DP Metagame Discussion

[Darj]

We have thrown this idea for a while in the DP chat but it's time to settle this up, and having its own thread will surely help with that.

 

The general idea is to set a standard "power level" for the DP metagame to make things enjoyable for most players, if not all of them. One of the recurring issues is that sometimes we stumble upon overpowered decks/archetypes some players make, and naturally it is annoying when we are simply overwhelmed by an unfair deck. So by setting a standard, said players will now have an idea on what's acceptable and what it isn't in DP, and adjust their cards and archetypes accordingly. Sure, we can't expect it be 100% effective, but at least is better than having any kind of reference at all.

 

Anyways, I want to start things off by asking which personally is your preferred or "ideal" format. Power level is kinda subjective and difficult to measure so it should be easier to describe it by using specific decks or formats as example. This is to the get an idea of what you, DP players, want for the DP metagame.

 

For instance, and I have mentioned this before, personally my ideal metagame is something at the level of 4-axis Fire Fists: grind game with gradual advantage generation and the occasional ED Summon, or rather, not once-per-turn ED Summons like in tellarknights, etc. Or at least that's how I remember them.

As another example, my ideal metagame would be where a deck like this can stand among the top tiers:

[spoiler=DARK Machinas]

[/spoiler]

 

It's kinda old, outdated and slightly badly built, but I bring it up to give you an idea. A bit similar to FFs, they also also generate steady advantage through Dekoichi, Gearframe and Gigant, and then drop Fortresses and 1-card ED monsters through Chameleon and Salvo during mid or late game, or early game Fortresses for a more solid start-up or if things get rough. Of course I'm biased because this is one of my favorite decks I have build and I enjoyed when it was remotely relevant; and that was, yes, during the 4-axis FF format if I remember correctly, or perhaps the format previous to them.

 

However, I have noticed that a couple of DP archetypes behave more like Tellarknights (1-card ED Summons that produce "1-card ED monster" to use the following turn) or Shaddolls (ED beaters with floating materials), so I'm willing to stick with a tellar/Shadoll/DUEA power level if the majority of players prefer it that way.

 

 

Anyways, discuss, and the more your elaborate on your ideal metagame/format, the better.

[VampireofDarkness]

[Spoiler Tangent]
It's called Salvo DAD. Very fond of the Deck cause #DADOverEverything lol
[/spoiler]

I think I'll put my two cents in this one, even though I might come off as pretentious or hypocritical:

As much as I'm all for fast Decks, and that tends to be what I work with, I also tend to prefer a play style with a buildup that leads to something. I look at Decks like Satellarknights, Shaddoll, and BA, and although their play style as a whole is fine and dandy, I don't like how it promotes just "Drop your board now, forget about the little plays". There's no preparation or buildup to some sort of big push or play that your Deck is looking to go into. Even Infernity and Lightsworn, hell ESPECIALLY Lightsworn, have it down. You set yourself up and you build up to said big play, like dropping JD or the big Infernity boards. In the meantime, you did your best to control the board through some fancy mechanic that pushed back your opponent. Infernity had solid backrow that activated when you had no cards in hand, Lightsworn had their control game and D Rulers, Dread Angels had Vanity and Stun based Rank 4s. The reason I lost all of those games? Well, while I was doing my fancy buildup shenanigans, everyone else was making their big boards turn 3 and 4 and I couldn't do a thing to hold them back unless I had Vanity, which I'll remind you is a card we are banning.

The point me and Voltex are trying to make? Slow down kids. Slow down. We get you want to make your big boards and OTK and all that, but it takes time. I shouldn't feel forced to turn 1 Rose in order to survive. Take a gander at Salvo. You had your Fortress-Gearframe engine to hold you out while you collected everything, and then later you make your big push with your Synchros, your Xyz, and most of all, your DAD. That's a real game of Yu-Gi-Oh if you ask me.

Realistically speaking, I think we might be better off keeping everything to a Shaddoll/tellarknight Level, and at the lowest I could see it would be PRIO Format, with that being quite a stretch if you ask me. However, these are my two cents and perhaps I might be wrong one way or thing or another, but it's my take on this whole thing.

