Is Yugioh Getting Rid Of Negates? 

Great point

This explains why I like Ancient Warriors far more than I should, they each have three effects and there designed to counter and break common negate boards and often do so.

@@fakename2890 Which ancient warriors are you talking about? Cause ancient warriors most of the times lose to a single negate and depend on their board breakers to win games.

@@ksiliana Not sure what your talking about? I main them in master duel and hit diamond three or higher each season, even have some videos playing them against meta decks on this youtube account. They excell at breaking boards.

@@fakename2890 As I said they rely on board breakers to break boards. Just as ancient warriors they do nothing and can lose to a single negate.

assuming you can.... most the time Battle Phase focus deck either needs cards that basically floodgate them into the Battle phase or literally just drop evenly first because your opponent board is just too big to get over...

The destruction is not always a good thing, since a lot of cards float in some way upon destruction too, or in the case of Kashtira, it opens up the board again if you destroy their first monster so they can special another for free. So it's not as simple as that usually, which is good.

My issue is negates that stick around. No monster that has negates should have more than 1800 ATK.

I definitely felt Sprights red and carrot having 1800 or more DEF

Yeah, that is kinda disgusting.

Yes they are. Negates used to be tied to counter traps. Now its just part of decks which is crazy powerful

So you prefer the handtrap negate board type of yugioh more?

@@icebearnicho8256 i just want it to go back to forbidden memories format tbh

@@poopyfartboi im actually perfectly fine with that. that was a really good time for YGO, i wouldn't mind going back to that format

Yeah floodgates are so much better than interruption.....

@@poopyfartboi go play older formats then, and stop complaining about modern yugioh

"You can pay 500 life points to A T T A C K Y O U R O P P O N E N T D I R E C T L Y"

​@@thewhitedingo7194 Proceeds to get up from the chair to punch your opponent...but they chain Baronne, and are allowed to kick you in the groin 😂

@@joseruizdiaz9622 Damn 😂 Too bad I'm gonna chain Solemn Judgement to wire $4k to Konami so god will appear for a few seconds to break their leg and negate Baronne 😭😭😭

I think Yu-Gi-Oh is already a fighting game in some respects, though some of them varies according to the format. There is the fact that the learning curve is unforgiving and Chain resolving is essential to define if the game is on "neutral", for example. Depending of the format, one deck can have various combos with various objectives, such as a FG combo. Let's not forget, also, that the game originated from a battle shounen manga and it was its main power system.

"affordable decks" now that's straight up just asking for solemn johnson himself to bless us konami MASSIVELY inflates the price of cards by giving them a higher rarity on purpose, so none of the really good cards will actually be affordable prosperity is still like fucking 60$

Baronne needs goto treatment.

I dont get rank4 regulus

@@eavyeavy2864 springans merry maker - gigantic champion sargas - therion king regulus.

The problem is a large portion of the community froth at the mouth when new generic support comes out that fail to see how it "can" be a bad thing for the game as a whole. And since it will sell komoni is not gonna change that.

Yup that is one of YuGiOh’s biggest issues. What is the point of making all these flavorful boss monsters when people are just going to summon the same exact, generic monsters from the extra deck ….

Spright has grown to be my favorite deck in a while. They don't put bullshit negate boards as some Synchro and Pendulum decks do, and there are lots of funny interactions where they can easily die and never come back or just straight up win no questions asked.

Based Ancient gear player

Yeah the spright meta was one of my more favored recent format in master duel, even with the addition of ishizu engine (right before tear release). Cause at least with the case of sprights, their negates have really weak bodies, which should be the proper design for monsters with negates. Omni negates with stats rivaling a blue eyes should not be a standard of monster design, even if its a high level extra deck monster

Except for the double Iblee lock preventing you from playing anything. Apparently I'm the only person that uses it?

Well thats what the ban list is for lmao

​@@MonkeyFightTCG the summon and adding cards mechanic is the problem. There is To many summoning and adding cards to hand in one turn. If there is a rule that limits that amount of summoning and adding cards to hand in the game. the game will be balanced. The rule will prevent players from setting up difficult to unbreakable boards.

@@trinidadkalalooandrice7026 I can definitely agree on the "adding cards to hand" bit.

