Jump to content

harig07

Duelist
  • Content count

    3213
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by harig07

  1. Nekroz - Discussion

    Effect Veiler is probably the best card for the mirror, I'd say even better than Kycoo or Maxx. Negating Valk and setting up a counter Trish is so huge.
  2. Nekroz - Discussion

    @Exitium: I've been playing Hearthstone religiously this past couple of weeks so that's why I haven't been posting as much as I used to. I was going to respond to all the anti-Snatch Steal/HA comments but now that the Djinn ruling has changed it's back to the drawing board really.   Have a lot of things going on at the moment but once that's done things will go back to normal.
  3. You are still allowed to "send" an Extra Deck monster for the cost of Kaleidomirror. You activate Kaleidomirror, opponent has no response. Kaleido sends first, as you "send" in order to summon whatever Rituals were equal to what was sent. This is just like a normal Ritual where you would tribute the fodder before the summon without it being a cost to do so.   Therefore before Unicore hits the field the card is sent from the Extra, but because of Dark Law the card is banished. However once Kaleido has finished resolving Unicore will be face-up and its continuous effect will negate Dark Law, so Kaleidomirror is sent to the graveyard.   tl;dr Extra monster banished Ritual Spell in grave
  4.   Pretty sure all the German February YCSs have been towards the end of the month.   Convenient to "hang" with the wifey before scrubbing on the bubble and hanging myself.
  5. Nekroz - Discussion

      6 is just the bare minimum that you can get away with running. Ideally I'd like more Ritual Spells, but at the moment I feel like the benefits you accrue from having, say, the 3rd Exo and 2nd Cycle - which would just be that you can make more plays in the late game - come at the expense of whichever techs you lose. You could play my build but cut any number of Hidden Armories to run more engine cards if it suits, and I have experimented with 6-8 Ritual Spells. Basically I would like more Ritual Spells but accept that I need techs more.   Kycoo is just at 1 for now because I know how good it is, so I'm testing other things (mainly Eclipse).   Dire Wolf is 100% worth running, I make it a lot because you can go 1000 -> Unicore hit 37 overlay DDW pop banish for Ritual search. It doesn't sound amazing but it's a very balanced play against match-ups outside of the mirror. In general being able to pop and having a clear field for follow-up Ritual plays is very useful. I never really liked Ragna because I find Qli have gotten to the point where they can play around it quite easily, so first turn Ragna really doesn't do anything. There are a bajillion things that could be ran in spot 15, it's just Draco for now.   Armories basically replace Twister. When I ran, like, 6 MST + Fairy Wind my hands would get very saturated and you still need to be able to do things. I like Armory more than Twister because I feel you start to notice diminishing returns with Twister, or indeed any other MST clone - having multiples is good, but declines in goodness the more you have kind of thing. At the moment I'm very happy with HA, MST and Fairy as my Qli hate cards.       2nd Cycle is always something I'm flip flopping with. I use it often, but it can make hands clumpy. As said above, at the moment I feel I need techs more than multiples of Ritual Spells, so that's why I'm running a minimal Spell line-up.   Level 6 comes up enough for me to use it, oddly enough. I can't describe "real" scenarios but there'll just be, like, a Dark Law and I'll have Kaleido and Brio in hand, or something like that. I'd run one of a 6 or a 10. I can't think of too much I'd rather have over the 6 in any case.   In my build's case there's a conservation element. If I can make a similar play using 1 Ritual over 2 I'll do so, in most instances. It's difficult to explain but I'll be careful not to burn myself out too quickly. It isn't something that is consciously factored in, but when you run 2 Exo 1 Cycle you're aware that, say, banishing a Cycle in grave or using an Exo will affect what you can do in the future. It hasn't been a problem though, for me 3 2 1 has always been fine.       Yeah I haven't been running Djinn for the longest and by this point I think it's an acceptable thing to do. I sounded quite blasé in my post, it isn't just like "fuck it lols let's put Djinn in". Djinn is very good at what it does and, in many situations, ends up being pivotal in stemming the opponent's tempo in the mirror, Qli and BA (cutting Qli off from Pendulums/BA from all SS is very real). I see people playing into Djinn too often, or too aggressively, and this was why I didn't like Djinn at first. Now I just consider it a very useful toolbox option with obvious ramifications if you play it without accepting how brittle a card it can be.   When I said I had nothing else to run in its place it was more "I don't want to go lower than 42/41 and I like the 3rd HA and there's nothing better than Djinn". Again, siding is so important with this deck that the side often dictates the main. With mine for example it is very important for me to be at 41/42 or else I just won't have enough things to cut in certain cases. Even when I say there's nothing better than Djinn, it's entirely relative. When Nekroz becomes more popularised builds 100% won't look like what mine currently is (in terms of individual tech choices, structurally I think it'll be similar). I wouldn't go heavy on Nekroz techs and such atm because I expect most Nekroz players to be less aware of how the deck is best played, and for that to give me advantages. As that changes my build will change.   But yeah, maybe it seemed earlier than I'm anti-Djinn. I'm not (even though I don't particularly like the card), I just didn't think it was worth running. Now I do, at least for now.
  6. Nekroz - Discussion

