ITT: Re-Summon

[Sleepy]

It has been a while since there was something other than list speculation being made, and since I like theory-oh.

 

 

 

In this Topic:

Now monsters that already are face-up on your side of the field are eligible to "Normal Summon" again, but Tributes are still required if the monster is high Level, and this does use-up your Normal Summon/Set for the turn.

In addition, face-up Ritual, Fusion, Synchro, Xyz, and Pendulum monsters are viable choices to Ritual, Fusion, Synchro, Xyz, and Pendulum Summon (respectively), and in this case, the materials used cannot be the card you are trying to re-Summon.

 

This means a face-up Kaius can Tribute a monster to "Tribute Summon" itself and re-activate.

Black Rose Dragon that got revived by Call of the Haunted last turn can use-up material to destroy the field.

Something like Utopia can get 2 extra Level 4s into its overlays and be "Xyz Summoned" again, adding up materials for the cards that need it.

Even smaller things like Junk Synchron could get extra uses from it.

 

For the sake of specifics, you use the data of the cards as if they were in the Extra Deck, so if you somehow reduce a Stardust to Level 4 with repeated Level Eater or something else, you still have to get that 8 for the re-Summon.

 

Finally, the first point of this ITT rule affects any monsters in general, so yes, you could use up the Normal Summon to make Level-based alternate mechanics into "Normal Summons... I have no idea how Xyzs would be able to use this one though, so I'm inclined to say they are an unusable exception for this case in particular.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discuss~

Would this be an awful idea or would it end up breaking less things than it sounds like?
 

[CLG Klavier]

Broken because it completly removes the need to run multiple copies of any Xyz since you can just re-summon the one on the field already/revive it, and makes Qlis even more stupid than they are.

[Sleepy]

Broken because it completly removes the need to run multiple copies of any Xyz since you can just re-summon the one on the field already/revive it, and makes Qlis even more stupid than they are.

 

I imagined so, but still would like to hear something a tad more specific than that.

In the case of Xyzs, you'd still need the same amount of investment in addition to revival for those kinds of uses, and even if Call of the Haunted isn't a -1, the combo itself is an extra -1 as a whole in exchange for not just Xyz Summoning another copy. Plus, revival isn't as reliably searchable as the typical themed support decks search for to get to the Xyzs to begin with. It wouldn't even be as sweet as what the Satellarknights + Call of the Haunted can do. Not to mention revival is an extra bit of deck investment.

I'm worried about the implications of this thread in regards to victory conditions like Mischievous Angel's, though.

 

@Qli: How so? 

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I do need the specifics that'd really break it in practice. In fact, I kind of agree with you (not sure how exactly, it is more of a hunch that something out there must be getting broken through these, than anything in particular getting off the top of my head), but come on.

[CLG Klavier]

Pull out literally any high leveled one from extra deck and re-Tribute Summon it? Consistently draw 3 cards with Monolith by tributing crap for Towers every time?

 

Also this idea breaks the concept of Xyzs being limited to X number of uses. There's a reason why there are so little cards that refill Xyz materials.

[Spinny]

Karakuri might like this since they can pretty much endlessly go through their deck or something weird like that.

[Sleepy]

Pull out literally any high leveled one from extra deck and re-Tribute Summon it? Consistently draw 3 cards with Monolith by tributing crap for Towers every time?

 

Also this idea breaks the concept of Xyzs being limited to X number of uses. There's a reason why there are so little cards that refill Xyz materials.

 

On the Monolith + Towers one, I can see it. Not that the combo pieces of the deck wouldn't still be able to pull it off and even end up with a second Towers or a second anything in the process, I see what you are trying to say with the Qli one, to a degree, even though even as ridiculous as 3 draws per turn sounds, the deck might as well not do that and grow the board while still getting the draws. They don't need much more investment as is for the combo pieces other than Scout and Monolith for the rest of the game anyways.

rather than just Towers staying alone and giving you the draws.

