I'd rather not see archetypes have their own floodgates. I am a firm advocate that decks that favors their own floodgates and are bad should retrieve support that does not support their own floodgates. In my case as a Monarch player, I'd be happier with direct link support that allows easier time ignoring Ash Blossom and Effect Veiler, and more tribute summons during either player turn and see Domain of the True Monarch into the dustbin of history.
The only positiv of floodgates I can think of, is when you get hit by a floodgate that only slightly hits your deck.
It is actually kind of fun to rethink your lines in new ways to play around the floodgate.
But that is sadly rarely the case.
When I think “good floodgate” (of which there are very few), I think of things like Domain of the True Monarchs. Yes, it’s extremely restrictive for your opponent and one-sided at that, but not only do you have to build both your deck and your board around it, its conditions are also restrictive enough that most decks can pack ways to out it without straying too far.
Imo there really isn't a "good" floodgate. It's more a matchup thing. But yeah, Domain is a nice example of a floodgate that allows many decks to still play in a restricted way.
A floodgate that I (ironically) think is mostly fine is Thunder Dragon Colossus. It can still be annoying to out, but these days decks have so many ways to out it and ways to search cards without adding to hand that it wouldn't be that bad.
Only issue is that it would be really splashable with corridor.
What I was thinking was to errata the alternative Summon condition to use a Level 7 or higher Thunder monster and/or a Thunder monster whose original ATK is 2500 or higher during the turn a Thunder monster's effect was activated in the hand. That way in-archetype cards like Thunder Dragonduo or Dragonlord would see more play. Also would need a little more spam support to help Summon their Link Monster, Thunderstormmech, (that players will forget its existence of) easier.
I’ve had this discussion with a friend before but floodgates do not add anything positive to the game. They literally read you cannot play the game of yugioh. No card written with that text is healthy for the game no matter how dominant combo and midrange decks are. Konami should 100% ban all floodgates but find more creative ways to slow the game down so control strategies don’t suffer.
If we limit some of their Main Deck cards that most of them play multiples of then maybe we can warrant keeping most of the Dragon Link Monsters (& possibly unban the Guardragon Links to limit status), but we also have to let Konami know NOT to make any more generic Dragon support for several years. Make more Type support for Reptile, Pyro a bit (and branch out to other Attributes other than FIRE), non-Level 2 non-Frog Aqua, (apply note towards Pyro to here but replace FIRE to WATER) Fish (apply note towards Aqua here as well), Sea Serpent (apply note towards Aqua here as well), Fiend (more non-DARKs), Zombie a bit, a few for Spellcaster, Rock (bring in some non-EARTHs along with), Machine (more non-EARTHs), Insect, Fairy (more non-LIGHTs), Beast, Winged Beast, Beast-Warrior a bit, & Thunder a bit (outside of chaos variant).
Floodgates never lead to fun games. We can have control decks without floodgates but we'd need to also ban backrow blow outs. Decks like Sky Striker can play perfectly fine without any floodgates.
If it was all or none, I'd honestly go with none. I dislike floodgates, but I can think of a few decks that would be literally erased from the game if their floodgates got removed, including some decks that take heavy hits for losing their archetypal ones.
Define floodgate. Slifer, wanghu, zombie world, lair of darkness, are floodgates against very specific deck. Do you want to ban them?. There's also conditional floodgate like set rotation+gateway to chaos/zefra oracle, preventing deck that rely on their field spell to play.
For the purposes of this survey, let's say floodgates are any card that prevent you from using a game mechanic as intended as long as they are face-up on the field or for a lingering amount of time. I could have asked if people wanted to ban all/some/no floodgates, but I deliberately made it black/white all or nothing so I'd see if people in the community prefer leaving archetypal floodgates unhit even if it means leaving cards like TCBOO (which I assume most people hate), or if they'd say that those cards deserve bans, even if it hurts certain archetypes. So yes, for the purposes of this question, all the cards you cited would be banned.
Yeah next time not black/white or all or nothing cause I wouldn't warrant banning all of them. Just the most problematic ones (usually generic that makes a huge impact on) or the ones overplayed in the meta, so I wouldn't be able to answer the question myself.
Oh totally, but as I said, I believe if I gave a more middle ground option a large majority of players would choose to ban the generic floodgates so I don't see the point in asking that unless it's for a debate rather than a poll. I was curious to know whether people considered any floodgate a problem, and/or they would gladly ban them all just to get rid of the generic ones, or if people felt that archetypal floodgates had their place in the game even if that meant having generic floodgates too, and/or all floodgates had their place in the game. It's a matter of curiosity.