@@gozillabk thank you. Those combo are too long and boring. Players will get fedop and eventually they will stop playing the game

@@trinidadkalalooandrice7026 that is true but Konami will never and I mean never put a limit on special summoning. Special summoning is like the greatest gimmick of YuGiOh, it is prevalent in every anime since the hex era . I have no doubt a great deal of yugioh’s problems could be somewhat alleviated if Konami put some type of hard limit on special summoning instead of “draw the out” (better hope you have Nib or x amt of hand traps) but again it will never happen. It is fun though looking back to when this game started. Normal summoning has a clear once per turn because I believe Konami knew that if a player could normal summon more than once per turn, it would be broken. Notice how Konami never put any type of inherent game limit , rule restricting the amount of times you can special summon - but normal summoning more than once per turn , naw can’t have that lol…

Unfortunately, Exosister is a fair deck. Way too fair in a game full of insane broken shit

@@estekel2 It feels really shitty when Exosister's strongest point is being able to field a ton of handtraps without sacrificing any parts of its core. Not anything the core does itself, just that you can run it and have room for tons of handtraps.

@@estekel2 which is why people never expect anyone to win with it

@@KesslerVTuber what is your take on winning by any means necessary vs a healthy game state? or is that to subjective?

,,Great design " by drawing Shifter and hoping

Then comes tear.

Super heavy puts an omni even before their fifth summon what are you talkinv about. Superheavy is one of the worst since spyral era

​@@aytaf5430 n'a it´s a funny deck to combine With other deck. ( I like heavy combo deck ).

@@aytaf5430 *best

Spright doesnt, tear doesnt, kashtira doesnt what are you talking about?

@@aytaf5430 I said literally except superheavy and mannadium

I never said it was casual friendly. I just said it should be and low negates are good way to bring people back.

Bruh what are you talking about traptrix was topping using only what came from the structure decks. Actually look up what you're talking about instead of mindlessly complaining my friend.

@@WShoup9818 "look at this expections ot prove my point." out of f knows how many archetypes you pick a singular one that is not even that hard ot play around by the people that arem ore established. sure its accesible , but the powerlevel you get access too is severely limited and has no hope of dealing with disruption by an aware opponent.

Good, everyone who left after pepe is insufferable

@@Teixas666 i just picked the most recent structure deck. People will literally find anything to complain about. Shaddoll structure people actually topped regionals with only those cards and there are plenty of other structures that have been used to top an event hell the cyber dragon structure took a top at a regional as well. I'm not saying a deck can't be improved and be better by buying other cards because decks definitely can be improved but the point is you don't need to spend like $400 on a deck just to play at a competitive level. Hell mathmech still an amazing deck under $150 with staples and access code is still a crazy deck with most cards being useable in other decks. I won't say certain decks aren't crazy expensive because they're plenty of decks that can easily break $200 mark without being a meta contender and Konami definitely needs more consumer friendly things than just buy structure deck.

I feel like it's mixed. Beacuse while some decks are two card combos. Others like mathmech and superheavy samurai aren't

it's either that or they kill you so quickly that there's no possible way for you to predict it the turn before

i don't think yugioh needs a hard reset, just a change in priorities. judging from the ocg, the post kashtira format looks excellent. however it is going to be a challenge for konami to maintain and expand that level of diverse and interactive play while keeping players happy.

Not a hard reset, but some form of set rotation. Maybe one where every non-archetype card is legal (e.g dark hole) but only new archetypal cards are legal. But that might require konami to create far more archetypes than they usually do and create much larger sets. They should also still support a format where rotation doesn't exist at all through competitions and such.

@@monkfishy6348 Archetypes aren't the issue. Only the most recent archetypes even see play at the highest level. You aren't seriously complaining about someone playing Sky Striker in current year. The only positive reason to do rotation is to filter all the busted non-engine cards before they become problematic. Appointer, Smoke grenade and most floodgates. The issue with this however is that in a rotationbased format there are core sets and reprints so the game is playable and thus its pointless unless konami changes their design philosophy and if konami were to actually change their design philosophy then we wouldnt need rotation in the first place.

