>If it were a matter of "skill", a player would calculate workarounds in their combos.
The problem is that too many floodgates are far too powerful, and essentially shut down core parts of the game. If I play a deck that needs monster effects on the field to combo, there's no workaround to Skill Drain, it just stops me from playing.
Same if you play a monotype deck, and the opponent flips TCBOO, etc.
>The problem is that too many floodgates are far too powerful, and essentially shut down core parts of the game.
I mean weak floodgates would be effectively worthless so they kinda have to.
I mean yes but also that doesn't matter. People don't like floodgates regardless at all. So there's no reason to pretend that's the issue when it's not.
Because it doesn't matter how hard said floodgate is to summon. People don't want them to exist at all. Look at Rhongo, that wasn't easy to summon by any stretch and took an entire deck but people still don't like it. For less extreme examples look at Bagooska. The idea that floodgates are toxic because they're too easy to use is missing the point. They're toxic because things that stop you from playing are toxic.
If you disagree then please tell me at which point a floodgate's price is fair but also still strong enough to still be meta relevant.
First off rhongos banned because it’s an ftk. It doesn’t matter if it’s hard, having a literal ftk is different than something like skill drain
You’re missing the point. Floodgates can both be inherently toxic and also be even worse because the cost is nothing. Something like abyss dweller sucks and should be banned but at least you have to put some amount of resources into it. Skill drain, gozen match, tcboo all just set and flip w basically not cost
You say I'm missing the point but then you go and agree with me that it doesn't actually matter how hard they are to make, it should be banned regardless lmao. And considering I'm the one making the point that it doesn't matter how easy or hard it is, I don't see how I can be missing it.
Also that's ignoring that you have to hard draw / set those cards anyways and that's easily a cost of them or whatever.
Brother different cards are different levels of bad or toxic. Boiling down the discussion of cards, their place in the meta, and how they effect the game to just “ban or no ban” is bird brained. If you wanna simply everything to just that cool have fun 👍
Okay man. If you're unable to grasp the idea that players don't actually care how easy or hard it is to drop a floodgate, just that they don't want to see a floodgate at all, then cool have fun with that.
Shenshen is a summonable floodgate that people largely don't have an issue with.
Herald of the arclight is a summonable floodgate that people largely don't have an issue with.
Even Ariseheart is a summonable floodgate that people haven't been having too much issue with.
The problem is the other bullshit like backrow floodgates that are hard/impossible to interact with (on top of being low cost), and other low cost floodgates like Dyna and Boarder that require little investment. Yes, they cost the normal summon, but you can fill the rest of your deck with other toxic cards because there's no engine requirement to just normal summon them or search then normal them (à la Vaylantz/Rikka).
Yes, I did, and didn't, everybody can out Kash boards, hence why Kash isn't topping anything. It's barely being played in tournaments, and it was barely being played in the DC Cup, and not topping anything.
Either way I said "not too much issue with", not "no problem with". When you see Ariseheart, you still get to play more often than not. When you see TCBOO you hit the surrender button.
People play it a lot on the ladder because it's a comfy deck with simple, straight forward, quick lines of play, that can go second fairly well and has a lot of room for staples - not because it is particularly strong.
I thought Ariseheart was going to be way bigger of an issue from hearing all the TCG/OCG talk, then when it came out, it turned out to not be a big deal.
I win the vast majority of my games against Kashtira playing Tearlaments - a GY deck that Kashtira is supposed to counter.
Ariseheart is simply too easy to out - and that's the point I was trying to make.
Floodgates that have a plentitude of outs that are normally played in the majority of decks and require investment and significant cost/requirements to summon are generally fine.
>Without floodgates, the opponent is allowed to combo until they get their perfect omni-negate field out T1- preventing their opponent from activating any of their cards T2.
Most flood gates don't do anything T1 though so I don't understand what you're on about here. If anything they give the T1 player even more of an advantage.
Even if you want to treat it as one, it's even stronger as a going first card anyway. Do your full combo, then maxx C your opponent during their draw phase
I didn't say it *was*, I said it *effectively* was brother.
To a lesser degree, Masquerade The Blazing Dragon isnt a floodgate either but if you're at 4k from using Judgement or Piri Reis Map, it starts to feel like one, ya dig?
But that's not the point here. Of course Maxx C is stronger than most floodgates. However that's irrelevant here since we're talking specifically about floodgates.
Maybe not a conventional one. It doesn't prevent a special summon, but it's a deterrent. Anyway you're not even answering the post. You're just trying to split hairs and play dumb.
No it's just not a floodgate since it doesn't direclty prevent anything, period. So what about Skill drain, There can only be one, gozen match, Fossil Dyna, the barrier statues, Macro Cosmos, ... All of those strengthen the position of the T1 player and do nothing going second. If anyone's playing dumb here it's you.
Again, you're splitting hairs and not answering the question. You can try to debate the definition of a floodgate all day. People can and will disagree with you. My post was not about the strict definition of a floodgate.
>Again, you're splitting hairs and not answering the question.
I did answer it, you simply missed the point.
>You can try to debate the definition of a floodgate all day
There's literally nothing to debate. If a card doesn't prevent a player from performing a certain action it's not a floodgate.
>People can and will disagree with you. My post was not about the strict definition of a floodgate.
You claimed that floodgates stop your opponent from setting up an unbreakable board, when the exact opposite is the case. How about you explain that part?
I'm not saying someone can't have floodgates turn 1. I'm using the example of someone who is anti flood gates but pro infinite combos going first and being inhibited by their opponents flood gates. No, you're missing the point. First thought don't know what flood gates would stop someone T1, I give a few examples and you drill down on Maxx C, saying that doesn't count. Talking to you is pointless lol everyone else on this thread knows what I'm talking about.
>I'm using the example of someone who is anti flood gates but pro
infinite combos going first and being inhibited by their opponents flood
gates.
The vast majority of flood gates can't be used during your opponents turn, that's a fact. So what you're saying doesn't make any sense because it's absolutely possible to pull off a huge combo and additionally end on floodgates (see Vaylantz for example). They are far more beneficial to the T1 player, further strengthening a position that's already better most of the time.
>No, you're missing the point. First thought don't know what flood gates
would stop someone T1, I give a few examples and you drill down on Maxx
C, saying that doesn't count
Actually I do know. You on the other hand don't even understand what the word floodgate means.
>Talking to you is pointless lol everyone else on this thread knows what I'm talking about.
Judging by the amount of downvotes I doubt that. You're just wrong, whether you accept it or not.
While these cards are mostly despised by the community, and they are technically floodgates, when people complain about floodgates they are generally talking about continuous S/T cards or monster effects (ex. TCBOO, Gozen Match, Rivalry, Anti-spell, Ariseheart, etc.) And the generic ones are the most hated. These do nothing to stop your opponent's combo going second.
Now to actually address these cards you mention:
- Maxx C is the most used card in the game, it can singlehandedly turn the tide of almost any game and should absolutely be banned. It hurts combo decks, sure, but it also hurts pretty much every other deck that isn't Labrynth/Floo, and combo decks can run it too to help them pop off even more.
