Should there be more non-archetype cards in main sets?

[heraldry_lord]

This is another concern I've had that I just want to get out there; do you think there should be a greater balance between archetype cards and support and generic/semi-generic cards?  To put it another way, should the ratio between archetype cards and Type/sub-Type/Attribute/generic support cards be shifted so that there's more of the latter in main sets?

 

Or is the current setup fine, and nothing needs to be changed?

[Trebuchet MS]

I honestly want more non-archetype-specific cards in circulation, especially the monsters, such that Deck building doesn't boil down to "3 of all good members and tools of the archetype, fill the remaining slots with staples"

[goodfusion]

I honestly want more non-archetype-specific cards in circulation, especially the monsters, such that Deck building doesn't boil down to "3 of all good members and tools of the archetype, fill the remaining slots with staples"

 

I agree, especially cards that promoted adding variety and putting thought in to the cards you put in your deck. It wouldn't matter if it wasn't meta-level or anything, as long it was good or at least cool enough to want to use.

[Blake]

I honestly want more non-archetype-specific cards in circulation, especially the monsters, such that Deck building doesn't boil down to "3 of all good members and tools of the archetype, fill the remaining slots with staples"

I agree, especially cards that promoted adding variety and putting thought in to the cards you put in your deck. It wouldn't matter if it wasn't meta-level or anything, as long it was good or at least cool enough to want to use.

It's really not, though. Seriously, this is people oversimplifying things.

 

Let's take a look at a number of decks:

Shaddoll

Qli

Nekroz (to a degree)

Performapal

D/D/D

Raidraptor

Fire Fist

 

Now, there are definitely some given 3-ofs in these decks, but they aren't "run 3 of the good ones". Some moreso than others, but they do require proper thought to make them work properl, lest the deck not function as properly as possible.

 

I'm not saying that generic stuff is bad, just that people oversimplify archetypes.

[Spinny]

would be nice to have more generic stuff, but no more denkko sekka repeats please.

[goodfusion]

It's really not, though. Seriously, this is people oversimplifying things.

 

Let's take a look at a number of decks:

Shaddoll

Qli

Nekroz (to a degree)

Performapal

D/D/D

Raidraptor

Fire Fist

 

Now, there are definitely some given 3-ofs in these decks, but they aren't "run 3 of the good ones". Some moreso than others, but they do require proper thought to make them work properl, lest the deck not function as properly as possible.

 

I'm not saying that generic stuff is bad, just that people oversimplify archetypes.

 

Yes, but that is the same with any deck. Archetypes do however simplify deck-building because they provide the different combos to use right in front of you, and sure although this isn't the case with all archetypes (Shaddoll, for example, relies on you using non-archetypal cards to get out the Fusions) it does apply for the most part.

[Blake]

Yes, but that is the same with any deck. Archetypes do however simplify deck-building because they provide the different combos to use right in front of you, and sure although this isn't the case with all archetypes (Shaddoll, for example, relies on you using non-archetypal cards to get out the Fusions) it does apply for the most part.

Very few archetypes depend solely on their own merits. They need assistance from outside cards to perform optimally, usually.

 

And what does it matter if it lays the combos out? A lot of the times, you still have to sort through the cards and figure out the combos. Like Lilith/Kepler/Abyss Ragnarok/optional Cerberus. The pieces may be intended to work together, but the deck is about figuring out the optimal ways they can do such, so 'laying it out' is a fallacy, in a lot of situations.

 

Being able to combo cards grouped together is not a problem, and archetypes get a lot more hate than they deserve. Sure, Nekroz (due to a non-archetypal card and Trish) and Qli do this in ways they shouldn't, but that doesn't mean they're beyond hope. I mean, have you seen Kaleido Mirror into Shooting Star Dragon? That's a neat combo right there.

 

And even then, archetypes serve as a way to restrict cards or let them be mroe powerful in a confined way. Can you image if D/D was generic fiend support? Lilith, Covenants? You wouldn't ike that, at all.

 

And because it wasn't archetypal, a card like TGU ran rampant.

 

Neither is without fault, but archetypes are not inherently flawed, just as generic cards are not.

[heraldry_lord]

I'm not advocating for the death of all archetypes, or anything like that; I'm basically just asking if we should get more generic cards in sets.

[Wildflame]

Honestly, I think I'm ok the way it is now. It's not like there are no non-archetype cards in the newer sets AT ALL, and once in a while you get some pretty meta-relevant ones (Denko, Yuki Usagi).

[Sleepy]

I also think the game is doing ok right now.

I think that for the most part (at least for the casuals I mean) they are making archetypes right.

Sure there's a lot of archetype support in the series, but it no longer is skippable support. You see things like Performapal Stamp Turtle, which is an archetype card, but its effect functions on a generic way. There are nice toys like that coming out every set this era. 

It is nothing like how things were during the GX era, where you bought a pack and had to skip all the pack filler that was D HERO and Crystal Beast support that not even their own archetypes wanted to use because they were anti-burn cards that searched Rainbow Dragon or oddly specific like "give more Counters to your Clock Tower". Now I do look at what I pull. Have you seen that common Raid Raptor from Crossed Souls? That's a pretty fun beater on its own and you really only need a few copies of it rather than the archetype deck to run it.