Mugendramon Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 They can still set backrow and fuck you up that way. Rhongo happens to be immune to backrow anyway. Also "the opponent can have backrow" is not a good way to turn down a really powerful and well protected card that's also laughably easy to summon when the deck works like klav and black are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLG Klavier Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 They can still set backrow and f*** you up that way. This is a very silly argument that can be used to make the most broken plays sound bad. Infernities weren't OP. Opponents could just set backrow and fuck you up that way. Spellbooks weren't OP. Opponents could just set backrow and fuck you up that way. Nekroz aren't OP. Opponents could just set backrow and fuck you up that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premier Alexander Romanov Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 This is a very silly argument that can be used to make the most broken plays sound bad. Infernities weren't OP. Opponents could just set backrow and fuck you up that way. Spellbooks weren't OP. Opponents could just set backrow and fuck you up that way. Nekroz aren't OP. Opponents could just set backrow and fuck you up that way.Vanity's is still a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinny Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Right,right,right. Giga, try it out, if you dont like it then try something else but atleast try what they are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodrigo Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 >I have NO idea what I'm doing >People give ideas >Rejects all ideas K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLG Klavier Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Vanity's is still a thing. It's Limited. And you totally ignored the point of my post. Were any of the broken decks ever less broken because floodgates existed? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mugendramon Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 This is a very silly argument that can be used to make the most broken plays sound bad. Infernities weren't OP. Opponents could just set backrow and fuck you up that way. Spellbooks weren't OP. Opponents could just set backrow and fuck you up that way. Nekroz aren't OP. Opponents could just set backrow and fuck you up that way. klav he's being dense but chill o-o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLG Klavier Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 klav he's being dense but chill o-o Hey, I just literally quoted the words he used. I even used the word "silly" myself so I'd assume my post was somehow tame. I just quotes his own words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maeriberii Haan Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Just dropping here one last time to say that please don't get this too heated. Also, King of Oblivion, this is not Giga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinny Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Hey, I just literally quoted the words he used. I even used the word "silly" myself so I'd assume my post was somehow tame. I just quotes his own words. You didnt have to respond to that, it kinda only proves his point :/ Just dropping here one last time to say that please don't get this too heated. Also, King of Oblivion, this is not Giga. Woopsies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mugendramon Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Hey, I just literally quoted the words he used. I even used the word "silly" myself so I'd assume my post was somehow tame. I just quotes his own words. I know, I know. But there's always room to be nicer about pointing out someone said something absurd. :> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLG Klavier Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Fine, gomenasai ;-; *pours a water bucket over my steaming head* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premier Alexander Romanov Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 It just feels...wrong.66 has very specific summoning requirements, and it's a real stretch of the deck to make it.Doing it this super-optimized way feels like...cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodrigo Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 It just feels...wrong. 66 has very specific summoning requirements, and it's a real stretch of the deck to make it. Doing it this super-optimized way feels like...cheating. To be fair, playing Yugioh feels like cheating all the time. Game's too OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mugendramon Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I mean, I guess if what you want is to play subpar so the opponent can actually have room to move around it's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Fascist Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I think the biggest problem with your build is that you're actually trying to play a game of Yugioh with your opponent. Igknight is solitaire to the highest of degrees. Deck also needs Royal Magical Library, if you don't open the 66 Combo, you can summon RML and basically draw a whole bunch of cards that way, and still summon your 5 material Rhongo. Rhongo is good because it locks the opponent basically out of the game for 2 turns on 5 material. Next turn, you Pendulum again and put down Cyber Dragon Infinity, and at that point they basically are fighting an enormous uphill battle that basically you should just scoop to every single time. Why you'd even bother playing a real game with this deck is beyond me, the deck is clearly designed to donk people on turn 1 with 5 material rhongo and CyInfi, while yes, that's degenerate as all hell and shouldn't exist, you shouldn't be playing Igknight if that's not what you want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premier Alexander Romanov Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I just...I don't know why, but it just feels really wrong to play the deck like this, results or not. I seriously do not like this optimization on a personal level, and I can't really figure out why I despise it so much, other than the fact that it feels like the deck's engine is being exploited. I think the biggest problem with your build is that you're actually trying to play a game of Yugioh with your opponent. Igknight is solitaire to the highest of degrees. Deck also needs Royal Magical Library, if you don't open the 66 Combo, you can summon RML and basically draw a whole bunch of cards that way, and still summon your 5 material Rhongo. Rhongo is good because it locks the opponent basically out of the game for 2 turns on 5 material. Next turn, you Pendulum again and put down Cyber Dragon Infinity, and at that point they basically are fighting an enormous uphill battle that