Forum:Ban Certain Card Combos Instead of All Cards?

How About

• Banning certain cards from being in the same deck, rather than making bunches of cards completely useless. Like DaD and Painful Choice can't be in the same deck. Same with no combination of any of the 3 original Chaos monsters and Yata Garasu. Every card is playable, but there will be no broken decks (hopefully).

• However that would make the game needlessly complicated. By having certain combo's banned means others might be overlooked and abused such as Lightsworns + Painful Choice. In general it is better to ban/limit card that are indeed EXTREMELY overpowered as many of the first cards were. Painful Choice, Graceful Charity, Pot of Greed, Dark Hole, Confiscation, Change of heart, ect.--Takuma. 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

---

• I have thought about that a while back, but I thought the same as Takuma. But, it would stop Konami from making remakes (Raigeki to Lightning Vortex), and giving deck types needed support (Graceful Charity to Dark World). I can see why people like the idea, but it seems a little far fetched at the same time.
• Like, you could put Yata-Garasu in a Spirit deck, but not with Chaos Emperor Dragon - Envoy of the End. It would be extremely hard to do, but would obliterate (YGO reference yay!) the ban list, therefore bringing dead decks back to life (Warrior need ROTA).
• Still, there would need to be tons of oversight to the list and there still will be some cards that need to be taken from gameplay (Once again, Raigeki). It will take the the things I listed to make me have a Change of Heart (Second YGO reference yay!) on this issue. --bewk (talk | contribs) 20:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

---

can you imagine how long and complicated a list that would be? example:

Instead of remembering: Painful Choice you have to remember: Painful Choice + Dark Armed Dragon, Painful Choice + Lightsworns, Painful Choice + Five-Headed Dragon + Dragon's Mirror, and whatever other combos there happen to be for said card.

not only does this drastically multiply the length of the list, but it also discourages duelists from inventing coronations in the first place, knowing that any good ones will only end up banned. I support the banning and limiting of individual cards. I mean, honestly, what good is one copy of Dark Armed Dragon in a deck? it certainly takes the edge off of tele-DaD decks.

~Specter (cow_pi) 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

other solution?

I thought of another solution. Every player may include one, and only one! card from the forbidden list. Since I heard that some decks would greatly inprove and others would not improve significally, maybe some penalty? Not usable in your first and second turn? Or if you use it in first turn it will cost you half your life, and a quarter in your second? Or is this silly? Good cards always have a big price, and the God cards couldn't attack in the first summoned turn too, if I remember correctly. Doesn't sound too bad as an alt for not having the option of including your superrares at all? Trying a turn 1 kill will cost you a lot (and failure will make it easier for the opponent to retaliate, although he too might try his first turn kill then, and he too might fail...lot's of interesting decks might take this into account then...birth of new decks...), and the price might be so high that you might want to play it on the saver side? :) Takes the solitaire part a bit out of the game too...

Interesting idea but it is a bit silly lol. (Love paying half my life points, inside joke with my friends) I strongly support the banning list, to stop using old decks and start making new decks and strategy. Not sure what will happen in 10 years or so. They might remove some cards out, or else they'll be hundreds of forbidden cards lol.--Xsamuraizx 03:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Even if you include only one that extra copy of said card could change games dramatically. Many people would use Pot of greed and other splashable or semi splashable cards such as Painful choice. Regardless of what the "Cost" would be people would more than likely be fine with paying that cost. Paying half of your life points to use Painful choice to send say...3 Wulf and 2 Necro gardna to grave would be a small price to pay for a significant advantage in the beginning of the game. All in all it still is too complicated to allow even ONE copy of any forbidden card or an extra copy of one that is limited because those cards are forbidden/limited for a reason. If you drew pot of greed not only do you gain +1 hand advantage instantly you also thin your deck by two and replace pot of greed...there are plenty of other examples of cards that are rightfully banned but I wont mention all of them. In my opinion the ban list should stay as is, I can only imagine the abuse of cards such as Yata Garasu and Snatch Steal.--Takuma. 04:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)