Pot of Avarice

[玄魔の王]

Oh yes, I went there.

 

 

 

 

[hide]

 

English

  Target 5 monsters in your Graveyard; shuffle all 5 into the Deck, then draw 2 cards.

 

Few cards aged as nightmarishly well as this thing did. Upon release in 2004-2005, people thought it was pretty bad because of un-Deck thinning. Fast forward to 2011-2012 and Wind-Ups forced them to put it to bed. In 2017, Ratpier now exists as well.

 

On paper, this thing seems "balanced" because you actually need to set it up, but since it became such a massive combo extender a former drawback became arguably the better of its two parts. Contrast Desires, which doesn't need setup but actively burns resources (and also has a NSOPT, but that's more down to modern card design).

 

So, assuming Zoodiac got the axe, could/should this come back to 1 for even a format? My leaning is "don't think it should, but then Snatch Steal happened so anything is possible".

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It hasn't really done anything bad in OCG zoodiacs. Don't see the problem

[Zauls]

Yeah honestly this could come back right now. At no more than 1 it wouldn't really be a problem because decks couldn't be designed to rely on it as an engine card, like Soul Charge was when it was @3.

[VCR_CAT]

Very easy to balance with an errata, honestly. 5 monsters with different names, there ya go.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Very easy to balance with an errata, honestly. 5 monsters with different names, there ya go.

You can nerf anything and called it a "balanced errata"

 

This card doesn't need it as OCG has proven w/ zoodiacs

[evilfusion]

I actually wouldn't mind this coming back to 1. As for whether it SHOULD...eh...still uncertain. There are a lot of "cycling" cards out, to the point that putting monsters in the Graveyard is not difficult in the slightest. It also could help replenish Extra Deck resources...but that's another issue with how a number of cards have a free "Rank-Up" mechanic, with Zoos being the one that probably abuses it to hell and back. Galaxy Decks also can exploit the Extra Deck replenishment thing due to how they can go through Full Armor, Cipher Blade, No.95, etc, but then again, the most Decks I can think of to abuse this card are not meta Decks.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I actually wouldn't mind this coming back to 1. As for whether it SHOULD...eh...still uncertain. There are a lot of "cycling" cards out, to the point that putting monsters in the Graveyard is not difficult in the slightest. It also could help replenish Extra Deck resources...but that's another issue with how a number of cards have a free "Rank-Up" mechanic, with Zoos being the one that probably abuses it to hell and back. Galaxy Decks also can exploit the Extra Deck replenishment thing due to how they can go through Full Armor, Cipher Blade, No.95, etc, but then again, the most Decks I can think of to abuse this card are not meta Decks.

Gonna nip this story before it spreads

 

1)

 

 

 

OCG Metagame is a tier 0 Zoofest

 

 

2) Avarice is not Popular

 

This guy is the exception, not the rule. Zoos have a themed Avarice and an ED avarice that work quite well already

 

[Delibirb]

I'm less concerned with the fact that there aren't any decks that can really break it again, and more with the fact that it limits design space for future decks that would like putting monsters in the graveyard (and not banishing them, like Phantom Knights). But, as long as it banned again before or at the time of those decks' advents, I'd be ok with Avarice's temporary return.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm less concerned with the fact that there aren't any decks that can really break it again, and more with the fact that it limits design space for future decks that would like putting monsters in the graveyard (and not banishing them, like Phantom Knights). But, as long as it banned again before or at the time of those decks' advents, I'd be ok with Avarice's temporary return.

Give an example of a deck that you feel could break it then

 

Zoos are like the perfect deck to abuse Avarice and they clearly don't

 

---

 

Avarice to 2 in OCG?

 

Given Links, it might not be a terrible idea

[Thomas★Zero]

Generally this is decent for recycling extra deck cards to draw 2 with less fill to your deck as a result still I got to say...

