Jump to content
Gredinus

Burning Abyss - Discussion

Recommended Posts

+Satchmo    3220

Is there any legitimate reason to play this deck in current format? Or should this thread be archived?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Warthog    165

Wrong thread. Burning Abyss will be fine but the Cir hit hurts. Dante is losing good cards to mill each list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drewsifer    49

I really don't think that this deck is worth archiving because we're most likely going to see some lists topping sooner or another and we should have a place to at least discuss them.

Also has anybody thought about playing BackJack again since fiend griefing and a few other traps are just really good against BEWD? I was testing the PK variant with rhapsody added to get over azure eyes but I'm starting to just think using PWWB with Farfa to out their Spirit may be better. And since they're turn player Azure is CL1 and Farfa can banish it as CL2. If you put that deck on a 2 turn clock they really have to find a way to break your board and stop your set up or they just lose. 


Also opinions on Downerd? I genuinely believe it isnt needed but a few people have said otherwise to me. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Dragon    302

I'd probably play Downerd in any version not running Phantom Knights because you have the extra deck space to and it makes the Dante/Cir loop more valuable by turning the Dante into a beater. Plus there just aren't that many good rank 3s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sanjura    6663
2 hours ago, Drewsifer said:

I really don't think that this deck is worth archiving because we're most likely going to see some lists topping sooner or another and we should have a place to at least discuss them.

Also has anybody thought about playing BackJack again since fiend griefing and a few other traps are just really good against BEWD? I was testing the PK variant with rhapsody added to get over azure eyes but I'm starting to just think using PWWB with Farfa to out their Spirit may be better. And since they're turn player Azure is CL1 and Farfa can banish it as CL2. If you put that deck on a 2 turn clock they really have to find a way to break your board and stop your set up or they just lose. 


Also opinions on Downerd? I genuinely believe it isnt needed but a few people have said otherwise to me. 

that pwwb interaction is nice and all, but that puts you back into needing to deal with a 3k wall + monster reborn here, so who's really on the clock here? you're just down to 1 cir now so looping will be much harder to do and with your main offensive weapon being limited  (Beatrice) i have to wonder just how effective BA will be with dealing with numerous, giant monsters that can't be run over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice to see even the slightest bit of discussion on here again. I truly believe that this deck will still be top tier in this format.

 

Right now, I've been testing with essentially the same standard PK BA build that has been consistently topping last format, replacing the Cir with an Allure, allowing the deck to dig even deeper for the Terrortop or Tour Guide. I've also opted to keep the 2 Maxx "C" in the main, but I think that the loss of 2 Beatrices means that the deck will be lacking defenses now, so I'm playing more actual traps now like Solemn Warning and Vanity's Emptiness, or even hand traps like 3 Effect Veiler. Even though the temptation is there to play more traps than that, we need to keep in mind that too many traps will result in the loss of consistency in terms of a first turn play, so I'm fairly certain that PWWB and Fiend's Griefing is incorrect in the PK BA variant. Another trap I have been considering lately is Bottomless Trap Hole; it is good in virtually every matchup that we can expect in this format except for Majespecters (if they are even played much) or other more rogue options. It's still decent in the mirror match by being able to hit the only Cir or Beatrice. In regards to Downerd Magician, I've noticed times where it would help but I find that the Extra is too tight to allow it and those last 2 slots are better utilized with the Xyzs that people have already been playing in it but others were hesitant to play, like Grampulse and Corebage. 

 

After testing a considerable amount, albeit online only so far, I think that the PK BA variant is still the best right now because of it's ability to spam even more Xyzs without having to limit your plays to your opening hand and instead allow yourself to extend them through milling. Also, the instant access to Fog Blade is still very good right now. The only thing it's lost is the ability to make multiple Beatrices on turn 1, or make a recovery play involving Beatrice, but that's where those few extra traps may be able to fit the role. I think it's possible that a better BA build exists, but that would require a much more creative mind than mine.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Veiler is good against Blue-Eyes, strictly OK against BA, and good against certain rogue decks as the meta fleshes itself out. It is a flex spot right now and they could easily be in the main deck or the side deck. Also, I'm not entirely sure that Monarchs are unplayable now; I think the deck can still play with some innovation, but that's a discussion for another thread. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a stretch to say that Veiler is good against Blue-Eyes. There are times when they're counting on the Sage search to get the engine rolling, and I guess you can sometimes catch a Galaxy Soldier or end phase Spirit, but by and large whether or not Veiler is good is entirely out of your control in that they either have the card that Veiler cripples or they don't. I'd much rather be dedicating the main deck slots to traps that are solid across the board, although this is something of a non-issue because after Warning, Strike, Emptiness, Maxx "C", and Anti-Spell, you've more or less exhausted the card pool on worthwhile non-engine defensive cards. Bearing in mind that these cards should almost certainly be played after the one-card Dantes (4), the standard PK line up (13), the standard +1 BA line-up (18), three Farfas (21), three Allures and Pots (27), three Twin Twisters (30), Upstart (31), Taketomborg (32), and an appropriate number of BAs, you're really not left with room for subpar traps like Veiler. I hadn't thought of it prior to now, but I think you're actually able to just Occam's Razor the trap lineup out of the discussion entirely. If you're at 32 mandatory cards and you assume you're including four more BA monsters (maybe two Alichs, Calcab, and Barbar; the specifics don't actually matter), you've now hit a sample decklist of 36 cards:
 