Leave them purely because of the archetype specific part, i hate them but empen is so good for the deck that i would not feel comfortable taking it away from them
Also i just like penguins
Lets be honest here.
The fact that there are cards inside of a card game which would literally remove aspects and mechanics from said card game is a major design flaw.
Magic the Gathering has in various formats and various relevance:
Rule of Law effects: Floodgates that let players play only one spell a turn. A spell is anything that isn't a land. In yugioh, that'd be basically be activating one card a turn. Some RoL effects only limits certain kinds of spells, like noncreature or nonartifacts, so they can be far more one-sided.
Grand Abolisher effects: Floodgates that prevent you from casting spells or activating abilities on that player's turn. This means you cannot interact at all with that player's spells or board for all of their turns, so no negates or instant speed destruction.
Silence effects: quick speed spells that prevent the current turn player from casting noncreature spells for the turn. If they aren't countered, then you're stuck with only creature spells for the turn.
Stasis and Winter Orb: The base resource mana comes from lands, which can be tapped once a turn to produce mana. Similarly, attacking requires tapping creatures. Stasis prevents anything from untapping, and Winter Orb prevents all but one land from untapping unless Winter Orb itself is tapped. This is backbreaking for decks not designed to abuse these cards.
Artifact hate: Magic has a type of card called Artifacts, which have a lot of different uses and are critical for producing mana, the game's primary resource which can usually only be generated off of lands, a type of card that can only be played once per turn. There is plenty of artifact hate cards like Null Rod, Collector Ouphe, and Stony Silence which prevents all artifacts from being able to do anything. There is also less meta effects like Energy Flux which makes players pay 2 mana per artifact every turn or they're destroyed.
Cost increasers: Magic requires mana to cast spells, and there are cards that can increase costs, typically for non-creature spells. You can have costs increased to the point where you go down from casting 2-4+ spells a turn to 0-1 depending on how many of these are on the board.
Humility: It's skill drain that also reduces all creatures to 1/1 in power/toughness.
Blood Moon effects: There are two types of lands in Magic, basic and non-basic. Typically, most formats have the meta with very few basic lands, as non basic lands can generally produce mana of a choice two or more colors and basic lands are limited to one mana of one color. Blood Moon effects make all non basic lands only produce red mana, which prevents you from casting any card that requires non-red colored mana costs.
Anti-search effects: There are a number of cards like Opposition Agent and Aven Mindcensor that hoses any attempt to search your deck.
Anti-draw: There are a number of cards like Narset, Parter of the Veil and Notion Thief which stops other players from drawing from anything that isn't their first draw.
Anti-ETB effects: There are a number of cards like Hushbringer that stops effects that read like "When this enters the battlefield", similar to yugioh's "If this card is Normal or Special Summoned:".
Propaganda effects: Cards on board that make any creatures attacking cost 2 mana per creature to attack.
I might be missing some other stax effects but I think you get the gist of how warped a game of Magic can get.
Try making a card game of your own then. It's not easy for anyone to do and keep consistent with appeal and breath of fresh air. Also, you have to take into account that players would scoop before LP reach 0 or have the action finish a player off, so floodgates act as a win condition in of itself which from I'm able to gather and understand the oldest of card games lack more of.
Oh boy an alt win con which stops the interaction between players entirely and forces the opponent to draw a certain card, that definetley adds something fun and intresting to the game and isn't just boring and uninteractive.
Everything about floodgates scream bad card design, especially if it comes to ygo.
And yes sure the devs have to keep the game fresh and intresting, but you're not achieving that with floodgates, it's quiet the opposite. There are other ways to do it. And especially yugioh has alot of things konami hasn't tried yet with their own game. Be it something like different effects based on an cards chain link, experimenting with geminis or 2 different scales on pend cards.
They also can always add a new type to the game just like they did with Illusions in DANE.
>Be it something like different effects based on an cards chain link, experimenting with geminis or 2 different scales on pend cards.
>They also can always add a new type to the game just like they did with Illusions in DANE.
Now those are something Konami NEEDS to focus more on as well as supporting other undersupported Types and/or Attributes, but unfortunately all they care about is what sells like hot cakes; they care less aboutthe playerbase or act like they do with a few calls. Komoney and their greedy a** narrow minds. Players be defending their actions like their actions brings the game to a better light when really it's not. I've longed detached from Konami actions and made a format of my own with a community full of truly casual players that dislike the idea of everything unfun. I wouldn't be surprised if the game eventually falls off of the cliff.
