Pot of Desires

[Bringerofcake]

http://www.yugioh-card.com/en/products/tin-2017megatin.html

 

 

It's being reprinted in BOTH megatins

[Snatch Steal]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa :DDDDDD

 

I knew it was gonna happen. I knew these cards had to get reprinted sometime. Thank god I waited so long.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Remember that time a fuckton of people were convinced this was joke card levels of bad and I was like "shut the funk up you are wrong"?

 

I sure do. Good times.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

This card has always been banworthy levels of good. This at 3 and Pot of Avarice at 0 doesn't make much sense. 

[Blake]

This card has always been banworthy levels of good. This at 3 and Pot of Avarice at 0 doesn't make much sense. 

It's really not.

 

It contradicts the direction YGO has taken for a while, and the format it really shined in was one that didn't showcase said direction.

 

YGO has become a game about engines and how they combine to give you the best outcomes. Engines don't like to lose their cards they need for said engines to run.

 

It's not unfair because the drawback actually matters when your deck is full of good engine stuffs. Decks like Blue-Eyes, D/D with its multiples it only needs 1 of each, etc. can run it fine, but Zoo or search/tech heavy decks lose a lot to it.

 

PoA is another non-comparable case, though it seems like it really should be at 1, if nothing else.

[Βyakuya]

 

Pots are now from 70 -> 40. Though I got both of them for that price I'm getting rid of them pretty soon. Even though this card will be widely more acceptable cause Konami is actually being very fricking generous this time, I bet there's still some of people who probably wouldn't care. Likely due to people still ignorant about its use in boosting plays as well or lowered use in this format, so I guess it was fair to warrant this reprint to give it more accessibility.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Many engines can search/generate prior to using this, and those Decks that aren't as affected by the drawback simply +1. 

 

Pot of Avarice was often a dead card early where this never is, and when it wasn't you had to give up your Graveyard for it, generally a better place for your monsters to be than the Deck. 

[Blake]

Many engines can search/generate prior to using this, and those Decks that aren't as affected by the drawback simply +1. 

 

Pot of Avarice was often a dead card early where this never is, and when it wasn't you had to give up your Graveyard for it, generally a better place for your monsters to be than the Deck. 

This logic doesn't really hold.

 

Yes, you can search first. But then you don't need this. The point of a card like Desires is to draw into said cards that let you play YGO, and if you already have your engine, you don't need to get this. While it's not good before you search, because you don't want to hit key pieces.

 

Having +1s in the game for playing specific decktypes isn't a bad thing. Unfairness in design is a core aspect OF game design.

 

avarice is never really gonna be dead again with links, and, again, is not comparable, so...

[Kaiji]

Remember that time a f***ton of people were convinced this was joke card levels of bad and I was like "shut the f*** up you are wrong"?

 

I sure do. Good times.

If you go to the right places, this will happen for almost every card reveal due to how thinly knowledge of the game / time spent in the game is spread across players. Community reaction was impressive but thats likely due to the platforms I visited, tons of RECOMMENDED FOR YOU channels tryna get the word out / acting on kneejerks which is pretty constant for YGO.

 

Unsurprisingly, theres still quite a bit of nuance regarding the card though it extends past "banishing all your combo pieces" and more so how many normal summons you can possibly draw into. Zoo was a huge exception tho, most people attribute Zoo cutting Desires because of lawnmowing but it was actually due to it banished at least 1 copy of Rat more often than increasing the chances of seeing Rat in a hand with 0 copies of Rat. Italics used to display the two events compared; tldr the extreme of actually "banishing a combo piece" being true, but this is to be seen as an exception (most decks dont have an 87% 1 card combo rate lmaooo) not the rule.

 

Demise Pot Pot Diagram True Draco is seemingly popular so Desires likely to make a comeback again (y)

[Dad]

Shiranui <3

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

This logic doesn't really hold.

 

Yes, you can search first. But then you don't need this. The point of a card like Desires is to draw into said cards that let you play YGO, and if you already have your engine, you don't need to get this. While it's not good before you search, because you don't want to hit key pieces.