 

...I am suprized they have it a Hitler moustache and it wasn't censored TCG side like Nico Smiley's was in ARC-V Dub

[Kaiji]

rofl who came up with "this card was bad because of un-deckthinning." You either have the ability to meet its activation requirement as early as possible or you don't (which applies to basically everything including its release) and that determines how good Avarice is.

[Delibirb]

Give an example of a deck that you feel could break it then

 

Zoos are like the perfect deck to abuse Avarice and they clearly don't

 

---

 

Avarice to 2 in OCG?

 

Given Links, it might not be a terrible idea

I... Don't have to?

 

Displaying my card design skills is not relevant to the validity of my point. I'm not saying something will break it again, I'm saying I don't want it around because it limits the possibility of new, fun, graveyard centric decks that could otherwise be released unobstructed.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

if designs were limited be preexisting cards, etele would have prevented farmgirl from being a thing

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I... Don't have to?

 

Displaying my card design skills is not relevant to the validity of my point. I'm not saying something will break it again, I'm saying I don't want it around because it limits the possibility of new, fun, graveyard centric decks that could otherwise be released unobstructed.

Well the point to be made is that Zoos are like the perfect Avarice abuse deck...and they're not abusing it

 

I struggle to see what could be more suited for abuse

if designs were limited be preexisting cards, etele would have prevented farmgirl from being a thing

yeah nobody said that

[~~~~]

if designs were limited be preexisting cards, etele would have prevented farmgirl from being a thing

no, because e-tele arguably made Farmgirl a thing.

 

Telekinetic Power Well is a much better example. There were very few good level 1 and 2 Psychics (other than Mind Master) until PSY-Frames and Kozmos. Kozmos make their things get banished instead of hitting the grave, and using it in PSY-Frames only became viable with Multithreader.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

yeah nobody said that

I understand your need to disagree with me, but...

it limits design space for future decks that would like putting monsters in the graveyard

checkmate, atheists

no, because e-tele arguably made Farmgirl a thing.

 

Telekinetic Power Well is a much better example. There were very few good level 1 and 2 Psychics (other than Mind Master) until PSY-Frames and Kozmos. Kozmos make their things get banished instead of hitting the grave, and using it in PSY-Frames only became viable with Multithreader.

I agree, my example was hot garbage. What could have been used as an example was preparation of rites and djinn, in regards to nekroz.

 

Konami isn't afraid of making broken decks. That is just how the game works. We deal with x broken deck until it is either nerfed to oblivion by the banlist or y broken deck replaces it. That is yugioh. If an old card being removed from the banlist would make a future archetype stronger, more power to them.

[Delibirb]

Well the point to be made is that Zoos are like the perfect Avarice abuse deck...and they're not abusing it

 

I struggle to see what could be more suited for abuse

 

yeah nobody said that

Not that it helps or hinders my point (because it doesn't, youre still ignoring it for no reason) but I fail to see how Zoodiac are the perfect Avarice abuse deck. Just having monsters in the graveyard does not make a deck perfect for breaking avarice. And clearly since it isn't broken despite being an objectively strong card, they aren't. So stop saying it because there are legitimately better ways to argue your case.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Not that it helps or hinders my point (because it doesn't, youre still ignoring it for no reason) but I fail to see how Zoodiac are the perfect Avarice abuse deck. Just having monsters in the graveyard does not make a deck perfect for breaking avarice. And clearly since it isn't broken despite being an objectively strong card, they aren't. So stop saying it because there are legitimately better ways to argue your case.

Because 1 card (a rat) can fill a grave full of monsters and tool out rats needed?

 

Idk why you always tell people to stop and such when you never bother to understand what they're trying to say. 

[~~~~]

Not that it helps or hinders my point (because it doesn't, youre still ignoring it for no reason) but I fail to see how Zoodiac are the perfect Avarice abuse deck. Just having monsters in the graveyard does not make a deck perfect for breaking avarice. And clearly since it isn't broken despite being an objectively strong card, they aren't. So stop saying it because there are legitimately better ways to argue your case.

u even played zoos?