  • 1x Tour Guide
  • 3x Terrortop
  • 3x Boots
  • 2x Cloak
  • 1x Gloves
  • 3x Fog Blade
  • 3x Scarm
  • 1x Cir
  • 1x Graff
  • 3x Farfa
  • 3x Allure
  • 3x Pot of Desires
  • 3x Twin Twisters
  • 1x Upstart
  • 1x Taketomborg
  • 2x Alich
  • 1x Calcab
  • 1x Barbar

I don't really see how you could argue with this unless, as PennyroyalTea said, someone reinvents the wheel with the deck. From here, we're left with debating the specifics of four luxury spaces which, if you determined were to be dedicated to defensive cards, would be filled in the order of Warning --> Emptiness --> Strike --> Anti-Spell, maxing out on each copy of the first before moving on to the next and obviously not necessarily in that particular order. In writing this I'm actually struggling to see a reason to approach the deck any other way, really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

- Playing 39 or 40 isn't necessary in a deck such as this, where you play pot of desires, can basically always make Dante-> Beatrice, and want options in deck to send to the grave
- Ratio of monsters vs traps is more important than the monsters or traps themselves: so I don't like the line of thinking 'we don't have room for this because we must play X BA's at least', because you could also play 40 BA's but you don't, meaning that there's an ideal number of trap cards that you want to play. Unless if you're saying you'd prefer trapless, but in that case you shouldn't even discuss traps and 'no room' would not be appropriate to use because that assumes that you actually want to play the cards that you 'cannot find room for'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realized that I completely forgot about Foolish and Rota in my original post, so obviously those should be included. 

 

2 hours ago, mark said:

- Playing 39 or 40 isn't necessary in a deck such as this, where you play pot of desires, can basically always make Dante-> Beatrice, and want options in deck to send to the grave

 

This seems to me like a non-argument. The idea has always been that "every deck has a number," but in practice it's just worked out in such a way that every deck's number has been less than 40. In my post, I'm suggesting that the number is an almost set in stone *37 (plus Upstart, Rota, Foolish and give or take a few expendable BAs). The idea that every additional card added after the deck's ideal number (given the number is less than 40, of course) brings significantly less to the table than even the worst card before it is one that has been beaten to death forever, so I guess if you don't buy it by now there's nothing I could say to change that. 

 

I'm confused by the "want options in deck to send to the grave" portion of your response. If the discussion is on the trap line-up specifically, the only possibly worthwhile trap that satisfies this argument is Breakthrough Skill, which has problems of its own. I also couldn't imagine playing any additional BA or PK monsters other than the ones mentioned in my post, unless you wanted to add the odd phantom knight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me.    59

 

The theory that makes 40 be the ideal size is based on there being a significant difference in the power of different cards within the deck, which you could argue against in the case of BA. The case here is more along the lines the strength of a hand being determined by how many monsters are in the hand, and how many traps it got. Rather than specifically which monsters or which traps because this is less likely to make a difference than drawing an alich instead of a farfa. Of course, some monsters here are indeed better than other and running a larger D would decrease your chances of seeing a terrortop. This could still be outperformed by a larger D by on average opening more traps, if that turns out to have a larger impact on your win-rate. You could potentially also balance this out by adding one or two copies of fiendish rhino warrior as it's another power card of similar level to that of terrortop. I think that's the type of argument Mark is trying to make and even if it may or may not be the case for pk ba, it has certainly existed other decks where this was the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

The idea that lower than 40 is optimal existed pre-desires, and also BA was always one of the decks where it was grey area anyway. I would've played under 40 before, but now things have changed. 

 

If you pot of desires twice, you have 10 cards left in your deck. So maybe your strategy is to only use one, which will leave you with 22 cards in deck. Now assume that you will: 

- Mill at least 9 of dante's probbaly

- send some with beatrice 

- play speedroid, foolish, Rota and graff, Tour guide

- draw a few for turn 

 

which leaves you dangerously close to deckout, or, to not having anything good in deck to search for / being able to Mill with Dante, and also possibly having 1 or 2 dead desires in your hand. 

 

that makes me wonder if going above 40 (while still keeping stuff such as Upstart, because of the possibility of banishing it with Desire), isn't better. I also wonder if playing 3 desires is even good in this deck(when playing 40), considering how you need to keep Dante milling and your opponent can easily try to deck you out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like in order to determine whether or not this deck should play desires we first need to determine how important Cir is for us to win the game, since that is ultimately the most common detriment to running desires. Beatrice is at one, so its not like you're making huge advantage off of cir reviving a dante. Cir reviving a key one-of BA however, can be pretty crucial. Virgil, for example, is fantastic vs blue eyes right now, so milling the one  rubic (depending on your build) and needing to make virgil can prove problematic without Cir. Libic, similarly, can be necessary to getting out of certain situations as well. So in order to play desires (which we obviously ideally want to do) I feel the build must play two rubics and two libics, and just play over 40 (which will ultimately make it less likely to banish Cir in the first place, as well as go along with the few above posts about decking out becoming a very real concern with too few cards in deck). 

