I need to be educated.

[MarbleZone]

Imagine the following two cards existed:

 

Rainbow Long

Effect Monster

Level 4/ Dragon/ LIGHT

1300 ATK / 1000 DEF

Effect: This card's Attribute is also treated as FIRE, WATER, WIND and EARTH while it is in the Graveyard.

 

Graceful Sanctity

Normal Spell Card

Effect: Remove a monster(s) of FIRE, WATER, WIND and EARTH Attributes in your Graveyard from play. Draw 2 cards.

 

I'm not sure on the wording, but it's supposed to work just like Elemental Mistress Doriado being only monster you need for Fuh-Rin-Ka-Zan.

 

Now, considering that when you have that dragon in the Graveyard, drawing 2 cards becomes very easy, and that getting said monster in the Graveyard is easy, I think something should be done to prevent the easy draw - i.e., one of the two cards should be banned.

 

What I want somebody to teach me is:

a) Am I correct to assume that, if those 2 cards existed, they should not be allowed to coexist;

b) If I am correct about a), which of the two cards should be banned, and most of all, why that one and not the other.

 

This stems from a recent discussion that took place here involving Necroface and Inferno Tempest, and I realized I'm not so good at properly judging this kind of things at all.

 

Thanks in advance. :)

[Xemba]

What's the dragons attack / defense? It seems like they'd be able to coexist fine for a half decent combo. Of course in this meta half decent means bad. Well really most metas, I was just being generous.

[CrabHelmet]

Fuh-Rin-Ka-Zan requires the presence of monsters bearing these attributes, but your imaginary card requires you to remove monsters bearing these attributes. The fact that the latter requires action suggests that the ruling could easily be different, especially considering the wording of Graceful Sanctity.

[MarbleZone]

Hm, my apologies then. :/

 

Anyway, what it's supposed to work so that the imaginary monster is the only thing you have to remove for the effect of the imaginary spell.

 

In that case, what would be the answer to my questions? Sorry if I'm still not making it possible for you people to answer at all, it's hard to explain when said cards don't really exist. :/

[Flame Dragon]

I'd say it really doesn't need either card to be banned. While fulfilling the condition can be easy, if you don't have that monster it will be rare that you can use the effect since most Fire and Water attribute monster don't see much play out side of specific decks and even if they did it would likely be in a deck without one, or with only a few, of the other attribute. For this reason unless you have that monster in the grave the spell will often be a dead draw.

 

If you did have that monster in the grave their isn't much wrong with the extra draw. Look at D-Draw. In a properly made deck it is easy to use it's effect, and their is nothing wrong with this.

[CrabHelmet]

I would discuss question A if I had gotten more than three hours of sleep in the last two days. As that is not the case, I don't have the energy to do so at the moment. In any case, it could only actually be any sort of problem in a Turbo deck with stuff like Hand Destructions, and I'm too lazy to muck around with that at this point.

 

As for question B, assuming that one needed to be banned, it would be Rainbow Long. Neither is any sort of problem in the absence of the other, but Graceful Sanctity has actual use without Rainbow Long, whereas Rainbow Long is essentially a vanilla (of unknown stats) without Graceful Sanctity (it also gives minor support to Frost and Flame Dragon, but watch me not care). Keeping Graceful Sanctity would allow more balanced strategies to be used; keeping Rainbow Long would just add another utterly worthless card to the pile of worthless cards.