Raigeki & Dark Hole

[BlackBeartic]

 

 

 

So I probably don't need to explain these cards as they're pretty notable in the game.

My question is, how do you feel about these cards? I've gotten very mixed signals from people over the last year and they are usually at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

For example a lot of my friends that play YGO a lot on dev and stuff called Raigeki trash and that it helps the opponent more than you. While others think they are OP and should be rebanned (DH at 1).

I personally fall in the middle where I think it depends on how you use the cards and when.

What about you all YCM, what are your thoughts?

[Not-so-Radiant Arin]

Considering how Graveyard-centric the game has become, these feel more like a detriment to use rather than aiding. Yeah, you killed off my powerful boss monster only for it to come back next turn.

 

I see how Raigeki can get some use because it doesn't hit your own monsters, but powerful destruction Spells I don't really find much worth out of. Which is saying something about how far the game has come in terms of balance.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Dark Hole remains one of the best cards in the OCG to this day, and has recently eclipsed HFD in main deck play. Floating decks be damned, when a meta like Zodiacs inevitably comes up, DH becomes amazing, and Raigeki broken. 

 

Just cause formats like BA-Shaddoll happen does not mean these cards have become weak or should be moved up

 

It's short sighted

[The Warden]

I find Raigeki winmoar. My general use for it is clearing the field so I can win that turn, and it tends to be how most of my opponents use it too. Same wit Dark Hole really.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I find Raigeki winmoar. My general use for it is clearing the field so I can win that turn, and it tends to be how most of my opponents use it too. Same wit Dark Hole really.

That's called a win button, not a winmoar

[The Warden]

Rightright. It's a win button to me.

[Kaiji]

IT's not a win button or else you'd want to see it going 1st.

 

Not that semantics over "le win button" / "winmoar" matters when comparing cards (hint: there's no card comparison going on).

 

It's being delegated to the side more often than not and that's not a bad thing. Of course it's in direct competition with Kaijus.

[Sleepy]

I only use Raigeki when my deck has few or no ways of getting past certain monsters. Something like getting rid of Dark Law to start my Heraldic Beast combos.

It is only a momentary relief so by itself it is barely more than what Smashing Ground used to be back in the day.

 

I have a dozen decks IRL and most of them don't use it. Some decks prefer Kaiju Slumber. Not all can give the extra space to dedicate to Kaijus though so that is also not an absolute best.

 

Dark Hole is only when I want to main Raigeki because my deck absolutely needs it as more than just a 1-of tech, and can't run Slumber. Though depending on the format and other things, I still like using Bottomless and/or Torrential.

 

Torrential used to feel better but lately feels worse though. Probably because Torrential is a Trap that requires a condition (as easy as it might be)... I can't put my finger on it, I guess Torrential has always felt more sort of balanced to me, and that might be why it doesn't seem to cut it when I've used it. Maybe I just have bad luck.

 

Of course, both have environments when they can't even provide that momentary nuke, that's when their usability lowers, but I don't really think any of them are really ban-worthy on any of the latest formats we've had. Good, yes, but not irredeemable. Maybe that'll change when Zodiac Beasts arrive looking at how they drain their extra in 2 turns so they run out quick...  I saw a True King build with Exodus though, so might also not be much of an issue, not that I know how viable that could be in the bigger picture, but it's something I've kept in mind...

[Darj]

Personally I find them bad, at least from my experience in tests vs. all sorts of decks I randomly stumbled upon. They are good for punching boards with lock monsters for sure, but sometimes those monsters cannot be destroyed (e.g. Kirin, Snow Bell --> Clear Wing) or are backed up by destruction protection; for those cases, I prefer resorting to Swords of Concealing Light instead.

Also, as it was already pointed pointed out, they compete with Kaiju Slumber.

[)e//!s0P]

Hate! All of it! It's Bad and users should feel bad. I've gotten OTK by regeki....... Twice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The pain.

[Not-so-Radiant Arin]

Hate! All of it! It's Bad and users should feel bad. I've gotten OTK by regeki....... Twice.

Then you should learn not to overextend, buddy.