    While the discussion of sample lists is going on I'll post mine     3 HA makes siding easier in general (can side more for the mirror and less for Qli, which is preferable). As Exitium has expressed, Dark Hole isn't that great. Snatch Steal has a much wider set of applications, even if it comes at the expense of your Normal Summon. I decided to run multiples of Hidden Armory for the reason I discussed previously regarding Gungnir and Trishula - drawing multiples of a destruction card sucks when they have Gungnir, but multiples of a targetting card is great when they have Trishula. I'd rather 'double draw' Snatch Steal in most instances over Hole. It also eases the pressure to beat Qli G1 but it just a better idea than maining MST because it serves a wider range of functions than MST does Game 1 (for example, it outs Djinn).   I'm not sure on siding Eclipse. I don't main it because it isn't favourable to have against other match-ups, and is only good in the mirror as a Djinn out in most instances. That's not to say that it is useless - as was previously said, cards like Eclipse reward players who know how to make best use out of them. But it isn't favourable. However, it is the best Djinn out, so in the mirror I can side out things like HA and Raigeki (depending on what I expect them to have) because so long as I have Eclipse I won't need a 'variety' of outs to bypass Gungnir and Trish. Eclipse also lets one dodge Veiler (more so on Valk tributes rather than Trish), which is significant. So I think Eclipse is a safe insurance side for the mirror to compliment the other three cards.   Emptiness is for BA and Heroes going first, not the mirror. I would say Shadow-Imprisoning (or 2 SIM 1 Soul Drain) is better than Emptiness, but I'm trying Emptiness with some other things in mind. I've fallen out of favour with Flying "C" because you have to kill it at some point and that isn't exactly great. You can afford to have a blowout floodgate.   I'm trying Djinn again because even if I dislike it there's nothing better to run at this stage. My main assumes a low/moderate Nekroz presence, so as far as techs go I won't have anything worth using until Nekroz gains in presence.   Any questions lmk
  7. Nekroz - Discussion

    @Sammy and Exitium: I see you're both sold on the Hidden Armory tech haha. It is very good, certainly. Puts in a lot of work against Qli. An advantage to it over Hole is that Gungnir protects for the entire turn, while Trishula's protection is a one-off. If you have multiples of Hole/Raigeki in your hand it doesn't help to out a Djinn field, as you just chuck one and pass hoping that they don't Unicore the Gungnir back. However if you open multiples of Snatch (through HA) you're likely going to break through the Trish defence. As far as techs go I'd say it's one of my favourites.   @Phillip: I explained why I think it's best to go first a while back, but as Tingy said you want to draw with Valk. You discussed how one may regret not opening the sixth card - this is rare due to the consistency with which you can go for the Valk sack play. It is likely you'll resolve the effect to draw 2 even with only 5 cards to work with. With that in mind, it becomes more "I'd rather see seven cards" over "I'd rather see six", as it is normally. First turn Gungnir is very strong too, hell even first turn Djinn can work. You basically sacrifice the usual advantages that going second offers in exchange for being able to at least attempt to maintain control of the gamestate. If Qli go first their ability to set up is relentless. This neuters that.   Oh, as a general note, I don't think the tendencies we've observed for the current format will transfer once Nekroz are released. The top three decks at the moment (BA, Qli and Shaddoll) are all very fast and aim to kill the opponent as quickly as possible. They are all flexible in that they can be structured Trap-heavy and play more balanced/grind games, but presently Shaddoll and Qli at least are structured in a manner that reduces defence for attacking options (my post on Dragons related to this). Yet Nekroz thrive against decks like these because you have Valkyrus to ensure that you don't die and their lack of defence means that you can pile in and pick apart their board. Therefore, aggressive structures suit Nekroz. If that premise is to be accepted one could also conclude, thus, that we'll see a decline in aggressive structures once Nekroz establishes itself.   tl;dr aggro Qli will likely be dropped in favour of lower monster higher Trap structures (i.e. OCG) because otherwise Nekroz will have super good match-ups across the board.
  8. I prefer to hold it for scenarios where you know for certain they don't have it, preferably in a simplified gamestate because ditching two randoms is better if there are less cards than if there are more. There are quite a few reasons for holding it but I think it just makes more sense than throwing it Turn 1. Also if I can do MoF shenanigans that's all good too.
  9. Nekroz - Discussion

    LaDD isn't difficult to deal with if the gamestate isn't simplified. Throw a couple of Spells into it, summon Senju/Manju run it over. Ritual Spells replenish so this isn't a problem. If you have Book that solves it also. Then you just run it over and they blow themselves up for a REDMD most likely. In mid-game, and even in late-game, banishing Rituals from grave helps as well.   Also in regards to the Hieratic build it is better and worse in some respects. Better in that you aren't just limited to Rank 8's and a handful of Synchros (Atum and Black Rose are good). Yet there's a fundamental disadvantage in that for Hieratics to make Dark Matter it will always require 3 Hieratics. 3 card combos < 2 card combos, even if the 3 cards are, in most respects, just better cards than those that make up the 2 card combo, at least in this case where the input is irrelevant so long as the output (Dark Matter) is achieved. This does not necessarily mean less consistent, though, considering Convocation. But yeah, that's more of a Dragon based discussion.   Something else that is interesting is that since the start of the new format (in OCG that is) Dragons have not had many tops. The current format in OCG is very diverse again now that Nekroz are crippled, yet even crippled Nekroz has had more tops than Hieratic Rulers and Mythic Rulers combined (according to Shriek). This is in a format where [weakened] Harpie's Feather Duster and Ring of Destruction exist too (along with Dragon Ravine).   I mean Blaster is still my bff and all but he'll have to hold tight for now.
  10. Nekroz - Discussion

