Jump to content
Gredinus

Burning Abyss - Deck Discussion

Recommended Posts

Bistro    15

To whoever the guy was who suggested the burn idea a few pages back its actually ok. I thought the idea was funny so i just play big BA g1 and side into burn vs kozmo, I usually find myself making f0 for 3k early on then a storming mirror force or ceasfire or dimension wall or whatever for between 2000 and 3000 and then nightmare shark and barbar for game.

My biggest problem with the burn strategy is that you can't run upstart though and i usually end up having to side out engine cards because theres simply not enough non-engine cards to side out to bring in the burn cards. tl:dr dunno if burn is the best way to go but its decent.

Can we discuss upstart in this deck though? I'm usually a firm believer in upstart in every deck, even those trying to just otk, but i dislike upstart in decks like BA or LS because the cards you mil can be "real". Anyone have any input to this?
EDIT: Sorry if upstart was discussed like 70 pages ago or something but i only started playing again seriously this format and I'm not going to read 90 pages 


I'm at work right now so I'm just going to write av short response for now but I was the one that posted that in have been testing those ideas and fit the kozmo matchup it works great. I have only lost one match in my testing. The problem I've found if that the strateg does not work well against pendulum and majespecter in specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nephilim    19

So this deck is just dead in ARG format right? With Cir at 1 and Dante at 2 you have severe limitations and a lot less flexibility.

 

Im having trouble finding a deck to play at ARG Vegas for this reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abe Thalos    518

So this deck is just dead in ARG format right? With Cir at 1 and Dante at 2 you have severe limitations and a lot less flexibility.

 

Im having trouble finding a deck to play at ARG Vegas for this reason.

ARG has moved back to Konami format for the time being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sean.    1358
I was going to keep this secret but I'm going to go ahead and let people know about this card. I've only told a few people and I think Jackie was the only one to run it at ARG Cali. The card is amazing in this deck, and perfect for this meta. The card is XYZ Block.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the list that I'm pretty set on taking to Kissimmee regionals this Saturday if I wind up playing BA (I might break down and switch to pepe last minute):

 

 onQoobj.png

 

The focus is on easy game ones against pepe (or w/e the deck that won anaheim is being called) and majespecters and then easy game twos/threes against kozmos.

 

Relevant card choices/general explanations:

  • So far exactly one of every non-+1 BA monster has been effective enough at pumping out first turn dantes and getting to your graff/cirs/scarms/G&E quick enough. What's worse than a handful of normal summons is a hand where you see multiple of the same BA, so I feel pretty comfortable with one of each. The four normal summons in the main make it so you very often open exactly one, which is always nice, though obviously opening one isn't as much of a concern as getting to dante. 
  • I've really liked Crane at 2 because it's live at any point in the game give you open with a BA in hand, and recurring graff/cir is just so powerful. 
  • Bulb has been amazing so far. Like opening math send bulb make herald with 2-3 backrow set is almost an autowin because you can search the good and evil and use it for discards and just generally thin your deck. That being said, opening bulb without a discard outlet is obviously absolute ass. One extremely relevant interaction is Crane summon rubic then summon bulb, which allows you to make virgil and then a lvl 7. Currently that's Clear Wing, but it may become black rose, michael, or something else. I would consider cutting it, but it's so powerful on paper that I think the risk of drawing it is worth it. The only cards that you don't want to draw are bulb and g&e, which to me is comparable to partanaga/lizardraw, garnet, multiple ships with no town, and plenty of other semi-bricks. 
  • The side goes hard against Kozmo since that's always going to be the hardest matchup. 
  • Pepe has trouble getting over a board of 1-2 dante backed up by 2-3 backrow while also locking you out of a follow-up, and resolving fire lake is literally an autowin in that matchup. To me, that, plus the possibility of running into rogue at regionals, justifies the triple lake which will often come out game 2 against kozmo. In all honesty, I feel comfortable sacrificing a game 1 against kozmo since game 2 and 3 become so easy. Creature swap, fiends, iron wall, f0, and general unbreakable walls of dantes make it so that kozmos are constantly uphilling and you're very rarely in a position where you have less than 2 or 3 options each turn. 
  • Iron wall is the best generic floodgate, and shotgunning it in standby phase is almost always correct. If they have the mst/sliprider, it's going to hit your iron wall anyways, and if they don't, then they don't get any opportunity to chain a pilot, omega, etc in main phase. Two is the correct number because you don't want to lock yourself out of the game. 
  • I don't feel comfortable playing stygian dirge or flying c with the magician engine running around because the vanilla scales out both floodgates, and pendulum call searches the out to either. That being said, starting with 5 cards and outing dirge/c with pendulum call will leave the opponent with 2 cards in hand and two shitty scales, so it may still be worth exploring, although it's probably not worth the obvious downside of playing more floodgates in BA. 
  • Trapless doesn't seem to be the correct way to approach the format considering that pepe is the most dominant deck (at least down here in Florida). Pepe can break apart a board of double or triple dante rather easily, and can often do it with a dweller up, but the deck struggles with 1 or 2 dante backed by one or two backrow. Cards like xyz block, lake, and griefing are usually just so disruptive that they have to pick between breaking apart your board or trying to set up a defense and at that point you can usually just overwhelm them next turn.
  • Traveler is real as always. 
  • The 35th and 37th cards were between xyz block and OG horn of heaven. Ultimately, I decided that xyz block is better because it can be useful before or after pepe or magicians have established a board, while horn is only good before they've set up a board. This is the same for cards like warning, bottomless, and torrential (which has its own set of problems). 
  • The main decked fiend grifing is really uncuttable, at least in FL. Pepe is so relevant and griefing is so good in that matchup.

