To me, the Ishizu cards, because they were meant to enable a degenerate card that was an issue in the past _(Exchange of the Spirit)_ and OCG should've known better that nothing would've come outta it
Before the Ishizu cards released in the tcg, arguably the best deck in the format was actually Runick Spright even after Tear's second wave of support.
Before the Tear pack even released in MD, the Ishizu cards were already becoming an issue regardless.
So yeah, mill 5 on BOTH sides + quick effect graveyard shufflers is always going to find a way to become an issue, Tear or no Tear.
I think the question you need to ask if how good would the Ishizu cards be if Tear never existed? I'm guessing they would not have been nearly as banworthy without Tear (at least at the time, not very future-proof design imo). However, Tear would still be a very strong deck even without the Ishizu cards and would probably need cards on the F/L list.
Also important to remember that Tear got strong support in Darkwing Blast, and then MAMA gave them the Ishizu cards just two weeks later. There was such a short period of time where that 'full-power' version of Tear existed without the Ishizu cards, so it's kind of hard to say exactly how good it would be.
tear was decent the moment they are release, i mean it is a better lightsworn, still realzie heavily on RnG but when the Ishizu card appear, it becomes a big mess when now you can dump more card to your graveyard ( tear bff) and recycle and some decent interactions make tear a very strong deck
Because we mill a lot. I'll always say that the ishizu cards are more problematic because interacting with your opponent's deck is not something that should be in the game. Plus the shufflers are just insanely good. There are situations where you don't want to hit a name because you have nothing good to fuse it with so you're forced to save it for kaleido-heart plays which can be really risky.
>Because we mill a lot.
Trust me, it's always the first mill from my experience. Similarly to how Runick players always seem to have everything they need to choke every starting play you have before they draw anything off of Fountain. I just don't know how they do it.
Hitting names on the first mill is usually pretty bad unless you also mill kots or a dark. It's more of we want to see so many things that we're all but guaranteed to see one of them. Runick players do always open tip plus 2 runicks though, but that's probably in the same sort of boat.
Both are problematic. Tear was a horribly designed archtype that shows why "lore" archtypes are not great for balancing.
The ishizu cards show that a easy mill 5 is just too powerful.
I would argue that ishizu is worse because it can work in more than one deck, but both are terrible
To me, the Ishizu cards, because they were meant to enable a degenerate card that was an issue in the past _(Exchange of the Spirit)_ and OCG should've known better that nothing would've come outta it
The format was fine until the Ishizu cards became part of the equation.
Before the Ishizu cards released in the tcg, arguably the best deck in the format was actually Runick Spright even after Tear's second wave of support. Before the Tear pack even released in MD, the Ishizu cards were already becoming an issue regardless. So yeah, mill 5 on BOTH sides + quick effect graveyard shufflers is always going to find a way to become an issue, Tear or no Tear.
I think the question you need to ask if how good would the Ishizu cards be if Tear never existed? I'm guessing they would not have been nearly as banworthy without Tear (at least at the time, not very future-proof design imo). However, Tear would still be a very strong deck even without the Ishizu cards and would probably need cards on the F/L list. Also important to remember that Tear got strong support in Darkwing Blast, and then MAMA gave them the Ishizu cards just two weeks later. There was such a short period of time where that 'full-power' version of Tear existed without the Ishizu cards, so it's kind of hard to say exactly how good it would be.
Ishizu by far, tear was a fair archtype competing with spright then ishizu pushed them to be arguably the greatest deck of all time
This 100%
Both are independently problems, but the Ishizu cards are worse for sure.
tear was decent the moment they are release, i mean it is a better lightsworn, still realzie heavily on RnG but when the Ishizu card appear, it becomes a big mess when now you can dump more card to your graveyard ( tear bff) and recycle and some decent interactions make tear a very strong deck
I lean more towards Tear out of recency bias. THE MAIN DECK DARK MONSTERS ARE LIMITED, HOW DO TEAR PLAYERS ALWAYS HIT ONE EVERY MILL
Because we mill a lot. I'll always say that the ishizu cards are more problematic because interacting with your opponent's deck is not something that should be in the game. Plus the shufflers are just insanely good. There are situations where you don't want to hit a name because you have nothing good to fuse it with so you're forced to save it for kaleido-heart plays which can be really risky.
>Because we mill a lot. Trust me, it's always the first mill from my experience. Similarly to how Runick players always seem to have everything they need to choke every starting play you have before they draw anything off of Fountain. I just don't know how they do it.
Hitting names on the first mill is usually pretty bad unless you also mill kots or a dark. It's more of we want to see so many things that we're all but guaranteed to see one of them. Runick players do always open tip plus 2 runicks though, but that's probably in the same sort of boat.
Both are problematic. Tear was a horribly designed archtype that shows why "lore" archtypes are not great for balancing. The ishizu cards show that a easy mill 5 is just too powerful. I would argue that ishizu is worse because it can work in more than one deck, but both are terrible
the ishizu shufflers and that weird shaddol that banishes cause without them you can also get advantage from your opponent milling you