What’s up, people! My name is Jared Zero, the third, and final member of Team Limit Break (US). I’d like to take just a minute to discuss how cards are determined to be good or bad, and I’d like your opinion! Last week, my teammate, Mike, covered the topic of Floodgates, and how they can be an issue with the game. This sparked a lot of debate and interest in a lot of members in the community, as well as with my other teammate, Saul. So, I’d like to keep the debates going and see what you guys have to say. Saul and I ended up getting into a pretty lengthy discussion about cards, and what makes a card good or bad.
I’m going to start by saying this, a card being good or not, depends on the meta. The one card that sparked this discussion, Shantotto 
. Truthfully, I don’t think of that card as good. In the meta we are currently in, there are tons of cards that simply reduce power, alter power, or even just break forwards. Now, don’t get me wrong, that boils down to the X beats Y argument, but when so many of the cards being played, the risk of having the card you paid six for being useless is pretty high. Another example of this, though not as extreme, would be Legendary Tidus 
. When cards like The Emperor weren’t as prominent, and forwards weren’t as big, Tidus was awesome. He’d be able to Blitz Ace for however much damage you had, as well as just be bigger by having another two or three forwards on board. With The Emperor being in almost every deck now, Dragon being able to break him for two, and just a lot of forwards being more powerful, it’s hard for Tidus to be good, even with Blitz Ace. One card that went from bad to good is Ceodore 
. He just didn’t do anything or have a place in the last meta. Now that mono-water Monsters are a thing, Ceodore has a lot to offer that deck.
On the other side of the coin though, is it the cards potential that determines whether it’s good or not? Aerith-L is an excellent example of this, and was one of the cards tackled in the floodgate article. She reads very well, and even if she isn’t played she’ll still be a good card, because of the potential she provides. She shuts off so many cards that can be potentially game changing, like backup Raubahn
or cards like Red Mage 
. There is also Shadow Lord, the potential he provides is just outstanding. By being able to counter Opus one Golbez, his potential allows him to always be a good card, even if Golbez isn’t actually played in the meta. Shadow Lord can also provide chip damage, which can combo well with a lot of other cards, like Opus four Orlandeau and Black Mage 
. A card that is bad, and will always have a bad potential, is something along the lines of Opus one Hope 
. There are cards that do what he does, just a lot better. So, he has a relatively low potential.
In my honest opinion, I think it is the meta the defines whether or not the card is good, and the card choices picked are all based off of personal experience. I can’t justify calling a card good, if it does nothing in the games that I am playing. Anyway, what do you guys think? Are cards created good or bad depending on their potential, or are cards ever changing between good and bad based on the meta?
– Jared Z.