The deck has done well for me at locals, and my locals usually makes up about a third of the top tables at the regionals, so I guess that's a good sign. but yeah. traps are pretty good rn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soul    7945

fiend griefing is absolute ass against the majority of the field, even against pepe. fire lake already covers that matchup. ur whole herald idea seems incredibly subpar to put it lightly. geki/holes should def be in the main. literally every deck makes dweller but you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rainy    13

Are you sure you don't want to run Leviair?
It was discussed a few pages earlier and I think it's worth a spot, especially if you're having trouble against Kozmo since F0 is such a boon in that matchup 

(Make Leviair detach, get Cir, it dies to bring back Dante -> F0)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5848

This is the list that I'm pretty set on taking to Kissimmee regionals this Saturday if I wind up playing BA (I might break down and switch to pepe last minute):

 

 onQoobj.png

 

 

1 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 1 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 2 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Fiendish Chain and 2 Breakthrough Skill is wrong (er, in decks that don't involve milling to complicate whatever equations, this is always true.)

 

2 Call of the Haunted and 2 Oasis of the Dragon Souls is wrong.

 

Every card is comparable on axis' of power and consistency, therefore generally, one card is better than another. In no category of cards though, does this remain more constant than with Traps, as they're generally non-engine related cards that you have to hard draw, which simply means absolutely nothing complicates it (for those cards anyway, but keep in mind, of things that complicate their consistency cards are still always comparable, Raigeki Break and Phoenix Wing Wind Blast have complicated consistency in the exact same way that they require another card with it, therefore the analysis still remains a constant.) You want to see one more than another, therefore you play 3 of one before any of the other. The fact so few people get this about even something to where it is as incontrovertibly true as Trap line ups worries me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abe Thalos    518

 

This is the list that I'm pretty set on taking to Kissimmee regionals this Saturday if I wind up playing BA (I might break down and switch to pepe last minute):

 

 onQoobj.png

 

 

1 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 1 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 2 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Fiendish Chain and 2 Breakthrough Skill is wrong (er, in decks that don't involve milling to complicate whatever equations, this is always true.)

 

2 Call of the Haunted and 2 Oasis of the Dragon Souls is wrong.

 

Every card is comparable on axis' of power and consistency, therefore generally, one card is better than another. In no category of cards though, does this remain more constant than with Traps, as they're generally non-engine related cards that you have to hard draw, which simply means absolutely nothing complicates it. You want to see one more than another, therefore you play 3 of one before any of the other. The fact so few people get this about even something to where it is as incontrovertibly true as Trap line ups worries me.

 

 

Discard traps that target this format are probably just wrong altogether.