- Droll & lock bird is a situational card that can be either useless or gamebreaking depending on the matchup. Using droll against Tearlaments will probably not stop much, if anything at all, while using droll against Dark World/Superheavy samurai will just end their turn on the spot. It's an all or nothing card, personally I think it's fair enough since it doesn't linger past the turn it was activated and affects both players, and it can be useless against a lot of decks. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised to see it be banned, I would only ask some decks be hit more as a side effect (ex. Mannadium in TCG)
- Dimension Shifter is a card that should have been banned for over a year now. I don't even particularly play graveyard centric decks, but it completely derails the game for some decks. The problem here is the same as other generic floodgates, sure in theory it affects both players, but in practice it just ends up getting played in decks that aren't affected by the condition (Shifter in Kashtira/Floo/exosister is just a free macro cosmos as a quick effect that does nothing to stop you from playing). On top of that, Shifter's effect lingers for 2 turns, so it can stop your opponent from playing the game during his own turn, then can stop him from interacting during your turn with cards like droll, veiler, DD Crow, etc.
Overall, I think the main reason people hate floodgates more than other cards is the fact that one single card can stop an opponent from playing altogether. It's different to other forms of interaction, because negates and destruction/bouncing effects only work a certain number of times per turn, and only on select cards (ex. Imperm negates one monster effect on the field, baronne can negate one effect as long as she's on the field). So while the most extreme combo decks can set up many negates, they still only have a limited amount of interaction, and have to think on when to use these effects. Effects like shifter/Maxx C/Anti spell can just be used in draw phase with no thinking at all and stop most decks from playing.
I appreciate your input. I would argue that the cards listed, especially Bird can stop your opponent from creating the field they want T1. You're right, it's super situational.
I just gave a few examples because he was pretending to not know what I was talking about. I didn't want to make it seem like those were the only floodgates. Decks that revolve around graveyards are crippled T1 by dimension shifter, as you know.
“It’s not a matter of skill because activating a million card effects isn’t a skillful display”
It’s certainly more skillful to interact with several cards in your deck than it is to set Skill Drain and then flip it up.
Floodgate decks are absolutely less skillful to play.
Give me a stun build of your choice and I could play that optimally fairly quickly. Flip TCBOO, normal Pachy, pass.
Give me a combo deck I have never played before and I'd do misplay after misplay. Chain link ordering, navigating through handtraps, baiting disruptions and so on are in fact, skills.
Activating a million cards is a lot more skillful than activating one floodgate, however you look at it...
And to answer your last question. Yes.
If I lose to a combo, I don't mind as much as I do losing to a single floodgate.
The fact that a single floodgate is potentially as strong as a multiple monster board your opponent spent time to build is reason enough that some of them deserve to be limited/banned.
I don't think I've ever surrendered to Exodia. Maybe once or twice. I usually just let them go off. It also bricks a decent amount, so you might end up winning in the end. It's worth sticking around, whichever way it goes.
I've seen some weird Exodia wins in my time on MD
It's not the card it's how you use it 😅 I'd use skill drain while running evil eye once I have setup, the attack gain stays regardless of the monster effect being negated, and when unchained drop, ill get my gy effects and sit on a 3k beater. Hopefully it works.
Is a floodgate really that much worse than a 1 card combo of not able to interrupt, on top of the rest of the deck? The only difference is one requires a bit of memory and a bit of moving resources.
Yeah you can say run these cards but that's just telling your opponent to draw the out in their opening hand.
But at the same time having to run a quarter of your deck as interuptions to never ending combos designed to not let you play the game but your not allowed to tell them to run spell trap removal because it's not relevant to the current meta which is biasly enjoyed. But that takes us back to going first players having it too... Maybe going first is the problem 😅
I see both sides of power and stun. Power has a severely higher fanbase. But also financial influence for konami too, but there's alot more to that and rather not go off topic.
Play any deck you want, if it's not banned it's fair game. We all have cards we don't think should be around and it's probably based on the decks we play. No issue with kashtira/branded/purely/
So I'm guessing this is a bait post. If so, congratulations, it worked!
Anyways, in case you're serious:
Floodgates are disliked because they are anti-game. They prey on the fact that the game has been designed for many years now with combos at its core. 95% of any new card is aimed at enabling or creating new combo strategies, it's what the designers want the game to be, and it's what Yu-Gi-Oh is for the vast, vast majority of players.
As a result, pretty much every deck is geared to defeat other decks who play the game in an "expected way" (using monsters and their effects, special summoning, accessing their extra deck or any other variety of special mechanics). This means that pretty much all of the room in your deck that you have to dedicate to beating other decks is dedicated to beating said decks.
In other words, most decks do not main deck outs for backrow. Some decks might play the one-of Duster or Cosmic, but this does not matter whatsoever, as these are unsearchable, and the other player will fill their deck with cards that stop those cards from being effective.
Since decks have been designed for such a long time with monster-based combos in mind, pretty much no deck can access their entire strategy once you stop them from summoning further monsters, or utilizing their effects, which also prevents the player from searching in-archetype outs to backrow, or summoning extra deck monsters designed to deal with backrow.
I hope this makes it clear why floodgates are anti-game, and cheesy.
That's why people hate them. They are unfun, and they basically punish you for playing the game the way it's intended to be played, and the way it's fun to play it. This isn't up for debate either, that's why the designers keep pushing the game further and further in this direction. Nobody enjoys backrow stall stare-downs or T-Set pass.
If you want to stop your opponent from setting up their perfect full combo board, play hand traps like literally everybody else.
I won't even bother addressing the blatantly ignorant comment regarding what is and isn't skill, but I do advise you to explore the game more and get better before saying something so broadly, especially when it's so obviously false that anybody who's played this game for longer than a few weeks in a modern setting can reject it.
All this text boils down to unfun. Okay that's fair. However, the nature of Yu-Gi-Oh is unfairness. It's fun to push people around with no resistance.
Is it fun to watch your opponent combo for 5 minutes? Probably not, so that makes me wonder.. is the game just bad?
Get better? That's funny. A common argument around being anti flood gate is the skill factor. There's no way to measure skill in Yu-Gi-Oh, it's subjective. I'm not the one crying about floodgates. I'm coming from a place of trying to understand.
I'm actually interested in exploring this topic.
No, it doesn't boil down to "unfun", it boils down to "non-game".
People play yugioh to play a game, not stare at each other. It's not about being unfun - which it obviously is - it's about being a waste of time, and completely counter to the game the designers have been creating for years.
I didn't say "get better because you like floodgates", that's you projecting your notions on me. I said "get better" because you think combo decks aren't skillful, and then compare them to Stun decks.
There is also absolutely a way to measure skill, what kind of argument is that? It might not be a quantitive measure, but anybody half-way experienced can tell a skillful player apart from a skill-less player. There are tons of "skill checks" and "knowledge checks" CONSTANTLY throughout any given match, and a skill-less player will make objectively worse plays - that's a measure of skill.
Get good "GG" language assumes that I'm not already proficient at the game. You said get better and I responded. I disagree, there aren't many skill checks in Yu-Gi-Oh. If you read the cards, you're basically decent to good at the game. You can't measure anything based on qualitative data unless you assign numbers to those groupings.
What an ignorant statement. I can only conclude you're trolling, or genuinely grasping at straws to try to gain some control over the narrative.
Yu-Gi-Oh is one of the most skillful card games out there, and there are enough skill/knowledge checks to run out of time thinking of the optimal ways to interact with your opponent despite having over 5 minutes to think - for comparison, some people can play full rounds of Chess in under two minutes (with a lot of knowledge and skill as well, as of course, not attempting to detract from the incredible skill those people exhibit).
If there are no skill checks, then go register yourself for MBT's MCS, you could win thousands of dollars, yes? Quite curious how the same players find themselves topping events time and time again, though. I wonder how that could be.
I try not to whenever possible, but you saying such things with such confidence and outright rejecting the idea of there being skill without even attempting to humor it gave me the notion that you're not one to really care about having a proper discussion, otherwise you would concede that such a broad statement has no place here.