 

Having +1s in the game for playing specific decktypes isn't a bad thing. Unfairness in design is a core aspect OF game design.

 

avarice is never really gonna be dead again with links, and, again, is not comparable, so...

 

After having made use of whatever deck-accessing made available in the first hand, decks that run this aren't going to access many of the cards-in-deck they haven't already anyway (the game is fast and turns are sparse). In a game where whoever has the furthest advantage wins, an extra card in hand is much more significant for a wide array of decks than 10 largely otherwise inaccessible cards would be and it's not a hard choice to make to get that further advantage. Those decks that used Pot of Avarice did so because the monsters in their graveyard had little potential to be live once they got there, just as this is used in decks where cards-in-deck have little potential to be used.

 

The main problem with this card isn't that certain decks can integrate it while others can't, it's that those decks that can integrate it do so much better with this than without, and the ability to draw this is beyond the player's control. Any card that prompts a "funk yeah I drew x!" is generally a problem. Where x is generic, it's even more of a problem. For generic cards as strong as this card, it's just a matter of time before they end up being too good in a certain future deck and end up listed (even though it should've been listed anyway from the start for compromising skill margin). There's also a certain correlation between such cards being reprinted and listed, but that's another rant for another time.

 

The main difference between this and Pot of Avarice is that one's at 3 and the other's at 0. To say that the two are "not comparable" is asinine, especially when they're fundamentally so similar. Your stated incapacity to compare them is your own, though I suspect you could if you tried.  

[Blake]

After having made use of whatever deck-accessing made available in the first hand, decks that run this aren't going to access many of the cards-in-deck they haven't already anyway (the game is fast and turns are sparse). In a game where whoever has the furthest advantage wins, an extra card in hand is much more significant for a wide array of decks than 10 largely otherwise inaccessible cards would be and it's not a hard choice to make to get that further advantage. Those decks that used Pot of Avarice did so because the monsters in their graveyard had little potential to be live once they got there, just as this is used in decks where cards-in-deck have little potential to be used.

 Yes, exactly. The decks that use this aren't going to be the search-happy decks like Performapal or Nekroz of yesteryear. That's where the different decktypes come up, and you're nolt really proving how this is broken here.

 

And "furthest advantage wins" isn't even true. It's whoever has the most powerful 1-2 card combo that shuts the opponent out well enough. Advantage doesn't mean anything if you can't use it.

 

more on avarice later

 

The main problem with this card isn't that certain decks can integrate it while others can't, it's that those decks that can integrate it do so much better with this than without, and the ability to draw this is beyond the player's control. Any card that prompts a "funk yeah I drew x!" is generally a problem. Where x is generic, it's even more of a problem. For generic cards as strong as this card, it's just a matter of time before they end up being too good in a certain future deck and end up listed (even though it should've been listed anyway from the start for compromising skill margin). There's also a certain correlation between such cards being reprinted and listed, but that's another rant for another time.

Again, that's not a problem. That's the nature of encouraging different deck types.

 

This is a draw 2. Those are not inherently broken, especially when they're designed in a way that prevents usage in places and makes it a thing to consider in others. Very few decks are going to have this be an instant include, because this card does have the ability to be asynergetic with a deck fairly simply. I may have been too broad, but Kaiji cleared up the whole Rat thing.

 

"compromising skill margin"

 

what kinda inane buzzword concoction is this ._.

 

Having more cards to play with is generally no change to a net gain in regards to skill in modern YGO, because you have more plays and combos to consider how you play it out, instead of simply gaining advantage to sit in your hand. Using it to complete key combos doesn't exactly remove skill, either, just means you're trying for the optimal outcome, which you would do with any deck anyway.

 

Sure, Trap Cards would validate this point, but Traps are sheet, overall, anyway. Decks that play this largely won't be playing traps (not impossible, though), because they'll be wanting a better T1, and traps only serve to be dead weight in a lot of those scenarios. This is on trap cards' poor design more than Desires or any draw card, to boot.

