Jump to content

RoTA

(GigaDrillBreaker)

Recommended Posts

Blake Newbie

Blake

Posted
Posted

The argument for it at 3 isn't the worst. 

 

"The targets are the problem, not RotA".

 

Except, that argument still has a flaw.

 

First, there's the fact that as long as RotA exists at 3, it limits the design of Warriors... or the impications get ignored and a powerful card becomes searchable by 3 copies of a spell.

 

It gives you a 37 card deck, except with versatility in what you draw. It's an infinitely better upstart 9/10.

 

Sure, Upstart draws you into backrow, but it doesn't increase consistency so much as just make your deck smaller. This both makes your deck smaller AND gives you consistent access to powerful cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CLG Klavier Newbie

CLG Klavier

Posted
Posted

Yeah it's strong as fuck. But it didn't do anything incredibly broken and if anything, it's a boost to the lower-end decks like Noble Knights.

 

I know it's controversial, but I heavily disagree with banning cards on design principles UNLESS their sole purpose is to FTK. That's why Exodia, Life Equalizer and things should be banned, but RotA is fine the way it is IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mido9 Newbie

mido9

Posted
Posted
First, there's the fact that as long as RotA exists at 3, it limits the design of Warriors... or the impications get ignored and a powerful card becomes searchable by 3 copies of a spell.

I mean, considering that virtually every warrior that's been broken with it was pretty broken on its own, I'd say that's a pretty easily dodgable design restriction( just dont create broken warriors)

 

It's just not a negative design restriction, basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ihop Newbie

ihop

Posted
Posted

Exactly. Limit this again? Rogue decks like Noble Knights, sillier Hero variants etc. will fall completly. Tellars/Heroes/Nekroz will proceed to give 0 fucks.

 

Tellars are really weakened with 1 RotA

 

Thing is, it's not even the problem of the decks that abuse RotA. It's just so ridiculously good in any deck that play warriors. If you look at Nekroz the Warriors it actually grabs are all pretty underwhelming with the exception of Shurit which is fairly good, but the fact that it really is just versatile deck thinning is just silly. I'm of the opinion that all type searching cards should be at 1, it's just coincidence that RotA happens to have the best targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VCR_CAT Apprentice

VCR_CAT

Posted
Posted

To start, RoTA doesn't limit the design of Warriors any more than existing generic support limits the design of other archetypes and deck types. Examples, searchers in the spellcaster/dark area have to be really careful because of a certain 5-piece win condition; Night Express Knight needed a "Cannot be Special Summoned from the deck" clause simply because of Machine Dupe; Nekroz completely ignored existing generic ritual support as a factor for the deck's design and see where that got them. I'm sure people are just simply thrilled that Djinn Lock exists. Thing is, generic support will ALWAYS limit the design of archetypes so long as it exists; RoTA is not exception nor is it anything outstanding compared to a lot of cards that exist. Taking existing cards and support is simply a part of designing cards, and limiting what they can or cannot do actually promotes creativity and new innovations.

 

The other thing is that simply banning RoTA does more damage than good. There are those lesser-used decks that make just as much of a use out of RoTA as the bigger decks, and hitting RoTA makes just as big of an impact on those decks as those that use it, and then how much is really being accomplished? Another factor is that it really needs to be considered if RoTA really IS the problem. Say there's a card that's broken that RoTA is able to search out; an instinct will be to ban RoTA because it gives quicker access to that card, but does that make the card in question any less broken? Sure it affects the overall success of the deck(s) that card is being used in in the tournament scene, but is RoTA the broken card, or was it the problem card in the first place?

 

Another issue is that why is consistency such an issue in apparently a lot of people's eyes? For a lot of the competitive scene and myself included, consistency is something to be desired; players that want a competitive skill-based scene want to minimize luck and maximize smart plays, not get rid of all searchers and leave the game up to hoping you draw the right card. Having options isn't a bad thing either; being able to access a lot of different plays but only being able to choose one makes for a very interesting thinking game; I've found that with more options the game becomes a lot more focused on how smart your plays are and a lot less on simply just making the most out of the cards at hand. Consistency isn't what makes games unfair, it's what that consistency is working for that tends to be the problem.