[Spinny]

Then you should learn not to overextend, buddy.

How does that work?

if you are getting OTK'd how does not overextending help you? 

If anything, you should be overextending so that you can negate Raigeki, holding back cards in your hand does nothing against being OTK'd unless you mean run more traps.

[VampireofDarkness]

It really depends on the format and the Decks around. Atm, it is not as favorable, but as we near towards the Electric Zoogaloo, I do think think it will be fair enough to work these in. It not only keeps the Zoo locked, but it also does some justice against Eids, as it isn't quite as convenient to discard a Spell in comparison to a monster. We are going to see it where these card's impact will go up and down, and while their use is definitely down from other times, they should not be considered irrelevant.

 

How does that work?

if you are getting OTK'd how does not overextending help you? 

If anything, you should be overextending so that you can negate Raigeki, holding back cards in your hand does nothing against being OTK'd unless you mean run more traps.

I think he is referring to overextending without any viable protection, to which case I'd agree

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

As winter had said, a card like this will never be inherently bad. Even when the opponent has floating effects, you are almost always coming out on top with raigeki. Recall that even with shaddoll and BA around, it still saw play because of its ability to be a game winning play against nekroz, and provide openings against the former decks.

 

Dark Hole is very different. It isn't "free" like raigeki, so its usefulness isn't as universal. That said, destroying your own field has been awesome in the past, notably in creating combos for YZ.

How does that work?

if you are getting OTK'd how does not overextending help you? 

If anything, you should be overextending so that you can negate Raigeki, holding back cards in your hand does nothing against being OTK'd unless you mean run more traps.

This is absolutely correct. Consider it this way: your opponent is playing a deck that is capable of easily generating a board that can deal 8k.

 

In one scenario you "overextend" and play out your hand to create the strongest board presence possible, bringing yourself closer to a win. Your opponent has raigeki, they wipe your board and kill you.

 

In the other scenario you hold back. You don't ladder into your big fancy synchro, you don't turn your extra deck of zodiac monsters face up and place it in a monster zone, etc. You play conservatively. Your opponent has raigeki, and uses it to wipe your low-investment field. They still kill you.

 

Now consider either of the above situations, but with the opponent not having Raigeki. After all, it is limited so their odds aren't too high. In the first line of play, you still have an awesome board, which you can pivot into a win. The second leaves you with little more than you had before, and it is quite possible, if not likely, that they will still be able to kill you.

 

This method of thinking is referred to as "playing to your outs" and is fairly renowned in mtg.

[Blake]

Like, arguing blanket "overextension" in Soft-Lock-Oh! makes no sense.

 

Decks that devote without making a power board don't exist. Even decks like Fluffal, which used to be an OTK or bust deck, now go for R8, Toadally Awesome, Dragostapelia. They don't make the strongest birds in the game, and they can't guarantee they won't go a bit meg or break even to make those boards, but it's still better to make them so the opponent doesn't go (theoretically) "Oh, they didn't devote, Ignister Trapeze GG", or similar.

[~~~~]

This method of thinking is referred to as "playing to your outs" and is fairly renowned in mtg.

Sorry, what method of thinking is known as such?

 

This one?

In one scenario you "overextend" and play out your hand to create the strongest board presence possible, bringing yourself closer to a win. Your opponent has raigeki, they wipe your board and kill you.

Now consider either of the above situations, but with the opponent not having Raigeki. After all, it is limited so their odds aren't too high. In the first line of play, you still have an awesome board, which you can pivot into a win.

 

or this one?

In the other scenario you hold back. You don't ladder into your big fancy synchro, you don't turn your extra deck of zodiac monsters face up and place it in a monster zone, etc. You play conservatively. Your opponent has raigeki, and uses it to wipe your low-investment field. They still kill you.

 

Now consider either of the above situations, but with the opponent not having Raigeki. After all, it is limited so their odds aren't too high. The second leaves you with little more than you had before, and it is quite possible, if not likely, that they will still be able to kill you.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Sorry, what method of thinking is known as such?

Either scenario has a chance of losing, so you may as well play toward what allows you to win if chance favors you. Nothing is gained otherwise.