Jump to content
ACP

Currently Forbidden Cards that Would be Unplayable at 3

Recommended Posts

»ACP    33421
24 minutes ago, Mr Dragon said:

I think 3 Tidal and 3 Stream in Mermails would still be really good. Though  I think you're otherwise right in thinking there's no other good deck that would run just 1 Element.

Yeah, I meant except the water one. I'm well aware that Mermails + that have been top tier before.

 

Also, pretty sure that t1 towers is still impossible to beat, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Digbick    7257

Nah actually if your deck runs r4, tower is easy to kill cuz you just make utopia lighting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Digbick    7257

And i forgot to mention kaiju

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

Does this mean you think the other banned cards are probably good or are these just some examples? Because I fully agree with you but I think you could have mentioned way more cards. Also 2 things that come to mind are:
 

- A card being used in top tier decks doesn't mean that the card is healthy for the format ( I think you even used to make this clear, although not sure ). For example a card such as Victory Dragon may not be 'top tier', but still unwanted because now G1 if you brick and your opponent opens Victory Dragon + DNA Surgery + Some sort of Brilliant Fusion set-up where Trick Clown+Serap is already 2 monsters, you can normal summon the 3rd, then 2nd summon Victory Dragon. That's just not what konami wants out of 'yugioh', although that may not be what you're trying to argue here, I also know you changed your opinion a while ago about whether you should want formats to be balanced or not, so that may have to do with it as well. 

- If you look at konami's perspective, not from a point of view where there shouldn't be broken cards in a format, but rather: there should always be broken cards in a format but never for longer than 6 months, because we need to sell new packs. Then suddenly it becomes clear why all newly released cards are so much more broken than their previous members (Soul Charge, Norden, Pot of Desires, entire archtypes), but they will be dealt with eventually. And when you keep this in mind the current banned cards mentioned are still suboptimal, but the argument of 'X doesn't matter because Y is currently available and is better' now fails, because konami gives permission of cards to be broken for about 6 months, then they should go. So there are different standards to measure with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

That said maybe Self-Destruct Button could be viable. Especially in high risk high reward kind of decks where you need to draw a certain combo, you can aim to draw the combo 2 games in a duel, or, 1 game in a duel and Self Destruct Button in the other, although obvious concerns exist such as your opponent attacking in such a way that your LP actually reaches under 1000 without you die ing, and Twin Twister/negation kind of stuff. But it may have potential, same for Victory Dragon, you essentially build your deck to only win 1 game out of the first 2, and when you do you're set. I can imagine, for example, any deck that opens 'auto-win', then keeping your opponent locked untill you draw Victory Dragon combo to seal the match. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
website is bad    2172

victory dragon is actually just straight worthless cuz anyone who knows they cant out it just scoops before its effect becomes relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
website is bad    2172

this is actually the reason it got banned so i dunno why you think its worthwhile in any sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

If I recall correctly in the OCG you can only surrender during your own turn. Also I thought Victory Dragon was banned because it was supposed to not be able to be used in duels, but it's the only one of these kind of cards that doesn't have it written on the card. Obviously if you could surrender during your opponent's turn, it would literally be a blank and not viable, so I'm talking OCG scenario here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

I remember when I was a kid and first read Victory Dragon, I didn't know the difference between a duel and a match back then. I was like 'What kind of stupid card is this. You already win if your opponent's LP hits 0 anyway.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

Fwiw I think the best strategy would be to side it. If you lose the first duel, side it in. Go first, make an unbreakable field with floodgates that doesn't allow your opponent to special summon, then seal the game with Victory Dragon once drawn. For example, in a Dragon Ruler-like format (although one without Effect Veiler), this strategy + Vanity's Emptiness could actually work and it's searchable with Tempest. But yeah since we're talking current format especially current TCG rulings, it wouldn't do shit. Even if you couldn't surrender when you draw Victory Dragon, you could still surrender when you're losing or when your opponent flips DNA Surgery, so it sucks UNLESS if you could never surrender at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
website is bad    2172

no victory dragon was banned specifically because of the tournament issues that arose with conceding before its effect activated.

 

all the other ones that were printed illegal were made significantly later when konami already put the nail in the coffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»victor    6400

I think when evaluating Witch and Sangan, you have to keep in mind that Metalfoes are what changed things, them being proactive Spell destruction, remember how folks thought about "Thunder Crash" at one time?