 

Finally, it needs to be determined heavily if RoTA is the Ptolmao to the CDI of the issue. If there is a broken card, is RoTA enabling the unfair combo/playstyle to the point where hitting it will be the most effective course of action while causing minimal collateral damage to other decks, or is RoTA simply there and limiting it or banning it will make very little difference to the actual combo itself?

 

RoTA is a great card; adding to consistency and deck thinning is a strong boon that a lot of decks want. Yet, despite that, I fail to see how this card promotes unfair or unbalanced gameplay; the only "problem" deck right now that would be primarily hit with RoTA is Tellars, and I honestly think there are other cards in that deck that should be addressed first before RoTA is looked at. Consistency isn't bad for this game, and only makes it better in my opinion. Not to mention that RoTA's existence doesn't limit archetype design any more than any other generic support card. Heck, I've already designed my own warrior archetype and tested multiple times, and I did so with RoTA in mind. It's consistent, balanced, but still pretty good and it definitely wasn't hard to work around RoTA.

 

Hitting RoTA simply out of principle is a very bad decision in my opinion. I'm totally with Mido on this; RoTA doesn't affect the base design of a broken warrior deck; if the warrior deck is already broken in design, then what's really to blame here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blake Newbie

Blake

Posted
Posted

Because when you have 3 cards that say "Hey I'm anything on demand", that's not a fair card.

 

The design point is the lesser point, so I'm confused as to why people hopped on the lesser point to support their argument.

 

IHop nailed it. All search cards like this should be at 1, because unrestricted cards that are just "any other" card in your deck aren't fair. No one's saying to ban RotA, people are saying it should be limited again, if anything. I mean, hell, even the OCG still has RotA at 1.

 

The fact is, RotA (and cards like it) give you a 37 card deck, plus 3 copies of "any" monster from your deck on demand, depending on how much RotA can search. And that's a lot.

 

And a case of a card that's too good with 3 RotA (albeit in a more generic sense), but simply strong without 3? Armageddon Knight. Yeah, the card has a lot of implications, but only because it is able to be run at 6. Sure, it's not seeing play right now, but the basis of the idea and the implications it showed last format show you what it can do with RotA at 3. It can just be a toolboxable answer, as opposed to a (usually) Normal Summon dependant accelerator.

 

The kind of consistency it adds, when at 3, simply is not healthy. Limiting it is a huge hit to decks like Tellars, and it is the main hit that can be done. It never should have gone above 1, but Konami wanted to push NK/Tellar/Nekroz.

 

Toolboxing isn't bad. Toolboxing when it's completely free is. RotA doesn't even take up an NS or anything, just searches on demand. For free. That's way too good.

 

And hitng RotA back to 1 makes sense with Tellars. It's not just principle, it's both principle and impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mido9 Newbie

mido9

Posted
Posted
The fact is, RotA (and cards like it) give you a 37 card deck, plus 3 copies of "any" monster from your deck on demand, depending on how much RotA can search. And that's a lot.

Toolboxing isn't bad. Toolboxing when it's completely free is. RotA doesn't even take up an NS or anything, just searches on demand. For free. That's way too good.

I still dont see why that's harmful. Or at least, why toolboxing or deckthinning(even when completely free) is unhealthy as much as it is "just there". Especially when "toolbox for something you need" and needing to choose what you get is much better for game than needing to rely on what you drew.

I'd basically just want to have 37+3 of choice decks than 40c decks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neutrality Man Newbie

Neutrality Man

Posted
Posted

Exactly. Limit this again? Rogue decks like Noble Knights, sillier Hero variants etc. will fall completely. Tellars/Heroes/Nekroz will proceed to give 0 f***s.

Because then there would be even LESS variety in this game's Deckbuilding mentality?

 

I'd rather have 76 decks to fight against where 56 of them rely on the same Spell for consistency than have only THREE decks in the entire game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blake Newbie

Blake

Posted
Posted

I still dont see why that's harmful. Or at least, why toolboxing or deckthinning(even when completely free) is unhealthy as much as it is "just there". Especially when "toolbox for something you need" and needing to choose what you get is much better for game than needing to rely on what you drew.

I'd basically just want to have 37+3 of choice decks than 40c decks.

No at 3 it isn't.

