Pot of Greed balanced change?????? (suggestion)

[o.22]

What if Pot of Greed's effect was something more in line with its lore like:
"Take 1000 damage. Banish all cards in your hand face-up and add 1 card from your deck to your hand."
I am not sure if this effect is already in the game.

I'd like to know your thoughts.
Also, this is my first post ever, so if I'm doing something wrong let me know.

[Rayfield Lumina]

28 minutes ago, o.22 said:

What if Pot of Greed's effect was something more in line with its lore like:
"Take 1000 damage. Banish all cards in your hand face-up and add 1 card from your deck to your hand."
I am not sure if this effect is already in the game.

I'd like to know your thoughts.
Also, this is my first post ever, so if I'm doing something wrong let me know.

Congratz on your first post ever! n.n

I don't think you're doing anything wrong, in truth, your post is interesting.

As someone not terribly experienced in the current meta, but with an overall decent idea of how to balance a card (hopefully, lol), I'd say maybe you went a bit overboard with the adjustment. Pretty much this card will be a minimum of -1 and -1000 LP, if you only have 1 card in your hand by the time of activation. To a stretch, you could say this effect might benefit those decks that rely on banishing (like Psychics) but given that niche this won't allow the Pot to return being meta. Probably the first thing to do within the card would be to specify if you require a banishment at all.

"Take 1000 damage. Banish all cards in your hand (min. 1), then add 1 card from your Deck to your hand."  <--- just a possibility, tho.

Evidently, the greatest improvement in the card is the generic "add 1 card" vs "draw 1 card". This was on purpose, right? Being able to add any card in the entire game is extremely powerful, so the cost appears reasonable, I'm just not too sure if asking for the banish of the entire hand is too much. Honestly, I think I'd go for another limitation, such as not being able to activate/Summon the added card during the turn it is added, but that doesn't work too well in the brutal-fast environment of the game.

At any rate, the new effect deviates quite a bit from the original Pot of Greed, so it's hard to feel it's an actual re-balance. Somehow it feels a little like an entirely new Pot, a little tilted to the niche side, but interesting regardless :)

[Dokutah]

With changes this drastic, it is might as well a new card

Even if it did changed this way, i dont think it will balance it much, LP lost is a cheap cost, the banish is harsh but not exactly stopping you to banish the only brick you left behind in your hand.  Searching virtually any card is way to big of a payoff that the vacuum of -1 dont really matters IMO

[Tinkerer]

Heyo!  Welcome to YCM!  Thanks for starting a discussion topic; I think you posted in the correct area (we don't really have a dedicated "errata discussion" subsection).

Personally, I'm not sure that would really be a good change for PoG.  The change would make the card too far from its original state.  Part of the reason why it is a joke among players is because it is so simple and it does only 1 thing.  This feels very different and it doesn't really keep anything from the original other than technically moving a card from the deck to the hand.

Maybe I'm just an oldie, but I don't really want to see the classic card errata'd, even if it never comes of the F&L list.  It's just so iconic in its current form.

 

[o.22]

Thanks for all the great replies guys!

Yeah it does seem like an entirely different card doesn't it lmaoo.

I was trying to equate this bit of lore I found in the Yu-Gi-Oh wiki that I also heard YouTubers talk about in their videos on the card:
"According to the Master Guide, someone can put their hand inside the "Pot of Greed" and find something that will delight them, but the pot will explode once they take their hand out."

So from what I can glean, you get something you like but with a great cost. That's why I thought maybe the thing you like should be any card in your deck and the cost should be that you lose all other cards in your hand. But then I thought that this card would have no cost if this was the only card in your hand so I added the LP deduction.

This was just a fun idea, and I agree with you all that this would not make a lot of sense as a true balance to the card.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

On 2/6/2021 at 12:59 PM, o.22 said:

Thanks for all the great replies guys!

Yeah it does seem like an entirely different card doesn't it lmaoo.

I was trying to equate this bit of lore I found in the Yu-Gi-Oh wiki that I also heard YouTubers talk about in their videos on the card:
"According to the Master Guide, someone can put their hand inside the "Pot of Greed" and find something that will delight them, but the pot will explode once they take their hand out."

So from what I can glean, you get something you like but with a great cost. That's why I thought maybe the thing you like should be any card in your deck and the cost should be that you lose all other cards in your hand. But then I thought that this card would have no cost if this was the only card in your hand so I added the LP deduction.

This was just a fun idea, and I agree with you all that this would not make a lot of sense as a true balance to the card.

Hey O2

 

The main problem with pot of greed at the moment is there is no downside to using it in basically any deck. If you figure out how to keep it mostly intact but fix that, there's your errata

[Phantom Roxas]

On 2/6/2021 at 10:59 AM, o.22 said:

Thanks for all the great replies guys!

Yeah it does seem like an entirely different card doesn't it lmaoo.

I was trying to equate this bit of lore I found in the Yu-Gi-Oh wiki that I also heard YouTubers talk about in their videos on the card:
"According to the Master Guide, someone can put their hand inside the "Pot of Greed" and find something that will delight them, but the pot will explode once they take their hand out."

So from what I can glean, you get something you like but with a great cost. That's why I thought maybe the thing you like should be any card in your deck and the cost should be that you lose all other cards in your hand. But then I thought that this card would have no cost if this was the only card in your hand so I added the LP deduction.

This was just a fun idea, and I agree with you all that this would not make a lot of sense as a true balance to the card.

I would take "the pot will explode" to mean more that Pot of Greed itself is going to the Graveyard, not that you have to pay a higher cost.

As most people said, the effect is so radically different that it may as well be a new card. "You can only active 'Pot of Greed' once per turn" would fit closer to the usual balance these days, but that hardly answers the inherent problems with the card. Perhaps you could add having to reveal the cards. That may not be too much, but giving your opponent a head start on how to counter what you've drawn does undermine some of your advantage, so I'd consider it.

Hello and welcome to the site. I hope you enjoy your time here.

[The Nyx Avatar]

How about:

"Draw 2 cards. You cannot add other cards to your hand with card effects the turn you activate this card. You can only active 1 "Pot of Greed" once per turn."?

Still staying true to its old effect, while discouraging other cards that search, or even draw.

[~British Soul~]

I was thinking something along the lines of.

Pot of Greed
Spell
Draw 2 cards. You cannot add cards from the deck to your hand the turn you activate this card, also your opponent takes no damage for the rest of the turn. You can only activate 1 "Pot of Greed" per turn.

Like Nyx's, but at least your opponent gets another turn to potentially... boil you alive in oil so to speak.