Jazz

May 2002 - Yugi vs Kaiba Format

66 posts in this topic

19 minutes ago, mark said:

Real talk I'd probably consider maxing on Summoned Skull and Soul Exchange regardless of whether you're playing the dragons or not though, since I think these could be really good 

 

I think you're going to brick a lot and then when you do pull it off, by the time you get to attack, your Skull will be dead already.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, mmf said:

what removal cards work vs BEWD with Lord of D on the field in this format? didnt lord of d have funny text in TCG when it was first printed that made it function differently than it does now?

 

Huh I never knew about this. You'll see that it was only 1st edition starter deck kaiba that had this error. But yeah if this errata was the standard then Dragons are way better. The only way to kill BEWD would be to kill Lord of D. first.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I played this everyone maxed skull, and usually had La Jinn and Neo but not battle ox (youd run into badkids who'd play Yami and such) 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dark hole and raigeki were the bewd removal tools with lord of d on the field. 

 

but there's not a lot of trap rmeoval that isn't hole, so killing lord of d is pretty trivial 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jazz said:

 

I think you're going to brick a lot and then when you do pull it off, by the time you get to attack, your Skull will be dead already.

How is that possible? Unless if you talk about the contradiction of either playing around Dark Hole/Raigeki, or Fissure, because you can't play around both at the same time, but even then the answer would be to only play around Fissure since Dark hole/Raigeki is just 2 cards really. I also don't really understand how 'they'll have removal' justifies not playing a card though. Isn't that the point? They have to waste their removal on your Skull, so your Jinn's can attack freely, and vice versa? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I play 9 high def monsters and they only have 3 Fissure 1 Dark Hole 1 Raigeki, I have 4 more. Now these 4 can be turned into Summoned Skulls, to make them actually do something, while also having 3 more weapons in your arsenal than your opponent has (3 Soul Exchange). I mean you could still even play the 1700-atk monsters to bait trap holes etc. if you really wanted, I just don't understand how your opponent having removal means you should play less instead of more beaters. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Jazz said:

 

Huh I never knew about this. You'll see that it was only 1st edition starter deck kaiba that had this error. But yeah if this errata was the standard then Dragons are way better. The only way to kill BEWD would be to kill Lord of D. first.

if you play with the original text, neither raigeki nor dark hole work vs BEWD when lord of d is on the field (but it was usually trivial to attack over lord of d then geki in mp2 anyways)

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point on card advantage mattering very little, and it's true.  La Jinn was overpowered for its time.  If one were to duel with the starter decks alone, whoever drew La Jinn was most likely the winner of the duel because it ran over almost everything and had no cost to summon.

 

In hindsight, I think the format should've been more specific with its removal options.  LV7-8 monsters were not worth the tribute.  Maybe there should've been cards that protected big monsters, or maybe generic removal option should've only worked on lower monsters (and removal that did work on bigger monsters needed to have a cost.  

 

My concern on the Lord of D combo was not the card advantage issue.  it's the situationality.  You need a 1/20 probability card, plus another 1/20 probability card, plus two 1/10 probability cards, all at once.  There was only 1 draw option back then, and no searchers.  Not only that but you have to defend your life points, eliminate your opponent's threats, make them waste their removal so your dragons don't get hit by it.  All while having dead cards in hand early to mid game.

 

If there were a top 16 deck lists from a tournament of this format, I'd expect it to look like such:

* 7 basic beatdown

* 4 basic beatdown with dark support

* 3 dragons

* 2 stall/control

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, mark said:

If I play 9 high def monsters and they only have 3 Fissure 1 Dark Hole 1 Raigeki, I have 4 more. Now these 4 can be turned into Summoned Skulls, to make them actually do something, while also having 3 more weapons in your arsenal than your opponent has (3 Soul Exchange). I mean you could still even play the 1700-atk monsters to bait trap holes etc. if you really wanted, I just don't understand how your opponent having removal means you should play less instead of more beaters. 

 

Yes.  Using LV4 defense wall monsters means that the opponent will using up their Fissures, but saving up their Trap Holes.  However, the best defense is good offense.  If you have a beater, destroy a monster in battle and then are able to tribute it for Summoned Skull, then it's paid for.  Or, if they use removal on that beater, it's a +1.  Walls don't really pay for themselves when tributed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, should 3 Soul Exchanges be used with 3 Summoned Skull.  It makes sense to use 3 of the independent card and only 2 of the dependent card so it's not a dead draw.  Also, there's Change of Heart for the 3rd Skull.

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IDK man maybe you guys should play some real games in this format instead of just speculating on what's good.

 

I'm not that interested in it however because the meta breaks down into a rock-paper-scissors triangle between mill decks, 50-60 card decks, and 40 card standard decks.

 

mill > standard

60 card > mill

standard > 60 card

 

Dragons are the ugly step child that is easily side deck countered by 3x dragon capture jar

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revised list.

20 -- 3 Skull, 3 La Jinn, 3 Ox, 3 Neo, 3 Illusion, 3 Man-Eater, 2 Stone

12 -- Pot, DHole, Raigeki, Change, Reborn, 3 Fissure, 2 Soul, Will, CardD

9 -- 3 Reinforcement, 3 Waboku, 3 THole

 

I cut 2 Last Will's upon realizing the ruling, and I cut a GSo Stone since defense walls have no capacity to plus.  I upped Skull to 3 and added 2 Soul Exchange for some soul control.  Card Destruction as tech againt good players, as well as enabling me to get into my staples faster.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jazz said:

IDK man maybe you guys should play some real games in this format instead of just speculating on what's good.

 

I'm not that interested in it however because the meta breaks down into a rock-paper-scissors triangle between mill decks, 50-60 card decks, and 40 card standard decks.

 

mill > standard

60 card > mill

standard > 60 card

 

Dragons are the ugly step child.

 

The more I hear about this format, the more repugnant it sounds to me.

 

If I'm playing with a friend, I don't want any stall decks.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Critter format >>>> this format

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord of D's text was literally errata'd during LOB pre MRD so I wouldn't worry too much about original text there

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i mean if we're gonna play goats pre-exarion pre-crv...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.