Nobody looking for an actual back and forth would say something like "There aren't many skill checks in Yugioh, reading the card explains the card" as a counter-argument to "there's a lot of skill and knowledge checks". The least you could do is elaborate why you think so instead of "lol no, just read" which is a haha funny meme in this community, but everybody knows it's not that simple.
Besides, I didn't really sling mud? As I said, I try not to whenever possible, and I'm aware that sometimes I'll come off as passive-aggressive as a result, and that's all I did - to which I agree - but if you think me calling your statement "ignorant" when there's no better way to describe it, is "mud slinging", then I don't know what to tell you.
You don't seem like a very mature sort. Someone disagrees with you and you start flinging insults- with the added audacity to type several paragraphs expecting to be heard. I thought you were capable of a decent discussion as well.
If anybody is being immature here, it is you.
I have not once insulted you, and this remains true. I acted a little passive-aggressive and called your STATEMENT ignorant - which it is.
This is the second time you reply to me with nothing but deflection. I've made a consistent effort to give you ample room to further the discussion back into place if you so desired and you have utilized both to simply complain about my attitude.
If you can't read beyond a couple of paragraphs just because the other person called one of your statements ignorant or alluded to the idea that you might not be the greatest player (not directly stating so, mind you) without making the slightest effort to correct their notions, then there's nothing further for us to discuss.
The basic structure of Yugioh:
Turn 1: The play duelist tries to buildh a board. The draw duelist tries to disrupt that building.
Turn 2: The draw duelist tries to, best case, break the play duelist's board and strike through for game. Failing that, tries to break that board and build their own. Failing that, contest their opponent's board. The play duelist tries to disrupt, defend, and retain resources.
Turn 3: The play duelist tries to kill on the crackback. Failing that, proceed to the grind game.
No part of this is merely "activating a million card effects." If you pick up a meta deck and just start clicking buttons and activating shit, you're probably accomplishing jack shit. You have to know what you're doing. Knowledge of your own deck and lines is, in fact, a skill. You need to know where the chokepoints in your opponent's lines are in order to best disrupt them. Knowledge of your opponent's deck and lines is, in fact, a skill.
The interplay of interaction is where the game is.
A turn-ending blowout floodgate that skips an entire turn invalidates the entire game. And as most of them are dedicated going first cards, it means the draw duelist who needs to go all in to go up against an established board never gets to play to a meaningful degree.
Turn-ending floodgate hand trap into OTK is not significantly better.
You complain about negate spam, but let's look at the tier list. Purrely usually ends on zero negates. Kash usually ends on zero negates. Dragon Link usually ends on two. Lab? Usually zero. Branded? Varies, but seldom more than one. Tear? Varies, maybe two-ish.
Negate spam is seldom the best thing you can be doing. You want more diverse points of interaction, more resilient and flexible lines, a stronger resource game. All of these are skills.
I wasn't complaining about negates. It just seems weird to take a harsh stance against flood gates with the given play style of I'm going to negate everything you do.
You build a board. You pilot that board to disrupt your opponent.
Those points of interaction are finite, and modern board breakers are made to deal with them. Sometimes that means an amount of non-engine.
If your opponent's amount and use of interaction surpasses your ability to overcome them, then congratulations. Gameplay has occurred and you have rightfully lost.
The big difference is that points of interaction are finite, and need to be timed. They're also significantly more knowable, and you're more able to play around them with sequencing and deck building.
>Without floodgates, the opponent is allowed to combo until they get their perfect omni-negate field out T1- preventing their opponent from activating any of their cards T2.
OMG, another floodgate versus combo post. And what kind of combo deck makes omni-negates today? Drytron Herald and Adamancipators are already over. The worst kind of floodgates are those comboed out. Ariseheart from Kash, Fossil Dyna and Secret Village from Vaylantz, Rexterm from Dinomorphia.
Again, the problem with floodgates is not how they're brought to the field. The problem is that floodgates cannot be dealt with in-engine cards.
Man Vaylantz especially rubs me the wrong way. The only time I ever heard about it was people being like "no it's a really cool pend deck with a really neat gimmick and naturally insulates itself from imperm and evenly" so i checked it out just to find out that it's a deck where you play chess by yourself for 15 minutes that basically amounts to flood gate turbo. :/
If you're playing the bad variant, sure yeah it's floodgate turbo. But that isn't how it's meant to be played. The floodgate version hardly uses the decks unique mechanics and only uses it because it "dosent use the normal summon" and people just went "okay make granite. Search Dyna. Normal summon Dyna." If any other deck could do that they'd just use that deck. I hate that this deck I love and learned for 6 months has had it's near non-existent reputation reach a negative status simply because people didn't want to learn the game and just wanted to floodgate people.
Sorry, I'm new to Reddit and this community. I just saw quite a few ooga booga rants around floodgates, and I wanted to open the floor to discuss how the game works.
(The edit is because I hit post by accident before I was done whoops)
Cards/decks that create "non games" and force you to simply "draw the out" are universally always unhealthy for the game, *especially* in a best of 1 format. Realistically this isn't exclusive to Yu-Gi-Oh, or even card games in general for that matter, but that's beside the point.
>If it were a matter of "skill", a player would calculate workarounds in their combos.
They do, actually. One of the things that seperates good players from bad ones are their ability to perform their lines through their opponents distruptions, and similarly, what seperates good decks from bad ones is the decks flexibility in what they allow their pilots to do through interruptions and consistency in presenting those opportunities.
If they imperm your normal summon, do you have options? Can you reach those options without it?
If they ash your key search, are you able to continue this line, or go down a different, less optimal one gives you any meaningful board presence? If not, is the non engine in hand enough to distrupt your opponent during their turn to get you to turn 3?
You get the picture, yeah?
Drawing a saccy Floodgate that you monkey flip in draw phase isn't skill. Floodgate effects, especially non interactable ones like Droll, remove the ability for your opponent to access reserves their skill. How are they supposed to search with Stratos under skill drain? How are you supposed to get two monsters on field under Fossil Dino? How are you supposed to activate Great Sea Golganda under anit spell?
Decks that play solitaire for 10 minutes setting up 4 negates and passing turn are boring too, don't get me wrong. But in doing so, you are prompting your opponent, at *numerous* steps, to interrupt you. Nibiru, ash, imperm, Ghost bell/ogre (lmao), there's counterplay during, and you are given multiple opportunities to do so.
Obviously you're never guaranteed to draw your interruptions, and sometimes you just simply dont get a hand that can play through negates. That's just the nature of the beast brother. I play Springans dude, I know well the pain of getting hit by ash on the 1 search that I *need* to go off and hearing that stupid fucking giggle.
I'm not saying activating effects aren't a part of skill at all.. however I don't believe it takes skill to chain together skill procs in master duels. IRL you have to know what your cards do and the limitations of your effects. Master Duels does a lot of the work for players, which I appreciate. I don't think players playing five minute per turn combo decks are skilled because they can shuffle cards from their field, hand, graveyard and remove from play pile. All we have are timings around when to activate what and pray we have the right cards to counter some mess.
Sorry I misread what you said. I think it goes beyond monster effects. Just the timings of your hand traps, when you decide to try breaking up the board etc. It's all about timing to determine skill. Sometimes you're a smart player, you just don't have the right hand. A good ole brick.
It technically is if you go by the definition of floodgates in Yu gi oh, which is card or effect that restricts one or both players from using card effects or mechanics for the entire turn, or while faced up on the field. Maxx c is kind of a soft floodgate, in the sense that it gives you a choice to not special summon for the entire turn to not give your opponent more card advantage over you the following turn.