      I'll respond particularly to this first. As far as I see it if you commit the Valk you accept the risk of Snatch Steal. I'd advocate not committing the Valk unless you have Trishula or something to protect it for this reason. Sometimes they just steal it and there's nothing you can do, but they don't play Armory so Snatch Steal is a one-off. If they sack it cool, but playing protect the Valk isn't a bad idea at all and isn't reduced because of the existence of one card. There are times where them stealing a Valk is even favourable so that you can respond with Raigeki/Hole/Moon to kill a face-up Emptiness and go from there. So yeah, Snatch Steal on Valk sucks, but to look at it like "this match-up is unwinnable because either you don't commit and lose to floodgate or you do commit and they Snatch you" is shallow.   The concluding line is equally undeveloped. This isn't ad hominem but it just isn't correct. Slowness is not necessarily suboptimal, the strengths of Nekroz are that they are a) super consistent and b) have the best ability out of everything out there to fluidly control the gamestate. What I mean by this is that Nekroz have cards to respond to almost any on-field situation and can therefore play very reactively or very proactively. It rewards a player for identifying the correct response to an opponent's field and playing accordingly. Rulers go balls deep for game as quickly as possible. That isn't to say that one is superior (on a philosophical basis anyway), but it isn't as simple as "win now or win later". In this case how you win will often dictate whether or not you win. One would have to assess whether an OTK strategy is preferable over a tempo-based strategy. My response would be that is entirely dependant on what you expect to play.     I'll address my thoughts on the Ruler match-up. I haven't tested it as extensively as I have the others, and I'll get round to doing so at some point. I have a soft spot for Rulers so I'll end up using them at some point, and at that point I'll readdress this topic once my opinions are more concrete.   From the perspective of a Nekroz player the match-up isn't difficult at all. Dark Matter builds aim to go balls in and kill you, or if they don't kill you make an "unbreakable" field. As you are aware it's typical to 'end' with Dark Matter, REDMD and Draco + 2 tokens. This seems pretty overpowered. However, as you are also aware Nekroz is particularly effective at disestablishing fields. Trishula is obviously strong against a grave-reliant deck. You can also rush with Unicore + pals to run over things. This is on top of the 2-3 mass field removal cards you'll probably be playing + Snatch Steal. So dealing with the field isn't difficult. Of course, the obvious response to you getting OTK'd is Valkyrus, who you should try to get in hand immediately to ensure you don't just die.   So on a base level your deck's engine allows you to respond to what they do very well. OTK is solved by Valk (if they go into Dark Matter you won't have to worry about Felgrand/Eater). Big board is solved by the multitude of options you have in regards to breaking up boards that just the Rituals on their own allow you to do. Beyond that there are Rank 4s (Exciton woosh, 2200 Dweller, Rhapsody) and removal cards that you are already going to play. Then beyond that there's at least Maxx "C" which by now is a stable inclusion in Nekroz builds and potentially Veiler as additional defence that stifles them immensely.   One might rebut, "well Dragons can play their own defensive options". Sure, I accept this, and I accept that their defensive cards will have more value because they serve to reinforce an established field. However, I would wager that Dragon builds have to be structured in a certain way to accommodate their game plan of Dark Matter turbo. That is to say that the lists have a lot of engine cards, I'd imagine 25-30 (+ Upstarts maybe). The rest of the space that they allocate dictates how their build will run. More defensive cards means they'll brick more, more aggro cards means that they won't be able to protect their fields. If you look at the strengths and weaknesses of the Rulers it makes sense to go for aggression, as being able to go into Dark Matter quickly means you're able to fuel your grave, and Dragons thrive in "late game" scenarios whereby their grave is filled. Also cards like Dracossack have inherent protection reducing the need for additional defence. However if the deck bricks it is just awful. So it's logical to say the builds are going to side towards more aggressive playstyles than defensive (this isn't to say Rulers can't play defensively, just saying it isn't as likely to crop up).   This is why people in OCG are playing Eatos and Barbaros. Eatos is completely dead outside of Turn 1, and Barbaros isn't exactly amazing outside of Skill Drain (which is likely to be more of a side option anyway because beatstick vanillas isn't favourable outside of Qli). But making Dark Matter is too important, so at the moment OCG Ruler players feel that they have to run basically shit cards in order to accommodate it. Whether this is optimal I don't know, but I understand the thinking behind it. The same can be said for the Hieratic engine, which isn't necessarily bad objectively but compared with Nekroz/Qli/BA is grossly inferior. Yet you run these cards to make Dark Matter.   So with that I think it's fair to assume that defence will be minimal in Ruler lists, which means you don't have the problem of "well what if they have Emptiness/Drain?". Yeah, they could have Emptiness or Drain, and if they go balls deep + have defence G1 you're probably going to lose. But it's unlikely, a) because their build probably won't be structured that way and b) because even if their build is structured that way the scenario of them having the perfect amount of commitment + perfect amount of defence is unlikely. They'll likely have dead draws like MST that they have to run so that they don't just scoop to Emptiness. The only likely defence that they'll have is Maxx, and even then that's not the end of the world.   Like I just don't see how Dragons have a favourable match-up against Nekroz at all outside of Nekroz bricking and them drawing super well. Just don't die and you'll have the rest of your deck to respond. The last time I played against Dragons I wished that I'd filmed it because it demonstrated exactly what I mean. The guy ended his first turn, after a Soul Charge play, with 5 in field and 5 in hand or something ridiculous like that + had defence (albeit Book of Eclipse) and I still won with a mediocre hand. This isn't meant to be anecdotal evidence but from what I've observed Dragons spewing big beatsticks + banishing monsters from deck isn't amazing enough to beat Nekroz consistently, which dispositionally means they won't be the best deck. This is before you even think about how they fare against Qli, BA and even Heroes, which again would only increase their deck building paradoxes.
  11. Nekroz - Discussion

