Do you think Pot of Greed should be unbanned? Leave your thoughts in the comments! ------------------------------------- Within the last 3 days of uploading this, its become clear that I missed certain arguments and got a fair amount of information wrong. I do apologize for that, and i'll certainly have to revisit this video at a later date and both analyze what still holds up, where I was wrong and address other arguments posed in the comments (assuming someone doesnt beat me to it, but even then i'm sure there's still some worth for me doing it for self-reflection purposes). At the moment, my current standing after posting this is that PoG can't ever feasibly come off the list while Talents is still legal due to Thrust. Thinning the deck by 5 cards is ludicrously powerful, even when going second. But moreso, I should've really thought about what sort of benefits it'd bring to the game beyond just making decks more consistent (which causes more problems than it solves). I do think there could be some valid reasons (whether objective or not), but at the moment, I don't really have an answer to that question. A major goal of this video was to generate new talking points for and against the card beyond what all I came up with in my video (since the discussion has been stagnant for years and all the arguments i had to tear down during my research was old talking points that have been parroted ad nauseum), and some of these new arguments are really compelling stuff. For the sake of convenience, i'll be pinning some of the stronger talking points that people have brought up in this comment so that people don't have to dig for them. Think of this kinda like a repository for modern discussion surrounding Pot of Greed. I'll be crediting those who mentioned them here as well. @marktwayne9796 writes "I was previously of the opinion that it could go at one and be irrelevant, because it would be unsearchable and unrecyclable. But then Triple Tactics Thrust became a thing, so nah. I know you can just Thrust into Talents to draw 2 anyway, but imagine already having Talents (which is at least a 2 of from what I see) and then Thrusting into PoG to get another 2?" @larhyperhair3188 writes "This would definitely make droll mandatory and I don't know if I wanna live in that world. Though it would make for a very funny droll-mini-game. Do I fire the pot and get drolled after? (Locking me out of my searches for 2 cards) Or do I get my specific search first, and then get drolled? (Lose out on the 2 cards this turn)"
It shouldn't come back. Pot of Desires is semi-limited even though you can only activate it one per turn and it banishes 10 cards from your Deck, so a card that lets you do that for free? No thank you. We don't want to give more consistency to FTK Decks.
@@revolverkyosuke7049in that case banishing can help cards like all the Kashtira monsters and GrenMadju or however you spell that guy. Definitely not the best argument against that tho. Also not all decks could handle losing 10 cards because what if some of their best cards are at 1? Then if they banish it face down its gone forever. So it is definitely in my opinion a case by case basis.
@@Mimiyan_or_Pikapikafan If Pot of Desires is semi-limited despite not being usable in all Decks, then why should Pot of Greed come back? If it comes back, it will affect Deckbuilding nearly as drastically as Maxx C did (Basically, every Deck would use it. Why wouldn't you want to use a card that freely lets you draw 2?)
Here is my argument to what markt said: Would you want to grab Pot of greed or some other spell like Forbidden Droplet? Droplet actually sounds more appealing to me in almost any scenario like that
@@revolverkyosuke7049 ok have you watched the video you are commenting on? Also Maxx "C" is a handtrap that also allows you or you opponent to either draw a lot of cards or make the other player forced to play using a weaker end board, Pot of Greed is just drawing cards, and usually less. That's a big difference there, so it's not a fair comparison. I've seen what happens what Maxx "C" is used in Master Duel enough first hand both sides and even tho it definitely helps me win games, I definitely want it banned. It's one-sided no matter what. Pot Of Greed doesn't create a situation like that
true but its useless, after Prosperity is banned, Konami will just make a new one as strong but more limited version for players to pay for it again, just like happened with pot of greed
I think youre looking at this wrong. If you assume that PoG wont be Ash'd then PoG effectively just says "Both players have a 12.5% chance to draw 6 cards on their first turn" and thats just very uninteresting variance.
@@Romashka_Sov Because you have a 12.5% Chance to draw a one of card in a 5 card starting hand. if that one of is pot of greed you draw 2 extra cards then you will have 6 cards in hand
@@Forsakenruler Yes, if Pot of Greed is limited to 1 you have a 12.5% chance to open with 6 cards. If it was unlimited you would have a 34% chance to open 6 cards
Unbanning pot of greed wouldn't suddenly break the game in the way unbanning something like for example, delinquent duo, where getting even two activations of it would leave the opponent practically defenseless. I can agree on that much. But multiple retrained versions of pot of greed with downsides are heavily played, and dancing on and off the banlist of different formats for being too powerful already. The effect is worth even the heavy cost of these retrains. This isn't a matter of my opinion as some random in the internet, but is evidenced by any number of topping decklists. You got me to watch and share the video though, and now I'm commenting on it, so that's a win for the content. I had something enjoyable to listen to while making banana bread and applesauce.
Pretty stupid take ngl, drawing cards is bad just search 20cards a turn like every meta deck 😂 So you're telling me drawing 2 is better than any meta deck I can play right now that searches the first 20 cards
I think one of the biggest issues with PoG is that it arguably is quite a bit better for the going first player. The going first player gets to fire it off with basically only Ash as an answer, going second if they setup a strong enough board off that you might just not get a chance to resolve it.
Dimension Shifter would also work cause yeah you draw it... But then can't use the rest of your shit cause you don't want it banished because it would fuck your combo and well multiple other cards.
When you say that "Pot of Greed is weaker than powerful searchers", you're neglecting that nowadays decks are composed of almost entirely Searchers, Starters, and Interaction (read Handtrap/Boardbreaker/Trap). This means that Pot of Greed, in decks with modern deckbuilding sensibilities, is going to be converting ITSELF into a pair of Searcher + Searcher, Searcher + Starter, Starter + Interaction, etc. It's why Swordsoul is always super happy to be running Desires: there are vanishingly few pairs of dead cards that Swordsoul can draw from Desires besides more Desires, which is not a thing you can say when you can put Pot of Greed in Swordsoul. Pot of Greed into Desires from Swordsoul turn 1 is a 7 card starting hand on a lean threat dense midrange deck. Is Swordsoul the best deck: no, but it's emblematic of the fact that lean midrange is a design space that Konami has been exploring a lot recently (Swordsoul, R-ACE, Vanquish Soul, new Unchained, etc), and that all of those decks will have their biggest soft-spot dampened by lifting their floor higher by a not insignificant amount. That's the part I'm most scared of: raising the floor of already highly consistent decks, rather than a high-roll combo deck raising its ceiling by a bit. Looping back around, Pot of Greed is as good as these powerful searchers because it BECOMES a Searcher and/or a Starter, because it's converting nebulous card advantage into immediate leveraged advantage by means of lean deckbuilding that cuts the fat.
Might be worth considering Time-Tearing Morganite here - not because it's exceptional on its own, but because it opts you into a slower style of game, and might indicate that Konami is trying to find ways to slow the game down not entirely unlike your proposed Master Rule 6.
Morganite locks you out of handtraps other than impermanence and evenly matched. I don’t think it slows you down too much, but with the state of the current game I think even Maxx “c” could return to the tcg.
Morganite is a spell card that basically says you draw 2 cards every turn and can normal summon one additional time each turn but you are locked out of activating monster effects in the hand for the rest of the game.@@SaintClutch
@@SaintClutch it says you cant activate monster effects from the hand, you get an extra normal summon each turn and you draw 2 cards instead of 1 for every draw phase
@@SaintClutch As pointed out, the Maxx C would only be live turn 1, and is only good if your opponent went first. Basically: Player A starts his turn, Player B drops Maxx C on a mandatory special summon effect. Player B draws 1 card. Player A now decides between ending combo, or trying to full combo anyways. Either Player A full combos by drawing Player B to death, or passes and Player B gets to play with a shit ton of cards. Now your Morganite puts you on a very dangrous clock. Better to just look at the Runick Floodgate list from YCS Indy 2023 for a good deck to run Morganite in.
You’re absolutely coping. The problem with PoG is none of the things you mentioned. It is that there is no legitimate reason to NOT run PoG in every deck. Garnets don’t matter. People will run extra copies of garnets if their deck needs the draw power to ensure their 1 card combo (@ignister did this w/ Desires for years). Almost every deck that even has garnets today has soft garnets which can still be useful in hand. It’s a card exactly like Maxx “C” in terms of how generically powerful it is. If it’s legal there is no reason to remove the 1 copy from your deck. Even if deck space is tight you can just run 1 extra card being PoG and still have the same deck size effectively but get 1 extra card in hand in some small % of games. To top all of this off PoG becomes increasingly more powerful when you consider how it is an almost forced point of interaction when going second. You can easily fire a PoG into an opponent’s complete board and if they don’t stop it they risk you getting to draw into an out like Lava Golem or Droplet. It’s not like other generic cards from the DM era where limiting them makes them less consistent so they aren’t an issue, adding it to any deck makes them MORE consistent. It’s just a net boost to the power level of every deck in the game with no restrictions on it. Also Thrust is a reason to keep PoG banned, not one to bring it back. Nothing stops you from also running PoG in the same deck you run Thrust/Talents and if you draw 1 of the Thrust garnets just adding the other and drawing 4 or drawing 2 and using another Talents effect.
