The most important part of deckbuilding and a pivotal deciding point in how much you abuse engines and staples is to always keep the primary objective of your deck first and foremost in mind. At every point in incorporating a card into a deck, you gotta ask yourself "What is it that I want to accomplish with this deck?" What's that big play you wanna get off, so much to the point that winning or losing no matter concerns you after getting it off. I've sometimes found myself resenting archetypes in YGO that I used to play, because what might have started as having this one thing I loved pulling off suddenly mutated into trying to up my consistency or improve my win con and the thing I loved during started drifting father and farther away until I suddenly realized I wasn't even playing the combo that got me into the whole thing. When I was experimenting with a Penguin-deck earlier this week, my question was never "How do I play Penguins?", but rather "Why am I playing Penguins?" I wasn't interested in playing Penguins for the sake of saying I played Penguins, I did it because I liked the idea of controlling the board with disruptive flip-effects I could ambush my opponent with. Ghostricks may not have been the most thematically appropriate cards I could've been playing, but they allowed me to accomplish my gameplan much more efficiently than doing it raw. Cards like Ghostrick Scare allowed me to trigger Penguins on-masse, the Ghostricks had perfect levels for all the extra deck plays I was making with Penguins, giving me an access to some legit good XYZ-spam that even let me build around Megaclops and UFD if I wanted and the two legitimately answered one anothers' biggest issues. Penguins sped up Ghostrick plays by giving them turn-1 plays and constantly threatening field presence, while Ghostricks provided a level of protection, deck-thinning and a win-state that Penguins might've struggled to accomplish on their own. Running an engine might on occasion overshadow your big gimmick, but overall, a well-fitted engine's main goal is to secure consistent plays that allow both your funny gimmick to go off as often as possible and to ensure that said funny gimmick might even have room to win you the game. It can be overall much more healthy for gimmicks to run staples and engines rather than feeling pidgeonholed into doing it raw. Hell, sometimes the engine might turn the deck you're making into an entirely new kind of gimmick altogether. The simple choice to test out Dogmatikas in a Fossil deck might have completely derailed my original plan for the deck, but giving Dogmatika Maximus a 15-chamber revolver and a licence to extra deck dump made the deck way too much fun to actually let that stop me from just having so much fun with it all.
I like your perspective on how to build a deck being "what is the play i want to accomplish" but at the same time i don't think it should be the only reason to play a deck and or mix it with an engine for me it is the little things that an archetype that do differently that might drive me into playing a deck yes, engines are a beneficial in yugioh but sometimes engine goes too far into being an engine and kills the playability of the deck they originated from and/or if they got hit the deck they originated from might as well be unplayable hence you would find alot of players hating engine But engines never had to be a part of a pre existing archetype or gimmick engines could be purely an engine which is something we don't see often in yugioh ever since archetype took over On the other hand sometimes you don't need an engine to keep a deck functional sometimes it is filling it with power card is just enough hand traps counter traps power spells sometimes having too much focus on trying to fill the deck with engines or consistency booster also detract from playability of the deck On the complete other hand lack of focus or the excessive focus isn't always a wrong way to deck build as they contribute to different levels of playability /functionality it is about how balance these factors to reach what you hand in mind in the first place
@@alial-kateeb5267 How pure you wanna run your archetype to me depends on how well it can accomplish strong plays without the need for help. You don't need to run Access Code Talker if your deck already has a good enough win con. You don't necessarily need a Danger!-engine if your deck is already consistent with it's plays and has alot of search, draw and field presence. As an example, whenever I play Vampires, I tend to do it rather by the books, because with their new lineup of support, they are generally good to go on their own. Zombie Vampire and Sheridan are both very strong boss monsters that are helped by just playing the deck as intended, Vampire Ghost is an obscenely good combo starter with everything else in the deck and they generally play best when they play with their own cards. Yeah, a Zombie World engine would not hurt, but I also don't see it as a necessity to get their plays off. On the other hand, something like Aliens kinda need some added assistance to do their best plays. If you're playing Aliens these days, you're gonna wanna do the Zer'oll and Alien Kid lock, but while getting one or the other on board is fairly reasonable, getting both is something their current lineup just doesn't have the chops to consistently pull off, especially turn 1, when it'd be the best to establish. However, slotting in stuff like Ogdoadics and Reptilianne to help greases the hinges just enough that you can get your plays off the ground.
