The Cost You Wouldn't Pay

[aussj4link]

When creating cards here, I've often noticed that my attempts to balance a huge effect such as stopping your opponent from being able to activate cards or set them from the hand (cards can still be activated from places like the graveyard) but at the cost of discarding your whole hand and skipping your next draw phase, only ended in people saying they would never pay such a price, regardless of the effect it had. So I'm curious as to what you guys would never pay as a cost, or have as a drawback to balance an extremely good effect? What price would you never pay regardless of how good the effect was?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I'd pay any in-game cost within YGO honestly. Super-high-cost super-low-reward cards are especially fun to pull off for the sake of it. 

[aussj4link]

Would you play a card that after your opponent finished their draw phase, it was a trap that required you to discard 3 cards to activate and then would essentially end your opponent's turn and then after the resolution, you must skip your next draw phase? Effectively skipping your opponent's turn aside from their draw at that high of a cost.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

For sure, that actually sounds like it'd be pretty effective in certain Grave-dependent decks like Infernoids or Zombies that I imagine could make use of it to win before their opponent would get the chance to play. 

 

The closest resemblance I can think of to that card would be The Six Shinobi which has the same effect but a requirement that is much harder to fulfill. 

[Mr. Best Male 2008]

Depending on the deck skipping your draw phase isn't so bad. I used to abuse the sheet out of Offerings to the Doomed in a Infernity Randomizer deck. Essentially I would just get 3 Randomizers on board and use backrow that had no conditions to be met so that I was guaranteed to be able to keep stopping my opponent's plays and keep drawing off of Randomizers. Was a a really good deck to be honest. 

 

The cost always depends on the effect. I wouldn't imagine banishing my whole hand with Left Arm Offering if Grass wasn't a card, etc.

[The Highlander]

Any cost that does not violate the games borders can be justified, the question is actually pointless and misphrased, given that any cost that does not violate said borders and has an appropriate effect can be justified, it always depends on the trade-off and more importantly the conditions, your question about a cost does not make any sense, given that there can always be an effect to make up for it (while you basicly stated "no matter the effect"), however conditions as a topic would meet the basic expectation of your question, in terms of the answers you could expect.

To sum it up:

1.) Any cost that is within the game and does not make you lose before doing anything is justifiable based on the effect that follows.

2.) Conditions to use a card usually do end up driving people away, if your question would be which conditions one would not willingly accept it would be a lot more difficult to answer the question and everyone would have his/her limits.

[aussj4link]

Cool, an objective answer to a subjective question. Like asking what you like on your pizza and then you answering with, "Pizza is a food that is unhealthy for you." Fantastic.

[Dova]

I play Mekk-Knights with the Level 6s just so I can use their Field Spell's hand/ED nuke effect. For me, its a balance between consistency and strength. There's a certain balance between how consistent the effect is versus how strong it; for example, Pot of Desires is rather inconsistent as it's unsearchable, and yet you're basically sacrificing nothing for a +1.

 

As long as I have a have a play left, I would consider it. I wouldn't do "discard your entire hand, skip your next draw phase, send your field to the GY"

[aussj4link]

Yeah, of course every play must be considered with whatever is on the board. I've just on several occasions had many people tell me they would never pay this or that regardless of it's potential benefit. And everyone seems to be a little different on that subject. One of my friends refuses to play anything that has a discard or a deck burn as a cost. Somehow, he still manages to make his deck work pretty well, but it's so odd never seeing him discard. Also, he tends to scoff at us when we do discard and gets a little angry anytime we have an effect that makes him discard. This post was meant to inspire discussion on a personal preferential choice to play or not play a cost or downside. I figured many people would feel differently from another and point out why they feel one cost is too much where another is not. I'm sorry if this attempt to provoke discussion has offended anyone, but... at the same time, I don't really care.

[Dova]

 I'm sorry if this attempt to provoke discussion has offended anyone, but... at the same time, I don't really care.

 

:thinking:

 

Back on topic, realistically speaking, there's no cost I really wouldn't pay. It all depends on the archetype. If there's one cost I hate when it's not a mechanic, Deck milling/banishing most of the time, as there's nothing worse than seeing a card you need gone forever.

[aussj4link]

There really isn't one I wouldn't pay either. Hell, even cards like The Gift of Greed can be used to interesting effect despite it being nothing but a downside. I made this card a while back and everyone told me the cost was far too high and would never pay no matter how good the effect was. 

 

[Dova]

I mean, that's not a bad card in any of these spammy decks that keep your hand advantage. Setup a good field, restock your hand advantage, then play this card. It's not like they can negate it during their Standby Phase if they have no cards on the field or anything.
 