This. The real power of PoG is that literally every deck that's not like, Superheavy Samurai or doing something really weird, would not hesitate to go to 41 cards, if PoG came back with a stipulation that it could only be put in decks of 41 cards or more. Even if there is absolutely no way to cut anything from your 40 card deck, you should STILL put PoG in and go to 41. And most decks would happily ditch a duplicate of something, or that Terraforming or what have you anyways. I don't even think Maxx "C" has that power. And, it's just one more drip that goes into Exodia consistency, too.
A lot of what you’re saying is true except the garnet part. I don’t think that issue is as simple as “run more copies”. That’s not how probability math works and could cause more bricks. With this reasoning, with PoG at one, I DO think there are reasons some deck might legitimately choose not to run the card. Namely the conflict with Prosperity. But there are other reasons. Do I think that this handful of decks is a reason to unban the card? No, and for many of the other reasons you mentioned. But it’s not complete cope to suggest there are decks that might not use PoG if it was at one.
Well, in a Superheavy Samurai Deck, you don't want to have PoG. Also PoG can be Ashed, which leaves you with a card disadvantage. Moreover PoG is bad, if you are going second, because it means less hand traps for you.
@@pi_xi PoG getting ash blossomed is probably the least harmful use of an ash blossom, that someone with an ash blossom will still feel motivated to use it on. It isn't breaking a combo, or shutting down a vital play starter. It's just going 1 for 1 on a card that was a nice extra. While a little weird to conceptualize, PoG is actually more of a counter to ash blossom than it is countered by it, because at worst it's a 1:1 trade (unless you're playing against a zombie deck or something), but baits the ash blossom by threatening to go +1, when an Ash Blossom can just brick a hand on the spot by jamming a central play, or cripple a board halfway through. And yeah, Superheavy Samurai isn't running it, and I'm sure you can find some other weird or otherwise highly specific builds that wouldn't. But, 99% of decks would go to 41 to run it, assuming there is literally no card they can take out. Most decks do have a card to take out. The fact that Superheavy Samurai has to come up in the discussion of PoG at all is showing the insane splashability and the real problem here. Superheavy Samurai is THE line for this thing. Has there ever been an XYZ monster that made people talk about Impcantations?
Rebuttal: Pot of greed at 1 would create the most swingy game states at every level of play. At low levels it makes you feel like an anime protagonist by top decking your one of pot of greed. At high levels you can shut down your opponent’s turn 1 kashtira combo but then they just drop a pot of greed and draw 1 of their 12 starters and full combo.
I think the biggest issue with Pot of Greed is that nobody can remember what it does, and this would be too confusing for new players. I always make sure to explain pot of greed's effect when I play it, but sometimes I accidentally draw Uno or Baseball cards instead of Yugioh cards. The card doesn't specify where you draw the cards from, what game they are from, if they have to be in your deck, or if Andrew promised his friend Michael that he would trade them with him later, and we can't play with those cards right now because they might get scratched, and then Michael won't trade his gushers with him. You basically need an entire rulebook just to explain this singular card, and I'm not sure the average Yugioh player knows how to read still.
Luckily for me i just bought my 3rd Ash Blossom just today. And i'm ready for anything now... for any pot.... for any kind of pot...... even the kind that gets you high zwz
The issue with PoG is not that it's the best card singular card in the game in terms of immediate impact once it resolves The issue is it essentially magnifies the power of your entire deck FOR ZERO COST The moment you draw it and your opponent does not, you immediately gain a significant advantage over your opponent just because you happened to draw it. Gaining a free extender, hand trap, or board breaker by sheer dumb luck will always increase the power level of your deck overall just because you happened to draw into it Also, un-banning it does not give an overall net positive effect on the game. It's generic and boring as all hell to use, so there is no good reason to unban it over just leaving it there
Painful Choice and Graceful Charity would have much more impact in today's game. And for the most part, "cost" in today's game provides a benefit for the deck in question today, usually for additional setup such as sending a card you need in the GY to the GY (many decks) or paying LP because you want to have lower LP then your opponent (P.U.N.K.). But no, PoG should not be unbanned because it becomes 1) sacky and 2) one too much in addition to in-archetype consistency/extension. It's the same argument I make for generic interruptions such as Baronne and now Little Knight. They become one too many interactions that most decks can abuse in addition to their in-archetype ones. A.K.A., when do you ever see healthy boards with these slapped on top of them?
But yugioh is all about luck with like setting up decks that basically autoplay themselves coming secondary (which results in the meta being what it is or tournaments having non-stop mirror matches.) It's always been a 1 player game. Personally I think banning cards has never solved anything. They should unban everything, and then balance the card game as a whole mechanically that gives both players the opportunity to not just get locked out or not with no interaction or response. Banning doesn't nerf anything. Konami just ends up releasing new cards that do the same or better. So I've always found that banning cards impacted nothing in yugioh
@@vexzel5550 does your "banning cards has never solved anything" also include the simple design mistakes Konami has made with card that were simply way too unfair to exist in the game? what about older cards that become unfair later in the game's lifespan because of new combos/decks that pop up? is every other major card game also wrong for banning cards?
@@Wooker a mechanic to fix the balancing of the game to resolve this issue is the only logical course of action. With proper errata and rulings implemented to create order. Don't ban cards Create solutions
I don't really get your counter arguments, especially at 27:44 just as an example. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about for the branded portion: branded doesn't even traditionally run desires due to its high density of 1-ofs, and even if you were to run desires, it doesn't conflict with pot of greed at all. Also not sure why you brought up dangers in regards to branded since they also aren't played, pot of greed doesn't conflict with fusion lines whatsoever and "doesn't provide enough board advantage" doesn't really apply to a consistency card that can draw you 2 more cards from your deck that can apply advantage. Same with tearlament, just because the card doesn't have any utility in the grave doesn't mean you don't play it. Why run handtraps or board breakers if they are dead mills by that logic, why run primeval planet if it doesn't have a gy effect? It's like you said, its about measuring card quality, and the thing about pot of greed is that there is absolutely zero reason to not play it (unless your playing superheavy samurai specifically because having a spell turns off all of your engine), its deck-thinning and a free +1. And your crazy if you think people will pass up playing a free +1 just because they're already running prosp, mathematically you aren't seeing one of your 3 prosps and pot of greed in your hand very often, and even if you did, the free +1 makes up for the "dead" card in your hand anyways, even though prosperity for follow-up is hardly dead. You would absolutely play this in branded or tear, control, midrange or combo. It would be one hell of a sacky 1-of, wow your opponent got lucky guess they get a free card for some reason. Not to mention the pricetag, seeing as all its printings are relatively old and it would be mandatory in literally everything, it would just be terrible. The only real argument for it, is that its just a very iconic card and regardless of the impact on the game, it would sell product and maybe bring back old players for nostalgia. But in respects to the card game itself, I don't see how this would be a good idea whatsoever
Part of that has to do with the fact that I was operating off the mindset of "well, if they run PoG and Prosperity together, it turns into a 3 Extrav situation where you have dead cards in hand or could draw into dead cards, so running other draw cards like Upstart and Danger Mothman would probably be what would happen if players wanted to create a draw engine for PoG on top of whatever deck they're building." And so i was looking at Branded from that perspective. But you're right, i should've came up with better examples of decks where drawing 2 could hurt with their engine (although its becoming clear that I really underestimated just how much people would change their deck options to accommodate running PoG, even though I think Greed and Prosperity are both equally powerful cards despite Prosperity having a maintenance cost). And I didn't have a lot of time to sit and think about a lot of this stuff because each time the meta shifted while working on this (which was at least once a month), I had to go back and change parts of my video. I didn't want this to be in development hell for another 2 months, i just wanted to get this out and move onto the next project. There's gonna be tear downs of this video for sure, which i'm AOK with btw (i state that in the introduction), but i'll just be happy to see people talking about this again and bringing forth new arguments beyond "you're running a 39 card deck" or "ash would be mandatory."
@@four-en-tee You are correct with that prosperity is a crazy good card, and once konami has made their profit with reprints I think that card is most definitely going to be seeing a hit. Whether it be banned or put to 1 or 2 (not ideal because sacky cards just kinda suck but prolly going to happen knowing konami). Another argument that is plausible (but ultimately wrong just because a +1 is always worth it) is droll, sometimes drawing outside of your engine and getting drolled just ends turns and the cards already seen lots of play these past formats. Also yeah I get what you mean with trying to keep up with the formats, but for the casual viewers sake I think I would try keep it simple instead of back-tracking for it to make sense. Like, as a player myself it made perfect sense but I feel like this video will be a pretty confusing watch for anyone who isn't too involved with the game. Anyways, goodluck with your future projects and the such!
