shh... leave horus alone, i enjoy playing my horus deck...

Thank you,
Azurai Aeon

OK lily dude, everything you've said has given me full and proper thoght that Scientist and Fiber Jar should be brought back to the game. After all, it doesnt take much to destroy either of them! Think about it, how useful if fiber jar in todays game of Ha Des, two blade knights in every chaos deck and two crossouts in just about ALL offencive decks? Even when you could use scientist to get balter and negate fiber, Fiber wasn't that awsome a card. It often left the turn player with the advantage, true, but it was rarely enough to swing the game in the ownwer's direction.

And scientist actualy has a cost, and is a low level monster. He falls suseptable to all the removal luster does sans BTH, and sence he actualy has to be normal summoned, if he gets torrentialed you're out of luck. It seems to me that both of these aformentioned monsters (with the exeption of scientist's affinity for turtles) are places where we're the ones telling Konami about Priorities. Why ban two of our only hopes against luster, one of which isnt even a BIG hope, and seemingly make luster stronger? Unoriginality must sell a lot of packs.

This is an interesting debate, but if bls-eotb is banned then do you not think that everyone will started complaining about some other broken monster, i.e. sacred phoenix or 2 vampire lords or anything. all of which i dont have a problem with.
I've never run a bls-eotb, never felt the need to, and to be perfectly honest i love the card, every time i've played against him, he's worked out to my advantage, snatch steal, pummel your opponent, creature swap, sinister, thats gonna hurt or even just ring of d for the game, enemy controller offer him for jinzo, ha des, mobius, whatever. not a problem. same goes for v lord and phoenix. if your deck cant stand up to chaos then you shouldn't be complaining about it, you should be doing something about it.


in my experience of the game bls-eotb is the least of my worries. really any well built deck with an experienced player, whether he runs bls or not scares the crap out of me.

(just so you know, im not for bls in anyway, and it probably should be banned, and i used to hate him with a passion,but i've come to terms with him, mostly)

and just a thought did you ever think he would of been used as much if you needed to remove a fire and wind or something,i dont think so

yes it's broken and has been but we must all remember what we always do when we find trouble with such big cards... just like when jinzo came out everybody felt that it was trouble but then they remembered an old card which was a jinzo user's worst enemy... Snatch steal. and now there is still one card that every BLS user hates more than ever now... Bottemless trap hole, which i have fully exploited in my deck to kill not just BLS, but also all those D.D. monsters as well

I use BLS in my deck and I am still frightened by its bewildering power. I try not to abuse it, but the power is too hard to take away. I have plenty of lights and darks (no DDWL for me, no sir) in my deck, including my favorite Dark Ruler Hades (it would be super broken if it could be special summoned from the graveyard) and my dear Ninja Grandmaster Sasuke.

There are plenty of things that can take out BLS. But still....

BAN IT!

Nadya

as i stated before i will agree that bls is broken by its own abilities but is not invincible... bottemless trap holes murder the bls all the time now... plus, in official tourneys there is something else... when the bls is summoned it gets a priority for an effect...meaning its double attack effect as well. officially (and i have confirmed this with upperdeck) its effect has to be activated in the main phase 1, otherwise if you enter the battle phase w/o activating its 2 attack effect it really is not supposed to work and simply stops attacking after destroying a monster.
this may confuse some but its because UDE never chose to clarify this when the bls was first released(again, thank you upperdeck) i am guessing that konami should have also thought that through and said that its effect is a main phase activation on the card text.

even thogh this is true it still gives another chance to divine wrath bls because in an official tourny that completely supports UDE rules you can demand that the opponent declare the effect before battle phase in which case you can wrath it. also this means if the attacks fail then during main phase 2 they cannot use removal because they already activated his effect before and the text does specifically state that it can activate one of the effects once per turn

Even with the arguements I made people are still using the same defence. Noone makes any arguements about my case, they just go along singing the Chaos Drone Motto.

BLS is very vunlerable to magic and traps.... wow... I bet he's shaking. BLS users very rarely summon him if theres a remote chance they cant apply the finishing move properly the first time. Also, it seems that people like to say what he's vulnerable to, as if scientist isnt vulnerable to all that and more.

I've got a chalange for all of you, name 5 ways Scientist is more broken than BLS. Seeing as how scientist got the axe. The turtle combo does NOT count.

If OTK was such a big problem, then ban the turtle. I mean really, many decks will use scientist, even not OTK, but how many use the turtle? You'd be hard pressed to find a competitive deck running it without scientist.

As for luster, I think it was really foolish to not ban him. I believe Konami thought that once Painful choice was banned, it was going to hurt Chaos so much that it wouldn't function as well, but in doing this, they hurt MANY more deck types than they did help. I miss painful a lot, and I never even played a chaos deck for longer than a few weeks. Without it, my old strike ninja deck really took a blow, along with my beast deck. They still may be good, but Painful choice I believe helps many many cool deck types out there. If they'd just ban luster and bring back painful, I think the game would be fine.

For the people arguing that Luster doesn't deserve a ban, look at the cards that ARE on the ban list. Does confiscationm REALLY hurt you as bad as luster? How about change of heart, or Makyura. How many people have you ever heard say "DAMN THAT MAKYURA! HE'S RUINING THIS GAME! WHY DOES EVERYONE PLAY HIM?!". Also, I've never heard anyone say change of heart was breaking the game. It wasn't. Enitre deck types can't be devoted to change of heart, but, to luster, they can.

Konami was trying to ban cards for 2 reasons. 1 that they were game breaking and gave unfair advantage, and 2, that they were seen in every deck, and trying to create variety in decks. Luster fits under BOTH of these catagories, so, Konami needs to stop catering to the hordes of chaos fan boys and restrict it. If you have a problem, there is this thing called traditional.

OK, so lets go over some things here.

Luster soldier is very vulnerabe to magic and trap cards. In fact, of all the cards on the banned list that are monsters, he proably has the second most vulnerability (fiber being the first, as nobleman got mine nearly every time). I will concede this point, but only under protest that it be understood that this point stand alone on its own arguement: His cost of summoning being light and dark immediately makes that less of a problem, as light/dark gives the best chance of monster/magic/trap (ha des, silent swordsman, and jinzo just for examples) immunity/negation.

My next point that I dont belive was argued (if so, tell me the post number and I'll re-read it), was that he shuts down a LOT of cards. Luster single handedly makes flip monsters dependant on desert sunlight and acid trap hole. Sure, the mystic swordsman style effects do this too, but only under the vulnerability of an attack, which a simple threatening roar can take care of. No normal monster can come out on top, and even the mighty blue eyes struggles. Fissure probably wont hurt him if theres another mosnter out at all, and most attack negation wont stop him in 90% of examples either, as most Drones wont attack if theres even ONE possability of a DDWL or Cyber Jar in their opponent's control. I have seen no logical agruement that BLS, while being very vulnerable to magic and trap cards, has a near immunity to monster cards. Tribe, exiled, DD WL/Assailant are the only things on a normal basis that he fears.

I'm sure tomorow morning will bring more posts and more arguements against it, and if a vote can not be cast by lily by that point that satisfiys that I've been defeated, then I'll extend the trial. Heck, if lily can convince me that luster not only shouldnt be banned, but isnt broken, I'll run a chaos deck complete with the luster soldier in question in my deck. My girlfriend may get pissed, but if I loose this debate, then I've obviously had my theries displaced.

On the other hand, if I can be convinced that luster isnt broken, he may not be good enough for me to run ;).