 

saying BECAUSE it was reprinted it DESERVES the list makes absolutely zero sense

 

You can say "I just meant there's a correlation", but we were never talking about if it WOULD get hit, only if it SHOULD.

 

The main difference between this and Pot of Avarice is that one's at 3 and the other's at 0. To say that the two are "not comparable" is asinine, especially when they're fundamentally so similar. Your stated incapacity to compare them is your own, though I suspect you could if you tried.

They really aren't comparable. You're forcing a comparison that doesn't exist beyond "Spells that draw 2" for the sake of making your argument seem stronger than it is, but you're ignoring that those two cards don't get played the same way.

 

Avarice is a resource extender that draws cards for you having devoted. Desires is a card that draws into the cards you want to start playing the game. You don't use them the same way at all, so there's nothing you can compare aside from being Draw 2. We could compare it to Trade-In if we wanted, but then Trade-In is a +0 that requires a specific card to play it and has the benefit of setting up the grave (sometimes), so still not entirely comparable.

 

If you want to compare Allure of Darkness vs. Trade-In with DARK Lv. 8s, that's easier, because you can debate the merits of banishing them for a little more freedom in what you remove VS discarding things you already have. They have the same niche of play, in this scenario, with effectively the same opportunity cost.

 

Avarice and Desires have nothing of the sort.

 

Restating that they're at different places on the list does nothing, because your only attempt to show a correlation between the two in this post was to be condescending without any sort of evidence or logic to back it up.

 

If anything, your first mention of Avarice in this post shows exactly how they're different. You can "compare" them as opposites that lead to the same goal, but they're definitely not comparable from any gameplay standpoint.

 

-----

 

At the end, you have done nothing to prove this card was broken, just used buzzwords/phrases, pushed a comparison that doesn't hold, and made an unrelated point about reprints. Saying "this type of card is too good" doesn't count, either, because it doesn't tell me why.

 

I even acknowledged the card was unfair, because it is. But I haven't seen why it's TOO unfair. Cards being unfair is part of card design, and part of game design as a whole. You can't cut unfairness out without making a stale gamestate, and having things like this as incentives for playing 1 deck/build over another isn't too good. It's just good.

[~~~~]

Not only is this card being reprinted, it's guaranteed with every mega tin. I think that's worth adding to the OP

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

saying BECAUSE it was reprinted it DESERVES the list makes absolutely zero sense

 

I agree. I also didn't say this, what I did say was that this card should've been listed from the start (or better yet, not created at all). I brought up the correlation because of the fact that Konami's profits play a role in influencing the banned list at the expense of everything else. That said, Konami's profits are also what keeps the game going. 

 

Sure, Trap Cards would validate this point, but Traps are sheet, overall, anyway. Decks that play this largely won't be playing traps (not impossible, though), because they'll be wanting a better T1, and traps only serve to be dead weight in a lot of those scenarios. 

 

On that we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Avarice is a resource extender that draws cards for you having devoted. Desires is a card that draws into the cards you want to start playing the game. You don't use them the same way at all, so there's nothing you can compare aside from being Draw 2. We could compare it to Trade-In if we wanted, but then Trade-In is a +0 that requires a specific card to play it and has the benefit of setting up the grave (sometimes), so still not entirely comparable.

 

If you want to compare Allure of Darkness vs. Trade-In with DARK Lv. 8s, that's easier, because you can debate the merits of banishing them for a little more freedom in what you remove VS discarding things you already have. They have the same niche of play, in this scenario, with effectively the same opportunity cost.

 

Avarice and Desires have nothing of the sort.

 

Restating that they're at different places on the list does nothing, because your only attempt to show a correlation between the two in this post was to be condescending without any sort of evidence or logic to back it up.

 

If anything, your first mention of Avarice in this post shows exactly how they're different. You can "compare" them as opposites that lead to the same goal, but they're definitely not comparable from any gameplay standpoint.