@@kalcyte725 Thanks, and I really appreciate yours and everyone else's contributions to the discussion. I'll admit that my opinion has shifted after releasing this video (that being PoG really cant come off the list while Talents is legal due to Thrust; thinning the deck by 5 cards is absolutely insane).
28:00 Ancestral Recall is RIGHT THERE! It's a much closer comparison to Pot of Greed. Yes, it costs 1 mana instead of 0, but you usually have 1 mana on turn 1, so it's much closer overall.
Painful Choice is analogous to Black Lotus. Maxx "C" is Time Walk, and Graceful Charity is Ancestral. I'd say the Unholy Floodgate Trinity (IO, Oppression, and Emptiness) and the Mass Revival Duo (Dimension Fusion and Soul Charge) are analogous to the Moxen. As for Pot of Greed, I'd compare it to Timetwister - a card that's still incredibly broken, but no longer a real contender in the "top 10 most busted cards ever" debate.
@@mattjayce2339 I mean none of those are in the debate. Extra deck pieces and searchable pieces are just far superior. I'd argue gofu clears every main deck unsearchable aside from painful.
@@GodzillaFreak aside from Shock Master and the pre-errata versions of Firewall Dragon and Dark Strike Fighter, I can't think of a single extra deck monster that's arguably among the top 10 most busted cards ever.
we should always keep in mind that that colourful deckbuilding of goat and edison only happened because they were the lowpoints of the era when it came to the maximum powerpoints of making a deck. most stuff was at 1 or banned so players ran jank to fill up to 40
Some cards are on the ban list more as shameful admissions of poor design than as an issue of power level. Upstart Goblin has historically occupied space on the list because including it in the format amounts to reducing the minimum deck size. Pot of Greed is even sillier, essentially reducing minimum deck size and also shuffling a second card into the sleeve of another’s somewhere in the deck. It honestly isn’t relevant whether there are cards which effectively accomplish more in a single turn; Pot of Greed is a card that should ALWAYS be included in deck, unless you literally need all 60 slots to be specific, exact cards. A 41 card deck with PoG will always be better than a 40 card deck without it. Including PoG in the game isn’t a change to the card list, it’s a change to the rule set.
I think a big issue with pot of greed is that it forces Ash blossom. While the other pot cards also do this, the biggest thing to keep in mind is that the most used pot cards (prosperity, extravagance, desires), heavily conflict with each other and have hard once per turn clauses. Having more ways to deal with ash only strengthens combo strategies and ensures dice roll wins.
And with thrust/talents running rampant you can really punish disruption and gain massive advantage. Test hand going first (talents, greed, called by the grave, 2 bricks) -Ch1 greed, ch2 opp ash, ch3 called by resolve Draws 2 Activates talents, draw another 2 Draw into desires. Activate desires, draw another 2 You now drew 6 cards deep into your deck for punishing an ash that wouldn’t matter even if they tried hitting a choke point instead.
This would definitely make droll mandatory and I don't know if I wanna live in that world. Though it would make for a very funny droll-mini-game. "Do I fire the pot and get drolled after? (Locking me out of my searches for 2 cards) Or do I get my specific search first, and then get drolled? (Lose out on the 2 cards this turn)
Exactly what I was going to say. Droll is already very good against some meta decks like dragon link, purrley, or Runick. If pot of greed is allowed and droll becomes an even more popular staple then all the non-meta decks would consequently get hit/would not be affected because they cannot access their usual searchers, and would instead just get a random +1 from pot of greed
That's also a pretty strong point. While I personally don't think people would play Ash more than they already do (and the Thrust argument people are posing in the comments is somewhat blown out of proportion aside from resolving both PoG and TTT going second), I hadn't considered that more people would be on Droll if PoG does become an issue.
Droll is already a turbo ass card to play against and only tends to show up in especially unhealthy formats, the last major one I remember being Drytron format with Union Carrier still unfortunately legal and them ending on either Vanity’s Ruler or a Herald of Ultimateness with 4 negates. You’d also always search first to dilute the pool so your draw 2 has a better chance of hitting non engine. You’re also less likely to be absolutely screwed versus Droll in that scenario unless you’re playing a deck that searches a bunch
Ok, I'll structure my response as I watch the video: 13:46 They would produce even more with PoG legal. Like PoG only furthers the divide between Top Meta and Rogue. it is also quite highrolly, in a similar way to Maxx C. I don't think that the "PoG minigame" would be not something that is healthy for the game 14:23 Yes but it creates unfun game states. There will always be the best deck, but I still think Maxx C or PoG aren't healthy. If you don't draw them and your opponent does it's quite annoying. It also lowers deck diversity... 14:40 I'd argue that PoG is stronger. Both demand a negate, but PoG has fewer answers than Maxx C. It lets you use the resources you gain immediately 16:36 It makes pot even stronger no? It is an advantage engine you can negate. And it may render your use of ash useless. Let's say you are playing against Mathmech. They open circular and PoG. They fire PoG and you can't ash it cuz you know u need it for the chokepoint (circular add or alamb add) so you don't fire it, but they draw either Called by, small world, cynet, diameter itself your ash is useless (maybe not useless but way less useful) 21:12 I agree the effect of prospy is stronger than the effect of PoG. But the first one has a steeper cost
Let's also not forget- a lot of the more modern pots, prosperity, extravagance, and desires, are all recently getting hit in various ways across the different banlists. Draw cards do not really have any counters other than Ash Blossom. Droll is a check, but it DOESN'T negate. If your opponent can play through droll, it does NOTHING. If you Ash a pot, well, that doesn't help you either unless the rest of their hand is a brick. During one of MBT's moron banlist tournaments, the card that proved to be a big problem was into the void, a crazy draw spell, because it enabled so much crap. Drawing cards in yugioh is insane- don't even get me started on Runic Fountain.
It is worth noting that one of the reasons why i wasn't taking MBT's masochist banlist videos into consideration is because there were way too many unrelated variables to consider since those videos unban a LOT of other cards as well. That, and in hindsight: it would've made the video even more unfocused than it currently is (i seriously need to do a follow-up to this and just go over what all i either missed or got wrong, as well as i need to avoid going on tangents; I can see that this essay was very unstructured now that i'm working on my Wet Dry World video). Like, those videos are made for entertainment. Its not like MBT takes off a single card for a tourney to see what that 1 card does to the current legal card pool & meta, although i'd LOVE to see someone like MBT or Farfa do that in the future for research purposes. I'll definitely need to go back and rewatch that MBT video before I put together that follow-up video though for argument's sake. Paul's recent video on the legality of Pot cards is also in my privated reference playlist for whenever i think i'm ready to do it. My current stance atm is that while it hypothetically could come off if Talents were banned and not effect the game that much (i actually find grabbing it off of Thrust to be a cool idea since that boosts going second more than it would going first due to how Thrust works), it would probably just make the game objectively a bit more boring akin to Maxx "C" (even if PoG isn't a soft floodgate like Maxx "C"). Though there's gonna be a lot of time between now and when that video comes out, my opinion could change again as I put that video together and tackle a lot of the arguments posed here in the comments.
@@four-en-tee I think the big thing with pot of greed is that it's super sackey. If they draw into it, it'll either eat your hand's ash blossom, which you may need, or just kill you. If you’re looking for a great example of what pot can do- look at progression series 2 right now. It's at 1, they haven't hall of famed it, and good god has it scummed some wins there. Upstart goblin similarly is at 1 in the tcg, and people STILL play it despite the downside of giving your opponent life points. If it was at 3 it'd be in most decks rn too. It's like playing a 37 cards main deck. Pot would be an even better version of it.