This man has the most "anti charisma" I have ever seem, and i mean that as in he is so deadpan that it's as magnetic and interesting as if he were actually telling jokes
Idk if people still call decks Xenophobic, but the definitely do still refer to type/attribute/archetype locks as "Xenolock"s, and there's not really that much wrong with either anyway.
I do I play too few engines? Yes, I like to play pure, including cards that are not common in a typical build and maximizing the gimmick the archetype revolves around
Making an archetype or gimmick work these days often requires running a certain amount of out of archetype cards that either supplement what it's trying to do or protect it from interruptions. Going full vanilla on any deck is doing it a disservice. That doesn't mean you can't play a deck's "bad" cards though, you just have to find some overlooked card that makes it easier for those things to pop off, and almost every theme has some form of unintended support that lets it do that. Hell, that's the only thing allowing most archetypes to even reach competitve levels of success, by running outside stuff that actually allows their gimmicks to either go live or do something productive. Even if you care less about winning than pulling off something silly you still want to look for cards that supplement that silliness(and stop it from getting stifled by floodgates, hand traps and negate boards).
I and friends tend to refer to archetypes that only work with themselves as "unfriendly", but that mostly because that is closest translation our language
People are dumb if they find the word xenophobic offensive in the context of a card game. Nobody is crying because vanilla monsters are not vanilla flavor
I really like these isolated snippets cuz the chats that you and chat have are a fun adventure in and of themselves, ON TOP OF the interesting duels you have.
2:06 I think the word you might be looking for is "tribal" Granted, the genesis of that term from magic is for decks that specialize in a specific type of creature (AKA: Humans, or Wolves, or Dragons) Perhaps we could call it the "Vanguard" strategy, because Cardfight Vanguard has some very restrictive tribes. Edit: Also: WHAT THE HELL??? Your opponent made, Destiny End Dragoon......***twice***
I seriously don’t understand how people get mad at the phase “xenophobic decks” Xenophobic is literally just the official word for a person fearing/disliking anything foreign. The word It’s self has Never been used in a way that would cause it to be offensive
Me and my friend just called "only x archetype" effect as racist effect, and nobody even mad about it. Then again I live in Asia, I guess people who mad over the word racist and xenophobic and political stuffs are just u know americans on internet thinking the whole world have to obey their stupid rules
Mr. DuelLogs, I don't know if this can interest you, but yesterday I found this card called "Gendo the Ascetic Monk" and since you like playing gimmiky decks, you could play Gendo stun in MD. If you read this comment please consider at leasrt to read the card. P.S. sorry if the comment is bad phrased but English isn't my first language since I'm Italian and also thanks for your always funny YGO videos.
DuelLogs used to be a replay channel, and he actually has a video on Gendo the Ascetic monk. It's 5 years old by now, but still out there if you look for it (I can't link it here, sorry)
You should totally make a sanwitch deck with tour guide, fusion deployment, secret village of spellcasters/secret sanctuary of spellcasters, poly support, bunch of hand trap searchable by witch and Sangan along with keeper of dragon magic.
@@dwarer3064 opponent i guess stalling out with hand traps and secret village. Or opponent realizing that sanwitch is the superior breed of monster and scooping.
I actually think Xenophobic kind of suits, but maybe immiscible? It means two liquids that don't mix into a homogeneous solution, "like oil and water" parts that work fine on their own but can't blend together.
Xenophobic is OK, never saw any problem with that term, it informs that it blocks type, atribute or archetype codeword in name or (this card is considered a x) clause kind of cards
Archetypes that only really play well with themselves and not with others can be called "parasitic." In MtG we use "parasitic" to refer to mechanics that only (or nearly only) work with itself and cards that specifically mention it, and work very poorly (if at all) with other mechanics. Kaladesh block Energy is a perfect example, because Energy cards _only_ work with other Energy cards, and nothing else in the game interacts with it except for fringe cases.
How is that parasitic? Is it that these cards use the same resources as everything else, and thus take without giving back unless you've built your deck around it, i. e. established a symbiotic relationship? Then this doesn't transfer to YGO, where in lieu of a resource system this would just mean self-isolation.
