Future Fusion (Errata)

[Kaiji]

P sure if someone activates you can just ignore it and BTFO the remaining board when its basically made with only 4 cards.

[notcleverusername]

You're still getting something out of it regardless, which is the removal of something that could stop you in the now. It's not necessarily a big win, but it's a win nonetheless when you lose something expendable and they don't.

Your cards shouldn't be "expendable" unless they're bad. Expendable cards are the bad boss monsters you never summon so you try to justify it as "Oh it can be Twin Twister discard fodder" even though this applies to literally every other card. Similarly the costs of running a card that you can "afford to lose" is that it means it does nothing worthy.

Also, worth noting that their removal is frequently more "expendable" than this kind of card. Removal on a monster body can frequently be reused (Break Sword, Grampulse, ABCD) at relatively low, typically easily accessible cost.

The idea of bait makes no sense when you think about it if Future Fusion were any other at-1 wincon floodgate--your opponent will still be incentivized to target it immediately, but it also inherently makes it harder to remove and the rest of your board harder to break inherently. The result if your opponent DOES have easy access removal is the same in both cases, but the card itself makes some removal harder to access and therefore protects your cards better.

 

Similarly incentivizing your opp to go into removal doesn't make sense when compared to any strong Set Trap, which can still incentivize your opp to go into removal, but also forces your opponent to play carefully, vs seeing a face-up delayed playmaker that can will not impede the plays that usually create removal as a side bonus anyways. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

[The Warden]

Your cards shouldn't be "expendable" unless they're bad. Expendable cards are the bad boss monsters you never summon so you try to justify it as "Oh it can be Twin Twister discard fodder" even though this applies to literally every other card. Similarly the costs of running a card that you can "afford to lose" is that it means it does nothing worthy.

Also, worth noting that their removal is frequently more "expendable" than this kind of card. Removal on a monster body can frequently be reused (Break Sword, Grampulse, ABCD) at relatively low, typically easily accessible cost.

The idea of bait makes no sense when you think about it if Future Fusion were any other at-1 wincon floodgate--your opponent will still be incentivized to target it immediately, but it also inherently makes it harder to remove and the rest of your board harder to break inherently. The result if your opponent DOES have easy access removal is the same in both cases, but the card itself makes some removal harder to access and therefore protects your cards better.

 

Similarly incentivizing your opp to go into removal doesn't make sense when compared to any strong Set Trap, which can still incentivize your opp to go into removal, but also forces your opponent to play carefully, vs seeing a face-up delayed playmaker that can will not impede the plays that usually create removal as a side bonus anyways. 

 

This is purely just my opinion on the matter, but I see a card as "expendable" when you can "afford to lose it". Doesn't mean the card is awful, it just means that you can cut your losses when it comes to the card for, say, if you'd win regardless of whether or not you have it. When Brionac was around, your entire hand could be something you could afford to lose since the resulting field sweep would open the gates to winning the duel. Does that make every card in your hand bad? No, it doesn't. It just means that they serve a purpose that they otherwise wouldn't have, and your argument is flimsy and facetious for assuming that. The "bad boss monsters" are no real argument, because you shouldn't be running them regardless of being "Twin Twister" fodder, as that's just noob logic. Any card can be considered expendable if the loss doesn't impact you, which is in the case of some grind heavy decks that can cover the cost. More to the point that limited cards by and large aren't always a precious resource, and if you entire strategy revolves around Future Fusion, then you can't afford to lose it, but then, your deck is funking badly designed if what will be a limited card is your fecking win-con.

 

More to the point that you have zero idea of what floodgates do. They don't "incentivise" people to destroy them, they NECESSITATE their destruction, because unlike FuFu, floodgates have a very real, very now impact that inhibits your ability to play the game. And going as above, if a floodgate is a wincon, then why are you even trying to play a 2-player game? Play solitaire if you don't like other people being in your card games. Floodgates aren't about protecting sheet, they're just about stopping your opponent from playing the game after you've made a huge play. All they do is seal victory by denying your opponent the ability to respond, they don't protect ANYTHING. Floodgates, likewise, aren't something you use as bait anyways, and I have no idea why you think they should be.