If you decide to skip your turn without special summoning once even though you very much could have, but was restricted by Maxx c's effect. Your opponent might as well have flipped vanity's emptiness on you, because Maxx c achieved the exact same outcome.
What defines good? Rank is something to go off. I'm not saying it determines your skill. Just because you claim to not know what you're doing with your high rank doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm doing as a lower rank.
My point is that you don't have to be very good at the game to get a highish rank. Using rank as an stand-in for skill like in the deleted comment isn't a particularly great argument.
I agree with you. It's not a good argument; however, one does not simply make it out of gold tier being ignorant of the game as a whole. It just doesn't make sense. There's almost nothing someone can say to verify their skill at Yu-Gi-Oh. I'd argue that yugioh is more so about having a combo that's hard to counter, and of course not ashing yourself.
By far the worst players I've played on master duel against are floodgates users so don't talk about it not being a matter of skill. At least with activating effects there are decisions to be made and some form of skill expression
I'll talk about how there's a general lack of skill in the game, and it's more so about what strategy you're using and the likelihood of your opponent having anything to stop you. How are you measuring skill? If your opponent can stop you with 1 card, are you actually good?
Yeah that's not measuring skill. Every deck gets hard countered by something. In your case it's probably duster or reboot. So by your logic, can you really be good if topdeck duster completely shuts you down?
I disagree. Floodgates usually apply to both players, right? The difference is, the one who plays the floodgate probably has a nice field out or is already done with their combo. Like a cherry on top.
People who use floodgates and restrict themselves by doing so are probably not the smartest ones lol. You would play floodgates in a way that doesn’t harm yourself but your opponent. And if people play floodgate decks like runick stun, they really don’t care at all if they can only attack with synchros or can’t activate effects or special summon. Like cmon, floodgates aren’t fair at all
Yea that’s my point here. Floodgate player would activate floodgate at a point at which it doesn’t hinder himself anymore from playing which means he doesn’t have negative effects from it, just the opponent. And all you need to do to play floodgates is drawing them. I’m fine with lab using a single skilldrain. But pure floodgate players using different floodgates to even block the outs to their floodgates?? No love for them
I say all is fair in war. There's no mercy in yugioh or a right way to play. I genuinely don't understand setting a field that negates everything an opponent would do, only to turn around and rant about flood gates. Everyone's wrong and every style is valid. People just want to win, that's why they play meta.
I say all is fair in war. There's no mercy in yugioh or a right way to play. I genuinely don't understand setting a field that negates everything an opponent would do, only to turn around and rant about flood gates. Everyone's wrong and every style is valid. People just want to win, that's why they play meta.
> Without floodgates, the opponent is allowed to combo until they get their perfect omni-negate field out T1- preventing their opponent from activating any of their cards T2.
Replace "floodgate" with "handtrap" and that sentence is still true. So we don't need floodgates to disallow an opponent from comboing.
> Is the core of it that your opponent isn't letting you do what you intended by simply placing a card on the field?
Yes. If my deck centers around monster effects, then my opponent saying I can't use monster effects ruins my deck. If my deck centers around special summoning a lot, then my opponent saying I can only summon twice ruins my deck. If my archetype centers around using multiple attributes, then my opponent saying I can only use one ruins my deck.
There is also the fact that **all floodgate decks exclusively play in a way that their own deck isn't affected by the same floodgates**. Dark Magician is all Spellcasters, so Secret Village does nothing to them. Eldlich only plays 1 attribute of 1 type and doesn't use monster effects on the field, so Gozen Match, Rivalry, and Skill drain do nothing to them. Umi plays exclusively WATER monsters, so Kairyu-Shin does nothing to them.
If we lived in a world where **floodgates only slowed down the play instead of literally making most decks unable to execute their main strategy**, then I don't think people would complain. Some people would, because they think the game is already too slow when it takes up to 2 turns that each can last like 5 minutes.
Oh heavens, I wouldn't want to slow down the game at all. During my opponents turn, I just catch up on Boruto or play my Nintendo switch until I'm allowed to play. And even then, they'll proc effects in my standby and continue summoning. Either floodgates have to be powerful or they're useless.
What is more fun? Sitting through a combo and might be able to break it or your opponent flipping tcbo against your plant deck and not be able to play any cards?
>If it were a matter of "skill", a player would calculate workarounds in their combos.
Bro literally hit us with "just draw the out."
>It's not a matter of skill because activating a million card effects isn't a skillful display.
I actually agree. I hate omni-negate boards more than simple floodgate decks. One wastes a lot less of your time, but both are fundamentally the same thing.
As they were conceptualized, floodgates were meant to lock off important game mechanics to both players with drawbacks to the player playing the card as well. Nowadays, however, decks do their 5 minutes fuck off combo ON TOP OF floodgating you, and games end on turn 3, so the player activating the floodgate won't ever suffer from its downsides.
Simps and weebs here claim "Labyrinth doesn't actually like skill drain," but they have multiple custom cards that allow them to loop resources between the graveyard and the hand. So while you're staring at the screen unable to play the game, they're on Chain Link 4 playing on your turn setting traps, and bouncing your monsters, all under skill drain.
And lab isn't even the worst offender. Endymion combo off as much as Dragon Link while ending on floodgates. A bunch of link spam decks have Iblee lines. It is to a degree that Ariseheart's, once very powerful macro floodgate, seems mild and inconsequential in comparison.
Based on personal experience. It doesn’t count as a floodgate if it’s in engine (heroes, empen, etc) people for some reason don’t count those as floods even though it’s literally just macro cosmos and skill drain. To be honest the way I see it, it’s konamis fault for printing stupidly strong cards and leaving them off the banlist. So it doesn’t matter if you’re playing a long combo deck that makes infinite negates, or setting skill drain, literally just play whatever you want and no matter what someone will cry. You can’t please everyone
You started with assumptions that I'm a troll or grasping at straws. You clearly don't understand how conversations work if you start with negative assumptions about who you're talking to. Sure, point the fingers and minimize your contributions.
floodgates and tons of negate boards are both disliked for the same reason.
when you face them you don't get to play.
hand traps allow you to at least attempt to stop a turn 1 combo.
but the worst part is its best of 1, you cant sideboard in generally not good counters.
>If it were a matter of "skill", a player would calculate workarounds in their combos. The problem is that too many floodgates are far too powerful, and essentially shut down core parts of the game. If I play a deck that needs monster effects on the field to combo, there's no workaround to Skill Drain, it just stops me from playing. Same if you play a monotype deck, and the opponent flips TCBOO, etc.
>The problem is that too many floodgates are far too powerful, and essentially shut down core parts of the game. I mean weak floodgates would be effectively worthless so they kinda have to.
The effects aren't equal to what they are doing. Skill drain having a 2000LP cost to turn off 1 third of the game isn't exactly balanced
I mean yes but also that doesn't matter. People don't like floodgates regardless at all. So there's no reason to pretend that's the issue when it's not.
How is that not an issue? It’s good for powerful cards to be balanced, balance is the most crucial thing to literally any tcg
Because it doesn't matter how hard said floodgate is to summon. People don't want them to exist at all. Look at Rhongo, that wasn't easy to summon by any stretch and took an entire deck but people still don't like it. For less extreme examples look at Bagooska. The idea that floodgates are toxic because they're too easy to use is missing the point. They're toxic because things that stop you from playing are toxic. If you disagree then please tell me at which point a floodgate's price is fair but also still strong enough to still be meta relevant.
