Yu-Gi-Oh! Isn't Dying - But This Could Kill It

Starter cards, extenders, and now a new card role has entered the scene - but is it good long term?
00:00 Intro
01:13 General Powercreep
05:30 The First Autocorrect Card
06:18 Defining an "Autocorrect Card"
08:54 Test Hands and Examples
12:10 Autocorrect-like Cards
18:13 A New Hope
21:39 Outro
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Come catch us live on Twitch:
/ ygorganization
Check out this page for Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG/OCG News here
ygorganization.com/
Need to find a card or anything Yu-Gi-Oh! related? check this out: yugipedia.com/wiki/Yugipedia
Have an awesome replay you want us to share? contact us here:
/ discord
Edited by: Conch at / @theconchnorris

[@Spoopmode]

yugioh died when the sins of man (ojama yellow, green and black) were born

[@ryanthecringeanimator9541]

So Yugioh died before GX

[@TheOrganization]

it was reborn with the release of ojama pink

[@nerovhellinh312]

Unironically I think they were released in the same set as Chaos Emperor, and BLS.

[@knightofantimony5305]

The 'Generic End Board' is my biggest problem with the game. I was playing against Spriggans recently and I got excited for a moment to see what that deck would do against mine or how I would have to play against the wide destruction targeting their extra deck monster has, only for them to build the same Barrone, Appo, and Savage end board. It does raise the question of "Why play a deck that has more steps to the same results?"

[@d.r.6177]

That's why it is good that these cards are getting banned now. The fact that archetypes have cards with similar effects just to make them more interruptable, would not be a problem, if the Boss Monsters/Cards are unique and interesting.

[@four-en-tee]

Thats like asking what end board Crystal Beasts are supposed to make. As neat as conclave control is, the deck kinda needs generic extra deck cards to even be playable. Not to mention generic cards allow for decks like Earth Machine or Dragon Link to exist in the first place. This is just an issue relating to easily accessible negates and other cheesy strategies more than anything, not generic bosses as a whole. Cards like Apo, Sanctifire and Dimensional Shifter bring out the worst qualities in this game, but a card like Accesscode doesnt bother me at all because I would've had my chance to stop it before it hits the board. I don't mind if certain decks have access to strong negates (giving Voiceless an omni is fine for example, and Yubel's strong end board is at least balanced out by the fact that it can't push for lethal as easily as other decks), and i even try to build my decks to play around certain floodgates (I cant cover every floodgate without playing stun, but I can try to maneuver around a few). But when a deck like Snake-Eye, which is basically just a midrange deck like Unchained powercrept into infinity, can do anything from spamming negates to ripping cards to shuffling GY pieces using Melodious to even sniping extra deck pieces with Kashtira Unicorn, it gets tiresome. And we were already doing this before in other decks before Snake-Eye by using Baronne. This game just has a very unhealthy obsession with negates whenever they're easily accessible, and I think if you want to run a deck with negates, you should either play a deck with a less easily accessible negate or that you should be willing to play main deck disruption like the Solemn cards (obviously the former would be more meta relevant). Granted, whats considered "too accessible" is pretty subjective, and I could see why some people think Apo is fine considering it can always just rotate out of the meta once Konami finally hits Snake-Eye in some significant capacity. I just think that if Apo were printed on an XYZ or synchro monster, people would be a lot more fine with it. I personally like Dawn Dragster, and Apo is basically that but for monster effects. Its just that its summoning conditions (given that its a link monster) are stupidly charitable, which is just an inherent problem with link monsters in general when they aren't designed with proper restrictions. They're just a lot easier to break.

[@d.r.6177]

@@four-en-tee Well, I am advocating for better designed decks that do not meed genereic boss monsters. Also, Borreload Savage Dragon IS a Rokket Card. It died for its sins of being generic. Bystial D-Link was one of my favorite decks, and Dis Pater, Borrelend and Savage would have been in archetype for that

[@theduelist649]

Jokes on you. My deck doesn’t have autocorrect cards, it hasn’t received support in a decade.

[@otterfire4712]

Do you have the slightest idea how little that narrows it down?