 

I mean a whole range of decks like Metalfoes Yang Zing, Kozmo, Fire Kings, etc., are possible, but still they aren't played because of the fundamental nature of the Pendulum mechanic. It's like a Rekindling / Soul Charge every turn you have 2 Scales, and so all the old decks don't have infinite resources like Pend decks do. It's like Hieratic Dragon Rulers, and Dragon Rulers, making the graveyard your second hand, giving you the second wind, except now all Pend decks can do it.

 

Kirin and Sloth come back every turn, I mean you can pop them and make it one sided, and bring it back.

 

I mean Vortex Trooper isn't played, you literally need to make something like Baobaboon or 1 card 2 XYZs like Zoodiacs for folks to play non Pends in Metalfoes.

 

It's like we've become spoiled and our standards are too high.

 

Admittedly, Toadally Awesome being awesome, is kind of the exception to the rule, and ABC is a little like the DRuler floating of days past.

 

The other stuff is Spirit Dragon, Barrier Statues, Vanity/Kristya hard countering the Soul Charge / Rekindling, but how can a regular deck compete?

 

I suppose Crystal Wing or Siegfried or Kali Yuga to Heavy Storm either turn, but when you're under constant Soul Change watch, it's a new world.

 

-----------

 

But I think having 3 Dragon Rulers back, is going to see a lot of play because Rank 7s and LV 8s are good, and the second wind aspect of a lot of decks like Karakuri, Mermail, Hieratics, etc.

 

I mean if you think about it, prior to Dragon Rulers, every big deck ran out of steam once you broke their board, that's back to where we're at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

I don't really see what point you're trying to make, but the only thing these examples of the past show is what makes decks better than others, and how to respond to certain threats within a given meta. But you shouldn't be looking to make a deck that is like a worse version of Dragon Rulers, because current decks almost have a higher power level than dragon rulers used to have with the exception of Super Rejuvenation. Say Dragon Ruler vs current decks, would their Dracossack not just die to a Kaiju? When they go Dragon Ruler 'freeze' after Maxx "C", would they not outright lose? Sure, if Dragon Ruler become unbanned that would be powerful because they can combine with the new cards to make some crazy hybrid, but, the current decks have a higher power level than the older decks so I don't think concepts such as 'grave as a 2nd hand' etc. cut it anymore. ACP is spot on when he says the duel is decided within T1, because having a good set-up means you can both snowball, and prevent your opponent from doing anything. Dragon Rulers didn't have this, they had a great engine that outted a lot of trouble cards, but they didn't have floodgate monsters besides Vanity's Emptiness, they didn't have trap monsters besides some hand traps, that only hinder your opponent but don't actually stop them. I think you're giving Dragon Rulers too much credit. A good T1 yugioh deck atm is one that can make a very solid board T1 70/80% of the time, or, can go second and reliably break boards and do something meanwhile after. A solid T1 board should include either floodgate monsters, or a combination of 'trap' monsters and/or traps. Any board that loses to a single Raigeki, a single hand trap, a single trap or a single Kaiju, is probably not even worth it. Making or breaking this solid board T1 is more important than having follow-up plays. Sure, with follow-up plays you can outgrind your opponent, but that only accounts for the grind games to begin with. A game in which you auto-win and your opponent can't play, or a game in which your opponent auto-wins and you can't play, makes it so that your grind game doesn't matter since you won't stand a chance. There's also the fact that these things go hand in hand, for example ABC either opens Hangar and makes ABC while having a good grind game making free rank 4's + banishing new ABC's each turn, OR, they don't open it and their gameplan suddenly became a lot weaker. In the past, you had resources that you either saved, or spend to make a board or a push. In the present, the resources you have are a direct product of making that board. There's no choice between saving recources or not, you go all-out and it will give you free cards to play with, and at the same time, it will stop your opponent from doing so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

For what it's worth while Pendulum mechanic itself is still broken, I think what hinders it from being obvious tier 1 is:
 

- 5 card beginning hands

- Needing 2 scales + an 'actual play' to make this work, automatically making this a 3-card combo, 4-card if you go 2nd

- Needing at least 1 non-engine cards to break boards to get to your engine to begin with (remember how Nekroz never wanted to main
MST/Book of Eclipse/etc, but they had to, simply because they'd lose to Djinn lock and Mistake? Although the moment people used cards that could serve multiple purposes, such as 3 Rota 1 DDWL + Shurit, or Armageddon/Math + Glow-Up/Shaddoll Dragon/Djinn, this became less of a problem because these cards could either become engine cards or 'field outers'. 

