Jump to content

Lavaval Chain


Recommended Posts

Isn't common knowledge that, if a Deck needs broken cards to exist, then it shouldn't exist in the first place?

 

Which is why, whenever a Deck gets hit, the hits are almost always the key cards of the Deck.

Like, for example, if a Deck was basically "Summon Jinzo and you auto-win, regardless of what happened"; Jinzo would be hit.

 Debatable. Like are Nekroz to blame or is Djinn to blame is a recent example. It depends on your banlist philosophy tbh

 
And no Black, I haven't forgotten about you, I'm working on it
 
There's so much subjective in that claim too. "Broken Card" for starters. And IK you're exaggerating for effect, but I don't know any deck for any card that is "Summon X and you auto-win, regardless of what happened"
 
In a case like Chain where there is controversy, you really can't exaggerate like that
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Isn't common knowledge that, if a Deck needs broken cards to exist, then it shouldn't exist in the first place?

Which is why, whenever a Deck gets hit, the hits are almost always the key cards of the Deck.

 

For example...

If they, for whatever reason, wanted to hit Kozmo-

Emergency Teleport would likely be hit before anything else, as it enables a lot of the Deck's best plays.

Innovative decks that use chain to dump aren't unhealthy for the game.

 

So no, they should have somewhat of a chance.

 

The rest is common knowledge...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 Debatable. Like are Nekroz to blame or is Djinn to blame is a recent example. It depends on your banlist philosophy tbh

 
And no Black, I haven't forgotten about you, I'm working on it
 
There's so much subjective in that claim too. "Broken Card" for starters. And IK you're exaggerating for effect, but I don't know any deck for any card that is "Summon X and you auto-win, regardless of what happened"
 
In a case like Chain where there is controversy, you really can't exaggerate like that

 

 

When a card like Djinn forces players to MAINDECK stuff like Exiled Force, Bull Blader, or Book of Eclipse. There's something wrong here.

Likewise, with Nekroz, literally everything they had could be @3, if just Trish had been banned instead, but both formats decided to just kill their consistency instead, with the TCG opting to just flat out kill the deck. Nekroz was by far the weakest T1 deck we've ever had, and now because of bad hits, we now have no legitimately viable Ritual deck.

 

So, yes, Djinn is to blame. Anyone with a brain could see Djinn was going to get broken eventually when it got released, it was just rituals sucked so hard then, nobody knew when it was going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason Djinn Forced you to main those s*** cards (BoE, I can't say was s***, because it had other uses) was because TCG decided to gut you of half your decent spells and basically all your trap line up. Did it ever bother you that for most of the July OCG Format Djinn wasn't even run. It's a butterfly effect compounding from the trap hits.

 

TCG handled Nekroz poorly by Banning Shruitt and Djinn on top of doing OCG's consistency hits. Nekroz can and still do top in OCG so I'm not sure what your point there was.

 

Djinn vs Nekroz discussion is who's truly at fault here. Claus/Trish +Cycle or Djinn. You never saw Gishki use Djinn. You don't see things like Saffira use Djinn, you barely see BA use Djinn and those f***ers can tool and use Djinn on demand without chain or beatrice. The problem was Nekroz was too damn powerful and had too many damn searching cards. OCG hit the deck perfectly, maybe even a bit lightly by not also limiting Claus, and TCG followed suit in their own way. 

 

That aside, this isn't even about Djinn, it was a response to Armz about his polarization effect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Innovative decks that use chain to dump aren't unhealthy for the game.

Except the problem is that Chain will almost never be used for those sorts of Decks, and will always be a prime member to include in busted combos of Decks that are far more relevant.

It's like saying "Pot of Greed should be in 3s since it gives rogue Decks a chance to compete, since competitive Decks won't possibly include Pot of Greed".

....

But they will, and you are now facing off against said Decks, but they now also have 3x Pot of Greed.

 

This is why, honestly, if they ever make broken-ish cards in the future, they should either pair them with a gimmicky Archetype OR only let them be able to interact with an oddly specific set of cards.

Like if they made a card that said "Discard Lightning Punisher; Draw 4 cards"- It's a +2, sure, but Punisher is dead card outside of being in your hand(in this case), and said draw card is useless without Punisher. So your clogging your Deck with dead cards just to make a +2 move that will only honestly happen out of sheer luck. It's both inconsistent and unreliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the problem is that Chain will almost never be used for those sorts of Decks, and will always be a prime member to include in busted combos of Decks that are far more relevant.

It's like saying "Pot of Greed should be in 3s since it gives rogue Decks a chance to compete, since competitive Decks won't possibly include Pot of Greed".

....

But they will, and you are now facing off against said Decks, but they now also have 3x Pot of Greed.

 

This is why, honestly, if they ever make broken-ish cards in the future, they should either pair them with a gimmicky Archetype OR only let them be able to interact with an oddly specific set of cards.

Like if they made a card that said "Discard Lightning Punisher; Draw 4 cards"- It's a +2, sure, but Punisher is dead card outside of being in your hand(in this case), and said draw card is useless without Punisher. So your clogging your Deck with dead cards just to make a +2 move that will only honestly happen out of sheer luck. It's both inconsistent and unreliable.

Innovated decks are all different, you can't say they won't use it, because some might find it necessary/handy to set up with. (Also many DID use this card to set up, just throwin it out there) Also, PoG is raw draw power and advantage while Lavalval Chain is a prep card, or in the case of shaddolls, an effect enabler.

 

Yes, I won't disagree that meta decks will use this if they deem it good enough for a slot-But as I have stated, there is no even ground. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beatrice is Generic

 

And yes, people were happily killing their own monkeyboards to summon it back when Juggler was legal in OCG, so non of that "but rank6's r bad" stuff please

 

Beatrice can't be accessed by every R4NK deck ever. That's kinda the inherent difference when PePe needed to actually get 2 Monkeyboards out just to take advantage of the mill. That's the key issue here when Beatrice is far less accessible and can't stack the deck however you see fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean even then summoning Bea need more effort and setup than Chain, requiring Eccentrick or Skullcrobat high scale...which aren't really optimal as scales for penduluming. Eccentrick is not searchable while skullcrobat disallows you to summon Dracos. Bea has more power to make it worth the effort but it's clear that it's nowhere near as accessible as Chain.

 

I mean even then Pepe/Pedra summons it only using Monkeyboard - a level 6 that a lot of other decks that do abuse Lavalval can't access.

 

I mean outside of Pepe and BA decks that make Bea don't really abuse its mill that much.

 

You can't access Bea with Norden, you can't trick clown into it then dump thousand blades for another R4, you can't make bea using Infernity Archfiend, etc etc.

 

And never forget the stack effect too.

 

Rank 6 isn't bad, not at all. But it's some other kind of ridiculous claim than a R6 is more or as accessible as a R4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...