yugioh A guide to making custom archetypes

[WhiteThunder777]

For ANY archetype most of the time you want 3 copies of whatever you have in your hand to make your plays for your custom archetype.  These include searchers and things that put stuff on the board, and let's not forget the Special summon from deck, which is incredibly powerful. 

You also want to take recycling into consideration which is getting back the resource(s) that were used up.  These include adding from the GY to the hand and Special summoning from the GY.  

Now here's the thing - people say that having a plan to play 1st and 2nd on a custom archetype is nothing to be ashamed of. Why do people play Kaijus - so they have a chance if they are forced to go 2nd.  And having BOTH going 1st and 2nd plays does NOT make an archetype broken.  

And that's a wrap folks - nothing new here, just a final conclusion to this lesson.  Happy designing custom cards.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Surge77754

[KH911]

Quote

For ANY archetype most of the time you want 3 copies of whatever you have in your hand to make your plays for your custom archetype.  These include searchers and things that put stuff on the board, and let's not forget the Special summon from deck, which is incredibly powerful. 

You also want to take recycling into consideration which is getting back the resource(s) that were used up.  These include adding from the GY to the hand and Special summoning from the GY.  

Now here's the thing - people say that having a plan to play 1st and 2nd on a custom archetype is nothing to be ashamed of. Why do people play Kaijus - so they have a chance if they are forced to go 2nd.  And having BOTH going 1st and 2nd plays does NOT make an archetype broken. 

While I agree that every deck should have some degree of recovery, search, etc. Each deck should focus mainly on one aspect - that's how different playstyles are developed. Control strategies primarily consist of interruption and removal, combo strategies are primarily searching and summoning, grind (for lack of a better term) strategies focus on recovering resources.

You can also have combinations of these, but it shouldn't do anything as effectively as a deck that focuses entirely on one thing. For example, midrange is a combination of combo and control, but it doesn't search and summon as much as combo strategies, and it doesn't have as much removal and interruption as control strategies.

The problem arises when a deck can do more than one these things without sacrificing power. For example, a combo deck that puts out as much interruption as a control deck and has as much recovery as a grind deck, is broken beyond belief. Meta decks tend to do exactly this, and it's the reason they become so dominant.

Of course, the 3 classes I described aren't the only playstyles. There's milling strategies, burn strategies, alternate win conditions, so on and so forth, but the same applies to these. A deck should either do one thing really well, or multiple things but not as good. A deck should never do more than one thing, and still do it as effectively as a deck that focuses on that one thing.

Edit: I thought I should give some examples of decks that do this and why they're problematic.

First, Kashtira can search and summon as much as any other combo deck, and it can also mill better than Runick (which is primarily a mill deck), and it has as much control as Subterrors, and Shangri-la also has protection, and Ariseheart is a GY floodgate and has high ATK. The fact Kashtira can do so many things without sacrificing power in any of them is what makes it so oppressive.

Tearlaments are also guilty of this: it's a combo deck, where you shuffle back the materials so they can be used again, Rulkallos and Kaleidoheart both revive for no cost, and on top of all that, Rulkallos and Kaleidoheart are both forms of disruption with high ATK. Tearlaments can do combo, control, AND recovery without sacrificing in any of those.

This one was never meta, but it's hated for the same reasons as the other 2. Runick is a mill strategy, with some control elements. If that was it, it would actually be fine. The problem is that they threw in the Runick Fountain, which makes it so Runick never runs out of resources, in addition to fusion monsters that are extremely easy to summon and protect the field spell. You see, Runick is toxic because Konami crossed the line and give it one too many things, just like Tearlaments and Kashtira.

Edited May 3, 2023 by KH911

[WhiteThunder777]

19 hours ago, KH911 said:

While I agree that every deck should have some degree of recovery, search, etc. Each deck should focus mainly on one aspect - that's how different playstyles are developed. Control strategies primarily consist of interruption and removal, combo strategies are primarily searching and summoning, grind (for lack of a better term) strategies focus on recovering resources.