 

 

On the Xyz idea: It goes against that general idea of limited ammo but doesn't seem to = breaking something. More often than not Xyzs are prone to leave the field before they run out of ammo anyways, and even following the general concept of limited ammo, this still doesn't contradict it because the limited ammo stays limited as long as you don't further invest on it with the above ITT rules. You only replenish it by repeated investment that under general circumstances would be better off making you a second copy of X or a different Xyz so that you can also keep an extra beater in the process at the very least. I still don't see all that many problems. Mischievous Angel? Dio's "The World" (Jojo reference)? Goble Goble Goble (Hazy)? or broken multi-material Heroic Challenger Number? Those are the only cards I can really see getting much of a boost. Maybe 101...  I expected a mention from at least something like those, to be honest.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Kepler becomes decidedly absurd, as does Myrmeleo.

[Goose]

The game is balanced around the current rules.  A change like this would naturally hurt that balance.

[Sleepy]

The game is balanced around the current rules.  A change like this would naturally hurt that balance.

 

Well, obviously. Something pretty much has to break somewhere. I even acknowledged at the OP when I wrote it.

The intent here is not for people to come to reaffirm that statement and leave, but to talk about said hypothetical changes and how exactly it'd be a good or bad idea.

With emphasis on "exactly" because "Xyzs now have more ammo" is not pointing out at anything in particular that wasn't there from design.

 

sigh*

It doesn't look like people of this section are interested in these kinds of things at all.

[CLG Klavier]

sigh*

It doesn't look like people of this section are interested in these kinds of things at all.

Oh yes, we're so sorry we were bold enough to point out how incredibly stupid and broken of an idea this is. Guess we should pat your head and give you a sticker for having an idea? Things don't work like that. This is a sheet idea that would break the game. Period. Trying to reinvent the wheel, aka changing the core game mechanics will never work in the slightest.

 

It breaks any kind of card that has "When Normal Summoned" or it. It breaks Xyzs. It breaks Synchros. It breaks everything it affects. It doesn't bring any downside to the game, and mechanics that give nothing but upsides to every player provide nothing to make the game more interesting since they're things everyone will always do no matter what deck they play since there's no downside to this.

[Sleepy]

Oh yes, we're so sorry we were bold enough to point out how incredibly stupid and broken of an idea this is. Guess we should pat your head and give you a sticker for having an idea? Things don't work like that. This is a sheet idea that would break the game. Period. Trying to reinvent the wheel, aka changing the core game mechanics will never work in the slightest.

 

It breaks any kind of card that has "When Normal Summoned" or it. It breaks Xyzs. It breaks Synchros. It breaks everything it affects. It doesn't bring any downside to the game, and mechanics that give nothing but upsides to every player provide nothing to make the game more interesting since they're things everyone will always do no matter what deck they play since there's no downside to this.

 

This is highly uncalled for. I've so far tried to be respectful as I can be when dealing with anything.

 

You didn't even bother replying to my other post even though you are saying your points are so right that the idea is "stupid" so therefore it should be easy to debunk what I say. Instead you skipped my previous reply to you and decided to just say that the idea can break things because you said so in your first post here and didn't wanna consider anything else. You just were never open-minded about the idea and are just wasting my time with your vague rudeness. 

 

You even missed the parts where the actually existing downsides to this were presented, but can't expect you to notice if you never even were trying. First: You keep only one body on board despite re-usage of effect, and that makes your field more fragile because you slack off on furthering more aggressive plays. 

Second: 

"Oh my gawd, Xyzs are so broken, I'm totally gonna use that Call of the Haunted to revive my monster and give it those 2 materials because Xyzs aren't supposed to have more ammo. This will guaranteed my victory. hew hew hew.. Its not like I could just use those 2 materials to make a new Xyz or a second copy of that, and reserve the Call of the Haunted for a finishing ATK during the Battle Phase or for something to fall back on".

 

Do I have to spell it out for you or give you apples and oranges? I pretty much acknowledged the idea is gonna break some things from the get go. That is what the idea has looked like since the drawing board stage. The question is HOW? and to investigate/argue if the findings are as broken/effective as the initial thought suggests.

I'm not here to say "look at my cool idea, we should totally try making a tournament out of it or something. Please notice me senpai I wanna be popular xP". No, don't be stupid. Where the funk did you read something like that into anything that I've said in here?

Yes lack of interest disappoints me, but it didn't go past that sentence. This is also the theory section after all, so one would expect theories good or bad to be up for discussion. I don't think you should even be here outside of list speculation season if you get like that at something like this thread. 

