discuss: the "pro" heavy move

[Guest PikaPerson01]

Ultimately, the way I see it, there are really only about 4 possible situations:

 

a) You set storm, and, let's say, PWWB. Opponent's turn. Heavy Storm. GG, you lost.

b) You set storm and PWWB. Opponent sets 2 S/Ts and a monster. End phase, PWWB the monster. Draw, Standby, MP1, Flip Heavy Storm. GG, you won.

c) Set PWWB. Opponent sets 2 S/Ts and a monster. You flip PWWB and spin the monster. Draw, Standby, MP1, Drop Heavy. GG, you won.

d) Set PWWB. Opponent drops Heavy Storm. You can't do much, but he wasted a strong card on 1 card. GG, it's a tie?

 

Overall, I'd perfer having a win and a tie to a win and a loss.

[shadowferret]

....

Wouldn't most people go for the advantage and just use Heavy Storm as soon as he sees two face-downs?

I mean, as long as we're assuming you have Heavy in your first hand always, we can also assume the opponent does.

 

The way I see it, most duelists I've met just go for the advantage. Most "pro" duelists I've met don't seem to think past getting a +1 or however much advantage he can possibly get.

 

Meaning, "Pro" Heavy seems rather pointless, especially after reading through this thread.

[Fraz]

if you ask me setting 1 backrow could mean anything!

 

bottomless

mirror force

roar

 

pro storm in my oppinion is stupid' date=' id rather not waste my storm first turn, not only this who thinks in the way pro storm is ment to make your opponent think?

 

if people have cards to set they set them if they need them, no body goes oh he set 2 now i will

 

id rather keep storm in hand to use when im about to game

[/quote']

 

Nobody sets 2 bottomless if they think they're opponent will play storm next turn. If someone sets a card then the opponent doesn't think they'll play storm because they set a card. At worst they will flip MST in the end phase. If you think your opponent is gonna MST in the end phase wouldn't you set 2 or more cards so you at least have cards out when they start their turn? You have now baited your opponent into setting more cards than they would have if you had just kept storm in your hand. As I'm sure I've said before, setting storm will also prevent opponents overextending on their monster summons so unless they play storm or MST they won't overextend.

 

And forcing the opponent to play storm or mst against a pro storm is still a good move.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

And forcing the opponent to play storm or mst against a pro storm is still a good move.

 

But when it comes to playing competitively, "good" isn't quite good enough. Forcing your opponent to play Storm or MST and hit your Threatening Roar, Waboku, or Reckless Greed is a much, much better play. Hell, even letting Storm hit your Bottomless Trap Hole or Book of Moon is better since you still have two or three left in your deck anyway.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Comparing "pro storm" to baiting an opponent's S/T destruction resources with chainables is silly, as the two strategies are fundamentally different. Setting chainables and timing them as well as you can, maybe taking a resource down with it, is really their whole purpose of being chainable. They're chainable so that they can take out resources and time better than non-chainables. That's why people use them. It's obvious. It's why people use Roar over Negate Attack.

 

With Storm, you're utilizing the option of "Pro Storming" when it becomes available so that you can get the most mileage out of your Storm. It's like having an extra effect added at the end of Storm. If you can possibly use that extra effect in certain situations, why not, right? You'd use Storm anyway. It's just a bonus.

 

since you still have two or three left in your deck anyway.

 

You'll have no more than 1 BTH extra in your Deck and no more than extra 2 Books.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

You're still not explaining how setting storm suddenly causes your opponent's IQ to drop.

[Fraz]

Say you have 2 sakus in hand and want to set both. If your opponent has no cards on the field a good player would probably be thinking "I'm not prepared to lose 2 cards to storm so I'll only set one for now." If your opponent has a card face down a good player would probably be thinking "If he storms he'll be losing his face down card too. I'm perfectly happy to have a 2 for 2 trade off next turn if it happens so I'll set both". Next turn it turns out that the face down was in fact a heavy storm and the opponent managed to squeeze more cards out of a single card than he would have if he had kept it in hand.

 

Toni lied earlier btw. I've won countless games against him because I set a storm. He does think in the way of "Oh, my opponent set some cards. He's not gonna storm while he has cards face down so I'm safe to set my Book of Moon and Bottomless Trap Hole." I can guarantee if I hadn't set storm he's only set one card.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

You're still not explaining how setting storm suddenly causes your opponent's IQ to drop.

 

Isn't the general rule to have your Spell and Trap Cards be equal to your opponent's +1 to prevent Storm damage? With Pro Storm, you can abuse this to your advantage, because they won't expect that you'd have Storm Set. If it works, anyhow.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Randomly activating your chainable seems like a signal for this technique or at least signifying the presence of a nonchainable with it, imo.

[Psycho Shocker Android]

My pro heavy.

 

Set Spirit Reaper and a spell. If he kills your spell before attacking he will set his whole hand thinking it's jar. If not he will set 2 thinking it's MST. On your turn you activate the spell if it hasn't been destroyed and storm for at least +1.

 

Doesn't work vs GB.

[-Griffin]

Why don't people just do this:

a) set 1 chainable, let your opponent set 2 cards, chain it and then Heavy for +1.

b) set 2 chainable, chain 1 at any time, your opponent sets 2, chain the other, Heavy for +1

 

And none of those are risking losing your Heavy.

[Fraz]

Why don't people just do this:

a) set 1 chainable' date=' let your opponent set 2 cards, chain it and then Heavy for +1.

b) set 2 chainable, chain 1 at any time, your opponent sets 2, chain the other, Heavy for +1

 

And none of those are risking losing your Heavy.

[/quote']

 

You don't gain ANY card advantage that way which goes against the whole point.

[-Griffin]

Why don't people just do this:

a) set 1 chainable' date=' let your opponent set 2 cards, chain it and then Heavy for +1.

b) set 2 chainable, chain 1 at any time, your opponent sets 2, chain the other, Heavy for +1

 

And none of those are risking losing your Heavy.

[/quote']

 

You don't gain ANY card advantage that way which goes against the whole point.

 

Correction the first would gain +1 card advantage, if the chainable didn't lose advantage.

The second does the same.

 

"Pro" Heavy involves killing 2 cards with 1 Heavy, a +1, exactly what those two do. There's no advantage to setting Heavy+a chainable and rushing to use the chainable early compared to a single chainable and chaining it after they've played two f/d cards.

 

With all mentioned moves, you lose 1 Heavy, +1 chainable and your opponent loses two cards, you also gain the effect of said chainable.