Yata-Garasu

[Astolfo]

1) I mean that's the entire point of Junk Synchro, summon your boss literally all the cards I mentioned can be summoned quite easily in the deck without too much dedication, but let's not get too off topic You still need a few key cards, which you won't get too often, or at least not too easily instantly, as far as I remember.

 

2) the vast majority of players hate powercreep. Why do you think the OCG list has been eradicating meta decks and now put a set rotation format on Non Japan asia? Because they want to moneywhore a new deck/respond to legitimate complains about decks being overly-strong?

 

3) It means now Heros can only go +3 instead of +5 and maybe, just maybe Yo Senju DNA has a chance of winning Yosenjus probably won't ever reasonably top with the meta that happens, and if they can only top with a card like Yata, they never should.

 

4) HA! Tell me that when TCG decide to limit your main searcher, your main recycle, you best generic cards, and your best ritual spell That means Nekroz's time is up, they want to money-whore a new deck, or respond to legitimate complaints about a deck being overly-strong (read point 2)

 

@Evil I'll get to you, I wanna think about how to word this first

[Agro]

Why do you want Yata unbanned?

[BlackBeartic]

Keep it banned.

Because if igknights haven't told you anything, people will TRY to make it as busted and then cry and call it bad when it gets hit.

 

People that say it should be unbanned are the people that'll try to make it busted and then cry later when it gets hit.

 

Yes i'm paranoid, because that's what it's come to with this community, try to make your opponent not be able to play.

[SANDAA BORUTO]

I'd disagree with unbanning Yata, but we're not in 2012 anymore.

[Blake]

 

listening to this makes this topic much more enjoyable

 

Honestly, I don't see why this is such a fuss. I like to keep things on the list for sure, and I'd be inclined to just leave Yata, but what Lily said nailed it. None of yata's problems will truly be yata's fault nowadays. Probably won't matter one way or the other, thouh.

[ihop]

Realistically nobody is going to bother with this. Summoning it has a massive opportunity cost and generated no offensive pressure, so the only time it's really good is if you already have some semi-unbreakable board and you want to make your opponent that much less likely to draw into whatever out they may have. Thing is, because it's so bad otherwise people aren't going to bother playing it just to seal wins they most likely already got because it won't help them actually achieve that scenario in the first place which is more important than just sealing the cracks and making something hard to beat even more hard to beat. Think Qliphort Towers. It's also nowhere near as immune as it used to be, a Veiler or a Valkyrus or any trap (it's not even safe in the hand anymore now everyone's playing Mind Crush so the chances of successfully resolving it when you're not way ahead are slim and, like I said, if you summon Yata and it doesn't go off you have set yourself way back in the game.

 

I don't really care if it comes back or not because I honestly don't think it'll have any impact on the current game whatsoever, but if we're insisting that every card that is currently banned that has the potential to be off the list should be off the list then this is a pretty good candidate.

[The Warden]

...hmm, I guess it wouldn't bother me much if this guy came back to 1. I mean, he should stay banned as just a matter of principle, but, in general it wouldn't do too much. Plus, I would like to use him in my PoNMS deck.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Does no one get my point about Yata removing top deck recovery and thus luck from the game? I mean do you guys enjoy top deck BLS?

 

 

You're overinterpreting favorable situation and for some reason claiming I mean it in an extremely specific way in order to discredit my point. Opening the right 3 cards in a combo can lead to stupid stuff, but it's not the same thing as my generic use of "favorable situation", which is purposefully applying to very simple, common scenarios where you have the means to destroy your opponent's resources in battle or card effects so Yata is free to direct attack and prevent any comeback from taking place.

 

And no, Yata is not vulnerable to those things in the same way Beast is. That's part of its problem. Yes, if you have Traps to stop Yata already on hand/Set, you can stop the lockdown. If you have Monster Effects to stop Yata, you can stop the lock. But the difference with Beast is that you still get to draw cards. You can draw a Trap Card. Or a monster card. You can acquire an out if you didn't have one when Beast was Summoned.

 

Yata locks DRAWS. If you didn't have an out when Yata attacked you, you're not going to draw an out. Because you can't draw. If your immediate resources in hand or Field can't block Yata during your next turn, you're not going to draw ever again. You will lose by virtue of never getting another draw and either being killed super slowly, or your opponent getting the resources needed to win sooner, because their Draw Phase isn't locked.

 

I don't think Stun is supposed to operate as far as locking down draws. As in LITERALLY locking down draws. Cards that spin like Chidori, Raiza, Phoenix Wing, etc CAN lock draws in essence by having the top card being dead, but there's a serious difference between making the opponent dead draw once and preventing them from drawing anything.

 

 

In 2015. It's really quite hard to find a viable way to keep getting a 200 atk, normal wasting, card out and inflict direct damage every single turn. You're more likely to open said three card to go into Sifr-Quasar-Infinity-Exterio (all three are @3, but that combo is for another day) and win more easily that way then randomly throw Yata in Heroes and hope draw Yata when you have law up.

