Upstart Goblin

[Slinky]

isnt Sorcerer a pseudo +2 anyway?

[Blake]

Tbf pendulum sorcerer is good because he is kinda totally a +2, and that isn't even counting plusses off of whatever scales you get.

 

The thing is that the way the banlist works, a card being unhealthy really isn't something that gets it hit. It happens in OCG (though I suspect this is simply because OCG players have a higher propensity for building combo decks) but not really in TCG. Gonna be totally honest, if the banlist and game were based completely on health (which is subjective, anyway) the game would be a hell of a lot less fun than it is (though this is also subjective so sue me).

isnt Sorcerer a pseudo +2 anyway?

I mean, aren't upstart and Chicken Game pseudo +X anyway?

 

Like, the more copies you run, the smaller your deck is.

 

In being smaller, your deck is more potent, which means the value of the cards you find tends to be higher.

 

I just chose the first +0 that came to mind. Mathman is a technical +0, practical +1, same for ArmaKnight. Foolish is a technical -1, but practical +0. RotA and Nekroz of Brio/Claus are +0s. And so on.

[ENMaker]

I mean, aren't upstart and Chicken Game pseudo +X anyway?

 

Like, the more copies you run, the smaller your deck is.

 

In being smaller, your deck is more potent, which means the value of the cards you find tends to be higher.

 

I just chose the first +0 that came to mind. Mathman is a technical +0, practical +1, same for ArmaKnight. Foolish is a technical -1, but practical +0. RotA and Nekroz of Brio/Claus are +0s. And so on.

 

You can't seriously compare selective millers and searchers to a blind draw just because the card number retention is the same.

[IQuitDolphin]

Upstart and Chicken Game can't even be considered "+0" since they replace themselves with something else from your Deck. We could get into mathematical equations and whatnot (something I am not versed in as of this moment), but the fact remains that even with outside factors like preliminary searching and deck thinning/stacking, Upstart and Chicken Game do not really count as cards, since you trade it in for anything else in your deck. Upstart and Chicken are pseudo-proxies. That shouldn't be a thing. There's a reason Konami put the Deck Size at 40, and having a generic draw engine that "bypasses" this rule completely is just not right in my opinion.

I feel the pain of trying to type and constantly getting reply notifications.
​
​

[Blake]

You can't seriously compare selective millers and searchers to a blind draw just because the card number retention is the same.

are they not +0s?

 

You can't seriously say a card is fair because it's a +0, and you cannot seriously try and say "those are specific" because these are generic, neveminding that they are in no way asynergetic with these.

[ENMaker]

are they not +0s?

 

You can't seriously say a card is fair because it's a +0, and you cannot seriously try and say "those are specific" because these are generic, neveminding that they are in no way asynergetic with these.

 

A selective +0 and a blind +0 are not the same thing, you know they aren't. Searching isn't drawing because you know what you're getting and you have a reason for getting it. It's pro-active deck-thinning as opposed to simply deck-thinning.

[Blake]

A selective +0 and a blind +0 are not the same thing, you know they aren't. Searching isn't drawing because you know what you're getting and you have a reason for getting it. It's pro-active deck-thinning as opposed to simply deck-thinning.

As a 3-of, they aren't. However, as an 8-of (using your number, not the highest possibility), you run a deck that is much smaller. I'm gonna run some math to give you an example.

 

6 copies of a card. 5 card opening hand. 40 card deck. Chance of opening 1+ copies: 57.71%

 

3 copies of a card. 5 card opening hand. 32 card deck. Chance of opening 1+ copies: 41.03

 

There is a definite edge to the former, but you can't deny that the later is also strong, especially when you account for unsearchable cards that have their consistency boosted, such as Wavering Eyes.

 

As Dolphin put it, it's deck proxies. Yes, RotA, etc. are stronger in particular places, but these are generic as hell and work together too well.

[ENMaker]

As a 3-of, they aren't. However, as an 8-of (using your number, not the highest possibility), you run a deck that is much smaller. I'm gonna run some math to give you an example.

 

6 copies of a card. 5 card opening hand. 40 card deck. Chance of opening 1+ copies: 57.71%

 

3 copies of a card. 5 card opening hand. 32 card deck. Chance of opening 1+ copies: 41.03

 

There is a definite edge to the former, but you can't deny that the later is also strong, especially when you account for unsearchable cards that have their consistency boosted, such as Wavering Eyes.

 

As Dolphin put it, it's deck proxies. Yes, RotA, etc. are stronger in particular places, but these are generic as hell and work together too well.

 

That's true of the whole Race/Terra/Goblin thing, but solely from the perspective of Upstart, with Chicken Race banned there is not an 8 card engine anymore and this'd be fine at 3. 37 card deck in exchange for having to break through 3k more lp is fine. Banning Chicken and limiting this is overkill.

[Blake]

That's true of the whole Race/Terra/Goblin thing, but solely from the perspective of Upstart, with Chicken Race banned there is not an 8 card engine anymore and this'd be fine at 3. 37 card deck in exchange for having to break through 3k more lp is fine. Banning Chicken and limiting this is overkill.

I mean, I keep saying that Upstart is debatable, and even deferred to Koko's point about it being a Book of Moon case.

 

There's an argument for limiting upstart, but that's dueto h skew it can put on deckbuilding/playalty, moreso thany particular unfarness.

 

Also, breaking through 3K LP isn't relevant for every deck, as some can sheet that out.

 

Points about +0s are there to counter the argument that +0 = fair.

[VCR_CAT]

Some thoughts after reading... well this whole thing, really.

