The Dragon Ball Z card game is not without its quirks. Any player who has dabbled in it probably has had a few moments of uncertain rulings or card wording, and the more experienced players (and anyone who spent time learning, re-learning and trying to stay current with the evolving CRD during the game’s lifetime) can readily attest and pull to mind numerous card errata, restrictions, clarifications and of course banishment. Odds are somewhere in the extensive list of cards that have received a gaming “makeover” everybody probably has a card they once enjoyed.![044]()
![121]()
![P4 Dragon's Glare]()
![242 Dream Machine Battle]()
![L2-5 Feeding Frenzy]()
![CA1 Supreme West Kai Level 1]()
![PR1 The Talking Ends Here]()
![121]()
This is probably true to many card games both live and dead. When certain mechanics or specific cards become detrimental to game play and the competitive environment, changes to said mechanics or cards are essential to allow growth in the game and meta. Not every scenario can be play tested, especially when future card sets or mechanics haven’t even been created or thought up. A card that is somewhat effective could become a monster or exploit an infinite when combined with another card several expansions later. My point is, we should all understand why changes such as card restrictions and banishment occur. In Dragon Ball Z, some of the card restrictions and banned cards are stuff of legend, and often a discussion preceded by the mentioning of these infamous cards will surely have a cloud of memories past or horrific stories hanging over it.
But when a card game no longer sees production, and sponsored organized or league play stops, the meta becomes stale. Whatever was top tier at the end of the game will forever stay top tier. Decks that never quite got off their feet will stay firmly on their hindquarters. This argument has been tossed around (and I gave some thoughts on it, pre-virtual cards, way back in 2012), and thankfully, with the Retro Format and Virtual Subsets, the staleness has been prevented and fresh deck types and mechanics have been created to help keep things engaging, interesting and fun. I can readily attest that I’ve had more invigorating discussions about this game in the past two years, than I ever had while playing the game in its heyday. Granted the internet worked differently back then and most of the kids I played with were just that: kids. Explanations of why Vinegar was a better deck choice than Vegeta often went over heads…
But I digress.
The Dragon Ball Z card game is alive and new again to an extent. So that got me thinking about all the changes and dark shadows of the games past, and I had to wonder, if the players can continue to breathe life into this game, and accept virtual cards and small changes to keep the environment challenging, why can’t we confront the demons of our past and shake the meta up some more? Why can’t we re-evaluate the Banned Cards list and make these unplayable cards playable?
Now before tables get flipped and you go into shock remembering what some of these cards may have done to you or where the bad man touched you, let me refine my approach on removing the Ban: Why can’t we move the Banned Cards to the Restricted Cards list? Why almost a decade later do we continue to allow a handful of cards to be completely unplayable, useless or inaccessible to the meta database? At this point and stage, there should be no such thing as a “dead” card, but rather cards that players opt not to use.
Let’s face it, as memorable as some of these cards and their abilities were, they can’t fit or don’t all have a place in every deck. With existing staple cards, deck builds, deck size limitation and play styles, even if The Ban was lifted, not every player is going to pack any or all of these cards in their decks, even if they are restricted to One Per Deck.
Such a move certainly isn’t unprecedented. In fact, the Retro Format has already been responsible for implementing changes on the game or rules to adjust the meta for one reason or another. This list includes the following:
-The allowance of League Only cards to be played (in Tuff Enuff Format only)
Regardless of the motives behind these changes or alterations, they have been accepted (for the most part) by the player community, and have had some significant influence on changing up the game meta, deck construction and thought process that goes into game play and what to expect from various opponents and deck types. In short, they have helped to keep the game from becoming stale, and as radical as they might have seemed initially, some things have changed in the meta and some things have just been toned down a little bit (looking at you Buu…)
So I ask again, why can’t we remove The Ban and place these cards on the restricted list? By breathing new life into these cards the game meta might be shaken up a little but, but it certainly won’t crumble. Why keep making these cards unplayable, when it might be possible to help them see play again, even if it is in restricted form? Perhaps in revisiting these cards, we can redetermine if the conditions that led to their initial exile are still prevalent, or if there might be some changes that can be made to allow these cards to see the light of day again. Certainly if we can have 20 plus pages of errata and clarification on card effects (just from the Z saga sets mind you), why can’t we spend the extra effort to review or rework these cards so that they aren’t forever sitting in binders or card boxes shamed for what they did fifteen years ago?
So with all that being said, let’s take a look at the cards currently on the Retro Banned list. Imagine that these are now restricted to One Per Deck, and keep in mind that the goal of this experiment would be to shake up the meta a little bit. Don’t get your world’s softest pair of panties in a bunch just because one of these cards offended you in the past or would spell trouble for whatever beloved unbeatable deck you’ve been hanging onto for the last five years.
