Infernity Archfiend

[Resident Fascist]

When you draw this card (except during the Damage Step), if you have no other cards in your hand: You can reveal this card; Special Summon this card from your hand. When this card is Special Summoned: You can add 1 "Infernity" card from your Deck to your hand. You must have no cards in your hand to activate and to resolve this effect.

 

Oh this card. This card. We shared good times for two years. We shared wins, whether legitimately deserved or not. We shared losses. I tried to be the best at this deck in my country. I loved this deck. It was one of the first times I felt a true connection to a deck in a card game. Once I'd played this deck and learnt it, I kept coming back to it in an attempt to get even better at it. It lead to my best season on dueling network, many local tops and wins.

 

But alas, now all that is gone. Sleep well, my friend.

Goodbye, watashi no bushin.

 

[ihop]

fuck infernity

[Resident Fascist]

fuck infernity

 

with pleasure

 

seriously i know a ton of people hated this deck but really it took a lot more foreplanning and thinking than a lot of people think it did.

[Spinny]

The poor design of this card was astonishing.
The archetype as a whole was fine, but this card REALLY needed a hard opt clause.
The worst bit was that people topdecked this more than kerk was topdecked in lswarms.

[Zauls]

Its like they tried to design a card as badly as possible and see what the consequences were, just for fun. I had good times playing the deck and bad times playing against it.

[Expelsword]

When this card is Special Summoned by this effect.

 

That's what it always should have been.

[玄魔の王]

When this card is Special Summoned by this effect.

That's what it always should have been.

Which is what it was in the anime, incidentally.

[Hexanort]

no opt plus the capability of searching card that can ss back this (launcher,mirage,necromancer), resulting to more search....so yeah...definitely need hard opt ,its funny that infernity has capability to create a good field from nothing (empty field/hand) just by drawing this...

[Resident Fascist]

When this card is Special Summoned by this effect.

 

That's what it always should have been.

 

When you draw this card (except during the Damage Step), if you have no other cards in your hand: You can reveal this card; Special Summon this card from your hand. When this card is Special Summoned by the effect of an "Infernity" card: You can add 1 "Infernity" card from your Deck to your hand. You must have no cards in your hand to activate and to resolve this effect.

 

This errata actually makes the card still good, but it stops a lot of the Soul Charge/CoTH/Stygian Patrol abuse. I feel a lot of people when trying to errata this card make it terrible almost seemingly on purpose and ignore the fact the deck is almost always playing at a huge risk, takes a degree of skill to play (As well as a decent to good understanding of chains) to not brick yourself and the deck would be fine if the Archfiend abuse was toned down by a slight amount. 

[Toffee.]

Infernities are only a Deck because This is still around.
Otherwise, they are unplayable.
11/10 design

[CLG Klavier]

Sure, it's a cancer card, but it won't get errata'd. Some of the old cards were errata'd since they were iconic as hell so they wanted to bring them back along with Dragons of Legends 2 (hell, CCV actually gets direct "support" there). I doubt balance erratas will become a standard thing to do.

 

Plus all in all it IS from the old era. If it was printed nowadays, it would have a hard OPT clause on it. Konami is learning this lately.

[Spinny]

[background=#fbfdfe]When you draw this card (except during the Damage Step), if you have no other cards in your hand: You can reveal this card; Special Summon this card from your hand. When this card is Special Summoned by the effect of an "Infernity" card: You can add 1 "Infernity" card from your Deck to your hand. You must have no cards in your hand to activate and to resolve this effect.[/background]
 
This errata actually makes the card still good, but it stops a lot of the Soul Charge/CoTH/Stygian Patrol abuse. I feel a lot of people when trying to errata this card make it terrible almost seemingly on purpose and ignore the fact the deck is almost always playing at a huge risk, takes a degree of skill to play (As well as a decent to good understanding of chains) to not brick yourself and the deck would be fine if the Archfiend abuse was toned down by a slight amount.

You know that a hard OPT does the job the same... Since the only reason the deck was insane was because you could go and search infinitely going into lots of OP setups and combos and always be able to pull back a game by going into said combos repeatedly.

[Resident Fascist]

You know that a hard OPT does the job the same... Since the only reason the deck was insane was because you could go and search infinitely going into lots of OP setups and combos and always be able to pull back a game by going into said combos repeatedly.

 

No, that would make the card terrible. Saying put an OPT clause on this card defeats the very point of Infernity. Do you know why Infernity's cards must be marginally better than their counterparts? Because Infernity does not have the privilege of holding cards back in their hand. That's why Infernity Break is so important.  

 

 The reasons the deck was good is that it had very powerful pushes and spam potential whilst also being able to keep up a viable board control and defensive position with cards like Break. 

