the rescue community will never be the same again ---------------------------------------------------------------- Main Channel: / @farfa VOD Channel: / @farfa-vods Twitch: / farfa
Agree. We care about floodgates, talking about MAXX C, banlists, and competitive viability. People outside our bubble give zero fucks about what is considered modern Yu-Gi-Oh.
Like someone pointed out, If you take his definition of modern, Hamster is BOTH good and bad. Therefore, if someone argues its bad, you can't "actually its good" them since they're also right.
yeah, regardless of his answer he could have easily made an argument for the opposite answer. It's like a lose-lose situation. HOWEVER the act man was one step ahead. He first said it was good as his final answer, then said it was upon being pressed, then farfa locked in the bad answer for him. This in theory makes the Act man right in any case, because he accounted for both sides, so he should get the full point.
OMG thank youuuuu ^^ that was my whole point, I kind of rushed that comment and haven't worded it properly but yes even if modern yugioh starts 10 years ago you can't say "haha it's actually good" when the current format is modern yugioh too
What cards is his supposed to show? Snake-eye Ash? I’m pretty much every one of these types of video has used the record of the card in question to justify it being good or bad, and this card has a good record.
@@ducky36F but it's not good currently and his question wasn't that "was it ever good" and since 2024 is modern yugioh too and it isn't good now you have to accept BOTH yes and no as a valid answer, since it's good in a portion of the modern game and bad in another portion of it
I would personally argue that "modern" is the last 1.5 to 2 series (so 12-16core sets). Farfa's definition includes 3 master rule changes which are big enough to start their own eras. Not to mention sets like Duelist Aliance, Soul Fusion, Secret Slayers, Rise of the Duelist, Power of the Elements and Age of Overlord all brought in new levels and standards of power creep that redefined what modern was when they came out
I'd say the current master rule you're under is what would constitute 'modern'. Even if there are decks or certain cards that shift how the game is played I still say it's considered modern. Just my 2 cents
I think the cause of all of this is the fact that the card didn't age that well. For exemple if you show skullcrobat jocker well that card is still used in today's pend magician but I never saw a rescue hamster in recently played pend decks (or I'm just not aware). It's like saying lanphornicus is crazy, look it has 2 downward pointing arrows and doesn't have detrimental effects! xD
There are better options in some cases, but the real reason Hamster fell off is because it served mainly as an easy way to turbo out Electrumite. Naturally since Electrumite is banned the decks that would play Hamster would rather play something that synergizes with their own strategy instead because of the consistency loss. Doesn't mean Hamster isn't a good card, it's just that the main reason to play it has disappeared, but you can still see it pop up occasionally in OCG lists.
I think what youre saying about what modern means makes sense, but i think most people look at these videos as "if i took this card or a deck with this card to locals can i win" type of thing
@@LS-qs9juimo it should be is card good like it was before...solemn? It was good but now we get different solemn and its bad? That imo is inconsistent. Hell you wanna say hammy good I guess...especially in pen format but I think I would see Iron Thunder of that card on competitive and rogue decks. But yugioh meta changes in easily a year besides end boards besides recently on losing borreload and Ze barrone. Especially with the ruleset change...I think anotger thing is rating bad, mid, good, and broken
If you're using release dates as a logic then you're saying that old cards that saw play either because of new support, e.g. Thunder Dragon, or old cards that never saw play when they were released but only became good because of how they interact with newer decks, e.g. Kaminari Attack (as I seem to have Thunder Dragons on my mind), aren't good modern cards because of when they were released. Or similarly any other old staple card that actually still sees play today that came out before the time you're classifying as modern like Feather Duster, Effect Veiler etc. aren't good modern cards.
I didn't watch the video in question, but saying Rescue Hamster is playable in modern Yugioh is like saying Jinzo is playable in TeleDAD format. "Modern" is basically the same as saying "Current", which means by my current impression, modern Yugioh starts with POTE. I say this as a 33 year old who played the card game at its inception.
Thank you I was thinking the same, also I have 2 interpretations for "modern yugioh" the one you said but also as a kind of sleng term for todays format maybe that was my bad hence farfa got a little mad but I think there are others who think the same
That's why I think farfa should've just made it more clear on what he defines modern as. I'd argue you could go as far back as mermail and fire king where modern style combo decks really took off. Obviously, it's not modern, but the fact that it can be argued makes it hard to judge a card off of that.
Calling it a good modern card is fine, it fit the same criteria as other cards, but since he didn't know about the impact of the master rule change on the pendulum mechanic it seemed like a bit of a cheap "gotcha."
