MarcoPulleaux said:

Lets not forget I fought you about the bans?

History lesson, the only thing i've "argued" with you in the past about is Seong-Mina, you must have me mixed up with someone else, you are more then welcome to go post digging to find something, but all you will find is me saying "I think Rejection and Olcs SHOULD be banned, and I think chinese boxing and bitter rivals being banned would make the game better"

Sure sounds like I had a pretty good idea of what I was saying, and that I was pro-bannings, not against them, so uh..?

Please at least try to remember which fights you pick and with who before you say incorrect things about people who disagree with you.

frehocc said:

When a card is blatantly overpowered there will always be a chance it will get the hammer/get an errata. ALL card games are like this. No matter where you go there will be bans/erratas so go cry elsewhere because these bans just made UFS 100000x better.

frehocc said:

Frankie... as i told dakkon last night, i understand that you guys are getting frustrated by the meta shifts and the constant banning of power cards in this game but understand this example:

Look at our card pool compared to the banned cards, and see how many of the so called money cards are still standing w/o errata or restriction.

then look at the number of cards in the overall card pool for Y-G-O and tell me how many of their cards are banned-restricted-semi restricted and are money cards

there is no comparason as you can see, now i understand also we came from a game that had a grand total of ONE card EVER banned and that was for good reasoning, but still we still need a constant shifting meta for major tourny play to keep the game from being TOO imballanced.

also i understand that you guys have no access to the legacy format having started in set 9, if you want anything trust me we the people can help your meta out by trading or even just giving you guys some good legacy support, i personally have 4x of EVERY C/UC from legacy extra.

N.J.

failed2k said:

Sorry if I've pigeonholed you incorrect; I pretty much just place anybody I argue with in the same category, since it's rare I debate with somebody on an intelligent level, it's generally just:

Me: I think this should be banned
Them: LIEK STFU DOOD UR MAKING NEW PLAYERS LEAVE R FORUMZ AND THER R COUNTERZ! STOP COMPLAINING & PLAY THE GAME U NUUB!
Me: But a broken card is always broken; nothing changes that.
Them: TROLL! LOOK THERE'S A TROLL! YOU KNOW WHAT TROLL? I'M JUST NOT GONNA FEED YA. BYEZ BYEZ!

Although you haven't been so immature, I'm sure you can understand when I don't take the time to name people. When there's a good, civil debate, as I usually get with such people as Protoaddict and ScubaDude, that's fine, and I'll clearly remember their names. I haven't spoken to you much, so yeah, I apologize if I'm giving you the short end of the stick, but don't worry, in time you'll either become a memorable and honorable debator, or somebody else I pretty much have no consideration for.

WE SHALL SEE! MUAHAHAAAAA

Hey Shinji i got a question for u.

Do you think EVERY powerful card should be banned? cuz, dont take this the wrong way, but thats how u sound. If there werent SOME power cards the game would be sooooo **** boring it wouldnt be worth playing.

Link said:

I'm pretty sure he does, or at least he comments on every single card that is overly useful in any sense of the word...

The funny thing is that when he isn't complaining about the OP cards he is bashing the cards that are situational or don't have the absolute strongest secondary abilities that can be used all the time (see Destiny and his more recent hate for Willful, a 5 symbol spread that he has also bashed).

In other words, there is this narrow gap of cards that are between a) cards that are 'not always' useful, that, according to him, do nothing more than provide an answer to the powerful cards in the game - which, despite these cards requiring bans, are not worth the resources to counter, and b) cards that are OP, and in most cases because they are 'always' useful. This narrow gap of cards, between sometimes and always useful, are the only cards that Shinji is happy about... talk about a designers nightmare, no pleasing this guy!!!

To me - Shinji is, more and more often, coming across as someone who complains and makes 'paint everything with the same brush statements' more for the sheer sake of getting a reaction out of people as opposed to adding something constructive to the discussion. Sadly, I see him as quickly alienating himself from these people, ones that actually put the effort into determining what is balanced, strong, or weak (including the situational effects of these cards)... People that, if he knew how to relate to, he could cooperate with to further benefit the game in a constructive way.

