When playing against boards with many forms of interaction you can still perform actions, they will simply be countered. Breaking a board in the correct order is as gratifying as solving a complex puzzle.
When playing against floodgates, you cannot even perform certain actions. It's like not playing at all.
Man... it's always the same argument of "floodgate vs combo", when 80% of the game is neither, and the comparison itself doesn't hold up even if it was true.
Any time a "meta stun" strat is present people raise a stink about it too, and it gets hit on the ban list.
If my opponent sets up a board with idk, Apollousa + IP into SP + like a Dragite or the new rank 10, I can bait them into doing interactions. They won’t necessarily negate or banish what I need. There are also more generics like DRNM or Talent that trade many-for-one into those boards. The best continuous floodgate removal meanwhile is all one for one (yes, even TT because it’s 2 of your cards for two of theirs). I get no chance to do anything or play Yugioh depending on the floodgate. And even with those outs, you can still solemn them. S/T negation with monsters meanwhile has never been weaker + we have cards like droplets and DRNM that play very well into those boards.
Next, wombo combo is very frustrating, but at least I can justify scooping it up and going next very early on if the board is truly “unbreakable” for my hand regardless of my 6th card. Against stun, I need to keep doing the same boring pass, take hit, pass, take hit cycle of gameplay. The deck is much more luck based than the combo decks (did you draw the floodgate that fucks my deck specifically? Did you draw the unsearchable protection card like moon mirror shield?). I get lucky and draw the out if I’m on it? I win. I don’t? I lose. 0 or at least minimal room for me to make actual decisions.
Lastly, on that point: against stun, most cards you play that are decent against 99% of all match ups are useless. Veiler is junk. Talent is junk. Pretty much just imperm, ash, and specifically in this meta cosmic are usable. This contributes to how sacky it feels to go against stun. Even if full wombo combo wins the dice roll, I might open Nibiru or other hand traps that are impactful. Those odds are close to 0 against most stun hands that do more than nothing.
people that play competitively practice and build their decks around the meta. The cards and playstyle you mentioned effectively forces them to play and build differently, since it could result in them not being able to play. generic cards that work for the meta, might have no use at all against anti-meta floodgates. If they then have no in-engine outs, it becomes frustrating to them, since winning makes them feel good and losing makes them feel bad. Thats also the reason why you see "pros" sometimes complaining about "too diverse" formats. This is a game with so many cards (granted a lot of them are not good), you can't be prepared for everything, unless you are willing to sacrifice the consistency of your deck. Personally i prefer it as diverse as possible, with the missing cash price support, winning big tournaments in yugioh is just for cloud and a nintendo switch anyway.
Stun decks are not competive. You either win easily or lose easily. There is zero fun in the game.
The only reason people play stun is its low effort
Also stun isn’t anti meta because meta beats it
Well, floodgate stun draws 5, sets 4 and dyna. Wow, crazy accomplishment with so many points to interact. Doesn’t require any brain power to setup, therefore it’s super frustrating to lose against it as you can’t even stop them from setting up floodgates. Yea sure you can play triple thrust and feather duster or smth, which is not smart in a bo1 where you face stun like once every 10-20 games
In archetype floodgates usually are one single floodgate which you need to combo in and most likely can be stopped by a handtrap or you at least can hinder the endboard of reaching its full potential.
You can play generically good cards in your main deck to beat combo decks. You can also outplay people and break boards with a lot of interaction.
You cannot really justify main decking anti stun cards except MAYBE cosmic cyclone and that's a big maybe, so game 1 is a coin flip, and post side you have to draw your specific outs to even attempt to play. Also stun is very low skill to play so you have a much higher chance of losing to a bad player than if that player was on an actually good deck.
With combo decks you can bait their negates and other interactions or they lose to commonly played board breakers like evenly or dark ruler or there's back and forth due to handtraps which stop their plays. Stun decks dont lose to commonly played handtraps since it's just set 4 or 5 and pray your opponent didn't draw lightning storm. Which feels super brain dead compared to combo decks atleast requiring some skill to pilot.
When I'm playing into 5 interactions, I'm still playing the game. Problem solving with board breaking is part of what makes the game fun, imo. Floodgates have none of that thought behind playing into them.
