Jump to content

Someguy

Ah fuck I cant believe im banned
  • Content count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 You're a random

About Someguy

  • Rank
    Plain Old Duelist

Recent Profile Visitors

296 profile views
  1.  Too late, already happened.   It isn't good in this format.   T1 derailment wow. Actually ik who it is.
  2. Monsters: 15 1 Drill Barnacle 2 Guardian Sphinx 3 Jowgen the Spiritualist 3 Fossil Dyna 3 Des Lacooda 3 Worm Linx   Spells: 13 1 My Body as A Shield 3 Upstart 3 Duality 3 Swords of Revealing Light 3 Nightmare's Steelcage   Traps: 12 1 Emptiness 1 Wall of Revealing Light 2 Safe Zone 2 Lose 1 Turn 3 Red Screen 3 Dark Bribe   Extra: None (optional)   Side 1 Drill Barnacle 1 Imperial Iron Wall 2 MST 2 Zombie World 3 Mask of Restrict 3 Flying C 3 Denko   I saw something like this a while ago, so I took it and made some modifications. Basically, the idea is to get a first turn floodgate in the form of Jowgen/Fossil Dyna/L1t/Emptiness and stalling. There are 9 floodgates being run in a 36 card deck so its a 79% chance of opening a flood going first. There are 12 stall cards being run. From that point, the idea is to just draw using camels and worms, eventually bringing out Guardian Sphinx to spam the reusable Compulory-Raigeki effect and attack with everything for game. The idea at its most basic is just a 2 card combo early- stall+floodgate. I don't want Guardian early, so I don't run too many, the win condition can come by itself. If you've read Next Level Magic, you'll know this is the kind of deck that uses a single card that wins games all by itself. The author also says that some of the decks can run bad cards because of a degenerate drawing engine- they are willing to run some bad cards because it won't matter too much- the cards aren't good by themselves, but with other cards, they are pretty powerful. Lacoodas and Linxes net +1's and +2s each turn, although they are slow. On the other hand though, the opponent is often stuck at a crawl, due to not being able to attack nor special. Under those conditions, the draw cards are the best thing to have. Using Bribe and MBAAS aren't the best, but in order to protect the lock and defend against removal, it is the best thing I can think of. I need hard draw, as multiples of cards are gotten frequently in order to have a strong earlygame, sacrificing midgame. This is one of the things about the deck- running more floodgate and stall lets one consistently get a lock 1st turn, but the draw power is needed to win faster.   -Trap heavy decks are problematic, and triple Bribe and MBAAS isn't always enough (using floodgates and stall and Denko helps g2&3, and Safe Zone also helps the lock. Sometimes I let them expend traps on the draw cards. Also, having multiple anti SS out can make a BTS and other nullification useless.) -Qli. This is why I ran Barnacle and tons of anti tribute cards: Barnacle avoids monster interaction, and without being able to tribute,  Qli is crippled. -As the deck does not use the grave, search, SS, nor is heavily reliant on lights or darks, it can run tons of floodgates and avoids many floodgates: only 2 MST and Drill Barnacle are not floodgates in the side. -The draw power is so strong that I can even get by a 1st turn Decree using only spell based stall cards with no MST. (Not a good idea though)   That's the basic idea. I'll try to elaborate more on the deck later.
  3. It was a nice event, ty frogs for putting the effort in. Would be cool to have one every once in a while. Congrats to teh best duelist evar. High point for me was beating Squids g1 and then...well, that's it really haha. But it was fun.
  4. Yeah, you got me. I misplayed g3 although it might not have mattered cuz of fairy wind and early destruction ss'd cards. Most people only use standard plays. Although, I wondered why you used Honor Ark when I had no extra and tons of antiss. I guess in case something swung in my favor. Was fun though.   Used it to not die to jowgen + fossil dyna so I could have field presence even if you had those guys   Exactly, removal early is key to beating it. Was hoping that you'd go for standard plays but that would have been foolish on my part.
  5. Yeah, you got me. I misplayed g3 although it might not have mattered cuz of fairy wind and early destruction ss'd cards. Most people only use standard plays. Although, I wondered why you used Honor Ark when I had no extra and tons of antiss. I guess in case something swung in my favor. Was fun though.
  6. I agree. If anyone wants to join but hasn't because of low turnout, then post your intent and then maybe more people will see that others had that same idea, and then they can all join. 
  7. Done.   DN: Stefanbashkir Challonge: Stefanbashkir   Not going to use troll deck, actually. Well, probably not.
  8. Into the Void Yosenju- An unorthodox build