To make matters worse, he broadly and audibly segregates people into two different categories: a) those that disagree with him, and b) those that give him some credit if only to shut him up, because there certaintly isn't a category 'c)' as far as I am concerned, i.e. even when Shinji is spouting valid points that can be agreed with they are so obvious that they don't need to be sung out loud for everyone to hear. The former, a), he blasts for being unintelligent, granted they don't see things his way, so they must not be able to debate. The latter briefly inflate his ego, providing the community with temporary relief from the resident anti-social. But as we see once bans do occur, Shinji is quick to single himself out as one of the sole proponents of change making those in both categories roll their eyes with the proverbial 'not again...'

Sadly, my biggest problem with Shinji is that he is seems to 'try too hard'. Every sentence is a reflection of his constant struggle to remain 'outspoken' or to grab 'attention', completely destroying any credibility he may have earned if he said what he said (which sometimes has validity) without the edge an outsider carries to a town hall meeting.

On topic though... I just needed to say what I needed to say, and Shinji's tactless bold letter replies were getting to me... Spinta is a powerful card, but I have to agree with Failed2k, it is balanced.

The reason why it is balanced is this. It is a 2 check in a deck that does not directly contribute to winning a game, i.e. it does not deal enough damage (win condition) to warrant the risk it carries. In order to be truly useful a deck needs to dedicate a lot of resources towards enabling it, and even then usually needs to find a secondary way to pump enough damage through to win. Similarily, equal effort in the opposite direction can all but stop it's usefulness, and if negated, the cost can be seen as a serious detriment to having it in a deck. It also hands the opponent a weapon, namely momentum, and maybe in this respect is the only reason why I would ever consider it overpowered. It forces the opponent to find a use for momentum or lose out on the 'spinta exchange' as I call it. Gaining two momentum can sometimes be a very good thing, and not always easy to do... People don't realize that there is a 2 for 1, 1 for 2 benefit going on here...

Eating up a staging area is a very strong mechanism, I agree, but is only really a threat to poor deck building. If your deck relies on building or outbuilding your opponent than I trust you will still be able to outbuild 2 spintas a turn, this goes without saying. From what I can see, the players that suffered the most against spinta are dual symbol decks, those with too many assets, and those that were being forethoughted afterwards... The last issue has been all but dealt with, and the former has a bit too (at least in the early stages in the game less LotM).

It is an ultra-rare for a reason. But it is a balanced ultra-rare at that.

- dut

Antigoth said:

I've put some thought into this too. And moreso when someone ardently pointed out that 'mill' got better (post bannings...).

Part of me wants to agree with that sentiment, i.e. Spike being limited, along with one other massive damage card may mean mill is able to survive better.

But... on the other side of the coin, mill now has to contend with more attacks. Some mill ran answers to their opponent's decks running 4 attacks, that is all some competitive decks ran. If the pre-ban mill could off these 4 attacks with RFG or selective rejection/clearing/discard etc, then the mill was safe. NOW, I would hope to see decks (on average) run more attacks. What this means for mill might be that it has a harder time to defend, becuase it's answers are only 'one/two attack per turn' answers, wheras they now need to contemplate the opponent's ability to drop three/four.

Further to this agrument, two of the most defensive cards in the game are now gone (ok, so are some of the most offensive, see owl). I'm talking about BR and Rejection. BR was used just as often to same zone blocks, discard attacks, as it was to push damage through. Rejection, well it was just defensive, unless you were looping it with a readying manifest or something lol. You add to the defensive use of Chinese Boxing, now only offensive, and defense has lost a lot...

There is also an answer to characters in set 12, the Pommel, and Heel Snipe, close to set 12 release, that give dealing wtih characters a +1. Dare I also say Rashotep might be used as a side in some death decks to combat an untouchible???