    Alright did more testing with Exitium regarding the Qliphort match-up. This time I was using Qli and him Nekroz.   -Again, Game 1 is heavily stacked in Qli's favour. Gotta just try to kill them as quickly as possible, that's all you can really do. You'd have to main deck way too many cards to make it worthwhile, as has previously discussed just 3 MST is insufficient and even Hands don't ease Game 1 that much. So just play it as best you can.   -Notably, I won most of the games that I did because of Emptiness. Stealth allowing you to loop Emptinesses is just fucking nuts. This is a particular issue G1 where you're probably not going to have removal. I'll investigate it further, but it just so happened that in this particular bit of testing I drew Emptiness loads and Skill Drain not much, so all my efforts became focused on that rather than Drain. Still, I'd say a good Qli player (I wouldn't say I am) would be able to really maximise Emptiness' value most of the time, which is a problem.   -I was winning most of the matches with side before Exitium tried Hidden Armory. After he added Hidden Armory I lost a lot more. Hidden Armory actually solves the Emptiness problem because you go from losing to Emptiness beatdown to forcing a simplified gamestate where they're getting beatdown and their Emptiness ends up as a crutch. Consistent access to Snatch Steal proved very effective at breaking apart my boards and forcing me to make awkward plays to try and play around it. Regardless, Snatch Steal slows them down a bunch. If they kill it they kill Emptiness and you can likely go hard on them, if they don't kill it you just keep attacking. The bigger the monster the better the scenario, which means that even Drain + Emptiness, an otherwise impossible scenario, becomes much easier.   The only criticism that I'd have of the Hidden Armory strategy is that it's difficult to accommodate over other side deck options. 3 MST and 3 Fairy Wind is obvious. So you either have to make main space for Armory, which isn't necessarily ideal, or omit Twister/Hands/monster removal. But yeah, solves a lot of problems.   -Something that I also experimented with was (from the perspective of Qliphorts) Vanity's Fiend in the side. The idea with this was that they'd bring in S/T removal, so in all likelihood they'd have to side out monster removal in return. It worked out very well at first, because summoning it would pretty much guarantee game. However, again, Hidden Armory negates its usefulness entirely. I brought in Night Beams and kept in MSTs to counter S/T removal and that worked when I had Scouts and whatnot as it ensured that they stayed alive. However it also meant I had less monster removal in turn, so such a counter side works in certain situations. Will need more testing.   []   We also tested Heroes, with me using Nekroz and him using Heroes. 2 Hole, 1 Raigeki, 1 Snatch, 1 Armory mained. An underlying problem with Heroes is that they're quite brittle - they lack decent comeback plays once they lose their Dark Law (Miracle Fusion can place big beaters, but that doesn't really matter). As has previously been said, all your Djinn outs out Dark Law, which makes Heroes an inherently bad meta call with regards to beating Nekroz at this point in time (I mean their awful Qli match-up inherently makes them a bad meta call regardless).   Being able to still use Kaleido means you can rush them often regardless of whether or not you can search. Unicore + Brio/Gung/Valk is fine, hell even Trish + Clausolas is more than acceptable. DA + Mage works too. So even if you don't draw an out it isn't a big deal.   I'm sceptical to remain optimistic about the Hero match-up, because I feel there's potential with that deck and once someone finds a way to make that deck real it could very well become a threat. At this point it's difficult to imagine that - Heroes have to main a lot of engine cards in order to remain consistent, which leaves them with little room for techs. Then they have to decide whether to prioritise Nekroz or Qli (Acid is blowout against Qli so they could easily formulate a strategy that revolves around that). They could also just be played as an all in OTK kind of deck with little defence. I'm not inclined to say what is optimal as I don't play the deck. All I know is that from what I've played at the moment that deck is really nothing to worry about.   As far as side goes, monster removal is obviously good. Puppet Plant works against BA and Heroes, and is better than Armory because you don't have to search. But yeah, again more testing needed.
  12. Nekroz - Discussion