@@xCorvus7x A better example of a highly parasitic mechanic is probably "splice onto arcane" which lets you modify an arcane spell you are casting, which is a subtype made specifically for this ability and exists on very few cards with new arcane cards rarely appearing in supplemental products. So it doesn't really interact with most of the game, and only looks at the cards made specifically for it. Additionally, a card being parasitic is on more of a scale then being a yes/no question, and it isn't inherently a bad thing. Archetypes in Yu-Gi-Oh are generally parasitic to a middling degree, and that happens to be one of the main balancing mechanics Yu-Gi-Oh has access too. It lets them limit what a deck can play easily to try and rein in any shenanigans. Things like locking you into summoning a specific type of monster, or locking you out of specific types of extra deck cards, or straight up locking you into a specific archetype's cards, all encourage you to play with their own small subset of cards and ignore most of the other cards the game has to offer. You also see that when they try to make archetypes more open-ended and less parasitic, like with the Drytron ritual spell working with any ritual monster (rather than just machine rituals or similar), that it can break other archetypes originally built on certain limitations. And about the term parasitic, it's not a perfect name, just like vanilla isn't a perfect name for a creature without abilities. It's just what was initially used and happened to stick.
@@xCorvus7x Parasitic mechanics was initially used as a generic term about game design. Just because it was done by a person designing MTG doesn't mean it applies only to one game. And until this video, I had never heard of anyone using the term xenophobic to describe anything in Yu-Gi-Oh. I've been adjacent to the game for a long time watching content related to it, so it's not like I wouldn't have heard it pop up before if it was regularly used.
i doubt you'll see this, or think about it, but the term most people use in card games for "this mechanic doesn't go with anything else" is 'Parasitic' as far as i know. Because it starts as a small thing, but only gets better if you add more of it in. it feeds off of itself and nothing else. Hope this helps.
I have played D&D 5e since it was called D&D Next. That's just my history with the most current edition. I might be willing to give a shot at being a script writer since there are days at my IRL job that are very very free.
Hey Mr. Logs! I've been playing and DMing D&D for about 12 years, and I'm a writer! I'll happily throw my hat in the ring, if the position is still available!
"Xenophobic" is problematic. Are you kidding me, its literally the correct word to use, the Architype does not mix well nor WANT to integrate with other architype. If we took Monarchs, one could say they are Xenophobic to Extra Deck Plays because of Domain, you cant just call it Anti ED Monarchs, people KNOW monarchs are Anti ED when playing with Domain.
I just started to build a deck in Duel Links today. It took forever and I am still not done with it. It's a new variation of Red Eyes that seems good on paper. But to finish it so it can be completely done in an all in sync combo deck that has a lot going for it. That is where it is hard to pull off. You want this for it then you want that for it. Then it has to combo to set up field on turn one (In which it has to an extent). I need to see how to finish it and get board and just have it all in a deck for Duel Links. It's hard tbh.. But the idea is there and it looks solid so far. The start is there and I need to make it better. Edit 2 days later. I may have finished the deck. If anything, a fix here or there. But it is completely finish for the most part if in general. It works and is strong.
I kinda think the term for decks or cards that don't work well with others/requires cards with its own similar mechanics to work correctly is "parasitic." Though I've only heard the term used in Magic, never YuGiOh. Don't know if it's applicable here, but that's what comes to mind.
I've been playing D&D since I was 9 years old, all the way back to Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Not sure what being a script writer entails but I know an absurd amount about D&D.
Probably (possibly?) a bit too late for this but I run D&D for a living if you need input on a script. I've been playing since 2010 and I have been working for a non-profit that runs D&D for kids since 2021.
0:21 Mom! Turn on the VHS! I'm in the video! You can call those "self restricting archetypes" instead of the "politically incorrect non-friendly Alien word"
"Parasitic" is a term often used in the MtG community for keywords/archetypes that doesnt mesh well with other cards not following the parasitic archetypes theme
Parasitic makes the most sense when resource management is part of the game, which may be facilitated by cards of different archetypes. YGO doesn't have that, so cards that only work with certain others don't leech off anything: they just self-isolate. Calling that „xenophobic“ is perfectly sensible. Why would that word be problematic?
You're thinking more invasive, not parasitic. Parasites dont play nice with their host like some other host-hostee relationships. They leech off the "core" of the host, until there is pretty much nothing but the parasite left. At least thats how i imagine the biological definition was used in MtG to describe keywords themes that dont play well with other strategies, such as Soulshift from OG Kamigawa
Id argue that an archetype that doesnt mesh well with any archetype but its own is parasitic in the sense that if you want to build that deck, from a synergy perspective its sub-optimal to build it by splashing in other archetypes. The parasitic archetype and anything you splash in dont work together, so you wither go full in on the gimmick, or you play a different deck/combo of archetypes that actually meah well together
What exactly would a D&D script writer do? I have only played D&D for a few years, but I do enjoy your top 10s of it, and I do like comparing and discussing spells and feats and such.