Time will tell, but I think Antigoth is right, players need to understand that defense is very valid, now as much as ever. Omar himself is the king of this format, not to discredit goo or goth, or anyone else that is creative enough to creat their own win conditions ^^, but having witnessed his playstyle, and the meticulous play he can provide it, I know I will be packing answers for damage redux/life gain.

- dut

Cry? Me? No. Cry means you feel sad, angry etc. I used to feel something for this game. now I feel nothing.

Ban anything you want. I don't care. I will now be playing with Astaroth's Body Splash and Overhand Axe Slash. If they ban that, I'll just use weak slash (And that, with Brooding etc, makes painful attacks, unless they ban that too)

MarcoPulleaux said:

Nice diabolical laugh. I've been around since you were Shinji saying the same stuff and irritating the same people. I choose very deliberately to be just another unmemorable face on the boards whose points are only taken at the value of what I am saying. I have no desire to become memorable as someone who fights on the forums. I just like to voice my opinion.

Link said:

Before I comment, let me just address dutpotd:

your assertion of me just goes to show you've got the same braindead assertions about me as everyone else. I'd like to take the time to dissect everything you've said, but really, all your post said was, "Instead of taking Shinji seriously, and deeply analyzing his posts, I've decided to go the route of everyone else, label him controversial troll, and leave it at that." Sorry dude, but if you aren't going to take me seriously, then the same feelings will be reciprocated.

Now then

Not at all, Link. The word "powerful" is too broad, and as such, it'd be unfair to ban every powerful card, because that could just about mean anything. Here's basically the way I view it:

I'm not an employed card designer, but I do design cards in my spare time, ones that I'm sure would look great on a resume should the opportunity to apply ever come about again. As such, I give my creations the same level of judgment I give FFG's creations: realistic overviews as to how the card will fair. Is it too weak to matter? Too undercosted? Good in theory, but bad in practice? There's a whole list of questions I ask about each and every card so that every fan card I make, if they were ever made real, will be a usable card to a reasonable extent, and so that each card is memorable in some way.

Now, I also am very analytical. When I build decks, I cover the no-brainer cards that are necessities, then worry about combinations, strategies, protection against the deck's (potential) weakness, etc. When it comes to debating on the forums, I find what my opponent's saying, and either agree, or find good enough reasons to debate their point (although since the majority of people treat me like a Neanderthal, I pretty much just act the same in response to their immaturity).

So why bring up this character origin flashback?

Because I wouldn't just blindly ***** about a card because it sees play and is in almost every top 8 deck of every major event. When it comes to card balance, I'm a harsh ass critic, and I make sure a card suffers enough JUST so much that it's an amazing card worth running, but without being, "Dude wtf broken!" like most cards that recently got banned.

One of my favorite examples is Rejection. This card should've been closer to its original inception, and really, should've been errata'd since day 1 to reflect a decent enough balance to allow to see play, but not nearly to the extent it did. Just to do a quick analysis, because I KNOW SOMEBODY is going to get on my case about it...

Rejection:

1. It is a 3/5 +1-LOW block with Breaker: 2, which are far too great a pair of numbers for what it does. Couple of things to explain here. Firstly, NO card's Breaker rating should be greater than its block modifier, UNLESS it is of statistic inferiority to allow this justification (for example, Hanzo has an attack, something akin to Ninja Strategem, which has a +1-LOW with a Breaker: 3! but it isn't the best attack around...). Rejection, as such, should've switched its block modifier with its breaker keyword. Secondly, for what it does, 3 is too low, and more importantly, rolling a 5 is too high.
2. You gain 3 life. This in itself means nothing, but when you combine it with its loopability, and my upcoming point, you'll see why it matters.
3. It drops ANY attack, regardless of keyword, control, resource symbol, or any other limiting/situational factor, to 1 damage. Prince of Darkness must remove itself from the game to drop an attack to 0 (and has no block, breaker, or 5-check). Criminal Past requires you lose vitality. Rejection does neither. You drop ANY attack to 1 damage, and since it's an enhance, you can save it until the very end of their series of pumps only to make their dedication of damage pumps look stupid (and of course, Rejection is one of the chief reasons aggro has never existed in 2009, or much of 2008 for that matter). If it had been a response like Siberian Training (because that card sure saw a lot of play ), it might not have been so bad. But it wasn't.