      Qlimate Change has always been kinda blow out. If they resolve it and replenish their Scouts it's a difficult situation to deal with. Then again, they either draw their Change authentically - in which case that's just how it goes - or they search it, in which case you focus your destruction on their backrow rather than Scout and try to just go aggro. There really isn't much you can do with regards to Qlimate Change but if they have that the risk of them having actual backrow is reduced, so you have to just try and hit hard I guess.   Likewise, if they have a decent Vanity's set up and you lack an out to it there isn't a whole lot you can do. But often time that won't happen, you'll have X card to deal with at least one thing. And in such situations, where you choose between Scout and floodgates, often time you should choose Scout because they're more dangerous to you if they have an unlimited stream of monsters than if they're playing regular Yu-Gi-Oh backed by Vanity's/Drain. Obviously depends on the situation.
  13. Nekroz - Discussion

    Also, we tested with Anti-Spell Fragrance and Imperial Custom. Both are awful, so don't worry about it.   We played one match unsided and 4 games after that just side. I lost the first match 1-2 and won every game post-side. I was maining Hands but saw them twice (one game they certainly helped though).   Another thing to add is the importance of Gungnir. First turn Gungnir with ammo is really good for sniping Scouts, as it conserves your MST/Winds. You can afford to throw Nekroz fodder into Scout because your engine replenishes itself quicker than theirs as long as they don't have Scout. As Tingy said, clearing Scout is often more important than clearing floodgates because Qli collapses if it can't generate advantage. You, however, can still replenish resources quite easily even if you're staring down an Emptiness or Drain.   I would also advocate going first post-side. Going second you see 6 cards, going first you see 5, however if you go for a Valk play you'll see 7. You also thin the deck, which gives you a better chance of seeing sideboard cards. We played 2 where I went first and 2 where I went second, and in both where I went first I was able to Valk into Fairy Wind/MST which was much better than the alternative. If you don't open Valk or sideboard it's difficult, but that's unlikely to happen considering the consistency of the engine + the sheer number of things you're likely to side.   Fairy Wind was very important, and that can't be stressed enough. Dealing with floodgates and Scout simultaneously is ridiculous and, again, avoids you burning MST + clones to do a similar thing. I'd side 5 if I could lol.   Hidden Armory is also notably good. Qliphorts rely on their monsters heavily, so being able to take their stuff and deal damage on top of that is very potent. Just be wary of them having Soul Turnover to chain it.   I don't know if Qliphort players will play Fiendish Chain, but it is really brutal considering they can loop it back with Stealth. Effect negation and attack stalling hurts. I'd take it over Skill Drain though.   ---   So yeah, was an informative bit of testing. Still have much more to work out about the Qliphort match-up but it was a good starting point certainly. Basically accept you'll lose Game 1 most of the time but post-side helps a lot. Gungnir and Fairy Wind are your MVPs.
  14. Nekroz - Discussion

    I don't know about the whole Mask Change 2 strategy (I'll test it and lyk) but it may be cute to use Dark Law as your Level 6 regardless just for the whole 'have it face-up so people think you're playing Heroes G1' bluff.   #gyzarus2k15
  15. A Journey Through Depression.