@@adsventuresome7511 I mean... Upstart doesn't though? If you go on YGOPRODECK, search for tournament decks and filter for decks that contain Upstart Goblin, the lists are weeks in between and they're only in decks with draw or deck thinning engines already built into them like PUNK, Sky Striker or Danger (which, mind you, was an argument for why I thought PoG wouldn't see as much wide play either because I already observed this with Upstart). ygoprodeck.com/deck-search/?&cardcode=Upstart%20Goblin%7C&_sft_category=tournament%20meta%20decks&tournament=Yes&offset=0 Upstart doesn't see anywhere near the same level of play as something like Prosperity or even Desires, nor does it see as much play in the same amount of different decks as those two cards when it comes to the meta. And as far as Progression goes: that's a draft format which is completely different from constructed play. They're not equivalent, and if your argument has to do with it being relevant to something like casual play: the ban list doesn't mean shit for casual players since they're just gonna self select and play what's fun. My arguments really are only concerned with the meta since its what the forbidden & limited list is made for. Regardless though, i did underestimate the power of a +1 in this essay and its something i'll have to address in my follow-up video. Its easily the biggest complaint that i've been getting from people here in the comments, and while i and many others still prefer consistency over raw card economy since some decks only need so many draws to do what they need to do and would rather run other tools, i still need to rectify that mistake in my future video given that its cost is free. Its just one of those arguments that I didn't really grasp the full weight of and thought was overblown. It really would see more play than Upstart (especially if people ran both of those 1-ofs in decks), and it would force people to consider main decking Droll to counter the additional consistency to decks (or hell, maybe even Crossout as a side deck option since a lot of people would be on PoG along with Thrust and it negates unlike Droll). Though the problem you run into with Droll is that it'd eat up deck real-estate, and like i already mentioned: the card is nowhere near as game warping as Maxx "C" which is a borderline floodgate. A lot of people already treat Pot cards as baits to begin with, although I honestly underestimated just how much of a split opinion that is in the Yugioh community. If anything, seeing the split between those running Droll and those who aren't would be pretty interesting though. This is just one of those matters that I REALLY have to sit down and go over thoroughly the next time i talk about this card. I'll have to accept that there's probably not a right answer to this question given how subjective the debate of card quality vs card economy is and that the answer i give is going to inherently be biased to some degree. Like, a good deck has to have a balance of both, but where that balance lies is where people differ in opinion. I'm also gonna have to accept that a lot of people are going to disagree with me regardless of what conclusion i come to, especially after having released this video lol. Hell, i had a person here in the comments saying we could put Delinquent Duo back to 1 and he had this whole list of reasons and evidence and everything, and i'm just sitting here thinking he's insane. Talents is already ridiculously strong going first, and while a draw 2 doesn't rip away the potential of what your opponent can do going second more than what your deck is naturally capable of (which is why i think the meta deck argument makes no fucking sense for cards like PoG since meta decks will dominate the game period until they're hit directly on the list BECAUSE THATS WHY WE MADE THE FORBIDDEN LI-), a hand rip does since your opening hand defines what you can do that game. Even if you go down in LP by 1000, gain no hand knowledge and the second hand rip is your opponent's choice, it still rips 2 from the opponent's hand which greatly limits what their deck can feasibly do in a lot of cases. They would literally have to be on an archetype which benefits from hand rips to even gain anything from that, and unlike PoG where you at least have options to counter it if you personally think its an issue (as well as i've said how i don't think its as problematic as Maxx "C"), there's no real counter to Delinquent Duo if someone slaps that down because no one in their right mind is going to main or even side deck PSY-Framegear Delta in Master Rule 5. Either you're running tech cards to stop special summon combos, stop search effects, or to remove continuous spells/traps along with field spells and set backrow cards. That's modern Yugioh in a nutshell. At most, it'd further boost the amount of decks playing Bystials. And as for the LP situation, you would just side it out game 2 and never put it back in the rest of the set to avoid losing to time since you're not going to lose to time game 1 unless if you're just a bad duelist and don't know when to concede and move on to the next game of the set. Playing the clock is an essential skill of playing this game in person, so if you're playing the game optimally: you're never going to lose because of a 1000 LP cost unless your opponent drops Psychic-End Punisher onto you out of nowhere. At that point you just deserve the L if they're willing to waste a slot in their extra deck or side deck just to troll you. Like, that's the thing: people are saying PoG would limit deck creativity (even though their evidence beyond the card advantage arguments - which i will get to when the follow-up video comes out - hinges off of an infinitely more busted card legal at 3 in the OCG and MD that just creates this false comparison and skews the perception of PoG), but a card like Delinquent Duo would literally funnel everyone into running a very specific package to even have a chance of countering it. And it really goes to show just how subjective the debate of card economy and card quality is. And while this is a bit of a side tangent: I personally think comparing PoG to engines like Sinful Spoils is a false comparison (although I do agree that PoG would further boost that engine which others have pointed out) since that package does more than just draw a card after banishing Wanted from the GY. The reason its oppressive is that aside from a free draw 1, it also further reinforces an oppressive turn 1 board with its recursive omni-negate trap and the beater it puts out is effectively a Dark Magician that recurs itself from the GY (so the deck has a fair amount of board presence as a result). The engine is literally Adventure 3.0 (i say 3.0 since 2.0 goes to Runick). Its just an incredibly flexible package, and the procs that Diabellstar does bring up a fair argument for why some people could justify running both Prosp and PoG if both of them were available for play (even though I think it'd be more bricky than others would like to admit). But yeah, generalizing Sinful Spoils as "its busted because it draws" is just such an inaccurate description. Runick i can at least understand because it can draw up to 3 cards a turn even during the opponent's turn (so a potential draw 6 before you even have your next draw phase discounting any other draw cards or effects), but this is just silly.
Having Pot of Greed introduces a big problem from a deck diversity standpoint. This is a observation I learned from dpygo; a large part of Konami's philosophy when it comes to banning cards is to remove cards that limit people's creativity. For the longest time I didn't understand why Called By The Grave got limited to 1 even though it made for such interactive gameplay, but at the time, basically every deck played 3 copies of Called By, which meant every deck loses 3 slots during the deckbuilding process. Basically, Called by is limited for the same reason Upstart Goblin is limited, not because of the cards' power, but because people can play it too often easily over something else. If PoG were unbanned it would basically be the same thing, it would only take up one deck slot, but a lot of people would just mindlessly throw in PoG in a slot where they could have found a cool new tech card. Something similar applies to combo diversity. You talk a lot about finding the right choke point in someone's combo, which is something I find a really engaging part of modern yugioh. However, if someone were to play PoG on turn 1, you basically HAVE to negate it with Ash. It's not a choke point, but negating it puts them down a card, which is still a huge advantage even if their remaining hand lets them start a combo. If you don't believe me, make a room in omega, set hand size to 4, and test a few rounds, see how that turns out for you. And if you don't negate it, they get TWO extra cards in exchange, and they could hit really powerful cards balanced around being non-searchable (Small World, Thrust, Imperm, Shifter, etc). Basically, you MUST negate PoG, which means your ability to interact with your opponent ends as soon as they play it. Finally, I have to stress that this argument VASTLY underestimates how important card economy is in this game. In a game where a single card can do so much, having even one extra card is an overwhelming advantage. I could spend forever explaining every reason why but again, just go to Omega and have a few matches with different hand sizes. You can see it for yourself, it completely changes the game.
even as a bait it's simply the best card in the game and automatically required in every deck that isn't infernity or some other jank. Ash upstart goblin? Good job you just negged. You can literally never go wrong disrupting pot, because you can literally never go wrong PLAYING pot at any time with it's lack of restrictions. Get disrupted at a key choke point? Oops lol pot of greed grabbed the extender and imperm for no cost.
@@Bruhskivibesbut at the same time if you ash pot then you can't ash other search methods. You can guarantee what you search. Pot is still somewhat random. Unless you can reliably top deck what you need.
I think you addressed this with the video specifically being tied to pog being allowed at 1 copy, but an important distinction between the other pots and pog is that those cards despite having minimal costs on first activation do have costs associated with them. There are good reasons why it's tragic to see a second copy of desires off desires or why activating the second prosperity can lose you the game upon choosing 6 again. These cards, while extremely powerful, do have deckbuilding costs associated with them whereas pog is always live and always high impact. I do think that pog is actually worse than the first prospy activation by a significant margin due to seeing much less of the deck, but the fact that it's a brainless +1 really gets on my nerves. More than that I don't think there's very many good reasons to add pog back into the game, it isn't a very interesting card to add into a deck or to activate and play around like triple tac or thrust. Loved the editing on this video. Keep up the good work!
I actually agree with the point about it being very uninteresting to add to the deck as opposed to a card like Desires (even though hardly anyone is even running Desires to begin with outside of decks that already have draw engines in their normal combos like PUNK or Salamangreat since its cost just outweighs its draw 2 compared to Prosperity). While i personally would like it back at 1 (unless if a future Master Rule 6 just completely makes PoG overkill), I totally understand why Konami could keep it banned for deck creativity reasons. This video more so is designed to lay out the argument that there aren't many _objective_ reasons for keeping it banned given the power ceiling of the game currently, and that PoG coming back to 1 could realistically happen if Konami ever decided to. Although it would probably just be easier for Konami to make another Pot card. So whether people agree that we could unban PoG or the video serves as a wake up call that we need to focus on fixing hidden issues with this game, i'm honestly cool with either or. The goal of the video is to get people talking since this conversation has been stagnant for years, and i'm really happy to see some of the new arguments. The combined +2 off of Thrust, PoG and Talents is a really strong counter-argument that one of the commenters here mentioned for example. It convinced me that Talents may be a lot more busted than I really gave it credit for and could potentially see itself be banned in the future regardless of if PoG ever came back to 1. Its stuff like that why i'm glad i made this video.