Xenophobic is the right word, it's not politically incorrect to my knowledge, although IRL it's used to refer to a specific type of racism where you hate everyone that's different from you.
I think people use engines to cover some flaws of that deck.... But if it goes very extreme, they're just describes as [summoning mechanic] pile (ex. Pendulum pile, Fusion pile)
Hire me for the D&D scriptwriting, my experience with 5E is that I played it once and my experience with scriptwriting is writing videogame guides on steam that go largely ignored, I'm perfect for the job
Anyone who goes into to a community and complains about well established terms aren't part of the actual community. Heck often they don't even like the thing in question they just want to force the community bend over backwards for them and then they never even join or contribute to anything. They just come and try to change things and then go away in like a week. Don't capitulate to them gatekeep them.
5:25 At first I was like really interested in being a script writer for Mr. Logs, because I love D&D, I practically breathe it, but then when everyone was talking about how they've been playing 5e for like 10+ years, when contrasted to my 1 year of playing.... Also since this Stream is probably a bit "dated" by this point I'm sure he has already found someone else.
I think the term you were looking for is "parasitic", at least in MTG slang land. From the MTG wiki: A mechanic is considered parasitic when it only interacts with other things in a particular set rather than the rest of Magic. It’s the opposite of a backwards-compatible mechanic: mechanics whose depth in building and playing increase with prior printed cards The most famous examples from MTG is Horsemanship and Splice into Arcane. Horsemanship is functionally identical to Flying within the context of its own set, but because it is a different keyword cards targeting Horsemanship don't hit fliers, and cards targeting Flying creatures don't hit horse-riders. Meanwhile, Splice into Arcane doesn't work on non-arcane spells, and they only ever printed Arcane Spells in 6 total sets - and 3 of those sets were never standard legal - so some 99% of MTG spells just don't interact with the mechanic at all.
I wish I could be a DnD script writer for you. I am currently both a player and a DM for 5e, so I have pretty decent knowledge about it. I just don't know if I can juggle that along with my full-time job.
Not really. Much as Kozmos proc effects when shuffling in the GY, they also do rely on field effects. Without them, the ships worth playing have no inherent special summon from hand, the pilots can't dodge effects or set up disruption and without stuff like Sliprider's and Destroyer's removal or Dark Lady's negate, their raw numbers have a relatively low ceiling for an archetype expected to work under Skill Drain. A better floodgate trap to play with Kozmos is Macro Cosmos, as while banishment shuts off their floating, they are much better able to control the field from that position and are more likely to be able to recover resources from the banish zone.
Do you need help writing DnD story’s? I can try if you need help Mr. DuelLog’s. Im a amateur at it but I don’t know much bout dnd 5 but I can learn I’m willing to learn bout dnd, and more. I do want to get better on my writing and creative. If you like Mr. DuelLog’s, you don’t have to but if you like we can have a try out or practice run to see how it works out. I will like to do my own research as well and get into more of the world and information bout it I just only seen the movie and I’ve my friend playing dnd in high school. Till like umm I believe 3 months ago I started to get into dnd because of custom character. If you bet on me I’ll do my best to help you the only thing is I’m not an editor or anything like that. Im nothing fancy. Im old school if you have time and patience with me good things will come out come to you. I’ll do what I can to help you and learn something new in time.
Xenophobic sounds like a fairly accurate term to me. I really don't think the term - especially when referring to non-sentient *things* - is offensive anyway. But if you *really* wanted a different term, perhaps I would use the word *intransigient?*
Do a tournament where people are forced to make a deck with bad archetypes that cant cheat out other archetypes. For example icebarrier deck but must use atleast 20+ icebarrior cards.
If you consider deck building ratios this kind of disincentivises you from playing cards that don't synergise with the „selfish“ ones. In case of cards like Solidarity, playing other tapes makes them useless even more directly. Xenophobic is a sensible term. What's wrong with using that word?
I hope you find a writer, I personally would love to help, But keeping up with 5e is a pain. I'd rather use whatever I like Than look at what the new books tell me to use.