Chiaotzu’s Psychic Halt: Ok, so CPH was already limit One Per Deck before player outcry and a season of stasis decks finally helped to land it on the Banned List, but let‘s take a closer look. CPH essentially gave a non-spherable free pass to stasis and ball decks to run full tilt and unchallenged for an entire combat, and usually that combat was the decisive factor in the game. At worst, CPH was a poor man’s way out of a bad combat draw, essentially killing your opponent’s momentum as well. But that was before a variety of cards that have since emerged to add to the stasis hate. More cards prevent combat from ending than were available at the time, and cards like Startled, Dazed and Majin Buu’s Fury all bring similar but perhaps less powerful effects to the game. If CPH were restricted are there enough alternative ways with dealing or preventing it? I think so. Black Scouting Maneuver is available to all decks if you want to sensei it in. If Majin Buu’s Fury gets played first it would stifle a CPH’s free wheeling spirit. There’s also Caught off Guard Drill and Black Energy Swirl which could be used to prevent CPH from being played. There are probably other ways with dealing with CPH as well, but these are the quickest ones that come to mind.
The power with CPH though was that it could be used in an offensive manner. So if stasis/ball deck gets the chance to go first before the opponent can play any of the cards I mentioned, then we are back to square one, right? Well, there are ways of going a little bit further here while staying true to the spirit of the card. First off, it could be made to be Chiaotzu Only. Let’s face it, the little guy could use some sort of ammunition, and with a recent Virtual Card and this one time option in his arsenal, there might be a slim chance he would see play. Just don’t level up and expect your opponent to be prepared for that Halt the entire game.
Another option would be to take away CPH’s offensive ability, and have it be a secondary effect to a physical block. So your opponent would have to attack first in order for you to keep him from attacking or doing anything else productive the rest of combat. This keeps a stasis vs. stasis game from being hinged upon this card being played, and it would also allow offensive players a chance to get that Majin Buu’s Fury out there. I think if simple restriction isn’t enough, that this option or even this option paired with the Chiaotzu Only option would keep the card in line without entirely wrecking it.
Cosmic Backlash: Oh no, a random win condition for non-tokui-wazu decks! Seriously, as much as random backlash wrecked competitive play, I always thought there were so many solutions to the problem that shouldn’t have required The Ban. First off, pack more physical attack defense. Second off, if you are facing a non-toki-wazu deck then you should be expecting this card EVERY SINGLE TURN and find or hold on to said defense. But before I digress into a greater rant (or get people so mad that they forget the point of this article), let’s look at what restriction to One Per Deck would mean for this card.
First off, a NTW deck that chooses to rely on this one card for a win isn’t a deck. Relying on one copy of one card at anytime is poor playing, deck building and skill. More importantly, while Cosmic Backlash may be moderately searchable, if limited to a once per game random chance, the random factor would be severely hindered and force any sensible player running NTW to build their deck around some other focus. And as I’ve already mentioned, if Backlash is on an opponent’s mind, then they will most likely (maybe not always) be prepared for that one shot.
As for meta, cards like Losing Battle might become a little more prevalent in sensei decks. Also, there are a few cards further down on this list that might just see some useful play or planning in a world once again threatened by Cosmic Backlash (though I think “threatened” might be too strong of a word.”
“But Backlash can see multiple plays because it isn’t removed from the game after use!” somebody might say. If that really bothers you so much, then why not just errata it to include “Remove from the Game After Use?” As I’ve mentioned before, this certainly wouldn’t be the first card in the game to receive some errata treatment. Still not enough for you? Maybe consider adding “You can not end this combat” to the card just to keep it interesting. After all, if you let your opponent draw five cards, you better be prepared to see that thing through.
Dragon’s Glare: The only reason Dragon’s Glare is on this list is because of Dragon’s Victory. It’s a one card set-up to a one card win. Admittedly, this is pretty powerful, perhaps arguably more so than Backlash. As a non-combat it can sit out on the table until the card draw is just right, so set-up is much more strategic and effective than a once per game Backlash would be. However, as a non-combat it would be an immediate target for any player lacking the capability to lower their anger or deal with DG. WGS Black Mastery would have a fairly good chance at dealing with this threat, or at the very least, cards that kill non-combats would gain higher priority in deck construction. For styles like Red and Saiyan there may have to be some sacrifices made in pure anger/beat down decks just to ensure that a DG set-up doesn’t end game (though red already has a higher probability of losing to a well timed Dragon‘s Victory). Red Majin Spopovich Bane Drill perhaps?
Restricting Dragon’s Glare to One Per Deck certainly isn’t a bad solution, and if a player wishes to slot the 4 extra cards for a high probability of Dragon’s Victory, then it would be at the risk of not including four other cards that might contribute more to a deck’s primary focus (providing that deck’s focus wasn’t solely Dragon’s Victory). I’ve already mentioned Losing Battle, and DG would certainly heighten the usefulness of that card. You can almost envision how the meta might shift or adjust to deal with the potential of a One Per Deck DG. Just to throw a little more heat on the argument, if Dragon Ball decks can use a single Dragon Ball search card to win the game with the last Dragon Ball, then it shouldn’t come off as too much of a shock that a player could win the game by using Dragon’s Glare followed by Dragon’s Victory. At least this combo gives the other player a chance to end combat, lower their or their opponent’s anger, cause a card discard or another action to delay, prevent or overcome the DG set-up.