[@ac1dfoxdie716]

​@@otterfire4712 Hahahaha dude the amount of decks that's went through my brain 😅😂😂

[@Reluxthelegend]

Imagine being an Ally of Justice player. (It is me I am the Ally of Justice player)

[@jamaldavis2480]

@@Reluxthelegend How does it feel to be the last of your kind? You are a rare specimen.

[@GiovanniBallerinii]

Ally of justice isnt even an archetype

[@namegeneric9344]

I hope konami really gets their shit together for the TCG.

[@munsonroe2099]

I think these issues are inflated by competitive ego. This is a complaint about losses to someone with the same but "worse deck" due to not enough difference in effects in an extremely narrow meta. The same complaint we had about like two formats ago when the game was at its most diverse since TOSS, but instead it was competitive ego about losing to a different "worse deck" because there were too many different effects to build around. Its always gonna be comparing opening hands in a small format. Its gonna be comparing side decks in a wide one. The more glaring difference in a wider format is the game itself is more affordable to compete in with more incentive to build intelligently, and you can see that in the way Pak completely about-faced his attitude in that format by switching to infernoble. You gotta let more decks into the room if youre gonna start speaking about meaningful deckbuilding.

[@dudono1744]

But when a deck like Tenpai and does something different, people also complain. (Even tho I don't like the design of the level 10 tenpai, it prevents insane battles)

[@DarkSymphony777]

When money is on the line, people will stoop to idiotic levels

[@josedanielneri6963]

I'm with you there

[@akuma2095]

You got a good point. Since decks can search what they want, it always result in the same boards. But if we had less of these cards and more cards that just straight plussed instead we would have more randomness but still have explosiveness. And it would be more like older yugioh where you make do with what you got.

[@Sokaras3]

Not liking the phrasing of punishing people for deckbuilg mistakes but i understand what you mean - he who built deck better should normally come out on top more often. Sadly in my case my deck buolding mistakes are most often "I dont have or cant afford the cards to build better" 😄

[@HenshinFanatic]

"Just stop being poor." - Pachinkomoney, definitely.

[@Petsinwinter2]

When you said "autocorrect cards", my first thought was cards that change opponents effects instead of negating them, like Phantom of Yubel

[@EinSilverRose]

Konami has to stop giving monsters 3+ effects with no actual cost other than being once per turn as well as generic boss monsters from the Extra Deck that any deck that can summon can use along with 3+ effects and no actual cost other than being once per turn. A card like Baronne should have never been generic and archetype locked to the Fleur deck. Same with every Barrel ED monster. They should have only been locked to the Rokket deck. Meanwhile cards like Apoullousa I hesitate to call balanced because she's usually summoned to stop some hand traps while eating up cards that can break your board. "Autocorrect" ED monsters are an equally huge problem as main deck cards that constantly funnel through the deck to end on whatever board you wanted. Another problem is just the general lack of meaningful attribute, type, and archetype restrictions. Even hand trap restrictions like the Morganite spells. I think some archetype should have these kinds of restrictions so they aren't so overbearing. Like imagine if the Snake-Eyes field spell didn't let you activate non-Snake-Eyes cards from the hand? Suddenly it's just a really strong and consistent deck that has to use its backrow, power spells/traps, and on field monster effects to deal with the opponent.

[@DarkSymphony777]

that's why i like etoile, a well designed boss monster for melodious, that requires the resouces in it's own archetype to make use of. yes i am well aware of people using the new melodious cards as a engine but i don't like that. play them pure

[@shir-fw3zm]

Indeed. I look at a single archetype and appreciate how it behaves and struggles in a unique way. Now people just mix 2 or more of everything that can stand by itself for optimal plays. At that rate, they might as well just play by themselves because they're not there to see how you'll play against them.

[@dudono1744]

I prefer having type/attribute/whatever locks rather than pure archetype locks. The softer locks allow you to run non-archetypal cards while forcing you to run weirder stuff because you can't use all staples availible.