My only concern is A) consistency, which in draw-heavy decks isn't really an issue, and B) going first, but if your opponent doesn't setup too strong of a field it shouldn't be a problem. Hell you don't even need to Summon a boss, just make sure you have all of your cards on your side of the field.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Its a card game, life goes one, I'd pay just about any cost

[zepheris]

I'd actually argue otherwise for abrupt end. I would even say it'd be banworthy, rather than just "Worth playing"

 

A lot of decks can set up OTK's with 2 or 3 card combos, and having a guaranteed way to achieve that while having 2 turns of setup is just far too unfair. It's not a staple by any stretch of the imagination, but there's so many decks that can abuse the nuts out of that card. Think of the boards pendulums end on. They usually end on multiple cards in the hand, along with a crap ton of damage on the field. As long as they had some cards to spare, the card's just downright insane.

 

If it said something like "During your standby phase, you can discard 3 cards, your opponent skips their next turn.", sure it'd be terrible, because you'd have no cards to actually combo with, but, if you take into account the cards you draw/search while comboing, and get to play it after finishing with a big board, well, you see my point."

 

As for the actual topic of discussion, any cost is justifiable given the result, as long as it is easily achievable. Be it cards like "Draw 3 cards, then send the rest of your deck to the graveyard" (Clearly a going second card), or "discard 4 other cards to banish your opponent's hand face down" (A going first card)

 

These are not only playable, they're downright broken.

 

Now, the real question is, how situational can a card be to be useful.

 

It doesn't matter how hard the cost is, if your deck can achieve it and the payoff is worth it, but there are many cards where, the payoff is insane, and the cost is comparatively small, but the extreme situational-ness of cards such as shrub serpent or last warrior just doesn't let them get played, outside of gimmicky decks. Thus, the question should be "How situational can a card be for it to justify being used.

 

Would you play a card that says "Activate only if your opponent special summoned exactly 3 monsters this this turn, then destroyed exactly three cards you control and has 3 cards in his hand: You win the duel."

 

There's absolutly no cost to using this card. Well, you lose the card, but, no other cost. It's useless though, because it's too situational.

[Dova]

Of course a card like that would be banned, regardless of how good it actually was. Yata was banned despite the fact that you couldn't Normal Summon it simply because of how cancerous it was to the gamestate. Someone would find a way to play it.

[zepheris]

Yata invented the banlist, bro. It's not like it's the only one stopping draws either, drastic dropoff, soul devouring bamboo sword, and fenrir are all legal. Yata's only banned because of its legacy, it's a terrible card now.

 

I'd even say that with both sangan and CED errata'd, soul devouring is just straight better than yata. Cursed can recycle it, and allow things to attack directly, while you can equip it to something with actual protection, like masterpeace.

 

Also, it's a spirit. It can be normal summoned. It can't be special summoned.

[Dova]

Yata invented the banlist, bro. It's not like it's the only one stopping draws either, drastic dropoff, soul devouring bamboo sword, and fenrir are all legal. Yata's only banned because of its legacy, it's a terrible card now.

 

Also, it's a spirit. It can be normal summoned. It can't be special summoned.

 

Lol brainfart on the NS thing, I meant SS

 

Yata being banned because of its legacy? I do disagree there. Despite Konami making bad decisions with its banlists, I wouldn't say it keeps cards banned simply because they were always banned.

[zepheris]

Stratos, Construct, Grand mole, compulse,  etc.

 

There are tons of cards on the banlist for no other reason but that they used to be on the banlist and konami still hasn't gotten around to removing them yet. Just look at how long it took them to unlimit bestiari, bottomless, and torrential.

 

And even if you can make a case for the above cards (Which I can somewhat understand), pray tell why tribe infecting is still banned.

[aussj4link]

Yeah, the topic really isn't about which card is unplayable regardless of situation, but rather just which one you personally wouldn't play for whatever reason you have. Like me for example. The card Pot of Desires, is probably one I would never play unless my deck benefited directly from the banish cost, such as a Gren Maju deck. In other decks, I wouldn't ever play it because the cost is too great, not only are they banished, but the face down banishment is what takes it overboard for me. But, I've seen many other decks that don't benefit from the cost, use it anyway. I just feel like you've got a really good chance of throwing away cards you will need. A 4th of your deck everytime you play one and I've seen decks run 3 of them. Imagine burning 3/4 of your deck hoping the last ten cards will win it for you. Too much in my opinion.

 

I kinda wish they'd bring back Yata and Envoy of the End. :p

[Tinkerer]

Nah, I don't think there's a cost I wouldn't pay depending on the scenario and based on my own deck.  Even something dumb like Final Destiny I would find a way to play off its cost if I truly wanted to for the lols.  That doesn't mean I'd play things with ridiculous costs unless my deck could benefit from said cost or if the effect is good enough (or if I'm challenging myself with something dumb).

 

As an example, I would say that Desires is worth it for a good number of decks I make, but when I make a combo-centric deck that needs certain pieces to get running, I wouldn't play Desires - not because the cost is unbearable for me, but for the deck; it pretty much all comes back down to the deck or the game scenario.