 

You get to run 3 more Deneb/Medraut/etc. Choosing what you do is healthier, but a lot of the time, it's not really choosing what you do. It can be, but it's generally "find power card X, make play Y". What are you generally going to find in Tellar? Deneb or Altair, maybe an Unuk or Vega in a blue moon. What are you going to find in Noble Knights? Medraut, maybe a rare Drystan. And so forth. This can change based on board setup, of course, but the main plays are 9/10 going to be the plays.

 

I'd rather have 39+1 than 40c OR 37+3. Being able to run 6 of a card with no drawback is just another example of how this game prides itself on abusing the limits it has set. One extra copy is fine, because that extra copy has to be valued. At 3, the amount of value and thought you need to put into it is much lower, as you have 2 more copies and you can just use this one for the moment instead of thinking about the game in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toffee. Newbie

Toffee.

Posted
Posted

Six Samurai and Heroes both have one of those.

Sam's have one that Grabs Level 3 or lower ones. IE, you can't grab stuff like Kizan. IE, you can't easily flood the field with the stronger ones.
HERO's Emergency Call grabs ANY E-HERO monster; So you can grab anything from random stuff like Poison Rose to cooler stuff like Blazeman/etc.
 

it's just coincidence that RotA happens to have the best targets.

So... Would a Psychic-Type, Aqua-Type, Thunder-Type, and maybe a Fish-Type versions of RotA be deemed "safe"?
 

Because when you have 3 cards that say "Hey I'm anything on demand", that's not a fair card.

Pretty sure it depends on the context, Black. Since obscure things like Terraforming are only "good" if a Deck has an impressive Field going for itself. Since otherwise, Field Spells are mostly just an afterthought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ihop Newbie

ihop

Posted
Posted

 So... Would a Psychic-Type, Aqua-Type, Thunder-Type, and maybe a Fish-Type versions of RotA be deemed "safe"?

 

I mean, we have one for Dinosaurs which hardly anyone even knows about and the only reason nobody knows about it is because there's no dinosaurs. I still don't think it's a healthy card, but the fact that main deck Dinosaurs are all complete and utter crap means it dodges any attention. If there's ever a relevant Dinosaur deck that actually wants to have Dinosaurs in its hand I'm sure people will be on Fossil Dig's case too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toffee. Newbie

Toffee.

Posted
Posted

I mean, we have one for Dinosaurs which hardly anyone even knows about and the only reason nobody knows about it is because there's no dinosaurs. I still don't think it's a healthy card, but the fact that main deck Dinosaurs are all complete and utter crap means it dodges any attention. If there's ever a relevant Dinosaur deck that actually wants to have Dinosaurs in its hand I'm sure people will be on Fossil Dig's case too.

Until then, Normal Dinosaurs are the only ones anyone ever gives a shit about, because Rabbit is a card.

I still stand by the fact that it depends on the Type/subject/etc in question, for what is deemed a fair search target(s).
I mean, it's like what you said; Dinosaurs have one that searches Level 6 or lower ones, but at the moment, Dinosaurs are a nonexistent Type that is just waiting for cards that become useful.
So how is it deemed "unfair", when it's only capable of searching something that does nothing? Giving a mediocre Type a searcher, doesn't make it better, because the cards in question it can grab are still mediocre.
It's not like RotA, whare we have an overabundance of useful/strong/etc Level 4 or lower Warrior-Types, since you are merely making them better BECAUSE the subject matter is a good set of cards, and only giving direct access to them is part of why they are so good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SirReal Newbie

SirReal

Posted
Posted

Really it comes down to which side of the fence you are on.

 

You can think in terms of that the game is healthier and more competitive with incredible consistency (think Nekroz and D Ruler mirrors) or you can be on the other side who would rather have less consistency and more power plays. 

 

I'm the guy who vouches for healthy card design and high consistency. If your cards aren't broke as fuck you don't have to have a whole conversation on the idea of running 6 of it. Sometimes it's a case of seeing it multiple times rather than the issue of a card being really overpowered. You can run 4 Bottomless Trap Holes but you can only realistically use it once unless you Dio into Dio (and even then, she has a special condition in order to not break shit like that).

 

Honestly, consistency is key in the competitive game and if you cut searchability, then people will play a lot of draw power like the Chicken Race engine soon to come over here. Then, if you cut mass draw power, then you're basically rolling dice and seeing who wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...