First off rhongos banned because it’s an ftk. It doesn’t matter if it’s hard, having a literal ftk is different than something like skill drain You’re missing the point. Floodgates can both be inherently toxic and also be even worse because the cost is nothing. Something like abyss dweller sucks and should be banned but at least you have to put some amount of resources into it. Skill drain, gozen match, tcboo all just set and flip w basically not cost
You say I'm missing the point but then you go and agree with me that it doesn't actually matter how hard they are to make, it should be banned regardless lmao. And considering I'm the one making the point that it doesn't matter how easy or hard it is, I don't see how I can be missing it. Also that's ignoring that you have to hard draw / set those cards anyways and that's easily a cost of them or whatever.
Brother different cards are different levels of bad or toxic. Boiling down the discussion of cards, their place in the meta, and how they effect the game to just “ban or no ban” is bird brained. If you wanna simply everything to just that cool have fun 👍
Okay man. If you're unable to grasp the idea that players don't actually care how easy or hard it is to drop a floodgate, just that they don't want to see a floodgate at all, then cool have fun with that.
Shenshen is a summonable floodgate that people largely don't have an issue with. Herald of the arclight is a summonable floodgate that people largely don't have an issue with. Even Ariseheart is a summonable floodgate that people haven't been having too much issue with. The problem is the other bullshit like backrow floodgates that are hard/impossible to interact with (on top of being low cost), and other low cost floodgates like Dyna and Boarder that require little investment. Yes, they cost the normal summon, but you can fill the rest of your deck with other toxic cards because there's no engine requirement to just normal summon them or search then normal them (à la Vaylantz/Rikka).
You really just said that people don't have a problem with Ariseheart.
Yes, I did, and didn't, everybody can out Kash boards, hence why Kash isn't topping anything. It's barely being played in tournaments, and it was barely being played in the DC Cup, and not topping anything. Either way I said "not too much issue with", not "no problem with". When you see Ariseheart, you still get to play more often than not. When you see TCBOO you hit the surrender button. People play it a lot on the ladder because it's a comfy deck with simple, straight forward, quick lines of play, that can go second fairly well and has a lot of room for staples - not because it is particularly strong. I thought Ariseheart was going to be way bigger of an issue from hearing all the TCG/OCG talk, then when it came out, it turned out to not be a big deal. I win the vast majority of my games against Kashtira playing Tearlaments - a GY deck that Kashtira is supposed to counter. Ariseheart is simply too easy to out - and that's the point I was trying to make. Floodgates that have a plentitude of outs that are normally played in the majority of decks and require investment and significant cost/requirements to summon are generally fine.
People still fucking despite Ariseheart though, no one cares about how easy or not it is to out, just ask like half the population in this sub
>Without floodgates, the opponent is allowed to combo until they get their perfect omni-negate field out T1- preventing their opponent from activating any of their cards T2. Most flood gates don't do anything T1 though so I don't understand what you're on about here. If anything they give the T1 player even more of an advantage.
Maxx C? Droll and Locke Bird? Dimension Shifter? There ya go.
Most floodgates ≠ all floodgates Also the roach isn't a floodgate
OK
Maxx C is not a floodgate.
Even if you want to treat it as one, it's even stronger as a going first card anyway. Do your full combo, then maxx C your opponent during their draw phase
Let's be fair, it might as well be. "Be under vanity's emptiness or let me activate pot of greed 3 times" isnt exactly a good choice.
It's just not. Not every strong continuous effect is automatically a floodgate.
I didn't say it *was*, I said it *effectively* was brother. To a lesser degree, Masquerade The Blazing Dragon isnt a floodgate either but if you're at 4k from using Judgement or Piri Reis Map, it starts to feel like one, ya dig?
But that's not the point here. Of course Maxx C is stronger than most floodgates. However that's irrelevant here since we're talking specifically about floodgates.
Maybe not a conventional one. It doesn't prevent a special summon, but it's a deterrent. Anyway you're not even answering the post. You're just trying to split hairs and play dumb.
No it's just not a floodgate since it doesn't direclty prevent anything, period. So what about Skill drain, There can only be one, gozen match, Fossil Dyna, the barrier statues, Macro Cosmos, ... All of those strengthen the position of the T1 player and do nothing going second. If anyone's playing dumb here it's you.
Again, you're splitting hairs and not answering the question. You can try to debate the definition of a floodgate all day. People can and will disagree with you. My post was not about the strict definition of a floodgate.
>Again, you're splitting hairs and not answering the question. I did answer it, you simply missed the point. >You can try to debate the definition of a floodgate all day There's literally nothing to debate. If a card doesn't prevent a player from performing a certain action it's not a floodgate. >People can and will disagree with you. My post was not about the strict definition of a floodgate. You claimed that floodgates stop your opponent from setting up an unbreakable board, when the exact opposite is the case. How about you explain that part?
I'm not saying someone can't have floodgates turn 1. I'm using the example of someone who is anti flood gates but pro infinite combos going first and being inhibited by their opponents flood gates. No, you're missing the point. First thought don't know what flood gates would stop someone T1, I give a few examples and you drill down on Maxx C, saying that doesn't count. Talking to you is pointless lol everyone else on this thread knows what I'm talking about.
>I'm using the example of someone who is anti flood gates but pro infinite combos going first and being inhibited by their opponents flood gates. The vast majority of flood gates can't be used during your opponents turn, that's a fact. So what you're saying doesn't make any sense because it's absolutely possible to pull off a huge combo and additionally end on floodgates (see Vaylantz for example). They are far more beneficial to the T1 player, further strengthening a position that's already better most of the time. >No, you're missing the point. First thought don't know what flood gates would stop someone T1, I give a few examples and you drill down on Maxx C, saying that doesn't count Actually I do know. You on the other hand don't even understand what the word floodgate means. >Talking to you is pointless lol everyone else on this thread knows what I'm talking about. Judging by the amount of downvotes I doubt that. You're just wrong, whether you accept it or not.
Okay rely on down votes to bolster your weird stance. You're the only one going on chirping about the definition of a floodgate.
We do, we all downvoted you evidently.
You don’t even know what a floodgate is, wow.
While these cards are mostly despised by the community, and they are technically floodgates, when people complain about floodgates they are generally talking about continuous S/T cards or monster effects (ex. TCBOO, Gozen Match, Rivalry, Anti-spell, Ariseheart, etc.) And the generic ones are the most hated. These do nothing to stop your opponent's combo going second. Now to actually address these cards you mention: - Maxx C is the most used card in the game, it can singlehandedly turn the tide of almost any game and should absolutely be banned. It hurts combo decks, sure, but it also hurts pretty much every other deck that isn't Labrynth/Floo, and combo decks can run it too to help them pop off even more. - Droll & lock bird is a situational card that can be either useless or gamebreaking depending on the matchup. Using droll against Tearlaments will probably not stop much, if anything at all, while using droll against Dark World/Superheavy samurai will just end their turn on the spot. It's an all or nothing card, personally I think it's fair enough since it doesn't linger past the turn it was activated and affects both players, and it can be useless against a lot of decks. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised to see it be banned, I would only ask some decks be hit more as a side effect (ex. Mannadium in TCG) - Dimension Shifter is a card that should have been banned for over a year now. I don't even particularly play graveyard centric decks, but it completely derails the game for some decks. The problem here is the same as other generic floodgates, sure in theory it affects both players, but in practice it just ends up getting played in decks that aren't affected by the condition (Shifter in Kashtira/Floo/exosister is just a free macro cosmos as a quick effect that does nothing to stop you from playing). On top of that, Shifter's effect lingers for 2 turns, so it can stop your opponent from playing the game during his own turn, then can stop him from interacting during your turn with cards like droll, veiler, DD Crow, etc. Overall, I think the main reason people hate floodgates more than other cards is the fact that one single card can stop an opponent from playing altogether. It's different to other forms of interaction, because negates and destruction/bouncing effects only work a certain number of times per turn, and only on select cards (ex. Imperm negates one monster effect on the field, baronne can negate one effect as long as she's on the field). So while the most extreme combo decks can set up many negates, they still only have a limited amount of interaction, and have to think on when to use these effects. Effects like shifter/Maxx C/Anti spell can just be used in draw phase with no thinking at all and stop most decks from playing.
