The Ingenuity of OTKs

[Lemniscate]

OTKs, we love them, we hate them, we try to ban them and un-ban them.

I have a question though...

Are they good? or bad?

Is the existence of OTKs an incentive to play more defensively?

Or a sad mistake of a bad group of card makers?

Also, what makes an OTK ban-able?

 

Comments?

Ideas?

[iAmNateXero]

OTKs will always exist in this game because there is no card that says "If your life points would reach 0 this turn, it becomes 100 until the end of the turn." With that said, what is left to discuss?... I mean really?

[Guest PikaPerson01]

Depending on how easy they are to achieve, but for the most part easy OTKs should be avoided like the plague.

[Lemniscate]

OTKs will always exist in this game because there is no card that says "If your life points would reach 0 this turn' date=' it becomes 100 until the end of the turn." With that said, what is left to discuss?... I mean really?

[/quote']

 

Really, there should be a card like that.

Call it "Endurance" or something. It would sure make life easier.

[Psycho Shocker Android]

yeah make something like this

 

off to the card creation LOL

[CrabHelmet]

OTKs' date=' we love them,

[/quote']

 

Who is this "we"?

 

and un-ban them.

 

Again' date=' who?

 

I have a question though...

 

Actually, you have approximately five questions.

 

Are they good? or bad?

 

OTK's' date=' by and large, reduce the impact of Skill on the game, and are therefore a negative influence. FTK's are the worst of all, since they remove the part of the duel that gives it the name "duel".

 

Is the existence of OTKs an incentive to play more defensively?

 

The majority of OTK's do not particularly care how the opponent's implaying since they generally either ignore the opponent's field entirely through methods like Gigaplant loop, nuke the opponent's field, or otherwise trample over the opponent. The ones that actually care what the opponent is doing are often best countered by playing more aggressively, i.e. by swarming the field and thus absorbing additional attacks. True, the ones that rely on attacks can be stopped temporarily by something like Threatening Roar, but I seriously doubt that forcing everyone to run 3 Threatening Roar just to avoid being mindlessly wiped out in a single turn is a good thing for the game at all.

 

Or a sad mistake of a bad group of card makers?

 

The existence of OTK's is largely inevitable' date=' as you will find if you foolishly actually try to eradicate every five- or six-card OTK combo. However, some OTK's - the ones that require list attention - are indeed the result of what one would consider poor decisions if one did not factor in Konami's love of money (and sometimes which are still poor decisions anyhow).

 

Also, what makes an OTK ban-able?

 

As I said, not every OTK can be dealt with, but by the same token it would be idiotic to ignore them all. In general, an OTK requires list attention if one of the following factors holds true:

 

1) The problem can be traced back to a single "culprit" card. This card can clearly be identified as the source of the OTK and has little viable use outside of the OTK. Exchange of the Spirit is a fabulous example of this.

 

2) No single card can be solidly identified as a culprit, but the OTK has sufficient strength to be a serious threat to the metagame. In this case, the components of the OTK are analyzed individually; whichever would benefit the game the least outside of the OTK is axed. The various Elma + Gearfried combos illustrate this well. Neither was an actual problem without the other, yet the two together were causing serious trouble, so something had to go. Gearfried allowed certain toolbox decks using him with Smoke Grenade of the Thief and Blast With Chain to exist while also countering cards like Mark of the Rose, which may not sound like a lot but by far outclasses the usefulness of Elma, which works with one of the lesser monsters of an atrocious theme while trying to fill niches that were already filled by Fusion Sword Murasame Blade and Dark Coffin; as such, Elma was found to have less use, so it was (rightly) killed to save Gearfried.

 

The reason that OTK's with culprits that are not already stomping all over everyone require attention is that the culprit has no use outside of OTKing; therefore, it will require attention the moment anyone actually uses it; therefore, it should be banned now. This is not the case without a culprit, as banning non-culprits in case their OTKs gain too much strength detracts from the game by needlessly limiting available options.

 

If there is neither a culprit nor an imminent threat, the OTK can be left alone.

 

OTKs will always exist in this game because there is no card that says "If your life points would reach 0 this turn' date=' it becomes 100 until the end of the turn." With that said, what is left to discuss?... I mean really?

[/quote']

 

Yes, OTK's will always exist. By the same token, Luck will always be a factor in the game. That's no reason that we should not reduce their impact, even though they cannot be completely eradicated.

[Lemniscate]

OTKs will always exist in this game because there is no card that says "If your life points would reach 0 this turn' date=' it becomes 100 until the end of the turn." With that said, what is left to discuss?... I mean really?

[/quote']

 

Yes, OTK's will always exist. By the same token, Luck will always be a factor in the game. That's no reason that we should not reduce their impact, even though they cannot be completely eradicated.

 

Then why do other card games not have OTKs? (Magic: the Gathering)

Are the game mechanics to blame?

[CrabHelmet]

OTKs will always exist in this game because there is no card that says "If your life points would reach 0 this turn' date=' it becomes 100 until the end of the turn." With that said, what is left to discuss?... I mean really?