You can also have combinations of these, but it shouldn't do anything as effectively as a deck that focuses entirely on one thing. For example, midrange is a combination of combo and control, but it doesn't search and summon as much as combo strategies, and it doesn't have as much removal and interruption as control strategies.

The problem arises when a deck can do more than one these things without sacrificing power. For example, a combo deck that puts out as much interruption as a control deck and has as much recovery as a grind deck, is broken beyond belief. Meta decks tend to do exactly this, and it's the reason they become so dominant.

Of course, the 3 classes I described aren't the only playstyles. There's milling strategies, burn strategies, alternate win conditions, so on and so forth, but the same applies to these. A deck should either do one thing really well, or multiple things but not as good. A deck should never do more than one thing, and still do it as effectively as a deck that focuses on that one thing.

Edit: I thought I should give some examples of decks that do this and why they're problematic.

First, Kashtira can search and summon as much as any other combo deck, and it can also mill better than Runick (which is primarily a mill deck), and it has as much control as Subterrors, and Shangri-la also has protection, and Ariseheart is a GY floodgate and has high ATK. The fact Kashtira can do so many things without sacrificing power in any of them is what makes it so oppressive.

Tearlaments are also guilty of this: it's a combo deck, where you shuffle back the materials so they can be used again, Rulkallos and Kaleidoheart both revive for no cost, and on top of all that, Rulkallos and Kaleidoheart are both forms of disruption with high ATK. Tearlaments can do combo, control, AND recovery without sacrificing in any of those.

This one was never meta, but it's hated for the same reasons as the other 2. Runick is a mill strategy, with some control elements. If that was it, it would actually be fine. The problem is that they threw in the Runick Fountain, which makes it so Runick never runs out of resources, in addition to fusion monsters that are extremely easy to summon and protect the field spell. You see, Runick is toxic because Konami crossed the line and give it one too many things, just like Tearlaments and Kashtira.

For burn based strategies, you do NOT want to make an FTK.  Look at Trickstar - it is the very first burn based archetype in the TCG.  Every card in the archetype focuses on slowly using Sparks (inflict 200 dmg) on the opponent.  If we were to look at the game as a whole - that would require 40 turns to cause an FTK which is very impossible to do.  Hence, one can say Trickstar is very reasonable in card design.  

When making customs, you do NOT want to copy the meta due to the aforementioned reasons that you said.  Copying the meta makes you no better than a toxic player who only designs cards to win.  

 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Surge77754

[WhiteThunder777]

On 5/2/2023 at 9:16 PM, KH911 said:

While I agree that every deck should have some degree of recovery, search, etc. Each deck should focus mainly on one aspect - that's how different playstyles are developed. Control strategies primarily consist of interruption and removal, combo strategies are primarily searching and summoning, grind (for lack of a better term) strategies focus on recovering resources.

You can also have combinations of these, but it shouldn't do anything as effectively as a deck that focuses entirely on one thing. For example, midrange is a combination of combo and control, but it doesn't search and summon as much as combo strategies, and it doesn't have as much removal and interruption as control strategies.

The problem arises when a deck can do more than one these things without sacrificing power. For example, a combo deck that puts out as much interruption as a control deck and has as much recovery as a grind deck, is broken beyond belief. Meta decks tend to do exactly this, and it's the reason they become so dominant.

Of course, the 3 classes I described aren't the only playstyles. There's milling strategies, burn strategies, alternate win conditions, so on and so forth, but the same applies to these. A deck should either do one thing really well, or multiple things but not as good. A deck should never do more than one thing, and still do it as effectively as a deck that focuses on that one thing.

Edit: I thought I should give some examples of decks that do this and why they're problematic.

First, Kashtira can search and summon as much as any other combo deck, and it can also mill better than Runick (which is primarily a mill deck), and it has as much control as Subterrors, and Shangri-la also has protection, and Ariseheart is a GY floodgate and has high ATK. The fact Kashtira can do so many things without sacrificing power in any of them is what makes it so oppressive.

Tearlaments are also guilty of this: it's a combo deck, where you shuffle back the materials so they can be used again, Rulkallos and Kaleidoheart both revive for no cost, and on top of all that, Rulkallos and Kaleidoheart are both forms of disruption with high ATK. Tearlaments can do combo, control, AND recovery without sacrificing in any of those.