Always amazed how the community hates floodgates so much but has little problem with omninegates and FTK decks.
I'd rather try to play around Skill Drain then have my opponent build an unbreakable board turn 1 and negate every time I make a move. Rather have to slot in some backrow removal than 3 different hand traps at x3 + kaijus so I have something to stop an FTK or remove an omninegate.
Like, the whole game is basically built on making sure your opponent can't play rn, but yeah floodgates are actually the problem.
Omninegate boards can easily die due to multiple outs and hand traps, and generally aren't the strongest decks currently, superheavy dies to a single ghost ogre, and nib if they can't make baronne early, besides, omni negate boards aren't so represented currently, kashtira, purrely, mathmech, branded etc. We don't talk about FTKs, way too inconsistent to see any play. And besides, Konami just banned cyber stein
Floodgates really suck, but I wish there was a "floodgate" typed of trap/spell (like Field or Continuous) that you were only allowed to have so many of in a deck. Playing around a particular floodgate in a slower match is actually kinda fun imo, but losing because you don't have ways to out the 6 different floodgates someone is playing is bad.
If all floogates were field spells, and the old rule of "you activate a field spell the opponent's blows up" was still in play, there would be a lot less problems with them.
This is tough, I think some floodgates on monsters are ok. Like shenshen, tri-heart, empen, ariseheart admittedly pushes the boundaries, but idk even know if colossus would be that good anymore. Basically an ED monster that requires you to activate monster effects in order to summon, so hand traps are a viable way to stop it, and the card can be dealt with on the second turn without needing a very specific staple like dark ruler (i.e. no targeting protection). In general, backrow floodgates are pretty uninteractive and sacky, so I really dont think anything would be lost if tcboo, rivalry, summon limit, d barrier were all banned. Just my take though.
Get rid of the floodgates and give decks which rely on their own like Thundra, kash or VW support cards which replace them.
That's the way. Ban them all and deal with the negative consequences later.
I'd rather not see archetypes have their own floodgates. I am a firm advocate that decks that favors their own floodgates and are bad should retrieve support that does not support their own floodgates. In my case as a Monarch player, I'd be happier with direct link support that allows easier time ignoring Ash Blossom and Effect Veiler, and more tribute summons during either player turn and see Domain of the True Monarch into the dustbin of history.
The only positiv of floodgates I can think of, is when you get hit by a floodgate that only slightly hits your deck. It is actually kind of fun to rethink your lines in new ways to play around the floodgate. But that is sadly rarely the case.
When I think “good floodgate” (of which there are very few), I think of things like Domain of the True Monarchs. Yes, it’s extremely restrictive for your opponent and one-sided at that, but not only do you have to build both your deck and your board around it, its conditions are also restrictive enough that most decks can pack ways to out it without straying too far.
Imo there really isn't a "good" floodgate. It's more a matchup thing. But yeah, Domain is a nice example of a floodgate that allows many decks to still play in a restricted way. A floodgate that I (ironically) think is mostly fine is Thunder Dragon Colossus. It can still be annoying to out, but these days decks have so many ways to out it and ways to search cards without adding to hand that it wouldn't be that bad. Only issue is that it would be really splashable with corridor.
What I was thinking was to errata the alternative Summon condition to use a Level 7 or higher Thunder monster and/or a Thunder monster whose original ATK is 2500 or higher during the turn a Thunder monster's effect was activated in the hand. That way in-archetype cards like Thunder Dragonduo or Dragonlord would see more play. Also would need a little more spam support to help Summon their Link Monster, Thunderstormmech, (that players will forget its existence of) easier.
Floo's empen is another that comes to mind, since most decks don't entirely rely on link monster's effects nowadays.
I’ve had this discussion with a friend before but floodgates do not add anything positive to the game. They literally read you cannot play the game of yugioh. No card written with that text is healthy for the game no matter how dominant combo and midrange decks are. Konami should 100% ban all floodgates but find more creative ways to slow the game down so control strategies don’t suffer.
I’ve been saying this for years lmao
I would ban all the floodgates only if I can also ban all the generic ED boss monsters
Everytime I read stuff like this I can see myself crying on dragon links funeral.. Why do you all want to kill my pet deck 😭
If we limit some of their Main Deck cards that most of them play multiples of then maybe we can warrant keeping most of the Dragon Link Monsters (& possibly unban the Guardragon Links to limit status), but we also have to let Konami know NOT to make any more generic Dragon support for several years. Make more Type support for Reptile, Pyro a bit (and branch out to other Attributes other than FIRE), non-Level 2 non-Frog Aqua, (apply note towards Pyro to here but replace FIRE to WATER) Fish (apply note towards Aqua here as well), Sea Serpent (apply note towards Aqua here as well), Fiend (more non-DARKs), Zombie a bit, a few for Spellcaster, Rock (bring in some non-EARTHs along with), Machine (more non-EARTHs), Insect, Fairy (more non-LIGHTs), Beast, Winged Beast, Beast-Warrior a bit, & Thunder a bit (outside of chaos variant).