So obviously as you can see the most successful pendulum decks aren't the ones that can make the craziest boards, or have the most fuel. They are the ones that have cards that search others, that's why Scout and Joker etc. where key to Qliphort/Pepe, they solved the paradox of 'outing opponent's field + still drawing a combo within your 5-6 card starting hand' because they searched and counted as 2 cards in 1, while ALSO searching what you needed, so that solves 2 problems at once. Same as Manju/Senju did in Nekroz, they both searched & provided fodder for the rank 4 play. Any card that serves 2 purposes, or, that let's you search any card from deck will be broken to begin with, so them combined in 1 card is like 3-in-1. But take them away and the decks will suddenly become a lot worse. I think these are the kind of cards that you should be looking for, even more so then the grave as 2nd hand stuff. I also think the normal summon is one of the only real resources left, and should be fully optimized. Ironically enough this could mean that playing Brilliant Fusion/Double Summon kind of cards may even be necessary in Pendulum decks, because you get to normal summon the monsters that search your scales etc, which is what you need to 'get going' and get 'free soul charges each turn'. You can't rely on things going the way you want to each game, so you need multiple layer of plays, which also deals with playing through disruption which was another one of Nekroz' weaknesses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»victor    6400

I completely agree with you on the Scout and Monkeyboard point.

-----

 

I think the biggest thing we're overlooking is how we don't have Exciton Knight to keep Pendulum boards in check anymore.

 

We also don't have the 1 card Debris -> BRD field wipe with Dragon Ruler followup, not to mention Debris+Mythic Wood.

 

--------------

Maybe I'm looking through rose colored glasses but I think at the time, Dragon Rulers was the deck that had so many blowouts and win buttons like Trident Dragion, Montage Dragon, Sixth Sense, RFTDD, heck even Armory Arm where you could crash Dragon Rulers for game. Not to mention the stealing game with Big Eye, Electric Virus, Dragluon, etc.

 

And you had floodgates like Skill Drain, not to mention cards like Abyssgaios, Felgrand. And EEV, so much so that people played RDA over Colossal to beat Rivaly for it.

 

For Maxx C, people played Colossal Fighter so there were danger there or creating Blader proof boards, so you wouldn't freeze and lose...

 

People knew about Lava Golem (https://ygorganization.com/lavagolem/) and there was actually an entire debate over Swift Scarecrow (Felgrand beats it) vs Battle Fader (http://articles.alterealitygames.com/the-will-to-live-swift-scarecrow-vs-battle-fader/), and not leaving monsters to be Big Eyed or Blader'd.

 

It wasn't Trap monsters, and more about Big Eye and Crimson Blader.

 

I suppose even today, they'd Kaiju you and try to Blader, to Kaiju-proof the Dragon Ruler field. 

 

And don't forget Fog King, to stop Tributing :)

 

(That was a different time, where we had so many folks try to one up each other with Dragon Ruler techs, and you saw the decks adapt and evolve)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

Looking back I think people could've done even more. For example doesn't Dimensional Fissure/Macro Cosmos outright win the mirror? What's their out, cold drawing Heavy Storm? Banish Baby+Dragon Ruler from hand then summon Veiler, make Scrap Dragon? Congratz, you have now thrown 3 cards to deal with 1. I know about the interactions back then, and what I liked about the format is that it was like Nekroz in the way that you could leave 'almost' open fields, because hand and graveyard were real recources, with the hand traps, and the possibility of Maxx "C" into Scarecrow, or Crimson Blader. But I think with nowadays knowledge, even Dragon Ruler format would soon turn into floodgate village + a bit of engine monsters, for example if you draw any combination of Secret Village of the Spellcasters + Big Eye and Emptiness, what can your opponent really do? They'll have to draw Effect Veiler + Heavy Storm to get rid of it, and some decks even played only 2 Veiler. I'll admit all of this doesn't work going 2nd, but I think the format could've been abused way more with current knowledge of how devastating floodgates really are. I think it didn't happen because the more skillful players relied on outplaying average players, but there's no reason for the average players to not go all-out on the floodgate route, one way or another. I'm sure spell book could've sacrificed a bit of the consistency/grind game in order to main more outs to protect from Storm/Tsukuyomi/etc. And the format would develop from an interesting one to a floodgate format just like the ones today. That's my view on it at least. As for going 2nd, I remember Hoban said he thought of a strategy that he should've used for Worlds, it was something with Karakuri OTK'ing through Dracossack tokens if I recall correctly, it was in his 'History of the yugioh player' episode on youtube if you want to watch it. So what I'm saying is if you have a deck with infinite floodgates going 1st, and OTK'ing through Dracossack tokens etc. going 2nd, then the format will become auto-win vs brick as well, just like nowadays formats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While there are definitely older formats where we didn't respect the power of floodgates, but Dragon/Spellbook format was definitely not one of them. In the Dragon mirror, Emptiness was a significantly better card than either Macro or DFissure (and yes, was incredibly obnoxious) simply because you could easily turn them off yourself to push for lethal, and your opponent literally couldn't play if you had it up. Under Macro, it's still possible to have your board answered, especially if you didn't go first and they have a graveyard already, and if your shit gets answered under Macro now you're stuck playing under your own Macro Cosmos. There's a huge difference in cards that completely don't let them play even when they have a graveyard, like Emptiness, and cards that just make their plays weaker like Dimensional Fissure. 