This one was never meta, but it's hated for the same reasons as the other 2. Runick is a mill strategy, with some control elements. If that was it, it would actually be fine. The problem is that they threw in the Runick Fountain, which makes it so Runick never runs out of resources, in addition to fusion monsters that are extremely easy to summon and protect the field spell. You see, Runick is toxic because Konami crossed the line and give it one too many things, just like Tearlaments and Kashtira.

The main point of this post is to make an archetype that does one thing and one thing only otherwise you aren't any better than one who wants to show their toxicity to yugioh custom cards as a whole.

Sure one can brainstorm many ideas for an archetype, but you have to keep in mind your opponent has to play as well. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Surge77754

[WhiteThunder777]

Here's another idea - putting counters on the field.  Then you can look at Spellbooks, Venom, Alien as examples.  But the important thing you should ask yourself is what the significance of the counters is.  

If you are putting counters on the opponent's monsters, ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish by putting counters on the opponent's monsters. Keep in mind that this is a going 2nd strategy because you need to work with a set board to do so.  Once you have answered this, make the mechanic and have every card in the archetype utilize said mechanic.  

Regardless of idea, all archetypes should do one thing and one thing only.  

 

[WhiteThunder777]

On 5/2/2023 at 9:16 PM, KH911 said:

While I agree that every deck should have some degree of recovery, search, etc. Each deck should focus mainly on one aspect - that's how different playstyles are developed. Control strategies primarily consist of interruption and removal, combo strategies are primarily searching and summoning, grind (for lack of a better term) strategies focus on recovering resources.

You can also have combinations of these, but it shouldn't do anything as effectively as a deck that focuses entirely on one thing. For example, midrange is a combination of combo and control, but it doesn't search and summon as much as combo strategies, and it doesn't have as much removal and interruption as control strategies.

The problem arises when a deck can do more than one these things without sacrificing power. For example, a combo deck that puts out as much interruption as a control deck and has as much recovery as a grind deck, is broken beyond belief. Meta decks tend to do exactly this, and it's the reason they become so dominant.

Of course, the 3 classes I described aren't the only playstyles. There's milling strategies, burn strategies, alternate win conditions, so on and so forth, but the same applies to these. A deck should either do one thing really well, or multiple things but not as good. A deck should never do more than one thing, and still do it as effectively as a deck that focuses on that one thing.

Edit: I thought I should give some examples of decks that do this and why they're problematic.

First, Kashtira can search and summon as much as any other combo deck, and it can also mill better than Runick (which is primarily a mill deck), and it has as much control as Subterrors, and Shangri-la also has protection, and Ariseheart is a GY floodgate and has high ATK. The fact Kashtira can do so many things without sacrificing power in any of them is what makes it so oppressive.

Tearlaments are also guilty of this: it's a combo deck, where you shuffle back the materials so they can be used again, Rulkallos and Kaleidoheart both revive for no cost, and on top of all that, Rulkallos and Kaleidoheart are both forms of disruption with high ATK. Tearlaments can do combo, control, AND recovery without sacrificing in any of those.

This one was never meta, but it's hated for the same reasons as the other 2. Runick is a mill strategy, with some control elements. If that was it, it would actually be fine. The problem is that they threw in the Runick Fountain, which makes it so Runick never runs out of resources, in addition to fusion monsters that are extremely easy to summon and protect the field spell. You see, Runick is toxic because Konami crossed the line and give it one too many things, just like Tearlaments and Kashtira.

Exactly as you said, Kashtira's end board is very oppressive to the point where playing against it feels like a sucker punch.  

[WhiteThunder777]

The bottom line is that you want to avoid the TCG meta when making custom cards.  And also, archetypes should focus on one mechanic and stick with that mechanic (e.g. Union monsters with Level Manipulation that have Synchro Union monsters).  In the Synchro Union monster archetype, the main deck Unions work together with the Synchro Union to create something truly spectacular. 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2023 by Surge77754

[WhiteThunder777]

A lot of people on DuelingBook try to use archetypes that are designed to win to justify balanced custom cards.  This is a problem because if the opponent finds it one-sided, they are going to quit.

