Cards that deserve/ dont deserve bans

Sunday 06/01/2013, 16:52

Hey guys so I will just start us off. I dont get how Lizbeth is on top of the charts??? I mean for 1 less damage, you get Lulabee, which is FAR more stable than Lizbeth. I know, different clans, but Ulu is not that bad by themselves. + there are many replacements, and Lizbeth is what, like 60k? this is ridiculous.

I think Dorian is quite borderline as well, Uppers can still do pretty well without him. Herman, Hefty, even Lady are all replacements for Dorian, i mean i know he is strong against SoA, but thats it!. Herman is actually more threatening than Dorian in many matchups minus GHEIST/Roots.

Sunday 27/01/2013, 05:50

Sorry @yuri very very few of the cards that you have mentioned are actually staples.... you can say Gianfranco is SOLID be he is not a STAPLE like when i make a Montana deck i dont HAVE to make one with him... on the other hand Avola is one of the REASONS to play Montana. almost any good Montana deck consists of Avola.

you are basing your argument on cards that are GOOD against SoA...
cards that are ACTUALLY staples:

Montana: Avola, Moses, Oscar, Spiaghi, Angelo --> most of these cards are kinda useless versus SoA, Angelo is doable.

Uppers: Dorian, Oxen, Rubie, Wendel (sorry SoA too good to ignore): see Dorian IS strong against SoA, hence banned every other week. when Dorian is gone, you either go to Hefty, or Herman occasionally Lady. dunno about you, but usually i dont like DRs on my 5*, so my first choice stays at the other 2. they are not WEAK against SoA (Herman maybe) but definitely weakened. how is Rubie great against SoA?!??!

Sakrohm: Uranus, Murray, Petra only those 3 are actually majorly seen, and 2 of those are pretty weak agianst SoA, while Petra is slightly unaffected.

look back at your list: Ace, Vito, Stella, Miss Stella, Slopsh?!?, Anakrohm are you serious?! how are these cards even seen

problem w/ Wardom: he is PREDICTABLE (slightly, revenge can still be played at quite a few turns). but look GHEIST has an ALTERNATIVE called XU52, STAPLE 8 damage. i think XU52 is better against SoA just because of that sick damage.

Sunday 27/01/2013, 10:11


It seems like my argument has made someone angry, and that's not what I want. ^__^

1. Bristone is one of the best DRs, but you can not force your opponent to pill. What if she blocks a card like 0-pilled-Wendel?
2. "there are plenty of All Star staples that are reduced to 7 or 8 power equivalent" Randy, Nathan, Quinn, etc... they can beat most of your GHEIST cards pill for pill, and deal more damages. So what do you expect more?
3. You fell again into a paradox.
"Naming isolated cards is a very easy game to play and not informative." you have forgotten our topic is Rolph. Thank you to name these cards for me, Wardom 8 damage, XU52 8 damage, Methane 7 damage, their high damages are much more reliable. This is the reason why you didn't list Rolph, because you know his 6 damage is not comparative but you just don't say it.
4. "Your list of cards that don't rely on abilities consists mostly of 5 damage or less cards."
"Don, Gianfranco, Desmond, Ace, Vito, Edd Cr, Mona, Virginia, Stella, Miss Stella, Petra, Slopsh, WoodXsxt, Anakrohm, Dorian,Hefty, Lady, Maurice, Rubie, Harold, Jose Star blablabla...." All most half of the cards I have listed can deal 6 or more than 6 damages(9/ out of 21), and if we ignore the 2 stars, it is 9/18. Is that called mostly 5 damage or less?
Please deny the fact which is really not welcome in a debate!

Sunday 27/01/2013, 10:44

@ 0 the oracle,

Montana: there are SOA vulnerable cards but you can't put all of them into one deck then saying a clan is dead against GHEIST.

"very very few of the cards that you have mentioned are actually staples -- Don, Gianfranco, Desmond, Ace, Vito, Edd Cr, Donnie Mona,etc
ps, I am very very very surprised to hear that.

Rubie is good for the same reason that Arkn was banned. I am not saying she is great, but she is not effected by SOA.

Sakrohm: Everybody knows they are SOA vulnerable, but you ask for it. Say again, Good player would not put all of the SOA vulnerable cards(like Murray) into one deck. This is why I listed Stella, Miss Stella, Slopsh, Anakrohm, and these cards are commonly seen in Mono or half Sakrohm deck.

Wardom: this is what I was saying! DAMAGE is what GHEIST needs! Sick damage! It is hard for GHEIST to win 2 proper rounds against Attack or power manipulation clans, and if you don't guarantee a damage advantage, you fail.