Dream Machine Battle: Ok, if ever there was a card needing clarification in addition to restricting it to One Per Deck, this would be it. I believe this was the first card ever to be banned. Beginning damage levels? This battle never happened? Start all over? With new cards? Does that mean I use another deck? None of this flows with the game mechanics or wording as it evolved through the course of the game. But it was a Saiyan Saga card, so throw it a bone. It took Score the better part of 11 sets to sort things out in the game…mostly. In the first errata issued for the game, this card received the clarification that the upon play of this card, the game starts over again, life decks, discard piles and removed from the game piles are all reshuffled and Dream Machine Battle was removed from the game to prevent another possible reset. In a way, this is probably better than what some people might have interpreted it to be; that being that the combat phase started over again with new card draws, and any damage went back where it came from. Played that way, Ball Decks would have a field day. Since the card was banned though, clarification mattered for squat.
So let’s propose some clarification that matters and restrict the card to One Per Deck. Something very simple like: End the game. Your opponent does not win and you do not win. Players reshuffle all cards in play they control, their discard piles and removed from the game piles back into their deck. All player anger levels are reset to 0, and all personality levels are reset to level 1 (this card overrides the effects of Goku Sensei). Start a new game. Remove from the Game after use. Limit One Per Deck.
The wording might still need a little tweaking, but it stays true to the spirit of the original card. Maybe even change the “End the Game” portion to “End Combat,” just to be a bit more creative. It’s still spherable, can be prevented from being played by a wide variety of cards and effects (see, I even made that Losing Battle useful here), and even if it’s included in a deck, it might not see play if the player using it is winning. This card would probably cause more psychological damage than it would game play damage, as players on the verge of a win might constantly be sweating from fear of that unseen DMB. But good players in that situation would probably be less worried because they would most likely be prepared to handle it (if they hadn’t done so already).
A game reset is a powerful thing, whether you want to admit it or not, but it certainly isn‘t unprecedented in collectible card games. One of the biggest problems it could cause though would be in tournament play by possibly drawing out an extremely well balanced match into a best 2 out of 3 battle, where both players have played a DMB and the final victor hinges on the last game. Something like that happening could add up to two hours to a round of game play. Maybe add something like “Dream Machine Battle may not be played in the new game” to the card text. Otherwise the solution for that scenario should lay more with the tournament director, who perhaps might need to step in and figure out an amicable solution (unless this is the final round of the tournament, in which case that‘s epic). Just a suggestion, but if neither player can soundly beat their opponent best two out of three (especially after getting a chance to see what your opponent’s deck does), then perhaps it would be best to call it a draw. I’m on the verge of digressing into another subject, but my point is DMB, while potent, is not omnipotent. It’s vulnerable, and after 10 expansions of meta game growth, I think it should be reworded and reconsidered to have The Ban lifted.
Feeding Frenzy: First off, it should be noted that with the Retro Format, Feeding Frenzy is regulated to Tuff Enuff Only by virtue that it is a League Only card. This is another card that by itself isn’t Ban material, but when paired with the right combination of cards that allow for card drawing, thus cards being played from your hand, it could be possible to cycle quite a few cards, if not the majority of your discard pile, back into your deck. A well played Goku’s Dragon Ball Quest and the right Dende Dragon Ball, and a player could see quite a loop of cards; a fine feeding frenzy indeed.
With being restricted to One Per Deck this possibility of unlimited feeding is greatly reduced. The card is also already Removed from the Game After Use, however, rather than straight banning, this card should see errata that reduces the abusiveness that it can achieve with other cards. For instance, if the One Per Deck errata still isn’t enough to make the playing environment comfortable with this card being back in circulation, simply add an additional line to the text such as “This floating effect can be used up to four times this combat” to cut down on abuse. Still useful, but certainly not infinite, and unless your discard pile has 8 cards in it, your chances of getting the whole thing back are nil.
With that being said, there are also a handful of cards that stop, end and negate floating effects for the remainder of combat already out there. Would it be foreseeable that in a Tuff Enuff environment that allows Feeding Frenzy, these cards might surface a little bit more for the sake of meta gaming? That might just depend on the deck in question (Lord Slug?), but I wouldn’t discount it.