[Cirrus]

I only have one comment about this entire thread that I feel must first be taken into account for this thread to stand.

 

The goal should be inclusion from 0, not exclusion from 100. Otherwise this thread and / or making a slated power level is pointless.

[VampireofDarkness]

I only have one comment about this entire thread that I feel must first be taken into account for this thread to stand.

The goal should be inclusion from 0, not exclusion from 100. Otherwise this thread and / or making a slated power level is pointless.

Slightly confused at what you mean

[Cirrus]

I think that archetypes should require approval before play, not play and then nerf/buff as the nerfs and buffs don't always accomplish much.

[VampireofDarkness]

I think that archetypes should require approval before play, not play and then nerf/buff as the nerfs and buffs don't always accomplish much.

The problem though is sometimes theoretics gets in the way. What's actually good vs what isn't is something that can be run through testing at times. We saw this with Crags especially. Although Breeze and Warmaster happened, I think it still was much better than the problems that happened without such testing. This may have to do with the fact that I am very fond of last tournament being quite the disaster, but I feel that at least SOME sort of play has to be done at some point of the process

[Cirrus]

Of course playtesting should be an extensive part of the approval process. What I am basically saying is that approval needs to be much more thorough. Sometime though you can eyeball the cards and basically know if they'll be OP or not, too. Warmaster was a proof of concept that the approval process currently isn't as strenuous as it could be (and also I suppose that the sum is significantly higher than the parts).

[VampireofDarkness]

Of course playtesting should be an extensive part of the approval process. What I am basically saying is that approval needs to be much more thorough. Sometime though you can eyeball the cards and basically know if they'll be OP or not, too. Warmaster was a proof of concept that the approval process currently isn't as strenuous as it could be (and also I suppose that the sum is significantly higher than the parts).

Being that we actually have an actual system now, that will save a lot of face. We didn't really have anything definitive before, but we have something sort of going so it will make things..... Effective. Moving right along.....

[Marco Polo]

What I generally dislike with the DP format, is the constant use of endless engines that revolve around little anime girls making easy synchs every turn. Literally going to puke soon.

Currently, the best side is anything that prevents ED stuff.
Now, besides being irritatingly overdone, the great annoyance here is if you can't deal with the synchro they popped out last turn, by their next end phase you're gonna have another synchro or two to worry about.

The beaters really easy, and gamestate becomes a suffocating push for game.

. Not sure if that's really broken or anything but is certainly an annoyance. Rant over lol. If only those decks had a certain spam limit.

[The Crawling Chaos]

What I generally dislike with the DP format, is the constant use of endless engines that revolve around little anime girls making easy synchs every turn. Literally going to puke soon.

 

This. Seriously, this.

 

DP should be at the level of 4 Axis Fire Fist. Non-archetypal Spell/Trap searchers should be discouraged. 1 card Extra Deck monsters should be fine, as long as they need set up, and have hard OPT. Combo decks should exists, but shouldn't be as consistent as something like Infernity at their prime, but more like slower Ritual Beasts. 

 

Wasn't here when the whole DP format started, but whatever. Should be able to say something about it.

 

But seriously, why anime girls? I get that you like the art, but it's a bit boring and unoriginal. Plus it makes me want to stab my eyes.

[Cirrus]

To the above: because anime girls are the easiest to find cohesive archetype art for, unfortunately ... pixiv is prolific!

[The Crawling Chaos]

To the above: because anime girls are the easiest to find cohesive archetype art for, unfortunately ... pixiv is prolific!

 

Would rather get stabbed with a gun by a meth-addicted orangutan than have to use anime girls in my cards.

[Marco Polo]

To the above: because anime girls are the easiest to find cohesive archetype art for, unfortunately ... pixiv is prolific!

Yeah I understand :| , having made countless anime girl archetypes myself I'm very well aware the choice is more or less between really overused dragon pics or kawaii pedobait anime girls, unfortunately.
Looking hard enough I'm sure you can find something good.