I think its already been discussed, but horn of heaven is easily a 3-of in the current meta.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5848

 

 

This is the list that I'm pretty set on taking to Kissimmee regionals this Saturday if I wind up playing BA (I might break down and switch to pepe last minute):

 

 onQoobj.png

 

 

1 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 1 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 2 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Fiendish Chain and 2 Breakthrough Skill is wrong (er, in decks that don't involve milling to complicate whatever equations, this is always true.)

 

2 Call of the Haunted and 2 Oasis of the Dragon Souls is wrong.

 

Every card is comparable on axis' of power and consistency, therefore generally, one card is better than another. In no category of cards though, does this remain more constant than with Traps, as they're generally non-engine related cards that you have to hard draw, which simply means absolutely nothing complicates it. You want to see one more than another, therefore you play 3 of one before any of the other. The fact so few people get this about even something to where it is as incontrovertibly true as Trap line ups worries me.

 

 

Discard traps that target this format are probably just wrong altogether.

I think its already been discussed, but horn of heaven is easily a 3-of in the current meta.

 

 

It really just isn't what I'm getting at though, because it rarely matters what Trap we're talking about, because when mathematical considerations aren't involved, this is the conclusion you have to reach for most traps. To make an example recent, in this deck, Horn of Heaven and XYZ Block are pretty comparable considering you make Dante basically every turn 1 so both would be live, unless you're using a lower ba count to complicate it for one card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abe Thalos    518

 

 

 

This is the list that I'm pretty set on taking to Kissimmee regionals this Saturday if I wind up playing BA (I might break down and switch to pepe last minute):

 

 onQoobj.png

 

 

1 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 1 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 2 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Fiendish Chain and 2 Breakthrough Skill is wrong (er, in decks that don't involve milling to complicate whatever equations, this is always true.)

 

2 Call of the Haunted and 2 Oasis of the Dragon Souls is wrong.

 

Every card is comparable on axis' of power and consistency, therefore generally, one card is better than another. In no category of cards though, does this remain more constant than with Traps, as they're generally non-engine related cards that you have to hard draw, which simply means absolutely nothing complicates it. You want to see one more than another, therefore you play 3 of one before any of the other. The fact so few people get this about even something to where it is as incontrovertibly true as Trap line ups worries me.

 

 

Discard traps that target this format are probably just wrong altogether.

I think its already been discussed, but horn of heaven is easily a 3-of in the current meta.

 

 

It really just isn't what I'm getting at though, because it rarely matters what Trap we're talking about, because when mathematical considerations aren't involved, this is the conclusion you have to reach for most traps. To make an example recent, in this deck, Horn of Heaven and XYZ Block are pretty comparable considering you make Dante basically every turn 1 so both would be live, unless you're using a lower ba count to complicate it for one card.

 

Except floodgates  or opposing traps/maxx "C" may prevent you from making Dante, making xyz block live less of the time.

Furthermore, later in the game it is harder to have xyz with material (boards often consist of virgil, and material-less dantes. Again, Horn is more live.

Thus, I'd play 3 horn of heaven and 2 xyz block with the 3rd xyz block in the side (it probably shines in matchups like kozmo and yang zing)

 

In case you cared, fiend griving is either a 2 of in the main or 0 because its not good enough against enough decks to play 3, yet it progresses your gamestate in dead hands. So, it would perhaps fight for a spot with crane-crane because they both progress your gamestate in your opening hand, yet crane crane would probably be better for an xyz block geared build whereas grieving is almost certainly better in a horn of heaven minded varient.

 

Just some THOTs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abe Thalos    518

went undefeated last weekend's regional with BA.

How did you not lose to Denkko?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patrick Hoban    6364

 

This is the list that I'm pretty set on taking to Kissimmee regionals this Saturday if I wind up playing BA (I might break down and switch to pepe last minute):

 

 onQoobj.png

 

 

1 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 1 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 2 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Fiendish Chain and 2 Breakthrough Skill is wrong (er, in decks that don't involve milling to complicate whatever equations, this is always true.)

 

2 Call of the Haunted and 2 Oasis of the Dragon Souls is wrong.

 

Every card is comparable on axis' of power and consistency, therefore generally, one card is better than another. In no category of cards though, does this remain more constant than with Traps, as they're generally non-engine related cards that you have to hard draw, which simply means absolutely nothing complicates it. You want to see one more than another, therefore you play 3 of one before any of the other. The fact so few people get this about even something to where it is as incontrovertibly true as Trap line ups worries me.