 

They're both resource extenders, they both enable you to continue playing the game, they both benefit from having devoted - none of these are distinct to one or the other or differentiate their respective niches from one another. They both require you to make cards less live than they otherwise would be. Cards-in-Graveyard are generally more live than cards-in-Deck. From the Graveyard, monsters commonly activate effects of their own, fuel Summoning conditions, and are more accessible than card-in-Deck. Cards that search from the Deck are more valuable than cards that search from the Graveyard for this reason, take Reinforcement of the Army vs. The Warrior Returning Alive for example. RotA is the better card, is vastly more widely used, and is Limited while The Warrior Returning Alive is the lesser card and seldom ever used in spite of having no Level restriction. It just isn't as good to recover most cards from the Graveyard to your hand than to do so from the Deck because they're more live in the Graveyard, ironically. Take Foolish Burial vs. Pot of Benevolence as another example, the former is Limited where the latter can transport twice the cards in the opposite direction, but who'd use Pot of Benevolence on their own monsters-in-Graveyard, expending a card to move them to the Deck where they're less live? What I'm trying to illustrate here is that Pot of Avarice's cost is indeed a cost. 

 

Pot of Desires feeds on cards-in-Deck, Pot of Avarice feeds on monsters-in-Graveyard. Cards-in-Deck are seldom live compared to monsters-in-Graveyard, if they have any potential to be live at all. Duels still end with 20+ cards-in-Deck to spare more often than not. It's really not that dissimilar to Allure of Darkness vs. Trade-In and there's no reason you can't go a step further and compare Allure of Darkness and Pot of Desires. Allure renders a broadly specific card-in-hand a card-in-banished (where it's less live) in exchange for making two random cards-in-Deck into cards-in-hand (where they're more live). Pot of Desires turns 10 random cards-in-Deck into facedown-cards-in-Banished where they're less live (often negligibly) in exchange for making two random cards-in-Deck into cards-in-hand. The ability to compare such cards is vital to Deckbuilding (another thing that cards like Pot of Desires compromises by filling gaps much in the vein of Upstart Goblin and another reason it's bad for the game). Pot of Desires is more effective than Allure of Darkness as a whole and has consistently seen more play in more top Decks as a result since its release. Pot of Desires is used in more top Decks than any other draw card, and it's completely generic. 

 

The fact that Pot of Desires is *generic* means that it isn't necessarily designed within the context of a given Deck-type-similar to how Rescue Cat wasn't designed with X-Sabers in mind. This is why I predict Pot of Desires will be banned once an errant archetype comes along that makes more use of it than most Decks do today as Konami will only design around it for so long before they forget about it, but that doesn't mean Pot of Desires shouldn't be banned now or that its current usage is acceptable or healthy for the current game. I don't want a win in a mirror match where-all else being equal-I draw Pot of Desires and my opponent either doesn't or draws 3. I also don't want a win in a mirror match where both my opponent and I open with Pot of Desires but I happen to be lucky enough to use it as Pot of Greed because none of the cards-in-Deck I banished matter at all and my opponent incidentally loses access to a key card-in-Deck. These luck factors absolutely compromise the ability for players to influence the game through skill. It's not a concoction of buzzwords or condescension, it's a thing and the reason cards like Pot of Greed and Pot of Desires aren't okay.  

 

A related question: would you splash Cup of Ace in every deck if you *knew* you'd always be able to flip heads? I know I would. It'd be Pot of Greed, and that's terrible. I've always been of the opinion that Cup of Ace should be banned.

 

As for the current format and Zoodiacs' dominance thereof without tending to run Pot of Desires, Zoodiacs aren't going to be around forever and they aren't going to be dominant forever. I do not want to see a format in which the predominant Decktype(s) run 3 Pot of Desires as part of the Decktype's skeleton. Zoodiacs are also pretty sacky themselves, so much so that it's the reason Corey Roca ran Paleozoics, fearing getting sacked by lesser players in Zoo mirror matches. The sentiments of a champion, and one that still had to resort to triple Pot of Desires as his only mained spells.