Jump to content

  • Start New Topic
Welcome to Yugioh Card Maker Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account

zepheris

zepheris

Member Since 16 May 2012
Member ID: 585,817
Currently Not online
Offline Last Active Apr 19 2018 11:55 PM
-----

In Topic: The Cost You Wouldn't Pay

09 April 2018 - 10:33 AM

Yeah, the topic really isn't about which card is unplayable regardless of situation, but rather just which one you personally wouldn't play for whatever reason you have. Like me for example. The card Pot of Desires, is probably one I would never play unless my deck benefited directly from the banish cost, such as a Gren Maju deck. In other decks, I wouldn't ever play it because the cost is too great, not only are they banished, but the face down banishment is what takes it overboard for me. But, I've seen many other decks that don't benefit from the cost, use it anyway. I just feel like you've got a really good chance of throwing away cards you will need. A 4th of your deck everytime you play one and I've seen decks run 3 of them. Imagine burning 3/4 of your deck hoping the last ten cards will win it for you. Too much in my opinion.

 

I kinda wish they'd bring back Yata and Envoy of the End. :p

That's not how desires is supposed to work. You don't activate 3 desires, basically ever. Most decks can't resolve that many, because each shaves 12 cards off of your deck, 36 in total, along with the opening hand of 5, and 2 additional draws because of HOPT, you need 43 cards in deck minimum, under the most ideal circumstances, assuming you use NO other cards from the deck. You usually only want to activate 1, 2 if you're desperate, but never 3. People play 3 to see it more often, and earlier in the game, because most of the time, the banish 10 doesn't matter, and the +1 is too good to pass up. The second desires is a gamble, and the third is a dead card. It's like the 3 brilliant fusion, 1 garnet idea. You wanna only resolve it once, but you play 3 to see it sooner.

 

Thing is, cards in the deck are cards you usually never see, because games nowdays last less than 5 turns, unless both players are garbage or one of them plays psy-frames. Desires is a good card under most situations. There are some decks that can't play desires though, such as zoo (Though the deck's dead), Frog decks that depend heavily on the frog engine (The more paleo heavy ones can have a field day with the thing), and other such combo heavy strategies (World chalice maybe? Never played the deck. Spyrals, too, I would imagine, though I can't be sure, and maybe some BA builds, because their three best main deck cards are at 1.), so you shouldn't splash the card into everything, but for most decks, it's a pot of greed with only a mild drawback. And if you don't wanna see dead cards, you can always just play 2, or 1, even.

 

All that said, Light of sekka, on the other hand...

 

I'm going to stick with my previous statement and say that any cost is justifiable as long as it has a good enough payoff. Cards like beginning of the end aren't played, not because they have a large cost, but because they're too situational, and 7 darks is a lot to ask.


In Topic: The Cost You Wouldn't Pay

08 April 2018 - 03:07 PM

Stratos, Construct, Grand mole, compulse,  etc.

 

There are tons of cards on the banlist for no other reason but that they used to be on the banlist and konami still hasn't gotten around to removing them yet. Just look at how long it took them to unlimit bestiari, bottomless, and torrential.

 

And even if you can make a case for the above cards (Which I can somewhat understand), pray tell why tribe infecting is still banned.


In Topic: The Cost You Wouldn't Pay

08 April 2018 - 04:01 AM

Yata invented the banlist, bro. It's not like it's the only one stopping draws either, drastic dropoff, soul devouring bamboo sword, and fenrir are all legal. Yata's only banned because of its legacy, it's a terrible card now.

 

I'd even say that with both sangan and CED errata'd, soul devouring is just straight better than yata. Cursed can recycle it, and allow things to attack directly, while you can equip it to something with actual protection, like masterpeace.

 

Also, it's a spirit. It can be normal summoned. It can't be special summoned.


In Topic: Do we need a counter trap mirror force?

07 April 2018 - 11:22 AM

Now, I'm back with some research. I checked around some sources, and checked with a few semi-competitive people I know (No pros, but I don't know any.) I got a few things. Firstly, Mirror force cards, even OG mirror force are not bad cards by any stretch of the imagination. They can even be optimal cards in some situations. Storming mirror force, for example, was an extremely popular choice in zoo format (Do not tell me they've been powercrept in half an year. That's simply not true.) They're somewhat format dependent, and they're currently bad, primarily because the current best deck, magicians, almost always makes either vortex or norito turn 1. They're bad in combo decks and such, and magicians can barely afford to play hand traps, so... However, given the right conditions, (Going first, playing a slower deck or one with a smaller engine, in an extra deck reliant meta with little battle trap negation.)

 

Now, decks like pend magicians play little removal in the main deck outside purple poison or tornado, and nobody's gonna use that on a blind MST, they're extra deck based, they make gigantic boards, and they don't blind MST.

 

As far as evidence shows, mirror force is a good card, even now. It's not a great card, and it's a side deck pick at best, but a counter-trap that clears your field is not something that would never see play. No matter how much powercreep has happened so far, that's just not gonna happen. Yes, it's a battle trap. No that doesn't make it bad. Yes, it's situational. But it's a board wipe you can't respond to. If you find that to be terrible, then...

 

Now, It wouldn't be a top tier card by any means, but it would be prominent enough that people have to play around it, and I still stand by that statement.

 

It should never be completely safe to attack into 4 backrow. That's all I want.


In Topic: The Cost You Wouldn't Pay

07 April 2018 - 11:02 AM

I'd actually argue otherwise for abrupt end. I would even say it'd be banworthy, rather than just "Worth playing"

 

A lot of decks can set up OTK's with 2 or 3 card combos, and having a guaranteed way to achieve that while having 2 turns of setup is just far too unfair. It's not a staple by any stretch of the imagination, but there's so many decks that can abuse the nuts out of that card. Think of the boards pendulums end on. They usually end on multiple cards in the hand, along with a crap ton of damage on the field. As long as they had some cards to spare, the card's just downright insane.

 

If it said something like "During your standby phase, you can discard 3 cards, your opponent skips their next turn.", sure it'd be terrible, because you'd have no cards to actually combo with, but, if you take into account the cards you draw/search while comboing, and get to play it after finishing with a big board, well, you see my point."

 

As for the actual topic of discussion, any cost is justifiable given the result, as long as it is easily achievable. Be it cards like "Draw 3 cards, then send the rest of your deck to the graveyard" (Clearly a going second card), or "discard 4 other cards to banish your opponent's hand face down" (A going first card)

 

These are not only playable, they're downright broken.

 

Now, the real question is, how situational can a card be to be useful.

 

It doesn't matter how hard the cost is, if your deck can achieve it and the payoff is worth it, but there are many cards where, the payoff is insane, and the cost is comparatively small, but the extreme situational-ness of cards such as shrub serpent or last warrior just doesn't let them get played, outside of gimmicky decks. Thus, the question should be "How situational can a card be for it to justify being used.

 

Would you play a card that says "Activate only if your opponent special summoned exactly 3 monsters this this turn, then destroyed exactly three cards you control and has 3 cards in his hand: You win the duel."

 

There's absolutly no cost to using this card. Well, you lose the card, but, no other cost. It's useless though, because it's too situational.