@@ashemabahumat4173 I only say that considering that he explained the pendulum mechanic as context for the card. The master rule change should've been included as context is all I'm saying.
Who cares about the MR change? The change from MR4 to MR4 Revisions changed LITERALLY NOTHING about the pendulum mechanic. Most of the tops this card got were in MR4 where pend was nerfed.
CONTEMPORARY That is the word you guys are looking for. “Modern” is arbitrary and could mean anything from most recent year to 20 years plus depending on context. For example, historians use “modern”, “post-modern” and “contemporary “ as 3 separate frames that cover 100 years…
i agree, MR changes are a reasonable and objective line to draw in the sand. back when the MR revisions dropped people talked about the game "post-MR revisions" in the same way that people normally just say "modern" because it was an important shift in how everything worked. but i also think that you could argue that the MR revisions not being a true MR5 means MR4 should be included and that wouldn't be completely insane... I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't laugh, unlike Farfa saying anything starting with Duelist Alliance is modern
OMG I got featured yeeeyyy xd well not only featured but being the main reason you made this video that's so cool in a way (I really like your content btw and didn't want to be mean or anything) So a little context/explanation: I have 2 interpretations for what "modern yugioh" means. As an era yes it can originate from dragon rulers or link summoning or MR5 (so no I actually don't think tearlament is old school). But I made a wrong assumption and used my other interpretation for the phrase, and for me it's kind of a slang for current format. That's my bad. Sorry if it made you mad or anything but at least we got a good video out of it and also I just laughed so much at 14:05 I probably havent laughed that much in the whole last year, so thank you for that xd But yeah that was a miscommunication from my part Tear format is obviously not old scool ^^" I was just thinking modern as a phrase for current format and not as an era. As an era it can contain 1-2-3 even 5-7-10 years, it's really subjective. And yeah that's why you should have clarified it a little for the guest and for the viewers what you mean by "modern yugioh". Also if a card was good X years ago and it's not good now you can't really say it's objectively good maybe say it *was* good, that would be fair. And yes even if it was good for 5 years but after that it's not good for 5 years that means it was good for half of modern yugioh and not good in the other half of modern yugioh, so at that point saying it's good and it's bad are both should be valid answers. For me the only scenario where "yes" is the only valid answer is if the question is "was it ever good" and not "is it good" because the latter is present simple tense and it's usually used for things that are currently true / in yugioh context good in the current format. Sorry again I didn't want to seem like a mindless reddit commenter or anything, that comment is not my usual style I def rushed it and haven't worded it properly (I hate writing on mobile), have a good day ^^
Mtg has a format called ‘modern’ and it includes all sets from 2003 onward, so defining ‘modern’ yugioh this way isn’t that wild. And the idea of kit being a boomer card is hilarious
I can give you a parallel in another game: in the National Football League the “modern era” is any year after 1966 when the AFL and the NFL merged to become the NFL, with the AFL changing its name to the AFC. But you wouldn’t call 1960s football modern, they didn’t even wear mouthguards or chinstraps…. Yet, teams going back into the 80’s (which is still nowhere near how the game is played today), started to regularly display modern tactics that every team will use in some capacity now (Miami Dolphins, 49ers, Rams were examples of “modern” type teams in the 80s)as the knowledge base of the old league is still relevant on occasion. It’s very hard in games so legacy based!!!
This doesn't generally apply to yugioh. Basing it off the current metagame is really the only thing that makes sense. Monster Reborn is a good card now that came out forever ago. A card being modern or not is irrelevant.
Okay? Your point is what? Block Dragon saw 0 play for 4 years outside of rogue at best BA builds which is more than it saw in Adamancipator (a deck with no official top btw) so is it also a bad card? Rescue Hamster is an objectively good card (add 2 or summon 2 from deck with 0 actual restrictions besides pend monsters) held back by the fact pendulum sucks and it still got tops during MR4 where pend got absolutely gutted.
@@amethonys2798 Rescue Hamster sucks, Pend decks don't even play it in the formats where Pendulums aren't awful. Endymion and Pend Magician recently topped small OCG events with no Hamster. None of the decks I could find on Masterduelmeta (Endymion, Pend Magician, Dracoslayer) play it either.
@@L_O_V_E_L_A_I_N I mean, guy, Endymion is so busted that konami made it so the deck can't really play non-engine unless it's draw spells, and PenMages have tons of support that increase their ceiling way beyond Hamster being a free Electrumite. A shitty pendulum deck would be way better just by playing Hamster though.