[Cirrus]

Non-anime girl art isn't hard to find in singletons, but entire archetypes are extremely difficult since artists have lives and don't just randomly make art corresponding to a theme for no reason (usually). Getting offtopic though.

[Love of Ghibli]

Well I think I'm confused a tad. I find the concept of a meta, a form of tolerance in the case DP archetypes. Almost on the lines of an established Tier systems where we acknowledge what does well and what does not do well.
 

In this case it would be 
Tier 1: Breeze and WarMaster

Tier1.5: Mikos
Tier 2: Darklord/DreadAngel and Craglord

Tier 3: nerfed SQ 

and so on and so on

This discussion seems more like a "power cap" (seeing as power level is the common phrase) where it seems people are being asked to limit what their archetypes can do. And if that is the case then I am against banning floodgates. Floodgates are a response to the enemy's strategy that you would hope doesn't backfire against. That being said I am also aware of how Vanity's and Royal Oppression are commonly used and end turn cards to lock someone out of a response but that is a risk of that vanity's player (I won my only match because of someone's misuse of Vanity's). 

What I deem ideal is actually simple. First, exchange of hand advantage to field presence. If you're going to swarm the field with shenanigans and epic plays you shouldn't be able to have a hand. Many times I come down on ED cards that float or search or regain some kind resources because I feel that one should not cover all bases all the time that is what makes something unfair. If an archetype is all about spam spam and more spam then that is fine. as long as there aren't that many cards in the hand at the end of the turn. 

Second is an archetype's gimmick shouldn't restrict the opponent from playing the game all together. Not in the sense of floodgates, but an archetypes gimmick is solely based on -ing the opponent. Example in this tournament there were Miko and Breeze. Mikos have two maidens that can be searched, spammed, but the kicker is that on their spam they minus the opponent. So the +1 of them being searched becomes a +2 and that is a design flaw. The effect is so simple that there is no real nerfing unless you overhaul the set as a whole. Breeze have an unkillable sync that bounces on the users turn and on the opponents turn it pops the opponent's s/ts. Its punishment for playing the game. Sure one could argue that the it had weak stats, but the whole gimmick of the set was bouncing so if the deck functioned at all attacks weren't going to happen as well. Its definitely no fun seeing that not only you can't win...but you can't even play the game. 

While we jump down the rabbit whole of what's balanced and fair, what format was decent and so on I think it should be established what people enjoyed the least and use that as the starting point. 

[VampireofDarkness]

Well I think I'm confused a tad. I find the concept of a meta, a form of tolerance in the case DP archetypes. Almost on the lines of an established Tier systems where we acknowledge what does well and what does not do well.

In this case it would be
Tier 1: Breeze and WarMaster
Tier1.5: Mikos
Tier 2: Darklord/DreadAngel and Craglord
Tier 3: nerfed SQ

and so on and so on

This discussion seems more like a "power cap" (seeing as power level is the common phrase) where it seems people are being asked to limit what their archetypes can do. And if that is the case then I am against banning floodgates. Floodgates are a response to the enemy's strategy that you would hope doesn't backfire against. That being said I am also aware of how Vanity's and Royal Oppression are commonly used and end turn cards to lock someone out of a response but that is a risk of that vanity's player (I won my only match because of someone's misuse of Vanity's).

What I deem ideal is actually simple. First, exchange of hand advantage to field presence. If you're going to swarm the field with shenanigans and epic plays you shouldn't be able to have a hand. Many times I come down on ED cards that float or search or regain some kind resources because I feel that one should not cover all bases all the time that is what makes something unfair. If an archetype is all about spam spam and more spam then that is fine. as long as there aren't that many cards in the hand at the end of the turn.