    Yeah, the Decree idea was just an idea, it probably wouldn't work too well because of nekroz and inability to main other floodgates; I would probably get otk'd (only Dfissure and necrovalley would be mained spell type floodgates). So I think L1T and Mirror Force +mass removal is a decent staller for now. However, although it is true that the deck has trouble against mass destruction traps, smokescreening into a low trap variant with decree (and trap stun+malevolent catastrophe) works against backrow heavy decks while running extra floodgates and extra draw power against the others is working well, as Maxx C is very effective in those matchups and even if I draw dead into a maxx or have to discard a maxx because of void, it is OK because the floodgate gotten is more of a minus to the opp than me. I'm just trying to figure out which combination of decree+other backrow hate is ideal to side, as well as other floodgates that would be effective even with decree, or in the event that a floodgate were destroyed, decree would be effective, and vice versa. Or perhaps running more spell floodgates. Or both. Hmm.   Crab King is one of the easiest out to Towers to make, its just a generic rank 4 but as it starts with 0 atk, the -500 does nothing and then it activates its effect to get to 3000, and then suicides itself. The turbo Qlip Towers build is pretty cool, I have to say, getting a Towers 1st turn.
  9. Into the Void Yosenju- An unorthodox build

      Well, here's the build so far:   Monster 13 9 kama bros. 3 Tsujik 1 Maxx C   Magic 16 3 upstart 3 pod 3 Tenki 3 void 2 Dark Hole 1 One Day of Peace 1 Raigeki   Trap 11 3 Lose 1 Turn 3 Reckless 3 Mirror Force 1 Torrential 1 Emptiness   Extra 15 Mostly the same thing   Side 15 3 Decree 1 MalCat 1 Trap stun 1 Mistake 1 Soul Drain 1 Cosmos 1 D fissure 1 Book of Moon 3 poisonous Winds 2 Maxx C   (The 1 maxx doesn't really interfere with the Void) Here is my reasoning: The vast majority of disruption comes in the form of traps. Too many resources are spent dealing with them. Secret move is good for stopping disruption, but it is a 1 for 1 essentially. Decks that run those disruptive traps often are the kind that have a lot of them, so trying to negate each one would likely not be in my favor, statistically. I side Voids out for those matchups, as well as some of my traps, and add decree and other backrow hate. To mitigate the loss of draw, I add in 2 Maxx C. Against fast and powerful decks that don't run disruption (mainly ones that have little to no backrow) void can not only be run, but is invaluable in getting floodgates as well as racing to see who can otk the other first.   I did consider fiendish, but I don't like the 1 for 1, as well as it only being mainly good early if I don't have offense, and it takes away from the aggro aspect. Also, a lot of damage can be mitigated not just with Force/Torrential, but Hole/Raigeki (as long as I don't get otk'd). Stopping the opponent's monsters using traps vs stopping their disruption to battle out monster vs monster, the latter is much more preferable, as yosenju usually wins out in that regard. And so attempting to have good draw speed for the aggro aspect while running traps would make neither one ideal. Taking damage isn't a problem if it isn't an otk, as the game can often be won in 2-3 turns with this type of speed. But, L1T and emptiness also mitigates damage.   I am trying to figure out a way of running a mained Decree build. Some things I can think of are: -Decree would negate my floods. -Decree+Void isn't a great idea, as it would mean running 3 cards where they are not needed for a matchup. Because if I am up against a disruptor, then Void is bad where Decree is good, and Decree is bad against decks that run little backrow. -Decree would also hit the Force and Reckless -3 Maxx C could help in the draw department, if those things were taken out -In that case, taking out void and traps would require a lot of stuff being added in, which would most likely be subpar.   I think the siding strategy is pretty effective and efficient so far, as it can run traps and floods, or else be low on traps and run decree. But the individual card choices in the side are, I'm pretty sure, far from ideal. The RB matchup's side is decent, as is nekroz (I try to max out floods and draw power). But I think the idea of switching into trap heavy floodgate vs low trap Decree is working well.
  10. Into the Void Yosenju- An unorthodox build