@@admontblanc If your argument really is "Hamster is good, but only in bad decks" then I don't think there's much of a point to having that conversation. Might as well go and argue that Vampire Fraulein or Cyber Slash Harpie Lady are good in Modern Yugioh.
1) Just because a card has tops/tournament success doesn't mean it's a good card 2) I haven't seen any deck profiles from the era Rescue Hamster was played in, but even if he is in those lists, his actual impact or usability may not have been very great 3) don't assume that 2018 is a solved format- just because Rescue Hamster was considered a good card in the past, doesn't mean it actually was- the ability of retrospection is our advantage of the present. For example Solemn Judgement.
saying rescue hamster is good because it has a top 6 years ago is like saying Gale Dogra is good because it topped in YCS charlotte back in 2022. Wake up old man
Saying "saying rescue hamster is good because it has a top 6 years ago" is retarded, because it had multiple tops, including a WCQ 2nd place. Gale Dogra is also pretty good because it has an effect that bypasses certain restrictions to exploit the effects of cards you can't normally access. If you are gonna make bad faith arguments at least try to come up with good examples and accurate points.
I suppose it's just about how people interpret 'modern' YGO. You know, this reminds me of your Salamangreat Theory video where people just never really has the same general opinion. This is why humanity can never achieve world peace.
It's not really, people are just coping on it because Farfa kind of did his guest dirty by making the question in case tricky, and since the guest is a beloved content creator across many communities people are upset at Farfa and blowing it out of proportion, but instead of calling out Farfa for tricking his guest most comments are attacking Farfa's reasoning about the card's value, which can be proven with actual data.
I’ll say as a magic player, I think with rotation and format’s based on years onward, it becomes easier to classify cards based on how they are at the time, of course cards can get better with new support and synergiesFor example our modern is cards printed 2003 and onward, even getting support designed for the power level to support that format in modern horizons warping our other historical formats. I think if Konami supported time wizard more or trying to reflect or even expanding it to allowing modern support for those older formats and having a separate ban list from the current yugioh, it could create a more clear understanding for people who are dumb enough to think something from last year isn’t fucking modern.
I personally think the biggest flaw of this "modern card" issue isn't the date that the cards were released and more so evaluating the cards on an even ground. Saying rescue hamster is a good modern card is fine in a vacuum, based on what you interpret a modern card to be. But where i think the issue lies is every card should be either good or bad at a singular moment in time and in comparison to the other cards being judged for the entirety of the video. Having forbidden droplet, a card that came out late 2020 and rescue hamster a card that had tops multiple years before forbidden droplet released and no meta impact since droplet released both rated as good cards at the same time is a incorrect way to judge the merit of cards in my opinion.
" But where i think the issue lies is every card should be either good or bad at a singular moment in time and in comparison to the other cards being judged for the entirety of the video." In which case Hamster is always a good card and Farfa is correct.
Rescue hamster has more text than I'm willing to read. So I personally don't see a problem with it being considered a modern card... Unless we establish a Yu-Gi-Oh middle and renaissance age, where they're powercrept by newer cards but definitely not old school Yu-Gi-Oh.
First actman wanted to say good by probability and farfa denied it. Then farfa justified his reasoning by saying that it's about a format that act man didn't know about. Today the card is bad but that one time during x format it was good enough to be play in a degenerate pendulum deck. It was nearly impossible for him to get it right.
He wanted to say the card was good because "statistically you've shown me 3 bad cards so far so this one has to be good!" which isn't the point of the series at all.
@@FarfaHighlights😢I get that but it was basically the only way it could get it right because the card in itself is a trap.... Like a real trap not at trap card anyway. How could he have guess otherwise? Can you describe a reasoning (without knowledge of pendulum* format) that can make actman guess that it was a meta card.
@@FarfaHighlights neither is gaslighting your guests immediately after telling them you've been accused of gaslighting them and taking the point away for no reason. A lot of comments point out that the card is a trap because it's both good and bad at different times in the modern formats according to your idea of Modern (you even say this yourself, things can be both good and bad at the same time), so by that standard you actually SHOULD give him the point, because both answers are correct by your own parameters. Unless you intended for Hamster to be a guaranteed point if he'd failed the rest, instead he got all the others correct and you used it as a failsafe so he COULDN'T win, which is hella bad blood, man. The actual most factual statement you made in this vid is that you never should have used Hamster in the first place.