@@monkfishy6348 Well the issue is,at some point there will need to be a cut cause cards will literary only say "Win the game!" as a quick play spell if the power creep keeps on

Your point about archetype specific Handtraps is extremely key. Blackwings have a searchable Effect Veiler with an attack decrease side effect. Most decks only run 1 copy, bits its super effective and provides even weak boards some kind of interaction that is somewhat unique to the deck, nothing is worse than drawing no handtraps

The first take has been suggested a lot of times. The only reason I see no point in it is because it makes the cards almost unplayable due to how much Konami has neglected the decks they would be restricted to.

​@@chewdoom8415 good

@@cuttlefish6839 I think you might as well just ban them at that point. That's too many erratas

@@chewdoom8415 you can say the same thing about too many bans

Seriously I was so hype when superheavy samurai came back. Turns out its just generic boss monster spam now. Extremely disappointing.

or the issue is when your Archetype boss monster is worse than this Generic one by a Large Margin.

So you dislike the negates and dislike what's taking over it

@@troytheboy1985 My issue isn't that they are moving from negates, it's that they're making everything too generic, and we have now been shown examples of interactions that are far more toxic than negations. (These being zone locking and deck destruction through banishing, which Kashtira has both) I'd probably like it more if they just put restrictions on stuff and also made sure there is an actual way to play around those interactions. Can't really play around your zones being locked up and your deck and extra being entirely dismantled before you even have your turn

@@JakeTheJay but that's not a genrtic issue that's a.floodgate one

Archetypes with xenolocks have been around for a decade now and they’re still getting printed today - though to my knowledge none that lock you out of handtraps / non-engine as well as combo pieces. The playability of something like that comes down to flexibility. If a deck only gets to play it’s own archetypal cards, then there will be one undeniably optimal list running the best 40 cards available in that archetype, and if you use that deck then everybody that you play will know exactly what they need to play around and/or side into. For the past 12 months, the best decks (ishizu tear excluded, since that decks engine hard countered 90% of the meta anyway) have been the ones capable of playing an absolute minimum of 15 non-engine cards. This means pilots can constantly adapt their decks to be best prepared in the ever changing meta - look no further back than the recent kash format, where in just one format the popular tech choices went from dark hole + enemy controller >> book of eclipse + lava golem + nibiru >> book of moon + kaijus + kurikara + evenly matched. Unless you printed an archetype with an unprecedentedly high number of cards that allowed them to cover all the bases offered by the tech cards from that one format, they’d be an incredibly meta-dependant and situational pick.

@@ct1296 I can see and respect the position presented here. I have 2 counterpoints to make to this argument, though sadly they do contradict each other: 1) There is nothing preventing a archetype being large enough to support some variety in play styles ("Performapal" anyone?), while remaining "Archetype-locked" as I suggest. Even if not all cards are considered "good" they can still hold value in a way to play or become good later with shifts in the meta (Remember then the only "Neo-Spacian" card worth playing was Mole, and Aqua Dolphin was a joke? or how "Cyber Dragon Infinity" was unfair enough to cause cards around it to get banned for ending with one whole negate on the board?) 2) Since when is a deck being "Meta-dependent" and "situational" a bad thing? As somebody that just went to their locals and literally 60% of decks were some narrow variant of Branded, I like a meta with diversity, and specific decks in and out of the meta to work in concert with or in opposition to what is currently in meta. There SHOULD be a place for Exosisters in and out of the meta as graveyard decks come and go. There SHOULD be a place for spell-heavy decks like "Sky Strikers" as metas heavy on monster negations but light on spell negations come and go, etc. Does anyone want "Mistaken Arrest" in their side board? If the meta revolves around searching cards in deck and adding them to hand and I can build my deck to not need to do that, I do. If Konami released a new set with a top archetype that laid out as "This deck does "X" well. This deck is good against "Y" type of decks, but weak against "Z" type decks. Here is some okay but not great (read: "good enough to play, not good enough to make us limit it in the next year") generic support for "Z" type decks in there as well. Go." and players had 5 or 6 different options about what kind of "Z" type decks they wanted to run with meaningful nuances, or a set with 3 premier archetypes that "rock, paper, scissors" play styles with one another well enough that none are the clear top choice, I think that would make for a healthy game state. If we're going by the ratios of "Tier 0 is over 65% of topping decks, Tier one 15%-65%, Tier 2 5%-15%, etc..." I would rather have a meta with 10 "tier 2s" based on what the local scene is than with one Tier 0 based on the new set is.

