-Lightray Daedalus- Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 It shouldn't be at more than 1. It's pretty good' date=' but it wouldn't do a thing to Tele-DAD.[/quote'] Yeah it would....a lot of stuffs......basicly do it better... MMMMM I just got 1 word to this card.....(It is in the sig above this post....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skarlet Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 It seems to get less and less broken' date='[/quote'] The operative word here is "seems", and the operative phrase is "seems to you", and the operative implication is "seems to you because you're thick". it might be back in a few metas now that everything in Almost any decent deck is a different type. First of all' date=' when did Zombies and Plants drop off the face of the earth? Second of all, why on earth should we consolidate the power of non-themed decks by giving everyone a Raigeki-with-legs with which to walk all over anyone who uses any semblance of a Type-theme while still having amazing utility against pretty much any deck that runs monsters?[/quote'] I stand defeated by Crab's superior logic, however, I stand by my statment, with a slight reohrase, as altered in the above quote, given the way the game is played these days...aside from plants and zombies no type-based decks seem to get anywhere these days, which meens, while damaging those decks, all in all it doesnt seem so broken if the meta remains in a similar state in the next list or 2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LewieGee Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 It's powerful, but the current game could handle it being limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevalier Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 It's powerful' date=' but the current game could handle it being limited.[/quote'] How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seta Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Banworthy stuff, you know? =3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 It seems to get less and less broken' date='[/quote'] The operative word here is "seems", and the operative phrase is "seems to you", and the operative implication is "seems to you because you're thick". it might be back in a few metas now that everything in Almost any decent deck is a different type. First of all' date=' when did Zombies and Plants drop off the face of the earth? Second of all, why on earth should we consolidate the power of non-themed decks by giving everyone a Raigeki-with-legs with which to walk all over anyone who uses any semblance of a Type-theme while still having amazing utility against pretty much any deck that runs monsters?[/quote'] I stand defeated by Crab's superior logic, however, I stand by my statment, with a slight reohrase, as altered in the above quote, given the way the game is played these days...aside from plants and zombies no type-based decks seem to get anywhere these days, which meens, while damaging those decks, all in all it doesnt seem so broken if the meta remains in a similar state in the next list or 2... Little City runs lots of Warriors, Gadgets aren't exactly lacking in Machnes, and even Lightlords have a heavy emphasis on Spellcasters. Tele-DAD is just about the only deck against which this works at its minimum power. Also, this whole "it dunt seem so broked in dis meta" thing is stupid. Even Pot of Greed seems tame compared to the current cards that are legal, and it's Pot of Greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skarlet Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 Which crab, is why I used the key word Similar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 Which crab' date=' is why I used the key word [b']Similar[/b] As usual, you haven't read my post at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skarlet Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 So, yourt post did not contain the following?Also' date=' this whole "it dunt seem so broked in dis meta" thing is stupid. Even Pot of Greed seems tame compared to the current cards that are legal, and it's Pot of Greed. [/quote'] That particular section, is what I was replying to, and crab, I DID infact read your post, I just decided that I would only react to that one particular paragraph, if you would like me to post a response to the post's entirety, I will when I get more time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 So' date=' yourt post did not contain the following?Also, this whole "it dunt seem so broked in dis meta" thing is stupid. Even Pot of Greed seems tame compared to the current cards that are legal, and it's Pot of Greed. That particular section, is what I was replying to, and crab, I DID infact read your post, I just decided that I would only react to that one particular paragraph, if you would like me to post a response to the post's entirety, I will when I get more time... Okay, you actually did read it; you just misinterpreted it so horribly that you may as well have not read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravitize Me Cap'n! Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Holy crap, it's a good thing the world keeps spinning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azmodius Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 i'm divided... at one side' date=' this card is a great type killer that can cripple several decks and for that reason deserves to stay banned... at the other side, this card is less broken than snipe hunter, and can be placed at 1 IF snipe is banned...