Second is an archetype's gimmick shouldn't restrict the opponent from playing the game all together. Not in the sense of floodgates, but an archetypes gimmick is solely based on -ing the opponent. Example in this tournament there were Miko and Breeze. Mikos have two maidens that can be searched, spammed, but the kicker is that on their spam they minus the opponent. So the +1 of them being searched becomes a +2 and that is a design flaw. The effect is so simple that there is no real nerfing unless you overhaul the set as a whole. Breeze have an unkillable sync that bounces on the users turn and on the opponents turn it pops the opponent's s/ts. Its punishment for playing the game. Sure one could argue that the it had weak stats, but the whole gimmick of the set was bouncing so if the deck functioned at all attacks weren't going to happen as well. Its definitely no fun seeing that not only you can't win...but you can't even play the game.

While we jump down the rabbit whole of what's balanced and fair, what format was decent and so on I think it should be established what people enjoyed the least and use that as the starting point.

Thank you for making one of the more valid points of the thread. I will mention, however, I only won 2 matches in the tournament. That being said, the new support of the Deck probably does bump it up to Tier 2 status. However, for tournament sake, Necrovanyia would be a better example of such.

Aside from this, I think there are some points. Cherodei are a decent example of spam done right cause although they can drop Magus nd Noza with a few cards, which really puts down a ton of pressure, I've never seen it done where it doesn't cost their hand. That basically means you have zero direct recovery and if a Joker was made at the end of the turn the board was swept, you're out. Correct me if I am wrong on this, but this is what I have observed against them.

As for least enjoyable things, I think Lovely covers some based on Mikos and Breeze, but I think in general the whole "Summon strong monsters with super powerful backrow" is a little too much. Mikos could run the Trap Holes, and thus were absolutely deadly because if you tried to counter them, they would flip a Trap Hole and take your out of the game as they continue to spam. If I remember watching a match right, I also saw Warmasters using their backrow to obscenely overhaul Sky Conquerors, and was the sole reason why they lost. The Conqs had no way of regaining advantage, and thus quickly lost. I use this as an example because I bricked both games. However, I did also take note of several backrow, which would have otherwise kept me out of the game. I find Dreads to be a good example of although you can do quite some comboes, it's hard to make a Deck with it that can go off all the time without sacrificing backrow options. I ran only 2 Vanity as my real traps, cause that was all I could do if I wanted to maximize my field presence.

I think if we can discuss things like this and decide from hereon what we actually want, I think we can eventually get somewhere and maybe get something established.

[Darj]

This discussion seems more like a "power cap" (seeing as power level is the common phrase) where it seems people are being asked to limit what their archetypes can do. And if that is the case then I am against banning floodgates. Floodgates are a response to the enemy's strategy that you would hope doesn't backfire against. That being said I am also aware of how Vanity's and Royal Oppression are commonly used and end turn cards to lock someone out of a response but that is a risk of that vanity's player (I won my only match because of someone's misuse of Vanity's). 

What I deem ideal is actually simple. First, exchange of hand advantage to field presence. If you're going to swarm the field with shenanigans and epic plays you shouldn't be able to have a hand. Many times I come down on ED cards that float or search or regain some kind resources because I feel that one should not cover all bases all the time that is what makes something unfair. If an archetype is all about spam spam and more spam then that is fine. as long as there aren't that many cards in the hand at the end of the turn. 

Second is an archetype's gimmick shouldn't restrict the opponent from playing the game all together. Not in the sense of floodgates, but an archetypes gimmick is solely based on -ing the opponent. Example in this tournament there were Miko and Breeze. Mikos have two maidens that can be searched, spammed, but the kicker is that on their spam they minus the opponent. So the +1 of them being searched becomes a +2 and that is a design flaw. The effect is so simple that there is no real nerfing unless you overhaul the set as a whole. Breeze have an unkillable sync that bounces on the users turn and on the opponents turn it pops the opponent's s/ts. Its punishment for playing the game. Sure one could argue that the it had weak stats, but the whole gimmick of the set was bouncing so if the deck functioned at all attacks weren't going to happen as well. Its definitely no fun seeing that not only you can't win...but you can't even play the game. 

While we jump down the rabbit whole of what's balanced and fair, what format was decent and so on I think it should be established what people enjoyed the least and use that as the starting point.

