Forum:BLS - Envoy of the Beginning Becoming Limited?

I really doubt it, but being that it was just announced for Gold Series 4, anyone else get the idea that it may become unbanned? Chaos Sorcerer was put back at 3, so maybe they want Chaos decks back?Djjomon (talk • contribs) 17:09, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, and they just throw BLS - Envoy in Gold just to be ass. It's like "Stardust Dragon" at each rarity, except damned Rare and Common. --FredCat 17:10, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Stardust Dragon doesn't come Gold, does it?

Also, Black Luster Soldier - Envoy to the End is extremely overpowered. It's a 3000 Attack point monster (that means it can overpower almost any Synchro Monster) and it can attack twice if it destroys a monster. Even better, it's a Semi-Nomi (Monster Reborn and Call of the Haunted can bring it back). Lastly, it can remove a monster from play-when using Chaos Sorcerer, you may use it's effect once or twice due to its low attack(the only advantage of Chaos Sorcerer is the possibility of a Synchro Summon) but with BLS - Envoy is much more likely to remain on the field due to it's incredibly high attack. In addition to this, it can get rid of almost any monster in the metagame, and would just make Chaos even more powerful in Advanced Format (Chaos Decks are still winning tournaments although not as often). I'd say that if it is Limited, it will be Banned once again in March but until then the price will shoot up for the IOC and MC1 versions and Chaos will dominate everything. Like it should be. Because Chaos = Win.BobaFett2 (talk)

Stardust Dragon doesn't come Gold, does it?

Wrong, try check "Gold Stardust Dragon" out. BLS - Envoy ain't Semi-Nomi, it's NOMI - if it's successful summon by it own effect, it cannot summon again ever afterward. But if you want BLS - Envoy to be bring back, all you need to ask for Errata - tone down the Special Summon requirement; from general monsters (1 Light monster and 1 DARK monster) to specify type monster (1 Light-Warrior Monster and 1 Dark-Warrior Monster) instead and maybe put in hijacking effect that would prevent the monster from re-using the remains of the effects till next two turns after it uses. --FredCat 17:41, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's a Semi-Nomi. "This card cannot be Normal Summoned or Set. This card can only be Special Summoned by removing 1 LIGHT and 1 DARK monster in your Graveyard from play.". It's listed on the Special Summon-only monsters page. BobaFett2 (talk)

I'd say the only reason BLS is getting reprinted is to make it more accessible for those players that are collecting banned cards. ChaoticCrosswinds (talk • contribs) 19:38, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Same thing with Kaiba's Duelist Pack pooped "Crush Card Virus" in Ultimate Rare version, though it's still ban at that time, and now. --FredCat 19:40, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be difficult to get rid of. Besides Dark Hole there are also Solemn Warning, Solemn Judgment, Mirror Force, Dimensional Prison, Bottomless Trap Hole, cards some copies are present in almost any deck. In addition there are plenty other effects which could harm him.

It might be a very strong monster, but I don't see why 1 copy of it would make chaos decks too strong to beat. -dest- (talk • contribs) 22:08, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I don't understand why Honest cannot beat it with Marshmallon's attack... --FredCat 22:12, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

That's just like saying "Well, Solemn Judgment and Stardust Dragon are around, so Tribe-Infecting Virus should be un-banned." Or "We have Trap Stun and Royal Decree, so let's Un-ban Crush Card Virus." If cards were taken off the list because there are some cards that can stop them, the ban list would be empty, and we'd be playing Traditional all the freaking time. BLS is not coming off the ban list. Back when it was limited, it still proved to be too good for the game to handle. Yes, more cards have come out, and the meta has changed, but that doesn't mean a 3000 ATK double-attacker you can drop outta nowhere easily isn't still deadly enough to warrant the ban.ChaoticCrosswinds (talk • contribs) 22:49, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, sorry, I took your requirement of Summoning out of your crevi- Oh wait --FredCat 22:50, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Always so testy, Fred, it's unhealthy. However, since we're playing your little game of hypotheticals, who's to say I don't have Burial from a Different Dimension or even a second monster of the removed attribute? But, hey, maybe you're right. Maybe it isn't broken. We should un-ban it. And then we should un-ban stuff like Painful Choice, Graceful Charity, Yata-Garasu, and Witch of the Black Forest, to name a few. Since I can just negate them or manipulate the field or grave in such a way as to make them useless, they shouldn't be on the banlist either. Hell, let's all just play traditional, since every card can theoretically be countered.ChaoticCrosswinds (talk • contribs) 22:56, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Why not just mail a letter to Konami and let's see if they can agree with it. But, I still consider to errata'd the warrior and dragon before free them. --FredCat 22:58, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