Honestly just take the "L" it isn't a hill worth dying for, like yeah it was good a looooooong time ago, so long we have different rules and game mechanics, like dude 6-7 years ago my country had another president and i didnt have 2 nieces. The game is 25 or 22 years old, your talking about something thats a quarter of its lifespan old as if its in its prime value for today standards, its absurd, Droplet is a good card no matter the age that's because of how good of a card in comparison to other cards, if your given a bag with "Good" cards and they told you inside are cards like droplet, imperm, ash and other, when you open it you expect cards of the same good caliber not a rescue hamster.
That's a fair assessment, although fundamentally not that much changed from MR4 and 2020 update, and absolutely nothing changed for a card like Rescue Hamster since 2017.
"Rescue Hamster won a world spot", Did it? Was it really rescue Hamster which did it or just pendulums as a deck? That's like putting kuriboh into your side deck and saying kuriboh won worlds. No no it wasn't the deck itself which won, it was that specific card which made the difference.
I think the issue is most of Farfa's commentors are people who keep up with Yugioh, tourney players, or just play the current format. In that aspect "modern" being more recentish like MR5 or something makes sense. But this is Modern bases on TheActMan/Yugi boomer perspective. Which in that instance modern to them is when Yugioh reallt got complicated. Which is prob more late Syncro and DEFINITELY Pend era stuff. The thing most Yugi boomers complain about is Pendulum cards
The thing is though, it can be difficult to tell just how much a "yugi-boomer" pays attention to modern meta. the act man himself stated that he was under the impression that he was rating the cards based on if they would be good today, showing the lack of clarity of what was meant. In addition, at one point in the video he said he hasn't paid attention to the meta in over a year or so, which was a rough estimate, but recent enough to assume he probably has paid attention to the meta to at least some extent post MR5, by which point hamster would have been pretty irrelevant.
@Frogleeoh I don't disagree. Which is also why he has the additional modifier if the tournament topping background. Unless there's an instance of him using a card as a "this doesn't count" when referring to something that didn't have tournament tops.
yeah I use modern as a kind of slang term for current format maybe that was my bad, I actually don't think tearlament is not modern ygo it's just modern in a different way, and it should have been clirified a little more in the video
>Old School Yu-Gi-Oh is everything from Legend of Blue-Eyes to Cybernetic Revolution, where it was all main deck, good stuff card piles. >Classic Yu-Gi-Oh is everything released from GX, to Zexal. Where the ED & Special Summoning became more prominent and archetypes replaced pile decks. >Modern Yu-Gi-Oh is everything released after Duelists Alliance until Links came out. Decks became more complicated, often incorporating multiple summoning mechanics, hard to out boss monsters, omni negates and other forms of turn-1 interruptions aren't uncommon anymore and hand traps became the norm. >Post-Modern Yu-Gi-Oh is where we're at with Links and MR5. The game has speed up tremendously, games are decided within 2 to 3 turns and building a board with multiple interruptions/breaking said board is the name of the game.
Under the same reasoning of Rescue Hamster being good back then, would you also call Dark Rebellion Xyz Dragon a "good card" for modern yugioh's standards because a lot of topping decks used to play it back then due to lack of better rank 4 options? The whole argument seems very dodgy if we're going to ignore cards in a current setting and set arbitrary environments of play in time to justify whether they're good or bad. The same can be argued for "modern" cards in 2014-2015 that were bad then but are good now (Odd-Eyes Meteorburst Dragon for example). Would you argue that such cards should be good or bad given the fact that there are Tenpai decks are topping with them now? See what the issue with the arugment is?
That's a good card lol. A lot of people confuse not being good now with not being good at all, which is why they're always surprised when cards resurface into the meta. Good cards need a home. Most of the decks in the current meta aren't good homes for a lot of past good cards.
@@GaussianEntity You've missed the point of the post. This is about what kind of context facilitates a good card and when do we consider a card not being good anymore if it falls off and it doesn't see play anymore. It's a very vague statement to claim "Dark rebellion xyz dragon is a good card" for today's standards where 0 of the decks topping events are using it.
@@DarkChaosSilver Again, good cards need places where they can be exploited. In the case of Rebellion Dragon, it's an Xyz that does basically what Accesscode does. It's not being run because Accesscode is easier to use. But that doesn't really affect Rebellion Dragon's own viability because it can OTK while the opponent has a board, something Accesscode cannot do. So we have to look at other factors, namely the fact that it is a rank 4 Xyz and those have fallen out of favor. All it takes is some level 4 engine like we had in the Xyz era for it to possibly see play again.
