Question: Why is Pot of Greed banned...

[Sov]

But cards like "Sky Striker - Engage" are perfectly fair, searchable and can even be reused from the graveyard? It's basically Pot of Greed but better and with extra steps. Isn't it time that Pot of Greed came off the ban list? It's only going to make meta decks more powerful anyway so its not like it will change the game that much.

I am sure the new Kashtira card, Fenrir also fits into that category as well. So why bother having Pot of Greed banned?

[dabestgamer]

Pot of Greed doesn't require any real commitment to a particular playstyle and can go in any Deck (except something like Superheavy Samurai).

Stuff within a theme or archetype, on the other hand, requires you to commit some of your Deck and/or Extra Deck space to using it. To use Engage as the example, you'd have to commit some of your Deck and/or Extra Deck to Sky Striker stuff.

There is easily more decision-making involved trying to use something like Engage than there ever will be for Pot of Greed.

I would say that's what separates Pot of Greed from all the other cards that "do the same thing but with extra steps".

[Sov]

Originally posted by dabestgamer:

Pot of Greed doesn't require any real commitment to a particular playstyle and can go in any Deck (except something like Superheavy Samurai).

Stuff within a theme or archetype, on the other hand, requires you to commit some of your Deck and/or Extra Deck space to using it. To use Engage as the example, you'd have to commit some of your Deck and/or Extra Deck to Sky Striker stuff.

There is easily more decision-making involved trying to use something like Engage than there ever will be for Pot of Greed.

I would say that's what separates Pot of Greed from all the other cards that "do the same thing but with extra steps".

Engage requires commitment. Sorry... I don't mean to be rude but that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. The decision making with Sky Striker: Engage is rather mute when Sky Striker players basically pick the same thing.

Pot of Greed is not searchable, can rarely be reused outside of cards like DM have where they return spells to your hand and doesn't give you whatever you want.

[Astrallight]

Generic +1 card that fits in all decks and got no downside.

[dabestgamer]

Originally posted by Vivas:

Engage requires commitment. Sorry... I don't mean to be rude but that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. The decision making with Sky Striker: Engage is rather mute when Sky Striker players basically pick the same thing.

The decision-making I was referring to was done at the Deckbuilding level where they decided to commit space in their Deck and/or Extra Deck to use Sky Striker stuff. Multiple spots in their Deck in order to make the most out of Engage.

Pot of Greed, however, is just a single card with no real requirements for one's Deck build (other than not be Superheavy Samurai).

[HeraldOfOpera]

Originally posted by dabestgamer:

Originally posted by Vivas:

Engage requires commitment. Sorry... I don't mean to be rude but that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. The decision making with Sky Striker: Engage is rather mute when Sky Striker players basically pick the same thing.

The decision-making I was referring to was done at the Deckbuilding level where they decided to commit space in their Deck and/or Extra Deck to use Sky Striker stuff. Multiple spots in their Deck in order to make the most out of Engage.

Pot of Greed, however, is just a single card with no real requirements for one's Deck build (other than not be Superheavy Samurai).

Flower Cardians are also xenophobic enough to be crippled by what are technically their own support spells, which are hilariously more powerful than generics for that exact reason.

[TormentedSalad]

Originally posted by Vivas:

Originally posted by dabestgamer:

Pot of Greed doesn't require any real commitment to a particular playstyle and can go in any Deck (except something like Superheavy Samurai).

Stuff within a theme or archetype, on the other hand, requires you to commit some of your Deck and/or Extra Deck space to using it. To use Engage as the example, you'd have to commit some of your Deck and/or Extra Deck to Sky Striker stuff.

There is easily more decision-making involved trying to use something like Engage than there ever will be for Pot of Greed.

I would say that's what separates Pot of Greed from all the other cards that "do the same thing but with extra steps".

Engage requires commitment. Sorry... I don't mean to be rude but that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. The decision making with Sky Striker: Engage is rather mute when Sky Striker players basically pick the same thing.

Pot of Greed is not searchable, can rarely be reused outside of cards like DM have where they return spells to your hand and doesn't give you whatever you want.

Pot of greed also doesnt require you to run what essentially might be a garnet to use it.

Think about it this way your playing swordsoul do you want pot of greed or sky striker engage the choice is so easy they are not even comparable theres a reason people are running pot of desires and not a small sky striker engine

[Edn]

The real reason is the 1st print effect of pot of greed is "TAKE 2 cards from your deck and destroy this card" you pick the cards you want, that's the original reason of the banishment

[Candarian]

there are better alternatives to pot of greed
we dont need that weak card anymore

[Cha0zb0rn]

Ever since the age of handtraps the argument seems to be rather invalidated doesnt it? Plenty of cards find their way into pretty much every deck nowadays.

But considering how many cards do something similar I'd argue that pot of greed in addition to those cards would make dacks way too consistent. Every draw 2 card is essencially a -1 in decksize. With greed, extravagance, prosperity you could shrink yur decksize to almost 30 cards like that making your deck incredibly consistent. Some decks with additional draw cards could go even lower. Ask yourself: do you really wanna play against decks with the power and consistency of full power tearlaments in every single game? Games would literally be decided by the coinflip. Player going first wins unless perfect handtrap drawn by player going second. It's already a problem now. I dont wanna imagine a world where the possibility of your opponent drawing a couple bricks isnt a thing anymore.

