Deck Archetypes in Weiss Schwarz

[@DatYGOFrenchDude]

Great video, thanks for the content !

[@GdoublePW]

I just saw this but Triple Gura from hand is 10 stock 6 hand before drawing for turn (not counting any stock gain off triggering a choice on Calli Gura) 🤔 play 3 Gura for 6 (4 stock left) attack with #1 pay 2 ditch 1 (2 stock left) gain 1 stock (3 stock left) attack with #2 pay 2 ditch 1 (1 stock left) gain 1 stock (2 stock left) attack with #3 pay 2 ditch 1

[@HishiTCG]

You're right, it's 10 stock, my bad I was counting the climax for 7 in hand, depends if you consider the draw phase or not

[@danielebasilico8958]

High effort content, bravo!

[@alexandermccabe4461]

1:00 I feel like at least recently, rush decks don't necessarily have to go for a cheap finisher, since you can often loop your combo without expending many resources 8:43 I'm not sure if it's true that power decks are mostly 8 standby; there are decks like slime or alice with 2/1s that win board, for example, or spy family with big lv1s/EPs Though the classification of "power deck" seems like it has a lot of overlap with other archetypes, in particular stall decks. I guess it feels mostly like a contrast to rush decks; one gets damage from playing cxs while the other gets it from direct attacks 14:36 I don't think it's generally true that combo decks get good compression because of their stock; that's certainly the case for TRV, but gura for example gets a lot of its stock as blind stock. And in general, the more you care about building up stock, the harder it is to pay out cxs (though at the same time, maintaining your compression can help you build more stock by potentially giving you more turns, so it's not something you don't care about at all) 22:19 Wait, there's no way kanata/marine is a combo deck right? What's the combo it's building up to? Unless it's looping botan I guess. It seems much more like… a stall deck I guess, aiming to do stuff like presenting tap counter (or antichange) multiple times, or healing repeatedly

[@HishiTCG]

Thanks for all the feedback, good discussion points 1) True to an extent, but Rush decks running more expensive finishers (from pay 2 / discard 2) will in practice only throw 2 of them plus an additional level 3 in most games. Doing a triple finisher combo for a Rush deck requieres you to have cancelled in midgame to have time to build ressources 2) I would still consider EN Alice or Spy X family pants to be Rush decks, filling the "play a climax every turn to push damage while recovering ressources" definition. Their combo just come with the extra advantage of having a lot of defensive power (which I think is kind of what breaks the balance of achetypes). For older Power decks, I was thinking of the likes of Ren Voiceless sound combo in Project diva. But yeah, the main difference lies in Power deck want damage from direct attacks 3) Friends told me the same criticism; I should have actually put "hard to pay out climaxes" as a con for combo decks that are not TRV, my bad 4) Yeah I consider Stock swap / Botan + triple Marine the combo. But it's a weird case, maybe pre-ban Kanata Gura was a better exemple. You could argue for the deck being a Stall deck, but from my experience, your first refresh is pretty late and bad, so it took luck to stay in Level 2

[@alexandermccabe4461]

1. Pay 2 sure, but discard 2 (particularly if the finisher itself cantrips) I think it's reasonable to expect triple a decent amount of the time. But I think I was more thinking "not cheap" rather than "expensive"; like 7-8 stock and some amount of hand, compared to the examples of moca/musashi/marine (though I realize some of those are examples for previous eras) 2. I think there's a significant difference in playstyle and matchups between decks that rely on winning board vs ones that don't, even if they're both looking to play a cx every turn. Though in some cases it can be hard to tell if the deck actually relies on winning board or not; I've seen the argument that slime doesn't actually care about losing mjurrans, for example. Maybe it's more about aiming to win board… maybe even a 3-way distinction there, between decks that don't care at all about winning board, vs ones that actively attempt/expect to win board but don't care too much if they don't, vs ones that fall apart if their board is answered. Side note, is soundless voice not looking to play a cx every turn to maintain resources?

[@HishiTCG]

​@@alexandermccabe4461 I think despite those details, you get the point. If you dig, you will find decks that don't have the cons of these categories, or that have extra advantages or cons. The point of this video was more to have easy "this deck fits into this general category, so it should have this general playstyle" way of thought.

[@alexandermccabe4461]

Hmm, I guess in terms of playstyles it's something like this? Rush: loop cx combo into finisher at 3 (generally aiming to hit opp to 3 first) Combo: take time building up resources, whether through cx combo or otherwise; aim to hit 3 first and be able to kill from low-mid 2 (so in contrast to rush, doesn't care as much about pushing damage in midgame) Stall: loop defensive cx combo (and/or counters, etc.), probably starting at 2; aim to win board to enable that (generally aiming to never reach 3) Power: aim to win board to get direct lanes (so doesn't necessarily involve cx combo)… into a finisher at 3? this is the one I'm least sure how to describe, but might just be that I don't generally play standby decks (for older decks "low 3" might replace "2" there, but the idea is the same I suppose) I guess one archetype I'd add would be the sort of deck that aims to loop an offensive combo starting at 2 and win board to enable that, like SG or OVL or PJS or SPY Potentially a lot of overlap with Stall, but has less of a focus on looping since the aim is to shorten the game rather than lengthen it (though most of those examples also have a healing component, so there's an element of lengthening as well) Though what does a "playstyle" really entail? I guess it's the sort of things you're normally thinking about while playing the deck (for example, when deciding what to search). Like a rush deck is primarily concerned with how to get the characters & cx for the combo next turn (for most of the game), while a power deck is primarily concerned with how to present a big enough board during the opp's turn, and a stall deck is likely trying to balance both (but is less concerned with maintaining compression) So decks that aren't particularly looking to loop their advantage combos, but instead to play EPs or something at lv2, into a finisher at 3, are probably a separate archetype, since unlike Rush, they're not primarily concerned with looping a combo, but instead are looking to set up EPs or other attackers off of their combo. HOL Korone/Marine is what comes to mind for me as an example of this archetype