 

Baiting is a mind game thing. It's the act of trying to get your opponent to believe in a threat that isn't there. This can be done by setting a bunch of non-threatening cards in the backrow, or yes, playing FuFu, because FuFu isn't a wincon, it's just a win button. If your opponent doesn't believe it's a threat, they let the mill go off and have to deal with the backlash of doing so. They destroy it, you're probably none to affected since your deck would have to be pretty shittily made if losing FuFu means your deck can't function at all. Does baiting always work? funk no. But depending on WHEN in the game is played, and I emphasize this because clearly you only see the game from the first two turns, baiting out destruction using something like FuFu as a sacrifice for that last bit of removal can win the game for you.

[Slinky]

 

This wouldn't do anything. It counts standby phases, not turns. Try again for a zeni?

[Kaiji]

This is purely just my opinion on the matter, but I see a card as "expendable" when you can "afford to lose it". Doesn't mean the card is awful, it just means that you can cut your losses when it comes to the card for, say, if you'd win regardless of whether or not you have it. When Brionac was around, your entire hand could be something you could afford to lose since the resulting field sweep would open the gates to winning the duel. Does that make every card in your hand bad? No, it doesn't. It just means that they serve a purpose that they otherwise wouldn't have, and your argument is flimsy and facetious for assuming that. The "bad boss monsters" are no real argument, because you shouldn't be running them regardless of being "Twin Twister" fodder, as that's just noob logic. Any card can be considered expendable if the loss doesn't impact you, which is in the case of some grind heavy decks that can cover the cost. More to the point that limited cards by and large aren't always a precious resource, and if you entire strategy revolves around Future Fusion, then you can't afford to lose it, but then, your deck is f***ing badly designed if what will be a limited card is your fecking win-con.

 

More to the point that you have zero idea of what floodgates do. They don't "incentivise" people to destroy them, they NECESSITATE their destruction, because unlike FuFu, floodgates have a very real, very now impact that inhibits your ability to play the game. And going as above, if a floodgate is a wincon, then why are you even trying to play a 2-player game? Play solitaire if you don't like other people being in your card games. Floodgates aren't about protecting s***, they're just about stopping your opponent from playing the game after you've made a huge play. All they do is seal victory by denying your opponent the ability to respond, they don't protect ANYTHING. Floodgates, likewise, aren't something you use as bait anyways, and I have no idea why you think they should be.

 

Baiting is a mind game thing. It's the act of trying to get your opponent to believe in a threat that isn't there. This can be done by setting a bunch of non-threatening cards in the backrow, or yes, playing FuFu, because FuFu isn't a wincon, it's just a win button. If your opponent doesn't believe it's a threat, they let the mill go off and have to deal with the backlash of doing so. They destroy it, you're probably none to affected since your deck would have to be pretty shittily made if losing FuFu means your deck can't function at all. Does baiting always work? f*** no. But depending on WHEN in the game is played, and I emphasize this because clearly you only see the game from the first two turns, baiting out destruction using something like FuFu as a sacrifice for that last bit of removal can win the game for you.

2nd paragraph is literally semantics

 

3rd paragraph is nice and all but the burden is upon you to name interactions worth using FuFu in. Since ironically all this huff and puff can be applied to literally every single card in the game ie a constant that no longer becomes a basis for comparison. What fusions do you plan on revealing? What cards do you intend to send? What do you plan to do within the 1st turn when you activate a blank? 

 

Pretty sure most decks that choose to run this are going to be hard-pressed not to rely on it and if that's not the case, have better alternative means to dump materials. The only deck where this becomes a "threat" ( a nebulous term you've failed to define this whole time) is Infernoid, as Black pointed out, as there is a huge reward for keeping it alive for a turn in comparison to revealing other fusions.

 

There is also no issue with seeing the game within the 1st two turns since as time has gone one the opening hand has grown increasingly in importance.

 

YGO is a pretty lame game atm, there's no mindgames (LOL), maindeck removal matters in the opening hand, resources are from the extra because they can be accessed immediately without having to draw them (which applies to removal), its literally NUT HAND VS NUT HAND.

[notcleverusername]

 

More to the point that you have zero idea of what floodgates do. They don't "incentivise" people to destroy them, they NECESSITATE their destruction, because unlike FuFu, floodgates have a very real, very now impact that inhibits your ability to play the game. And going as above, if a floodgate is a wincon, then why are you even trying to play a 2-player game? Play solitaire if you don't like other people being in your card games. Floodgates aren't about protecting sheet, they're just about stopping your opponent from playing the game after you've made a huge play. All they do is seal victory by denying your opponent the ability to respond, they don't protect ANYTHING. Floodgates, likewise, aren't something you use as bait anyways, and I have no idea why you think they should be.

