ITT: [insert card name here] can only be used once per turn.

[Darj]

As you should have seen by now, Konami has been releasing cards with "Once per turn" clauses such as:

"You can only activate 1 [insert S/T name here] per turn."

"You can only use this effect of [insert card name here] once per turn."

And so on.

 

Now, this is something I have been thinking for a while: What if all cards and effects were given those clauses in the shape of new rules? Basically, older cards and a couple of new ones would get the above clauses even if they don't have them written in their card texts; and on top of that, introduce a similar clause for inherent Summons:

"[Insert monster name here] can only be Special Summoned this way once per turn."

 

To be more specific, you would only be able to activate or use the effect or inherent Summon of only 1 copy of any card per turn, unless the effect of the card states otherwise. Needless to say, you would still be able to Normal Summon multiple copies of the same monster, or Special summon a second copy through other effects such as Call of the Haunted.

 

Which would be the purpose of this? Slowing most of the decks down, if not all of them.

- Deck thinners such as Upstart Goblin would be restricted to once per turn in the same way as Duality.

- You wouldn't be able to swarm the field with copies of monsters with an inherent Summon (Machina Fortress, Hyperion, Geagiaccelerator, etc.) or through monsters with effects that Special Summon other monsters (Burei, etc.), and go for that OTK.

- You wouldn't be able to use multiple MSTs in the same turn to clear the opponent's backrow and make a big push.

- After using D.Prison/Mirror Force/etc. you wouldn't be able to activate a 2nd copy of that card in that same turn to further disrupt the opponent.

- Effects that can be activated more than once can still be activated that many times in a turn (e.g. Kaust, Hyperion under Sanctuary in the Sky, etc.), but other copies of that card wouldn't be able to activate the same effects for the rest of the turn. For instance, in a turn you Summon Kaust, you can use the Level-changing effect twice as usual. BUT, if you Summon a second Kaust in that same turn, you cannot activate the Level-changing effects again, until the next turn.

 

And other consequences that I may be missing.

 

 

What do you think? Would it make things actually better? Or would it only turn Yu-Gi-Oh into an annoying game?

 

Personally, I think it would be healthier for the game. Fast decks would become slower, and slow decks would be mostly unaffected, and thus the gap of power level between them would become smaller. OTKs, which are not good for the game in my opinion, would be harder to pull off. Loops wouldn't be a thing anymore, and a couple of FTKs would die with them.

[Toffee.]

Typhoon, with this clause, would be hilarious.
Just sayin'

[Sleepy]

I'd like to see that. If someone wants to use absolute consistency through copies in the deck, they'd have to face this challenge.

 

This would call for cards like League of Uniform Nomenclature, Umi, Rescue Rabbit, Kuribolt, and a ton of Harpie cards to not be used xD

Though I wouldn't say that's such a big problem either. I've learned that whenever there's a hypothetical change in rules like this thread, there will mostly always be the typical "X deck is not broken" or "X deck/card is now totally useless". If a couple of cards are the biggest problem, I think it can be disregarded.

 

 

 

This might be unrelated:

In the manga version of Battle City, each player could only set 1 Trap from their hand per turn, and could not activate 2+ copies of a Spell in the same turn.

So I was thinking the other day, what if players were only allowed to:

-Set 1 Spell/Trap from their hand per turn.

-Activate 1 Spell from their hand per turn.

That way there would be thought behind which trap is it best to use that turn, and something like Heavy would be labeled as much less of a "necessary evil". Of course that wouldn't stop any number of activations that were previously set, just like Flip Summons have no limit.

 

Probably many people would say something along the lines of "that's awful, that game would be painfully slow and boring". IDK, I liked the idea.

It's an idea that sort of has the same goal of slowing things down that your OP idea has, but it's not quite the same.

Just wanted to mention this. Was thinking about making a thread for this, but somehow I think it fits here.

[Toffee.]

Probably many people would say something along the lines of "that's awful, that game would be painfully slow and boring". IDK, I liked the idea.

There's nothing wrong with a slower game. Reason being, is that it allows more variety because decks that were already slow to begin with, are now playable because everything else was forced to be the same speed as it is.
Like, if Crystal Beasts become the top deck to beat, your probably on the right track. Or at least, as an example.

[Maeriberii Haan]

Uh, a deck with terrible monster design (in a bad way here) won't be a deck to beat, especially if their best play is hindered when Pegasus is OPT. I'll look more into Worms as a credible threat. On topic, this would make the game slower, but removes most loops and in case of sleepy's Battle City idea if done in conjunction with this, practically removes any possibility of loops and most swarm-based OTKs, removing them from the game. Definitely fine with this. A game that does not consist of a player throwing their hand and deck into the field and graveyard would definitely be interesting and fun, in my opinion.

[Sleepy]

I meant it as in an alternate choice since it might otherwise get a little too restrictive, but to be fair, I haven't actually sit down to analyze the kind of game they'd produce in conjunction.  

[Darj]

I think the 2 "rulings" combined would be painfully slow. Not saying it would be bad, but perhaps for it to work properly you would have to start duels with 3 cards instead of 5 in order to not be overwhelmed by the amount of plays you can't make.

 

Probably many people would say something along the lines of "that's awful, that game would be painfully slow and boring". IDK, I liked the idea.