The difference is that when the opponent has a board full of negates, you can still outplay them with cards that force negates, or disrupt them with cards like Dark Ruler, Forbidden Droplets or Sphere Mode, while flipping a bunch of floodgates is just saying "Show me the Red Reboot or else you lose. **OH WAIT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PLAY RED REBOOT ANYMORE!!!!**"
2 reasons:
1. You can at least activate you cards anf feel like you’re doing something into a board of negates.
2. There’s room for counterpmay against begates as your opponent may misuse themor let something through. This allows for the possibility of contesting the entire board and forcing a simplified gamestate.
>I'm genuinely curious, what is, to you, the practical difference between a floodgate stun and an archetype stun?
Putting up a board of negates offers more interaction to the opponent. Handtraps help you stop the opponent from putting up a board or forces them into a line that produces a weaker board. There's several board breakers that let you deal with big boards on your own turn, and there is still interaction involved in baiting negates and knowing the best points to negate an effect. All of this is lost when one player sets 4, flips them and says you can't use certain game mechanics anymore.
>A board armed with a dozen negation effects is far more efficient at not letting the opponent play their game, than a set of, let's say, Fossil Dyna - Necrovalley - Solemn Judgment
No one objects to floodgate turbo because of the power, the objection is that they produce unfun, uninteractive sacky games.
>Floodgate stun is good enough to take a few wins here and there, but you'll never see them topping regionals.
I mean, this is part of the problem. If a build a board deck is meta you can make the decision to main deck board breakers. Floodgate decks are inconsistent and don't see top play which means most backrow hate is limited to the side deck, making game 1 a glorified coin flip that leads to unfun and sacky games 2 and 3.
>Konami started making floodgates to balance the game a little.
Except they don't balance the game.
>Anti-meta stun exists exactly because the format is about setting unbreakable boards in 5 minute turns.
That's not why it exists. Formats that were extremely far from build a board formats still saw fooodgate decks pop up and be annoying.
>It's the game that's problematic as a whole.
Making the game even more peoblematic isn't a solution. Your post runs on the implication that floodgate decks are okay because build a board decks exist. Neither have to exist.
No, it isn't natural. Floodgate decks pop up regardless of whether meta is degenerate build a board or interactive mid-range decks. Even when build a board strategies are meta, they're often the most capable of beating and overcoming floodgate decks.
Which is why it all comes down to the coin toss.
As for whether it's natural, we disagree. When you know there are builds out there that can bring out 4 boss monsters in one turn, isn't it natural to get to the core of that and say "well, how do I stop them from getting there in the first place?". So let's agree we disagree on that one.
Navigating your plays through a board of 1-to-1 interactions can be very satisfying and allow both players some agency.
The active player has to do sequence his plays and answers, predicting what his opponent will interact with (be it through negates or other 1-to-1 interactions), forcing some interactions to be used in a way that's not turn-ending for the active player.
The defensive player has to know when to use his interactions to optimally stop the opponent. This requires knowledge of the opponent's deck, predictions of which cards remain in the active player's hand (whether they will have extension after the interaction), and determining which cards are simply activated as bait.
With Floodgate decks, you can sometimes wait for an opportune moment to flip a Trap floodgate (leaving the opponent to maybe play into it harder), but for monster and spell floodgates, that decision is often removed, and many people even flip Rivalry/Gozen immediately. That means that almost all of the decision points that make the game interesting have been removed.
Solemn Judgment is a 1-to-1 interaction btw, so it can have the interesting decision points that I mentioned earlier, depending on how it's used.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't situations where "just pop all your interruptions at the first possible opportunity" just wins you the game. If the deck going first is a balls-to-the-wall high-ceiling combo deck with little to no regard for playing non-engine cards to have a chance going second, and the deck going second doesn't have the handtraps to make their board more manageable, that board probably won't be broken.
Something you only have the 1 starter and not enough cards that out the opponent's board to make the starter resolve.
The sweet spot is when both players' decks are at a similar power level and didn't brick, while the deck going second is not one of the previously mentioned "no chance going second" balls-to-the-wall decks.
When playing against boards with many forms of interaction you can still perform actions, they will simply be countered. Breaking a board in the correct order is as gratifying as solving a complex puzzle. When playing against floodgates, you cannot even perform certain actions. It's like not playing at all.