@@DarkChaosSilver I just looked it up. I'll admit I might have been slightly confusing it with the other one but this one still can OTK with the right setup. I know this because I've been one-shot by both this one and Arc Rebellion Dragon. Being able to deal its current ATK as damage regardless of board is nothing to scoff at.
tbh some comments are completely wrong , they consider all cards that is used at currently format is considered modern just take example like skill drain or any 20 years ago floodgates that still popular today i wouldn't call these cards modern , i would just call them actively played cards (active cards )
If you’re rating a card in a “modern” sphere of play (IE: now), hamster is not good. If you’re rating a card if it got play ever, within X amount of years. Sure This whole thing becomes much easier if you just drop the word modern😂
Except that modern in this community means something very specific. Most people would agree that spamming tons of monsters on the field, hand traps stopping tons of combos, and powerful effects are a hallmark of modern Yugioh. That's usually the definition that's used to distinguish from older formats, even though some decks have been capable of this in the past.
@@GaussianEntity yea I think most would agree as to what modern is. But I will say what you’re describing is more of a non specific thing. One could find and set a specific date or year when that started to be more prevalent, and then a different arguement would ensue.
@@GrieveIV Not really. You could argue that tier 0 or even some tier 1 decks in the past had the ability of modern decks, and some of them did in fact. However, you can see the game significantly slow down after the banlist destroyed that specific deck. The biggest change was always the introduction of a new mechanic completely turning the game upside down. If you really want to nitpick what "modern" is, you would have to be specific in what you're referring to. Most people think they mean the Link era or MR5, but even that had specific stages, and the first part was much faster and less interactive than the later parts btw, so it's not even about speed.
@@GrieveIV 2017 when we got MR4, although you could say 2018 when links became a truly defining factor for every deck (coincidentally when Hamster was the most relevant).
Because you're arguing the card was good in a completely different ruleset. Master rule 4 might have been relatively recent, but you didn't offer Actman that context. By MR 5 standards Rescue Hamster is absolutely trash. This whole thing feels extremely bad faith.
Lol well the difference in Master rule didn't affect Hamster's viability. More so, the kinds of cards that came out after determined that. Farfa did apologize and agree about the context issue, so what else appears as bad faith?
The video brought up the point that hamster was in topping lists post-MR4, early into the modern era of MR5. There's a distinct difference between modern era yugioh (MR5) and modern format yugioh (snake eyes), and I truly believe you are evaluating based on format and not era. This hair splitting is pretty much just a disconnect between a hyper casual and competitive crowds and shouldn't be taken that seriously. I can't say anything about the bad faith argument except that it's up to interpretation.
@@saraakthefgomaster7694YEEESSS exactly as you said I have 2 interpretations about "modern yugioh" farfa was mad at me for saying for me it's todays format but I just use modern yugioh as a sleng term for todays format. So yeah that was my bad, I don't actually think that tearlament is not modern yugioh, for me modern (the era interpretation) can either start with dragon rulers or links or mr5
@@mcrepresentative4232 the bad faith here is only on dumb commenters invoking 2020 MR update as an argument when it's exactly as you say. The reason Hamster sees no play today is because Electrumite got banned and all the pendulum decks that are viable nowadays don't play Electrumite/are playing to that level without Electrumite (obviously). Hamster's main purpose was to make Electrumite without investing much, so ofc with that card banned it doesn't really shine.
Don't you see, modern yugioh isn't even today. It's whatever the most recent banlist tells us what the format will be in a week. Meaning modern yugioh... Is literally inaccesably the future /J
I still wouldn't call Rescue Hampster a great card. It was more so the 2018 Pendulum package with all Dark Penulum stuff with *Electromite at THREE!!!* Closest comparison would be like saying Black Metal Dragon is a great card because we can use it in Dragon Link decks to search REDMD and then combo off. Is it the card itself or the combo which is enabled with several other powerful cards doing the heavy lifting? Its not a garnet but come on.
No card is good in a vacuum. All cards are able to be good or bad due to other cards it interacts with and current rulesets. Sounds like you described a situation where playing X card contributes to a strong combo in a modern deck without being a garnet. Sounds pretty good to me
@@mcrepresentative4232 I suppose you're right. Though, TBF, there have been a lot of janky cards played in the meta. Remember when Mushroom Man Number 2 was used as a counter to Kashtira? There are different categories of good cards and I'd put the Rescue Hampsters & Black Metal Dragons in a different category than the REDMDs & Electrimits. I might just be drawing lines in the sand, though.