Point being? Rejection was a starter card, and as we all know, the starter cards were PURPOSEFULLY made better to give new players a competitive deck right out of the box. While I agree on this principle, the problem is they made TOO many overpowered cards (Akuma, Tiger Fury, Blinding Rage, Rejection).

So, to try to summarize...

No, I don't think that any "powerful" card should be banned due to its popularity or success in tournaments. If a card is broken, it's broken. That simple.

In my opinion, broken starts with effects. If the effect is you win the game (as was the case with Soul Hive), then you KNOW you're gonna have to bastardize the card almost to disuse (as was the case with Soul Hive). Broken ass effects are fine...when they have ungodly costs to accomodate them (Disciple of War and Orbital Blaze aren't exactly the best examples, but I think you can get the point). When it comes to free abilities (as a LOT of cards are these days), you, as a creator, need to be wary of just what is going on before you just go and let an ability not have a cost. The more cards have costs, the more decisions must be made, which is why MOST cards SHOULD have some sort of cost, especially one to balance their hopefully useful ability.

Rejection had no cost. Juni's Spiral Arrow's cost meant nothing. Ira-Spinta's cost STILL means nothing.

TLDR version:

BROKEN CARD IS BROKEN! I AM THE BEST UFS PLAYER IN TEH WORLD! I AM THE KING OF MALIBUUUUUU!

MarcoPulleaux said:

First of all, Rejection had a cost. At least, a very small one. It needed to be kept in hand as an action, holding up a valuable draw card slot. Yes, it saved you from early and big attacks, but yes it also reduced the practical handsize of a character for the turns it was held on to, reducing the ability to build or muster an early offense for the character holding it. The Gorgeous Team and other cards that abused or looped the broken card (yes I agree it is broken and needed to be banned, especially post BR) is what truly made it degenerate.

Juni's Spiral Arrow's discard cost pretty much meant nothing. Agreed. Again, the reason this became a problem was the ability to loop it...

Spinta has 4 costs, all of which mean something.

Cost # 1 - 5 difficulty - this means someone wanting to play it second turn risks hitting a 1/2/3 and being seriously set back or flat out failing the turn. This means something.

Cost # 2 - 2 control check - this means something, I can gaurantee you that 'more often than not' the games where these are checked insetad of drawn are the games order/air players end up losing.

Cost # 3 - Lose one item from the staging area - this means something. At the very least it means you need to dedicate resources to getting back things from your momentum, lest you suffer losing a key part of your staging area and not get it back.

Cost # 4 - Giving your opponent 2 momentum - this means a lot. I can't count on my hand the number of times my opponent has given me two momentum like this, only to suffer a powerful 3 attack back at his face the next turn, usually for game.

If all 4 of those costs mean nothing to you, then we are playing two different games.

In summary, the reason Spinta gets a lot of attention isn't when it is played once. Again we are seeing it breaking the game when looped, and being a throw is mostly what makes this possible.

In my mind, the bannings could have gone either way. Instead of banning strong cards, banning their enablers (Hanzo, the Gorgeous Team, the throw on spinta/mentally unstable/ things that grab from momentum w/o cost <see lotm, but there is more>, tenacious, etc.) could have served almost the same purpose.

In fact, when Rank was banned I was very surprised not to see easy recursion all but vanquished from the game. Yet some very serious offenders remained - with tenacious, Sakura, Mina, lotm, tGT, kabuki artist etc. and even more of it printed (albeit with better costs) - Billiard Player, from the Mouse Humility, etc.

i.e. it is obvious the route taken lately has been a combination of tackling both recursion and the cards that are being recurred themselves.