 

The bottom line is, if Yata's bounce effect was so strong, Yosenju would be amazingly good right now. They do what Yata does but more coherently, sure Yata stops the damn draw, but bring cock blocks with 800+damage every turn + bounce will lock the game a lot faster

 

Stun is supposed to stun the opponent's plays. Yata literally does that. The difference between said cards is half of them are monsters and the other half is traps that can be chained (assuming Drastic Drop off). Yata take up your vital normal summon and unlike those is no guarentee. If Yosenju with all their traps gets funked by a simple well time torrential, what in gods name makes Yata different? Harpies's Feather Duster?

 

HFD+Hole+Yata? Uh Sure I guess, let even assume they have no hand. You are simply making the ideal inevitable happen sooner. Top decking is bad for the game. 

[The Warden]

I suppose the difference is you never use Yata until the field is clear, to be honest. Stun is completely reactive, but all Yata needs is the grand reaction before he starts hurting things.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I suppose the difference is you never use Yata until the field is clear, to be honest. Stun is completely reactive, but all Yata needs is the grand reaction before he starts hurting things.

Can "clearing the field be considered" reactive. Like I would honestly consider something like BLS, HFD, or CED, as proactively clearing the field. 

 

Yata makes it so the person who should win, wins and the person who should lose loses. IMO Yata increases the skill in the game and keeps us honest

[The Warden]

I wouldn't really say it makes you skilful, or that you deserve the win because they didn't have an out at the time. It was said that no one really deserves to win (think it was Machismo), and in a ways that is kinda right. The winner is almost always the person who got the luck of the draw at the time. I mean, is it really skilful to use Plaguespreader Zombie to stack Yata, then use Phantom of Chaos to copy Norleras and then bomb the field, grabbing back Yata to begin locking? I mean, it sounds more like luck than actual skill, to be honest. Skill is how you use your cards, luck determines whether or not you get them. Is it really right to say your skill won the duel when you pulled a card your opponent couldn't react to at the time by not having drawn the card needed to do so. Doesn't sound like skill to me.

 

Also, I suppose Exciton can be reactive, since his effect relies on your opponent's field and hand.

[Zauls]

Why is it people on this site don't know how to have a calm and collected discussion about any topic? Why is it every time people have different opinions an absolute shitstorm goes down? Grow the funk up, people.

 

Personally, I don't think Yata will do anything if its unbanned and it will just become like Tsukuyomi. If you've established a strong board presence and you're in a winning position, for starters, that's most likely taken up your Normal Summon. Secondly, even if it hasn't, you're not going waste deck space on Yata because it will be useless a lot of the time and most decks won't synergise with it at all. The Yosenju combo is cute, but it probably still won't be used there because it required a limited card and another specific card, so it will pretty much never actually happen. Its also definitely not worth playing a card that will be useless 75% of the time for it.

 

Everyone saying "oh it makes it so that if you're losing you lose": Well guess what, in that situation you're relying completely on luck and topdecking and you probably deserve to lose anyway. If anything Yata cuts out the bullshit. If ever there was some deck or some combo that Yata was genuinely useful in, all it would do is eliminate luck from the gamestate and make the deserved winner win.

 

Also, you have to remember you won't always have Yata when you're winning and you won't never have it when you're losing. TCG players have a play to not lose mentality and Yata completely contradicts that.

 

Also, to address these stupid "game health" arguments that I'm really funking fed up of, how the funk will a card that will literally see no play ever make the game less "healthy"? It will affect nobody and the game will be exactly the same as before. I don't understand these kinds of arguments. Sure, it may limit future design ever so slightly, but something tells me that cards that would synergise well with Yata and create some kind of lock would be ridiculous anyway and we wouldn't want them to ever be "designed" in the first place. Sure, Yata is badly designed, but pretty much every card is badly designed. If we want to ban every badly designed card, we would end up banning hundreds of cards. That would be stupid, especially in a meta that isn't even that bad right now.

 

tl;dr grow up, Yata sucks.

[CLG Klavier]

 

Also, to address these stupid "game health" arguments that I'm really funking fed up of, how the funk will a card that will literally see no play ever make the game less "healthy"? It will affect nobody and the game will be exactly the same as before. I don't understand these kinds of arguments. Sure, it may limit future design ever so slightly, but something tells me that cards that would synergise well with Yata and create some kind of lock would be ridiculous anyway and we wouldn't want them to ever be "designed" in the first place. Sure, Yata is badly designed, but pretty much every card is badly designed. If we want to ban every badly designed card, we would end up banning hundreds of cards. That would be stupid, especially in a meta that isn't even that bad right now.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I don't normally agree with Klav, but when I do he usually hits the nail on the dot. Yata is super healthy for the game and should be at three

[The Warden]

Game health wouldn't change if Yata came back, Tyr. If it does nothing to the game then health is not impacted on in any ways, as it actually needs to be capable of doing something to affect health in order to be considered toxic or healthy. I could see Yata doing a Tsukuyomi: Going to 1, then possibly 2 or 3, and if it goes to 2, 3 later. Going to 1 is just the test drive to see what happens; which I would be okay with. I mean, it's not as if Yata is as splashable as Snatch Steal is.