 

 

I disagree that this is necessarily true. It is typically true, but there are plenty of exceptions. Look at Mermail and Fire format. It's perfectly plausible to want something like 2 Fiendish Chains and 1 Breakthrough Skill. 

 

Each card essentially has two effects. Breakthrough can negate while set and negate while in grave. Fiendish can negate while set and stop attacks. Yeah, their first effect of negating is pretty much the same, but choosing between having a second negate and stopping attacks allows for the possibility of 2-1 being better than 3-0. Let's say that my deck can take X amount of damage. Stopping any damage exceeding X is a priority, but I can take up to X. It's therefore possible for me to value stopping the attack more than I care about having a second negate up through the second copy of Fiendish Chain. As long as I'm under that threshold for whatever X is, I can take damage. Thus the third Fiendish Chain's ability to stop attacks means less to me, since I can take up to X and taking the damage that would be stopped by seeing the third Fiendish Chain that much more than I see only two Fiendish Chains doesn't matter, because whatever damage I take by not having the third chain is still less than X. It's a problem of diminishing returns. Instead of Fiendish Chain stopping an attack, you can substitute Breakthrough's second negation being relevant and get pretty much the same thing. I want to be able to stop Dweller Y amount that having a singular negation from Fiendish Chain as an alternative would not stop. Stopping an effect Y amount that could not be stopped by Fiendish Chain, but could be satisfied with Breakthrough might be satisfied after the first Breakthrough. Playing more Breakthroughs might lead having Breakthroughs in grave with unused second effects, at which point I'd just prefer to have had one negation and be able to stop an attack. Thus it's possible for 2-1 to be correct. 

 

This process can be repeated on any two cards that have any difference. A shorter example can be seen in Phoenix Wing and Raigeki Break right after Soul Charge came out once you incorporate tournament structure. It might stand to reason that there would be more non-Dragon decks than Dragon decks in the tournament, but that I might expect more Dragon decks should I make it to top cut. Phoenix Wing might be preferred to Raigeki Break in mirror matches as I can get rid of a color, but Raigeki Break might be preferred to Phoenix Wing in other match ups as I'd rather destroy a floodgate than have them stop me again the following turn. So if I wanted to survive swiss, but win the tournament it's entirely possible that 2 Phoenix Wing 1 Raigeki Break would give me a better chance at doing that than any other ratio. 

 

And yes, I agree cards can be plotted with consistency on one axis and power on the other axis. The problem is there is quite a bit of overlap in their definitions. I readily challenge you to define them without overlap. It's one of the problems I've struggled with in my book for months. 

 

If I say it's cold, I might mean 50, but you might interpret it as 30. Numerical values are good because they're specific, but you can say power is 50 and consistency is 30 in a meaningful way. You're forced to define them with other words. Those words can then only be defined by other words. So on and so on, and there's an infinite regression. Basically, definitions suck at saying what we mean. Since X and Y are numerical values on a graph, but consistency and power aren't, you have to define them with words and it leaves a good bit of overlap that you can't escape and it's not as clean-cut as you'd like it to be. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soul    7945

 

This is the list that I'm pretty set on taking to Kissimmee regionals this Saturday if I wind up playing BA (I might break down and switch to pepe last minute):

 

 onQoobj.png

 

 

1 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 1 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 2 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Fiendish Chain and 2 Breakthrough Skill is wrong (er, in decks that don't involve milling to complicate whatever equations, this is always true.)

 

2 Call of the Haunted and 2 Oasis of the Dragon Souls is wrong.

 

Every card is comparable on axis' of power and consistency, therefore generally, one card is better than another. In no category of cards though, does this remain more constant than with Traps, as they're generally non-engine related cards that you have to hard draw, which simply means absolutely nothing complicates it (for those cards anyway, but keep in mind, of things that complicate their consistency cards are still always comparable, Raigeki Break and Phoenix Wing Wind Blast have complicated consistency in the exact same way that they require another card with it, therefore the analysis still remains a constant.) You want to see one more than another, therefore you play 3 of one before any of the other. The fact so few people get this about even something to where it is as incontrovertibly true as Trap line ups worries me.