Calamities is ass in a vacuum. How would you even make that Xyz normally? It became broken thanks to an archetype good at exactly making it, no other archetype could abuse it consistently. King Calamity while not as broken as Calamities is still a good card but not meta enough because centurion isn't t1 right now. If centurion and king calamities were present in Calamities format they would have been t0 but that doesn't mean King calamities is better then Calamities becuse we can't compare cards that are good in one format to the ones good in another. The same goes for Phoenix and Dragoon that were top tier only because they were in a combo format where Verte was legal. Both of them are ass right now and they wouldn't be broken even if they brought back Verte because at the cost of a weak interactions they take up slots in the main deck and extra deck that no good deck would waste.
@@pickyphysicsstudent201 you are drawing lines in the sand but it's ok to have your own internal sense of card value in a vacuum. Card value shifts depending on context, but when you just say "is this card objectively good" like Farfa posits in his video multiple times then you are removing context, and at that point drawing lines is completely reasonable. some lines are more defensible than others and i think yours is pretty defensible while Farfa's line of "it was in multiple topping lists pre-MR revisions" is less so. I also agree with the guy who's saying Dragoon is a good example of a card that is not actually objectively good but was contextually good enough to see a lot of play
As someone who has played yugioh from 2002 to date, Yugioh eras are weird but, personally, I believe the game can be segmented according to what the design trends were, of course, there are some exceptions inside each era, even so, in general the game can be looked as: 2002-2008: The original broken mess, basically most broken individual cards were printed here, going from pot of greed in LOB to DAD in PTDN 2009-2013: The classic: Here the game got its identity, giving birth to the synchro and XYZ 2014-2017: Modern Yugioh, Duellist Alliance, and consecutive sets made the building blocks of what yugioh is now 2017-2019: (modern times)Dark Ages: The lowest point of the game in terms of design 2020-2021: Post-modern: MR5 and dealing with some of the leftovers of the Dark Age 2022-present: Post-post modern(?): Everything post-POTE has changed forever, the game's power has been raised once again, this is basically duellist Alliance 2, the game has never been the same since POTE was released in 2022. So... yes rescue hamster Is a modern card! At least according to myself.
I consider "modern Yu-Gi-Oh" to begin in 2020, the first somewhat playable link format. The pendulum era (2014-2017) is so radically different from the Link era I can't consider them the same thing. Also why I'm against Farfa here, a card good in 2018 isn't that good in 2020, especially when even in 2018 it was mostly good because of Electrumite, which is closer to a Modern deck than a pend-era deck.
@@lunk642 while that is fair a lot of people also define modern the same way Blaze did as around that time was when the shift to the current design philosophy with a heavy focus on combos occured. Farfa as well as basically all of his yugituber/streamer friends have been pretty consistent on defining it that way as well. Id say the only real critique is that he should have defined the criteria better at the beginning so TheActMan could no that late XYS, pend era, MR4, and MR5 are all considered modern and Act Man could ask for clarifications on those if needed.
@@Pfish1000 That's fair, but I still like defining it this way because I see link monsters as the cause of the combo-oriented metagame. Links enable fighting game style combo cancelling, where you take useless monsters on board and cancel them into extenders to keep the combo going. I really think that if there weren't any links the only decks that would need spreadsheets would be ones that have cards specifically printed to enable that style of gameplay (basically just D/D/D). In terms of the video you're right that the main issue was proper definition though, if 2018 is considered modern, and that was made clear, there wouldn't be a problem.
@@lunk642 There were incredibly heavy combo formats before links, what are you talking about? Even before the introduction of links, the vast majority of decks were midrange to combo.
@@salat8735 Yes, but links ENABLE combos. Before Links, decks could generate a lot of advantage and combo off, but without an easy way to convert those resources into interaction the most they could do with it was make 1-2 extra deck monsters and pass, which meant backrow and back-and-forth were still relevant. Links enable you to convert any advantage into both generic extenders or boss monsters as needed, which dramatically raised the ceiling for how powerful combos could be.
I think you are right calling it modern in theory yes but YGO is so fast paced and has gotten so much power creep over the years that modern could mean like 3-4 years meaning it goes by faster than other games metas.
Typically I consider the current roatation (or in this case master rule) to be what the modern format era is in regards to card games. For yu-gi-oh's case the modern era is currently MR5.
The problem is that you have a definition of modern that a lot of people, dare I say most people, will not agree with. Maybe if you specify that from the beginning there would be no confusion, but there will definitively be disagreement. Also what is "modern" is always relative. If you are using it as a synonym to contemporary, the rescue hamster is a horrible card. If you are using it to the moment it topped, I guess you could say it was ok. Some cards are terrible when they come out like Babycerasaurus, but as soon as a deck revolves completely around the pop the baby concept, it suddenly becomes very good. But I don't see Dinosaurs topping a lot these days. If you decide a year that divides classic yugioh and "modern" yugioh, you have to specify it, also does this year ever change? Is there "post modern" yugioh? Think about it.