I'd rather ban maxx c and limit pog. With maxx c, t's either pass and pray your opponent doesn't otk you next turn or play through it and pray your opponent doesn't draw multiple hand traps or board breakers and extenders to otk you next turn. It's still the same thing, you lose to maxx c. Not all decks but most of them. And hey, when do you lose to draw 2 of extravagance, almost nothing.
"A free plus one isnt that good" This is severely downplaying how much being "Free" makes something better. The best argument I can think of for Pot being unbanned is the fact That Upstart goblin isnt played in every deck. The life cost is nothing in modern yugioh, so its essentially a free redraw. But many decks would rather just have more copies of the cards they would want to redraw into if they run Upstart. The difference between Upstart and PoG however is that while both are free, only PoG gives you an extra free card. So while Upstart will only thin youre deck one and replace itself with a card you might actually want to play. PoG replaces itself, and then generates an extra card. Another point in favor of unbanning Pot of Greed might be that in the no banned list tournaments the dominant version of Tearlaments doesnt run it despite all of arguments about it being in autoinclude in every deck. I would say that Tearlements is an outlier archetype, since its main strategy is milling itself for value. PoG does nothing in the graveyard, so its usually zero cost now has a cost when milling it makes it a garnet. However any archetype who doesnt have its main strategy add a cost to the free effect of PoG will run it at however many copies is allowed.
8:00 yes tell that to the ocg with maxx c and ash blossom in every single deck, cards being too strong with no drawback like maxx c and pog will be slot into decks, and most decks play ash and imperm cuz they are almost always good, cards being generically good with little to no rawback like maxx c are put into most decks unless special cases like ftks. 8:38, unban kitkallos when, not just being generic in every deck does not mean something shouldn't be banned, 26:40 yes card advantadge does matter, the only resource in ygo is cards, and having an extra card to do something is going to matter, it is like mana vault in mtg commander, just free reosources, but its even better as mana vualt has a health cost which can matter, pog doesn't 29:28, just limit prosperity, i hold that position too, its way too strong at 3, also just +1 is giving a thrust, or ash, or just the card you want from small world, +1, it mostly won't inheibit, yes 5 or 4% of the time you get a bad draw, or draw garnets, but you will win more often than that loss% not once did you argue that we should unban pog, just that we can, smaller banlist dosn't equal better, and you didn't argue why that happens, your ending statement was good though, i think that ancient leaf ban + 10k lp is also a good solution, cards are not in the game without context, pog mostly dosn't do anything but give you more cards drawing garnets will always be a risk and citing that as a risk is not very good thank you for making this video, it made me think a little more about ygo, i think that otk decks should exsist still, so the third rule i think should be deal half damage on t2-t3, and with 10k lp can make otk decks a neiche deck type but viable, but also i understand that many still love that ygo is so fast and has microinteractions that matter so much, and that don't wish it to be slower my position now is that pog is not broken, but does not make the game better, and there is no reason to add it back, even though we could one peice of critisism left is that you should try to make and stick to a thesis more rigidly, and structure your argument more, not neccesary but helpful i can't spell pls forgive me
I was previously of the opinion that it could go at one and be irrelevant, because it would be unsearchable and unrecyclable. But then Triple Tactics Thrust became a thing, so nah. I know you can just Thrust into Talents to draw 2 anyway, but imagine already having Talents (which is at least a 2 of from what I see) and then Thrusting into PoG to get another 2?
There's an argument that could be made that because of Thrust, Talents should probably be limited since its also additional copies of Change of Heart. Although Thrust can convert into literally anything like Lightning Storm, Dark Ruler, Feather Duster, Evenly Matched, etc. Another thing is that Sentry is banned but Talents is at 3. Its kinda nutty that you can effectively have 3 copies of The Forceful Sentry in your main deck and activate it just because the turn 2 player is trying to keep the turn 1 player from walling them to death. It literally rewards oppressive turn 1 boards when you're able to main deck it like that, lmao. This isn't too far off from why we banned Appointer. But yeah, a hypothetical +2 that thins the deck by 5 cards (since Thrust grabs Talents or PoG in that interaction) sounds nutty. That could be a decent reason to either keep PoG banned unless Konami is willing to just ban Talents outright due to its flexibility. GRANTED, Thrust only adds to hand going second unless your opponent is on Gamma or something, but even still, the turn 2 player being able to thin the deck by that much sounds almost ludicrous. Like, turn 1 boards are oppressive, but they're not THAT oppressive. I guess we just gotta hope that if Konami ever decides to take off Pot of Greed, they ban Talents first.
@@four-en-tee I have a love-hate relationship with those cards. On one hand they've saved me plenty of times. On the other, giving you access to three broken effects or *any* normal spell/trap in the game just like that is super toxic. Imagine jumping right into a Harpie's Feather Duster, or Evenly Matched, or Dark Ruler No More just because your opponent had the audacity to Ash your combo?
@@marktwayne9796 True, though at least you won't see it in your hand turn 1 unless they hit you with Gamma or Nibiru. Turn 2 its a bit more balanced because the turn 1 opponent is actively trying to stop you from doing anything.
39:38 Giving the going first player 5 cards, and the going 2nd player 8 is the funniest, biggest over-correction I've ever heard. Got a good chuckle out of me.
MR6 Changes; 1. Players can normal Summon once per Main Phase. 2. OCG Problem solving card text. 3. During each Draw Phase, the turn player draws cards until they have five cards in hand. Detail; 1. This rule heavily improves going second. Going second you now have the opportunity to not only draw back the cards you may have used to hand trap your opponent but also now have two* normal summons. (Albeit one without a battle phase) This will offset the extreme power imbalance and promote points of interaction between players. As the amount of cards being used is greatly increased. The 1st Turn players turn is relatively unchanged. Since they do not have a MP2 they can only normal summon once and do not benefit from the second rule. However the power of going first is still maintained. Accumulative turns also benefit from this change as going third restocks your hand and give you access to 2 normal summons with the added bonus your opponent should have used a lot of their resources going second. I believe this change will not only give a valid reason for decks to play going second but also incentivize the back and forth nature of yugioh players love, while simultaneously adding tension. 2. Incentives greater amount of turns. Due to this new rule the power level of decks will increase but also the amount of hand traps players have access to. This, in turn, should allow players to play the game with more back and forth. Not to generalize, but player do not mind very low turn counts as long as they have a lot of interaction points and decision making. This fast paced nature inst just accelerated by the change but forces the game to move in a direction the community wants. With the new ruling it is important to understand if Konami were to make this change they would print cards and effects / limit cards that would lead to less fun experience. 3. New player experience. Its is important to remember that the game is hard for people to learn. This change, in my personnel opinion, does not change that overall skill floor. Player still need immense knowledge of their and others decks this merely sits adjacent to that issue. With that being said, this ruling change may bring life into the game again. Any Master Ruling has always done this, but those who have been put off of yugioh because it is so different from the anime / the game they enjoyed as a kid, will not be discouraged as the games exterior of a harsh learning courve is still maintain. 4. OCG Problem solving card text Konami please I am begging you. Literally just use bullet points, clear spacing, keywords and conventional modern day card game descriptions. They already do some of this in the OCG. Look at any card we get spoiled and its literally night and day. This of all things should be the easiest and most pertinent issue. Having 10000 cards is not an excuse. Just print any new cards with the updated text. Its not only not confusing but the old cards still work as intended the game would remain the same. 5. Thanks for reading! There is obviously more to these rules as they would have incredibly wide reaching effects but I just wanted to give my 2 cents. Conclusion: Maximize Points of interactions. Fix second turn player Keep what makes Yugoh special
limiting special summons that harshly would be horrible. The only decks that wouldnt care that much are decks specificslly designed with the gimmick of only normal summoning (think floo or monarch) and these decks basically special summon with a different name and control/stun decks because they just floodgate you. The game would revert back a lot because you can feasibly find cool combos. The only way to make this work is by fundamentally redesigning the game as like 95% of archetypes are dependant on special summons. Most decks just cant get out an actual board with only one special summon. This would also make board breakers or interruptions so much more toxic. Btw saying the turn 1 player is unchanged isnt true because the big advantage with going first is building up a full board before your opponent so they have to ülay through interruptions on their turn. This mechanic does help out the going second player but its still an overall negative. Really just imagine getting gearframed on one of the 2 summons you have. This rule again just encourages players to just not let the opponent play the game because not letting them play the game is a lot easier when they have so few ways to play in the first place. Also the draw 5 per turn is so absurd i dont even know how to adress this. People could draw through their entire decks in 8 turns without even searching or running any draw card. The turn 2 player would have 10 cards to work with on their first turn, a quarter of their entire deck. Its hard to explain the issues wi5 this just because there are so many
Pardon me I incorrectly articulated 3. 3. During each Draw Phase, the turn player draws cards until they have five cards in hand. I edited to make it more clear. Essentially I want the Rush Duel mechanic as I feel it is more inline with what yugioh should be in the modern Era. Details in post. Also I specifically said "Players can **Normal Summon** once per Main Phase". I actually really enjoy the amount of special summoning in the modern game. I obviously enjoy the current summoning mechanics as mentioned in my post. Really I just want the Going second player to have more options. Thanks for responding I rewrote parts to make my case more clear @@trhtdjgtjdtj8469
@@shr_g9490 oh sorry I misread the normal summon part. My question is more, what do you want to achieve? There is only one normal summon rn and if you mean that it's a hard limit that can't be changed you're really only hitting like floo and similar decks that really just call special summoning normal summoning. Thanks for explaining that part
The only problem I would have with bringing POG back would be the level of variance that it would create in the meta, because if pot resolves then that player is highly favored for that game. While it may not be particularly good, it would create a solid amount of sacky non games decided by the extra resources this card gives you.