[/quote']

 

Yes, OTK's will always exist. By the same token, Luck will always be a factor in the game. That's no reason that we should not reduce their impact, even though they cannot be completely eradicated.

 

Then why do other card games not have OTKs? (Magic: the Gathering)

Are the game mechanics to blame?

 

I have heard that Magic has not only OTK's but even a combo-based deck that is designed to win before your first upkeep.

 

However, in general, OTK's are less common in Magic because of Magic's mana resource system. Yu-Gi-Oh! has no real resource system beyond "number of cards in hand" and "Life Points remaining".

 

[Disclaimer: most of this is speculation; I know so little about Magic that I don't even know what an "upkeep" is, although I'm guessing that it's analogous to a Standby Phase, or maybe an End Phase.]

[iAmNateXero]

OTKs will always exist in this game because there is no card that says "If your life points would reach 0 this turn' date=' it becomes 100 until the end of the turn." With that said, what is left to discuss?... I mean really?

[/quote']

 

Yes, OTK's will always exist. By the same token, Luck will always be a factor in the game. That's no reason that we should not reduce their impact, even though they cannot be completely eradicated.

 

Then why do other card games not have OTKs? (Magic: the Gathering)

Are the game mechanics to blame?

 

I lol'd. MTG has more FTK than there are otk's.

 

And agreed Crab. Only problem, nobody cares about tech cards, the cards actually responsible for such otk's/ All everybody wants to do is focus in on single cards at a time. And yes, upkeep is basically standby for for MTG.

[Psycho Shocker Android]

Dredge is an OTK (FTK in some formats) magic has some OTKs and FTKs, just not in type 2.

[iAmNateXero]

Dredge is an OTK (FTK in some formats) magic has some OTKs and FTKs' date=' just not in type 2.

[/quote']

 

Elves say hi.

[CrabHelmet]

OTKs will always exist in this game because there is no card that says "If your life points would reach 0 this turn' date=' it becomes 100 until the end of the turn." With that said, what is left to discuss?... I mean really?

[/quote']

 

Yes, OTK's will always exist. By the same token, Luck will always be a factor in the game. That's no reason that we should not reduce their impact, even though they cannot be completely eradicated.

 

Then why do other card games not have OTKs? (Magic: the Gathering)

Are the game mechanics to blame?

 

I lol'd. MTG has more FTK than there are otk's.

 

And agreed Crab. Only problem, nobody cares about tech cards, the cards actually responsible for such otk's/ All everybody wants to do is focus in on single cards at a time.

 

This is your whole "let's ban/limit/semi-limit the cards that make the OTK's a bit easier rather than the OTK's themselves" thing that has given you the impressing that Dark Grepher is banworthy, right?

 

And yes' date=' upkeep is basically standby for for MTG.

[/quote']

 

I guessed as much, since the deck in question was billed as a ZTK.

[iAmNateXero]

I based Grephors banworthiness (so not a word, but what ever) off the ideas of metas unknown to us, and future cards unknown to us the same way you based Kitties banworthiness to metas unknown and future cards to be.

[CrabHelmet]

I based Grephors banworthiness (so not a word' date=' but what ever) off the ideas of metas unknown to us, and future cards unknown to us the same way you based Kitties banworthiness to metas unknown and future cards to be.

[/quote']

 

In case you hadn't noticed, Rescue Cat is at 3 on every list worth mentioning, because that's where it belongs.

 

Also, basing banlist decisions on future unreleased, unconfirmed cards is stupid. It limits deckbuilding possibilities on the off-chance that something might come along someday that works unacceptably with it. The greatest impact that hypothetical future cards should have is to serve as tie-breakers between two cards, one of which has to go, in which absolutely no other factors exist that would cause one to be banned over the other, and such circumstances are so rare that I doubt a single such case even exists. Grepher versus Dark Armed Dragon (or whatever you banned him in favour of) is not such a case.

[iAmNateXero]

What ever, this is besides the point, i just thought i recalled reading this along time ago.

 

Essentially' date=' we have a choice between prohibiting all Level 3 Beast-Type Tuner monsters out of hand, or prohibiting the card that causes them to be a problem in the first place. Even without X-Saber Airbellum, [b']Rescue Cat is still a potential problem with cards not yet created[/b]; it simply doesn't currently have a card with which to work.

 

I mean, it cant be that stupid. Its logical thinking, and I agree with that logic, wether its wrong or right.

[CrabHelmet]

What ever' date=' this is besides the point, i just thought i recalled reading this along time ago.

 

Essentially, we have a choice between prohibiting all Level 3 Beast-Type Tuner monsters out of hand, or prohibiting the card that causes them to be a problem in the first place. Even without X-Saber Airbellum, Rescue Cat is still a potential problem with cards not yet created; it simply doesn't currently have a card with which to work.

 

I mean, it cant be that stupid. Its logical thinking, and I agree with that logic, wether its wrong or right.

 

There, it was being used as a tie-breaker between two cards with nothing to decide between them, primarily because I was being stupid and overlooked an extremely obvious factor that would easily decide the issue in favour of killing Airbellum.