[@ForteGigasGospel]

@dudono1744 I run Archfiends, been my baby for about a decade and a half, always love running pure decks. Even I ran Infernal Gainer before, and I run Fiendish Rhino and Tourguide now. Archetype lock doesn't really mean you are only allowed to play them, it just really just means you are playing them mostly and not playing them as an engine for another deck, or some other deck as an engine for them.

[@DarkSymphony777]

@@ForteGigasGospel enternal debate Pure vs engine

[@flackenstien]

Yugioh definitely needs less generic bosses, and more decks that are powerful in their own unique ways. It's why I REALLY enjoy playing Abyss Actor, even if they aren't an amazing deck. They're archetype-locked, have very powerful tools that aren't just combo spam, and what they do is just so different than what you expect from a deck. _"What do you mean my Effect Veiler destroys your Set Spell, and that Spell lets you Summon ANY NUMBER of Abyss actors from your deck?"_ And, Abyss Actor won't even use those monsters to put up a crazy combo negate board, they're basically all vanillas, but they win through the sheer advantage gain and their powerful Spell effects.

[@jamaldavis2480]

Sigh... this is why I say xenophobia for all base rule in MR5 or whatever we up to... but of course people say I'm an idiot for wanting that.

[@flackenstien]

@@jamaldavis2480 I mean, mixing and combining cards is a part of the game, but I feel like all the most powerful archetypal cards should have some restriction.

[@jamaldavis2480]

@@flackenstien I do get that. Which if why you would have the neutral cards that aren't part of an archetype. I guess my real issue is when something like Crystron, Verte, or Baronne get banned because other archetypes are abusing them. So their actual archetype lose a powerful card because of the sins of another. That to me makes no sense.

[@juksleo6257]

I became so demoralized when one of my friends wanted to get into Yugioh and I tried to explain to him what staples to use back when prosperity, droplet and the such were still $50+ a piece. Needless to say, he eventually gave up on trying to build a deck. I wonder how many people legitimately got priced out of the game

[@four-en-tee]

I don't necessarily see this as a problem. The only difference in the Ash example is that you're discarding a brick whereas if you had opened a diverse hand, you now have to think for a moment about what you want to discard. You would've had to discard regardless, you're just presented with a choice is all. Matter of fact, the more skilled deck builder was rewarded with the option of being allowed to choose to begin with rather than being forced to stick with what they opened with. Like, if i see two of my different non-engine and I know what my opponent is on game 2-3, that choice becomes a massive boon. At most, its justification for banning Fenrir. It really is just a modern day Serpent. At least with Unicorn only being legal, you're forced to run more pieces if you want to use it like a pseudo-serpent and you're only able to snipe a card in the extra deck as opposed to sniping a card on the field. As for the Lubellion example, the reason the deck is designed like that is because Branded to some extent takes a lot of pages out of HERO's book. The deck is built around having this fusion summon network, and its ultimately a toolbox deck. Its crazy on paper and the deck can certainly generate resources, but its about on par with other competitive decks. Its fine imo. I think the big issue is that in the case of a deck like Snake-Eye for example, every starter easily leads to about the exact same oppressive end board. And unlike a deck such as Spright in 2024, Snake-Eye's power ceiling is ridiculous. So banning consistency pieces in that deck is a lot more warranted. Meanwhile in a deck like Branded, sometimes you can't always end on certain bosses depending on your starting hand and have to commit to a half board in order to further extend in the mid-late game. There is no real "half board" in Snake-Eye, everything leads to its intended end board.

[@Salacavalini]

I'm not sure that "If you draw two of the same hand trap in your opener, you built your deck wrong" is a valid example/argument (are you advocating running all hand traps as one-ofs?), but the overall point of the video is quite interesting and thought-provoking.

[@TheOrganization]

It was the most commonly used hopt card to demonstrate the example. No i'm not advocating for one of each handtrap, but I do think playing 8 playsets in one deck of hopt cards is inherently wrong mathematically and that it doesn't matter currently if you do.