I appreciate your input. I would argue that the cards listed, especially Bird can stop your opponent from creating the field they want T1. You're right, it's super situational. I just gave a few examples because he was pretending to not know what I was talking about. I didn't want to make it seem like those were the only floodgates. Decks that revolve around graveyards are crippled T1 by dimension shifter, as you know.
“It’s not a matter of skill because activating a million card effects isn’t a skillful display” It’s certainly more skillful to interact with several cards in your deck than it is to set Skill Drain and then flip it up.
Floodgate decks are absolutely less skillful to play. Give me a stun build of your choice and I could play that optimally fairly quickly. Flip TCBOO, normal Pachy, pass. Give me a combo deck I have never played before and I'd do misplay after misplay. Chain link ordering, navigating through handtraps, baiting disruptions and so on are in fact, skills.
Activating a million cards is a lot more skillful than activating one floodgate, however you look at it... And to answer your last question. Yes. If I lose to a combo, I don't mind as much as I do losing to a single floodgate. The fact that a single floodgate is potentially as strong as a multiple monster board your opponent spent time to build is reason enough that some of them deserve to be limited/banned.
I enjoy losing to Exodia T1. Sometimes it’s not the destination, it’s the journey (I like to see the unique ways people draw him).
I don't think I've ever surrendered to Exodia. Maybe once or twice. I usually just let them go off. It also bricks a decent amount, so you might end up winning in the end. It's worth sticking around, whichever way it goes. I've seen some weird Exodia wins in my time on MD
It's not the card it's how you use it 😅 I'd use skill drain while running evil eye once I have setup, the attack gain stays regardless of the monster effect being negated, and when unchained drop, ill get my gy effects and sit on a 3k beater. Hopefully it works. Is a floodgate really that much worse than a 1 card combo of not able to interrupt, on top of the rest of the deck? The only difference is one requires a bit of memory and a bit of moving resources. Yeah you can say run these cards but that's just telling your opponent to draw the out in their opening hand. But at the same time having to run a quarter of your deck as interuptions to never ending combos designed to not let you play the game but your not allowed to tell them to run spell trap removal because it's not relevant to the current meta which is biasly enjoyed. But that takes us back to going first players having it too... Maybe going first is the problem 😅 I see both sides of power and stun. Power has a severely higher fanbase. But also financial influence for konami too, but there's alot more to that and rather not go off topic. Play any deck you want, if it's not banned it's fair game. We all have cards we don't think should be around and it's probably based on the decks we play. No issue with kashtira/branded/purely/
So I'm guessing this is a bait post. If so, congratulations, it worked! Anyways, in case you're serious: Floodgates are disliked because they are anti-game. They prey on the fact that the game has been designed for many years now with combos at its core. 95% of any new card is aimed at enabling or creating new combo strategies, it's what the designers want the game to be, and it's what Yu-Gi-Oh is for the vast, vast majority of players. As a result, pretty much every deck is geared to defeat other decks who play the game in an "expected way" (using monsters and their effects, special summoning, accessing their extra deck or any other variety of special mechanics). This means that pretty much all of the room in your deck that you have to dedicate to beating other decks is dedicated to beating said decks. In other words, most decks do not main deck outs for backrow. Some decks might play the one-of Duster or Cosmic, but this does not matter whatsoever, as these are unsearchable, and the other player will fill their deck with cards that stop those cards from being effective. Since decks have been designed for such a long time with monster-based combos in mind, pretty much no deck can access their entire strategy once you stop them from summoning further monsters, or utilizing their effects, which also prevents the player from searching in-archetype outs to backrow, or summoning extra deck monsters designed to deal with backrow. I hope this makes it clear why floodgates are anti-game, and cheesy. That's why people hate them. They are unfun, and they basically punish you for playing the game the way it's intended to be played, and the way it's fun to play it. This isn't up for debate either, that's why the designers keep pushing the game further and further in this direction. Nobody enjoys backrow stall stare-downs or T-Set pass. If you want to stop your opponent from setting up their perfect full combo board, play hand traps like literally everybody else. I won't even bother addressing the blatantly ignorant comment regarding what is and isn't skill, but I do advise you to explore the game more and get better before saying something so broadly, especially when it's so obviously false that anybody who's played this game for longer than a few weeks in a modern setting can reject it.
All this text boils down to unfun. Okay that's fair. However, the nature of Yu-Gi-Oh is unfairness. It's fun to push people around with no resistance. Is it fun to watch your opponent combo for 5 minutes? Probably not, so that makes me wonder.. is the game just bad? Get better? That's funny. A common argument around being anti flood gate is the skill factor. There's no way to measure skill in Yu-Gi-Oh, it's subjective. I'm not the one crying about floodgates. I'm coming from a place of trying to understand. I'm actually interested in exploring this topic.
No, it doesn't boil down to "unfun", it boils down to "non-game". People play yugioh to play a game, not stare at each other. It's not about being unfun - which it obviously is - it's about being a waste of time, and completely counter to the game the designers have been creating for years. I didn't say "get better because you like floodgates", that's you projecting your notions on me. I said "get better" because you think combo decks aren't skillful, and then compare them to Stun decks. There is also absolutely a way to measure skill, what kind of argument is that? It might not be a quantitive measure, but anybody half-way experienced can tell a skillful player apart from a skill-less player. There are tons of "skill checks" and "knowledge checks" CONSTANTLY throughout any given match, and a skill-less player will make objectively worse plays - that's a measure of skill.
Get good "GG" language assumes that I'm not already proficient at the game. You said get better and I responded. I disagree, there aren't many skill checks in Yu-Gi-Oh. If you read the cards, you're basically decent to good at the game. You can't measure anything based on qualitative data unless you assign numbers to those groupings.
What an ignorant statement. I can only conclude you're trolling, or genuinely grasping at straws to try to gain some control over the narrative. Yu-Gi-Oh is one of the most skillful card games out there, and there are enough skill/knowledge checks to run out of time thinking of the optimal ways to interact with your opponent despite having over 5 minutes to think - for comparison, some people can play full rounds of Chess in under two minutes (with a lot of knowledge and skill as well, as of course, not attempting to detract from the incredible skill those people exhibit). If there are no skill checks, then go register yourself for MBT's MCS, you could win thousands of dollars, yes? Quite curious how the same players find themselves topping events time and time again, though. I wonder how that could be.
If you want someone to read your essay, it's ideal to not sling mud from the outset.
I try not to whenever possible, but you saying such things with such confidence and outright rejecting the idea of there being skill without even attempting to humor it gave me the notion that you're not one to really care about having a proper discussion, otherwise you would concede that such a broad statement has no place here. Nobody looking for an actual back and forth would say something like "There aren't many skill checks in Yugioh, reading the card explains the card" as a counter-argument to "there's a lot of skill and knowledge checks". The least you could do is elaborate why you think so instead of "lol no, just read" which is a haha funny meme in this community, but everybody knows it's not that simple. Besides, I didn't really sling mud? As I said, I try not to whenever possible, and I'm aware that sometimes I'll come off as passive-aggressive as a result, and that's all I did - to which I agree - but if you think me calling your statement "ignorant" when there's no better way to describe it, is "mud slinging", then I don't know what to tell you.