Sunday 27/01/2013, 10:58

Speaking of come it's unbanned, huh? If you can use Jeena in Roots and Uranus in Sakrohm, why can't we use Ulrich, the only DR in Piranas in elo?! He might be good, but he's on the same level with those 2 and it's really stupid and silly to leave him banned.:weird:

Sunday 27/01/2013, 13:08


Um Roots and Sakrohm both have at least one DR card perma banned. Plus at least to me,with all the pillz manipulation(Selma,Hawkins,Dalhia Cr) and the attack/power manip(Puff,Coleridge,Taljion,Raeth) that Piranas have, Ulrich is just too good to keep him since he also has 5 damage. 5!!! He can be great for bluffing since a mistake will cost you 1/3 of your life. Maybe a defeat:+life would be nice to have though for the Piranas.

Sunday 27/01/2013, 14:13

Roots and Sakrohm have alternatives, Piranas don't. Jeena and Uranus can also cost the opponent 1/3 of his life. Besides, Petra, Virginia, Stella, Murray can keep Uranus and a few pill manipulators can't keep their Ulrich? Junkz also have a Tremorh and Fizzle, but you don't see their DRs banned, do you? If a clan doesn't have the right to have a good DR just because it manipulates pillz, then maybe this game isn't so great after all.

Sunday 27/01/2013, 16:34


I'm not angry about the argument, just confused about the reasoning. :razz: You are very consistently saying one-sided things, falling for simple logical fallacies in an attempt to prove your point. It's not that this bothers me; it's that it is, simply, not correct.

Not going to go through your entire list, but we don't need to go further than the very first point for an example of very flawed reasoning.

"1. Bristone is one of the best DRs, but you can not force your opponent to pill. What if she blocks a card like 0-pilled-Wendel? "

Let me pose a different question to you. "What if she DOES block a pilled card?" When you are making an argument like this, you need to consider all of the common possibilities, and not just the one that supports your argument.

If "your DR might block a 0-pilled card" was a valid point, then it would apply to all DR, not just Bristone. Are you trying to imply that DR is too risky to use? That DR is bad? We know that not to be the case.

The rest of your arguments, one and all, are equally flawed. I can explain how in PMs if you like. It's probably pointless for this part of the discussion to continue on the forum.

Monday 28/01/2013, 01:10

@yuri the reason Bristone is good is because you dont PLAY HER PREDICTABLY. that means you dont go first round off with her. your opponent would have to be extra cautious using something like Beeboy, and not go all out on pills.

on another note, if you have the time, the formula for a good elo score is easy-- use GHEIST or Roots. SoA nulls off most of the good abilities in the game, and that is a pain in the butt for most players.

Monday 28/01/2013, 01:33

“When you are making an argument like this, you need to consider all of the common possibilities, and not just the one that supports your argument.”

Yes, this is exactly why I make this argument of Wendel. I just reminded you that it is not always the case Bristone blocks a pilled card which is happen to be a heavy hitter. I was helping you to consider all of the common possibilityies to prove that "good player should always play his proper hitters around Bristone" I didn't see how my argument is flawed. Is this situation not possible in ELO mode?

"DR is too risky to use? That DR is bad?" "Who she DRs is not important as long as she helps control gap. "
Sorry, this is your argument not mine. This is an extremely wrong argument and the reason why YOUR DR is too risky and bad to use. It is all about the offensive position or defensive position you are in. As I always said, having Rolph in deck can not make sure a damage advantage, even when your DR helped control gap.

Keep on denying the fact! I am not expecting any of the pointless reply. I believe people can tell which argument is one-sided.

Monday 28/01/2013, 06:13


I'm sorry, this doesn't make sense to me.
A good player is not going to build a deck of 8 2*s for ELO play, right? Your opponent may have 2 or maybe 3 cards like Wendel in his deck. (3 is considered to make your deck "topheavy.")

So, the odds of Bristone coming up against a "strong" card are better then her coming up against a "weak" card.

But wait! As a good player, you would probably strive to AVOID the situation of Bristone blocking some 2-power card... So I guess it makes this already uncommon situation VERY rare. (If you have a card like Wendel coming at you, why not guess how hard your opponent pilled if he was "baiting," and try to pill your big card a little harder than that? Successfully block him with someone like Methane and you have a nice advantage, especially if Bristone is also in your hand.)

""DR is too risky to use? That DR is bad?" "Who she DRs is not important as long as she helps control gap. "
Sorry, this is your argument not mine. "

I'm sorry, but I don't see what else you could be implying. If you are trying to say that a DR blocking a 2 damage card is a "common" scenarios, you are saying that DRs are "commonly" useless. On the other hand, if you agree that Bristone blocking Wendel is a very uncommon scenario, why should it have more weight than Bristone blocking Dorian, Lady, or Maurice? If it doesn't have more weight, then why use it as an argument?


Reply to this subject