Supreme West Kai (Lvl 1,2 and 3): This is the toughest challenge, in my opinion. First off, because my proposed solution of “One Per Deck” errata doesn’t work here. Secondly, because this was the first card that the fellows at Retro decided to do something about, and after some heavy debate, they settled on laying The Ban down on SWK. In any other format outside of Retro events, she’s probably legal. But she’s also big time controversy. A personality that comes with her own unique deck construction guidelines, as well as a handy dandy built in ability that isn’t featured anywhere on her personality cards that guarantees her a 50% chance of blocking any attack all the time? Saiyan beat down with 10+ cards in your hand? SWK has a chance of coming up with 10+ blocks. And her blocks aren’t specific to a type of attack! I sympathize with the fact that she got banned, but I also completely understand the logic behind it, and have had to debate it immensely. SWK requires no skill to build a deck around and no skill to play. Strategic choice of when to block or hold back your defense for a possible bait attack? SWK has no need to worry about such things.
So how can she be fixed? Making her a Tuff Enough personality is an option, but it’s not good enough. A player coasting solely on luck could still chance a TE victory every time because of the inherent SWK power. How about just getting rid of the special rules that go along with her? I know DBZ is full of personalities that have their own special rules (thus making them special), but SWK’s private legalese makes no sense. She’s a Supreme Kai, sure. So how come the other Supreme Kai never got to partake in the whole inherent block ability (regardless of the fact that Supreme Kai isn’t currently an MP option)?
But here’s the flip side of that coin: deleting SWK’s secret power also means that her deck can include block cards, which makes her just as powerful on levels 1 and 3 as she was before the change. Block, recycle, block, repeat. Stasis, Ball, Mill and any other deck that requires no interaction with your opponent suddenly makes SWK a powerhouse that even metagaming can’t compete with. So that is where I suggest we go one step further: Make her 1 and 3 powers limit to Once Per Game.
This wouldn’t make her the only personality with a Once Per Game power, and it would still keep her powers potent enough in the right players hand. Also, as Once Per Game, I feel this would best reflect a Supreme Kai feel similar to the Supreme Kai Sensei. Would this put SWK on the list of personalities with decent level 2 abilities, but limited capabilities for her other personality powers? Perhaps. But you shouldn’t discount those powers after errata. In regards to how this might change the meta? Players might treat this as any other stasis or ball decks out there, or at the very least have a few Aura Clashes or personality level reducers handy. Nothing like keeping your opponent on a level that is useless to them after they have used the Once Per Game power.
A combination of these suggestions might be viable, but I don’t feel that using all of them would be overkill either. With those corrections, any player willing to play SWK and who is capable of winning with her would deserve some respect at that point. It’s not easy in the competitive environment to run with those restrictions, but it also wouldn’t be impossible.
The Talking Ends Here: The poor man’s Where There’s Life There’s Hope. There is a slight difference in when the effect of this card wears off, and if it wasn’t One Per Deck players could string several of these together to keep the game going for up to 3-4 more rounds (which seems contradictory to the card’s name). As a Frieza Saga card it suffers slightly from Saiyan Saga wording, and WTLTH was worded much more clearly and also explained that victory conditions were rechecked at the end of its effect, something that TTEH doesn’t do. Does that mean at the end of your turn (if you haven’t won) your opponent still wins regardless? As a common vs. ultra rare, I could support that argument and solidify WTLTH as the superior card, but even if that wasn’t the case as it was determined that victory conditions were checked just as they are with the big sister of the two, there shouldn’t be any reason why one of these is allowed to see play and the other is not. Rarity no longer being a factor, why not allow players the option to play this card as One Per Deck? (It would look so nicely in those new Frieza decks everyone is working on)
As a non-combat card, it would suffer the same targeting of WTLTH, and there is plenty of non-combat hate out there available to all styles that this shouldn’t be impossible to deal with. If your argument against this card being allowed to see play is that two cards which prevent a player from winning shouldn’t be allowed in decks (making Ball decks extremely powerful), then let’s go one step further. Let’s learn from the 9 sets which took place after this card was printed, and take a page out of the Kid Buu expansion book and put some deck restrictions right on the card. “If this card is in your life deck, your Deck or Sensei Deck may not contain Where There’s Life There’s Hope” or regulating the card to a tokui-waza. It’s a bit of a creative stretch, but not difficult. Maybe just make it Tuff Enough Only. Or, there’s the clarification which I mentioned earlier, where your opponent still wins the game at the end of your next turn (unless you win the game first, of course).
I think if we treat this card like the common it is and restrict it to One Per Deck, the meta won’t suffer a bit. Another hang up for players to possibly overcome? Like WTLTH isn’t something we all deal with? Give Mecha Frieza’s face a chance to see play-there aren’t too many cards with his robotic mug on them.
This Too Shall Pass: I think this is another card that simply needs a little clarification along with the restriction to bring it back up to date and keep it from being the monster that it used to be. It should also be noted, that prior to this card being Banned, the non-combat step/set-up was played completely different (old school players might remember the days of Raging Raditz being pretty dominant), and I feel that that the rule change was for the better and would be another great factor in moderating the play of this card.