 

• Dolphin had a point with his rant on engine vs. deck. Yes.
• It annoys me somewhat to see people dismiss points and arguments simply because the hit in question is negative towards an "irrelevant" deck (read: decks that aren't in the top tiers). To an extent, there's a point to this in regards to outdated decks that hardly anyone is playing anyways; but for lower-tier decks (such as my own), a hit that hurts their functionality because of a shared engine that some top-tier deck becomes broken because of (seriously, watch Monarchs not go anywhere; that'll be funny) is completely frustrating. A lot of players, myself included, have absolutely no vested interested in the projected top-tier decks in the coming format, and to see basically the only decently viable deck they use take a shot to the knees because of something else is kind of disheartening; you basically lose any interest in playing the game in the coming format at all. I'm not saying that the banlist needs to be catered to rogues, or that the top-tier decks are bad; but hitting super-generic engines such as Upstart or Chicken Game need to be done with very careful consideration. A lot of crap gets hurt because of it, and as such a lot of players lose a lot of viability they may have had. I understand the logic of "Anything the rogue decks use, the top-tier decks can use better"; I'm not saying any of this as a way of pushing Rogue Decks into upper tiers, but I am saying that a lot of these players simply are not satisfied with being forced to play old banlists because they don't want to play any of the current viable decks. I'm just saying; at least take into consideration that these are other players that want to play the game, and a mindset of "Play the top-tier or gtfo" isn't that great.
• I feel like one of the few and only players on this site that advocate for consistency in decks as a healthy part of this game, and I'll get into that. It sucks a WHOLE lot when you brick in a game, to just lose because RNGeezus didn't smile upon you. It also sucks to lose because you just didn't open well enough. I appreciate consistency engines in YuGiOh and, especially in the case of something like Machines where the generic S/T line-up is absolute trash, it becomes very much needed for a lot of decks. Right now, there are way too many types and pools in Yugioh where the consistency on their monster line-up may be great, but their consistency in the S/T line-up is absolute trash and the best they can do is run Upstarts and hope for the best. Consistency is bad in that it helps "unhealthy" strategies occur more often, yes. But, it's also good in that it makes those great back-and-forth games happen a lot more... consistently.
• Upstart and Chicken Game were stupidly generic, and (on the topic of Upstart; I could totally see Chicken Game having this coming) the only major downside I can think of for a card like that is that it's so simple and so generic that you have almost no other reason to run any alternative deck thinning or generic consistency options. Reckless Greed is a trap (and thus, inherently slower) that stops 2 draws for the next two turns and there's legitimate reason for players not wanting to run that. Pot of Duality prevents Special Summons and is not favored by decks that are a lot more reliant on those on a turn-to-turn basis. Upstart? Nope. It suffers a problem I like to call "A lack of niche". I can see Konami hitting it for this purpose, as a means to promote more diverse deck-building and also slap a top-tier deck on the wrist that depends on it.
• But now, there's a gaping hole in generic deck-thinning and consistency for a lot of decks that also depended on this that's filled by... what? Reckless Greed? Pot of Duality? Supply Squad? There's nothing really that great for these decks anymore, and in terms of hits against Monarchs, I feel that this one had a disgustingly high level of collateral damage towards other decks. Of all the cards to hit for Monarchs, I honestly think they made a very poor decision on what to hit. If anything, at least give us more viable deck-thinning options that aren't as broken in their eyes.

[ihop]

I feel like one of the few and only players on this site that advocate for consistency in decks as a healthy part of this game, and I'll get into that. It sucks a WHOLE lot when you brick in a game, to just lose because RNGeezus didn't smile upon you. It also sucks to lose because you just didn't open well enough. I appreciate consistency engines in YuGiOh and, especially in the case of something like Machines where the generic S/T line-up is absolute trash, it becomes very much needed for a lot of decks. Right now, there are way too many types and pools in Yugioh where the consistency on their monster line-up may be great, but their consistency in the S/T line-up is absolute trash and the best they can do is run Upstarts and hope for the best. Consistency is bad in that it helps "unhealthy" strategies occur more often, yes. But, it's also good in that it makes those great back-and-forth games happen a lot more... consistently.

 

I think this point carries a lot of weight. Consistency is generally good for the game because if both decks are performing at their top level the idea is that the game becomes more skillful and you need to gain your advantage by outplaying your opponent rather than out-drawing your opponent. This is one of the reasons why I liked Nekroz format so much.

 

Now, Upstart being limited would do one of two things - either it would make these inconsistent decks that were glued together by Upstart so inconsistent that they're unplayable, or it would make other decks that played Upstart but weren't terribly inconsistent more inconsistent. The former would, in my eyes be a good outcome whereas the latter would be bad. This is why I'm not sure about this hit yet because I don't know the effect it has. All I know is that when you limit Upstart you invite far-reaching consequences that affect the game as a whole.

[The Nyx Avatar]

It's funny; personally I have never been a fan of deck thinning cards such as Upstart or Chicken Game because I'm not fond of turbo or combo decks that highly benefit from the speed they provide, if not outright rely on it.

Maybe that's why I'm not hurt or happy that this card's been Limited.

[Miror B]

A selective +0 and a blind +0 are not the same thing, you know they aren't. Searching isn't drawing because you know what you're getting and you have a reason for getting it. It's pro-active deck-thinning as opposed to simply deck-thinning.

But you're also talking as if this deck decides to run the blind +0 before the Selective one.

 

Of course decks are going to run their selective searchers over this, but that also won't stop them from running Upstarts in addition to their searchers.

 

If you're running Tellarknights (ignoring banlist), you're gonna put in 3 RotA first, then fill it in with your 8 card Upstart engine to raise consistency even further, giving you what is basically a 29 card deck instead of the regular 32 card deck.

And even with Upstart Gone you still end up with a 5 card engine that just gets better if the deck already has their selective searchers added in.