[Tanner Crumley]

 

 

[WhiteThunder777]

1 minute ago, Tanner Crumley said:

 

 

Hmm, this is better put in casual cards.  Here is where you make cards for competitive use.

[Tanner Crumley]

On 3/14/2024 at 4:20 PM, Surge77754 said:

Hmm, this is better put in casual cards.  Here is where you make cards for competitive use.

This is meta so many cards have the negative effect of having cards be banished and it can grab a solem or anything else you needs 

[WhiteThunder777]

8 hours ago, Tanner Crumley said:

This is meta so many cards have the negative effect of having cards be banished and it can grab a solem or anything else you needs 

Agreed ... but executing this card's effect requires timing.
Imperial Iron Wall and Artifact Lance are perfect counters to this card's effect!!

[WhiteThunder777]

So one other thing I have noticed in many custom card design is that people want to copy the yugioh TCG meta into their custom card design.  The is problematic because if you do this, you aren't showing originality, and people would rather play the original rather than your custom cards, and second of all , sometimes trying to beat the meta makes you as bad as the toxic TCG Meta.

 

[Tanner Crumley]

2 hours ago, Surge77754 said:

Agreed ... but executing this card's effect requires timing.
Imperial Iron Wall and Artifact Lance are perfect counters to this card's effect!!

Welll I’m making a whole banished archetype so that would be a problem

[Tanner Crumley]

I thought since flooanges were good other banish decks could to since there’s not that many I thought it would be cool

Edited March 19 by Tanner Crumley

[WhiteThunder777]

21 hours ago, Tanner Crumley said:

I thought since flooanges were good other banish decks could to since there’s not that many I thought it would be cool

Indeed ... making a banish based deck would be cool.  You can base it on flooanges but do not exactly copy it.

[WhiteThunder777]

Keep in mind that dueling book custom cards do not always need to be competitive.

Like I said before, copying the meta is not a good way to make custom cards.  

 

Edited March 23 by Surge77754

[Megamanric]

On 1/5/2022 at 9:01 AM, Surge77754 said:

Do NOT take card advantage as the enemy when designing customs.  Card advantage has always been a part of yugioh as a whole because yugioh is about getting the resources you need via searching and getting back your resource(s) that you've initially used up.  Draw 1 isn't as powerful as you think because the card that you drew may be a garnet/brick at best, as it is a +0 in card advantage at best. Hell, even searchers exist in custom archetypes for a reason - to get the stuff you need in that custom archetype. 

Keep in mind that baiting the opponent's handtrap does not make a custom archetype broken.  Baiting is one of the tactics used in yugioh - to falsely trick the opponent into wasting their handtrap.  

 

Also, a card cannot be to overpowered. For example, you can't just make a card with 8000 ATK/DEF, unaffected by spells and traps and can't be destroyed by battle

[EZ Speedzy]

If you’re starting to make an archetype, you should think about your deck strategy, your overall playstyle, and what the archetype is about (it can be something that represents you as a person), but you shouldn’t make your archetype too generic. All archetypes follow a certain playstyle and strategy, but some archetypes that I’ve played against follow basic strategies (like having high ATK points, negating cards, or decking your opponent out), but they all have unique playstyles (Like Sky Strikers, that only work if the player has no monsters in their Main Monster Zone, and basically use their Extra Monster Zone to win the game, and use cards that work when Sky Striker Spells are in the GY). To make an archetype, you should probably go for something unique while also following a certain strategy, but you don’t want to make your archetype so powerful it will be impossible to counter. Every archetype should have a weakness that way it will make the game more fun to play. Most archetypes have the same Monster Type and attribute, but depending in the archetype, you can have various monster types and attributes, as long as it makes sense with the archetype. Also, they should rely on many cards to play, not just one boss monster or one card that will start combos. It’s called a deck and archetype because you’re using multiple cards to win the game.