 

 

i respectfully disagree. while the cards you set up in your comparisons are very similar, they still have differences. some cards are better in certain scenarios/formats, and some are equal in the range of threats they deal with and simply having that versatility can give that player an edge. jae kim did this when he decided to run divine wrath over another copy of PWWB. back when LS was a thing geki break vs pwwb was hotly debated as it was considered subpar to be forced to spin a JD to the top of the deck only for it to be slapped back on the field the very next turn, however PWWB still offered the ability to be a flat-out game-winner by causing your opponent to brick and doubled as the same disruption geki break provided generally. 

 

simply looking at the cost involved is wrong on so many levels. do i agree that there are better cards and ratios than the one(s) in the deck quoted? yes. do i agree that there will always be a de-facto choice between cards like pwwb/geki break, fiendish/breakthrough, etc? no. running a combination of those cards doesn't imply poor deckbuilding necessarily. its up to the player to analyze the meta and weigh cost/benefit of both cards and incorporate 1 or both of them accordingly. 

 

ninja'd by hoban who put it more eloquently than i. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soul    7945

^ "Symbolic deckbuilding" lol

 

??? is this a chapter in your book or something? idgi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5848

 

 

 

 

This is the list that I'm pretty set on taking to Kissimmee regionals this Saturday if I wind up playing BA (I might break down and switch to pepe last minute):

 

 onQoobj.png

 

 

1 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 1 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 2 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Fiendish Chain and 2 Breakthrough Skill is wrong (er, in decks that don't involve milling to complicate whatever equations, this is always true.)

 

2 Call of the Haunted and 2 Oasis of the Dragon Souls is wrong.

 

Every card is comparable on axis' of power and consistency, therefore generally, one card is better than another. In no category of cards though, does this remain more constant than with Traps, as they're generally non-engine related cards that you have to hard draw, which simply means absolutely nothing complicates it. You want to see one more than another, therefore you play 3 of one before any of the other. The fact so few people get this about even something to where it is as incontrovertibly true as Trap line ups worries me.

 

 

Discard traps that target this format are probably just wrong altogether.

I think its already been discussed, but horn of heaven is easily a 3-of in the current meta.

 

 

It really just isn't what I'm getting at though, because it rarely matters what Trap we're talking about, because when mathematical considerations aren't involved, this is the conclusion you have to reach for most traps. To make an example recent, in this deck, Horn of Heaven and XYZ Block are pretty comparable considering you make Dante basically every turn 1 so both would be live, unless you're using a lower ba count to complicate it for one card.

 

Except floodgates  or opposing traps/maxx "C" may prevent you from making Dante, making xyz block live less of the time.

Furthermore, later in the game it is harder to have xyz with material (boards often consist of virgil, and material-less dantes. Again, Horn is more live.

Thus, I'd play 3 horn of heaven and 2 xyz block with the 3rd xyz block in the side (it probably shines in matchups like kozmo and yang zing)

 

In case you cared, fiend griving is either a 2 of in the main or 0 because its not good enough against enough decks to play 3, yet it progresses your gamestate in dead hands. So, it would perhaps fight for a spot with crane-crane because they both progress your gamestate in your opening hand, yet crane crane would probably be better for an xyz block geared build whereas grieving is almost certainly better in a horn of heaven minded varient.

 

Just some THOTs.

 

 

If people are playing Maxx C sure, but you have to understand how little I actually care about any of the cards we're talking about currently but how much I do actually care about making you guys aware of this concept of 3 of a card being played before any of another in generic traps. Like, this might be called missing the forest for the trees I guess because I seldom care about the logistics but rather instilling a proper comparative mindset about cards into those that read me. 

 

Anyway, your conclusion isn't currently reasonably sustainable, because you didn't actually supply a reason to play exactly 2 copies of that card, you only supplied reasons that you'd want to play any copies of Horn of Heaven before any copies of XYZ Block. You gave reason to say "thus, Horn should be played before XYZ Block." What you didn't do is give me an actual reason, either mathematically applying or one showing a case of default, how you got to 2 copies of XYZ Block. 