    Whoops. Edited.   Added and changed, thanks.   I think Malevolent Catastrophe could work well here. There is already a lot of backrow hate though. I think if it is ran, 3 fairy wind won't be needed. The thing is, Yosenju usually wins if its just monsters vs monsters, but with backrow in the equation, it is much more difficult. MaCat (don't have one irl lol. Get it?) is better in the regard that is more efficient than trap stun (which is mainly good if gotten in multiples or going for game) because it gets rid of backrow for good. And it should be easy to resolve. A potential issue is that it would kill floodgates. The setting of cards after using into the void should not be a problem, as void is sided out against most of those backrow heavy decks anyways.   And decks that maintain field presence are tough to get over, like yang zing, and hands are annoying too.   Edit: I just got another idea, although I'm still figuring out the specifics. Looking at the side, most of it is to stop disruption. Disruption most often comes in the for of traps. Therefore, I think it might be possible, and indeed beneficial, if Decree is sided. I think Trap Stun can also be sided where Decree would be run, as it isn't likely to get a sided card t1, so adding more than 3 is best. And even if the opponent MST's Decree, Stun can still be live. And most of the rest of the side deck can be floodgates and perhaps other spells or Maxx C, as so to side out other traps when siding for trap heavy decks. This is because Decree does what most of the side does. This frees up space for other things, most likely floodgates against decks that don't run many traps, if at all (nekroz, dolls) where the traps being run can stay, as well as more floodgates.   Decks that don't run too much backrow are often 'the bigger deck'-decks that have high maximum potential but they use similar ways of generating advantage throughout that particular deck. For example, Nekroz relies on special summons and search and spells, floodgated by L1T, Mistake, and Anti Spell Fragrance, respectively. Trees were countered by grave floods like Cosmos, Dfissure, Soul Drain. And so on. Of course, each deck countering said strategies could be hurt by other floodgates, but if two different decks that didn't run much backrow h2h went against each other, most likely a clear winner would emerge time and time again, as those decks tend to compete purely on power- see how underpowered LS is against nekroz, for example. Of course, floodgates are the solution, but if the main deck is better than another's, relying on floodgates will still make the floodgater lose most of the time, as the noncountering strategy will already get cards they need t1 to get going, as opposed to the floodgater, who relies on 2 main things, and needs to get the defense (floodgates) as fast as possible, otherwise they will lose. If they don't, they will almost certainly lose. If they do, they may still lose, as the opponent will likely be siding in a counter, most often in the form of mst (unless you're going up a smart guy, who will counter your counter's counter, if you countered with a counter-counter) Statistically, this favors the deck that has higher potential. However, this is mitigated by economy of card when siding, which is why I'm trying to run decree. Most traps aren't economical. Floodgates are, as they are a mass minus. Floodgates are most often sided, rather than mained. The problem is that there are so many different decks to compete against, and they each need a different counter, except that the correct counter can also hurt oneself. This is why, as someone said, the best players make strong fields, then flip a flood, locking the other guy. They essentially ignore the other player's strategy for most part, as their field of monsters will be able to overcome the opponent's, and then floodgate appropriately, rather than using cards that are not floodgates for the fact that they can hurt themselves. It is simpler and more powerful. People use Fairy Wind because it hits a lot while not hitting them. But it isn't a floodgate. Decree is. By being able to grossly simplify their counters, they can side in more powerful cards (floods) and win more often against a variety of opponents. People can flood nekroz, but they can't flood deck X. Or perhaps they can flood Y, but not Z. They can side a nonflood strategy, which will increase the amount of variance between their wins against that particular strategy.   So basically: The best decks, (ones that don't need to run heavy backrow) essentially simplify what they are hurt by, and are open to being able to counter a variety of strategies. They have single weaknesses, which are most often in the form of floodgates, which generally allows them to be able to counter them easily (MST most often). And they don't have to worry about being overpowered, as their deck focuses around power. That is basically what I want to try to do in Yosenju: make it so the deck is weak only 1 or 2 areas and countering the weakness(es) rather than being worried about the other things, as the deck will be strong enough to overcome. This idea, however, can only work if it is really the deck with a higher power level (preferably 9001).
  11. Into the Void Yosenju- An unorthodox build

