon's memory is correct that, last time he heard, I thought Malicious should be at 3. What he doesn't remember is [i']when[/i] I said that - many months ago, back when his Level was only significant in that it stopped him from being Normal Summoned and could Special Summon Dark Grepher. The issue of Malicious is one that I've put off deciding for a while now, but it's certainly not the clear-cut two-tributes-is-not-bad-for-the-game issue that it was a year ago.

 

*wanders off to actually think about Malicious*

 

I will admit I was arguing poorly, but was my thought right?

 

*Checks my old Anti-Tele-DAD Poll*

 

Huh, you actually didn't mention anything regarding Malicious's banworthiness.

[Mechagnome]

I agree with the Dark One. Malicious should be Semi'd if anything. Limiting it will make it worthless. At 2 Malicious's little trick can only be used once, which means your average Tele-DAD will drop 1 Synchro instead of 2.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

I agree with the Dark One. Malicious should be Semi'd if anything. Limiting it will make it worthless. At 2 Malicious's little trick can only be used once' date=' which means your average Tele-DAD will drop 1 Synchro instead of 2.

[/quote']

 

I don't see why you think players have a right to drop a synchro for nothing.

[armageddon08]

I agree with the Dark One. Malicious should be Semi'd if anything. Limiting it will make it worthless. At 2 Malicious's little trick can only be used once' date=' which means your average Tele-DAD will drop 1 Synchro instead of 2.

[/quote']

 

I don't see why you think players have a right to drop a synchro for nothing.

They don't. I think that some people are just arguing for it because they spent their money on the cards, and if cards are banned they'll lose all that money because they wouldn't be able to play them, or sell them for even half the price.

[Flame Dragon]

I agree with the Dark One. Malicious should be Semi'd if anything. Limiting it will make it worthless. At 2 Malicious's little trick can only be used once' date=' which means your average Tele-DAD will drop 1 Synchro instead of 2.

[/quote']

 

I don't see why you think players have a right to drop a synchro for nothing.

They don't. I think that some people are just arguing for it because they spent their money on the cards, and if cards are banned they'll lose all that money because they wouldn't be able to play them, or sell them for even half the price.

 

lol, no. I don't own a single Malicious and seeing how I've been the only person really arguing for it to be at 2 this idea is wrong. Also it doesn't matter if you own the card. I have a DAD, but I want him at 0. Ownership of a card shouldn't change your view on how ban or limit worthy it may be.

 

@GenzoTheHarpist-Their is nothing wrong with dropping 1 Synchro for little cost, it's not for nothing seeing how you still need the tuner and may be a card to drop Malicious into the grave. The reason for this is because their is no level 8 Synchro monster that is that bad about leting your opponent summon easily.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

D-Draw Mali: +0

Use Mali's effect: +1

E-Tele Krebons: +0

Synchro Summon: -1

 

Total: +0. You literally did not have to expend the slightest net advantage to get that synchro.

[Flame Dragon]

D-Draw Mali: +0

Use Mali's effect: +1

E-Tele Krebons: +0

Synchro Summon: -1

 

Total: +0. You literally did not have to expend the slightest net advantage to get that synchro.

While you lose no net advantage, you do lose hand advantage. This could be important in the long run and in a good format where Malicious is at 2.

 

Also if this is bad then Mezuki should be banned.

Mezuki's effect: +1

E-Tele tuner: +0

Synchro Summon: -1

Again the net advantage is 0.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

D-Draw Mali: +0

Use Mali's effect: +1

E-Tele Krebons: +0

Synchro Summon: -1

 

Total: +0. You literally did not have to expend the slightest net advantage to get that synchro.

While you lose no net advantage' date=' you do lose hand advantage. This could be important in the long run and in a good format where Malicious is at 2.

 

Also if this is bad then Mezuki should be banned.

Mezuki's effect: +1

E-Tele tuner: +0

Synchro Summon: -1

Again the net advantage is 0.

[/quote']

That happens whenever you summon a monster from your hand. Or use a card to bring one from your deck. Hurray, let's never summon anything ever. And, Malicious yields another Malicious for another synchro.

[Flame Dragon]

D-Draw Mali: +0

Use Mali's effect: +1

E-Tele Krebons: +0

Synchro Summon: -1

 

Total: +0. You literally did not have to expend the slightest net advantage to get that synchro.

While you lose no net advantage' date=' you do lose hand advantage. This could be important in the long run and in a good format where Malicious is at 2.

 

Also if this is bad then Mezuki should be banned.

Mezuki's effect: +1

E-Tele tuner: +0

Synchro Summon: -1

Again the net advantage is 0.

[/quote']

That happens whenever you summon a monster from your hand. Or use a card to bring one from your deck. Hurray, let's never summon anything ever. And, Malicious yields another Malicious for another synchro.

Fair enough, but what is wrong with this. In a good format their is nothing that game changing about your opponent getting Stardust. Also put Malicious at 2 and this problem is gone..

 

And again if this is so broken then ban Mezuki.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Also, it should be noted that you actually need a second Zombie for the Mezuki combo. The mali one just requires mali.