Ban Runick Fountain.

[BAN RUNICK]

This card is unfair in all aspects. First off, the people that says "Runick fountain has a cost", Yes the cost is there, but is not being paid by the person who activates Runick cards, the cost are being paid by the opponent, the opponent are getting their cards destroyed, negated and deck banished. Then the activator of Runick Fountain gets to shuffle the cards they just activated to draw 3 more cards? Really? is that the cost? like imagine using forbidden chalice, mst and book of moon and then shuffle them to into the deck and draw 3 cards with a card called "Not runick fountain" HOW IS THAT FAIR???? AND I CAN DO THAT NEXT TURN TOO BAN THIS ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ RUNICK ♥♥♥♥ CARD

[Silver]

I have never seen someone this committed to hating a singular card, as to make an entire account on this very fact.
Though I don't particularly agree, even if I'm not a big fan of Runick either.
I respect the dedication

[draconicepic]

Let's start with the most obvious thing to note: Runick Fountain does not have a "cost" to any of it's effects, only an activation requirement for its draw effect. Secondly, none of the cards the OP mention also include the side effect that is inherent to all Runick cards quick-play cards: Skip Your Next Battle Phase. Lastly, Runick is a deck comprised primarily of spell cards. It obviously needs some form of removal or defense to function.

All that being said, Runick has some really terrible card design issues. The fact that Runick Fountain isn't a hard once-per-turn is mind mindbogglingly stupid. It turns a mechanic to help feed the core mechanic of Runick into a draw engine. Additionally, Hugin's ability to infinitely recycle itself from battle/destruction effects can be problematic. It can creates a blocker-loop that is frustrating to deal with under cards like Skill Drain. All of this leads Runick to being one of the most optimum decks for dumping all types of toxic strategies into. I personally find that banning Hugin is the best way to fix Runick. It stops them from protecting any number of active floodgates or blending with Spright.

[LDvergil]

Originally posted by draconicepic:

Let's start with the most obvious thing to note: Runick Fountain does not have a "cost" to any of it's effects, only an activation requirement for its draw effect. Secondly, none of the cards the OP mention also include the side effect that is inherent to all Runick cards quick-play cards: Skip Your Next Battle Phase. Lastly, Runick is a deck comprised primarily of spell cards. It obviously needs some form of removal or defense to function.

All that being said, Runick has some really terrible card design issues. The fact that Runick Fountain isn't a hard once-per-turn is mind mindbogglingly stupid. It turns a mechanic to help feed the core mechanic of Runick into a draw engine. Additionally, Hugin's ability to infinitely recycle itself from battle/destruction effects can be problematic. It can creates a blocker-loop that is frustrating to deal with under cards like Skill Drain. All of this leads Runick to being one of the most optimum decks for dumping all types of toxic strategies into. I personally find that banning Hugin is the best way to fix Runick. It stops them from protecting any number of active floodgates or blending with Spright.

I know we aint talking bout it doe but what about that stupid heavenly lord whatever protecting an onslaught of floodgate backrows from labyrinth that crap is damn near equally bull$%^&

That deck considered fair is one of the biggest FIBS since flat erfers.

[draconicepic]

Originally posted by LDvergil:

Originally posted by draconicepic:

Let's start with the most obvious thing to note: Runick Fountain does not have a "cost" to any of it's effects, only an activation requirement for its draw effect. Secondly, none of the cards the OP mention also include the side effect that is inherent to all Runick cards quick-play cards: Skip Your Next Battle Phase. Lastly, Runick is a deck comprised primarily of spell cards. It obviously needs some form of removal or defense to function.

All that being said, Runick has some really terrible card design issues. The fact that Runick Fountain isn't a hard once-per-turn is mind mindbogglingly stupid. It turns a mechanic to help feed the core mechanic of Runick into a draw engine. Additionally, Hugin's ability to infinitely recycle itself from battle/destruction effects can be problematic. It can creates a blocker-loop that is frustrating to deal with under cards like Skill Drain. All of this leads Runick to being one of the most optimum decks for dumping all types of toxic strategies into. I personally find that banning Hugin is the best way to fix Runick. It stops them from protecting any number of active floodgates or blending with Spright.

