Field Presence Vs. OTK Potential

[VampireofDarkness]

So I was recently in a game on Duel Portal talking with a user and we were debating over a card I had just summoned which allowed for multiple attacks at an often low cost. However, I argued that it wasn't that great because you often made the card ending with it as your only monster and that there were so many better things you could do that would give you an actual field presence instead of risking the game on one card. Regardless of who was right, however, this had me thinking about something:

What actually is the best decision? Putting a potential game finisher on board with the risk of that 1 or 2 backrow ruining your plan and potentially costing you the game, or being able to bring out multiple monsters and keep a stable field presence?

Example: Say your playing Reckless Labadorite. You play Dragard, get your Lab, activate Inferno Reckless Summon, you now only have your 4 monsters on board and say you have nothing in your hand that would be relevant. (For those who don't know of the Deck, you now have 3 Level 6 Vanilla Tuners with 0 ATK and 1 Level 4 Non Tuner) Your opponent has 2 backrow you are very unsure about, but no monsters.
Do you go for Trident Dragion and go all in, with which you would have no other cards to make an additional play or do you go for Leo and Hieratic Dragon of Atum (Assuming you are activating Atum's effect and going into Gaia Charger) in order to keep your field presence intact?

[Trebuchet MS]

I would play cautiously - and only all-in when I know I can safely push for game. Hence I'd go for the Leo/Atum from this step.

[Darj]

Yeah, but let's take the same scenario but removing the opponent's backrow. In that case you would go for Dragion and OTK, right? That's when it becomes a problem. Cards that enables OTKs such as Dragion are not good for the game in my opinion; they are just opportunists, so to speak, waiting for the right moment to go out and steal games, or at least inflict heavy damage.

[VampireofDarkness]

Yeah, but let's take the same scenario but removing the opponent's backrow. In that case you would go for Dragion and OTK, right? That's when it becomes a problem. Cards that enables OTKs such as Dragion are not good for the game in my opinion; they are just oportunists, so to speak, waiting for the right moment to be Summoned and steal games, or at least inflict heavy damage.

"Regardless of who was right"...... This doesn't pertain to the actual question in where it's only 1 or 2 but you don't actually know what to expect. Yes, you have a point, but it isn't the point of the discussion. It's about if it's worth the occasional blind OTK so to speak

[Darj]

You are right, went a bit off-topic there. This thread is not about discussing if OTK enablers are fair or not.

 

Anyways, I believe field presence should have priority over OTK potential. Why put your game on the shoulders of a single card knowing the opponent has 2+ backrow that can ruin your day?

[Cirrus]

It differs depending on playstyle. I'm a huge control player and like to grind my opponent's resources away before I push, but my friend likes to go all-in opportunistically and fishes for game quite often. I would take no risks regardless of whether there were 1 or 2 backrow(s), and he'd probably push if there [acronym=(no my grammar's fine it's just subjunctive)]were[/acronym] only 1.

[Airride]

It depends on the deck I'm playing; If I'm playing, say, Evols or Symphonic Warriors, where resources are very limited, I always go for the safe play, unless I am absolutely sure I can push for game. However, If I'm playing Lightsworns, and I know I can afford to try and make a big push every now and then and still have stuff leftover, then I'll play riskier.

[Tenno7]

Honestly, it really does depend on what deck you're playing against. The objective of dueling is to win, so pushing isn't a bad thing. However, you have to keep in mind what kind of player you're going against to know whether or not it's wise to exchange field presence for an OTK potential strike. After all, if 1 of their set cards is a dark hole (set as a trap bluff), you lose that field advantage anyway.

[Sleepy]

In the example you used, I probably wouldn't go for the swarm to begin with unless I could afford to bounce back from a Torrential. Otherwise it just depends on the state of the game.

If those 2 cards where there for a while and unused against previous pushes, odds are they'd be a bluff and I'd go for it. If there is just 1 set, I might or might not go for it.

Though depending on other factors of the game of course.

 

I am usually more of a fan of playing safe and just having both sides grind at each other and trade blows. My power plays need to be relatively cheap or be safe pushes for game.

 

Like for example I have this deck where I use Giant Germ and then revive the destroyed one with Junk Synchron, make Junk Warrior at 4300 ATK, and turn the other 2 Germs into a Gachi. This gives me a 4700 ATK +0 boss and a sturdy wall, and can easily be called a power play if it succeeds and be not a big deal if it doesn't.

[.Rooster]

The more the merrier! I would rather have a bunch of monsters than summon a single monster. I could type that but really I would summon the shiny monster since I am SUCH a n00b.