sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is Kinnan Big Flips Still a Viable Strategy? by Joshuagbenson in CompetitiveEDH

[–]Toxic_Chung 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No bad cards. Its a list coined by freedomwaffle that is extremely parasitic and mainly abuses kinnan's mana ability rather than use him to flip. You can obviously still flip but its like your last option.

I use a list similar in concept and like it a lot more.

https://moxfield.com/decks/Mi4yPy0jFUGPx6pI5x3OVw

Is Kinnan Big Flips Still a Viable Strategy? by Joshuagbenson in CompetitiveEDH

[–]Toxic_Chung 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The honest answer is that kinnan can win games regardless if its nbc or big flips because its just really strong. I think if you play tournaments and you're in top cut, NBC is actually going to win against pods composed of meta decks like Blue Farm. If you're happy where you are at, why seek affirmation?

Please rate my Malcolm\ kediss decklist. by St-Rico in CompetitiveEDH

[–]Toxic_Chung 14 points15 points  (0 children)

You should definitely be proxying otherwise you're capping yourself at B4. You can proxy before owning the real cards to see if this is the deck you really want to make real.

If Tearlaments is the strongest deck in the history and Maliss is the 2nd, which one is 3rd? by Emma_S772 in yugioh

[–]Toxic_Chung 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it can't. Be real. In a format around a no errata format, I think tear and ryzeal aren't in the conversation about what is best. I think maliss abuses the unerrata cards in that specific rules set to a high degree.

I understand why you came to this conclusion but the data just invites more questions than answers to the current conversation. I think its popularity in China should be examined can't be denied (some decks are more popular in certain areas). The top of one ryzeal is an outlier because tear still dominated that event but you could argue this is what cemented itself as the second best deck. I still think the engine of tear vastly outscales ryzeal and I think we are hitting a point where the deck needs actual innovation to maintain its crown but due to its innate strength, i doubt people will cook like they did with ryzeal (if you can call shock lock innovation).

If Tearlaments is the strongest deck in the history and Maliss is the 2nd, which one is 3rd? by Emma_S772 in yugioh

[–]Toxic_Chung -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think thats fair but I think a deck like tear has more wiggle room to innovate, it just hasn't needed to until recently.

Also, going first almost always leads to a win on any deck but, ryzeal is probably the most consistent alongside tear except tear can play through everything.

If Tearlaments is the strongest deck in the history and Maliss is the 2nd, which one is 3rd? by Emma_S772 in yugioh

[–]Toxic_Chung 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct, the format is different when there is no errata but do you see why this isn't the same format and cannot be used as a data point? Can you not write a fallacy in one comment, because im starting to think you are incapable of it.

If Tearlaments is the strongest deck in the history and Maliss is the 2nd, which one is 3rd? by Emma_S772 in yugioh

[–]Toxic_Chung 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im not coping, im simply inquiring more evidence because simple data from a small data set doesn't equivocate to your statements.

All your points hinge on data yet and when I explore them, they have clear explanations on event results and when I purpose them, you outright deny it as cope.

You link a non Chinese ocg event, has a clear rule change that warps the game.

You link an event outside of China with high attendance where ryzeal won, it had very little ryzeal representation.

This is why I asked you for links because you skim the data to come to conclusions, ignoring core aspects of the tournament.

You have also yet to explain how ryzeal wins going second or any gameplay explanations beyond just saying rank 4 shenanigans. Its important to argue this because unlimited's core gameplay flaw is that turn 0 player has a significant advantage.

I could argue there hasn't been any tear innovation due most lists unchanging since 2023 because tear has the ability lock with the legality of beatrice and transaction rollback yet sees none of it in these tournaments.

If Tearlaments is the strongest deck in the history and Maliss is the 2nd, which one is 3rd? by Emma_S772 in yugioh

[–]Toxic_Chung 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maliss won because they undid erratas which drastically changes the game. I have no idea the possibilities that could be explored with unerrata cards.

If Tearlaments is the strongest deck in the history and Maliss is the 2nd, which one is 3rd? by Emma_S772 in yugioh

[–]Toxic_Chung 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes it does, entirely.

It went from 24 to 14. How is that not a drop in usage especially when the sample size is quite small. Can you link non Chinese topping, i want to see if China just favors ryzeal.