And removing the limit doesn't really help either, because getting 1 means you're more likely to get another. Not even getting into things like Exodia getting ahold of 3 pots
definitely not on board with moving battle damage from turn 2 to 3, that seems to essentially just reinforce the turn 1 advantage, as the battle phase is rarely used for just monster removal, and it's primary purpose is to push for game, whether that's on turn 2 or 3. imo the best argument against pot of greed is the simple fact that almost all the cards that essentially read "pot of greed but [cost]" or "pot of greed but [requirement]" are commonly played staples already, and if it's good enough to regularly be played with such restrictive costs as banishing a quarter of your deck or just shy of half your extra deck, either risking losing important combo pieces or limiting your extra deck options during deck building, then why wouldn't you want to run a 4th copy without any downsides, or at least replace one with what is essentially a better version of itself? in the case of drawing cards it seems kind of impossible to power creep, as the stronger cards get the more valuable drawing them becomes, especially when it comes to non-searchable staples like ash blossom (or maxx C in OCG/MD), in fact maxx C itself provides a good example. players under maxx C will often decide that skipping their own turn entirely is a better outcome than allowing their opponent to draw more cards, not even just cutting their combos short at 1 boss monster. personally i'd love to see a player study to figure out at exactly which point "draw X cards" becomes a better effect than "skip your opponent's turn", but players have certainly decided that 2 cards is at least worth the heavy costs of the draw cards that they're already using.
Maybe at 1 it wouldn't be more than bait but the more "must play" cards Yugioh has the less room we have for deck building creativity. My big problem with Maxx C is that everu deck now has to play 3 Maxx C and 3 Ash to help cover that (and called by the grave at 1 or 2 to help negate those 2). So thats 7-8 cards out of a 40 card deck that are now Mandatory just to play YGO. That means only decks that allow smaller archetypes / engines (or the same engines but less varied choices and less spice) to be as consistent since they have all the room to fit these cards in + the format specific hand traps, tech cards, or board breakers on top of these. Pot of Greed doesn't really make the game more fun either. It's just one more Ash bait.
There is no legitimate reason to not run the max legal amount of Pot of Greed ever in any deck at any point in this games lifespan. The fact that any deck builder would have to justify not running PoG is why the card is broken.
I think we can all agree that Metamorphosis should be unbanned. The main reasons are the amount of power creap in fusion spells, and the amount of good fusion monsters that need to be fusion summoned. Its just too slow and weak to be worth it. This unban would also make all 5 neo-bubbleman fans happy. Not to mension that monsters level 5 and lower can also be summoned by insta-fusion, which is better in almost every way. As life points dont matter and you dont need a monster on the feild.
My solution to the weird turn player advantage junk was actually just making a mulligan system. I run a custom format for me and my friends, (Yet another Deck master format) which is effectively just commander but in YGO. And the way you can help the turn 2 player the most I've found Is by allowing mulligans. The way we resolve mulligans in YAD is "Draw 7, put two back" then from there if you still hate your hand, you can put any 2 cards to the bottom of the deck to draw one card (you can repeat this until you have one card in hand if you're insane) I find this level of hand-crafting tends to help players alot, since you resolve mulligans AFTER deciding who goes first, and therefore you can plan around whether you're on the draw or the play.
Also I thought it would be very "Yugioh-y" to have the mulligan be a kind of gamble, a sort of "I'm betting it all on THIS draw!" Kind of thing. I think it allows the mulligan to still FEEL like YGO in the anime
@@larhyperhair no that would make things even worse. There are a lot of one card combos in the game. Mullingan would allow you to do just keep looking for your one card combo. Also running garnets wouldn't be an issue anymore, because if you draw the garnet, you can just put it back into the deck, which would make insane cards like genex undyne even stronger and would increase the overall power ceiling of the game even more because combos with 2-3 garnets wouldn't be as bad to play anymore as it is today.
@@PamellaCardoso-pp5tr yeah they already have this problem in MTG, the existence of a mulligan really enables the most bs solitaire ftk-like combos to work competitively.
@@PamellaCardoso-pp5tr yeah that was actually the plan, I think decks getting access to their starters and avoiding bricking makes for more interesting games. It's true, giving players the ability to craft their hands HAS lead to me getting DRNM'd and Evenly matched more often, but I think it's important to give people a way to not just craft their decks, but sculpt their HANDS as well depending on going first or second. My sample size is currently small, like only me and my friends play YAD format as far as I know, but being able to mulligan has so far lead to a lot more interesting interactive games where each player has a much lower chance to brick, while still making it not wholly impossible. A Circular or an FD or a little Genex guy may now be a 1 card FTK, but they're still not impossible to miss when you have to put two cards back to get 1.
@@frig7014 I still genuinely think that kind of kicks ass weirdly? Like why not give gimmicky strategies a chance to shine by letting them sculpt their hands a little bit more depending on being on the play or on the draw? Give decks the ability to pop off nigh every round and give them the ability to put those bricks back if they drew too many.
commiting to an archatype is a huge drawback if you restrict a card to a bad enough archatype like guardians or something you could easily make a card draw 10 and see no play just because the archatype it's restricted is so bad meanwhile pot of greed isn't restricted to anything
I really don't think it would make that much of an impact on the game at this point as long as it's kept at one. I mean there was a time I never thought change of heart would come back at all and yet here we are.
it doesn't make an impact at 3 unless it's a lower tier deck drawing random cards isn't good in a meta deck that's prosperity is played over a desires or allure is a dark deck. drawing in a deck however that needs more to access it's combo is good
@@anakinsmith4770it would literally be played in every single deck. Even at one EVER deck would play it I mean even when ALL cards are legal in “no banned” tournaments….every single deck (except for a single one) played 3 pot of greeds
@@gabrielsalahi3656 that is false i remember the top deck maybe played 1 they opted for graceful instead ands lets be honest when you have a bunch of generic good cards to draw pot of greed becomes good when you trying to see specific cards it isn't and that's where we are currently. if we're gonna use that argument then fine lets bring calamities, zexal and mine back because barely anyone used them in the anything banned. also if you believe for a second every deck would play it your crazy because pretty much not dark deck is playing allure and hardly anyone is playing talents so clearly drawing two random cards sucks
@@anakinsmith4770 it’s not false. The top deck WAS the one exception and everyone talked about it because it was so funny that he didn’t play it despite EVERYONE else playing 3 (with Graceful with it too) Even the winner said that he got lucky which makes sense when half the players are trying to mill themselves in a mirror match
@@gabrielsalahi3656 it's like your trying to compare modern yugioh to past yugioh did you forget the amount of old cards that lack once per turn effects. you seem to forget no amount of draws makes a once per turn twice per turn. honestly i'd put pot at 2 because three maybe to much and 1 hell no especially when thrust is a card while that card exist no normal trap of spell can ever be put to 1. also i guarantee if you left a tournament like that go on for months people would evolve you would see power cards like foreceful, duo, pot of greed fall out of favour because consistency is always key that is why tearlament still won also over time tear would still dominate that tournament and would only play graceful if they even wanted to play a draw card. people need to stop claiming pot of greed is to broken because it's getting old.
the garnet argument doesn't work because you can play it last in your main phase or your second so you can play a 4 card hand get your sp your garnet then play pot
A lot to talk about with this one. Structurally this video should probably have been multiple seperate videos, I personally think the sweet spot would be 3. The first about the current state of the game, the second about pog and the third about your proposed rule change after actually doing some testing with it and making sure that you actually like your changes in practice, not only on paper. Splitting it would've also helped you get the opinions about the game and meta out there while it was still that format. All the sidetracking during the discussion made me wonder if mentioning this was somehow integral to the discussion, but most of the time it was not that relevant to why pot of greed can be unbanned and more important for the rule-change conclusion which doesn't really fit to the title of the video. This part is just opinions/discussion. No, we cannot unban pot of greed. You're right in that the banlist's purpose is controlling the power level of cards, but usually to get off the banlist a card needs to provide a potential benefit to the game. If we look at recent unhits it's mostly been tools for decks that were meta a long time ago (salamangreat, spellbooks, striker) or cards where unbanning them might improve the game overall (change of heart strengthening going 2nd strategies). Sure, there were misses like fairy tail - snow, but even there I can see arguments like wanting to strengthen gy strategies. Pot of Greed does not provide any benefits to the game as it strengthens going 1st and 2nd in the same way (maybe even hurts going 2nd in handtrap-heavy metas slightly as it decreases your chance of seeing handtraps in your opening hand). At the same time, it makes handtraps less valuable. In a lot of decks a free +1 is almost equivalent to another extender that lets you play through a handtrap (think of decks like dlink). As the deck doesn't have a real chokepoint and almost any handtrap that trades one-for-one can be mitigated by an additional extender. Plus, by increasing consistency, it strengthens the most unfun type of decks: FTKs and other inconsistent decks that make a lot of negates t1.