Bottom line, Spinta has a cost. It has benefits that far outweight it's costs, but it's cost do and will always matter...

- dut

dutpotd said:

We are playing two different games, because none of the "costs" you listed are valid in my book.

MarcoPulleaux said:

What are valid costs to you? Difficulty and control check aren't... Neither is giving your opponent momentum... Losing any piece from the staging area - no, not a cost?

So what is a valid cost? Lose the game?

Of course they are all valid costs. Just becuase they can be mitigated doesn't mean they aren't costs. Name any of your so called valid costs and I can tell you a way to minimize the effect on the player paying it...

- dut

dutpotd said:

#1 - Means nothing. 5 difficulty = any commonly-played foundation. Seeing as how most decks run 28-36 foundations, statistically, you will pass this. Even if you fail, statistically, you will have the necessary foundations to commit it. Also, Feline Spike will only see play in Felicia; 1-checks are no longer a topic of discussion =).

#2 - Additionally means next to nothing. In my Seong Mi-Na deck, I ran 2x Feline, 3x Shadow Blade, and a whole plethora of 3 checks (Defender, Mega Spike, Plasma Beam) as well as 3 difficulties or higher (China, Program, Gorgeous, Natural Leader, Chester's), and managed to pass everything without a hitch. Sure, a 2 check is worse than a 3, but that's really never been here nor there. The amount of times you'll check Spinta are far fewer than the times you won't check Spinta.

#3 - The way I see it, From the Mouse completely makes this irrelevant. Simply enhance with FtM, enhance with Spinta, and there you go. Either they add your Mouse, and you get it back when it resolves, or you get back whatever they added from your FtM. Also, while you may have "lost" a card from the staging area, it went to your momentum, which could have greater purposes (multiple, powerful, etc) than tutoring it.

#4 - Powerful: 3? Since when did we last see Powerful since Set 12's release? I can't recall a time. Sure, we HAVE Ryu's Shin Shoryuken (which I'm assuming was your reference), but it hasn't seen play this entire season due to Set 12's, well...problems. Either way, a Spinta player ought to be smart enough to know that they are playing Spinta to remove problematic cards, not just to get rid of your staging area. That, and it ought to only take one match to discover, "Oh great, giving my opponent momentum and not killing them is bad."

I argue on the basis that the Spinta player is the smartest Spinta player around with the most suited deck for the card. No smart Spinta player would blindly throw around the attack JUST to get rid of your staging area UNLESS they knew it was part of a staging area clearance plan.

With the amount of times you will have failed a Spinta, you will have passed it 4 more times.

With the amount of times you check Spinta, you will have checked a foundation 6 or more times.

With the amount of times your opponent screws over your staging area by giving you momentum...aww who are we kidding? Only an idiot would play Spinta and then say, "Darn, you just screwed me over".

With the amount of times giving you momentum would screw me over...nah, I would've just played smarter, and would've either used Spinta as part of a lockdown strategy (just because Juni's is gone doesn't make it impossible), or to kill you for good.

You didn't answer my question. My question wasn't, why aren't these valid costs? Of course I know how to build a deck that minimizes their effect on me... Building one, i.e. having mouse out early enough to matter, or any of your other so called answers for a non-existent cost... (see the problem with your exaggerated and sweeping statements). Why did you need to list a number of ways to combat the 4 I listed if they weren't costs???

My question, it was, if these aren't valid costs, what is a valid cost? It would humor me for you to actually address my comment, if you truly are one of the few that know how to debate, you know that the arbiter would have cut you short as soon as you started to answer per your own agenda and not my question...

- dut

Further... Becuase your ways to address the obvious 'costs' of playing spinta are not all encompassing...

From the Mouse is great for air decks. But the biggest problem, or the character that naturally loops spinta uses order, and for that matter, staging area control goes hand in hand with that symbol moreso than it does with air. To this extent, spinta is not so much of a problem, granted the biggest culprit of being the 'alternate way to pay the cost of spinta' is gone - lotm...