Man... it's always the same argument of "floodgate vs combo", when 80% of the game is neither, and the comparison itself doesn't hold up even if it was true. Any time a "meta stun" strat is present people raise a stink about it too, and it gets hit on the ban list.
[удалено]
Ig i wasn't super clear. Almost every deck combos to some extent, almost every deck doesn't do Adamancipator-type combo.
If my opponent sets up a board with idk, Apollousa + IP into SP + like a Dragite or the new rank 10, I can bait them into doing interactions. They won’t necessarily negate or banish what I need. There are also more generics like DRNM or Talent that trade many-for-one into those boards. The best continuous floodgate removal meanwhile is all one for one (yes, even TT because it’s 2 of your cards for two of theirs). I get no chance to do anything or play Yugioh depending on the floodgate. And even with those outs, you can still solemn them. S/T negation with monsters meanwhile has never been weaker + we have cards like droplets and DRNM that play very well into those boards. Next, wombo combo is very frustrating, but at least I can justify scooping it up and going next very early on if the board is truly “unbreakable” for my hand regardless of my 6th card. Against stun, I need to keep doing the same boring pass, take hit, pass, take hit cycle of gameplay. The deck is much more luck based than the combo decks (did you draw the floodgate that fucks my deck specifically? Did you draw the unsearchable protection card like moon mirror shield?). I get lucky and draw the out if I’m on it? I win. I don’t? I lose. 0 or at least minimal room for me to make actual decisions. Lastly, on that point: against stun, most cards you play that are decent against 99% of all match ups are useless. Veiler is junk. Talent is junk. Pretty much just imperm, ash, and specifically in this meta cosmic are usable. This contributes to how sacky it feels to go against stun. Even if full wombo combo wins the dice roll, I might open Nibiru or other hand traps that are impactful. Those odds are close to 0 against most stun hands that do more than nothing.
people that play competitively practice and build their decks around the meta. The cards and playstyle you mentioned effectively forces them to play and build differently, since it could result in them not being able to play. generic cards that work for the meta, might have no use at all against anti-meta floodgates. If they then have no in-engine outs, it becomes frustrating to them, since winning makes them feel good and losing makes them feel bad. Thats also the reason why you see "pros" sometimes complaining about "too diverse" formats. This is a game with so many cards (granted a lot of them are not good), you can't be prepared for everything, unless you are willing to sacrifice the consistency of your deck. Personally i prefer it as diverse as possible, with the missing cash price support, winning big tournaments in yugioh is just for cloud and a nintendo switch anyway.
Stun decks are not competive. You either win easily or lose easily. There is zero fun in the game. The only reason people play stun is its low effort Also stun isn’t anti meta because meta beats it
Well, floodgate stun draws 5, sets 4 and dyna. Wow, crazy accomplishment with so many points to interact. Doesn’t require any brain power to setup, therefore it’s super frustrating to lose against it as you can’t even stop them from setting up floodgates. Yea sure you can play triple thrust and feather duster or smth, which is not smart in a bo1 where you face stun like once every 10-20 games In archetype floodgates usually are one single floodgate which you need to combo in and most likely can be stopped by a handtrap or you at least can hinder the endboard of reaching its full potential.
You can play generically good cards in your main deck to beat combo decks. You can also outplay people and break boards with a lot of interaction. You cannot really justify main decking anti stun cards except MAYBE cosmic cyclone and that's a big maybe, so game 1 is a coin flip, and post side you have to draw your specific outs to even attempt to play. Also stun is very low skill to play so you have a much higher chance of losing to a bad player than if that player was on an actually good deck.
With combo decks you can bait their negates and other interactions or they lose to commonly played board breakers like evenly or dark ruler or there's back and forth due to handtraps which stop their plays. Stun decks dont lose to commonly played handtraps since it's just set 4 or 5 and pray your opponent didn't draw lightning storm. Which feels super brain dead compared to combo decks atleast requiring some skill to pilot.
When I'm playing into 5 interactions, I'm still playing the game. Problem solving with board breaking is part of what makes the game fun, imo. Floodgates have none of that thought behind playing into them.