[ihop]

The line between what is "healthy" and "unhealthy" has been blurred so much and it's so subjective anyway that arguments about it are just going to go around in circles because people inherently have different opinions on how the game should be. If you want to discuss how a card is too good, explain situations where it is too good and why it is specifically too good, because it being "unhealthy" isn't an argument that washes with me anymore. Likewise, if you don't think it's too good, explain its limitations and counter the arguments made involving situations where people think it is too good.

[Astolfo]

Uh, sure, it stops top decking luck, but luck is always a factor, and it always should be a factor.

The other thing is, if you don't have an out when Yata attacks, you actually are funked, because you will never manage to draw again in any way, whether or not it's a lucky/shitty draw.

There's always a factor of randomness since a deck is shuffled to randomize the order of the cards, thus there will always be luckier draws and less luckier draws, and that's perfectly normal. And that's the way it should be.

 

Sure, if they top deck BLS, that sucks, but they got a stroke of good luck, good for them, woohoo.

Deal with it, it is literally most likely a 1/15 to 1/20ish chance of drawing that card (assuming it's mid/late game).

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Did you just literally say luck should be a factor in the game....like really?!

[Rodrigo]

Did you just literally say luck should be a factor in the game....like really?!

 

To be fair, the whole idea of having a deck assorted randomly means luck will always be a factor. And that's true for all card games.

[Astolfo]

Did you just literally say luck should be a factor in the game....like really?!

Uh, why shouldn't it?

As long as decks are randomly shuffled, there always will be a factor of luck.

 

A card game shouldn't entirely be luck, nor should it entirely be skill, the mix of both is what keeps it interesting and unpredictable, since there's a small chance luck can turn things around.

The majority still relies on skill though, as it should, and that's fine too.

[The Warden]

Pretty much. As I said before, skill won't win you the game, it just tells you how to use the cards fortune gave you. As skilful as you can be, you can be outplayed if fortune favours the opponent.

[Astolfo]

Pretty much. As I said before, skill won't win you the game, it just tells you how to use the cards fortune gave you. As skilful as you can be, you can be outplayed if fortune favours the opponent.

Thank you, Broken.

 

Being skilled means you'll still probably be able to figure out more things to do even with a bad hand, as compared to a less skilled player.

However, luck always exist, and it always should exist, because that's what keeps the small aspect of randomness alive.

 

If there was no luck factor at all involved, that could only happen by being able to see every card in your deck and pull whatever you want, and we all know how that's going to go, right? =.=

Also, besides the fact everyone would literally draw only what works best for them/worst for their opponent, assuming we had two miraculously kind people who were altruistic to a fault and drew normally, that would still mean there's a chance of randomness, since they draw normally.

Also, if there was somehow a way to completely remove a chance of luck without breaking the game as I mentioned above (which is impossible, but let's entertain it for the sake of this argument), that would make every duel pointless, since whoever is the more skilled will essentially have already won.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Fortune needs to be cleaned out. So you go for a push and clear your opponents board? Is it fair he can top deck CED, swing your castel for 1k then nuke his way back in? Or top deck soul charge? Luck is bad and should be eliminated to the best of our ability. Yata does that

[The Warden]

No, it's not fair, not one bit. But if the game was fair there'd be no winners or losers, just a draw. The game has to be unfair by design so a person can actually win. That is what luck is for, to help decide who wins.

[Astolfo]

Fortune needs to be cleaned out. So you go for a push and clear your opponents board? Is it fair he can top deck CED, swing your castel for 1k then nuke his way back in? Or top deck soul charge? Luck is bad and should be eliminated to the best of our ability. Yata does that

Good for you, you managed to clear their board, no one cares.

That kind of stuff can happen fairly frequently to different scales anyways without too much difficulty anyways (Absolute Zero -> Mask Change -> MH Acid, for example).

Doesn't mean you won, shouldn't mean you won. Just means you took the advantage for that moment.

 

Right now, it sounds like you're just salty over the fact that luck can change a few games here and there.

The other thing is, let's be generous and say maybe 3-5 cards are "lucky" draws in mid/late game.

You'll probably have 15 to 20 cards or so.

That's less than a quarter of a chance on average.

On the chance it happens, so what? Luck happened, cards were random, get over it.

No, it's not fair, not one bit. But if the game was fair there'd be no winners or losers, just a draw. The game has to be unfair by design so a person can actually win. That is what luck is for, to help decide who wins.

See, he actually gets it.