[@tonberryking42]

@@TheOrganization A better example would have been Imperm + Gamma, imo. Or *slightly* more (format dependent) niche, Gamma + Delta in a format dominated by must-resolve spell and monster effects. Maybe Ash + Droll. The point you're making is solid, but using Ash Blossom specifically, or really anything where you're wanting to run at 2+ copies, kinda undermines the point in a vital way. Yeah, it sucks when you draw 2 or 3 Ash, but if you're playing in a format where you WANT to be playing 3 Ash anyways, you're just gonna have to accept the 3.644% of opening 2 or more of it. There is sense in using the most commonly used, but the problem is that Ash conflicts with ONLY itself, and it's still *usually* best practice for, if it's worth running, it's worth running 3 of it - ESPECIALLY if it's unsearchable/non-engine/NEEDS to be seen in the opening 5. Basically, for making your point about deck building, try not to violate another, similarly critical idea/principle about deck building.

[@GutsmanLoL]

@@TheOrganizationI think when you explain it like this, it makes a lot more sense. I wish you would/could focus more on that point and go into more detail because I came out of the video with the same assumption as the above commenter and was really confused what you were advocating for. I appreciate what you’re doing with the video and enjoyed it, though. 👍

[@d.r.6177]

Cards that unbrick your hand, basically. Like dumping Flamberge Dragon with Witch in turn 3 can be gane winning. You would still rather not draw the brick, tough!

[@Lazzle-Dazzle]

I agree with the autocorrect standpoint. My biggest issue with the illusion of Chaos is that it's a ritual monster that isn't worth ritual summoning. So why is it a ritual monster? It's only purpose is to autocorrect and become a possible fusion material for Master of Chaos or Dragon Master Magia. It can help create a target for the true name, but you only really want to use the true name on DMC or Soul servant to extend. I also think Timaeus the united dragon should've had a banish from GY effect to search the Eye of Timaeus from deck or GY.

[@Robert96902]

What a banger video, you really have put into words what I’ve been subconsciously noticing playing the past few months. I recently got back into the game and I already know the combo lines of a lot of the top decks, at least the ones in master duel lol 😂

[@Sokaras3]

My Vaalmonica has autocorect card with their scaling effects. Granted in archetype you supposed to pich their main gal so she return to hand

[@mizarstellar2572]

This problem seems to be related to the age old phenomenon of "autopilot decks" or decks that are so linear that they seemingly have little to no skill expression because they always do the same thing every game. Think Evilswarm being Ophion Turbo protect the castle, or Trains being resolve mystic mine then swing for game with Liebe. What's happening with those decks is that they really limited the play lines the player had access to, which limited skill expression, so when decks like that become good, you can make a solid argument for the skill ceiling being lowered due to the nature of these decks. What autopilot decks do at their core is limit or restrict the player's tempo (funneling into 1 predictable line of play and end point that you do every time, and it works most of the time). What these autocorrect cards do, from this perspective, is limit or restrict the player's physical resources, which has a similar effect you can say, but much less so. However taking a step back and looking at other examples of ways cards can come with drawbacks, losing a card from your hand is very tame compared to an archetype lock or a type / attribute lock or a summon mechanic lock. Those do the same thing (limiting the player's options) but in much more overt ways that can have really detrimental effects on a deck or card's competitive success. Viewed in that light, losing a card from your hand can allow a card to have a drawback that a player can feel and can reign in the power of a card(s) while at the same time not reigning it in so much that it can't function. From a game design standpoint I can imagine a card designer throwing their hands up like "Okay listen powerful cards need drawbacks or they break. This idea of having the drawback be a loss in card economy is something that seems to work in a way that both doesn't kill the card but also doesn't allow it to break as hard. Its either that or its gonna make you run a brick or its going to lock you in some way, its not going to be free." And further expanding on it, it can simply be the case that *any* restriction or drawback attached to a powerful card is necessarily going to restrict / limit the player using that card in some way and no matter what that restriction is, the net result is that the skill ceiling is lowered by virtue of the fact that the restriction is limiting what the player can do with said powerful card / deck overall, _which is by design_ . Sort of like saying that of course a more skilled player would be able to do more with or get more out of Red-Eyes Fusion if it didn't have the lock, and also didn't require 1-2 bricks in the deck to make Dragoon, which can absolutely be true, but misses the bigger point that REF needed a restriction of some sort on it (though maybe they went a little overboard with it). This particular way reigning the cards in is by taking a card out of their hand, and the skill expression would be in skills that are beyond specifically technical play, ie, choosing a card / deck with a set of restrictions that you know are most ideal or that the meta can't exploit as hard or that simply yield the best decks. Or even beyond that, simply working out ways to make the most out of the drawbacks attached to those cards and win in spite of them or even use them to increase your chances of winning as opposed to decrease them (break them somehow basically). So in that sense the problem can be that we're viewing cards and effects like this strictly from a technical play perspective and haven't factored in anything broader, that broader picture being that powerful effects aren't going to (or shouldn't) just be free. This is unless there's a broader argument to be made for removing restrictions and letting cards and decks pop off with less restraint as a means of stimulating diversity and making the game more fun. I can see some avenues to make that sort of argument but the obvious counter argument would be that this sort of approach feeds power creep and can make problem cards and archetypes even bigger problems, leading to lopsided states of the game that won't necessarily be enjoyable to the playerbase. That would be its own whole discussion. The concept is useful to have in mind but overall I don't think cards like this are necessarily good or bad. Its another design tool to reign in the power of cards and any and all ways of reigning in the power of cards is going to have that effect of limiting skill expression. Just in this particular way (taking a card out of your hand) that limitation of your skill expression is maybe in a way that "hurts" more in some ways than others. The way I see it right now is like, take any autocorrect card and then ask the question "would I rather this card be a -1 or floodgate me or make me run bricks or simply not be as impactful on resolution so as it is to warrant those things?" I imagine lots of people will pick the former. Which in a way that makes it interesting. Konami has been getting rid of floodgates. Maybe they're trying to do away with floodgate-like restrictions, so as to make the restrictions on cards to limit their ceiling more interactive. ie, if a card punishes you in some way for using it, instead of floodgating you, its interacting with you. That's an interesting perspective.