If 2 checks mean nothing to you, please play a deck with 15 attacks, all 2 checks, instead of 3 checks. In fact, play it against me in my first round of a big tourney, I will gladly take an easy win off you... Note, Spinta often requires you run at least another playset of an attack, granted it doesn't do the big damage other 2 checks do. So how about at least 8 2 checks? Even that will burn you more often than not. How quickly will your first turn go from 3+ foundations to 2 or 1...

Powerful 3 exists in Set 12, in fact a certain character gives ANY attack powerful 3... I make a point of running at least 1 powrful card or multiple card in any and every deck I run, simply becuase having a use for momentum that does damage (wins the game) is always worth it. i.e. if it isn't powerful 3, it is at the very least powerful 2, which can still add up after 2 spinta...

What about multiple 2? That Melancholy is sure easy to play turn 2 after being spinta'd... So are a lot of things.

The point is, these are all 'valid' costs. You are admitting that simply by stating your necessary card additions or deckbuilding strategy that mitigate the cost of playing spinta...

- dut

Perhaps calling thoes things costs is a misnomer. Some of them arent costs so much as they are effectivley deck building restrictions. This dosent minimize what effect they can have on the game, dont get me wrong.

For instance, since ISPIN is 5 diff 2 control, when building the deck you are faced with some restrictions on what you should include. 5 difficulty means that effectivley for every card you put in your deck that isnt 5+ check (including the spin itself) you statistically run the risk of having to commit cards or even fail the check. Meaning that you are limiting your self to founcations with 5+ and precluding some of the more powerful ones available.

With a 2 control check, you have to play safer in your opening turn. A deck that only runs 3+ can usually spam 4 foundations first turn without running the risk of failing (3,2,1,0) while a deck that runs 2s has to either lower the curve and thusly get on average less foundations each game but also cannot play 3 difficutly foundations turn one unless they want to risk losing thier first check.

Also, for all the complaints about spin being a throw, Shinji you over most people, rallied to get Bitter Rivals banned. Bitter rivals was a great tool against ISpin. Regardless of if you think its broken or not, which i assure you all of New York City does not, you still exhaserbated your own situation. So you banned some cards and now some other cards are more powerful as a result. Ban thoes cards and guess what happens. Ispin keeps Good and earth from playing grey wall and tanking every game into a mill war. Get rid of ispin and suddenly now we have to look at Red Lotus. Get rid of lous and now foundation destruction goes nuts. It's a never ending cycle.

Pre-new ban list, Spinta was broken beyond hell.

It has now come down to the level of overpowered, one step below Broken. Why?

Chun-li is gone. That's why.

If there's one thing the previous 2 ban lists accomplished, it is that they banned most of the enablers. Chun-li just broke the card to hell, because she could start messing with what you did on your turn with the card for much too free of a cost. Sure, Akuma+ A New Low can do that now, but that requires having another card out, Responding and making a 4 check to pass the Response cost, responding again with a foundation, and then having to make a check of 6 for Spinta (A New Low requires you to make the check at +1 difficulty). As supposed to Chun-li, who was all "What, two forms? BLAM! Free response, eat that."

And one comment about damage redux and Omar's deck. I played against the deck last night, and lost 2-1. I only won game one because he got 0 Seals, 0 BRTs, 0 Red Cyclones, and only 1 Abelia's out to which I had an Oral Dead (to hell with the fools that thing Oral Dead is not as useful anymore. That card won me game 1 vs. him since he couldn't do any recursion against me.) In game 2, he had 2 BRTs, a Red Cyclone, and 2 Make a Difference out by turn 2. I proceeded to scoop at that point. While my deck isn't the greatest example of how awesome damage redux works (I don't attack much), the point remains.

dutpotd

What is a valid cost...for Ira-Spinta? It should say "if this unblocked attack deals damage". Either that, or the cost shouldn't remove less; it should remove equal to or greater than the amount you get to remove.