[WhiteThunder777]

15 minutes ago, EZ Speedzy said:

If you’re starting to make an archetype, you should think about your deck strategy, your overall playstyle, and what the archetype is about (it can be something that represents you as a person), but you shouldn’t make your archetype too generic. All archetypes follow a certain playstyle and strategy, but some archetypes that I’ve played against follow basic strategies (like having high ATK points, negating cards, or decking your opponent out), but they all have unique playstyles (Like Sky Strikers, that only work if the player has no monsters in their Main Monster Zone, and basically use their Extra Monster Zone to win the game, and use cards that work when Sky Striker Spells are in the GY). To make an archetype, you should probably go for something unique while also following a certain strategy, but you don’t want to make your archetype so powerful it will be impossible to counter. Every archetype should have a weakness that way it will make the game more fun to play. Most archetypes have the same Monster Type and attribute, but depending in the archetype, you can have various monster types and attributes, as long as it makes sense with the archetype. Also, they should rely on many cards to play, not just one boss monster or one card that will start combos. It’s called a deck and archetype because you’re using multiple cards to win the game.

Oh my gosh!! Thank you for telling me this!! thank you!!

[EZ Speedzy]

4 minutes ago, Surge77754 said:

Oh my gosh!! Thank you for telling me this!! thank you!!

No problem, fam!

[EZ Speedzy]

Also, I’d say it’s advisible to make cards that have different strategies in case one of them gets countered. It’s always nice to have a backup strategy, but don’t overcomplicate your archetype with too many strategies to the point where it makes it too OP. Again, not sure how many strategies should fit in an archetype, so I’m open to ideas.

[WhiteThunder777]

4 minutes ago, EZ Speedzy said:

Also, I’d say it’s advisible to make cards that have different strategies in case one of them gets countered. It’s always nice to have a backup strategy, but don’t overcomplicate your archetype with too many strategies to the point where it makes it too OP. Again, not sure how many strategies should fit in an archetype, so I’m open to ideas.

You make a good point.

[WhiteThunder777]

What makes a card generic? It can be put into any deck.  This makes it so that deck building is discouraged.  This has a lot to do with making yugioh custom cards because if the cards were generic, it would discourage from playing your own archetype, which has a game plan. 

To determine if the summoning requirements are generic or not, look at this.  This is one of the reasons why cards get hit on the banned like link 4 Bow of the Goddess.  Let X be the archetype name in question.

• 2 "X" monsters on a Link monster as materials is not generic.  You must have 2 "X" monsters on your field to summon the card.
• 1 "X" Tuner + 1 "X" non-Tuner on a Synchro monster is NOT generic.  You must have an archetypal tuner and an archetypal non-Tuner to summon the card. Same as 1 "X" Tuner + 1+ non-Tuner "X" monsters.

 

Here are some examples.  Here are just 2, but there are plenty more.

• Verte Anaconda was generic, but it could have been fixed if it said 2 "Predaplant" monsters - that way it would not have been abused in other decks.
• Linkuriboh got hit because of its generic requirement.  To fix this, it would have said 1 "Kuriboh" monster as the link materials.  

Let "X" be the archetype name and X1 be the number of materials required to summon the Link monster.

• A Link 1 that requires 1 non-Link "X" monster is NOT generic.  The pitfall here is you don't want to search out the field spell, but rather use it to further the mechanics of your archetype. 
• In the same manner a Link X1 monster that requires X1 "X" monsters as material is NOT generic. But do NOT make anything to break the game in general.  Don't make a "X" monster that is treated as 2 materials for the Link Summon of an "X" monster, that cheats and you don't want that.
• Special Condition for Links: If a ‘X’ monster you control is used as Link Material for a ‘X’ monster, you can also use this card in your hand as Link Material.” (e.g. Micro Coder)

Now we can do a similar manner to Fusion, Synchro, Xyz, and Ritual, but keep in mind, there will be a modification to the formula!!