[@DarkSymphony777]

I guess that's why I kind of like tenpai, yes they are a very linear deck but that's built into it's identity and also balance If they can't get the otk off, then. Welp guess they die

[@DreamManmns]

I really dont think I agree with this on some levels. Like yeah hyper consistency is kind of a problem but the entire idea of an autocorrect card being a thing that is just "worse design" than a straight +1 is absurd. It doesn't increase variance for an opponent to just get a straight plus one it just means they are winning harder in most cases I am kind of a fan of really strong starters or searchers like diabelle requiring a discard so that they have an actual commitment that can be punished. and calling 3 of a hard once per turn handtrap a deckbuilding error is also pretty weird considering the chance of opening 2 copies of a 3 of is less than 4%.

[@pinnacull]

I agree, not sure how having some kind of drawback is better than not having one. However it seems he actually would rather there be no discard effect than having one even it that means the card is a straight plus. His issue seems to be specifically with discarding cards from hand as opposed to another drawback like tributing from field. I can kind of understand where he's coming from in that sense but I still don't agree either.

[@dylandavis2737]

So well put man, you really broke it down perfectly

[@jamaldavis2480]

Huh, never thought about this. My angle has always been that all archetypes should be viable.... by viable I mean at least rogue level. It should be possible for a person to take any archetype they like and win worlds. Of course that wouldn't be easy.. but yeah it shouldn't be possible. Thhe primary deck I play is Dragonmaid and well the way it plays doesn't really have one of these replaces. Though I suppose you could consider Kitchen one... Though I can't say I've even used her that way as opposed to more copies of Parlor. Though there is the one time I hard to play turn one going second with Ernus to try and get around some things... and Kitchen did facilate me getting a tidying in grave from hand... but the goal there wasn't to replace a card in my hand it was to get a card that I wanted in the grave there...

[@Mosiak1897]

"Konami needs to..." Geez, stop with the cope. When did Konami made any meaningful difference to (standard) YGO? Are they including formats? Are they releasing Champion Decks? Are they finally giving away decent Prizes at tournaments? Are they going to release multiple Structure Decks capable of competing with tier 3, 2 and even 1 by itself? Are they going to release archetype cards that are similar to ash blossom, effect veiler, droll & lock bird, dimensional shifter, Kaijus for all the decks that got power creeped out of the scene etc? Straight up. Wake the heck up, people. Konami doesn't care about you beyond making money from you with little effort. It's the same crap every year.

