~Star's first 09' Ban List~ [Edited 1/21/2009]

[Chevalier]

First of all' date=' a big of themed graveyard-prepping support is not going to damage the game.

 

Second of all, the big advantage of cards like Foolish Burial is that you can dump the card you need dumped. With Future Fusion, you can dump more cards, but you are unlikely to be able to take advantage of them all.

 

Third of all, Future Fusion can do the same thing at 1. Should it be banned, or did you arbitrarily decide that 3 is too many but 1 is somehow just right?

[/quote']

 

I suppose I'm thinking about too real format. Smeh, I guess it's fine at 3.

[Guest Star]

I've made some changes to the list.

[Psycho Shocker Android]

Rescue cat is fine banned airbellum isn't the only problem. You are forgetting GB samnite' date=' test tiger, CB amethyst cat, even the wicked worm beast.

[/quote']

 

Care to explain how those other cards you've listed are problems?

 

Future fusion should be at least limited. Five-Headed Dragon (specially with REDMD)' date=' Elemental Hero Absolute Zero, Superalloy Beast Raptinus...

[/quote']

 

Again, give some justification for why it is a problem when used with these cards, and then gives some justification why it magically stops being a problem when it cannot be used in multiples.

 

All the cards listed with rescue cat = easy/free advantage. Samnite + test tiger can tag in any GB (notably murmillo, bestiari and secutor) to clear the field and attack to tag out for more +. 2 amethyst cat is at least +1 for crystal beast (can be more depending on various thing like the field). 2 wicked worm beast is an instant +1 where you can use the cards with a multitude of cards that requires discard costs or with creature swap. Not to mention the easy synchro with x-saber airbellum and the possible future low level beast type tuners. Besides that don zaloog isn't banned I don't see why x-saber airbellum should.

 

Well future should be banned it's just that limited it would be reasonable but would still give an edge to the duelist who draws it. Absolute zero is a field nuke, five headed is a 5000 atk monster, raptinus is an OTK/FTK machine (and he banned ultimate offering).

[Guest PikaPerson01]

RESCUE CAT - It's either this or Summon Priest' date=' and I think that this card has a cost that is much easier to fulfill and much less damage. For the mere cost of Tributing this, you can get out Goyo, Brionac, or any other Level 6 or lower Synchro Monster. It, like Reasoning, makes Synchro Summoning too easy.[/quote']

 

X-Saber Airbellum is in this combo too ya' know,

 

There's no justifiable reason to ban a Level 3 Beast-Type Tuner monster with 1600 ATK that can make your opponent discard a card when it inflicts Battle Damage.

 

X-Saber Airbellum's crime is that it can be searched out by Rescue Cat.

Rescue Cat's crime is that it can search out X-Saber Airbellum.

 

If we admit that being able to summon any level 4-6 Synchro at the cost of a normal summon and a bit of deck dedication is a bannable offense, clearly one of the above has to go. Unfortunately, neither of them are the clear cause of the problem. In this case, we must save the card which helps the metagame more.

 

Rescue Cat is a tool in Crystal Beasts, Gladiator Beasts, and I'm sure I'm forgetting all sorts of other decks as well.

 

X-Saber Airbellum is just a random generic beatstick tuner, who just so happens to be a beast as well.

 

With Rescue Cat banned, X-Saber is useless. With X-Saber banned, Rescue Cat still has plenty of uses. Remembering that a banlist is supposed to expand deck building choices as much as possible, Rescue Cat clearly deserves to be unlimited, at the expense of X-Saber.

[CrabHelmet]

@ Star: Thanks for completely ignoring my post.

 

Rescue cat is fine banned airbellum isn't the only problem. You are forgetting GB samnite' date=' test tiger, CB amethyst cat, even the wicked worm beast.

[/quote']

 

Care to explain how those other cards you've listed are problems?

 

Future fusion should be at least limited. Five-Headed Dragon (specially with REDMD)' date=' Elemental Hero Absolute Zero, Superalloy Beast Raptinus...

[/quote']

 

Again, give some justification for why it is a problem when used with these cards, and then gives some justification why it magically stops being a problem when it cannot be used in multiples.

 

All the cards listed with rescue cat = easy/free advantage. Samnite + test tiger can tag in any GB (notably murmillo, bestiari and secutor) to clear the field and attack to tag out for more +. 2 amethyst cat is at least +1 for crystal beast (can be more depending on various thing like the field). 2 wicked worm beast is an instant +1 where you can use the cards with a multitude of cards that requires discard costs or with creature swap.

 

And what, pray tell, is wrong with certain archetypes using effects that give them a bit of advantage at the expense of deck dedication? Sapphire Pegasus also gives Gem Beasts a +1 the moment it is Summoned, but I don't see you complaining about its brokenness.