Mainly going to respond to this since don't care so much about the rest

Yes, that is the point, good cards are better bait because they are good

The funk is "if a floodgate is a wincon" even supposed to mean, this isn't a hypothetical here, floodgates ARE wincons. "YGO is a 2-player game" is rando statement that means nothing, the only difference between casual/competitive players in regards to floodgates is that if you're playing casually you have more room to run the worse ones like Hidden Temples of Necrovalley

Not letting the opponent play is pretty good protection if you're measuring by end result of what happened to your cards, which is generally that your opponent wasn't able to get rid of them

The entire point was that you shouldn't be "using" cards as bait, because that's a failed purpose. You should be using cards that actually do something to the opponent.

 

Having thought it over, I will concede low-investment pressure though /shrug

You still shouldn't be using cards that have higher than 50% chance to just be blank but forcing the opp to play semi-aggressively for a turn even if you're not actually hindering them in any way otherwise does have value

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

20AP-JP037 Future Fusion

 

Q: Can Starving Venom Fusion Dragon be Fusion Summoned with the effect of Future Fusion?

A: When the first effect of Future Fusion resolves, you must reveal 1 Fusion Monster from your Extra Deck and send its required Fusion Material monsters from your Main Deck to the Graveyard. The Fusion Material monsters required to Fusion Summon Starving Venom Fusion Dragon are 2 non-Token DARK monsters on the field, so they cannot exist in your Deck. Thus, you cannot Fusion Summon Starving Venom Fusion Dragon with the effect of Future Fusion, nor send its Fusion Materials from your Deck to the Graveyard.

 

---

Q: When Future Fusion is activated, can Solemn Warning be chained to negate the activation?

A: Future Fusion does not have an effect that includes a Special Summon when the card itself resolves, so its activation cannot be negated by Solemn Warning. Furthermore, since Solemn Warning cannot be chained to the effects of Spell/Trap Cards, neither effect of Future Fusion that activates during your subsequent Standby Phases can have its activation negated by Solemn Warning.

 

Source: http://www.db.yugioh-card.com/yugiohdb/faq_search.action?ope=5&fid=8460&keyword=&tag=-1

 

---

 

Q: Can I activate Future Fusion if I have no available Monster Zones on my field?

A: Even if you have no available Monster Zones, you can activate Future Fusion. Then, during your next Standby Phase, the effect that reveals 1 Fusion Monster from your Extra Deck and sends its Fusion Materials from your Main Deck to the Graveyard is applied normally. During your second Standby Phase after activating Future Fusion, if you do not have available Monster Zones when resolving the effect that Fusion Summons the revealed monster, the effect is not applied. (The revealed Fusion Monster will remain in the Extra Deck.) Even though the Fusion Monster was not Fusion Summoned, Future Fusion remains face-up on the field.

 

Source: http://www.db.yugioh-card.com/yugiohdb/faq_search.action?ope=5&fid=11291&keyword=&tag=-1

 

Q: Can I activate Future Fusion while the effect of Vanity’s Fiend is applying?

A: Even while the effect of Vanity’s Fiend is applying, you can activate Future Fusion. Then, during your next Standby Phase, the effect that reveals 1 Fusion Monster from your Extra Deck and sends its Fusion Materials from your Main Deck to the Graveyard is applied normally. During your second Standby Phase after activating Future Fusion, if the effect of Vanity’s Fiend is applying when resolving the effect that Fusion Summons the revealed monster, the effect is not applied. (The revealed Fusion Monster will remain in the Extra Deck.) Even though the Fusion Monster was not Fusion Summoned, Future Fusion remains face-up on the field.

 

Source: http://www.db.yugioh-card.com/yugiohdb/faq_search.action?ope=5&fid=11283&keyword=&tag=-1

[evilfusion]

Interesting rulings, actually. Some are pretty standard, although it IS nice to know you can play it even if you're unable to SS.

 

The Starve Venom thing is exactly what I expected. The Materials are in the Deck, not the Field.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Interesting rulings, actually. Some are pretty standard, although it IS nice to know you can play it even if you're unable to SS.

 

The Starve Venom thing is exactly what I expected. The Materials are in the Deck, not the Field.

The vanity ruling is amazing, since you can play it under vanity, lock your opponent out for a turn, and have it turn vanity off just in time for you to go ham