[@DICEBOY22]

I think its actually for real this time. Ghost presence in Target, Walmart and GameStop etc. with Lorcana taking its big three TCG throne spot.

[@kyokusanagi8208]

Maybe Superheavy Samurai Wakaushi can be an autocorrect card. While in the field you can discard a card and special summon any superheavy samurai from deck, but then you get locked on superheavy samurais. So, to me it feels more like a cost than a "autocorrect" effect.

[@UziOmega]

My idea is bring back Circular back to 3

[@TheAz0680]

Lemme get the searcher that searches the searcher for the best card in my deck. I olay branded and i feel dirty seeing opening and thinking "hey, thats branded fusion access". It feels just like hero with E call into stratos into faris

[@JiryStark]

Don't you forget the foolish+comedy combo, that does exactly the same. Or Kitt.

[@KevinTangYT]

Been saying for a while now that a ramping cards play per turn would force players to have to balance consistency with utility. It does unfortunately reward cards that do both like Fenrir. Mainly that what keeps older cards from being as good is card economy. For example, if Torrentially Tribute wipes your opponent's board but they're floaters, you didn't actually gain an advantage because they can just keep playing. But if they weren't able to play those floaters due to reaching their card play per turn, it bumps the utility of Torrential Tribute. It also would ideally make turns shorter and have more variance due to potentially having to forego searching to put a stronger board. But # plays per turn would need to increase each round to allow more complex plays and raise thr "ceiling". This indirectly deals eith autocorrect cards since tutors lowers the ceiling of the first turn.

[@jaernihiltheus7817]

For pendulums specifically, i would also like to see them give more decks "place a pendulum monster(s) in your pendulum zone" effects in order for them to be able to actually use their mechanics under things like anti-spell or the new diabelle lore monster. They COULD just ban those types of cards, but because they don't, pendulums need those types of effects in-archetype to get around spell floodgates

[@eldest299]

Autocorrect cards are not the real problem, the problem is Konami creating archetypes with no restrictions (tear for example) or generic engines that you can splash everywhere and give you advantage for no cost (fiendsmith), If you look closely all meta decks from Tear format to this day have little to no significant restrictions to them with few exceptions (branded) and this plus power creep and consistency makes them crazy good and versatile, this is also why decks like snake eyes have no weakness and have always a way to play through things.

[@camostrike4395]

you hit the nail on the head as to why Im not enjoying yugioh anymore because out of every link monster only 109 are not generic

[@BagaJr]

Inzektors did win Worlds in 2012, but Wind-Ups were not legal because Shark/Rabbit were TCG exclusive. Inzektors were the only option in that format.

[@GraemeWilletts]

generic extra deck cards are the problem, they should keep it archetypal imo

[@SRH420Gaming-ql9vp]

That's one reason why I think that Pot of Greed could come back to 1 copy because searching cards has pretty much power crept and outright replaced draw power in yugioh. In fact you could go so far as to Ban all copies of each of the Draw Spells in yugioh and Search cards would still make all these existing decks consistently broken helmet decks. What I mean by helmet decks, is a deck that plays itself despite the skill level or experience of the pilot.

[@TangoMichealXD]

Game aint dying in the OCG but in the TCG it sure as hell is

[@tonberryking42]