 

Infernities are only a Deck because This is still around.
Otherwise, they are unplayable.
11/10 design

 

Necromancer, Break, Launcher and Barrier are all incredible cards. This card is just the glue that holds together what was a very powerful engine.

[CLG Klavier]

No, that would make the card terrible. Saying put an OPT clause on this card defeats the very point of Infernity.

aka being degenerate to the 7th circle of hell and beyond?

[Resident Fascist]

Putting a once per turn clause on Infernity Archfiend completely defeats the point of the card. Unless we erratum the entire archetype to remove the handless restriction. Because that's what you're looking at here.

 

 Infernity is based around a risk and reward system. Just because they are a very fast, explosive deck that can combo and win the game from seemingly "nothing" that does not make them "degenerate" as people are quick to point out. Overall I feel the term degenerate has been thrown around for years and has lost all semblance of meaning. 

 

 If we put a once per turn clause onto Archfiend, why would you ever play this deck over Satellarknight? No, real question. If this card is given an erratum to make it like so, you manage to make Deneb a much superior card because:

• Deneb goes off on any summons.
• Deneb doesn't require an empty hand either.
• Deneb is a WARRIOR AND IS SEARCHABLE

Let's also point out that functionally speaking, Satellarnova Alpha and Infernity Barrier are relatively similar, whilst one is searchable and the other isn't, the ability to search your Infernity Barrier would not be worth playing an enormously glass cannon deck because Satellarknight bricks far less, and has access to support like Star Seraph, Zefraknights, Triverr, Delteros and other specific Xyzs. What the hell does DARK have? Key Beetle? 

 

 Also, all of Satellarknight's monsters work with each other. They can all Xyz with each other. Infernity has a bunch of 4s then a 3 that is almost mandatory to get the deck going. Do you really think it's a good idea to make it so if Necromancer gets stopped even once, the deck is so far behind they should just scoop? Also, DARK, Graveyard dependant archetypes tend to be easy to sideboard against.

 

 Infernity has a strong Game 1, sure. But that's really not a problem. Should we have all decks be like Infernity? No. But are risk/reward decks like Infernity ultimately that big of a deal? No, not really. Oh, if you really wanted to tame it down, make it so it can't search itself, too. Add that to my erratum.

 

 

 

 

[CLG Klavier]

Putting a once per turn clause on Infernity Archfiend completely defeats the point of the card. Unless we erratum the entire archetype to remove the handless restriction. Because that's what you're looking at here.
No, it doesn't at all. It would simply mean that Infernities would be degraded from long-ass broken combos to once-per-turn bursts.
 
 Infernity is based around a risk and reward system. Just because they are a very fast, explosive deck that can combo and win the game from seemingly "nothing" that does not make them "degenerate" as people are quick to point out. Overall I feel the term degenerate has been thrown around for years and has lost all semblance of meaning. 
Except Infernities were degenerate and will always be. They're feast or famine - they're either really broken due to their insane combos, or they're pretty useless. Archfiend is one of the biggest offenders since he's the one who searches multiple Necromancers and other combo pieces and allows you to end the entire combo with a backup Counter Trap and a few pieces of removal. That's stupid.
 
 If we put a once per turn clause onto Archfiend, why would you ever play this deck over Satellarknight? No, real question. If this card is given an erratum to make it like so, you manage to make Deneb a much superior card because:

• Deneb goes off on any summons.
• Deneb doesn't require an empty hand either.
• Deneb is a WARRIOR AND IS SEARCHABLE

Because Satellarknights and Infernities are a completly different decks. Deneb grabs only monsters, while Archfiend can also grab a double Monster Reborn, a Solemn Judgment and a "destroy a thing for free" card. Plus the entire design of Infernities compared to Satellarknights...you can't judge cards like that in vacuum. Yes, Archfiend looks TECHNCIALLY worse than Deneb then. But then you look further into the Archetype and realize why is is "strictly worse". Because rest of the archetype is disgustingly fast, explosive and stupid.

 

Let's also point out that functionally speaking, Satellarnova Alpha and Infernity Barrier are relatively similar, whilst one is searchable and the other isn't, the ability to search your Infernity Barrier would not be worth playing an enormously glass cannon deck because Satellarknight bricks far less, and has access to support like Star Seraph, Zefraknights, Triverr, Delteros and other specific Xyzs. What the hell does DARK have? Key Beetle? 
 Exactly. Barrier is searchable. That's why it's Limited, and Stellarnova is not. Why? Because your Archfiend, you could search out multiple copies. Noticing the pattern here?
 