The card already clarifies that it doesn’t target Dragon Balls, but what about masteries, senseis which weren’t in existence at the time of this cards conception? Or even personalities? Can TTSP remove my MP’s level 1 from the game? Clarification is in order, but I think that’s all that’s needed here in conjunction with being Restricted. Something like “Stops the effect of any card that is not a Mastery, Sensei, Dragon Ball or Main Personality. Remove that card from the Game. Limit One Per Deck. Remove from the Game After Use.” The card can still be used against allies, locations and all the other goodies your opponent might have to throw at you, but it’s a one time deal. As a non-combat it requires some time on the table, making it vulnerable to non-combat hate, and by being restricted it would be one of those cards that players probably wouldn’t rush to use, because of it’s effects.
There are plenty of cards that emerged from the game after TTSP that have effects which would prevent TTSP from being used 100% effectively against certain decks. Save!, Goku’s Quick Save, Gohan’s Energy Deflection quickly come to mind, and of course there is always Orange Focusing Drill. If a player chooses to use TTSP on one of those cards instead, then they would still have to follow-up with another card with removal, and that means playing two cards for one effect. It’s not unlikely that this might happen, but it will only be happening once per game. Would time repeat itself and see players using TTSP to cancel critical blocks? Yes, but again, this would be a once per game occurrence, and I’ll repeat that there are already cards that do this in the game now (Gohan’s Kick and focused attacks get past stop alls and multi-blocks), If a player is using TTSP for this type of effect, then it falls in line with how they are playing. TTSP is just as useful in Ball, DV and even anger decks (and yes, it can even cancel your opponent’s TTSP, Dream Machine Battle or CPH!).
The meta shift here would most likely be that we see TTSP becoming almost a staple (not everyone will run it, but just about every deck will probably chance it). And that’s ok, because if it becomes a staple, then the meta shifts to see just that much more non-combat hate. Bait defenses or bait non-combat cards might see play to get players to use their TTSP on something that really doesn’t matter much. Play evolves, but does not become a different game. More importantly, TTSP becomes an effective weapon and/or shield in the hands of any player, but the skilled players will still make the most of it, because they have skill.
Whew, have I missed anything? Unless Retro hasn’t updated their CRD since July of 2013, I think not. If people still aren’t satisfied or feel comfortable with any of these cards seeing the light of day again, I have one more final offering or solution if you will to work in tandem with my proposed Ban removal and Restriction limitation: Make these cards (except Cosmic Backlash and SWK) Sensei Only. By being Sensei Only, not only would players run the classic risk of losing something just as valuable when they swap out their Sensei cards (unless using Piccolo Sensei), but it would also give your opponent the heads up that these cards are in their arsenal so that they can adjust their play accordingly. There are even cards that eliminate or target cards in an opponent’s Sensei deck. With the exception of Cosmic Backlash, none of these cards are attacks, so Hercules Amazing Techniques can’t be used to exploit them. I’ve already said my piece on Backlash, but I don’t think it should be Sensei Only for just that reason.
Some people might ask, if all this errata is needed to make these cards playable, why even do it when we end up with cards that are shadows of their former selves? My answer to that is this: The former selves of many of these cards were unbalanced and overpowered and needed to be reigned in to make these cards playable in a competitive environment. I am not for banning cards in any game, and I believe we have the responsibility now as a community to see that these cards are playable and that no card receives the Ban treatment again. We have 10 cards here that we can make playable again. 10 cards that can help shake (but not topple) the meta game up a little. That’s almost like a subset in itself! Besides, it’s not like there has never been a card to receive errata, clarifications, nerfs or multiple errata in this game (Piccolo the Trained and Goku’s Physical Attack come to mind…)
I’ll admit that some of these cards would be a nostalgic treat for a few players, but as many fond memories as I have of CPH, with the proposed errata I don’t think it would see play in all of my decks. My argument isn’t for nostalgia though, and I honestly hope it has given some players thought on the meta which has evolved throughout the game. The youngest of these cards is SWK (being recently Banned by Retro), but the oldest on this list date back to the first set of the game (and the first CRD version). Haven’t we learned enough and hasn’t the play environment changed enough to allow these cards playability?
As a community we can decide to make these changes, or not make the changes. You can play with Banned cards in fun pick-up games or some other format with your friends and neighbors if it suits you. There are probably people playing with Dream Machine Battle on a frequent basis somewhere out there (gasp!) and as a “dead” game really the rules and competitive environment are really open to player interpretation and community acceptance. I’ve said my piece, and hopefully given you some food for thought.
Are any of these perfect fixes? Maybe, maybe not. Game play and the players would decide that. Would it present a curve ball that is not completely overpowered to the meta? Yes. Why not keep challenging ourselves?
Are you up to the challenge?
Unbanning the cards could make things more interesting. Some are obviously in need of some changes but after that happens they could be balanced.