I know we aint talking bout it doe but what about that stupid heavenly lord whatever protecting an onslaught of floodgate backrows from labyrinth that crap is damn near equally bull$%^&

That deck considered fair is one of the biggest FIBS since flat erfers.

Heavenly Prison only protects face-down cards. Floodgates, by their very nature, must be face-up to function. Heavenly Prison is a perfectly fine card and a stable in trap heavy decks.

[Ehgk-Zakhari]

Originally posted by LDvergil:

Originally posted by draconicepic:

Let's start with the most obvious thing to note: Runick Fountain does not have a "cost" to any of it's effects, only an activation requirement for its draw effect. Secondly, none of the cards the OP mention also include the side effect that is inherent to all Runick cards quick-play cards: Skip Your Next Battle Phase. Lastly, Runick is a deck comprised primarily of spell cards. It obviously needs some form of removal or defense to function.

All that being said, Runick has some really terrible card design issues. The fact that Runick Fountain isn't a hard once-per-turn is mind mindbogglingly stupid. It turns a mechanic to help feed the core mechanic of Runick into a draw engine. Additionally, Hugin's ability to infinitely recycle itself from battle/destruction effects can be problematic. It can creates a blocker-loop that is frustrating to deal with under cards like Skill Drain. All of this leads Runick to being one of the most optimum decks for dumping all types of toxic strategies into. I personally find that banning Hugin is the best way to fix Runick. It stops them from protecting any number of active floodgates or blending with Spright.

I know we aint talking bout it doe but what about that stupid heavenly lord whatever protecting an onslaught of floodgate backrows from labyrinth that crap is damn near equally bull$%^&

That deck considered fair is one of the biggest FIBS since flat erfers.

Hugin is worse than Lord of the heavenly prison because hugin can be summoned every turn with every runick card as well as being able to be summoned in response to card destruction effects. Then hugin also gets recycled when destroyed as well as triggering fountain when you summon it. Not to mention the fact that runick functions by activating spells from hand on your opponent's turn which protects them from card destruction. So toxic. The deck makes it easy to get Skill Drain (which drains all skill from the game) as well as nearly every other floodgate. If Hugin was gone, the deck would be playable but not nearly as annoying. People complain about Maxx c but the whole runick deck is basically Maxx c.

[C.C. 折オリ枝 の 夫]

Runick itself is meh at best even with the draw power, the only reason is has any chance to get a win are the floodgates.

[Ehgk-Zakhari]

Originally posted by C.C. アヌビス:

Runick itself is meh at best even with the draw power, the only reason is has any chance to get a win are the floodgates.

i agree. perfect example of poor card design. the draw power lets you get the floodgates and spright cards as well as protecting them with hugin. the deck doesn't do anything on it's own except for banish cards from your deck which it is unsuccessful in doing without floodgates. terrible card design. boring to play and play against.

[C.C. 折オリ枝 の 夫]

Originally posted by Ehgk-Zakhari:

Originally posted by C.C. アヌビス:

Runick itself is meh at best even with the draw power, the only reason is has any chance to get a win are the floodgates.

i agree. perfect example of poor card design. the draw power lets you get the floodgates and spright cards as well as protecting them with hugin. the deck doesn't do anything on it's own except for banish cards from your deck which it is unsuccessful in doing without floodgates. terrible card design. boring to play and play against.

I said that Runick itself is OK, it's not badly designed, it does exactly what it's designed to do.

If we follow your logic, any deck that ever used floodgates as a core part of their game is badly designed. Sky Striker? Bad design. Any mono type/attribute deck? Bad design. Dragon Link? Bad design. Exosisters? Very bad design as they even have built in floodgates. Hell, every deck in this game is a bad design because at one point or another they used floodgates.

So yea, Runick is fine by itself.

[Ehgk-Zakhari]

Originally posted by C.C. アヌビス:

Originally posted by Ehgk-Zakhari:

i agree. perfect example of poor card design. the draw power lets you get the floodgates and spright cards as well as protecting them with hugin. the deck doesn't do anything on it's own except for banish cards from your deck which it is unsuccessful in doing without floodgates. terrible card design. boring to play and play against.

I said that Runick itself is OK, it's not badly designed, it does exactly what it's designed to do.