 

Not to mention the easy synchro with x-saber airbellum

 

See Pika's post.

 

and the possible future low level beast type tuners.

 

Possible future cards should only really be used as final tie-breakers. We have no need for a final tie-breaker here; see Pika's post.

 

Besides that don zaloog isn't banned I don't see why x-saber airbellum should.

 

Don Zaloog is not a Level 3 Beast-Type Tuner Monster.

 

Well future should be banned it's just that limited it would be reasonable but would still give an edge to the duelist who draws it. Absolute zero is a field nuke' date=' five headed is a 5000 atk monster, raptinus is an OTK/FTK machine (and he banned ultimate offering).

[/quote']

 

To be used at all, Future Fusion requires a strong degree of deck dedication. To be used as anything other than a themed multi-Foolish, Future Fusion also requires enough defense to let it survive for four whole turns - and even then, it has still taken two whole turns and the defensive cards used before it does anything other than act as a multi-Foolish, and it can still be destroyed along with its monster.

 

If Raptinus OTK is a problem, ban Raptinus, not the card that lets you summon him by Turn 5 if your opponent has fallen asleep.

[Guest Star]

@ Star: Thanks for completely ignoring my post.

 

I didn't ignore your post. It's just that you proved all of my points wrong and you ruined any chance I had to justify the placement of all of those cards, except for Breaker, which I still believe should be semi-limited.

[CrabHelmet]

@ Star: Thanks for completely ignoring my post.

 

I didn't ignore your post. It's just that you proved all of my points wrong and you ruined any chance I had to justify the placement of all of those cards' date='

[/quote']

 

And so you responded by neither presenting a counterargument nor changing any of them on the list (except Metamorphosis). So... you're saying that you want your list to be illogical?

 

except for Breaker' date=' which I still believe should be semi-limited.

[/quote']

 

I concede that you believe it should be Semi-Limited.

 

I submit that your belief is foolish.

[Guest Star]

@ Star: Thanks for completely ignoring my post.

 

I didn't ignore your post. It's just that you proved all of my points wrong and you ruined any chance I had to justify the placement of all of those cards' date='

[/quote']

 

And so you responded by neither presenting a counterargument nor changing any of them on the list (except Metamorphosis). So... you're saying that you want your list to be illogical?

 

except for Breaker' date=' which I still believe should be semi-limited.

[/quote']

 

I concede that you believe it should be Semi-Limited.

 

I submit that your belief is foolish.

 

I'm going to make the changes, it's just that I was in the shower and I didn't get around to making them yet.

 

Breaker is more situational than Lyla when it comes to using their respective effects.

[CrabHelmet]

Breaker is more situational than Lyla when it comes to using their respective effects.

 

Yup, I knew it, you didn't read my post.

[Guest Star]

Breaker is more situational than Lyla when it comes to using their respective effects.

 

Yup' date=' I knew it, you didn't read my post.

[/quote']

 

I did read your post. You included that Lyla is stuck in Defense Position while Breaker can swing for 1/5 LP on the same turn that he destroys a Spell or Trap Card.

 

Still, if your opponent chains something like Bottomless Trap Hole or Trap Hole to Breaker, you can't destroy anything. If your opponent chains something like Bottomless Trap Hole or Trap Hole to Lyla, you can still destroy a Spell or Trap Card.

[CrabHelmet]

Breaker is more situational than Lyla when it comes to using their respective effects.

 

Yup' date=' I knew it, you didn't read my post.

[/quote']

 

I did read your post. You included that Lyla is stuck in Defense Position while Breaker can swing for 1/5 LP on the same turn that he destroys a Spell or Trap Card.

 

Still, if your opponent chains something like Bottomless Trap Hole or Trap Hole to Breaker, you can't destroy anything. If your opponent chains something like Bottomless Trap Hole or Trap Hole to Lyla, you can still destroy a Spell or Trap Card.

 

In order to do that, you would need to claim priority upon summoning Lyla, activate her effect, and select some spell or trap controlled by the opponent that does not turn out to be a Bottomless. Unless you can do this, Lyla is ineffective.

 

At any rate, it doesn't matter if Lyla has a couple of extra advantages like priority and mill. The underlying problem with Breaker lay in the fact that he could both break and then attack. Lyla does not have this problem, so no matter how many reasons you give for why you'd rather run Lyla than Breaker, you still have not proven that Lyla is bad for the game. (Or that Breaker is good for the game; I've lost track of which piece of nonsense you're defending right now.)

[Guest Star]

Breaker is more situational than Lyla when it comes to using their respective effects.

 

Yup' date=' I knew it, you didn't read my post.