 
Precisely, this is more of a discussion on setting a "power cap" on the meta. I couldn't find the words to describe it better at the time of writing the OP.
 
And I agree with the rest of your comment, especially the last part. Asking players what kind of decks or formats they dislike should help with establishing this "power level" on DP.
To answer said question, I mainly dislike archetypes that:

1. Float whenever, such as the infamous Burning Abyss

2. drop 1 ED monster once per turn" playstyles like tellarknights.

3. swarm with beaters and can OTK, such as Hieratics and to a lesser extent LS Rulers.

 

I'm more or less fine with decks like Shaddolls because they float only when sent to the grave by an effect, and as Flips their other effects are slow; my only issue with them is when Shaddoll Fusion sends materials to grave. That's why I have mentioned before in the DP chat that Shaddolls without "Shaddoll Fusion" would be my highest acceptable power level, so to speak.

 

By the way, I'm not saying I'm against "1-card ED monsters" (Pirika, Altair, etc.), and actually I like that kind of cards because they can do so much when given to an archetype that needs support (see Pirika); but when you can drop a 1-card ED monster and then right away search for a similar card in the process, if not a copy of it, then it is not as fun. Examples of combos like this:
From TCG:
Tellarknights: Altair --> Deneb --> Search for Altair

Gustos (although not as relevant): Pirika --> Gulldo --> Sphreeze --> recycle Pirika
And in DP we have:
Angel Summoners: Faith Guardian --> Summoner Priest/Arcane Summoner --> search for Faith Guardian
Cherodei: Sepia --> Geist --> Magus --> search for Cherodei Reanimation

 

I admit that I have resorted to similar tricks before, but I have slowed down and usually avoid them now; at the very least, the recycling effect occurs when the summoned ED monster is gone. For instance, in my Genex expansion:

Renewal (1-card ED for Genex) --> Antimatter  --> recycle Renewal when Antimatter hits the grave

 

And even then, I don't play these Genex, except when randomly testing them, because I dislike their strength and potential impact on DP. In other words, they are unfair, but I'm aware of it.

[Cirrus]

Okay, look 'ere. 1-card ED monster decks - even ones that search themselves - isn't the problem. The problem is -what- the ED monster made is. Was Tinplate -> Gadget -> GGX -> Tinplate a problem? Putting aside their other strengths, was Tenki -> Wolfberk -> Tiger King -> Tenki a problem? It doesn't seem so in either case. Look, even bad decks can do it! (Masked Chameleon -> King of the Feral Imps -> Masked Chameleon) Decks that are strong are not necessarily because of the 1-card ED mechanic even if it searches another copy, and to imply as such is a little disingenuous.

 

"Summon strong monsters with super powerful backrow" basically describes the entirety of YGO, especially some very healthy formats. I am of the opinion that decks should run a decent number of backrow, and not doing such should have both advantages and tradeoffs. The concern here should not be with the backrow, necessarily, but the advantage the decks are able to present to support the backrow; in fact, most backrow is quite balanced in trading 141, even if they are disruptive, and playing around them requires some thought. Decks deciding to run reduced backrow should generally be rewarded with equal parts increased flexibility and speed - something like Plant Synchro, Quickdraw Dandywarrior, or some such - and there is usually a good reason for it (because it reduces consistency for your main engine!). Running backrow is a defensive opportunity, and doing so reflects the player's wish to push on into the later part of the game.

 

In regards to the argument against spam; this is more of a case where overextension shouldn't be rewarded, as it is a decision and not a skill-testing point - but neither should it be severely punished, as in a healthy game your opponent will be able to do so. I see that there are some good intentions here, but the actual idea of preventing 2 and 3 from existing is far-fetched and makes design itself stale. Why shouldn't fast decks or 1-card ED decks exist? Sure, OTK potential should be avoided, but the ability to swarm with beaters and potentially threaten an OTK and to make 1-card ED monsters are not inherently broken. (Granted, making 1-card ED monsters several times in a turn is too strong, but that's a bit different.)