    I think it depends on the build. If void is run, then cardcar can't be run. And if one is running Void, then one usually gets enough to use the monsters at the get go, so that cardcar wouldn't be idea card to play. Cardcar is noticeable because it is an actual plus rather than a 0. I think the reason hieratic used cardcar and Duality was because it wasn't consistent. Yosenju is, it is just that it can be faster or slower in a somewhat linear fashion rather than brick/explode like hieratics.   With Terraforming, the thinning would be so much better, possibly a 20something card deck and the LP protection would be a ridiculously huge boost. It is a card where one has to play relatively skillfully. It is quite powerful.
  12. Into the Void Yosenju- An unorthodox build

    You've nailed most of the problems with the deck so far. I'm trying to figure a way around that. Going first helps avoid that issue, although it doesn't really count. I personally don't think veiler should be run in general, as it doesn't provide economy of card. But I agree with the Maxx thing. I was thinking or running 2 void instead. Although, that doesn't solve the problem either. Seeing as most games are played sided, I just side the voids out against heavy disruption decks, like tellars, and keep them in against aggressive big play decks (nekroz). Void is a real bottleneck at times and does make other cards harder to play. Knowing what cards will probably be drawn into is a consideration too-the cost benefit ratio may not make it the best. I think that another problem this deck has is that it runs too many defensive cards. It does run much less defense than other builds, but with that mass removal and floodgates, it is too much. I think a fundemental restructure is best, rather than finding ways to filler through. I have made changes, although I want to resolve the issues better than currently before putting up a modified version, gotta hit the numbers again. Feel free to post your own variants of the idea and see what works, I'm not so interested in making this particular deck better than resolving the problems. This is somewhat new as far as I know, so its hard to find the solution yet. Also, 1 Pod and 1 One Day = 32 card deck (unless pod reveals a filler that is not used ofc). But so far,the best thing I can think of is 2 Maxx and 3 void (perhaps other ratios are better) and siding appropriatly.
  13. Into the Void Yosenju- An unorthodox build

    Thanks. Another thing I want to add is that Void can also work in yosenju better than other decks for the reason that yosenjus return to the hand, allowing the mimimum of three cards in hand to be fulfilled.   Maxx is a very good idea. I had returned from an anti ss antimeta actually, so I had forgotten all about it. It does bother me that it is reactive rather than something that can be used otherwise, but it can certainly add to the thinning and double as a defensive measure as well, and seems suited for yosenju, as those extra cards may very well kill the opponent. And if they don't make a big play, then they may very well be overwhelmed. I'll be trying to add it in. I'm not sure what I might take out. Although the general idea is that the core of yosenju goes like "3 of each kama and 3 tenki", I am at the stage where PoD and tenki are dead at times. This is a problem of thinning, where one draws multiples of once per turn clause cards when they don't want to. I think I might take some out (uncertain of which ones and the amounts as of yet), as well as defensive cards like the mass removal, for Maxx. 7 mass removals are being run, so adding thinner to that and reducing removal (Mirror Force most likely) can still equal it out. And, like I said, it is a defensive measure in itself. It might be premature to say as of yet, but I think it will work better than cardcar, depending on the build ofc.   I have run Scolding, and it was surprisingly live. I hadn't ran it in the Void build as I had not conceived the Void idea at the time, and then when I did use the Void build, space was quite tight. I Scolded an opponent's Gorz when attacking for game though :) and I think I ran 1-2 at the time. I do think it can work, but so far, I think there won't be space for it, as what was though at must have's in yosen are not ideal to this build. I do like how this deck is more aggro and wins in less turns; therefore, by avoiding longer games like other yosenju decks do, the LP cost is mitigated, and so it would be safer to play. I also like how it is one of those cards that can do what other cards need combos of to do the same thing; a standalone card. That is to say, some yosenju builds run secret move, but it is only live during the opponent's turn, so people use L as well, which only prevents destruction disruption. Who knows, maybe running a couple of those and less reactive traps (Mirror Force) would work.
  14. I second that notion. Let's get this thing in motion! But, I WILL play a troll deck. Just sayin'. Srs.
  15. if you click on this topic you must post

    I scratched my ear.
×