J-Max Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 [align=center]All right. Before you guys go "Hey this card has been discussed before!" Hear me out :P I was just browsing through the Wikia today when I noticed this card. I used to run a All out Spell Counter Deck focussed around Spellcasters and lost horribly to this card. Also, yes it is totally Ban Worthy. My discussion is regarding, what if this Card targetted a ATTRIBUTE instead of a Type. How do you think it would Impact the Meta? My thoughts is that it will slow down Decks that like to Focus on 1 Attribute. [/align] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chaos Pudding Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Even more banworthy then it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crimson King Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Not really, considering that the top decks play cards of the same type, but mostly different attributes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chaos Pudding Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Not really' date=' considering that the top decks play cards of the same type, but mostly different attributes.[/quote'] I'll let you figure out what was wrong with your last statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 It's banworthy regardless of whether it decides based on Type, based on Attribute, or based on the first letter of the card's name. As for which version would be strongest: it depends on the meta. Some decks, such as Tele-DAD and Lightlords, overwhelmingly use one Attribute, whereas others, such as Plants and Six Samurai, overwhelmingly use one Type - and a few, such as Dark Worlds and Zombies, use both. We can't decide based on the current meta, as he is currently banned, nor can we decide based on a good meta, since he'd be banned there too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnSlaUghT Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 another reason he is banned is his ability to use his effect multiple times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevalier Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Not really' date=' considering that the top decks play cards of the same type, but mostly different attributes.[/quote'] Lol YCM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmegaWave Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 It would be even more Banworthy. Attribute targeting is much more wide spread. Think about it. There are only 6 attributes (Fire, Water, Earth, Wind, Light, and Dark) but there are Over 15 different Types (Probably more...to many to think of atm). You could have 4 monsters on the field of all diff types but each having the same attribute. Would Tribe Infecting Virus killing all 4 of those monsters at once, or killing only 1 at a time due to Type differences, be worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitchblack64 Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 it is an extremly overpowered card even with that different effect if konami unbanned that card he would be the stupidist person in the world PREIOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmegaWave Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 it is an extremly overpowered card even with that different effect if konami unbanned that card he would be the stupidist person in the world PREIOD. I don't think the guy's name is ACTUALLY Konami...It's just a company name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitchblack64 Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 ok whatever " " the company konami Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 It would be even more Banworthy. Attribute targeting is much more wide spread. Think about it. There are only 6 attributes (Fire' date=' Water, Earth, Wind, Light, and Dark) but there are Over 15 different Types (Probably more...to many to think of atm). You could have 4 monsters on the field of all diff types but each having the same attribute. Would Tribe Infecting Virus killing all 4 of those monsters at once, or killing only 1 at a time due to Type differences, be worse?[/quote'] Your logic rests upon the assumption that the Types and Attributes of monsters used within the same deck are not selected randomly from the pool of existing Types and Attributes but rather depend upon the theme and its support. For example, Lightlords run one primary Attribute but about five different Types, but it does this because its Archetype consists of a single Attribute and because it receives additional support from cards such as Honest, not because the lower number of existing Attributes caused this to happen by chance. By the same token, Six Samurai decks run one primary Type but include every single Attribute except WIND; this is because even though randomly selected cards from the entire card pool would be unlikely to center around one Type, the Six Samurai monsters were specially designed and then hand-picked by the players to be Warriors and to qualify for Warrior support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.