[Merilirem]

Originally posted by Cha0zb0rn:

Ever since the age of handtraps the argument seems to be rather invalidated doesnt it? Plenty of cards find their way into pretty much every deck nowadays.

And that should be avoided. Also there is a HUGE difference between ash and Pot of Greed. Pot of Greed would show up in decks that wouldn't run Maxx C. Everything from the most casual to the most Meta would heavily consider running 3 copies of pot of greed because of how generically good it is. Its just "have more cards" the card. No tradeoff no 2 for 2, just 1 card that becomes 2 cards.

We do not need more cards that everyone runs in every deck. Hand traps show up sure but the ones that do change with the Meta. Pot would show up regardless because outside of a Meta where draws and spells were targeted with massive game ending hate, its just too good.

[Sov]

Originally posted by Cha0zb0rn:

Ever since the age of handtraps the argument seems to be rather invalidated doesnt it? Plenty of cards find their way into pretty much every deck nowadays.

But considering how many cards do something similar I'd argue that pot of greed in addition to those cards would make dacks way too consistent. Every draw 2 card is essencially a -1 in decksize. With greed, extravagance, prosperity you could shrink yur decksize to almost 30 cards like that making your deck incredibly consistent. Some decks with additional draw cards could go even lower. Ask yourself: do you really wanna play against decks with the power and consistency of full power tearlaments in every single game? Games would literally be decided by the coinflip. Player going first wins unless perfect handtrap drawn by player going second. It's already a problem now. I dont wanna imagine a world where the possibility of your opponent drawing a couple bricks isnt a thing anymore.

Aren't decks already too consistent though, so it really wouldn't matter that much anymore.

[TormentedSalad]

Originally posted by Vivas:

Originally posted by Cha0zb0rn:

Ever since the age of handtraps the argument seems to be rather invalidated doesnt it? Plenty of cards find their way into pretty much every deck nowadays.

But considering how many cards do something similar I'd argue that pot of greed in addition to those cards would make dacks way too consistent. Every draw 2 card is essencially a -1 in decksize. With greed, extravagance, prosperity you could shrink yur decksize to almost 30 cards like that making your deck incredibly consistent. Some decks with additional draw cards could go even lower. Ask yourself: do you really wanna play against decks with the power and consistency of full power tearlaments in every single game? Games would literally be decided by the coinflip. Player going first wins unless perfect handtrap drawn by player going second. It's already a problem now. I dont wanna imagine a world where the possibility of your opponent drawing a couple bricks isnt a thing anymore.

Aren't decks already too consistent though, so it really wouldn't matter that much anymore.

its less about consistency at this point but raising the ceiling imagine what one deck could do if pot of greed draws them extra extenders making going first worse or drawing them into extra hand traps on top of their board we have pot of desires extrav they are just pot of greed with a cost I think you would be thrilled about that the only pot that even comes close to being as good is pot of prosperity

[Sov]

Originally posted by TormentedSalad:

Originally posted by Vivas:

Aren't decks already too consistent though, so it really wouldn't matter that much anymore.

its less about consistency at this point but raising the ceiling imagine what one deck could do if pot of greed draws them extra extenders making going first worse or drawing them into extra hand traps on top of their board we have pot of desires extrav they are just pot of greed with a cost I think you would be thrilled about that the only pot that even comes close to being as good is pot of prosperity

Well that's my point... its not going to make that much of a difference as the game is already too broken, decks so consistent that decks that win now on the first turn will still win then, even with pot of greed being unbanned.

I don't even see the point of having a banlist anymore, except for cards with broken recycling like Yata. Cards are so powerful, its not going to make any difference.

[TormentedSalad]

Originally posted by Vivas:

Originally posted by TormentedSalad:

its less about consistency at this point but raising the ceiling imagine what one deck could do if pot of greed draws them extra extenders making going first worse or drawing them into extra hand traps on top of their board we have pot of desires extrav they are just pot of greed with a cost I think you would be thrilled about that the only pot that even comes close to being as good is pot of prosperity

Well that's my point... its not going to make that much of a difference as the game is already too broken, decks so consistent that decks that win now on the first turn will still win then, even with pot of greed being unbanned.

I don't even see the point of having a banlist anymore, except for cards with broken recycling like Yata. Cards are so powerful, its not going to make any difference.

It absolutely will make a difference theres plenty of decks that cannot afford to use desires but they would max out on greed you'd be stupid not to

[Sov]

Originally posted by TormentedSalad:

Originally posted by Vivas:

Well that's my point... its not going to make that much of a difference as the game is already too broken, decks so consistent that decks that win now on the first turn will still win then, even with pot of greed being unbanned.

I don't even see the point of having a banlist anymore, except for cards with broken recycling like Yata. Cards are so powerful, its not going to make any difference.

It absolutely will make a difference theres plenty of decks that cannot afford to use desires but they would max out on greed you'd be stupid not to

absolutely, but Kashtira will still lock down all your monster zones on the first turn so its hardly going to make that much difference and then problem negate it as soon as you play it, or Ash it.