[/quote']

 

I did read your post. You included that Lyla is stuck in Defense Position while Breaker can swing for 1/5 LP on the same turn that he destroys a Spell or Trap Card.

 

Still, if your opponent chains something like Bottomless Trap Hole or Trap Hole to Breaker, you can't destroy anything. If your opponent chains something like Bottomless Trap Hole or Trap Hole to Lyla, you can still destroy a Spell or Trap Card.

 

In order to do that, you would need to claim priority upon summoning Lyla, activate her effect, and select some spell or trap controlled by the opponent that does not turn out to be a Bottomless. Unless you can do this, Lyla is ineffective.

 

At any rate, it doesn't matter if Lyla has a couple of extra advantages like priority and mill. The underlying problem with Breaker lay in the fact that he could both break and then attack. Lyla does not have this problem, so no matter how many reasons you give for why you'd rather run Lyla than Breaker, you still have not proven that Lyla is bad for the game. (Or that Breaker is good for the game; I've lost track of which piece of nonsense you're defending right now.)

 

Ok, so we'll compromise. I've limited Breaker.

 

I've made a lot of changes to the list.

[CrabHelmet]

Breaker is more situational than Lyla when it comes to using their respective effects.

 

Yup' date=' I knew it, you didn't read my post.

[/quote']

 

I did read your post. You included that Lyla is stuck in Defense Position while Breaker can swing for 1/5 LP on the same turn that he destroys a Spell or Trap Card.

 

Still, if your opponent chains something like Bottomless Trap Hole or Trap Hole to Breaker, you can't destroy anything. If your opponent chains something like Bottomless Trap Hole or Trap Hole to Lyla, you can still destroy a Spell or Trap Card.

 

In order to do that, you would need to claim priority upon summoning Lyla, activate her effect, and select some spell or trap controlled by the opponent that does not turn out to be a Bottomless. Unless you can do this, Lyla is ineffective.

 

At any rate, it doesn't matter if Lyla has a couple of extra advantages like priority and mill. The underlying problem with Breaker lay in the fact that he could both break and then attack. Lyla does not have this problem, so no matter how many reasons you give for why you'd rather run Lyla than Breaker, you still have not proven that Lyla is bad for the game. (Or that Breaker is good for the game; I've lost track of which piece of nonsense you're defending right now.)

 

Ok, so we'll compromise. I've limited Breaker.

 

Compromise is not always the answer. If we don't want to kill any Jews and the Nazis want to kill all the Jews, should we compromise and kill half the Jews?

[Guest Star]

Compromise is not always the answer. If we don't want to kill any Jews and the Nazis want to kill all the Jews' date=' should we compromise and kill half the Jews?

[/quote']

 

No.

 

Lyla is definitely limit-worthy. Regardless of which one is better, neither of them are banworthy, but neither of them should be at three.

[CrabHelmet]

Compromise is not always the answer. If we don't want to kill any Jews and the Nazis want to kill all the Jews' date=' should we compromise and kill half the Jews?

[/quote']

 

No.

 

Lyla is definitely limit-worthy.

 

No.

 

Regardless of which one is better' date='

[/quote']

 

Good, you've finally stopped pursuing that ridiculous argument.

 

neither of them are banworthy' date=' but neither of them should be at three.

[/quote']

 

I am compelled by this well-supported logical proof that both are good for the game at 1 but bad for the game at 3.

[Guest Star]

Compromise is not always the answer. If we don't want to kill any Jews and the Nazis want to kill all the Jews' date=' should we compromise and kill half the Jews?

[/quote']

 

No.

 

Lyla is definitely limit-worthy.

 

No.

 

Regardless of which one is better' date='

[/quote']

 

Good, you've finally stopped pursuing that ridiculous argument.

 

neither of them are banworthy' date=' but neither of them should be at three.

[/quote']

 

I am compelled by this well-supported logical proof that both are good for the game at 1 but bad for the game at 3.

 

In a format using this list, non-chainable Trap Cards would see absolutely no play with MST, Lyla, and Breaker at three. Not to mention, Spellcaster Decks would be basically unbeatable with 3 Breaker, 3 Lyla, and three MST. A list such as this would promote a slower format, but regardless of the format's speed, when more than 1/5 of a player's Deck consists of Spell and Trap Card removal, non-chainable Trap Cards will see absolutely no play, as I mentioned earlier. Lyla is not better than Breaker, fine, but they're certainly close. They both have their own bonuses and drawbacks that are barely even drawbacks. Especially with cards like Metamorphosis at three, you could use Lyla's effect before Tributing her with Metamorphosis to bring out some Level 4 Fusion Monster that you could at least try to do something with.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

In a format using this list' date=' non-chainable Trap Cards would see absolutely no play with MST, Lyla, and Breaker at three. Not to mention, Spellcaster Decks would be basically unbeatable with 3 Breaker, 3 Lyla, and three MST.[/quote']

 

Why would Breaker be at 3? There's plenty of reason's to keep him at 0, and no reasons to keep him at 1, 2 or 3.