D/D/D?

Its significantly less powerful compared to omni negates

Decks that bounce/destroy/banish/shuffle hard lose to evenly matched

decks that can produce omni negates dont give a shit about evenly matched or dark hole or raigeki

@@shadowdraqon2479 yeah they do... its called bait

@@Xero-rr2ol u wont be able to bait if they have 9000 negates

I think the problem with tear is how much more powerful it was compared to everything else in the format( requiring anti meta options which relied on playing on a completely different axis like floo) the shufflers and bystials being the biggest culprits. However the core idea and even the gameplay of the mirror match and how every piece of the game state( from the hand, GY, and field) interacted with each other is imo a good step forward for the future of the game. Not every deck needs to be able to go chain link 15 but Idk.

@@solissnow6857 Oh definetly! I can see why people say Ishizu Tearlament is a fun mirrormatch (I didnt expirience it myself, since im poor, but I can imagine why it is fun to have so much interaction) I think always having an option to interact with the other player using all resources you have is a good way forward and it would be definetly nice to see more decks that could do that,. just not that overboard (or easily exploitable) I actually wanted to make a tearlament deck at some point, before I even knew they were meta, just because I liked their art And also yeah I also agree with the chain link part For the sake of both players, the judges and people watching

yesterday in master duel i had a match against pure Dogmatika, i was playing Tears and it was a challenging, unique and really fun duel even if they were milling my extra deck and had Village of the Spellcasters on, Sulliek carried me over like a champ in that duel. point being, i don't mind their deck being intrusive if i still have a chance to play the game, Kashtira banishing face down seems fine, but i think everyone has problems with the Zone-Locking, i think pure Runick is a really fun deck, but people hate runick Stun because floodgates aren't fun

@@Metalseadraking The funny thing is, Tear was a relatively budget deck.

@@strangevol5264 don't underestimate my lack of funds :p Nah I was completely drained from building Branded Despia at that point Now that a lot of cards hit the limited list I see the price being a lot cheaper tho Maybe I can buy two decks and test out the mirror match with my brother

This. I can't stress how much better Yugioh would be if many of the generic cards were just not generic. All generic cards do is raise the power ceiling even more and remove weaknesses from decks entirely! Think of how many problematic cards wouldn't even be discussed if they could only be used in a couple types of decks!

@@JakeTheJay Precisely. Konami had an early era of 40 card generic staple mash ups, decided they wanted archetypes but also print generic links/synchro's/fusions that work in every archetype as well. Failed design philosophy.

Yeah this video missed the fact that the problem isnt negates, but how any deck can pivot into staples turbo. Like this guy missed the fact tearlament could summon winda during your turn, played heralds as monster negate handtraps because of the ishizus, summoned dragostapelia which is a negate, and underplayed rulkallos.

@@FleetAdmirable Winda Rulkallos is like a ghetto Royal Oppression lock too lol

you mean lock your oponent from using their whole board? or playing deck so full of floating and destruction that nothing can stop it?

@@poro9084 well at least we got different ways of interrupting your opponent’s board other than just negating their cards. It makes the game a bit more unique imo. Also, viewing every form of disruption of your opponent’s plays as toxic and unfun is strange to me. What do you consider to be a non toxic way of disrupting your opponent? Or do you think all cards that disrupts your opponent in any way is toxic and unfun?

​@@ultimate_capper3643 Trigger effects that don't just say "no." Maybe instead of negating a search, your opponent loses a the monster instead. Or maybe you doing something triggers a bonus for your opponent instead. I like the idea of your opponent setting up a board that forces you to play differently, rather than a board that stops you from playing at all. Even floodgates are fine to an extent because they're obvious pillars that stop the opponent from doing specific this until they're removed. Locking all your opponents zones so they essentially don't get a turn is toxic, and setting up 5 negates (especially Omni negates) so your opponent can't gain any sort of ground at all, is also toxic. Everything else is just an issue with balancing.

@@ultimate_capper3643 I think being a tier 0 deck that nothing can beat like tear is pretty much toxic.