 

[CLG Klavier]

This is highly uncalled for. I've so far tried to be respectful as I can be when dealing with anything.

Cool.

 

You didn't even bother replying to my other post even though you are saying your points are so right that the idea is "stupid" so therefore it should be easy to debunk what I say. Instead you skipped my previous reply to you and decided to just say that the idea can break things because you said so in your first post here and didn't wanna consider anything else. You just were never open-minded about the idea and are just wasting my time with your vague rudeness.

You're really biased if you believe the only reason why I dislike this idea is me being "close-minded, but sure, I'll humor you and respond to your earlier post fully.

 

On the Monolith + Towers one, I can see it. Not that the combo pieces of the deck wouldn't still be able to pull it off and even end up with a second Towers or a second anything in the process, I see what you are trying to say with the Qli one, to a degree, even though even as ridiculous as 3 draws per turn sounds, the deck might as well not do that and grow the board while still getting the draws. They don't need much more investment as is for the combo pieces other than Scout and Monolith for the rest of the game anyways.

rather than just Towers staying alone and giving you the draws.

But thing is, no one would run a 2nd Towers ever for any reason. This rule being in effect just adds yet another layer of strength to an already powerful deck. This would allow the Towers to be, as opposed to being a win condition, a consistent, persisting draw engine for a deck that's already highly consistent.

 

Most importantly, it turns any "When summoned" effect to "Once per turn". Deneb? Kepler? Mathematician? Armageddon Knight? You name it. Tellars are the main example since they're all "When Summoned", so an EOT CotH to revive one, and then re-summon it during your turn for another shot at the effect for free? Yeah. No thanks.

 

On the Xyz idea: It goes against that general idea of limited ammo but doesn't seem to = breaking something. More often than not Xyzs are prone to leave the field before they run out of ammo anyways, and even following the general concept of limited ammo, this still doesn't contradict it because the limited ammo stays limited as long as you don't further invest on it with the above ITT rules. You only replenish it by repeated investment that under general circumstances would be better off making you a second copy of X or a different Xyz so that you can also keep an extra beater in the process at the very least. I still don't see all that many problems. Mischievous Angel? Dio's "The World" (Jojo reference)? Goble Goble Goble (Hazy)? or broken multi-material Heroic Challenger Number? Those are the only cards I can really see getting much of a boost. Maybe 101... I expected a mention from at least something like those, to be honest.

Even if it doesn't break anything at the moment, the sole factor of this being a possibility makes the Xyz design space even more vague. They're already powerful enough of a mechanic, which Konami is fully aware of, by not giving a lot of ways to re-use the materials. Yes, I give you the fact that this is not as easy as a spell card that would say "Put 2 Xyz Materials onto this monster", but it's still an option.

 

Sure, you could just use that to make another Xyz. But this mainly removes the need for that, because why would I run 2 copies of Card X, if I can easily revive and refill this one? Want an actual example? Tellars. Altair can revive Triverr or Delteros, while providing 1 material for its re-summon due to this rule. Yeah, you can go all "You keep using Qlis and Tellars as examples!", but they're the simplest to take abuse of this rule.

 

You even missed the parts where the actually existing downsides to this were presented, but can't expect you to notice if you never even were trying. First: You keep only one body on board despite re-usage of effect, and that makes your field more fragile because you slack off on furthering more aggressive plays.

Unless said effect removes a card from the field, or searches a card, or revives a card...you catch my drift?

 

Second: 

"Oh my gawd, Xyzs are so broken, I'm totally gonna use that Call of the Haunted to revive my monster and give it those 2 materials because Xyzs aren't supposed to have more ammo. This will guaranteed my victory. hew hew hew.. Its not like I could just use those 2 materials to make a new Xyz or a second copy of that, and reserve the Call of the Haunted for a finishing ATK during the Battle Phase or for something to fall back on".

For someone who's incredibly picky about people being nice or whatever, you're very fluent in sarcasm. You can laugh all you want, but I don't want to live in a world where an Xyz in grave can be re-summoned with small investment from my opponent's side. If I kill a Castel, I'm 99% there will be no more Castels this game.

 

Do I have to spell it out for you or give you apples and oranges? I pretty much acknowledged the idea is gonna break some things from the get go. That is what the idea has looked like since the drawing board stage. The question is HOW? and to investigate/argue if the findings are as broken/effective as the initial thought suggests.