    (The real response)   @Klevis: It was brave of you to post your experience here. I agree that it is worth sharing your own experiences so that other people can extract meaning out of what you're saying in a way that can help them through their respective situation. The fact that at least some other people can relate to what you're saying "validates" your post, even though I'm sure you weren't doing it for validation. You did a good thing.   @Exiled: Your point on depression being different to everyone is very important, as that is what makes it so difficult to observe and understand. No one can really say "if you act in this way you are certainly depressed", nothing can be universalised as human experience is relative. So yeah, you did a good thing too.   -----   I feel like I might as well talk about my own experiences with depression. As a disclaimer I'd advise against handling the situation the way we did. Other people (professionals) know much more about depression than I do. My friends and I just got lucky. I dunno, take from it what you will.   -   In school I had a few good friends. I tried to help people out where I could: I went to a boys' school, so I'd get asked about how to get girls a lot. My closest friend and I would hang out upstairs in a room that we ended up inhabiting. We listened to music, looked at pictures of models, watched funny Facebook clips, just usual teenage stuff. Later on this would lead to skipping school and going to shisha, because smoking was fun.   Dawgy earlier mentioned PUA stuff: I was actually very interested in that type of thing at the time. At one point I was very insecure about girls - around 15 - but I went out a lot for a good year and after losing my virginity I got over it. What interested me after reading 'The Game' was the idea that you could become better with girls, that there was logic and art in human interaction. The girls themselves didn't matter to me, rather the social dynamics side of things interested me. So we watched videos and talked about them (despite all the controversy surrounding RSD as of late some of their stuff was really useful [again not to do with girls but the more regular shit]), and I was reading books like 'The Warrior of the Light' by Paulo Coehlo and 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus' by John Gray because I found them interesting.   One book that I read was 'The Way of the Superior Man' by David Deida. I can't remember exactly what it said but one rule is something like "Each man should live every moment with an open heart". This struck me, as I felt I did not do this. It described how a man should embrace each moment fully - the good and the bad - and feel all the possible emotion that can be felt, as that is to truly embrace life.   I discussed this with my friend - me and him were very similar, particularly in that we both didn't feel much emotion. At that point I didn't feel anything, which sounds odd and a bit scary. When my brother tried to explain a similar problem to my parents they couldn't understand him and assumed he misunderstood how he felt. At the time at which I was most insecure I felt true self-loathing, I was never suicidal but I relished in the idea of one day not existing. This sounds like self-pity, even now I look back on it with an awkward feeling, but it was just how I felt. At one point I decided that it was better to feel nothing at all because all the emotion I felt at the time was negative, and I became that way. Again, this may sound a bit unusual but it's just something I am able to do.   This is I think around February, after or around the time I turned 18. I say to my friend that it is bad for us to live without feeling anything, as it isn't really living. Sure if we feel emotion we run the risk of feeling things that are negative but we also feel positive emotions and those moments validate the decision. I argued that neutrality was stagnant and suboptimal. I wouldn't have thought that either of us were 'depressed' at that point - the fundamental reason why I, and probably he, elected to remove emotion was to avoid feelings of depression. But in hindsight not feeling probably is depression.   A month later a different friend who I'd known for a very long time told me that the girl he liked had killed herself. This guy was a nice guy and we shared a dark sense of humour, but he'd never socialise outside of school and in general seemed reserved about something. I assumed he was just insecure about girls because most of the guys in my school were. I can't remember what I said at the time, but a day later he told me he was suicidal and he needed someone to talk to. I honestly don't know why he came to me and I should have recommended a specialist but I agreed to meet with him. With his permission my other friend came along.   We met up at the usual shisha place, and I can't remember exactly what was said. I talked about meeting people a lot, as that was my passion at the time. I was just saying things that I'd learnt from my own experiences, and noticed how some of these things stuck with him. He said he'd hung around with a lot of depressed, negative people, and that in turn made him more depressed in response to me saying the opposite. There was genuine sadness in his eyes, in a way that I couldn't describe. He had a look as if he didn't want to bother being alive any more.   Eventually we broke through, although it didn't seem like a process that would befit such a term. Seeped through? Either way, we showed him that we truly cared about him, and I think that was important. It's odd that I can't remember too many specifics in terms of what was said, I just remember focusing on him a lot. Positivity breeds positivity, and I just wanted to be a source of that for him. Likewise love breeds love, and I wanted him to know that he was someone very close to us who we did love. He's had experiences with me that no one else has. I wanted him there. These sentences seem soppy and cliche but it's difficult to articulate how we felt any other way.   Since then he's mostly been fine. I talked a couple of other people out of suicide after that, not on some weird vigilante shit but just by coincidence I ended up in situations where that trust was placed on me. That particular day (March 14th), though, I went home and cried. It was weird, as I suddenly went from not feeling anything to crying. But the experience had upset me. I called that day the best day of my life, to this day I still do, and I guess it would be because on that day all three of us helped each other with our respective "depressions". Again, I wouldn't say I am depressed and to look back on that spell as depression seems hyperbolic. But we all progressed from there in some way, and became very close. We all learnt things about ourselves and about each other.   That's all I'd really tell on it.
  16. A Journey Through Depression.

    Yeah again I get why you assumed what you did haha. The meeting is because my attendance was poor and after each term you get a report. I had two classes, in one I had satisfactory and in the other unsatisfactory. This isn't to do with academic achievement - in the class where I got an unsatisfactory I got a 2.1, which isn't superb but certainly isn't failing. Just one of those "is there anything we as the department can do to help you + make sure you actually work" kind of things. Funnily enough they have such meetings to make sure a student isn't depressed or something.
  17. A Journey Through Depression.

      First year of university is really lax for me. I have three essays to do per term and one exam in the summer, and three classes that I have to attend per week. The lectures aren't mandatory to attend. Pass mark for everything is 40%.   The university is second in the country for my course (English), so not 'ghetto'. Just convenient for now. I mean you're making assumptions from my post about me and the place I go to, neither of which are true, but I didn't paint either in a particularly positive light so I can't exactly blame you for doing so. The post was a reaction to Klevis saying that if one acts in such a manner they are certainly depressed: I act in such a manner and am not depressed. Second year and third year things will be different, and I will actually have to work.   And me, I guess. I'm on a bursary/grant so a lot of it is covered.
  18. A Journey Through Depression.

    (My immediate personal response)   I'm reading this at 4pm having woken up an hour ago, meaning I've missed all of my lectures in the process. I'm hungry but do not want to leave my bed. DN is open but I'm barely using it, just flicking through things. This is routine. I have a meeting with some important academic figure regarding my unsatisfactory efforts in class last term, where I skipped half of them. Last term I went two months without seeing sunlight and was high from the moment I woke up (3-4pm usually) until I slept (6-7am). I don't shower often at all, once or twice a week. I barely go out. These things are patterns of my life.   I'm not depressed. I'm actually lazy. I love the fact my first year doesn't count so I can afford to be super lazy and barely do any work. I love the fact I wake up at stupid hours and go to sleep at stupid hours. I love being high. I love staying in and having my hair all greasy and ordering shitty food online. I love the times I do go out, and the times I do shower, and the classes I do go to. I love sitting in the dark typing on my laptop. I love my friends and my family. I love myself.   I love my life. I am not depressed.
  19. I've been playing around with Goat recently, so if anyone ones to hit me up for games feel free. My user is GardinerLad.   This is my list, nothing ground breaking but I've been very much enjoying it.     Think it's kinda standard haha
  20. Nekroz - Discussion