[Delibirb]

u even played zoos?

I didn't say Zoodiacs weren't good. No idea where you two seem to have gotten that from. But if they should be a perfect deck with which to abuse Avarice with, as you claim, and yet are not doing so, then they are not. Being able to put monsters in the grave quickly does not mean they are perfect for Avarice abuse. If few people play Avarice in Zoodiac, that might be because they wants their monsters to stay in the grave, or at least not be in the deck. Which would therefore mean they are not ideal for absolute Avarice exploitation.

 

That said, I do concede to parentheses point that Konami can and will make decks that existing cards can and will abuse regardless of their position on the F&L list. I still would rather Avarice not return on the optimistic preference that they wouldn't release something that truly would break it, but I recognize that preference really doesn't matter when rule changes can completely change the way the game is played every 19 years or so.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

No it means Avarice isn't broken, and even a deck perfectly suitable to take advantage of it, won't break it.

 

Look TCG folks sheet their bricks about Avarice and BA -didn't pan out

Now it's Zoodiacs

 

The card is good but not amazing or banworthy. I can actually see it go to 2 OCG side.

Oh yes, I went there.

 

 

 

 

Few cards aged as nightmarishly well as this thing did. Upon release in 2004-2005, people thought it was pretty bad because of un-Deck thinning. Fast forward to 2011-2012 and Wind-Ups forced them to put it to bed. In 2017, Ratpier now exists as well.

 

On paper, this thing seems "balanced" because you actually need to set it up, but since it became such a massive combo extender a former drawback became arguably the better of its two parts. Contrast Desires, which doesn't need setup but actively burns resources (and also has a NSOPT, but that's more down to modern card design).

 

So, assuming Zoodiac got the axe, could/should this come back to 1 for even a format? My leaning is "don't think it should, but then Snatch Steal happened so anything is possible".

Did you make this cause of the OCG reprint announced btw?

[~~~~]

I didn't say Zoodiacs weren't good. No idea where you two seem to have gotten that from. But if they should be a perfect deck with which to abuse Avarice with, as you claim, and yet are not doing so, then they are not. Being able to put monsters in the grave quickly does not mean they are perfect for Avarice abuse. If few people play Avarice in Zoodiac, that might be because they wants their monsters to stay in the grave, or at least not be in the deck. Which would therefore mean they are not ideal for absolute Avarice exploitation.

 

That said, I do concede to parentheses point that Konami can and will make decks that existing cards can and will abuse regardless of their position on the F&L list. I still would rather Avarice not return on the optimistic preference that they wouldn't release something that truly would break it, but I recognize that preference really doesn't matter when rule changes can completely change the way the game is played every 19 years or so.

Just answer the question.

 

You know the whole summon 2 rat thing? Well they can do that again in the same turn if you have Avarice. This doesn't work with Emeral since you have to leave 1 Rat attached to Emeral and Emeral isn't a Beast-Warrior. It also doesn't work with Combo since you have to wait a turn for that. That's why Winter is saying that this deck is perfect for Avarice, because it is.

[Delibirb]

Just answer the question.

 

You know the whole summon 2 rat thing? Well they can do that again in the same turn if you have Avarice. This doesn't work with Emeral since you have to leave 1 Rat attached to Emeral and Emeral isn't a Beast-Warrior. It also doesn't work with Combo since you have to wait a turn for that. That's why Winter is saying that this deck is perfect for Avarice, because it is.

So it is played so infrequently in Zoodiacs because they're perfect for it? That doesn't seem to make sense.

[~~~~]

So it is played so infrequently in Zoodiacs because they're perfect for it? That doesn't seem to make sense.

Clearly the metagame is not a force towards perfection, only towards adequacy. Maybe next week the OCG peeps will realise it and start using it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

No it means Avarice isn't broken, and even a deck perfectly suitable to take advantage of it, won't break it.

 

 

 

 

So it is played so infrequently in Zoodiacs because they're perfect for it? That doesn't seem to make sense.