I realize Fire isn't top tier, but From the Mouse and Ira-Spinta also share Fire dood. I realize we're so used to seeing Spinta + Lord of the Makai or Spinta + Tenacious (which, btw, is still a legit combo), but Air and Fire can and do abuse the card (Air Olexa, Fire Akuma), and both can abuse From the Mouse (which, of course, has multiple uses beyond just erradicating Spinta's cost).

It's not that 2 checks mean NOTHING to me. It's that, much like how Feline Spike's 1 check didn't ever matter, Spinta's 2 even less so. Your example is to make me run a deck with like, 8-15 2 checks, which is cute, but no competitive deck running Ira-Spinta is also running 8-10 more 2 checks; Spinta is likely their only 2 check (although if you wanna talk to a guy about running crappy checks, talk to Protoaddict and Grizzle_grom lol).

Again, if you and me are playing, and I'm running Spinta, I won't just blindly throw them your way, unless I know either A: I have you on the lockdown (series of Programs and Chinese/Experienced, etc), or B: I'm going to win and am removing threats to my victory. Furthermore, even if I did just idiot-out and blindly throw them only to be destroyed by your Powerful/Multiple/momentum-dependent cards, I'd learn not to do that for game 2.

Protoaddict I'm afraid your domino theory is but a theory, and has never been true. This game isn't quite the wall that people think it is. Just because Omar Chavez makes his All Zangief deck famous (which has lost some tools I think) doesn't mean this game is a stallfest: it means his deck is uniquely a stall-mill deck, and it does its job well. Quite frankly, we haven't quite seen stall decks since Methodical ***Rock***. Damage reduction is a poorly-implemented mechanic at this current juncture, and foundation destruction isn't nearly the prevalent force you make it out to be (I have yet to hear people complaining about Hungry for Souls ::Ibuki:: or Intimidating Presence).

I really wish Red Lotus and Ira-Spinta would have different costs/more situational effects, but whatever. The bannings helped this game tremendously, although to be fair to both myself and to you guys, we haven't truly seen these bans do anything yet since they're so brand new. Let's have some tournies, play the game, and see how they've affected us =).

That's fair Shinji, and time will surely tell that Spinta is used in a lot of decks. It is still a great card.

As stated there is a cost to playing spinta, whether it be building a deck around it that compliments the 2, or by needing to hold onto it until it is the right time to use it, there is definately a cost to playing spinta.

A card without a cost is anything with E: or R: , or for that matter F: , at least that is how I define a meaningless cost. I guess I'm trying to get you to admit that your opinion was expressed via overstatement. The truth is, the cost is worth bearing, because the benefit is so high.

I've only played one tourney post bannings and it isn't too far from expectations. Spinta is more or less one of the few things that every competitive deck still needs to run answers too (before there was defender loops, rejection, easy one hit kill, lockdown, olcadons, etc.)

I think the symbols, as a whole have balanced out a bit, there are still front runners, still some forefront characters, and there are still some very strong cards. But the game itself is further from degenerating quickly into grey wars, except for certain matchups, and of course, against mill / very strong defensive decks.

- dut

You pretty much hit the high points. Because Spinta is, and always will be an amazing card (unless it becomes Jedah-only XD), answers must still be ran. Of course, due to what all has happened, I feel Good is at the top of its game, having both answers to iSpin/ iPresence (Red Lotus) and ProMal/China/ExpComb (Torn Hero), as well as offensive output (MotBeast, Dragon's Flame, RSS, etc), and the ability to survive OHKOs (HGround, Healer).

Thanks for fixing the game.

Can anyone give me a link to to Omar's deck list please. I like the idea of mill and I would like to gain some pointers.

darklogos said:

Omar didn't post a link because he's wanting to run the deck again at Nats, and possibly worlds.

wow, that is some intersting news. anyways I wonder what will happen....