      MST doesn't apply any pressure in the mirror, it's a complete -1 unless they main Emptiness in which case you're running a bad card to counter a bad card. Setting MST as a bluff is completely redundant in the mirror because it is honestly the most obvious thing in the world and good players won't throw a Trishula into one backrow unless the gamestate is super simplified. I know this because I've had people doing it to me and it just resulted in them losing cards, which isn't favourable in the mirror. The best use for MST in the mirror is to hold them in your hand so that the opponent assumes you have a larger hand which means more risk of Valk. Setting MST reveals that you have deadweight, as honestly most people aren't running Traps (for good reason). So the whole "you can set MST" thing is completely redundant, and to disregard a similar statement of "well you can summon Hands and swing as vanillas" - which is much better even though both aren't exactly favourable - is incoherent.   It isn't a justification to run MST on the assumption that they have Emptiness either. They can have Emptiness and you not have MST, or (more likely) you have MST and they not have Emptiness. The latter one is important because that isn't the case versus Qliphorts, as if they don't have floodgates MST still retains value. So in 1/3 very narrow scenarios MST is good. Dark Hole and Raigeki, should you run them (which I assume one would if they weren't maining Qliphort techs) already serve as Emptiness outs unless they use Emptiness with no monsters, except they are actually useful in the mirror. Likewise with the BA match-up it's okay: Lake and discard Traps do very little to you, they end up as one for ones just as MST is a one for one. It just conserves you committing a monster to bait them, which is good but not amazing. Emptiness is the only trouble card, where again Dark Hole and Raigeki already break up the board (the floating effects aren't too relevant if you manage to maintain control of the gamestate, which you can do through looping Trishula/2200 Dweller/Brionac along with your general Valk hit plays).   The question is 'what does MST add that X, Y and Z don't'? I don't see the obsession with MST thinking that it is the best thing for Qliphorts and BA. If you draw the right amount of MSTs to deal with the right amount of floodgates then sure, it did its job. But that itself is one of many other potential scenarios: they could have floodgates and you not draw MST, they could have more floodgates than your MSTs, and in such instances the inclusion of MST would be insufficient. This, coincidentally, is one of the reasons for Hands: MST isn't an engine, but Hands are an engine. Fire Hand isn't good against Qliphorts but at least it means that you'll see Ice Hand. It applies pressure. This isn't necessarily a justification for running Hands but it's meant to illustrate that it isn't just "MST is good against Qliphort". There's a lot more to it. How is it good against Qliphort when you're running, what, 2 MST to deal with 8-9 cards? Is there anything that could be better for the main deck which would provide greater leverage before side than just having the most obvious option?   I'll give different examples to show this point better. Snatch Steal has uses in the mirror because it is an out to Djinn, arguably the best one as it places them under a Djinn lock. Snatch Steal is good against Qliphort because they manufacture monsters through Scout, so stealing their monster early game before they have things in their Extra means they're slowed down a turn through you stealing their monster. It also allows you to potentially game through Skill Drain by essentially acting as removal + 2-3k extra damage. It's not amazing against BA but can be useful to steal Dantes and swing.   With that in mind, you could run Hidden Armory and not lose any footing in any of your match-ups. You don't have to forfeit a particular match-up in favour of another. Does that mean I'd side 3 Armory over 3 MST? Absolutely not. But would I say Hidden Armory is better suited for the main deck than MST? Probably, because just MST is rarely enough versus Qliphort, hence why siding strategies revolve around MST + Fairy Winds + Twister/Hands. Yet Armory is more well-rounded for the purposes of Game 1 than MST is and is useful across the big three.   Another example might be Denko Sekka. Denko Sekka in the mirror match Emptiness scenario locks it out, because no one would use Emptiness pre-emptively. This means you can safely resolve Trishula should you want to (which punishes them for setting MSTs should they do that too), but more realistically means you get to put in an extra 1700 damage on top of whatever you'd do already while locking out Emptiness. Against Qliphort, or really any other back row heavy match-up, it can turn a very difficult situation into an auto-win in ways that MST could not. Granted if they use their floodgates pre-emptively it sucks, but that's down to the way the opponent plays unfortunately. There's a surprise factor in that the opponent would not be expecting Denko Game 1 and would likely wait for baits to their floodgates before using them, making Denko very powerful. A lot of people are omitting Warning from their lists too, making Denko all the better. Against BA it goes without saying that Denko is good.   Am I saying MST mained is bad? No. Am I saying Hands, Armory or Denko mained are better? Not necessarily. But I'd implore the people in this thread to think wider than just "MST for Qliphort because it's the most obvious thing". This sounds pretentious - that's not my intention, and it isn't an assumption that I'd want to make - but no one has yet to explain why MST is the best option. All I can really see is "well I don't like Hands for this and this and MST does this despite the fact it is bad against this". Again, it isn't about whether MST is good but whether it is better than everything else that could be there, and that hasn't been covered. Ironically there's no objective "correct" answer because it is entirely defined by what you play against at the end of the day. But there's more to it than this, that's why this format is so fucking fun.
  21. Nekroz - Discussion