If we follow your logic, any deck that ever used floodgates as a core part of their game is badly designed. Sky Striker? Bad design. Any mono type/attribute deck? Bad design. Dragon Link? Bad design. Exosisters? Very bad design as they even have built in floodgates. Hell, every deck in this game is a bad design because at one point or another they used floodgates.

So yea, Runick is fine by itself.

every deck you mentioned does much more than use floodgates or draw cards or mill. also none of them use much floodgates. exosister can i guess but the deck does a lot on its own without floodgates. i think youre misusing the term floodgate. runick doesnt even have built in floodgates which is another example of bad card design.

[Lord Wholesome]

Originally posted by Silver:

I have never seen someone this committed to hating a singular card, as to make an entire account on this very fact.
Though I don't particularly agree, even if I'm not a big fan of Runick either.
I respect the dedication

:winter2019cooldog:

You know you can just rename yourself on Steam, right?

[Silver]

Originally posted by Lord Wholesome:

Originally posted by Silver:

I have never seen someone this committed to hating a singular card, as to make an entire account on this very fact.
Though I don't particularly agree, even if I'm not a big fan of Runick either.
I respect the dedication

You know you can just rename yourself on Steam, right?

Yes. I know...

Doesn't change the fact that this guy really hates Runick

[Lord Wholesome]

Originally posted by Silver:

Originally posted by Lord Wholesome:

You know you can just rename yourself on Steam, right?

Yes. I know...

Doesn't change the fact that this guy really hates Runick

True, but he still didn't create an account just to hate on Runick!

[C.C. 折オリ枝 の 夫]

Originally posted by Ehgk-Zakhari:

Originally posted by C.C. アヌビス:

I said that Runick itself is OK, it's not badly designed, it does exactly what it's designed to do.

If we follow your logic, any deck that ever used floodgates as a core part of their game is badly designed. Sky Striker? Bad design. Any mono type/attribute deck? Bad design. Dragon Link? Bad design. Exosisters? Very bad design as they even have built in floodgates. Hell, every deck in this game is a bad design because at one point or another they used floodgates.

So yea, Runick is fine by itself.

every deck you mentioned does much more than use floodgates or draw cards or mill. also none of them use much floodgates. exosister can i guess but the deck does a lot on its own without floodgates. i think youre misusing the term floodgate. runick doesnt even have built in floodgates which is another example of bad card design.

You're missing the point.

The point was that just because the deck uses floodgates doesn't mean it's badly designed, otherwise all decks in existence are badly designed.

Runick as an archetype is more of an engine than a win condition on its own, similar to Eldlich or Dogmatika before new support.

The focus of Runick is the grind game, that's why they can't attack if they use spells. Pure Runick is bad because its not meant to be used pure, the floodgates just give it a way to grind without using other archetypes.

[BAN RUNICK]

Originally posted by C.C. アヌビス:

Originally posted by Ehgk-Zakhari:

every deck you mentioned does much more than use floodgates or draw cards or mill. also none of them use much floodgates. exosister can i guess but the deck does a lot on its own without floodgates. i think youre misusing the term floodgate. runick doesnt even have built in floodgates which is another example of bad card design.

You're missing the point.

The point was that just because the deck uses floodgates doesn't mean it's badly designed, otherwise all decks in existence are badly designed.

Runick as an archetype is more of an engine than a win condition on its own, similar to Eldlich or Dogmatika before new support.

The focus of Runick is the grind game, that's why they can't attack if they use spells. Pure Runick is bad because its not meant to be used pure, the floodgates just give it a way to grind without using other archetypes.

Are you crazy? Engine? When you have a banish opponents deck for no reason? draw special summon and what else are they supposed to do? BAN that card.

[Ehgk-Zakhari]

Originally posted by C.C. アヌビス:

Originally posted by Ehgk-Zakhari:

every deck you mentioned does much more than use floodgates or draw cards or mill. also none of them use much floodgates. exosister can i guess but the deck does a lot on its own without floodgates. i think youre misusing the term floodgate. runick doesnt even have built in floodgates which is another example of bad card design.

You're missing the point.

The point was that just because the deck uses floodgates doesn't mean it's badly designed, otherwise all decks in existence are badly designed.

i'm not missing anything. using floodgates isn't the problem. and it's quite a stretch to say that my logic equates to all decks having bad card design. your arguments are very weak if they can even be called arguments