I've been saying this for years. No, you're not playing Lyrilusc, no you're not playing Blackwing. You're playing a less efficient coat of *paint* for a Halqdon/7 Negates/F0/etc board. As for fixing autocorrect cards, make the replaced card have to matter. No, you can't lose the Driver to get your Circular, you HAVE to give up SPECIFICALLY your in-theme extender/protection/what ever; instead of trading the worst card in your hand for the best card in your deck, now you have to give up the 2nd or 3rd worst card in your hand to get to your starter, AND that card WOULD have had a meaningful output on your end board had your autocorrect card been your starter. Or something like Swordsoul Emergence/Summit, where normally it's locked into a very narrow, and (ideally) less potent result, BUT if you give up something specific, or have some meaningful condition that needs to be met, the options you can pick from suddenly become more generous. Like, instead of making you bottom deck *any card*, Wall of the Imperial Tomb required you to bottom deck specifically a Horus card. Or adding to that, make autocorrect cards have two possible costs/drawbacks, such as give up any 2 other cards for the search, OR give up a singular thing of specific quality (which could something in-theme; or the searched thing can't be special or normal summoned; or its effect(s) are negated or prevented from activating; etc). Somewhat of a tangent, is that revealing as (part of) a cost should become more common, revealing a semi-specific card is the best. And also make *leaving them* revealed also more common, such that even when you hit on multiple HOPT effects, you can't just reveal the same 1 to 2 card(s) over and over for the effects/maintenance costs/etc. You will eventually run out of unrevealed cards in hand and so stop being able to do things, all whilst also giving your opponent knowledge of your hand. So even if it's plussing, or autocorrecting, the cards revealed can no longer be used as something that can be revealed, and also make the searched thing remain revealed, why not, even if it's *usually* going to go from hand to field immediately anyways. A little bit of Consistency has always been about the equivalent of a large boost to a deck's ceiling. However, for the past while, we've been getting cards that increase consistency WITHOUT meaningfully eating out of how high the ceiling can go. In theory, autocorrect cards were supposed to give you that consistency but the card you give up should be lowering your ceiling that turn; but they instead let you give up *any* card, so you just exchange the card that wasn't going to contribute to the ceiling raising anyways. Card advantage is powerful, but card advantage alone doesn't win you games. A 12 card hand clogged with engine requirements, then you're probably gonna lose to normal summon Megalosmasher X. Hand fixing should be something you work for (Saryuja, Hand Destruction, etc) should be something worked for, not something done as a matter of course like how these autocorrect cards do it.

[@Jimpipecigarbear]

Reminds me of how a KZbinr was disappointed on how a six Sam player was using generics instead of showcasing their new support fully in a replay.

[@TwilightVestige]

Hi Dan!

[@applesauce90210]

Ok but what’s the fun in playing a deck that does what it’s supposed to do less consistently?

[@TransformerMF]

Momento on top

[@level3xfactor]

I’ll say what I always say in these videos. I would play Yu-Gi-Oh right now if I could. But I can’t. It’s simply too damn expensive.

[@DiegoSanchez12]

Rota for all 🎉

[@quinkelly1441]

I'm going back too 2013 yugioh deck screw meta

[@thekittenfreakify]

it honestly shpuld die

[@andleepfarooqui7874]

I don’t think this is true. Better players are still winning a lot more.

[@JarbasJack]

We need a new master rule and a new summon type

[@Rain593]

No we don't. The game is in a good place with the 5 ED types (Fusion, Synchro, Xyz, Pendulum, Link) at the moment.

[@JarbasJack]

@@Rain593 not agreed

[@Rain593]

@@JarbasJack A new master rule isn't going to make Snake-Eye less powerful. YGO is already the most complex TCG so why add to it?

[@JarbasJack]

@@Rain593 so you have a Crystal ball?

[@An_Entire_Lime]

​@@JarbasJack And you do?

[@neonoah3353]

Tbh, yugioh is indeed dying, mostly because konami is sucking at managing its power creep. And im not talking tcg/ocg only. Konami literally just released a stupidly broken skill in duel links that lets any deck, LITERALLY any deck, make ridiculous end boards, we just got a banlist, so unless they make an emergency one, this skill will dominate for 1 or 2 months, which deck? Who the fuck knows, any deck can abuse this. Rush duel links they refused to hit the 2 strongest decks in the format, while hitting an average deck, and keeps pre nerfing psychics, which they have been doing since the start of this mode. And tbh, i dont think i need to talk about master duel...

[@richardshiflett5181]

Ygo died after 5ds ended

[@ForteGigasGospel]

I'm gonna be cynical for the sake of being cynical just for a moment cause I thought of it when watching. "Low skill players are able to defeat higher skill players easily now." Really? In my anime card game where season 1 of its anime had a character who's motivation was he lost the game to a kid who had never played before?