Fusion Examples 

• Generic: 2 monsters with different Attributes 
• Archetypal:  2 ‘X’ monsters” or “1 ‘X’ monster + 1 monster with a different Attribute

Synchro Example 

• Generic: 1 Tuner + 1 or more non-Tuner monsters or 1 Tuner + 1+ non-Tuner monsters
• Archetypal: 1 "X" Tuner + 1 or more non-Tuner "X" monsters
• Special Condition: “1 Tuner + 1 or more non-Tuner monsters. For this card’s Synchro Summon, you can treat 1 ‘X’ monster you control as a Tuner.” For archetypal, do this, 1 "X" Tuner + 1 or more non-Tuner "X" monsters.  For this card's Synchro Summon, you can treat 1 'X' monster you control as a Tuner.  (Harpie Lady Synchro Level 8) 

Xyz Example 

• Generic: 2 Level 4 monsters OR 2+ Level 4 monsters
• Archetypal: 2 Level 4 "X" monsters OR 2+ Level 4 "X" monsters

Ritual Example 

• Generic: Any monsters whose total Levels equal 8.
• Archetypal: Any "X" monsters whose total Levels equal 8

Edited September 6 by WhiteThunder777

[EZ Speedzy]

2 hours ago, Surge77754 said:

What makes a card generic? It can be put into any deck.  This makes it so that deck building is discouraged.  This has a lot to do with making yugioh custom cards because if the cards were generic, it would discourage from playing your own archetype, which has a game plan. 

To determine if the summoning requirements are generic or not, look at this.  This is one of the reasons why cards get hit on the banned like link 4 Bow of the Goddess.  Let X be the archetype name in question.

• 2 "X" monsters on a Link monster as materials is not generic.  You must have 2 "X" monsters on your field to summon the card.
• 1 "X" Tuner + 1 "X" non-Tuner on a Synchro monster is NOT generic.  You must have an archetypal tuner and an archetypal non-Tuner to summon the card. Same as 1 "X" Tuner + 1+ non-Tuner "X" monsters.

 

Here are some examples.

• Verte Anaconda was generic, but it could have been fixed if it said 2 "Predaplant" monsters - that way it would not have been abused in other decks.
• Linkuriboh got hit because of its generic requirement.  To fix this, it would have said 1 "Kuriboh" monster as the link materials.  

Let "X" be the archetype name and X1 be the number of materials required to summon the Link monster.

• A Link 1 that requires 1 non-Link "X" monster is NOT generic.  The pitfall here is you don't want to search out the field spell, but rather use it to further the mechanics of your archetype. 
• In the same manner a Link X1 monster that requires X1 "X" monsters as material is NOT generic. But do NOT make anything to break the game in general.  Don't make a "X" monster that is treated as 2 materials for the Link Summon of an "X" monster, that cheats and you don't want that.
• Special Condition for Links: If a ‘X’ monster you control is used as Link Material for a ‘X’ monster, you can also use this card in your hand as Link Material.” (e.g. Micro Coder)

Now we can do a similar manner to Fusion, Synchro, Xyz, and Ritual, but keep in mind, there will be a modification to the formula!!

Fusion Examples 

• Generic: 2 monsters with different Attributes 
• Archetypal:  2 ‘X’ monsters” or “1 ‘X’ monster + 1 monster with a different Attribute

Synchro Example 

• Generic: 1 Tuner + 1 or more non-Tuner monsters or 1 Tuner + 1+ non-Tuner monsters
• Archetypal: 1 "X" Tuner + 1 or more non-Tuner "X" monsters
• Special Condition: “1 Tuner + 1 or more non-Tuner monsters. For this card’s Synchro Summon, you can treat 1 ‘X’ monster you control as a Tuner.” For archetypal, do this, 1 "X" Tuner + 1 or more non-Tuner "X" monsters.  For this card's Synchro Summon, you can treat 1 'X' monster you control as a Tuner.  (Harpie Lady Synchro Level 8) 

Xyz Example 

• Generic: 2 Level 4 monsters OR 2+ Level 4 monsters
• Archetypal: 2 Level 4 "X" monsters OR 2+ Level 4 "X" monsters

Ritual Example 

• Generic: Any monsters whose total Levels equal 8.
• Archetypal: Any "X" monsters whose total Levels equal 8

That’s a very good point! Thank you! I’ll think about this.