I didn’t have time to read the entire article yet. I’ll read the rest tomorrow when I have more time. I just wanted to bring up the discussion behind CPH because I hated the reasons you brought up for it being less powerful. Whenever someone uses the argument that something isn’t overpowered because of “insert card here that will stop it from being used”, they could essentially use the exact same argument on a card with the power “you win the game”. The card’s power needs to be judged based on how strong it is when it is used. If it’s an odd card like Earth Spirit Bomb then that’s an exception, but CPH isn’t hard to use. We can’t just believe it won’t be overpowered because black scout maneuver will remove it before anyone gets the chance to use its power.
That doesn’t mean I’m against CPH, or any of the other cards being brought back. Just please don’t try to justify a card’s strength as if it’s not going to get used. That could effect how it’s going to end up being balanced. And I think Stasis or control decks that will have better uses for it are also going to have much more control over if it stays in the game to be used than a beats deck will. I’m interested in seeing how control or beats decks will use it too. Stasis is boring because they’ll just search for a db or pass the combat. But other decks could really utilize that turn. Hopefully it won’t need that ‘Chiaotzu only’ restriction placed on it. Making it a combat card or even an if successful physical attack might be enough.
I made sure not to repeat that argument in the article again with those examples. Not because I’m saying the cards can be stopped from being played but to offer up suggestions or predictions of how the methane might shift if this scenario came about. The card’s power shouldn’t be determined by its playability but by its power, I agree. But in how that power comes about makes a difference, especially with Halt’s shutdown capabilities.
Much text. Is proud. Such wow. Must read now.
Chippy
Doge-Coin
I may not completely agree on a lot of these, but I respect your opinion and think at the very least, is worth a discussion. That said, I DO agree on some of these. I thought your point on backlash was excellent.
CPH + Backlash would make for a freaking awesome deck, add the level 1 power, focused Backlash with no down side to a fail, sign me right up.
This Too Shall Pass: simply remove the line of text that says “and remove the card from the game.” Fixed. Now it is just a non-combat super-TES, everyone can use 3. The only problem created is that it becomes a staple.
CPH and Supreme West can stay banned, thanks. I have fond memories of CPH, but lets not open that box up again.
Dream Machine Battle too.
This is a interesting idea but I dont like it. A lot of the cards on the banned list deserve to stay there. So bring back some of them maybe okay but will rise questions about the others that need to stay. I say just leave all of them on the banned list to prevent wrecking gameplay.
I still couldn’t get through all of it sorry. There’s just so much haha. But I did get the gist of what you were saying about each card. Here’s my thoughts on them.
CPH: It could be interesting if errated in the right way. Maybe make it so it only stops the opponent from performing attacks for the rest of combat. This was banned so long ago and the environment is so different now. I’d like to see how it changes things. Make it a combat card too so it can be stopped.
CB: Limit 1 with a cant end combat added to it would make it fine. The card was made Tuff Enuff only to get rid of random backlash from balls decks, then banned as we were moving into expanded where Tuff Enuff cards became legal. If a ball deck has to deal with a deck getting 5 more cards and can’t escape from it, they aren’t going to be throwing CB out so randomly anymore.
Dragon’s Glare: Originally banned before DV because it gained too much anger. Now the only problem is DV. Add to it that player’s can’t use combat cards for the remainder of combat. Everyone will still use it at the end of combat, planning to enter the next one straight after with DV. But that gives the opponent an extra hand to try to change things.
Dream Machine Battle: This needs to stay banned. All it does is reset the game, which is annoying. If you want to play another game, then have a rematch after the current one is over. Tournaments don’t have time for it. I don’t see a good way to errata the power either. It was first changed to not include the RFG pile. A simple Kid Buu’s Prepped Crash to take out the opponent’s DP and then a DMB will let you start the game over again with twice the size life deck as your opponent. Unfortunately this can’t be fixed.
Feeding Frenzy: I can’t remember what brought this to being banned. Was it a combo or just the regen was too much? Either way I don’t mind unbanning it. If there was a combo then errata something on it to make that combo impossible. Limit it to 1 card only if the regen was too much.
SWK: I’m a huge SWK fan. A lot of people aren’t, and I understand why. But if you take the time to learn how to use her you’ll see there can be a lot of strategy behind how to use her. Sure some people will do it without thinking, and they’ll probably do good with her because she’s awesome. But if you use her with skill at her best, she’s practically unstoppable. The same goes for people who don’t get frustrated battling against her and demand she be banned. If you figure out how to play against her rather than assuming it’s all about luck, then a skilled player has a good chance of beating her. This is more true in expanded format than focused z, but I think there’s still some strategy at least in the deckbuilding for Z. Taking away her blocking power would make her even more powerful. Recycling TIAWT every combat back into her hand until she wins. Her personality power would need to change. But as a big fan of hers I’d rather see her banned than nerfed to a once per game power. She’d be completely useless, and not worth playing. The reason why she’d be better off banned is because if you brought her back like that there would be new SWK decks, and they’d all suck. At least right now when I think of a SWK deck I know it’s something good.
TTEH: I agree a limit 1 per deck on this is probably enough. Anyone who tries to stop a ball deck by beating it down before it gets all of it’s balls out, without any other strategy to stop them, deserves to lose the game. It should be assumed that they’re going to WTLTH and ball out at the end. Giving them one more might just make player’s think more.