      The thing with maining MST is that it is actually a -1 in the mirror, like even the Hands are more useful. BA could also very easily shift to more aggressive Trapless structures as Shaddoll did considering how easily they can splurge 2+ Dantes onto the field (I personally think this will happen), and if that happens MST will be a -1 against them too. So yeah, having MST mained obviously helps against the Qliphort match-up, but it makes at least your mirror worse. Just a classic deck building compromise, and whether it will be a worthwhile one depends on how builds structure themselves over the coming couple of months.   Snatch Steal is fucking crazy against Qliphort and is the hardest out to Djinn in that you not only remove your Djinn lock but you also place them under one. It has a similar effect against Heroes too. If you're worried about MST that's your call, but the card is sooooooo powerful and well-rounded with match-ups that in my mind it's worth that very minimal risk of having it become a MST magnet where you would otherwise have none.   My "strategy" I guess would be to use Hands/MST(/Twister) to deal with sets and save Fairy Wind for a big hit, should I be lucky enough to have such a hand. Generally I'll bait a floodgate, set Fairy Wind then use Fairy Wind to hit the floodgate and Scout. It's entirely circumstantial though. I wouldn't worry about their removal counter side because it isn't that big of a deal: the likelihood of them drawing enough MSTs to deal with your Fairy Winds + them blind hitting your Fairy Wind (you can set your Ritual Spells to bluff S/T removal) is quite conditional in itself. If you just have MST you can not set it if you suspect their set is an MST. It also reduces the risk of their sets being floodgates, which is ultimately your only concern. So yeah, it can suck but it isn't that deep.
  22. I assume it can be used in the opponent's turn. It is a Normal Trap, therefore Spell Speed 2. It doesn't specify a particular activation window like BTS does, so it can be used whenever the card could normally be used. It's the same as Mischief of the Yokai, except better in that Yokai specifies that the in grave effect cannot be used in the same turn, while this doesn't.
  23. Nekroz - Discussion

    The idea is that you go first, set up Scout + Monolith then ASF doesn't conflict with what you're doing. If you play against Nekroz you get an extra turn, if you're playing against the mirror you win unless they can clear ASF which means they have to draw MST, set MST and then not use that MST on your Scout. Either way it stalls the game for at least one turn, which provides a lot of value in a deck like Qli.   Obvious problems in that going second in the mirror it isn't all that effective, as they'll have probably done their own Scout Mono set up by that point. ASF isn't that bad for a Nekroz player to deal with either - as far as floodgates go I'd take set my Spells pass over Skill Drain, or even Emptiness sometimes. Yet ultimately I doubt this type of strategy will crop up in the TCG because BA exists, and if a Qli player would actually main ASF they risk getting punished heavily every time they play against a deck that they already have a less than favourable match-up against.   So I guess I'd say don't worry about it. There are things in OCG that won't translate into TCG. I think it's safe to assume this is one of them. ASF could crop up post-side but not to the extent of Custom and Fiendish mained.
  24. Nekroz - Discussion

    Tingy made a post on why Fairy Wind is necessary over Typhoon. I used to agree that Typhoon is better because of the speed factor, but recently I've observed how important Fairy Wind is. The reason for this is because you trade speed for power. We accept that Typhoon can be used during your turn, and there are a plethora of benefits because of that. However, if the opponent has a decent opening and you side just one for one removal it's very likely you won't have enough MST clones to deal with their floodgates or you'll have too many MST clones. Other decks can afford to have 3 MSTs in hand and still make plays, but this deck isn't like that, it's fundamentally a combo deck even if it is a very consistent one. Having an abundance of removal isn't necessarily bad in regards to the match-up but it is bad in terms of limiting your ability to play the game. In essence, running 9 MST variants means you run the risk of oversiding yet also run the risk of undersiding because your game plan ultimately becomes "I'll draw the specific amount of outs to your specific amount of outs" which is logically a flawed mindset.   This is why Fairy Wind is so important: it eliminates the oversiding problem. Granted, you aren't able to whip your dick out on your turn, but it means that you can deal with most trouble fields with one card. Simply put, you could either spend two cards in game (and an extra 3 side slots outside of that) to deal with the opponent's Scout + floodgate and - should you still have enough cards to make a decent play - proceed to do normal Nekroz business that turn, or you could forfeit the turn to clear both cards with one. Fairy Wind is oddly more flexible because it can address multiple scenarios in ways that MST cannot yet compliments MST very well for that particular match-up. So, alas, it is powerful and flexible, at least more so than Typhoon, which is weaker and faster by comparison.   That was just something I've found recently having gone back and forth between MST + clones or MST + Wind or MST + Hands and so on. There were other points Tingy raised that I won't repeat, like how Fairy Wind essentially acts as monster removal because of the Pendulum factor and so on. Fairy Wind versus Twister versus Hands will always remain a pertinent discussion where there is not necessarily a "right answer". It is super good though.
×