Overall I agree and I think Farfa would as well. The issue is the people insulting him about being wrong haven't done the thinking you have suggested before making a big deal of it. To Farfa, this was just a funny video he was doing with a friend
@@Saixjacket lol I'm sure we all will say something stupid soon What pass am I giving him? Not only his words but his approach to the situation clearly indicates he did not give deep thought to the community's philosophy on modern yugioh, and many of the reactions here indicate people are far too deep in their own mentality that they cannot fathom someone having a different opinion without being dumb or malicious
I thought the universal agreement was that every "era" was whatever the current Master Rule is, not the format. I'd say Hamster just barely not a modern card by that definition but that's just me
In my opinion, modern yugioh will always be the current state of the game just because the power creep in this game is insane. If you compare archetyles pre and post tearlaments their power levels are night and day. No restrictions, hyperconsistency, small engines. A switch was flipped and suddenly half the cards on the ban list look weak compared to newer cards. Goukis were mentioned a lot in this video so if someone came up to you and said I want to play a modern yugioh deck would you recommend them goukis?
My buddies define the introduction of Links as Modern Era Yu-Gi-Oh. So yes to some people Gouki is modern. Also are Tri-Brigade and Adamanciaptors modern decks considering they are almost 5 years old?
It should've just been clear from the beginning, kinda like how TheOneJame does it. Plus I wouldn't go further back than the creation of Master Rule 5 for what's considered modern.
What would telling the guest WHO DOESN'T PLAY THE GAME what the time frame is do? It's an arbitrary cut off that means nothing to them. Like I'm sorry to break it to some of these goobers, but the game has not changed THAT much in the past 6 years or so all things considered. Gouki and Adamancipator would not be considered "modern" by some of these people yet if they were full power would 100% get a top in 2024.
Unironically saw comments already saying these decks stand no chance today, I'd like to see how Snake-Eyes fares vs full power Pendulum Magician from 2018 with 3x Astrograph and 3x Electrumite. If we unban all the cards these decks were playing with they not only get full power, they get the advantage of newer support. Although it's not the best example, Lithium's cross banlist cup often has decks like pen mages from 2017 going to the final stages of the tournament and winning against much more recent decks, and that's with CBC having the aspect that decks only play the cards they were using in their specific era.
I agree with Farfa about modern yugioh, defining the current format as modern yugioh isn’t exactly fair, that should be defined as “present day yugioh”. HOWEVER, I think we have entered a new era of “modern” yugioh, and things back in 2018-2020 have been so power crept (with the except of a few singular cards but I don’t count that because Maxx C is pre 2018 and that cards still busted), I think post Covid, during the 2022 and onwards (although with things like adamancipator you could argue 2020 onwards) we have entered a new level of power creep that invalidates a lot of decks pre Covid, proven by the fact that “modern” decks in 2018 are getting released off of the banlist and are doing nothing. Tear, Kashtira and Snake-eyes are on a league of their own and this is defining a new era of card design. As for the rescue hamster argument, the answer is this. The card was good, so saying it’s bad isn’t wrong, but it’s not right either. It was both. Good at a time, bad by today’s standards. I will say though, not that I’ve seen what it offered in decks but just because a card is in a deck that does well doesn’t automatically make it specifically good. For example, driver is a terrible card but was mandatory for the gamma stuff which was good.
For me, modern = after Synchro (so 2012 and later). The reasoning is that Synchro brought back boomers and the popularity of the show for a while, and it was a reasonable "refresh" for the game that wasn't so different from contact fusing.
It really depends on how you define "good". Out of the thousands of pendulum decks that have ever topped an event Farfa showed us a list of only 15 that had Rescue Hamster in them. Even back then the card was considered decent; not bad, but not that good either. If the card had consistent tops in pendulums then it would obviously be a good card, but it has less than 1% usage in pendulums throughout its history, so Idk man
im surprised i wasn’t the only one who questioned what modern cards meant. my definition of a modern card is cards being played/seen frequently. like solemn judgement, droplet, lightning storm. but i can only speak for master duel. i dont think ive ever seen someone play Rescue Hamster. but i guess i just havent played against enough Pend decks
I think the problem is with the phrasing of the question. If the question was “Has Rescue Hamster been good during modern yugioh?” Or something like that, it would make it easier to understand that you are asking about any point during what is considered the modern game.