 Also, all of Satellarknight's monsters work with each other. They can all Xyz with each other. Infernity has a bunch of 4s then a 3 that is almost mandatory to get the deck going. Do you really think it's a good idea to make it so if Necromancer gets stopped even once, the deck is so far behind they should just scoop? Also, DARK, Graveyard dependant archetypes tend to be easy to sideboard against.
Infernities are a deck from Synchro era, hence the level discrepancy. If anything, it was a godsend back in the day since you could access multiple level Synchros. Nowadays, Xyz are probably far better and things are designed with them in mind, that's why most modern Archetypes have coherent levels among themselves. Also, using "it's easy to counter" as an argument? Even I don't do that anymore. But if you wanna play that game, Tellarknights die to Veiler/Yuki/Fiendish Chain/Breakthrough Skill/Light-Imprisoning Mirror...wanna go on?
 
 Infernity has a strong Game 1, sure. But that's really not a problem. Should we have all decks be like Infernity? No. But are risk/reward decks like Infernity ultimately that big of a deal? No, not really. Oh, if you really wanted to tame it down, make it so it can't search itself, too. Add that to my erratum.
Once more: they were risk reward indeed. But the "reward" part was way, way too strong to let them roam freely. If we banned Barrier, Break and Launcher altogether? Yeah, then they're "strictly worse" than Tellarknights. But until those cards exist, they're not, that's why they can't have the same cards. And once more: an erratum won't happen for multiple reasons.

 

EDIT: Formatting. You kinda digged yourself here since you decided to pick Tellars as a comparision, and I'm playing the living hell out of them at this moment.

[evilfusion]

I loved Infernity as a concept, but was disgusted by the support they got in TSHD. I loved that Infernity GOT support, but they overdid it.

 

Infernity's theme seems to be symbolic of Kiryu's situation in the anime. Infernity give up everything in their hand, and become incredibly powerful as a result. It's like a devil contract. Sacrifice everything of value and gain power. Use this power well and you'll win. Squander it and die. And when he returns to use it later, the mindset is more of indifference. Toss aside everything, gamble if necessary, and rely only on the next draw. It was more wasteful than his Dark Signer era build.

 

Archfiend's search effect is ridiculously potent, but when it was created, Infernity only had Archfiend, Guardian, Dwarf, and Destroyer (OCG only). We got Beast, Necromancer, and Force later on, with Force being the only non-monster that could be searched.

 

So really, it was TSHD giving us Launcher for some reason, and Infernity Barrier as an exclusive that really made Infernity stupidly unfair.

[Spinny]

"Risk and reward system"
Where is the risk in searching out like half of your deck because you NS'd arma knight and set 3-4 cards.....

[CLG Klavier]

"Risk and reward system"
Where is the risk in searching out like half of your deck because you NS'd arms knight and set 3-4 cards.....

And it's not like they had Soul Charge @3 back then and searchable Launcher to get out of the oh-so-frightening disadvantage status.

[Jord200]

Infernity were my first REAL deck, so I'm sad to see them go, but it couldn't be helped. Plus, it seems like I'm the only one who's really sad.

[evilfusion]

"Risk and reward system"
Where is the risk in searching out like half of your deck because you NS'd arms knight and set 3-4 cards.....

 

See, when Infernity got such ridiculously good support, the theme's basic concept got damaged to the point where most people associate Infernity with your scenario. That's not how the concept was probably designed. It was supposed to be a risk to give up your hand (emptying a player's hand was considered to be even more important than their LP, because without a hand, they're unlikely to make a comeback), but you get access to some marginally more powerful effects, like Archfiend's SS and search, Necromancer's revival, etc.

 

Things like Launcher and Barrier gave Infernity TOO MUCH power for the effort and risk needed to play the Deck.

[Spinny]

See, when Infernity got such ridiculously good support, the theme's basic concept got damaged to the point where most people associate Infernity with your scenario. That's not how the concept was probably designed. It was supposed to be a risk to give up your hand (emptying a player's hand was considered to be even more important than their LP, because without a hand, they're unlikely to make a comeback), but you get access to some marginally more powerful effects, like Archfiend's SS and search, Necromancer's revival, etc.
 
Things like Launcher and Barrier gave Infernity TOO MUCH power for the effort and risk needed to play the Deck.

I totally agree, I thought the concept was amazing too.
But that IS literally what the deck became.

[Blake]

Well, the concept is sell your soul, attain infinite power.

 

so i'd say they succeeded in that regard

[Rodrigo]

But guys...

 

if Archfiend was errata'd, we'd never have a chance to follow this guide again :(

 

[CLG Klavier]

But guys...
 
if Archfiend was errata'd, we'd never have a chance to follow this guide again :(
 

What kind of heresy are you posting? Infenities are a balanced healthy for the game deck that requires skill and is not autopilot whatsoever.