The FTK argument is easily countered by Konami directly hitting those decks if they become too prominent (banning Knightmare Gryphon or Selene for example), but your argument about reasons for unbanning cards is one i hadn't considered when making the video. Like, i've just been looking at it from a utilitarian perspective to see whether or not it _could_ ever realistically be unbanned (my subjective want for it coming off aside), but the argument about what it would offer for the game is definitely one I haven't considered besides "Desires isn't cutting it in the modern game" (and i dont really see Desires falling out of play being an issue since people dont even really play Raigeki over Lightning Storm or Dark Hole and Raigeki is at 3; Desires would be a similar situation, and i dont hear people crying over Raigeki because of that). I figure its probably easier though for Konami to just make another Pot card, and my opinion has changed after reading some of the comments since thinning the deck by 5 cards off of PoG, Thrust and Talents is absolutely ludicrous and wouldn't be okay.
The last sentence was part of the authors discussion. Ftk’s and decks with strong boards are the game. Advanced format is a turn 1 game. Because profit is a motive, Konami will never stop power creeping cards, and MR4 was so wildly unpopular players stopped playing the game. Pot of greed (limited) simply replace one of the following in a deck: - pot of desires - pot of extravagance It doesn’t change the format in a way that is worth arguing. Pot of greed will make it into your hand statistically 1 of 7.27 games. That means for one game you’ll be able to maybe extend from your extra deck or main deck fractionally more. If we were having this convo in any era except 2023 I would say pot of greed is too good. With how many cards /combos in the game that generate plus 1. I find it hard to provide a convincing argument against Pot of greed at 1. If you put it semi-limited. Ash loses a ton of power. Reason why ash is so powerful is it turns into a negate one draw + banish 6 cards from your opponents extradeck of their choosing, or banish 10 cards from their deck FD. Even then decks still play around that minor stun. Crazy. Limiting it or forbidding it doesn’t change the game. Honestly that’s probably why they haven’t removed it. There’s no reason for or against it because of its minor impact.
i wouldnt have clicked a vid about this if it was in 3 parts, because i probably wouldnt see that it was in 3 parts. 1 long format video is much easier to spread around
One thing I‘d like to add is that while pot of greed would definitely be a staple draw card, we actually already have superior in-archetype draw cards. Let’s take Engage. Like pog it’s a + 1, but you can search it from deck, recycle it from the graveyard and you can choose one of the cards. None of those points apply to pog. Slifer actually has a draw 6 and Ursarctic even a draw 7 card. Sure, both decks are far from being meta relevant, but if we are already at the point where Konami is willing to print + 6 cards for weaker decks, what is stopping them from giving future meta decks draw cards that power creep pog?
nothing can powercreep pog, literally every deck ever will want it and will use it, it makes absolute zero sense to not run it even if there are better option, you would just play them all
Ursarctic radiation or however it's called is basically tg hyper librarian, so calling it a draw seven seems dishonest, you'd have to call librarian a draw infinite, but its super hard to facillitate, and basically impossible in ursarctic
While they probably will print more archetypal stuff as strong as it, I really think the answer isn't that complicated Youre effectively proposing giving these future broken decks their broken spell AND pot If the future will just be more broken then why add more broken generic tools to the mix
If we're talking about busted in-archetype searchers, look no further than Machina Redeployment. Puts a card from your hand in the GY to search any two Machina monsters, or any two Machina *cards* if the card you put in the GY was a Machina.
That's all well and good for decks that have and can use things like that, but not all can/do. This is why having PoG at 1 would be fantastic because EVERY deck, regardless of what support they do or don't have, it provides at least some form of consistent draw power without relying on other generic options.
As MD player only i can say that i take 3 maxx c than 1 pot of greed any day of the week. And pot of greed would never be at 3 because literally all pot cards get hit to 2 or 1 in MD. Most of the time i never ash or negate draw card anyway if they eventually search their specific 1 card combo that more important that any card in their deck.
I applaud the effort of putting this video up and the editing, but unfortunately I still not convinced to unban pot of greed, and here is why and I try to make it as brief as possible: 1. Powerlevel Aspect while I can buy that there are cards that just better than PoG, it's still way stronger than about 90% of cardpool. Comparing it to two of current strongest staple like prosperity(already limited on ocg) and thrust is still speak of PoG power. So yeah, PoG is no more 'broken' but it's still superb card in term of power. "So if the power is not broken, it could come back, right?" well maybe could but my answer would be on "Should not" by my 2nd point 2. About pre-game a.k.a deckbuilding, one other thing banlist should do for a game with non rotation, is to actually create variance, so people not playing same deck or cards forever. While in the game itself the impact of resolving 1 PoG is not broken, it will hugely impact on deckbuilding, I think the assumption of "not every deck gonna use PoG" I felt it's literally means if not in 100% usage, it comes out of banlist, which I think not true, if already 90% deck used that card, that already something worth noting. 90% of people would feel they must include the cards, your actual deckbuilding space is reduced from one, this is on theory also the problem with super-staple like Ash that have very high usage, but currently is necessary evil, so 90% of the time, your deckslot would start with 3 ash 1 PoG, which is demerit to deckbuild creativity. And back to the point of 'not all deck wanna use PoG' I think otherwise, big majority of deck will still profit by including it, you have 1 garnet in deck that a bad news if drawn? the chance is low tho because you built it like that, so how about flat +1 sound? nice isn't it?. And by deckbuilding space, other comment already mentioned that other pots has more of deckbuilding cost approach and actual cost to make it more fair, while PoG not. tl;dr power isn't the only angle we should view banlist, there's variation and creativity space too
The actual answer is just Konami doesn't want it because it's what people knows while a majority of newer players coming in won't know the things people actually use. That's it.
Great video, here is main issue that I have with your argument (my opinion only), you are comparing the power level of POG with other card but what makes POG broken is when you play with them. -POG is a extra copy of what ever pot variance that your playing which basically lower your deck size to 39 card instead of 40 which most people would love. -POG could be activate after your key card that you do not want to be draw gets played first. -POG variance has similar effect than POG but there is a reason why you dont run different type of them since the cost prevents it, but POG can just be put in no matter the deck hence you have 4 pot instead of 3... -POG allows you to draw into card like trust and small world more consistantly since your deck is have fewer card.
People can just ADD whatever cards they want from their deck, anyway. A deck went +11 on me the other day had 4 back row and 2 beat sticks and an Omni negate. With 3 cards in hand by end of turn. POG is not a big deal, anymore. If anything it will just make older decks a tad more consistent.
Something i didn't think was possible is convincing me that Pot of Greed could be put to 1. If i could get a gold star sticker and give it to you, i would consider it, remember im currently broke, and go back to whatever i was doing in the moment. Great job!
It can’t be put at one It would just be unfair as the person who draws that 1 out of 40 cards suddenly had a pretty but advantage that no other 1 of card in the game gets close to While I agree that we have a ton of negates and locks and cards with graveyard effects so they are kind of two cards in one and a lot of searching Doesn’t change the fact that EVERY deck would play pot of greed. ALL of them. 100% for sure. This had already been tested with “no banned cards” tournaments
I'm only about 10 minutes into this video, but you've addressed the plethora of reasons I both love and hate this game. The amount of counters etc al have turned me off from playing anything other than casually, but it's the unique interactions and deckbuilding synergy that make me always keep a deck within reach despite me having moved onto investing into other games. So good on you for that.
I don't particularly like this video but I think most of that is my old-school yugioh brain saying "You can't take it off the banlist, there's a reason things like Chicken Game are banned, Exodia will be busted" which I feel like is so far removed from your perspective that it was important I watch this anyway. I like the intentions and the person behind it seems lovely. If PoG ever comes off, I'll at least be slightly mentally prepared for it now and won't have the same reaction I did with Change of Heart or especially Harpie's Feather Duster, that being "Lmao surely that's fake... wait what? How? What? Why? Surely not? Tf? Who thought this would be okay?". Wishing you the best and hoping you continue to make content, your editing skills are out of this world :)
We tried a format where we drew more cards on draw phase and could only kill at turn 4 and the format basicly was terrible. The game plan was either set up giant negate board good enough to just not care for board breakers or don't do anything till turn 4 and then just board break opponents and otk. The problem with the waiting till later turns is that you basicly don't care about your first turn as you are 100% from dying turn 1 or 2 so you only start playing on turn 3. And the draw cards give so much advantage that any deck can make the best board and only boosts the most powerfull decks to be even more powerfull. So while the pot of greed to 1 is interesting the new master rule would cause more problems. Really master rule 6 should be. A pendulum zone revert to old, something to boost some spell card speeds and something to make battle phase important.
