why dont people take decks liek this to shonen jump ¬_¬

[tonisanoob]

(25)

2 jd

2 ls lumina

3 ls wulf

3 ls lyla

2 ls garoth

1 ls ehren

3 honest

3 necro

3 quillbolt

3 plagespreadder

 

(13)

3 solar recharge

3 charge of the light brigade

1 monster reborn

1 brain control

1 heavy storm

2 cosr

1 monster reincarnation

 

(5)

1 torential tribute

3 beckonign light

1 ccv

 

i personally think this deck could do pretty well...

[lordtyson]

you are right people should start takeing decks that this one to SJ

a deck like this might just win

[Skarlet]

you are right people should start takeing decks that this one to SJ

a deck like this might just win

 

this

 

Id love to play against this puppy

[hayden351]

i have never heard of any of thoes monster

---

i have never heard of 3 of thoes magics

---

and also no heard of 3 of your traps

[Akira]

i have never heard of any of thoes monster

---

i have never heard of 3 of thoes magics

---

and also no heard of 3 of your traps

 

http://yugioh.wikia.com nao

[Blue Lightning]

I dont know why. Id love to duel something like this sometime.

[bart1307]

Shonen Jump Might Just Make Decks Like Dragons Knights Warriors And Pwning Kittens

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

i have never heard of any of thoes monster

---

i have never heard of 3 of thoes magics

---

and also no heard of 3 of your traps

 

Go spam elsewhere.

[Saiyan Knight]

Bad idea is bad, Ton.

3 Quillbolt aren't used because they're dead-draws that you can't discard.

Imperial Iron Wall shouldn't be Main Decked. I know it's for Quill and Plague, but it also stops your own Necro Gardna, and won't do enough against TeleDAD. DAD's still a 2800 and Malicious is the only thing it stops, which you CAN'T chain it to. You'd have to know before hand that they were going to play Malicious and respond preemptively.

[CrabHelmet]

Bad idea is bad' date=' Ton.

3 Quillbolt aren't used because they're dead-draws that you can't discard.

Imperial Iron Wall shouldn't be Main Decked. I know it's for Quill and Plague, but it also stops your own Necro Gardna, and won't do enough against TeleDAD. DAD's still a 2800 and Malicious is the only thing it stops, which you CAN'T chain it to. You'd have to know before hand that they were going to play Malicious and respond preemptively.

[/quote']

 

To be fair on the Imperial Iron Wall front, doesn't it also prohibit the activation of Allure of Darkness (though not the effect if chained to Allure, so it would need to be preemptive), the destruction effect of Dark Armed Dragon (though not the Special Summon of a 2800 ATK beatstick), the effect of Destiny Hero - Doom Lord, and the effect of Caius the Shadow Monarch - and, when they are run or sided in, the effects of D.D. Crow and Kycoo the Ghost Destroyer?

 

Of course, most of these are some of the deck's weakest effects, such Side Deck choices won't happen when the opponent sees you running Imperial Iron Wall, and it actually helps DAD's own Plaguespreaders - and to top it all off, it gets crushed by other decks like Gladiator Beasts.

[tonisanoob]

so imperial iron wall comes out basically?

[Saiyan Knight]

so imperial iron wall comes out basically?

 

Yes. Definitely. Out like the trash.

 

I like Crab Helmet's point of "Well, wouldn't it remotely hinder the weak cards, sort of, if you played it ahead of time? Uh, I mean, it would help out their Synchro ability, and they probably wouldn't side in what it stops, since they know you're running it..."

[CrabHelmet]

so imperial iron wall comes out basically?

 

Yes. Definitely. Out like the trash.

 

I like Crab Helmet's point of "Well' date=' wouldn't it remotely hinder the weak cards, sort of, if you played it ahead of time? Uh, I mean, it would help out their Synchro ability, and they probably wouldn't side in what it stops, since they know you're running it..."

[/quote']

 

I never said he should keep it in. I was just being fair.

 

It's better to make the right decision for all of the right reasons than for just some of them. That is why I will argue against people whose arguments lead to the same conclusion as my own.

[Saiyan Knight]

so imperial iron wall comes out basically?

 

Yes. Definitely. Out like the trash.

 

I like Crab Helmet's point of "Well' date=' wouldn't it remotely hinder the weak cards, sort of, if you played it ahead of time? Uh, I mean, it would help out their Synchro ability, and they probably wouldn't side in what it stops, since they know you're running it..."

[/quote']

 

I never said he should keep it in. I was just being fair.