 

Balance should aim to encompass as many playstyles as possible, not just cross them off. Burning Abyss-style floatation is unsustainable, surely, but that is much narrower and the mere decision to not use it (or anything similar) as a gimmick would be fine.

[Darj]

Okay, look 'ere. 1-card ED monster decks - even ones that search themselves - isn't the problem. The problem is -what- the ED monster made is. Was Tinplate -> Gadget -> GGX -> Tinplate a problem? Putting aside their other strengths, was Tenki -> Wolfberk -> Tiger King -> Tenki a problem? It doesn't seem so in either case. Look, even bad decks can do it! (Masked Chameleon -> King of the Feral Imps -> Masked Chameleon) Decks that are strong are not necessarily because of the 1-card ED mechanic even if it searches another copy, and to imply as such is a little disingenuous.

 

"Summon strong monsters with super powerful backrow" basically describes the entirety of YGO, especially some very healthy formats. I am of the opinion that decks should run a decent number of backrow, and not doing such should have both advantages and tradeoffs. The concern here should not be with the backrow, necessarily, but the advantage the decks are able to present to support the backrow; in fact, most backrow is quite balanced in trading 141, even if they are disruptive, and playing around them requires some thought. Decks deciding to run reduced backrow should generally be rewarded with equal parts increased flexibility and speed - something like Plant Synchro, Quickdraw Dandywarrior, or some such - and there is usually a good reason for it (because it reduces consistency for your main engine!). Running backrow is a defensive opportunity, and doing so reflects the player's wish to push on into the later part of the game.

 

In regards to the argument against spam; this is more of a case where overextension shouldn't be rewarded, as it is a decision and not a skill-testing point - but neither should it be severely punished, as in a healthy game your opponent will be able to do so. I see that there are some good intentions here, but the actual idea of preventing 2 and 3 from existing is far-fetched and makes design itself stale. Why shouldn't fast decks or 1-card ED decks exist? Sure, OTK potential should be avoided, but the ability to swarm with beaters and potentially threaten an OTK and to make 1-card ED monsters are not inherently broken. (Granted, making 1-card ED monsters several times in a turn is too strong, but that's a bit different.)

 

Balance should aim to encompass as many playstyles as possible, not just cross them off. Burning Abyss-style floatation is unsustainable, surely, but that is much narrower and the mere decision to not use it (or anything similar) as a gimmick would be fine.

 

You do have a point here. In the cases you pointed out, the end product is 2300+ beater and the pieces to drop the combo next turn (well, Tiger King has additional effect but you get the idea). In tellars and Summoner/Guardians you perform the search before even dropping the ED monster, and you can pick monsters from their respective pools (Rank4s, Syncho7s, etc.), while Cherodei drop a threatening 2800-ATK beater with an pseudo-Shi en effect; so yeah, they are on a different level.

 

I agree with the backrow vs. speed. It's fine when a deck should give up backrow for faster or stronger plays; but when a deck has both (power plays + ability to sustain or afford for backrow), or the results are floodgates/"you can't play yugioh" monsters (e.g. Pleiades), then it crosses the line in my opinion.

 

For the record, I'm not saying the playstyles I brought up should be forbidden or rejected; I'm just pointing out that I'm not a fan of them; and I repeat, if most players as fine with them, we can come up with an agreement.

[VampireofDarkness]

Okay, look 'ere. 1-card ED monster decks - even ones that search themselves - isn't the problem. The problem is -what- the ED monster made is. Was Tinplate -> Gadget -> GGX -> Tinplate a problem? Putting aside their other strengths, was Tenki -> Wolfberk -> Tiger King -> Tenki a problem? It doesn't seem so in either case. Look, even bad decks can do it! (Masked Chameleon -> King of the Feral Imps -> Masked Chameleon) Decks that are strong are not necessarily because of the 1-card ED mechanic even if it searches another copy, and to imply as such is a little disingenuous.