 

Let's not pretend nobody played floodgates that format. Mind Drain and Dimensional Fissure were two of the most popular sideboard cards out of the Spellbook deck, Dragons commonly mained Emptiness and sided Horus/DNA Surgery, and every deck that wasn't one of those two mained some combination of EEV, Dimensional Fissure, Macro Cosmos, Ophion, Emptiness, or Zombie World.

 

Spellbook was already the best game 1 deck in the format, and why the fuck would you sacrifice anything to main answers to sideboard cards like Tsukuyomi? That is what the side is for. And was one of the big reasons why Cursed Seal was such a good card in the Spellbook side, not only was it a blowout in the mirror, but it also went in against Dragon to answer Dark Hole / Last Day / MST / Storm in the post-board games. 

 

There's a huge amount of opportunity cost to playing non-engine cards in both the Spellbook and Dragon decks. Every card you want to add you have to cut something in exchange, and when every card in your deck is as powerful, or engine critical as those two decks, cards have to meet a very high bar to be playable. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

Emptiness gets outed by Blaster. That said you could easily play Emptiness+Dfissure to out both. I'm saying that I'm certain the format wasn't solved, and I've given a few examples as to why I think that's the case. For example I think people could main more Storm/MST to deal with both Spellbook and Dragon Ruler maining Emptiness/other traps. There are just a lot of these kind of interactions. If you play 2/3 floodgates so that your opponent literally can't play, then it doesn't matter if they have 35 engine cards in their deck. That's the point I'm getting at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Ween    237

I've only been playing the game again for a couple weeks and I can say that I prefer floodgates to what we have now. It's so much easier to autowin than to autolose. I'd rather have three vanity's emptiness in mine and my opponent's decks and have a format defined around respecting that rather than have a format defined by solemns, dimensional barriers, a 2200 judgment, and building an all or nothing board on the first turn. That's not to say that I think that the game is no longer "skillful". It's just... different. 

 

It's much less a game about player interaction and more about knowing all of the different ways to play out your opening hand going first to minimize the chance of being outed. It's not like veiler is very good anymore, so the only card you have to "respect" is maxx c. I know perfectly well that some of us prefer degenerate combo decks (i.e. Gishkill), and that's fine. But I'd rather that kind of playing be a single facet of the game, rather than how the game works.

 

I know that part of this is rose-tinted lenses, but I was watching the stream from YCS Anaheim on youtube, and the only part I enjoyed was watching squiddy whoop some ass with metalfoes. He was the only game I saw that moved past the first couple turns. Like I said, I've been away for awhile and there's no real use complaining when I can't really change anything, but I just feel a little unsure about what the game has become.


On that note, I think bringing Dragon Rulers and Dolls back would be good for the game. They're cards that say no to the whole strategy of shoving your hand onto the board turn one, as people would actually have to respect power cards again. If we're at a point where even raigeki isn't considered a threat, something simply has to change.

 

At least, that's my two cents from a semi-fresh pair of eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

Yeah the game is currently based around T1 only, all other turns are a result of your opening. Like this is pretty a much a meme at this point, but it's true. If there was a rank 8 XYZ that said 'when you summon this guy on the 4th turn, you win the duel', it'd probably still suck depending on the format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

Like my biggest problem with all this is that the 'go to' T1 play is to literally go all-out, throw everything you have, then create infinite resources for yourself while also restricting your opponent's play. It's like, when you look at it indirectly, every card is like a Stratos+BTH in one, it gives you something & it takes something away from your opponent, giving you no incentive to hold back. The 'skill' aspect is imo only relevant in finding ways to beat the meta, aka deckbuilding. Not so much as grind game and technical play anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turceal    29

From what i have seen most of the skill this format is in how to remove an opponents turn one board. Most of the pro players end up having long drawn out duels due to having the "skill" to break T1's consistently.