 

It's better to make the right decision for all of the right reasons than for just some of them. That is why I will argue against people whose arguments lead to the same conclusion as my own.

 

Arguing against those who agree is merely setting yourself back. Your act of "being fair" is exactly what leads bad players to thinking it has a chance or that some potential use could be found realistically from keeping it.

 

All it is is contradiction for the sake of conversation under the guise of education on the matter. The bottom line is that he should remove it, and the fact of the matter is that any 'fairness' you contributed changed nothing in that regard, short of running the risk of instilling a "But if it stops those a little, then it might be okay...?" mindset.

 

Unnecessary.

[CrabHelmet]

Arguing against those who agree is merely setting yourself back.

 

As usual, all you care about is getting people to believe what you say.

 

Being right for the wrong reasons merely produces inferior patterns of thought that lead to problems in the future. It may be fine in the short term for someone to say "CCV should be banned because it's too good with Sangan", but if they later decide that Sangan should be banned, they will revert to thinking that CCV should remain legal.

 

Doubt is a good thing. It forces thought, and prevents one from being blindly locked into obsolete ideas.

[Saiyan Knight]

Arguing against those who agree is merely setting yourself back.

 

As usual' date=' all you care about is getting people to believe what you say.[/quote']

 

An interesting point made by someone resorting to character assassination in our prior clashing of horns. I guess if the only convincing argument you can decisively make for yourself is to attempt to reduce the credibility of the other party. Little low for my taste.

 

As far as your Crush Card/Sangan example, if A [Crush Card Virus] + B [sangan] = C [Problem scenario], then removing B, Sangan, will no longer leave A, Crush Card Virus, to equal C, a problem scenario.

 

"That's too good, because after it goes off, Sangan let's you grab a monster.", which is basically what "It's too good with Sangan" means, would no longer b a valid reason for justifying the "Too good" claim, since the common interaction is taken away.

 

-Edit-

 

Pardon, I replied before you added to your post.

 

Doubt forces thought, but regressive thought. Thinking backwards to look for answers in obscure places causes the common, obvious answer to be overlooked, and then missed, many times. Your philosophy is flawed in that it not all thought is progressive thought.

[CrabHelmet]

An interesting point made by someone resorting to character assassination in our prior clashing of horns. I guess if the only convincing argument you can decisively make for yourself is to attempt to reduce the credibility of the other party. Little low for my taste.

 

Sorry to hear you didn't read my post last time - you know' date=' like the part that said "Hey guys, everything below this line has nothing whatsoever to do with whether DAD should be banned".

 

My attack was not on your opinion but your methods, which, were anyone to pay attention to them, would have caused detriment to the board's already-pitiful ability to think properly.

 

As far as your Crush Card/Sangan example, if A [Crush Card Virus] + B [sangan] = C [Problem scenario], then removing B, Sangan, will no longer leave A, Crush Card Virus, to equal C, a problem scenario.

 

"That's too good, because after it goes off, Sangan let's you grab a monster.", which is basically what "It's too good with Sangan" means, would no longer b a valid reason for justifying the "Too good" claim, since the common interaction is taken away.

 

Precisely my point. The Sangan-should-be-banned-so-Crush-should-be-legal argument is perfectly rational - at least, if one assumes that CCV's only problem is its combo with Sangan.

 

The problem is that the problem with Crush Card Virus is not "it's too good with Sangan". Hence, "it's too good with Sangan" might be a nice short-term argument to convince someone that CCV should be banned, but it comes back to cause problems later on.

 

For this reason, not only the conclusion but also the reasoning behind it must be correct.

 

Pardon' date=' I replied before you added to your post.

 

Doubt forces thought, but regressive thought. Thinking backwards to look for answers in obscure places causes the common, obvious answer to be overlooked, and then missed, many times. Your philosophy is flawed in that it not all thought is progressive thought.

[/quote']

 

Anyone capable of rational thought should be able reach the logical conclusion when presented with both full sides of the argument rather than just one. The outcome is still the same in the short term, but it has additional benefits in the long term - for example, here it stops the topic creator from putting Imperial Iron Wall back in once someone points out to him that it also blocks Caius and whatnot.

 

Logic should be both correct and complete. I don't care whether someone gets convinced that Card X should be banned or Card Y should be put back at 3; what I care about is that they learn to think properly.

[tonisanoob]

dont worry guize, i understand it may help with a few small thigns but gettign multi-synchroed via my opponents plagespreadder i kno isnt a good thing :P

 

so iiw is out ^_^

[Skarlet]

personaly Id Side IIW ton, you never know, you might come up against some one not using a plague spreader and then it'll help