If you want the easiest and probably least controversial way to define what "modern" Yu-Gi-Oh is, then you need to define what consitutes an era change. And the easiest way to do that is when major rule changes happened. Yu-Gi-Oh was largely unchanged for 2002 to 2008. Then we got synchros. In 2011 we got xyz. In 2014 we got pendulums. In 2017 we got links. And in 2020 got the master rule 4 revision, that we usually call "master rule 5". So if we go by "major rule changes that drastically change how the game is played", then we have "modern Yu-Gi-Oh" being anything after April of 2020. We, as a community, need to agree on a definition for "modern Yu-Gi-Oh" to stop idiotic arguments like this from happening. And I think this definition is the most accurate and easiest to quantify. So let's go with that, shall we?
Wouldn't Modern constitute by whatever the Master Rule's at? This all also makes it seem like either way he could say the guest was wrong by making the argument against whatever the guest guesses.
You are too old to understand the timeline. Moderen, by definition, is the CURRENT OR RECENT PAST. 6 years ago isn't recent or current. If you started playing Yugioh in 2016 you would never say "Oh, yeah, I just recently started playing Yugioh."
Modern: relating to the present or recent times *as opposed to the remote past* Modern is always relative to what comes before, so Hamster being a good card in the last 1/5 of the game's lifespan, under practically the same rules you still play under today definitely fits the bill.
Modern in that would literally mean the same rules are applied... so the same Master Rule. If we don't take this into account even BA would be still considered a good deck.
Maybe its time to admit that you cant seperate Yugioh into classic and modern anymore. Modern shouidn't count anything before 2017 honestly, and even thats stretching it.
@@OizenXI can agree with this, and I think Farfa does as well. This new Era is shaping up to be scary and interesting design wise Remind me, what year was Ash printed?
People usually think of modern as current day, so from that perspective it absolutely isn't good in modern yugioh. I'd never consider mr4 and before to be modern, the formats are wayyyy too different, things have completely changed
May one infer that your definition of modern is Post banlist of April 2020 and onward? For people that consider "modern yugioh as today", does that imply Tear is an old school deck?
@@bigdumber7242but what is "premodern" if not old? Perhaps a breakdown of different ages would support that definition, but calling something not modern indicates the philosophy of the game was very different
@@bigdumber7242 I mean, if it's not old, then it's new, no? Are we going to have pre-modern? Post-old? pre-pre-modern? That's just ridiculous. I think a clear distinction was needed, but saying "modern is today" is absolutely ridiculous. Because that's the current format. A modern format. But not the modern era.
Modern to me started with the implementation of the most recent master rule. Anything past that is not modern anymore to me, cuz the meta is judged by a different rule set altogether. Much like how salads, sky strikers, and orcust were generally power crept out by archetypes that shone in the current master rule. The eternal format archetypes were designed for a different master rule.
You don't care abt this comment so you can ignore it. To the people whoagree with you: 12:26 to reuse your firewall example, it's like you showed them post-errata firewall, asked if it was good, they say no, then you say it was meta because the pre-errata version was good. The guest would have no way of knowing that there was a version of this card that worked differently. Now imagine that instead of just firewall geting erratad, every single card in the game was erratad. Firewall would still be very good even if it was nerfed since every other card was nerfed too. It's the same with every summoning mechanic being hit by mr4 so hamster was still good. It's only after we get to the ruleset that is used today (The one Actman probably would know more about) that hamster became too bad.
@@admontblanc I'm saying that the pendulum mechanic was good because all other summoning mechanics were nerfed too. It doesn't matter that hamster can make electrumite easily after that point because pendulum was largely surpassed when mr5 released and gave the other summoning mechanics a buff.
Time periods of when cards are played in these videos can be a funny thing, technically pot of greed is a terrible card no one plays but pot of extravagence is played despite being worse pot of greed.
I consider modern yugioh as when in one format if no deck from the previous format in say salad format for example that’s no longer modern because there are no modern decks in it from the previous format
Personally I would point at the banning of Halq as the dawn of modern era. It shifted us from predominantly Link climb (and similar deck types before like Zoodiac stand out) to the modern era which has less emphasis in making a bunch of negates, but had huge card economy and the emergence of the three effect rule.
Rescue Hamster is bad because it doesn’t do anything on its own. You have to have the setup beforehand, which is one of the arguments YOU LITERALLY MADE EARLIER IN THE VIDEO for BAD CARDS!
