"Risky" unbans like Maxx C, Konami will release at 1; it's been their style like with Snatch Steal and Magician of Faith. If they prove too powerful like Snatch Steal, Konami will ban again on the next list. Otherwise, will either remain limited or go semi/unlimit.
Still I have some fair doubts of the bugs being released, but hey who knows....
IF Konami frees Maxx C (Big IF there)
- Renji Asuka
- Posts: 2682
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
- Reputation: 242
Maxx "C" isn't "risky", its a flat no. Think about this.
Maxx "C" was at 3, everyone ran 3, then Konami was like "Hey, this card is over performing, so lets limit it." That's what they did.
The problem that caused was the fact that whoever had Maxx "C" first, typically would win the duel. This wasn't okay, and that is why it was banned.
Here's why Maxx "C" can't come back.
Do you really want to let players create multi negate boards, just to have a Maxx "C" in hand, to gain resources IF your opponent was able to push through? And let's say they weren't able to push through it. The very idea that the player with the multi negate board would end up gaining more resources or flat out ending the turn just because of that card.
Its a different situation than Snatch Steal.
Maxx "C" was at 3, everyone ran 3, then Konami was like "Hey, this card is over performing, so lets limit it." That's what they did.
The problem that caused was the fact that whoever had Maxx "C" first, typically would win the duel. This wasn't okay, and that is why it was banned.
Here's why Maxx "C" can't come back.
Do you really want to let players create multi negate boards, just to have a Maxx "C" in hand, to gain resources IF your opponent was able to push through? And let's say they weren't able to push through it. The very idea that the player with the multi negate board would end up gaining more resources or flat out ending the turn just because of that card.
Its a different situation than Snatch Steal.
![Image](https://i1.wp.com/ygorganization.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/yami-flexin.gif?resize=498%2C280&ssl=1)
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.
- Christen57
- Posts: 2037
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:37 pm
- Reputation: 182
- Location: New York, United States of America
Renji Asuka wrote:Maxx "C" isn't "risky", its a flat no. Think about this.
Maxx "C" was at 3, everyone ran 3, then Konami was like "Hey, this card is over performing, so lets limit it." That's what they did.
The problem that caused was the fact that whoever had Maxx "C" first, typically would win the duel. This wasn't okay, and that is why it was banned.
Here's why Maxx "C" can't come back.
Do you really want to let players create multi negate boards, just to have a Maxx "C" in hand, to gain resources IF your opponent was able to push through? And let's say they weren't able to push through it. The very idea that the player with the multi negate board would end up gaining more resources or flat out ending the turn just because of that card.
Its a different situation than Snatch Steal.
What about errata'ing it so you have to control no cards to use it?
Renji Asuka wrote:Maxx "C" isn't "risky", its a flat no. Think about this.
Maxx "C" was at 3, everyone ran 3, then Konami was like "Hey, this card is over performing, so lets limit it." That's what they did.
The problem that caused was the fact that whoever had Maxx "C" first, typically would win the duel. This wasn't okay, and that is why it was banned.
Here's why Maxx "C" can't come back.
Do you really want to let players create multi negate boards, just to have a Maxx "C" in hand, to gain resources IF your opponent was able to push through? And let's say they weren't able to push through it. The very idea that the player with the multi negate board would end up gaining more resources or flat out ending the turn just because of that card.
Its a different situation than Snatch Steal.
Buy Flundereeze
Buy Floowandereeze
- Renji Asuka
- Posts: 2682
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
- Reputation: 242
Christen57 wrote:Renji Asuka wrote:Maxx "C" isn't "risky", its a flat no. Think about this.
Maxx "C" was at 3, everyone ran 3, then Konami was like "Hey, this card is over performing, so lets limit it." That's what they did.
The problem that caused was the fact that whoever had Maxx "C" first, typically would win the duel. This wasn't okay, and that is why it was banned.
Here's why Maxx "C" can't come back.
Do you really want to let players create multi negate boards, just to have a Maxx "C" in hand, to gain resources IF your opponent was able to push through? And let's say they weren't able to push through it. The very idea that the player with the multi negate board would end up gaining more resources or flat out ending the turn just because of that card.