This Too Shall Pass: Your errata idea of this is what it was originally first changed to. And then after that it was banned. Maybe there’s an errata that could work on this, but I think it would have to nerf the card so much that it would barely be what it originally was. I think this needs to stay banned.
CPH – Super Saiyan Effect is already a near staple, and it only affects physical attacks. CPH would be stronger than that. We don’t need to “see how it’d affect the environment”, as we already know through SSE.
CB – They’ll still be throwing them randomly, they just won’t be winning quite as often.
DG – It’d still be an issue with anger, just not as much as it used to be.
DMB – Devil’s advocate potential errata: End Combat, remove all cards in all player’s discard piles from the game.
FF – It was an infinite combo that it’d still be able to do, even at limit 1.
SWK – Easy to use a lot of strategy when you get to free up an extra 10-20% of your deck for whatever you want, while no one else can.
TTEH – So… don’t win the game is what you’re telling people? And the problem with giving them another is that you can chain them. If it were brought back, you’d have to make it like EDQ where you cannot use another (the other) after using it.
From what I’ve seen of the retro environment it’s heavily focused towards beatdown decks. Maybe CPH could be good for things. TTEH too.
CB would still get used occasionally without skill, but so do all things. I don’t think anyone has a problem losing to the card as long as it’s main use isn’t for random backlash decks and people start making good backlash decks. I’d even recommend keeping it at limit 3 to make sure of that.
DG could be good for anger because right now I don’t think anyone is using it. Shutting down combat cards could be interesting for protecting itself from CTP too.
What was the infinite combo with FF? I’m sure an additional errata than just restricting FF to 1 per deck could be enough to stop that.
The Retro Environment is heavily focused towards beatdown because that’s what people want to play. Control decks are still more than viable, it’s just that people don’t want to use them.
I don’t recall off hand what the combo was with Feeding Frenzy, just that that was the main reason it was banned instead of allowed back in during GT.
Geoff is right. Control is still the better option, its just not many people think its fun. (I personally think otherwise)
My argument was mainly for offering solutions to make these cards playable or at the very least negating their potency so that we might eliminate the banned list. Getting people talking about this is a step in the right direction. Everyone has an opinion, but not many offer solutions, just as most of your arguments are against these cards seeing play, you haven’t really offered up counters or thoughts on what you would be comfortable with for them to be playable.That’s all part of the great debate I suppose.
CPH couldn’t be unbanned to Chiaotzu only because of the new Retro Chiaotzu lv. 1 IMO. He’s already good in ball, but would be REALLY good with CPH at his
I feel DMB should remain banned or get a serious nerf. Restarting the game the game just drags out tournaments. Also, an card that outright wins the game on its own with little restrictions is dangerous. I agree that anyone running a non-Tokui Waza deck would probably be running CB and you could play with that knowledge, but it would still be hard to defend against all the time. I am not extremely familiar with the the DBZccg having only played it casually years ago (although I am excited that this kind of community exists and I am attempting to get back into it [once I find some local players]). I am, however, very knowledgable about games in general and have played MTG since ’96. Any card or combo that has a high percentage of a win condition, so much so that most players use said cards in most decks, will create a stale game environment.
The meta in RetroDBZccg seems to be slower moving, mostly due to the lack of competitive events. This means a few things: 1) the damage the cards will do unbanned might not become apparent for a while 2) it will take a while for decks to learn to compete against such powerful cards 3) decks taking advantage of these cards will have a serious upper hand against other decks during the transition. As I see there seems to be only one major tournament a year for this game, do we want to ruin a whole year just to give these cards the light of day?
These are my thoughts; take them as you will. Overall, I want to thank you for such a thought provoking article. I feel lots of time and thought went into it. My final words on the matter: CB and SKW are the cards I feel you made the best arguments on bringing back. Also, since they are coming off the banned list, maybe 1 or 2 at a time instead of all at once. Only playtesting will tell. Play them against currently legal decks that are not modified to beat them and see if they are too powerful on their own.
Actually there are 10+ events a year. Some of them get 20+ entrants which is a pretty good amount.
Quoting Daniel Bryan – in regards to this entire Article – “No! No! No! No!!!! NOOO! NOOOOO! NOOOO! NOOOO!! NOOO! NOOOO! …etcetcetc”
Make CPH Chiaotzu only and your opponent cannot attack and that should be fair but hardly ever have it used.
Can’t wait for rules lawyers saying you can’t win with backlash because it would be “ending the combat” hahaha
I think if you nerf SWK regen to 3 cards and remove her special block power, she becomes just a pretty strong personality. Making them once per game is beyond drastic.
Im not sure how many times someone needs to say it but I guess its at least one more time.
If you take away her special block rules, it will make her Better. Atleast now you will hit her 50% of the time. Take away the rule and it will be so easy to recur a stop all every combat.