[zepheris]

Yeah, the topic really isn't about which card is unplayable regardless of situation, but rather just which one you personally wouldn't play for whatever reason you have. Like me for example. The card Pot of Desires, is probably one I would never play unless my deck benefited directly from the banish cost, such as a Gren Maju deck. In other decks, I wouldn't ever play it because the cost is too great, not only are they banished, but the face down banishment is what takes it overboard for me. But, I've seen many other decks that don't benefit from the cost, use it anyway. I just feel like you've got a really good chance of throwing away cards you will need. A 4th of your deck everytime you play one and I've seen decks run 3 of them. Imagine burning 3/4 of your deck hoping the last ten cards will win it for you. Too much in my opinion.

 

I kinda wish they'd bring back Yata and Envoy of the End. :p

That's not how desires is supposed to work. You don't activate 3 desires, basically ever. Most decks can't resolve that many, because each shaves 12 cards off of your deck, 36 in total, along with the opening hand of 5, and 2 additional draws because of HOPT, you need 43 cards in deck minimum, under the most ideal circumstances, assuming you use NO other cards from the deck. You usually only want to activate 1, 2 if you're desperate, but never 3. People play 3 to see it more often, and earlier in the game, because most of the time, the banish 10 doesn't matter, and the +1 is too good to pass up. The second desires is a gamble, and the third is a dead card. It's like the 3 brilliant fusion, 1 garnet idea. You wanna only resolve it once, but you play 3 to see it sooner.

 

Thing is, cards in the deck are cards you usually never see, because games nowdays last less than 5 turns, unless both players are garbage or one of them plays psy-frames. Desires is a good card under most situations. There are some decks that can't play desires though, such as zoo (Though the deck's dead), Frog decks that depend heavily on the frog engine (The more paleo heavy ones can have a field day with the thing), and other such combo heavy strategies (World chalice maybe? Never played the deck. Spyrals, too, I would imagine, though I can't be sure, and maybe some BA builds, because their three best main deck cards are at 1.), so you shouldn't splash the card into everything, but for most decks, it's a pot of greed with only a mild drawback. And if you don't wanna see dead cards, you can always just play 2, or 1, even.

 

All that said, Light of sekka, on the other hand...

 

I'm going to stick with my previous statement and say that any cost is justifiable as long as it has a good enough payoff. Cards like beginning of the end aren't played, not because they have a large cost, but because they're too situational, and 7 darks is a lot to ask.

[Sleepy]

Hmm I'd say there are 3 axis in an imaginary graph:

X for strength of the effect.

Y for the severity of the cost/conditions for using the effect.

Z for how flexible the card overall is and if it has a place (somewhere that can use it without going too out of its way to its own detriment to use it).

 

^These 3 are symbiotic and will rise and fall together to stay aligned with the curve of the game. Make it too high or too low on either of these 3 factors in a way that is dissonant with the other variables and issues start to show up.

 

- - - - -

Samples with no real hard numbers:
 

-Something like pre-errata Chaos Emperor Dragon's effect has a super high strength (X) and too low of a cost/condition (Y) for it.
-Sophia, Goddess of Rebirth has a very harsh cost/condition (Y) with an effect that's appropriately powerful (X), but both stats are high to the degree that it hurts its (Z) in the graph. You realistically would only bother going ahead with this if the deck was centered around her or if you were trying out some sort of self imposed challenge. This is a card that's prone to be unusable too much of the time.

-Mooyan Curry's cost/conditions (Y) are non-existent from how low they are. The effect's impact (X) is still too low for "no cost/conditions" though, since there is a minimum standard of usefulness required by no cost cards in the game, and +200 LP means the (X) in this case is going negative.

 

- - - - - -

 

^That's how I more or less look at balance. I've seen a lot of new members over the years that make super powerful bosses with incredibly intricate Summoning conditions, which TECHNICALLY balance them out, but cards like that I consider more linear and boring. In other words, high (X) and (Y), and (Z) goes past the acceptable zone. too low is ruled by Pot of Greed and too high and we have something like "Sanctity of Dragon".

Now, there's nothing wrong with designing things like high risk high reward cards, but I bet at a certain point you'd start getting feedback trying to weaken the cards so that they can loosen up on the cost and become more able to be used in an ever so slightly broader way. 

 

(Z) can arguably be treated as a line of duct tape at the top and bottom ends of the graph instead of its own axis,.... probably.

- - - - -

 

The turn-skipping Trap is to be specific: I think the cost is too stiff for splashability, yet still very possible to achieve in enough decks to be a problem.
Skipping a turn is one of the most powerful effects you could have come up with. This warrants a cost that'd render it mostly unplayable in most scenarios, otherwise it'd easily go past the power curve of the game and wind up in the banlist.

 

The card at the same time sounds sacky. If you get to draw it and you go first and get to do your turn 1 setup, the game pretty much already ended right there, but it is not something you can really depend on every game.

 

The cost is steep but not the right one for the card. The card requires a drawback that a discard cost will not manage. Something like a no damage clause and/or an activation condition that is more specific than "can pay? BAM". Something that controls its influence over the game enough to balance it out.