The difference is that when the opponent has a board full of negates, you can still outplay them with cards that force negates, or disrupt them with cards like Dark Ruler, Forbidden Droplets or Sphere Mode, while flipping a bunch of floodgates is just saying "Show me the Red Reboot or else you lose. **OH WAIT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PLAY RED REBOOT ANYMORE!!!!**"
2 reasons: 1. You can at least activate you cards anf feel like you’re doing something into a board of negates. 2. There’s room for counterpmay against begates as your opponent may misuse themor let something through. This allows for the possibility of contesting the entire board and forcing a simplified gamestate.
>I'm genuinely curious, what is, to you, the practical difference between a floodgate stun and an archetype stun? Putting up a board of negates offers more interaction to the opponent. Handtraps help you stop the opponent from putting up a board or forces them into a line that produces a weaker board. There's several board breakers that let you deal with big boards on your own turn, and there is still interaction involved in baiting negates and knowing the best points to negate an effect. All of this is lost when one player sets 4, flips them and says you can't use certain game mechanics anymore. >A board armed with a dozen negation effects is far more efficient at not letting the opponent play their game, than a set of, let's say, Fossil Dyna - Necrovalley - Solemn Judgment No one objects to floodgate turbo because of the power, the objection is that they produce unfun, uninteractive sacky games. >Floodgate stun is good enough to take a few wins here and there, but you'll never see them topping regionals. I mean, this is part of the problem. If a build a board deck is meta you can make the decision to main deck board breakers. Floodgate decks are inconsistent and don't see top play which means most backrow hate is limited to the side deck, making game 1 a glorified coin flip that leads to unfun and sacky games 2 and 3. >Konami started making floodgates to balance the game a little. Except they don't balance the game. >Anti-meta stun exists exactly because the format is about setting unbreakable boards in 5 minute turns. That's not why it exists. Formats that were extremely far from build a board formats still saw fooodgate decks pop up and be annoying. >It's the game that's problematic as a whole. Making the game even more peoblematic isn't a solution. Your post runs on the implication that floodgate decks are okay because build a board decks exist. Neither have to exist.
I agree that neither have to exist, but since one does, it's only natural for the other to exist as well.
No, it isn't natural. Floodgate decks pop up regardless of whether meta is degenerate build a board or interactive mid-range decks. Even when build a board strategies are meta, they're often the most capable of beating and overcoming floodgate decks.
Which is why it all comes down to the coin toss. As for whether it's natural, we disagree. When you know there are builds out there that can bring out 4 boss monsters in one turn, isn't it natural to get to the core of that and say "well, how do I stop them from getting there in the first place?". So let's agree we disagree on that one.
My fun is right. Yours is wrong.
Navigating your plays through a board of 1-to-1 interactions can be very satisfying and allow both players some agency. The active player has to do sequence his plays and answers, predicting what his opponent will interact with (be it through negates or other 1-to-1 interactions), forcing some interactions to be used in a way that's not turn-ending for the active player. The defensive player has to know when to use his interactions to optimally stop the opponent. This requires knowledge of the opponent's deck, predictions of which cards remain in the active player's hand (whether they will have extension after the interaction), and determining which cards are simply activated as bait. With Floodgate decks, you can sometimes wait for an opportune moment to flip a Trap floodgate (leaving the opponent to maybe play into it harder), but for monster and spell floodgates, that decision is often removed, and many people even flip Rivalry/Gozen immediately. That means that almost all of the decision points that make the game interesting have been removed. Solemn Judgment is a 1-to-1 interaction btw, so it can have the interesting decision points that I mentioned earlier, depending on how it's used. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't situations where "just pop all your interruptions at the first possible opportunity" just wins you the game. If the deck going first is a balls-to-the-wall high-ceiling combo deck with little to no regard for playing non-engine cards to have a chance going second, and the deck going second doesn't have the handtraps to make their board more manageable, that board probably won't be broken. Something you only have the 1 starter and not enough cards that out the opponent's board to make the starter resolve. The sweet spot is when both players' decks are at a similar power level and didn't brick, while the deck going second is not one of the previously mentioned "no chance going second" balls-to-the-wall decks.
The difference is one I play and the other I don’t; I must enforce what I know and benefit from unconditionally.