 

A list such as this would promote a slower format, but regardless of the format's speed, when more than 1/5 of a player's Deck consists of Spell and Trap Card removal, non-chainable Trap Cards will see absolutely no play, as I mentioned earlier.

 

This is assuming there is a valid reason to run 3x Breaker, 3x Lyla, and 3x MST.

 

Lyla is not better than Breaker, fine, but they're certainly close. They both have their own bonuses and drawbacks that are barely even drawbacks. Especially with cards like Metamorphosis at three, you could use Lyla's effect before Tributing her with Metamorphosis to bring out some Level 4 Fusion Monster that you could at least try to do something with.

 

List of Level 4 Fusions, according to YVD:

Chaos Wizard (Dark Spellcaster 1300/1100)

Dark Fire Dragon (Dark Dragon 1500/1250)

Karbonala Warrior (Earth Warrior 1500/1200)

Mavelus (Wind Winged Beast 1300/900)

Neo Spacian Marine Dolphin (Can't be summoned bu Metamorphosis)

Neo Spacian Twinkle Moss (Can't be summoned by Metamorphosis)

Rare Fish (Water Fish 1500/1200)

 

A two card combo that destroys an s/t and gets out a 1500 attack max monster with no effect? Might as well ban MST and Koumori Dragon too.

 

Normal summoning Breaker and then NOT using Metamorphosis yields better results then using Lyla and using Metamorphosis. <_<

[CrabHelmet]

After a lengthy discussion with Star on AIM, he's now claiming that Lyla + Secret Village is broken because you could use Krebons to Synchro Summon Tempest Magician.

 

This nonsense is too much for me.

[ZombieCombo]

Solus Shade Wrote:

Why isn't Magician of Faith banned?

 

It's a FLIP that has incredibly low ATK and gives you back a Spell Card. With Nobleman of Crossout semi-limited (which I should change), Magician of Faith stands no chance at being used competitively.

 

 

Question: do you know anyone that uses Nobleman of Crossout? In fact do you know anyone that doesnt spell cards? A level 2 flip monster that can be used with apprentice magician if you hae forgotten.

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

Question: do you know anyone that uses Nobleman of Crossout? In fact do you know anyone that doesnt spell cards? A level 2 flip monster that can be used with apprentice magician if you hae forgotten.

 

Stop using the current format as reasoning for your arguments. Also. Nobleman of Crossout is banworthy.

[ZombieCombo]

How, i say that nobleman is a slowdown, only good against spys and penguin soliders, sometimes morphing jar.

If magician of faith is at 1, should apprentice be moved around?

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

How' date=' i say that nobleman is a slowdown, only good against spys and penguin soliders, sometimes morphing jar.

If magician of faith is at 1, should apprentice be moved around?

[/quote']

 

That's precisely the problem with Nobleman of Crossout.

 

Magician of Faith deserves to be at 3. No broken spells around and no high ATK and RFP run-over Effect like DMoC. Why leave it banned?

 

Apprentice Magician deserves to be at 3. It is designed much the same as Pyramid Turtle or UFO Turtle. Interaction with other copies of itself. Yes. Bad-for-the-game interaction with other copies of itself. No. Apprentice Magician is designed in such a manner it can interact with other copies of itself.

 

Morphing Jar is banworthy. It can be up to a +5. That is ridiculous hand advantage gain that is in no way balanced for being a Flip Effect Monster.

[ZombieCombo]

good point, morphing jar effect + 1 heraklinos on the field gives the glad player complete control. but then again i never seen anyone run morphing with glads, but reload is cheap, especially since it gives other player a hand advantage and you lose your hand. (lets say you had a nice hand) it makes you mad.

 

Also if morphing is banned, card destruction ban too? It can be activated and has same effect, only you can draw more or less.

[CrabHelmet]

good point' date=' morphing jar effect + 1 heraklinos on the field gives the glad player complete control. but then again i never seen anyone run morphing with glads, but reload is cheap, especially since it gives other player a hand advantage and you lose your hand. (lets say you had a nice hand) it makes you mad.

 

Also if morphing is banned, card destruction ban too? It can be activated and has same effect, only you can draw more or less.

[/quote']

 

To Whom It May Concern,

 

Cease and desist.

 

Sincerely,

 

Crab Helmet

[Guest Star]

I've updated the list.

 

I'm not sure if Tribe-Infecting Virus should be unbanned.