 

The claim Fiend Griefing is a 2 or 0 of in the main "because it's not good enough against enough decks to play 3, yet it progresses your gamestate in dead hands," is equally as fallible and wrong. I go far deeper into this in an article that should be out today, but here is what is far closer to the truth:

 

Constants for one of's, two of's, and three of's:

 

  • Banlist
  • Mathematical considerations (this usually referring to what people call "ratios," which 99% of the time they're using wrong, but also also can refer to the idea of diminishing returns.)
  • In the abstract list concept, which basically just organizes the one card/combo of cards is better than another theory, if something like the 36th card you play, the 51st card you play, and the 66th card you play, or any variation of that, are the same and you've decided 50 or less as your deck count, only one is correct, and the exact same logic is used to justify some 2 ofs, but this tends to be a less common phenomena and at most usually only extends to one justification per deck, because of the tendency of cards in the list concept to be closer together meaning the only ones that tend to get cut off are ones approaching the deck count. I want to stress not using this concept lazily though, for loose justifications, as it's pretty overly complicated and would often therefore be used improperly.
  • special exceptions (spreading out shitty BA count to minimize multiple in hand, those kinds of things, they make up a vast minority and are the exception and not the rule.)

3 of's:

 

  • Asking yourself that since one card is generally better than another, why would you play a card if you're not going to play 3 of it, before another card?

2 of's:

 

  • cards like tengu if you decide you want to play tengu but need to play the lowest amount of it, basically cards that rely on other copies of themselves, these aren't common 
  • aforementioned list concept
  • searchable cards that "come up" twice enough so that they have a relevant effect on your winrate
  • aforementioned mathematical considerations
  • aforementioned banlist

1 of's:

 

  • searchable cards within the scope of the very powerful concept of minimizing the chances of seeing a card when it is bad and maximizing the chances of seeing the card when it's good 
  • list concept
  • banlist
  • mathematical considerations (marginal utility etc)
  • list etc

I go far more in depth into all of these in the article I wrote the other day but it's taking a while to get up online, but what I will say is understanding these things, micro deck-building is extremely easy. Basically macro theory will look at the entire format and tell you the best strategy and cards to play and micro deck theory are these things applied universally to those cards, essentially creating mostly tiny optimizations in consistency. One community I very much appreciate is the speedrunning community because they take all of these mathematical optimizations and hold them as law, with the only real macro theory dictating what glitches to use or routes to take, they hold this as law and the concept is basically the same within this game too.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patrick Hoban    6364

 

^ "Symbolic deckbuilding" lol

 

??? is this a chapter in your book or something? idgi.

 

 

No, though I guess it could be. Using X and Y instead of definite values could help simplify stuff when you're speaking about really abstract concepts. 

 

I have had this idea of somehow creating a value system for deckbuilding. I see a lot of similarities between formats and markets, I think it's somewhat realistic to be able to create the deckbuilding (and perhaps even technical play) equivalent of money. The values wouldn't be fixed, just like money's value isn't fixed in the market. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5848

get back to you guys in a little bit, didn't expect it to blow up lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abe Thalos    518

 

 

^ "Symbolic deckbuilding" lol

 

??? is this a chapter in your book or something? idgi.

 

 

No, though I guess it could be. Using X and Y instead of definite values could help simplify stuff when you're speaking about really abstract concepts. 

 

I have had this idea of somehow creating a value system for deckbuilding. I see a lot of similarities between formats and markets, I think it's somewhat realistic to be able to create the deckbuilding (and perhaps even technical play) equivalent of money. The values wouldn't be fixed, just like money's value isn't fixed in the market. 

 

 

Fucking Konami and their excessive regulation of the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abe Thalos    518

 

 

went undefeated last weekend's regional with BA.

How did you not lose to Denkko?

 

Horn of heaven :P

 

I fuck wit horn of heaven

 

EDIT: @TheAntagonist IDFWU

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5848

 

 

This is the list that I'm pretty set on taking to Kissimmee regionals this Saturday if I wind up playing BA (I might break down and switch to pepe last minute):

 

 onQoobj.png

 

 

1 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 1 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and 2 Raigeki Break is wrong.

 

2 Fiendish Chain and 2 Breakthrough Skill is wrong (er, in decks that don't involve milling to complicate whatever equations, this is always true.)

 

2 Call of the Haunted and 2 Oasis of the Dragon Souls is wrong.

 

Every card is comparable on axis' of power and consistency, therefore generally, one card is better than another. In no category of cards though, does this remain more constant than with Traps, as they're generally non-engine related cards that you have to hard draw, which simply means absolutely nothing complicates it. You want to see one more than another, therefore you play 3 of one before any of the other. The fact so few people get this about even something to where it is as incontrovertibly true as Trap line ups worries me.