"Summon strong monsters with super powerful backrow" basically describes the entirety of YGO, especially some very healthy formats. I am of the opinion that decks should run a decent number of backrow, and not doing such should have both advantages and tradeoffs. The concern here should not be with the backrow, necessarily, but the advantage the decks are able to present to support the backrow; in fact, most backrow is quite balanced in trading 141, even if they are disruptive, and playing around them requires some thought. Decks deciding to run reduced backrow should generally be rewarded with equal parts increased flexibility and speed - something like Plant Synchro, Quickdraw Dandywarrior, or some such - and there is usually a good reason for it (because it reduces consistency for your main engine!). Running backrow is a defensive opportunity, and doing so reflects the player's wish to push on into the later part of the game.

In regards to the argument against spam; this is more of a case where overextension shouldn't be rewarded, as it is a decision and not a skill-testing point - but neither should it be severely punished, as in a healthy game your opponent will be able to do so. I see that there are some good intentions here, but the actual idea of preventing 2 and 3 from existing is far-fetched and makes design itself stale. Why shouldn't fast decks or 1-card ED decks exist? Sure, OTK potential should be avoided, but the ability to swarm with beaters and potentially threaten an OTK and to make 1-card ED monsters are not inherently broken. (Granted, making 1-card ED monsters several times in a turn is too strong, but that's a bit different.)

Balance should aim to encompass as many playstyles as possible, not just cross them off. Burning Abyss-style floatation is unsustainable, surely, but that is much narrower and the mere decision to not use it (or anything similar) as a gimmick would be fine.

I can't say I disagree with this, especially the 1 Card ED and search theory. Let's take a gander at Guardian of Echoing Truth and Cherodei Magus, two Synchros from archetypes Voltex mentioned, versus Tiger King and Gear Gigant X, who net the same inherent advantage:

Guardian of Echoing Truth:
3000 DEF
Protects a monster from everything except Tiaramasu and battle
Gets a Summoner on destruction or banishment

Cherodei Magus:
2800 ATK
Searches a S/T on Summon, including Reanimation, which floats in of itself
Negates impending backrow once a turn

Tiger King:
2200 ATK
Searches on Summon
Negates on the field, but no direct removal and only during your turn
He floats, but requires 3 Fire Formation Cards

Gear Gigant X:
2300 ATK
Searches, no other effect on the field
Floats, but only for a Level 3 or lower

I think we're catching onto something. The mechanic itself and the cards themselves aren't inherently unbalanced (Although Truth could be toned down just a little), the combination of said cards is what makes them powerful. Most of the time, your opponent won't have an immediate answer to Magus or Truth, so another monster is just gonna be all it is and in the case of Magus, you get a negation a turn, so it's very tough to punish. The same can be said with the backrow, but I don't think I need to explain that one.

[Cirrus]

Magus has 2800 ATK and Truth has 3000 DEF - just a note.

[VampireofDarkness]

Magus has 2800 ATK and Truth has 3000 DEF - just a note.

Fixed. Did I make a valid point though?

[Cirrus]

Magus is stronger because of the ATK, and Truth is a lot weaker; I think Truth only needs a slight nerf to its statline while Magus should either lose the ability to randomly fetch Reanimation or be far less oppressive with the backrow negation. The point is absolutely valid, and essentially what I pointed at.

[VampireofDarkness]

Magus is stronger because of the ATK, and Truth is a lot weaker; I think Truth only needs a slight nerf to its statline while Magus should either lose the ability to randomly fetch Reanimation or be far less oppressive with the backrow negation. The point is absolutely valid, and essentially what I pointed at.

I think Magus searching is part of what makes the Deck hold as strong as it does. As we saw with Dread Angels, you can have all the power cards you want, but if you don't have plays to follow them up, you're out. It just has to not be as pressuring. Look at Tiger King. It negates, but during your opponent's turn, they can drop new stuff and do whatever they want. Something like that would be ideal.

[Cirrus]

That's precisely why I said one or the other; it'd adopt different playstyles based on the choice made. Magus oppresses the opponent's backrow, which is only exacerbated by the existence of Sweeper.