[/quote'] This card and Snipe Hunter serve different purposes and have different problems. Oh, and BLS is less broken than CED, but I still wouldn't want to see BLS come back at 1. I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iAmNateXero Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 While were placing our Orders for wishful Bans, can you get me a Cyber Jar with a side of Imperial Order? Hold the Sinister Serpent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Holy crap' date=' it's a good thing the world keeps spinning.[/quote'] You win this topic. i'm divided... at one side' date=' this card is a great type killer that can cripple several decks and for that reason deserves to stay banned... at the other side, this card is less broken than snipe hunter, and can be placed at 1 IF snipe is banned...[/quote'] This card and Snipe Hunter serve different purposes and have different problems. Oh, and BLS is less broken than CED, but I still wouldn't want to see BLS come back at 1. I do. I don't. Being broken but less broken than another card does not mean the less broken card should be at 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Holy crap' date=' it's a good thing the world keeps spinning.[/quote'] Holy crap, I thought you were banned/one of our alts. 0_o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffee. Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Hey Pika, Wasnt this topic made at some point on Gamefaqs?And werent we discussing Tribe Infecting over Snipe Hunter? And how Snipe can target anything, But requires more chance, And Tribe Infecting would require more discard(same as Snipe though, if you were un-lucky) to destroy multiple targets, But you would still end up bieng vaulnerable to the opponet's spell and traps? Or something like that?(If I recall...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Holy Scott, Grav posted. Holy crap' date=' it's a good thing the world keeps spinning.[/quote'] Holy crap, I thought you were banned Nope, just inactive. /one of our alts. 0_o Nope, he's 2hVy4GrVty from GameFAQs. There aren't a whole lot active of GameFAQers here - it's basically you, and you know who you are, me, and you know who I am, and Chaos Pudding, who has some weeaboo name. And Armadilloz, apparently, but I don't recognize him. What this topic needs is for RedSceptile to come back and post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffee. Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Holy Scott' date=' Grav posted. Holy crap' date=' it's a good thing the world keeps spinning.[/quote'] Holy crap, I thought you were banned Nope, just inactive. /one of our alts. 0_o Nope' date=' he's 2hVy4GrVty from GameFAQs. There aren't a whole lot active of GameFAQers here - it's basically you, and you know who you are, me, and you know who I am, and Chaos Pudding, who has some weeaboo name. And Armadilloz, apparently, but I don't recognize him. What this topic needs is for RedSceptile to come back and post.[/quote'] Chaos Pudding was Hikaru ¬_¬ Crab, Who are you from Gamefaqs.... I cant quite figure out who you are. Whats funny, Is that we all eventually left Gamefaqs for YCM XDAhhh... Good times.... Good times........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Holy Scott' date=' Grav posted. Holy crap' date=' it's a good thing the world keeps spinning.[/quote'] Holy crap, I thought you were banned Nope, just inactive. /one of our alts. 0_o Nope' date=' he's 2hVy4GrVty from GameFAQs. There aren't a whole lot active of GameFAQers here - it's basically you, and you know who you are, me, and you know who I am, and Chaos Pudding, who has some weeaboo name. And Armadilloz, apparently, but I don't recognize him. What this topic needs is for RedSceptile to come back and post.[/quote'] Chaos Pudding was Hikaru ¬_¬ Yeah, that's the weeaboo name I was thinking of. Except I seem to remember it being twice as long. Crab' date=' Who are you from Gamefaqs.... I cant quite figure out who you are.[/quote'] B Luster Soldier. By the way, who are you on GameFAQs? Whats funny' date=' Is that we all eventually left Gamefaqs for YCM XD[/quote'] I still go to GameFAQs; I just don't post as much, mainly because approximately two half-decent people are left - and even that is only if you count Bma, who has descended permanently into some ridiculous shadowy underworld of his own delusions in which Tele-DAD is the best thing that ever happened to the game and CCV is underpowered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelda_tp_fan Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Nope' date=' he's 2hVy4GrVty from GameFAQs. There aren't a whole lot active of GameFAQers here - it's basically you, and you know who you are, me, and you know who I am, and Chaos Pudding, who has some weeaboo name. And Armadilloz, apparently, but I don't recognize him.[/quote'] What about me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffee. Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Wait, Crab is B Luster? ZOMG! :O And you should know who I am by now.... Since I usually use the same name no-matter whare I go :3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravitize Me Cap'n! Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Wait, Crab is B Luster?lolwhatsincewhen And who are you?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crimson King Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Wait' date=' Crab is B Luster?[/quote']lolwhatsincewhen And who are you?!Who are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravitize Me Cap'n! Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 No destination is the destination of the indestinated, and he who wanders with purpose has no purpose to wander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crimson King Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 No destination is the destination of the indestinated' date=' and he who wanders with purpose has no purpose to wander.[/quote']And what does this have to do with the current topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.