basically you should just scoop to every single time. Why you'd even bother playing a real game with this deck is beyond me, the deck is clearly designed to donk people on turn 1 with 5 material rhongo and CyInfi, while yes, that's degenerate as all hell and shouldn't exist, you shouldn't be playing Igknight if that's not what you want to do. I don't want to play Solitaire. I want to play Yu-Gi-Oh!. I want to explore the power this engine has without restricting it by lashing on some extraeneous cards. I want to build an Igknight Deck. Not an Igknight Beetle Rhongo TTK Deck. An Igknight Deck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Fascist Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I just...I don't know why, but it just feels really wrong to play the deck like this, results or not. I seriously do not like this optimization on a personal level, and I can't really figure out why I despise it so much, other than the fact that it feels like the deck's engine is being exploited. then don't play it. you can either accept the fact that what you are playing right now isn't the optimal way to play igknight, or play the degenerate donk variant that is basically proven to work. the fact is you would be completely ignoring any and all advice we have been giving you since the start of this topic if you post a deck and don't want it optimized, that's why this section exists, and to be honest it's blatant ignorance of the jack witt clause. i apologize for being rude, but that's basically what it comes down to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premier Alexander Romanov Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 then don't play it. you can either accept the fact that what you are playing right now isn't the optimal way to play igknight, or play the degenerate donk variant that is basically proven to work. the fact is you would be completely ignoring any and all advice we have been giving you since the start of this topic if you post a deck and don't want it optimized, that's why this section exists, and to be honest it's blatant ignorance of the jack witt clause. i apologize for being rude, but that's basically what it comes down to. Well...is there another way to play this? Is there another optimization that doesn't seem so forced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Fascist Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Well...is there another way to play this? pretty much, no. igknight boils down to degenerate pendulum otk/donk lock deck #1 and degenerate pendulum otk/donk lock deck without the aforementioned lock. there's basically no difference. if you want build variance i suggest fire fist or something, it doesn't help komoney has helped the general masses by making a deck where literally 30 of the deck's 40 slots are already determined for you before you even do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premier Alexander Romanov Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 pretty much, no. igknight boils down to degenerate pendulum otk/donk lock deck #1 and degenerate pendulum otk/donk lock deck without the aforementioned lock. there's basically no difference. if you want build variance i suggest fire fist or something, it doesn't help komoney has helped the general masses by making a deck where literally 30 of the deck's 40 slots are already determined for you before you even do anything. I will admit that I like decks that use cards that normally don't work together, but actually do. But Igknights just seem like they require too much room to throw in all of this extra stuff, and it's all to get out a card that normally doesn't fit. Instead of being elegant and smooth, this method looks cobbled together and clunky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Fascist Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I will admit that I like decks that use cards that normally don't work together, but actually do. But Igknights just seem like they require too much room to throw in all of this extra stuff, and it's all to get out a card that normally doesn't fit. Instead of being elegant and smooth, this method looks cobbled together and clunky. it really isn't though, you either kill them with the key beetle combo or summon library and draw your entire deck then pendulum. and if you don't do either, you probably just scoop. they don't require extra room, literally the 18 vanilla igknights and maybe 1-2 of the field is all you really need, the game shouldn't last more than 1 to 2 turns realistically. if they break through CyInfi and Rhongo, you just scoop because this deck can do nothing else. if you want something that's variable, igknight certainly aren't that, they're so linear i could lie on them and call it a bed. also noticed a severe lack of rescue hamster, that card is ridiculous in this deck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premier Alexander Romanov Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 it really isn't though, you either kill them with the key beetle combo or summon library and draw your entire deck then pendulum. and if you don't do either, you probably just scoop. they don't require extra room, literally the 18 vanilla igknights and maybe 1-2 of the field is all you really need, the game shouldn't last more than 1 to 2 turns realistically. if they break through CyInfi and Rhongo, you just scoop because this deck can do nothing else. if you want something that's variable, igknight certainly aren't that, they're so linear i could lie on them and call it a bed. also noticed a severe lack of rescue hamster, that card is ridiculous in this deck I like the concept of the engine, once I understood it, because I love Pendulum engines. But like I said, narrowing the deck when it can make so much more with Rank 3s, 5s, and 6s, and has more potential than just 3 ED monsters seems like something farther than optimization. I guess it feels like...wasted potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Fascist Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I like the concept of the engine, once I understood it, because I love Pendulum engines. But like I said, narrowing the deck when it can make so much more with Rank 3s, 5s, and 6s, and has more potential than just 3 ED monsters seems like something farther than optimization. I guess it feels like...wasted potential. what's the point of making bad cards when you can make rhongo and cyInfi and just win the game, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premier Alexander Romanov Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 what's the point of making bad cards when you can make rhongo and cyInfi and just win the game, though? So cards like Alucard, 101, Volcasaurus, and Photon Bounzer are suddenly bad? Because I was going for the angle of using the engine itself with this deck, instead of including cards meant to get out 66. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.