Then I gave you 2 prime examples: Qliphorts and Tellarknights. Also, imagine this rule is an errata of every single "When this is Summoned" effect to "Once per turn", regarding effect monsters. Disprove this. And no, "just hit Qliphorts and Tellars" is not answer.

 

I'm not here to say "look at my cool idea, we should totally try making a tournament out of it or something. Please notice me senpai I wanna be popular xP". No, don't be stupid. Where the funk did you read something like that into anything that I've said in here?

Where did you read that in what I said? I simply said we're not interested because the idea is stupid.

 

Yes lack of interest disappoints me, but it didn't go past that sentence. This is also the theory section after all, so one would expect theories good or bad to be up for discussion. I don't think you should even be here outside of list speculation season if you get like that at something like this thread.

Yeah, it's a theory section. But it's nice when your theory is backed up by something, rather than "I came up with this, discuss".

 

Want me to elaborate? You think why cards like Raigeki are despised? They have no downside. You draw Raigeki, you play Raigeki, get an edge on the field. Only thing to take into consideration is timing, not any possible drawbacks.

 

This rule is Raigeki. It adds ANOTHER POSSIBILITY for you to do things, with zero drawback. You can't tell me "Losing your Normal Summon" is a drawback, because I didn't lose it. By the rules, I bounced my Deneb to hand and normal summoned it again, because reasons. Every time you can use this rule, you will use it, because there's no downside to it.

[Sleepy]

Cool.

 

You're really biased if you believe the only reason why I dislike this idea is me being "close-minded, but sure, I'll humor you and respond to your earlier post fully.

I wouldn't be saying that though if you bothered to present your points to begin with though. I'm prepared for the argument now that you say you'll finally actually say something.

 

But thing is, no one would run a 2nd Towers ever for any reason. This rule being in effect just adds yet another layer of strength to an already powerful deck. This would allow the Towers to be, as opposed to being a win condition, a consistent, persisting draw engine for a deck that's already highly consistent.

Even if people wouldn't run more than one copy of Towers in the competitive scene, the deck as a whole is Tribute Summonable. You wouldn't just Tribute 2 monsters for an End Phase gain when you can get a more immediate gain and a second body on board with pretty much anything else in the deck, because we all know Towers turbo doesn't just revolve around towers for the rest of the game after it is taken care of.

 

Most importantly, it turns any "When summoned" effect to "Once per turn". Deneb? Kepler? Mathematician? Armageddon Knight? You name it. Tellars are the main example since they're all "When Summoned", so an EOT CotH to revive one, and then re-summon it during your turn for another shot at the effect for free? Yeah. No thanks.

Finally a good one. Was it so hard? Yes yes it was because it was already mentioned by Giga. This is mainly a good argument because there is a good amount of ways to circumvent the hard OPT clause some of those have built in. Doesn't make your previous posts any less excusable or any more useless though, but you finally present a case so kudos. 

 

Even if it doesn't break anything at the moment, the sole factor of this being a possibility makes the Xyz design space even more vague. They're already powerful enough of a mechanic, which Konami is fully aware of, by not giving a lot of ways to re-use the materials. Yes, I give you the fact that this is not as easy as a spell card that would say "Put 2 Xyz Materials onto this monster", but it's still an option.

There are almost no decent refill Xyz Material effects in the game. Xyz Reborn and Heraldic Beast Twin-Headed Eagle. Though the vast majority if not all of them had their inception as cool pack filler from the anime and at most get to be techs IRL. The reason is arguably not because of balance issues. "Xyz design space even more vague" is by itself somewhat of a vague statement. I even listed a few of the potentially dangerous Xyz Monsters in one of my previous comments, essentially helping to shoot this thread's ITT rule in the foot, hoping someone would grab on to any of them and tell me how it can get easily abused. Yes, the mechanic is easily abusable as is, and yes this is an extra option, but most Xyzs can't make such a good use of this from what has come from the top of my head. Even something like 101 and Cyber Infinity is tied down by a hard opt clause so far. I don't doubt there's something out there but still waiting for the specifics to be displayed here. I'm more surprised that the Normal Summon part of this was able to break before the other ones in a more clear way of all things.