Its a different situation than Snatch Steal.
What about errata'ing it so you have to control no cards to use it?
Then it'd be absolute trash. Let me explain, If you couldn't control any cards, it'd only be good going 2nd. There is a lot of decks that want to go first that effectively could not use it. In which case you make going 2nd even stronger. Remember, Maxx "C" was able to end people's turns. Sure some decks took the Maxx "C" challenge and still won (Hieratics for example was a great deck that would take on the Maxx "C" challenge)
Also I rather Konami Not errata cards and keep them banned, than to unban cards after butchering the card. (RIP Crush Card Virus and friends).
![Image](https://i1.wp.com/ygorganization.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/yami-flexin.gif?resize=498%2C280&ssl=1)
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.
Renji Asuka wrote:Christen57 wrote:Renji Asuka wrote:Maxx "C" isn't "risky", its a flat no. Think about this.
Maxx "C" was at 3, everyone ran 3, then Konami was like "Hey, this card is over performing, so lets limit it." That's what they did.
The problem that caused was the fact that whoever had Maxx "C" first, typically would win the duel. This wasn't okay, and that is why it was banned.
Here's why Maxx "C" can't come back.
Do you really want to let players create multi negate boards, just to have a Maxx "C" in hand, to gain resources IF your opponent was able to push through? And let's say they weren't able to push through it. The very idea that the player with the multi negate board would end up gaining more resources or flat out ending the turn just because of that card.
Its a different situation than Snatch Steal.
What about errata'ing it so you have to control no cards to use it?
Then it'd be absolute trash. Let me explain, If you couldn't control any cards, it'd only be good going 2nd. There is a lot of decks that want to go first that effectively could not use it. In which case you make going 2nd even stronger. Remember, Maxx "C" was able to end people's turns. Sure some decks took the Maxx "C" challenge and still won (Hieratics for example was a great deck that would take on the Maxx "C" challenge)
Also I rather Konami Not errata cards and keep them banned, than to unban cards after butchering the card. (RIP Crush Card Virus and friends).
Eventually they'll do something to Maxx "C" to get them sold
Buy Floowandereeze
- Renji Asuka
- Posts: 2682
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
- Reputation: 242
greg503 wrote:Renji Asuka wrote:Christen57 wrote:
What about errata'ing it so you have to control no cards to use it?
Then it'd be absolute trash. Let me explain, If you couldn't control any cards, it'd only be good going 2nd. There is a lot of decks that want to go first that effectively could not use it. In which case you make going 2nd even stronger. Remember, Maxx "C" was able to end people's turns. Sure some decks took the Maxx "C" challenge and still won (Hieratics for example was a great deck that would take on the Maxx "C" challenge)
Also I rather Konami Not errata cards and keep them banned, than to unban cards after butchering the card. (RIP Crush Card Virus and friends).
Eventually they'll do something to Maxx "C" to get them sold
They technically don't have to sell Maxx "C" again. They already earned a lot of money from sets it was in.
![Image](https://i1.wp.com/ygorganization.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/yami-flexin.gif?resize=498%2C280&ssl=1)
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.
Renji Asuka wrote:greg503 wrote:Renji Asuka wrote:
Then it'd be absolute trash. Let me explain, If you couldn't control any cards, it'd only be good going 2nd. There is a lot of decks that want to go first that effectively could not use it. In which case you make going 2nd even stronger. Remember, Maxx "C" was able to end people's turns. Sure some decks took the Maxx "C" challenge and still won (Hieratics for example was a great deck that would take on the Maxx "C" challenge)
Also I rather Konami Not errata cards and keep them banned, than to unban cards after butchering the card. (RIP Crush Card Virus and friends).
Eventually they'll do something to Maxx "C" to get them sold
They technically don't have to sell Maxx "C" again. They already earned a lot of money from sets it was in.
But it's a perfect compliment to Flundereeze, buy Flundereeze
Buy Floowandereeze
Return to “Forbidden/Limited List Discussions”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 345 guests