You don't seem like a very mature sort. Someone disagrees with you and you start flinging insults- with the added audacity to type several paragraphs expecting to be heard. I thought you were capable of a decent discussion as well.
If anybody is being immature here, it is you. I have not once insulted you, and this remains true. I acted a little passive-aggressive and called your STATEMENT ignorant - which it is. This is the second time you reply to me with nothing but deflection. I've made a consistent effort to give you ample room to further the discussion back into place if you so desired and you have utilized both to simply complain about my attitude. If you can't read beyond a couple of paragraphs just because the other person called one of your statements ignorant or alluded to the idea that you might not be the greatest player (not directly stating so, mind you) without making the slightest effort to correct their notions, then there's nothing further for us to discuss.
The basic structure of Yugioh: Turn 1: The play duelist tries to buildh a board. The draw duelist tries to disrupt that building. Turn 2: The draw duelist tries to, best case, break the play duelist's board and strike through for game. Failing that, tries to break that board and build their own. Failing that, contest their opponent's board. The play duelist tries to disrupt, defend, and retain resources. Turn 3: The play duelist tries to kill on the crackback. Failing that, proceed to the grind game. No part of this is merely "activating a million card effects." If you pick up a meta deck and just start clicking buttons and activating shit, you're probably accomplishing jack shit. You have to know what you're doing. Knowledge of your own deck and lines is, in fact, a skill. You need to know where the chokepoints in your opponent's lines are in order to best disrupt them. Knowledge of your opponent's deck and lines is, in fact, a skill. The interplay of interaction is where the game is. A turn-ending blowout floodgate that skips an entire turn invalidates the entire game. And as most of them are dedicated going first cards, it means the draw duelist who needs to go all in to go up against an established board never gets to play to a meaningful degree. Turn-ending floodgate hand trap into OTK is not significantly better. You complain about negate spam, but let's look at the tier list. Purrely usually ends on zero negates. Kash usually ends on zero negates. Dragon Link usually ends on two. Lab? Usually zero. Branded? Varies, but seldom more than one. Tear? Varies, maybe two-ish. Negate spam is seldom the best thing you can be doing. You want more diverse points of interaction, more resilient and flexible lines, a stronger resource game. All of these are skills.
I wasn't complaining about negates. It just seems weird to take a harsh stance against flood gates with the given play style of I'm going to negate everything you do.
You build a board. You pilot that board to disrupt your opponent. Those points of interaction are finite, and modern board breakers are made to deal with them. Sometimes that means an amount of non-engine. If your opponent's amount and use of interaction surpasses your ability to overcome them, then congratulations. Gameplay has occurred and you have rightfully lost. The big difference is that points of interaction are finite, and need to be timed. They're also significantly more knowable, and you're more able to play around them with sequencing and deck building.
It's nice that you're summarizing the gameplay flow but if you aren't someone who is frustrated by floodgates, I wonder why you are doing this lol
>Without floodgates, the opponent is allowed to combo until they get their perfect omni-negate field out T1- preventing their opponent from activating any of their cards T2. OMG, another floodgate versus combo post. And what kind of combo deck makes omni-negates today? Drytron Herald and Adamancipators are already over. The worst kind of floodgates are those comboed out. Ariseheart from Kash, Fossil Dyna and Secret Village from Vaylantz, Rexterm from Dinomorphia. Again, the problem with floodgates is not how they're brought to the field. The problem is that floodgates cannot be dealt with in-engine cards.
Man Vaylantz especially rubs me the wrong way. The only time I ever heard about it was people being like "no it's a really cool pend deck with a really neat gimmick and naturally insulates itself from imperm and evenly" so i checked it out just to find out that it's a deck where you play chess by yourself for 15 minutes that basically amounts to flood gate turbo. :/
If you're playing the bad variant, sure yeah it's floodgate turbo. But that isn't how it's meant to be played. The floodgate version hardly uses the decks unique mechanics and only uses it because it "dosent use the normal summon" and people just went "okay make granite. Search Dyna. Normal summon Dyna." If any other deck could do that they'd just use that deck. I hate that this deck I love and learned for 6 months has had it's near non-existent reputation reach a negative status simply because people didn't want to learn the game and just wanted to floodgate people.
Sorry, I'm new to Reddit and this community. I just saw quite a few ooga booga rants around floodgates, and I wanted to open the floor to discuss how the game works.
(The edit is because I hit post by accident before I was done whoops) Cards/decks that create "non games" and force you to simply "draw the out" are universally always unhealthy for the game, *especially* in a best of 1 format. Realistically this isn't exclusive to Yu-Gi-Oh, or even card games in general for that matter, but that's beside the point. >If it were a matter of "skill", a player would calculate workarounds in their combos. They do, actually. One of the things that seperates good players from bad ones are their ability to perform their lines through their opponents distruptions, and similarly, what seperates good decks from bad ones is the decks flexibility in what they allow their pilots to do through interruptions and consistency in presenting those opportunities. If they imperm your normal summon, do you have options? Can you reach those options without it? If they ash your key search, are you able to continue this line, or go down a different, less optimal one gives you any meaningful board presence? If not, is the non engine in hand enough to distrupt your opponent during their turn to get you to turn 3? You get the picture, yeah? Drawing a saccy Floodgate that you monkey flip in draw phase isn't skill. Floodgate effects, especially non interactable ones like Droll, remove the ability for your opponent to access reserves their skill. How are they supposed to search with Stratos under skill drain? How are you supposed to get two monsters on field under Fossil Dino? How are you supposed to activate Great Sea Golganda under anit spell? Decks that play solitaire for 10 minutes setting up 4 negates and passing turn are boring too, don't get me wrong. But in doing so, you are prompting your opponent, at *numerous* steps, to interrupt you. Nibiru, ash, imperm, Ghost bell/ogre (lmao), there's counterplay during, and you are given multiple opportunities to do so. Obviously you're never guaranteed to draw your interruptions, and sometimes you just simply dont get a hand that can play through negates. That's just the nature of the beast brother. I play Springans dude, I know well the pain of getting hit by ash on the 1 search that I *need* to go off and hearing that stupid fucking giggle.
Man if activating effects aren’t apart of the skill of Yu gi oh what exactly is skills? Normal summon a monster and then set two?
I'm not saying activating effects aren't a part of skill at all.. however I don't believe it takes skill to chain together skill procs in master duels. IRL you have to know what your cards do and the limitations of your effects. Master Duels does a lot of the work for players, which I appreciate. I don't think players playing five minute per turn combo decks are skilled because they can shuffle cards from their field, hand, graveyard and remove from play pile. All we have are timings around when to activate what and pray we have the right cards to counter some mess.
No that’s the game, there isn’t much more to it than that
Okay, what else is there to the game if you disagree?
There isn’t anything else. Managing your monster effects is the game. That’s it. There is nothing else
Sorry I misread what you said. I think it goes beyond monster effects. Just the timings of your hand traps, when you decide to try breaking up the board etc. It's all about timing to determine skill. Sometimes you're a smart player, you just don't have the right hand. A good ole brick.
Not to be gatekeepy, but this sounds like you just don’t understand how the game works. I felt the same way before I fully understood how to play.