 

Also for what its worth, Karma Cut has been testing amazingly well. Hitting an on field blue eyes and banishing all alternatives/blue eyes from grave can be game ending, not to mention the obvious uses of the card in the mirror. 

 

In summary, I would advocate going slightly over 40 to flow better with desires, and consider using Karma Cut as a supplemental trap to Fog Blade. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drewsifer    49

I think traps are cool and all but I don't really think we understand what the meta is yet outside of BA and BEWD so it's really hard to discuss traps like Karma Cut and etc into a broad field that we aren't sure even exists yet. If you play BA and BEWD all day you may just find Karma Cut to be amazing, but what about if Kozmo picks up? That deck can facilitate so many draw cards that I'm sure it will pop up somewhere, and if so, how much of the field in any given room will be Kozmo? 

Fortunately I think that the BA and BEWD match-ups are pretty similar. Beatrice and Spirit lose to the same type of cards; Kaiju's, , Large Scale Destruction effs like Raigeki and Dark Hole, non-targetting monster effs, and things similar in nature which is actually a huge card pool we have to mess around with and this decks engine is so simple and convenient to access between Terrortops/TGU that often you can see multiples of these cards and still win the game, if not see multiple turns. As long as you play one out, either multiple Kaijus, Raigeki, PWWB, Karma Cut, etc, it's really easy to win with this deck once you get over their first board you can often put on 3k+ damage, which means you're going to win on the following turn. if they are unable to mount a come back, which if you get rid of their first beatrice without using yours, is really easy. 

Blue-Eyes usually can't win if you break their first board, that deck is very reliant on drawing non-searchable cards to revive monsters, often needing multiples, and against BA, Beatrice is at 1, and staring down Dante isn't that worrisome, so I think building any BA deck in the future with ANY tech choices should be HEAVILY focused on outs to those cards and realistically nothing else outside the standard engine, considering the knowledge of the cardpool in the game atm. I think a list playing Dark Holes/Raigeki, or even a list using Slumber to search Kaijus, is probably the best option for us.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BKI    18

The only downside of Slumber vs BE is that you can't use Slumber against a board that includes Spirit Dragon. If you can't get rid of Spirit Dragon first it is essentially a blank but then again if you can remove Spirit Dragon without Slumber you might not need it at all. This begs the question whether Slumber is a good card to main if you expect to see a lot of BE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drewsifer    49

If you're unable to trigger a single threatening BA effect that turn and all you have going for you is Slumber you're probably going to lose that game anyways. That's the thing about Spirit Dragon, is it's really easy to force out. Just make Farfa CL2 on any single chain and they're forced to stop it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BKI    18
1 hour ago, Chumley said:

So guys Crane Crane in this deck could it be good now?

If I remember the discussion correctly 4 normal summons were considered the correct amount to play. I see no reason to change that number unless you see a reason to increase the chance to have multiple NS at once in your hand. The 4 NS at that time were:

1x TGU

3x Fiendish Rhino.

 

1x TGU is still the norm in all BA variants.

That would leave 3 spots open.

"pure" BA: still runs 3 Rhinos

PK BA: has the 6 phantom knights

 

So the question is:  Is it better to have more 1 card R3nk plays that requires your NS than less dead (multiple NSs) cards T1?

And Crane Crane does nothing if milled just to keep that in mind if you wanted to replace the Rhinos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BKI said:

If I remember the discussion correctly 4 normal summons were considered the correct amount to play. I see no reason to change that number unless you see a reason to increase the chance to have multiple NS at once in your hand. The 4 NS at that time were:

1x TGU

3x Fiendish Rhino.

 

1x TGU is still the norm in all BA variants.

That would leave 3 spots open.

"pure" BA: still runs 3 Rhinos

PK BA: has the 6 phantom knights

 

So the question is:  Is it better to have more 1 card R3nk plays that requires your NS than less dead (multiple NSs) cards T1?

And Crane Crane does nothing if milled just to keep that in mind if you wanted to replace the Rhinos.

Okay so in other words, you are saying A. I might end up with too many normal summons playing it and B. It's useless if I mill it. Thanks for the response I think I might still test it but we shall see if it hurts or helps the deck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carbon    1862

Well saying something is useless if milled is and never was a valid point for excluding a card.
Too many normal summons is the only concern that matters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drewsifer    49

Graff is also a normal summon. 
And you have to consider any turn after T1 you usually have a normal summon in the form of TGU anyways, so you really only want normal summons that're exceptional first turn. 

  • Upvote 1

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.

×