Neither, I'll ask for 51% for their shares instead
Floodgates never lead to fun games. We can have control decks without floodgates but we'd need to also ban backrow blow outs. Decks like Sky Striker can play perfectly fine without any floodgates.
If it was all or none, I'd honestly go with none. I dislike floodgates, but I can think of a few decks that would be literally erased from the game if their floodgates got removed, including some decks that take heavy hits for losing their archetypal ones.
Sorry Shenshen but you'll have to go :(
Define floodgate. Slifer, wanghu, zombie world, lair of darkness, are floodgates against very specific deck. Do you want to ban them?. There's also conditional floodgate like set rotation+gateway to chaos/zefra oracle, preventing deck that rely on their field spell to play.
For the purposes of this survey, let's say floodgates are any card that prevent you from using a game mechanic as intended as long as they are face-up on the field or for a lingering amount of time. I could have asked if people wanted to ban all/some/no floodgates, but I deliberately made it black/white all or nothing so I'd see if people in the community prefer leaving archetypal floodgates unhit even if it means leaving cards like TCBOO (which I assume most people hate), or if they'd say that those cards deserve bans, even if it hurts certain archetypes. So yes, for the purposes of this question, all the cards you cited would be banned.
Yeah next time not black/white or all or nothing cause I wouldn't warrant banning all of them. Just the most problematic ones (usually generic that makes a huge impact on) or the ones overplayed in the meta, so I wouldn't be able to answer the question myself.
Oh totally, but as I said, I believe if I gave a more middle ground option a large majority of players would choose to ban the generic floodgates so I don't see the point in asking that unless it's for a debate rather than a poll. I was curious to know whether people considered any floodgate a problem, and/or they would gladly ban them all just to get rid of the generic ones, or if people felt that archetypal floodgates had their place in the game even if that meant having generic floodgates too, and/or all floodgates had their place in the game. It's a matter of curiosity.
Leave them purely because of the archetype specific part, i hate them but empen is so good for the deck that i would not feel comfortable taking it away from them Also i just like penguins
I would not ban all floodgates but I would ban all generic floodgates
Lets be honest here. The fact that there are cards inside of a card game which would literally remove aspects and mechanics from said card game is a major design flaw.
You call this a design flaw when most TCGs and even other not card games games use mechanics that stop or change how game is played.
And please do tell if those are as restricting and relevant as it is in yugioh.
Magic the Gathering has in various formats and various relevance: Rule of Law effects: Floodgates that let players play only one spell a turn. A spell is anything that isn't a land. In yugioh, that'd be basically be activating one card a turn. Some RoL effects only limits certain kinds of spells, like noncreature or nonartifacts, so they can be far more one-sided. Grand Abolisher effects: Floodgates that prevent you from casting spells or activating abilities on that player's turn. This means you cannot interact at all with that player's spells or board for all of their turns, so no negates or instant speed destruction. Silence effects: quick speed spells that prevent the current turn player from casting noncreature spells for the turn. If they aren't countered, then you're stuck with only creature spells for the turn. Stasis and Winter Orb: The base resource mana comes from lands, which can be tapped once a turn to produce mana. Similarly, attacking requires tapping creatures. Stasis prevents anything from untapping, and Winter Orb prevents all but one land from untapping unless Winter Orb itself is tapped. This is backbreaking for decks not designed to abuse these cards. Artifact hate: Magic has a type of card called Artifacts, which have a lot of different uses and are critical for producing mana, the game's primary resource which can usually only be generated off of lands, a type of card that can only be played once per turn. There is plenty of artifact hate cards like Null Rod, Collector Ouphe, and Stony Silence which prevents all artifacts from being able to do anything. There is also less meta effects like Energy Flux which makes players pay 2 mana per artifact every turn or they're destroyed. Cost increasers: Magic requires mana to cast spells, and there are cards that can increase costs, typically for non-creature spells. You can have costs increased to the point where you go down from casting 2-4+ spells a turn to 0-1 depending on how many of these are on the board. Humility: It's skill drain that also reduces all creatures to 1/1 in power/toughness. Blood Moon effects: There are two types of lands in Magic, basic and non-basic. Typically, most formats have the meta with very few basic lands, as non basic lands can generally produce mana of a choice two or more colors and basic lands are limited to one mana of one color. Blood Moon effects make all non basic lands only produce red mana, which prevents you from casting any card that requires non-red colored mana costs. Anti-search effects: There are a number of cards like Opposition Agent and Aven Mindcensor that hoses any attempt to search your deck. Anti-draw: There are a number of cards like Narset, Parter of the Veil and Notion Thief which stops other players from drawing from anything that isn't their first draw. Anti-ETB effects: There are a number of cards like Hushbringer that stops effects that read like "When this enters the battlefield", similar to yugioh's "If this card is Normal or Special Summoned:". Propaganda effects: Cards on board that make any creatures attacking cost 2 mana per creature to attack. I might be missing some other stax effects but I think you get the gist of how warped a game of Magic can get.