Sure, you could just use that to make another Xyz. But this mainly removes the need for that, because why would I run 2 copies of Card X, if I can easily revive and refill this one? Want an actual example? Tellars. Altair can revive Triverr or Delteros, while providing 1 material for its re-summon due to this rule. Yeah, you can go all "You keep using Qlis and Tellars as examples!", but they're the simplest to take abuse of this rule.

Umm no, actually, I wasn't planning on calling you out for using the same archetypes as examples. If it applies it applies. Besides, those are what are most relevant nowadays so it is only natural. Didn't even cross my head. I was mostly gonna call out that it'd merely shift some of the forms of removal used, or make certain cards already in the available card pool more relevant than before in exchange for others, like effect negators, banishing methods, or 101's attachment. That is other than just saying that using up revival is still using up an extra resource in the process, in exchange for an Extra Deck that is ever so slightly less tight. Even then, many would still not risk running something important enough at x1 in the Extra Deck.

 

Unless said effect removes a card from the field, or searches a card, or revives a card...you catch my drift?

You are still having one less body on board than you could have, and it is arguably a good thing that you can choose to prep for next turn with a search. It moves the game a little away from immediate OTKs if you can choose to double that one effect to increase your options early game, you know like in any card game. I grant that that specific one is not so much of a "downside" but more of a tactical choice, but still wouldn't say it is a mindless go-to play. After practice there might be something out there that does make it that, and wouldn't be surprised if there was, honestly. Though, no right now it is more of an arguable danger with a very gray area from what I see.

 

For someone who's incredibly picky about people being nice or whatever, you're very fluent in sarcasm. You can laugh all you want, but I don't want to live in a world where an Xyz in grave can be re-summoned with small investment from my opponent's side. If I kill a Castel, I'm 99% there will be no more Castels this game.

 Having common courtesy doesn't mean one is dumb enough to not talk back when needed, and I certainly don't care enough about who is who to hold back against that kind of crap, and it seems to be giving good results.

Now that you mention this point, I see that there IS a place for something like that in the game, but I'd have to enter OCG mode for that and I don't wanna get into Eternal Winter's territory. Not to say OCG isn't another legit mindset though. So yeah, I guess TCG side would have that as iffy at best, and I prefer TCG side so, good one. Not a definite blow against the theory, but a thing to keep in mind.

Then I gave you 2 prime examples: Qliphorts and Tellarknights. Also, imagine this rule is an errata of every single "When this is Summoned" effect to "Once per turn", regarding effect monsters. Disprove this. And no, "just hit Qliphorts and Tellars" is not answer.

There is a fundamental difference though: Once per turn effects are per card, but you only have a Normal Summon that turn, which doesn't care how many cards like that you have on the field that could do it. Then for the non-Normal Summon clauses, you need re-investment for those ones, and your cards aren't exactly infinite for that. Yes it speeds some things up and yes once again, it is dangerous, but it might not be as out of hand as you might be envisioning it. 

I also have to say though, this is theory-oh, not real changes, so a few hits to the list in response to a hypothetical change are not just sensible options, but are pretty much unavoidable because you said this yourself: Any change in the core mechanics will break something. It is just a matter though, of seeing if it breaks too many things to bother or if it is a workable environment, which is something that needs a thread like this to really discuss if it is or if it just looks like it when one doesn't dive enough into it.

 

Where did you read that in what I said? I simply said we're not interested because the idea is stupid.

And it is such a stupid idea that the best point you've come up with is Giga's point. It is evident that you were not willing to go all the way in discussing these things. Of course something like this would need tolerances and nobody in YCM can alter anything core without it being rough at first, but you showed no interest in at the very least proving why it is a bad idea, which is one of the choices I made clear were a thing here, but you decided to not respond to my reply when I made it and instead went on to repeat your first post in an "I told you I was right and this is just so stupid" without backing yourself up when I was merely voicing out how I was a tad disappointed about the lack of participation. Which I have to say, being uninterested is FINE. Disappointing but fine. What you did was just go see if you could kick an almost dead horse with your previous post. Let alone being rude, which I can always take because Night, Black, and Chris back in the day had that tone often, but they always had a case they were willing to explain. You had nothing until I replied enough to make you write what I'm answering to right now.