@@arthurrosa9403 That’s not my point tho? I was just saying how can you interrupt your opponent without it being considered toxic? Cause from what I’ve seen literally any type of interruption is considered to be toxic. Negating your opponent’s cards? Toxic. Destroying your opponent’s cards? Toxic. Banish your opponent’s cards? Toxic. Bouncing your opponents cards to the hand or deck? Toxic. Zone locking? Toxic. At what point can an interruption be not toxic? Or is the entire aspect of interruption toxic and you prefer YGO to just be a beatdown game where whoever summoned the highest ATK monster wins?

So soul charge

@@gamedominatorxennongdm7956 Well since it's the effect of all orcusts separately it's more annoying

@@LadyoftheLab the only thing that makes Orcust less annoying than tears is that you could set up your board if you go first.

And the playerbase could care less. They love broken cards and will shell out money to get this brokefest of a game going and Komoney knows that.

expulsion isn't even that good honestly, and never was. It is completely useless going second and against trap decks like Labrynth, not to mention they increase the chances of bricking up since you need as much anti-ash techs you can run alongside your other off-engine

explusion is good in master duel due to being a best of one format. so a single expulsion would win 99% there but only be neiche at best in a best of 3 due to the player knowing it'll be coming

Branded feels kind of auto-play to me tbh, just like Tears; the difference being full-powered Tears having so many interactions that one's gotta have a galaxy brain to keep up.

Nah. Dweller turbo is what kills those games.

@@chewdoom8415 so you mean whoever wins the coin flip?

@@isidoreaerys8745 That question seems disingenuous because winning the coin flip is commonly understood to put you in a more advantageous position than your opponent, and we all know how impactful a one sided floodgate is. My point is that dweller is what accounts for the majority non skilled related actions in the tear mirror. Mudora are kekdo account for some of it, but being able able to shut out your opponent once you know they are own tear too is just unfair and removes any incentive to not use agido and kelbek

I think banishing is highly toxic. Lots of decks have no way to recover from having key pieces banished. When I play branded I like to make my opponent measure their options by playing masquerade. But every branded player on master duel is toxic and summons 2 mirror jades and a chimera on your first turn preventing you from getting anything on the board.

@@isidoreaerys8745 "summons 2 mirror jades" bruh you can't have 2 mirrorjades at the same time 💀 if you mean re summon mirrorjade to use the effect again ok, also chimera only pops up to 2 cards, worst part about branded is IDO/RA locks that cheese wins on Best of 1 (MD), if some decks don't like being banished/popped there's some that actually do like it, so that's just the way different cards work, ngl i'm surprised you didn't bring the expulsion locks that cause non-games

@@isidoreaerys8745 I don’t like that take, especially when the more “fair” alternative is a burn card. Banishing restores the original purpose of the graveyard so your opponents cards actually “die” since bouncing or destroying doesn’t remove your opponents resources. Masquerade is usually just a pseudo-FTK card since it limits (and eventually stops) your opponent from making decent plays. Also most decks don’t care if a key card gets banished since they can either recover it or play without that single card (otherwise the deck is probably a linear such as an ftk or a gimmick deck which is usually more toxic)

Lol, least toxic my ass dude.

I guess it depends on when mirror jade uses it's affect some consider it toxic because it can be a combo killer. But it's isn't every turn plus you need materials in the extra deck to use the affect I wouldn't call branded toxic more annoying than anything else. Deck has clear cut weaknesses that can be exploited

just veiler unicorn and adapt from there

Learn to adapt cause half the shit your saying hardly happens

Y’all just like to exaggerate things

Yugioh has always been like this

@@andrejv.2834 ong ever since the game came out there always some overpowered deck

I just picked up Swordsoul after playing VW, runick, spright, basically whatever was op at the time. I feel better when I win with swordsoul bc it feels like I won due to my skill and not some broken card

Well they definitely have respect for the ocg side of things. But have no issues at all screwing over the tcg

Yeah they used to try to keep a lid on the degenerate strategies as much as possible while still slowly upping the power level of the game. Nowadays they just release a bunch of degenerate archetypes at once and then ban the cards that are problematic 6-12 months later just for them to repeat the cycle again.