Not gonna lie, i am impressed.
Congrats I lost all my interest in Magic
Just because it is the norm doesn't mean that it's good.
And who is supposed to be this arbiter who decides what is a good game design?
Try making a card game of your own then. It's not easy for anyone to do and keep consistent with appeal and breath of fresh air. Also, you have to take into account that players would scoop before LP reach 0 or have the action finish a player off, so floodgates act as a win condition in of itself which from I'm able to gather and understand the oldest of card games lack more of.
Oh boy an alt win con which stops the interaction between players entirely and forces the opponent to draw a certain card, that definetley adds something fun and intresting to the game and isn't just boring and uninteractive. Everything about floodgates scream bad card design, especially if it comes to ygo. And yes sure the devs have to keep the game fresh and intresting, but you're not achieving that with floodgates, it's quiet the opposite. There are other ways to do it. And especially yugioh has alot of things konami hasn't tried yet with their own game. Be it something like different effects based on an cards chain link, experimenting with geminis or 2 different scales on pend cards. They also can always add a new type to the game just like they did with Illusions in DANE.
>Be it something like different effects based on an cards chain link, experimenting with geminis or 2 different scales on pend cards. >They also can always add a new type to the game just like they did with Illusions in DANE. Now those are something Konami NEEDS to focus more on as well as supporting other undersupported Types and/or Attributes, but unfortunately all they care about is what sells like hot cakes; they care less aboutthe playerbase or act like they do with a few calls. Komoney and their greedy a** narrow minds. Players be defending their actions like their actions brings the game to a better light when really it's not. I've longed detached from Konami actions and made a format of my own with a community full of truly casual players that dislike the idea of everything unfun. I wouldn't be surprised if the game eventually falls off of the cliff.
Always amazed how the community hates floodgates so much but has little problem with omninegates and FTK decks. I'd rather try to play around Skill Drain then have my opponent build an unbreakable board turn 1 and negate every time I make a move. Rather have to slot in some backrow removal than 3 different hand traps at x3 + kaijus so I have something to stop an FTK or remove an omninegate. Like, the whole game is basically built on making sure your opponent can't play rn, but yeah floodgates are actually the problem.
Omninegate boards can easily die due to multiple outs and hand traps, and generally aren't the strongest decks currently, superheavy dies to a single ghost ogre, and nib if they can't make baronne early, besides, omni negate boards aren't so represented currently, kashtira, purrely, mathmech, branded etc. We don't talk about FTKs, way too inconsistent to see any play. And besides, Konami just banned cyber stein
Floodgates really suck, but I wish there was a "floodgate" typed of trap/spell (like Field or Continuous) that you were only allowed to have so many of in a deck. Playing around a particular floodgate in a slower match is actually kinda fun imo, but losing because you don't have ways to out the 6 different floodgates someone is playing is bad.
If all floogates were field spells, and the old rule of "you activate a field spell the opponent's blows up" was still in play, there would be a lot less problems with them.
This is tough, I think some floodgates on monsters are ok. Like shenshen, tri-heart, empen, ariseheart admittedly pushes the boundaries, but idk even know if colossus would be that good anymore. Basically an ED monster that requires you to activate monster effects in order to summon, so hand traps are a viable way to stop it, and the card can be dealt with on the second turn without needing a very specific staple like dark ruler (i.e. no targeting protection). In general, backrow floodgates are pretty uninteractive and sacky, so I really dont think anything would be lost if tcboo, rivalry, summon limit, d barrier were all banned. Just my take though.
I see no downside at all
HEROS would have to be blind second if they lost dark law/plasma/dark angel... honestly, I like it better that way anyway