I'm defending Konami's standpoint, bud. If anyone needs to write to defend their position, it's you. As to errata-ing the cards, well. D.D. Warrior Lady, D.D. Survivor, Dark Grepher, Armageddon Knight and many others still say "Hello, bend over, please."ChaoticCrosswinds (talk • contribs) 23:02, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Divine Wrath said yo to them if they try to tear the Envoy of Beginner apart. --FredCat 23:05, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see it. Maybe errata'd(take the atk down to somewhere between 2500 and 2800, or harder summon conditions, or without it's double attack, or nomi). Though I've always been partial to the card because I have one, and it looks great, plus fond memories. I wouldn't be massively surprised, because it's not as overpowered these days. Sure, it's still good, but there are more ways to counter it now, more easy to summon cards that will destroy it, plus more ways to get rfg cards back(particularly with that exceed that brings them back coming out), and when you think about it, there are cards that aren't banned that are probably just as good as it. It was never as broken as CED. I'd also really love to try and make a chaos fabled deck with it. HT30 (talk • contribs) 15:50, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

People need to know the definition of Errata.

errata plural of er·ra·tum (Noun)

1. An error in printing or writing. 2. A list of corrected errors appended to a book or published in a subsequent issue of a journal.

Emphasis on error. Konami never have and never will change a card's text to make it more balanced, nor would they change the attack of a monster, unless incorrectly printed.

On topic. BLS is not coming back. Its too powerful. Sure there are answers for it, but its power is simply too extreme. A 3000 ATK body with a RFP effect of ANY monster, face down or not, is simply too powerful. IonCharge (talk • contribs) 19:45, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

The dictionary definition and how it is used in relation to this game are not necessarily the same though.

Also, they have changed cards text to make it more balanced in the past. Take Ultimate Offering for example. The first edition of the card makes it pretty clear that it can be used by both players. Saying "a player" is not an error. There would be no reason to call it that, rather than "you", were it not intended to be able to be used by both players. The only error is one of balance, not language, as it is pretty clear what the card was meant to do.

Many cards on the ban list are more broken now than they were when first released. Any of those that allow mass discard for draw power, for example, would be even more ridiculous now in the hands of decks like Fabled. BLS has done the opposite. As the game has progressed, it has become less powerful, relative to other cards. It has a great ATK power, but ATK has been getting less and less relevant since the game began, as there are more and more ways of destroying things by alternative means. Most of the decks that do really well would not be halted by a monster just because they couldn't run it over with atk. These days, there are lots more cards that could deal with it easily, and several that have more of an impact upon any given game, because of their lockdown or mass-destruction effects, neither of which BLS has. There are many counters to it. I know that people will argue that everything has a counter, but the counters I'm talking about are pretty commonly used, and most decks are likely to have one, or be able to get one quickly. Think of all the decks that can easily drop BRD, catastor, trishula, etc. And that's just generic synchros, there are many others that work in specific decks. I do not think the effect of the card itself is broken. It's powerful, but not a difficult card to get rid of, and think it possibly will come back. The biggest cause of doubt for me is it's low cost. I don't think it's hard to get rid of it, but it is very low cost, so depending on how they get rid of it, could net advantage, if they're using 2-3 cards to synchro.

Actually, the whole point of errata is to fix errors in original card text. Like Ultimate Offering. It was simply printed with the wrong wording. BLS is still ridiculously powerful for this meta. It is one of the strongest effect monsters in print to this day, very few cards rival it with easy summoning conditions, and nearly no cards rival its ability to grant its user +1 after +1 every single turn. BLS hasn't become "less powerful". In fact, more decks are incorporating Chaos engines. Chaos Plant is one of the top decks at the moment, along with Junk Doppel Chaos, which is topping multiple tournaments in the OCG. To say it is not powerful is foolish. IonCharge (talk • contribs) 21:01, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

If we look at the other things going on in yu-gi-oh, we will see that the rules on priority aren't changing. They unbaned Chaos Sorcerer, and its a great card, but without having the Priority to activate its effect when it is summoned is a lot worse. I think that limiting BLS is just a substitute for Chaos Sorcerer in some decks. Also, its a totally awesome card. I don't think it will make too much of an impact on the game if it becomes limited.24.45.194.229 (talk) 00:28, May 25, 2011 (UTC)