 

 

I disagree that this is necessarily true. It is typically true, but there are plenty of exceptions. Look at Mermail and Fire format. It's perfectly plausible to want something like 2 Fiendish Chains and 1 Breakthrough Skill. 

 

Each card essentially has two effects. Breakthrough can negate while set and negate while in grave. Fiendish can negate while set and stop attacks. Yeah, their first effect of negating is pretty much the same, but choosing between having a second negate and stopping attacks allows for the possibility of 2-1 being better than 3-0. Let's say that my deck can take X amount of damage. Stopping any damage exceeding X is a priority, but I can take up to X. It's therefore possible for me to value stopping the attack more than I care about having a second negate up through the second copy of Fiendish Chain. As long as I'm under that threshold for whatever X is, I can take damage. Thus the third Fiendish Chain's ability to stop attacks means less to me, since I can take up to X and taking the damage that would be stopped by seeing the third Fiendish Chain that much more than I see only two Fiendish Chains doesn't matter, because whatever damage I take by not having the third chain is still less than X. It's a problem of diminishing returns. Instead of Fiendish Chain stopping an attack, you can substitute Breakthrough's second negation being relevant and get pretty much the same thing. I want to be able to stop Dweller Y amount that having a singular negation from Fiendish Chain as an alternative would not stop. Stopping an effect Y amount that could not be stopped by Fiendish Chain, but could be satisfied with Breakthrough might be satisfied after the first Breakthrough. Playing more Breakthroughs might lead having Breakthroughs in grave with unused second effects, at which point I'd just prefer to have had one negation and be able to stop an attack. Thus it's possible for 2-1 to be correct. 

 

This process can be repeated on any two cards that have any difference. A shorter example can be seen in Phoenix Wing and Raigeki Break right after Soul Charge came out once you incorporate tournament structure. It might stand to reason that there would be more non-Dragon decks than Dragon decks in the tournament, but that I might expect more Dragon decks should I make it to top cut. Phoenix Wing might be preferred to Raigeki Break in mirror matches as I can get rid of a color, but Raigeki Break might be preferred to Phoenix Wing in other match ups as I'd rather destroy a floodgate than have them stop me again the following turn. So if I wanted to survive swiss, but win the tournament it's entirely possible that 2 Phoenix Wing 1 Raigeki Break would give me a better chance at doing that than any other ratio. 

 

And yes, I agree cards can be plotted with consistency on one axis and power on the other axis. The problem is there is quite a bit of overlap in their definitions. I readily challenge you to define them without overlap. It's one of the problems I've struggled with in my book for months. 

 

If I say it's cold, I might mean 50, but you might interpret it as 30. Numerical values are good because they're specific, but you can say power is 50 and consistency is 30 in a meaningful way. You're forced to define them with other words. Those words can then only be defined by other words. So on and so on, and there's an infinite regression. Basically, definitions suck at saying what we mean. Since X and Y are numerical values on a graph, but consistency and power aren't, you have to define them with words and it leaves a good bit of overlap that you can't escape and it's not as clean-cut as you'd like it to be. 

 

 

The key though, is determining which problems matter more, which come up more, etc, and these are all things covered on an axis of consistency. Like, you can have a damage input you can take, then past covering that you might want other cards, but the problem is that I only hold such a concept to be true regarding issues of diminishing returns with higher counts of groups of cards rather than individual cards. The reason being, you don't get to choose when and where you see your cards. This means that while 2 Fiendish Chain, even if you only see one for example, might save you enough damage to matter, you're still not maximizing your chance of that happening but rather sacrificing that in favor of Breakthrough Skill addressing a separate issue. But the truth here is, not all issues are equal, and they ought to be addressed in order of how much they come up. Now, as mentioned, is it possible to over-answer an issue thus leading to a diminishing returns issue? Correct, however, we're talking about the difference of 2 ofs and 3 ofs here, not 10 ofs and 11 ofs. However, don't confuse the smaller difference in percentage increase chance of seeing a 10 and 11 of vs a 2 and a 3 of to reinforce your point because, for this purpose, we're looking at them as actual totals, the total chance of seeing a 10 or 11 of therefore far higher than seeing a 2 or 3 of thus almost always addressing the issue. The closest thing to an analogy I could supply for that understanding is misunderstanding the percent growth of GDP in a given country for its current GDP. This is also why I usually favor systematic and larger-scale answers to recurring problems, because you're more likely to see them, and within these brackets, one answer will almost always be better than the other ignoring outside factors, which conveniently in the case of traps you can basically ignore because it's all hard drawing and no searching. 