 

I believe that's bound to happen. Yu-Gi-Oh players have different tastes, and some of them like speed in their decks, or even the power creep. Naturally those players would be against these kind of ideas, but I don't think that turns the ideas for slowing the game automatically bad.

[Sleepy]

I think the 2 "rulings" combined would be painfully slow. Not saying it would be bad, but perhaps for it to work properly you would have to start duels with 3 cards instead of 5 in order to not be overwhelmed by the amount of plays you can't make.

 

I believe that's bound to happen. Yu-Gi-Oh players have different tastes, and some of them like speed in their decks, or even the power creep. Naturally those players would be against these kind of ideas, but I don't think that turns the ideas for slowing the game automatically bad.

On the last 2 lines: I agree.

 

On the first 2 lines, I think that's too limited. Having options in your hand and being able to think what options are better to use or setup for would give the players some strategy, and that's a good thing. But having starting hands be that small sounds like it'd make players have only enough options to make the play the initial hand gives you and that's it. You'd run out of hand savings relatively quickly, and without anything else on the hand, there would be no alternatives.

Personally, 3 sounds low enough to make it sound almost as if players would start in top-decking mode. That's just me.

[goddamnit names are a pain]

This would be interesting, I must say. But TGs would kinda not be harmed at all, unless you count only one draw off of Hyper as "harmed." And TGs are a pretty dang fast deck, if you do it right. But I love the idea of making it to where you get only one MST if you like to dump all to clear a back field, and a Drawing/Searching effect stopper would be nice. I really like this idea; it will give old decks a chance to shine, but crush some of the new ones. I mean, some will be crushed. But not all.

[Dog King]

Put once per turn on Brionac and bring it back plz :(

[goddamnit names are a pain]

Put once per turn on Brionac and bring it back plz :(

Nononooo.

 

You can do as MANY as you want when you do it once. Takes away caution, but not the brokeness. 

[Darj]

On the first 2 lines, I think that's too limited. Having options in your hand and being able to think what options are better to use or setup for would give the players some strategy, and that's a good thing. But having starting hands be that small sounds like it'd make players have only enough options to make the play the initial hand gives you and that's it. You'd run out of hand savings relatively quickly, and without anything else on the hand, there would be no alternatives.
Personally, 3 sounds low enough to make it sound almost as if players would start in top-decking mode. That's just me.

That's a good point. I mentioned it because my first thought was that on each turn you would be spending like 1~2 minutes thinking in what to play from all the choices you might have, and that could quickly become annoying to the point of turning the game boring. Kind of when playing chess where each player takes minutes to make a move.

But you are right in that you would be lacking resources and the game would be prone to turning into a top-deck race. How about starting with 4 cards instead, and during the Draw Phase get the 5th card, for a starting hand of 5 cards (1 card less than the standard duel)?

[Toffee.]

Takes away caution-

Wait...
How does Brionac, even with a "Once per turn" clause, remove the caution?
If you, literally, threw your whole hand away to use Brionac, and they Chain/Veiler/etc/etc, then you've spent your whole hand for absolutely nothing.
No, I'm not saying that because counters exist, it makes it less broken, but what I'm saying is that people now-a-days actually know to be smarter then that with Brionac, because of the paranoia floating around his effect. Since, despite the actual card itself not having Once-per-turn in it's effect, people still activate the effect one at a time, BECAUSE they don't want it to murder them, on the off chance they literally tossed their whole hand.

[goddamnit names are a pain]

Wait...
How does Brionac, even with a "Once per turn" clause, remove the caution?
If you, literally, threw your whole hand away to use Brionac, and they Chain/Veiler/etc/etc, then you've spent your whole hand for absolutely nothing.
No, I'm not saying that because counters exist, it makes it less broken, but what I'm saying is that people now-a-days actually know to be smarter then that with Brionac, because of the paranoia floating around his effect. Since, despite the actual card itself not having Once-per-turn in it's effect, people still activate the effect one at a time, BECAUSE they don't want it to murder them, on the off chance they literally tossed their whole hand.

I'm trying to say people can't just pick one card over and over if that were true. It takes that element of caution out. You either have to send as much as you want or be happy with a small number (which is still somewhat bad). But yeh, ur logic does make sense. Also though, Brionac is often used TO dump the hand. The bouncing is a plus in some cases. (Dandylion, Level Eater, bad card A, bad card B, etc. etc.)

[Toffee.]

I'm trying to say people can't just pick one card over and over if that were true. It takes that element of caution out.

If anything, it makes it even more cautionary, because you have to be absolutely certain you can drop [X] cards to bounce [Y] amount, BECAUSE he would be once-per-turn.
The way he is, you can use it once, see if anything happens, and if nothing, you can do it again and again.
 

You either have to send as much as you want or be happy with a small number (which is still somewhat bad). But yeh, ur logic does make sense.

How is it "bad", if you used Brionac to remove a monster like Zenmain? Actually, in fact, it doesn't really matter all that much because your still bouncing cards the opponent controls, which makes it that much easier for you to win.
 

Also though, Brionac is often used TO dump the hand-

Not unless your playing something stupid like Infernity, to which Brionac has absolutely no negatives about. Or at least, in that scenario.