Correct. If she were to be fixed it would require more than just removing her special rule. I agree with you on that, and hopefully made it clear in the piece. The solutions I offered shouldn’t be considered the only solution possible though, but I do think she can be fixed without letting her run rampant.
Restricting the amount she can regen might help. The main problem happens with Vegeta’s Quickness Drill, or with her level 3 power where she gets to draw a card too. That DP manipulation of choosing what cards to get out of the DP, can set you up to recycle whatever card you want back into your hand. It can already make her unstoppable with Super Saiyan Effect, but it’s difficult to pull off. Add more cards she can do it with like TIAWT and it will make it much easier for her. Screw up her regen powers so she can’t manipulate the DP however she likes, and the blocks won’t be so much of a problem
I like restricting the amount. 3 is probably good. But I’d make it 3 from the top, or 3 from the bottom. Don’t let her choose the cards. With that she won’t be broken, and with her Z stages to reduce damage from physical beatdown decks, might still be playable.
Ok im gonna go through this list and tell you why these cards shouldn’t be unbanned.
Chiatzus psychic halt: This card was mainly banned due to dragons victory and backlash. It was way too easy to set up a 4-5 step combo without any interruption. I dont think it should be unbanned because it will take away from the games enjoyment. Whether you use it or have it used on you, it isn’t fun at all. Not really anything broke with it, it woll just affect the game negatively.
Backlash: I think in order to make this card be playable amd eliminate random backlash is to add this “you cannot block and skip all attack phases”. The wording would need changed but you get the effect. It essentially makes it where you would be an idiot to use it unless you knew it would go through. Another thing to add would be “if stopped, you lose”
Dragons glare: I love dragons victory. Its my favorite win condition. I still dont think it should be unbanned. It would take the fun away from the deck. I would unrestricted the gain two anger non combats instead which would make dv playable but not broken.
DMB: both players discard hand and draw amount they discarded that is all
Feeding frenzy: nope. There are decks that can draw every card in deck first turn. If this is back, even at limit 1, I will go infinite every turn and you will not like it.
Swk: unban as printed.
TTEH: we already have hope. Dont need two.
TTSP: nope. Any change I can think off will still have it as the best card in the game.
^this
But as for Feeding Frenzy, that’s the only card I could see being unbanned since it, to me, is the only card that isn’t SEEMINGLY as broken as the rest. I thought it was banned during GT times due to red rush archetypes (which allowed for infinite annoyances). You reference an infinite draw deck; how? Feeding Frenzy rejuvs only. Am I missing something? lol
Feeding Frenzy is banned because with out it infinite decks sputter out. They don’t deal lots of damage, but they poke and poke and poke for a few cards here and there infinitely. But without Feeding Frenzy they can and up drawing out before dealing enough accumulative damage to win.
Feeding frenzy is the last thing I will unban since it is legitimately broken. I
The deck is as simple as it sounds, it continuously draws until it draws out. With a single copy of feeding frenzy, it will never run out of stuff to draw.
Which is why in addition to restricting the card, I proposed a limitation of it’s effects. I understand the logic in keeping the cards banned as they are, but I also think that with the right tweaking to cards such as FF, DMB or SWK, they can be playable without being broken or in FF’s case infinite. I’ll quote Yoda here (because somebody already quoted WWE, and if we’re getting all quote happy, then Yoda is the way to go), “You must unlearn what you have learned.” Let’s not look at these cards the way they were, but see how we can make them new again, while staying balanced and true to the original versions. If restriction is enough, I’m a proponent for card revision-it’s certainly been done enough times in this game.Giving up on these cards without even trying to create a solution isn’t what we should be doing. The previous article which talked about these cards holds merits as well, and I do think that with each card there is a possible fix. Are they going to all end up looking like they did before? No. But any card which has seen revision and still sees play (PTT is a great example, and recipient of multiple revisions) is proof that something can be done to make these cards work.
I agree. I think if people are willing to consider changes to DMB to go from restarting the game, to only drawing a new hand, then I think every card is possible to change to something playable. Look at what makes it broken, and do something to the card which changes that.
If Feeding Frenzy is broken from player’s drawing more cards, add to it that you can’t draw cards for the rest of combat.
The only thing I don’t think should be changed is the historically powerful cards of the game that left their mark as one of the best cards in the game before they were banned. Unbanning them to put them in the game again is only worth doing if you leave them playable, with something resembling their original power. It’s disrespectful to the card if you bring it back just as unplayable as when it was banned, with a crappy power that no one will want to use, just so you can say you fixed all the banned cards in the game. The card should be remembered for the power it had and the affect it had on the game.
Dmb is the easiest to errata as the wording was so stupid and wonky that it was hard to even decipher when it came out.
I agree. I’m still trying to figure out whose dream it was, and why Nappa was referenced in the flavor text of the card. Nothing on it makes sense…it’s like…it came out of…a dream.
::crazy Inception music::