 

What does that mean for this situation? It means if you have something that needs addressing and your two answers to two separate things that need addressing are Fiendish Chain and Breakthrough Skill, because they're both relatively not that likely to be seen to solve the problem, you have to then make a judgment call of which problem is worse, and this will lead you to the conclusion of playing 3 of one card before any of the other. Now, your other point regards overlap. I think it is simple, overlap cancels each other out for cards comparatively. This means that when looking at Raigeki Break and Wing Wind Blast and deciding which is better which would be the logical conclusion of what I've laid out in the first paragraph, their texts shall be "destroy one card on the field" vs "topdeck one card." It's funny, I actually consider the overlap for groups of cards as opposed to individual cards to be far more complex. This means that when you have things like Pendulum Performage, where one input of Performage cards might drastically input how good the rest of your cards are, as constants for a lot of Kozmo decks, the overlap becomes an area of consistency much more important to constructively implement than with individual cards. 

 

Your next point deals with the tournament approach. While this is certainly something important and of note to point out when comparing goals of topping a tournament vs winning a tournament, the issue I often have is the aforementioned line of you not being able to choose when and where you see your cards. You can play 2 MST hoping you don't draw it in top cut but then not draw it in swiss, and the likelihoods are constants barring how many rounds are in swiss vs how many are in top, which you might think invalidates the line, but consider at a ycs playing to the championship in top cut is 5 rounds as opposed to the 10 in swiss, and at a circuit it's 4 as opposed to the 8-9 (7-8 counting draws) in swiss. The other thing is to count losses in swiss, which I'm sure you would be the first person to acknowledge, which means at a minimum 6 wins in swiss at a circuit series, 8 a a ycs, vs 4 and 5 wins in top cut. Sure, swiss still outweighs this, but also consider with the logic of order of addressing problems, wouldn't that then make it more logical to consider swiss a bigger issue to address than top, supporting building for swiss? Of course, you can say you absolutely don't care about rather or not you top but only if you win when you do, but I would lean more towards arguing that more tops with a slightly worse deck for top cut vs less tops with a better deck for top either is pretty even or favors the former, and the reason I say that is, with proper deck building you should probably already be miles ahead of the competition in either category, making you want to favor the first. The closest thing to a counter I can imagine for this is to say one you have to win 100% of games while the other you only have to win 80% etc, and we can definitely get into the math of how more rounds might affect this for swiss.

 

The last thing is to define consistency and power. I actually have also struggled with an actual numerical definition due to the infinite variables at play and the fact we aren't computers, but I will say that I define consistency as "the rate of power." Another thing, while it's easy to juxtaposition yourself into proving the need for both power and consistency (when you ask yourself "what is power I can never use," and "what is something useless I can always use,)" I actually think power slightly outweighs consistency for the following reason: Playing with some numbers, let's say you have a 1 for consistency and a 100 for power vs a 1 for power and a 100 for consistency. Now, compare this to every other deck in a given format which usually means that at a 1 power, even if they brick, you will still lose. What does this mean? It means you will win 1/100 games vs winning 0/100 games. The confines of this paragraph is basically the farthest I've ever gotten on that issue and I don't think I'm going to go much further as far as trying to find more truths goes because I'm aware that at the end of that tunnel, you get a pseudo-infinite algorithm that will quite frankly take way too long to calculate, and Magic the Gathering nerds haven't even, to our knowledge, made that a perfect practice, we probably ought not to even try lol.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squiddy    9173
its funny u bring up mtg, i always found it amusing how their theory isnt even close to ours in terms of da competitive scene esp. when they play like 1 of each different counterspell or removal yet they hate on yugioh like da plague lol and also little niches like people not automaining 4 copies of upstart dat lets u see ur opps hand (gitaxian probe) (|:|)
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

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.

×