[@williamdrum9899]

You make an excellent point

[@DarkAuraLord]

Lol, people acting like that hasn't always been the case. It's a fucking TCG, variance and luck are hard coded into its dna and ygo's balance has ALWAYS been questionable as fuck. In 2006 I was beating grown ass men just because I opened deliquent duo and a sweeper or two. I was like 12. Low skill players being able to beat more experienced ones through total luck or broken shenanigans is half the fucking appeal of a TCG to begin with - MOST PLAYERS ARE CASUAL. 🤦‍♂

[@HuddledEragon]

You say Yu-Gi-Oh is not dying but I would disagree because Yu-Gi-Oh is dying but in a slow pace and the main reasons why it's dying because the game is actually getting more difficult to play. Basically to put simply the only reason why Yu-Gi-Oh hasn't died straight away because of the old fans is the only thing what keeping the game alive and once the old fans leave Yu-Gi-Oh will decline to the point that it will die. Plus why Yu-Gi-Oh is difficult for for new players to join because the amount of money you have to spend if you want to be competitive, learning the rules can be very difficult especially if you're quite young, Konami only thinks about money money money, the amount of negates and many other factors. Basically Yu-Gi-Oh is slowly dying but it will ramp up because everything is getting to expensive to the point that the game is too expensive to play and people to say I'm going to quit, because I do not want to pay x amount of money for one pack, or a single card or a box, plus for new players they would say I seen how this game plays and it's way too difficult to play so I'm going to focus on something else instead.

[@dudono1744]

Yugioh lacks a good casual scene due to prices.

[@Nephalem2002]

Yugioh is dying. You people need to stop lying to the playerbase.

[@TheMegaultrachicken]

How about no omninegates because they are the worst thing to happen to yugioh. legit zero reason to not use them being better than everything else. Legit unbalanced card design.

[@thefierybrib]

1) why is the opponent or the player always a "he"? 2) drawing 2 Ashes instead of 1 Ash and 1 Belle does not necessarily mean bad deckbuilding, but may also be bad luck. Unless you claim that good deckbuilding is playing only 1 copy of each HT. So maybe these autocorrect cards are not rewarding bad deckbuilding, but rather they are a wat to mitigate bad luck?

[@jobejacobs62]

Without Dark Magician, YuGiOh is always going to fail in TCG/OCG. That's the main reason I returned to TCG. Other archetypes can care less about. Does not interest me. Rush Duels does not interest me. What does interest me is DM making YCS Finals.

[@m.greenfield6328]

rush duel? the format where dark magician and blue eyes deck have had a solid competitive presence? support so good that some of it had to be severely hit, that dark magician in that format?

[@EinSilverRose]

@@m.greenfield6328 And meaningful effect costs for the most part

[@Liliana_the_ghost_cat]

Complaining about Yugioh not having Dark Magician while saying "I don't care about Rush Duels" is hillarious.

[@m.greenfield6328]

@@Liliana_the_ghost_cat like i get the outside looking in perspective but as a rush player-- holy cow lmao. like DMG even has her stronger manga effect, and even at 1 obsidian magical soldier still puts the fear of god into me

[@CoolsyNitro]

As much as I love Dark Magician, Yu-Gi-Oh WILL NOT fail if DM isn’t ever present in the top tiers. Your way of thinking is extremely narrow minded and provides a lot of insight as to why you love to lie and create fake decks that have resulted in you getting banned multiple times from deck building sites like YGOProDeck.

[@Nelex5000]

yugioh already died with links buddy ahhahaahahahahh

[@170skeith]

Dying isn't dead. Yu-Gi-Oh is terminal on life support and just waiting to pass lgs's are dropping Yu-Gi-Oh more and more because it just takes up shelf space and doesn't sell my lgs hasn't had Yu-Gi-Oh in almost 2 years because it stopped being worth it Yu-Gi-Oh is played in-between mtg pokemon and Lorcana events by 4 people on a good day