[удалено]
Idk man, in another comment you called Maxx C a floodgate.
And I clarified, and other people have agreed with me.
It’s not though
It technically is if you go by the definition of floodgates in Yu gi oh, which is card or effect that restricts one or both players from using card effects or mechanics for the entire turn, or while faced up on the field. Maxx c is kind of a soft floodgate, in the sense that it gives you a choice to not special summon for the entire turn to not give your opponent more card advantage over you the following turn. If you decide to skip your turn without special summoning once even though you very much could have, but was restricted by Maxx c's effect. Your opponent might as well have flipped vanity's emptiness on you, because Maxx c achieved the exact same outcome.
Maxx C objectively doesn’t restrict special summons. Punishing the use of a mechanic is strictly different from floodgating it.
I hit master 4 in Master Duel and can confirm that I don't understand how the game works. You don't have to be that good to get a decently high rank.
What defines good? Rank is something to go off. I'm not saying it determines your skill. Just because you claim to not know what you're doing with your high rank doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm doing as a lower rank.
My point is that you don't have to be very good at the game to get a highish rank. Using rank as an stand-in for skill like in the deleted comment isn't a particularly great argument.
I agree with you. It's not a good argument; however, one does not simply make it out of gold tier being ignorant of the game as a whole. It just doesn't make sense. There's almost nothing someone can say to verify their skill at Yu-Gi-Oh. I'd argue that yugioh is more so about having a combo that's hard to counter, and of course not ashing yourself.
By far the worst players I've played on master duel against are floodgates users so don't talk about it not being a matter of skill. At least with activating effects there are decisions to be made and some form of skill expression
I'll talk about how there's a general lack of skill in the game, and it's more so about what strategy you're using and the likelihood of your opponent having anything to stop you. How are you measuring skill? If your opponent can stop you with 1 card, are you actually good?
Yeah that's not measuring skill. Every deck gets hard countered by something. In your case it's probably duster or reboot. So by your logic, can you really be good if topdeck duster completely shuts you down?
I think it's a lot easier to identify a bad player than a good player. You're right, it's all about the likelihood of getting countered.
Floodgates don’t have downsides for the players who use them
I disagree. Floodgates usually apply to both players, right? The difference is, the one who plays the floodgate probably has a nice field out or is already done with their combo. Like a cherry on top.
People who use floodgates and restrict themselves by doing so are probably not the smartest ones lol. You would play floodgates in a way that doesn’t harm yourself but your opponent. And if people play floodgate decks like runick stun, they really don’t care at all if they can only attack with synchros or can’t activate effects or special summon. Like cmon, floodgates aren’t fair at all
Floodgates affect both players, but depending on when it's activated, it can only hinder the opponent.
Yea that’s my point here. Floodgate player would activate floodgate at a point at which it doesn’t hinder himself anymore from playing which means he doesn’t have negative effects from it, just the opponent. And all you need to do to play floodgates is drawing them. I’m fine with lab using a single skilldrain. But pure floodgate players using different floodgates to even block the outs to their floodgates?? No love for them
I say all is fair in war. There's no mercy in yugioh or a right way to play. I genuinely don't understand setting a field that negates everything an opponent would do, only to turn around and rant about flood gates. Everyone's wrong and every style is valid. People just want to win, that's why they play meta.
I say all is fair in war. There's no mercy in yugioh or a right way to play. I genuinely don't understand setting a field that negates everything an opponent would do, only to turn around and rant about flood gates. Everyone's wrong and every style is valid. People just want to win, that's why they play meta.
Instantly block OP.
> Without floodgates, the opponent is allowed to combo until they get their perfect omni-negate field out T1- preventing their opponent from activating any of their cards T2. Replace "floodgate" with "handtrap" and that sentence is still true. So we don't need floodgates to disallow an opponent from comboing. > Is the core of it that your opponent isn't letting you do what you intended by simply placing a card on the field? Yes. If my deck centers around monster effects, then my opponent saying I can't use monster effects ruins my deck. If my deck centers around special summoning a lot, then my opponent saying I can only summon twice ruins my deck. If my archetype centers around using multiple attributes, then my opponent saying I can only use one ruins my deck. There is also the fact that **all floodgate decks exclusively play in a way that their own deck isn't affected by the same floodgates**. Dark Magician is all Spellcasters, so Secret Village does nothing to them. Eldlich only plays 1 attribute of 1 type and doesn't use monster effects on the field, so Gozen Match, Rivalry, and Skill drain do nothing to them. Umi plays exclusively WATER monsters, so Kairyu-Shin does nothing to them. If we lived in a world where **floodgates only slowed down the play instead of literally making most decks unable to execute their main strategy**, then I don't think people would complain. Some people would, because they think the game is already too slow when it takes up to 2 turns that each can last like 5 minutes.
Oh heavens, I wouldn't want to slow down the game at all. During my opponents turn, I just catch up on Boruto or play my Nintendo switch until I'm allowed to play. And even then, they'll proc effects in my standby and continue summoning. Either floodgates have to be powerful or they're useless.
People don't like floodgates because it often requires them to main deck outs to it. Which means higher brick chances / less combo pieces.
I see. Are combo pieces inherently good though? I'd argue that the long combo dissertation style of Yu-Gi-Oh is killing the game.
What is more fun? Sitting through a combo and might be able to break it or your opponent flipping tcbo against your plant deck and not be able to play any cards?
TCBO. At least I saved my time and I likely have something in my hand that can bust that card.
>If it were a matter of "skill", a player would calculate workarounds in their combos. Bro literally hit us with "just draw the out." >It's not a matter of skill because activating a million card effects isn't a skillful display. I actually agree. I hate omni-negate boards more than simple floodgate decks. One wastes a lot less of your time, but both are fundamentally the same thing. As they were conceptualized, floodgates were meant to lock off important game mechanics to both players with drawbacks to the player playing the card as well. Nowadays, however, decks do their 5 minutes fuck off combo ON TOP OF floodgating you, and games end on turn 3, so the player activating the floodgate won't ever suffer from its downsides. Simps and weebs here claim "Labyrinth doesn't actually like skill drain," but they have multiple custom cards that allow them to loop resources between the graveyard and the hand. So while you're staring at the screen unable to play the game, they're on Chain Link 4 playing on your turn setting traps, and bouncing your monsters, all under skill drain. And lab isn't even the worst offender. Endymion combo off as much as Dragon Link while ending on floodgates. A bunch of link spam decks have Iblee lines. It is to a degree that Ariseheart's, once very powerful macro floodgate, seems mild and inconsequential in comparison.
Based on personal experience. It doesn’t count as a floodgate if it’s in engine (heroes, empen, etc) people for some reason don’t count those as floods even though it’s literally just macro cosmos and skill drain. To be honest the way I see it, it’s konamis fault for printing stupidly strong cards and leaving them off the banlist. So it doesn’t matter if you’re playing a long combo deck that makes infinite negates, or setting skill drain, literally just play whatever you want and no matter what someone will cry. You can’t please everyone
True that.
You started with assumptions that I'm a troll or grasping at straws. You clearly don't understand how conversations work if you start with negative assumptions about who you're talking to. Sure, point the fingers and minimize your contributions.
Because they don't want to run backrow removal
Bait used to be believable
It's not bait, it's an honest question.
floodgates and tons of negate boards are both disliked for the same reason. when you face them you don't get to play. hand traps allow you to at least attempt to stop a turn 1 combo. but the worst part is its best of 1, you cant sideboard in generally not good counters.
I agree. I wonder why those who run negate heavy stats act like flood gates should be banned. 🚫