The only reason I hate runicks is because it isn't nearly xenophobic enough as an archetype that draws you 3 cards a turn

Runick is probably the best designed modern archetype. Though people get confused with it a lot. Its not a mill deck. Its a supplementary engine that is also non-engine removal spells. Runick fur hire is a really good example of its use. Drawing cards in yugioh can be not that great if you draw into duplicates of your engine but Runick doesnt have that issue as all runick spells can either start your combo or act as extra interruption and are thus good draws. The battle phase skip stops games from being too short and ensures a resource focused gameplan that aims to grind the opponent out of options to then spend 1 turn playing no runicks to otk.

i'm a charmer player and i find runick werdly not toxic, runicks let me play with my combos (instead prevent me for doing anything like basically every meta deck), and i even win 2 times against them (with charmers) probably because slow decks are way funnier to play with/against rather than "win at turn 3" decks a game that let you to do so many things in one turn should not end with just 2 or 3 turns

No, no we can't. The deck was released years ahead of everything else. More specifically being able to play on both players turns and every card being a starter was too much.

Not yet

The amount of disruptions is more important than the type of disruptions

I know right. Thanks for watching!

Tbf, I think swordsoul was an accident. After years of good support for the deck that couldn't fix it, these two newest monsters finally did it.

Yes, most definitely. Besides the heavy trap decks like labyrinth and eldlich, most decks like to make room for trap and backrow disruptions to play around negates and other disruptions.

And the only reason it is even a threat is because of prize card that got reprinted

​@@chewdoom8415 and xyz dark law but better

Well yeah it was a good format, but that format was quite a bit rough for rogue decks

@@MonkeyFightTCG it wasn’t, you had a lot of diversity

​@@rapalborde5211 only at the end of the format where all 4 decks had multiple hits It was very rough for rogue, especially in mid 2019, we even had some events with exclusively the big 4 topping

People hated that format in 2019 lmao Also striker, orcust and maybe even danger thunder are stronger historically than the two 5 negate decks we had in this game, so ig negates aren't that bad Also azathot isn't interactive

Well by limiting special summons to only three creates.a default floodgates for the game. It unevenly boosts up stun decks like labyrinth and eldlich. All the rule change does is create a new meta and destroy a lot of rogue decks completely I also want the game to change a bit but this isnt the way to do it despite how good it might seem at first.

@@MonkeyFightTCG ban list exists for a reason. Chaos emporer dragon their asses. Lol

It just would get negated lmao

Cryme and sulk where both negates same with rulk being a summon negate.

yes but it wasn't ran and shows how things outside of basic negations could be good

Kuriboh sucked

He ain't wrong

@@spectralsheep Yeah it's just one of those things you don't think about since who actually regularly resolves OG Kuriboh lol

Honest is still a hilarious hand trap 😎

What the hell is elemental

bro is from ancient egypt

Omni negate wouldn't be a problem if they were from the archetype and bot generic. I don't see anyone complain about shooting quazar dragon or endymions for having omni negates

Not at all. Alternative removal can be played around. That's one of the reasons purely is so good.

Give it some time

They tried that with master rule 4 and it just made things worse. I think slow changing game design is the best solution here.

The solution to what?

Yeah idk why Konami started supporting deck destruction so much when that’s the only unfun part about runnik,tears, and kash

Ah yeas, the mechachaser meta approach. Where whoever has the highest attack card wins and nothing gets done.

@MonkeyFightTCG not really. The power creep was atk points sure, but The real meta was purely who had the most strategically placed traps and strategically used spells .. that is until jinzo. (Again... an effect monster..) Nice try though.

I've played old formats. It's not as balanced as you think. Cards like delquint duo, pot of greed, and blowout traps really do damage to the competitive health of the game. Playground yugioh was fun but don't pretend that it translates over to competitive.

i mean i disagree. dark ruler no more has been very successful at what it was designed to do as well as with nibiru in most cases.

@@MonkeyFightTCG nibiru isnt for every deck tho and the only other card that is even remotely close at breaking these sort of boards is notable for not being easily searchable(sphere mode) without making it your main strat. as for Dark rule no more, Yes its extremely powerful, but its also a normal spell making it extremely difficult to search: so unless you got it early you might not able ot out the board.

But if you’re playing some bad stuff like roids or smth you shouldn’t expect that