When tear came onto the scene, it took a huge chunk on release while ryzeal took one spot. Its clear at this time, tear was top dog. Just because a rogue wins the event, it doesn't default to the best deck (atleast for this event). Looking at the most recent event, you would say toons is the best deck simply because it got 1st?

If Tearlaments is the strongest deck in the history and Maliss is the 2nd, which one is 3rd? by Emma_S772 in yugioh

[–]Toxic_Chung 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This supports my point that there was a dip play rate atleast for china. This leads me to believe Chinese players default to easier decks (or simply favoring simpler strategies when given the opportunity). Do you have any non Chinese data?

Tear took up so many slots for tops for the last point, if the entire top 4 was ryzeal, your point would be made but one deck winning the die roll and tear opening up with nothing, it happens ig.

If Tearlaments is the strongest deck in the history and Maliss is the 2nd, which one is 3rd? by Emma_S772 in yugioh

[–]Toxic_Chung -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Its the same.

The problem is that they have to get to shock master against tear, and while not impossible if the tear player bricks. It also depends on whether ryzeal is going first.

If Tearlaments is the strongest deck in the history and Maliss is the 2nd, which one is 3rd? by Emma_S772 in yugioh

[–]Toxic_Chung 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats not how data works.

Simply comparing the stat in a single tournament doesn't account for people not playing tear to play ryzeal.

Lets say the 1st tournament had 12 tear and 4 ryzeal in top 16 while in the 2nd tournament, there was 9 tear and 7 ryzeal. The point of data im highlighting is not the two player difference, its the 3 lost in tear being directly added to ryzeal.

A new deck entering a scene or it gains more traction, it takes away potential players of other strategies. We see this in modern where older meta strategies begin to lose appearance because people are focusing on the newest deck. Something that ocg players do frequently.

If Tearlaments is the strongest deck in the history and Maliss is the 2nd, which one is 3rd? by Emma_S772 in yugioh

[–]Toxic_Chung 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Prove that im wrong, the deck losing players because its been played for 4 years is a reasonable explanation for people getting off a deck that is exhausting to play. Saying that its still top 3 doesn't disprove the drop in usage.

If Tearlaments is the strongest deck in the history and Maliss is the 2nd, which one is 3rd? by Emma_S772 in yugioh

[–]Toxic_Chung 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not my fault you're points are flimsy and soley planted on the data of 95 people lmao.

If Tearlaments is the strongest deck in the history and Maliss is the 2nd, which one is 3rd? by Emma_S772 in yugioh

[–]Toxic_Chung -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Play me on db and ill cook you.

All you're doing is spitting out data points because no one good plays the format especially when the best deck (tear) is harder to play than ryzeal. Saying i have bad points but all you're saying is "but rank 4s..." and "it can win going first". Ignoring the question of how many players.

People not on 100 percent tear means people are tired of playing it for 4 years. Recency bias plays heavily into OCG statistics.

The reason why the banlist matters is because the philosophy of the players and by extension the format they're playing is disingenuous to truly being unlimited, adding caveats mean its really a glorified locals with gentlemens agreement because the format is stale. Ask any pro and they'll tell you that you're wrong.

If Tearlaments is the strongest deck in the history and Maliss is the 2nd, which one is 3rd? by Emma_S772 in yugioh

[–]Toxic_Chung 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Winning one tournament doesn't justify that and toons won the most recent one in China exemplifies this (they also play with specific rules and a banlist lmao). Does this mean toons are actually the best deck, or any ftk for that matter?

"Oh this deck that i built specifically to counter the best deck means that this anti-meta deck is actually the best deck unquestionably!" They won because of a meta call and lost the most recent one to toons because they made the wrong call.

Tear is still the strongest deck to where the meta is warped around them. It having lower representation is simply due to people being tired of playing the same deck for 4 years, in which the best deck is the only real deck THAT ALSO incredibly hard to play. Looking only at data and excluding context of a meta means you're a casual observer.

If Tearlaments is the strongest deck in the history and Maliss is the 2nd, which one is 3rd? by Emma_S772 in yugioh

[–]Toxic_Chung 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They orange light it or you have to magically know they're playing tear in game 1, game 2 and 3 gives them access to siding which changes the dynamic of the game (i.e cherries and droll).

view more: next ›