MarbleZone Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Why "Cyclone" wasn't a good-enough name for the TCG is beyond me. Anyway. In another thread, people were arguing whether this would be fine at 3 or not. Well, MST has always been at 1 since I started playing, and I'm trying to understand why it would be good at 3 now. From what I gather, people don't play many Trap Cards anymore. There's the odd Mirror Force, which isn't chainable if I'm not mistaken, there's Solemn Judgment, and some decks run Threatening Roar, Torrential Tribute and other things. And even if I'm wrong, my point is, Traps don't seem to be so big right now. So I'm figuring people believe MST would be alright at 3 because it doesn't have that many targets anymore, and because it's just a 1-for-1 that hits the back row and doesn't tip the scale too much. So far that makes sense. And even if it was allowed to be ran in 3's, how many people would? On the other hand, people complain how Tele-DAD decks are winning everything everywhere and need to be dealt with. They also say this is a meta where decent cards aren't good enough because games are won in a very short number of turns due to the speed of this format.My question is, wouldn't MST at 3 hinder decks that rely on the back row, like Burn/Stall decks, making them unplayable (as they already are, but because of other cards)? And wouldn't that end up compromising a metagame with a variety of usable decktypes (which, I believe, would be better than the current one)? I'm not against bringing MST to 3, but I'd like to understand how that would be beneficial to the game. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tickle Me Emo Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 In this meta putting it at 3 wouldnt do anything. Personally I dont think MST is very playable anymore... in fact I dont even main deck it very often and usually just side it with 2 dust tornados. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akira Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Many Tele-DAD builds run Solemn Judgment, PWWB, Torrential Tribute and even Mirror Force is becoming popular again. Mirror=Not chainableTorrential=Not chainableSolemn=Pointless to chain against MSTPWWB=Chainable sometimes, but not if the MST was played on an empty field. 3 MSTs would hurt the game by murdering non chainable traps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Many Tele-DAD builds run Solemn Judgment' date=' PWWB, Torrential Tribute and even Mirror Force is becoming popular again. Mirror=Not chainableTorrential=Not chainableSolemn=Pointless to chain against MSTPWWB=Chainable sometimes, but not if the MST was played on an empty field. 3 MSTs would hurt the game by murdering non chainable traps.[/quote'] 2 DADs would murder non chainables, but that didn't stop you from using it in an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akira Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Of the examples I listed, Torrential, Solemn, and PWWB are all chainable to DAD, unlike MST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Then by your logic, DAD should be at 3, and MST should be at 0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akira Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Now you're just being difficult. Everything is relative, right? I seem to remember DAD being good for having more than just the ability to murder non chainable traps. MST doesn't come with 2800 atk points and the ability to blow up monsters as well as spells/traps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 MST can prenegate, so it doesn't murder nonchainables. The reason it should be at 3 is simple: there is no reason why it should not be at 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarbleZone Posted January 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 In that case, any reason for it to have been Limited for so long? Or was it only recently that running it in 3's became acceptable? Oh, and any chance I could have the following answered, please? My question is' date=' wouldn't MST at 3 hinder decks that rely on the back row, like Burn/Stall decks, making them unplayable (as they already are, but because of other cards)? And wouldn't that end up compromising a metagame with a variety of usable decktypes (which, I believe, would be better than the current one)?[/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 @Crab Helmet: In that case' date=' any reason for it to have been Limited for so long? Or was it only recently that running it in 3's became acceptable?[/quote'] It has always been fine at 3. Konami's banlist just sucks. Any chance you'd answer the following' date=' please? My question is, wouldn't MST at 3 hinder decks that rely on the back row, like Burn/Stall decks, making them unplayable (as they already are, but because of other cards)? And wouldn't that end up compromising a metagame with a variety of usable decktypes (which, I believe, would be better than the current one)? 3 MST would not kill decks relying on LLAB and related cards. Would it be a decent counter to them? Yes, but I don't remember the part of banlist theory that gives every conceivable deck the right to be uncounterable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 Balanced 1-for-1 S/T removal. Deserves to be at 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 It doesn't even negate either… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevalier Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 I'm actually going to agree here, it should be @ 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 Perfectly balanced card. No reason it shouldn't be at three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raikoh Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 Not Broken. Should be returned to 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarbleZone Posted January 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 I'm actually going to agree here' date=' it should be @ 3.[/quote'] MST should be at 3 Lol YCM ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabris Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 I'm actually going to agree here' date=' it should be @ 3.[/quote'] MST should be at 3 Lol YCM ? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 ?¿?¿? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark One Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 You know guys, a man is allowed to change his mind from time to time. We shouldn't be trying to corner Chevalier here for switching from an an incorrect opinion to a correct opinion. (I know that sounds contradictory, but I think you all know what I mean.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 It's annoying when he's being arrogant while he has an incorrect opinion, then equally as arrogant while changing views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 I'm actually going to agree here' date=' it should be @ 3.[/quote'] MST should be at 3 Lol YCM ? ? lolChevalier. I'm fine with MST at 3, non-chainables are already dead anyway. >.> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark One Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 It's annoying when he's being arrogant while he has an incorrect opinion' date=' then equally as arrogant while changing views.[/quote'] Nevertheless, it's discouraging him (or her) from changing his (or her) views in the future. You're forcing him (or her) to dig his grave deeper and deeper. When you disagree with someone, always give them plenty of room to save face/shift views without being directly confronted about it. The real purpose of an argument is to discuss a topic and give opposing views in an effort to determine the correct answer. Once it becomes clear what that answer is, you shouldn't force your "opponent" to stick to his previous views. Let him rethink things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 I don't think any of us were being rather intrusive. They just thought it was odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevalier Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 ? I was under the impression changing my mind wasn't against any rules? It's annoying when he's being arrogant while he has an incorrect opinion' date=' then equally as arrogant while changing views.[/quote'] How am I being arrogant as of now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 "I'm actually going to agree with you here" seems a little snooty to me, but it is better than what you said before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.