Share this post


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

Emptiness gets outed by Blaster. That said you could easily play Emptiness+Dfissure to out both. I'm saying that I'm certain the format wasn't solved, and I've given a few examples as to why I think that's the case. For example I think people could main more Storm/MST to deal with both Spellbook and Dragon Ruler maining Emptiness/other traps. There are just a lot of these kind of interactions. If you play 2/3 floodgates so that your opponent literally can't play, then it doesn't matter if they have 35 engine cards in their deck. That's the point I'm getting at. 

 

Blaster was only a good answer to Emptiness if they had the hard read on your backrow and used Blaster to pop your set before pitching for a Baby (and that's assuming you didn't set a bluff alongside the Emptiness to prevent this). It's not like they can chain Blaster to Emptiness, and if your Emptiness eats 4 of their cards and their Blaster for turn you're probably not losing that game with any reasonable combination of cards. It was the same idea with the Spellbook deck. Yeah, Blaster could always out your Jowgen and there was nothing you could do about it if they had it, but for one, that isn't a trivial thing to assemble, and second it's far from free to use Blaster to pop a card so a good portion of the time it didn't even matter that they managed to kill your Jowgen.

 

I understand what you're trying to argue, but you're just wrong. You're severely under appreciating the opportunity cost you incur by main decking extra non-engine cards. Maindecking extra copies of MST looks reasonable until you realize you're playing extra cards in your deck maindeck that do basically nothing vs. Spellbook game 1, and are only reasonable against Dragon game 1 if they have one of their 0-2 copies of Emptiness, and you went second. That's one of the strengths of floodgates in formats like these, from an expected value perspective it doesn't make sense to play devoted answers to them because they're just bricks when the flood isn't in play. If people wanted to go crazy and maindeck a bunch of random floodgate cards they'd just play a deck that's designed to do that, rather than try to randomly jam them into Dragons, which needs a critical mass of engine cards to be good.

 

Macro and 5 bricks doesn't do anything, but Emptiness and 5 bricks turn 1 is often good enough to buy you a couple turns to fix your hand. It's far from impossible to play through a Macro Cosmos and force your opponent to play through their own Macro. There are even games where answering their board and flipping Macro doesn't lock up a win, because they still get to play cards from their graveyard / pitch babies to rebuild a board. There are so many situations where Emptiness is so much better than Macro or Fissure in the Dragon mirror that it's hard to justify playing Macro just because Blaster can't pop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

I guess part of why I disagree is because I probably also disagree with what people currently play in modern yugioh. Like I'm not arguing these cards over Emptiness, but I'm saying people could've played way more floodgates than they do, maybe not even main Super Rejuv. That from a going 1st approach, just set-up your grave+field+2 floodgates end. And from a going 2nd approach you could use the Burei OTK through tokens plan although I haven't tested it, but I remember when I checked it out it seemed extremely good since you just go double Burei turn their tokens in atk then overlay and OTK etc. So you could have a going 1st plan, and a going 2nd plan, and switch between them. When I look at decklists I see maybe 1 Storm 2 Emptiness that's it, so I'm seeing room for improvement. As for bricking, I think it's a thinking error people make that they always want to be able to make plays, but honestly against a good player your winrate will only be 50% anyway, regardless of how much of the time you open playable. So strategies that will give you 70% auto-win 30% brick, are better. Not in swiss of course, so this all depends on the tournament you're playing and the average skill level you except of people etc. But against good players which you can't outplay, or as people become better, you should be playing more high risk high reward kind of cards such as the floodgate route, imo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Super Rejuv was secretly an interactive card because of all the hand traps the Dragon deck played. Why play a card that just does one thing like a Floodgate when you can play a card that both interacts with your opponent by drawing you into Maxx "C"s and Veilers while also giving you more options for your next turn?

 

Yes, maybe playing more floodgates in your dragon deck will improve your dragon mirror against stronger players, I won't dispute that. But you know what would increase your win rate even further? Just playing fucking Evilswarm which can actually support all these random floodgate cards without gimping itself. Or playing Spellbook which has it's engine built around cards that prevent Dragon from playing. You can do all these things you're suggesting, but other decks filled those roles better. You're significantly overvaluing how good the non-Emptiness floodgates are. If you think an opening like Dracossack + Dimensional Fissure is an autowin board while your hand traps are all shut off by your own Dimensional Fissure you're crazy. Your Dimensional Fissure isn't even bricking their Maxx "C" from turn 1, since you actually have to make your board before activating your Fissure. If you're relying on multiple floods to setup these autowins then why are you even playing Dragon Ruler in the first place? You can say the decks should max out on Emptiness, but there's obvious diminishing returns on playing multiple copies of that card, especially in a deck that got to see as many cards as Dragon Ruler did.

  • Upvote 4

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.

×