 

Yeah, it's a theory section. But it's nice when your theory is backed up by something, rather than "I came up with this, discuss".

Huhhh. No, you evidently don't know what "hypothetical" means. It doesn't have to be backed by an outside source like "hey guys, look, I heard Konami might be doing something like this in the future".  Nope, hypothetical scenarios are part of theory-oh for your information. If something winds up somewhere like the rumor mill, then it is no longer "hypothetical". No Sherlock?

Want me to elaborate? You think why cards like Raigeki are despised? They have no downside. You draw Raigeki, you play Raigeki, get an edge on the field. Only thing to take into consideration is timing, not any possible drawbacks.

Sometimes the environment can be "drawback" sort of speak. For example, when Raigeki was unbanned, the format had so many ways of going around it that it was only "good". From floaters, to indestructible, to chainable, to who knows what else. The meta slowly moved away from that Raigeki-resistance, and now people can see again why it was so powerful to be in the banlist to begin with. 

and you of all people are the one that said not to judge things on a vacuum. I'm failing to see exactly which of my points or yours you elaborated on with this Raigeki analogy though. You surely were gonna hit a point.

 

This rule is Raigeki. It adds ANOTHER POSSIBILITY for you to do things, with zero drawback. You can't tell me "Losing your Normal Summon" is a drawback, because I didn't lose it. By the rules, I bounced my Deneb to hand and normal summoned it again, because reasons. Every time you can use this rule, you will use it, because there's no downside to it.

That would sound better with Altair than Deneb to be honest. Otherwise you are getting more options into your hand that you will most likely not use immediately that turn, which is not really a bad thing on its own. Especially when the potential benefits for this kind of thing are engraved in so many effects in the game that it could as well end up being more of a bump in power creep for the game in general than an unfair advantage for one or two archetypes. THAT is one of the intuitive goals of the thread to investigate.

 

[Darj]

I for one am interested in Theory-Oh, and I understand the OP's intentions with this thread: sometimes you get an idea for a new game mechanic that is without a doubt problematic, or at the very least questionable, but cannot fully grasp the implications of said change, and that's when you approach other players, or in this case YCM, to brainstorm and/or pinpoint specific examples. And even when it's clear for everyone (including the poster) that the idea is questionable at best, I don't see anything wrong in bringing it up to discussion, which can be actually interesting and entertaining for some players who enjoy thinking on the strongest applications of the idea, or how it can be broken/abused.

 

 

OT: The most important implications of this mechanic have been already mentioned, so I will try to add a bit more to avoid blatantly repeating them while contributing with something to the thread:

- It allows you to re-use ED monsters without requiring extra copies of them in the ED. Sure, doing so would more often than not cost more cards than actually summoning another copy, but the option is still there, which is nice, and it may be handy or even game-changing sometimes. For instance, in addition to the Black Rose example in the OP (which would also apply to Exciton by the way) for emergency nukes, one could also take advantage by re-using cards in the banlist, such as the currently Limited Synchro Trishula.

- On-Summon effects of Main Deck monsters basically become OPT effects. This is problematic because, well, some effects are held back because they normally trigger just once and when the monster is Summoned, but this mechanic takes that limitation away. Cannot think of examples besides the ones that have been already mentioned.

- In some cases, it can have an effect on deckbuilding and deck space optimization as you would no longer need to run extra copies of certain monsters. I guess this could apply to Monarchs: since Caius and Raiza, arguably the strongest monarchs, would be able to use their effects every turn as long as fodder is provided, one could afford to run less copies of them and use the additional deck space for other cards. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more decks that could benefit from this, but I cannot think of anything else at the moment.

[Goose]

I disagree that you would run less Caius and Raiza.  You don't run three copies to not run out, your run 3 copies because you need to draw them.  

[Darj]

I disagree that you would run less Caius and Raiza.  You don't run three copies to not run out, your run 3 copies because you need to draw them.  

 

That makes sense and I agree: more copies in the deck means you get to see that card earlier; the monarch point was just a guess. But still, I feel there should be a deck(s) somewhere that benefits from not needing extra copies of certain monsters.

[Dog King]

how about have this as a continuous spell card or something

[Goose]

Imagine this with Ultimate Offering and Stratos

[Dog King]

Imagine this with Ultimate Offering and Stratos

imagine this without them in this current card game