@@otroweonllamadoseba fair but its like the only thing that they possibly could do to really make a new master rule except for changing the phase rules
Agree, theres tons of negates to the point its stupid, pog will never be unbanned since konami doesnt gain money from it. Konami makes money selling pog variants, unbanning pog only means that the company cant make more money selling clones of pog.
Not making money won't necessarily make them not unban a card. If it prevented them from making money then you could argue that but there are better reasons then just money. This is just pointing malice where there is non.
I think the only reason PoG is still banned is because certain decks that are designed to recycle cards, like deep draw decks, and decks that want to dump spells in grave as fast as possible, like Sky Striker, would benefit too much from it. I'm sure there's more examples, but those are some of the top ones I can think of. I mean, some decks run Upstart Goblin just so they can make their deck "39 cards". The same would happen with PoG. Also, subbed. Good video.
“Board control is king” Yeah, so why would we allow a card that helps the turn 1 player access the non-engine more easily? Imagine you get full Swordsoul combo’d, and before they end their turn, they use Pot of Greed to draw into 2 hand traps. Or better yet, same scenario, but it’s game 3, and Swordssoul sided in Anti-Spell and floodgates. In both scenarios, PoG was able to draw deeper into the deck to access unsearchable cards that basically ensure they win the game. While I don’t think Anti-Spell is not an issue, the fact that PoG made a one sided game more one sided really doesn’t help. And yeah, Pot of Desires basically does the same thing, but with a cost, and it can be a brick in your hand if you open both, so it’s not completely free real estate. It also has the chance of locking you completely out of an aspect of your deck if you use it as an opening if you banish all 3 copies of a particular card, like Rite of Aramesiur. Also, just because we technically can unban it without dynamically changing the way we play the game doesn’t mean it won’t actively hurt the game. Cards like Fiber Jar are banned, not because they are good or meta warping, but because they actively make the game worse with their inclusion. I fail to see how adding a sacky 1 of would make the game better for competitive or casuals alike, since both players will be salty if they lost because of a sacky 1 of. At best, nobody notices it because they didn’t draw it or did draw it, and drew into bricks. At worst, it just make the game feel more luck based, and only serve to amplify problem cards/deck.
huh, this video was way better than I expected. Still don't think Pot of Greed should be Unbanned though. In a resourceless system like YuGiOh, it's literally just a card that is two cards.
Would this mean, if you want to have the highest chance of negating the Pot of Greed with Ash Turn 1, they would need to Ban cards like Called by the Grave and Crossout?
The thing is, you can take literally any 40 card deck or even any deck with 59 or less cards and add pot of greed to it without a second thought, and its gonna be better
Pog couldnt be unbanned. The consistency it adds for no drawback is strong. Desires has been hit on the list and theres a cost to it. Plus you can draw desires off of desires and its dead. Drawing pog off of desires is lit. While prosperity is good for picking a specific card, pog just gives you more ammo. And if every card in your deck is deadly then it wont give you bad draws. It would be cool to have but it cant come back
Pot of greed speeds the game up since it gives a player more cards to play through hand traps as the meta decks of today play through 1-2 hand traps just because your rogue dog shit deck needs it to be consistent doesn’t mean it’s healthy
Tbh, I’m fine with POG being limit 1. I play on master duel and at least 1 in every 3 duels I play starts with the same 3 cards being played. First is maxx C, then asheblossom, then crossout designator. I think POG would be an interesting mind game because if your opponent sees a pot activated, they have to decide if they should use Ashe, or hold it for an even bigger effect to cancel. It would be an interesting mind game to see.
The more mindgames and chances to play the game, the more games that take longer than 2 turns. I just don’t want every game to be the same thing, build a board, negate three plays, and win. It’s so boring at this point.
As compelling as the arguments made in this video are, at the end of the day Pot of Greed is so supremely easy to add to a deck that it fundamentally interferes with the deck size mechanic of the game. Except for tiny niche situations where for some reason you drawing 2 cards isn't something your game plan wants(???), every single deck on the planet wants this, so every deck has 1 less deck slot down from 40 to 39, because you'd be high to not run Pot of Greed because assuming the rest of your deck has good cards, 2 good cards is better than 1 good card. It's kind of the same reason Upstart Goblin is currently limited, because aside from lists who are genuinely hurt by the tiny cost attached to that spell, it's 1 more deck slot doomed to the bare minimum staples and 1 less deck slot for archtype sauce. The less homogenous lists are, the better.
Me personally, I want to see less super generic staples that you must include in your deck.. POG is free and there is no reason to not run it versus a card like pot of desires or extravagance where you need to build the deck with that card in mind and even then, you still pay a price. Cards that you put into every single deck are just not that fun in any case. I've always loathed the super generic boss mounters Konami pumps out because in archetype ones either have to be strictly better or they just don't see play in their own deck. And the bare minimum for a boss monster now is an omni negate and a pop thanks to Barrone De Fleur. More generic cards worked back then when the game was simpler, but now, I don't think generic staples should have as big a place in yugioh as it does now
I wish every RUclips video was as loud as yours but please turn your background audio down it is very difficult to understand you. 31:00-32:00 as an example
It easily could come back to 1, since there’s cards that easily draw 2….however it would be ran literally in every deck. I could see Konami unbanning it as a publicity stunt to get more eyes on the game.
Yeah, there's only one deck that wouldn't play it in their deck building, being pure Superheavy decks, and beyond that, it's likely gonna be a staple of many decks, or at least a really good pot card
This. The main problem is that any non-weird deck, if faced with PoG, would ABSOLUTELY go to 41 cards, if they could only add PoG as a 41st card. There's no reason not to. Let alone cutting some other piece, duplicate of something, ect.
26:30 "Games last shorter, ergo card advantage matters less." This is completely, 100% incorrect. If cards are determined by how strong they are as starters/tech cards et at, then intrinsically, a card that grants you 2 cards for no real restriction is worth its weight in GOLD compared to something like prosperity; where yeah, you get one card, but picking two random cards is always gonna be better if you build your deck right. Comparing Prosperity to desires to PoG is also kinda laughable; Desires has an actual tangible cost on your deck and deckbuilding; banishing 10 cards from your deck that you're gonna be searching from is a gamble, and limiting your extra deck CAN be a dealbreaker for some decks. PoG doesn't have EITHER drawback. Also, PoG does contain the secret sauce that you're kinda ignoring; it gives you more tools. Desires does do that, but at the cost of potentially crippling your deck consistency and toolbox. Prosperity may give you "the one card" but PoG can give you 2 cards at NO cost to your deck searching ability NOR your extra deck. Hell I would bet most people who would choose to run Prosperity would play 1 PoG and 2 Prosperities since you don't always see prosperity, so why not just run a better version? Oh no, one in every 6 games it bricks; well, I guess I can just use it as a discard cost or Diabellestar proc or something. But the real deal breaker for PoG is that it is a consistency boost for garbage FTKs that nobody wants to deal with and CANNOT be competitive.
@@TheJiminatorHS Nah, its fine. I'm honestly expecting about 70% of people who watch this to disagree with my stance since its a pretty unpopular opinion. I'll need a bit to digest all that and write my rebuttal, though I do appreciate seeing people's criticism. That was one of my goals for making this video: to get people talking about this subject again since its been stagnant for years.
@@TheJiminatorHS I think the best way for me to approach this is to isolate what we do agree on and go over divergences from there. 1) PoG doesn't have any sort of restrictions. While I agree with that statement, I just don't see it as an issue since i believe PoG has been powercrept by other staples in the game (we'll dig into your statement about Prosperity in a sec), and out of these commonly ran staples, the only one PoG really synergizes with without any sort of caveats is Thrust. Someone else i was debating with earlier tried to argue that Thrust effectively means you're running 4 copies of Pot of Greed, and while I agree with that, that's only true going second (since the likelihood that the turn 2 player will have a monster on the board turn 1 is incredibly slim unless they're playing a deck like Labrynth or Tearlaments). 9 times out of 10 when you're resolving Thrust turn 1, you're setting a card that can't be activated that turn. You're better off grabbing a normal trap in that situation like Evenly or Imperm. As for grabbing PoG with Thrust going second, i find that to be fair since the turn 1 player already had their opportunity to play the game and is actively trying to shut down the turn 2 player. Though at that point, you may as well grab Talents if its not in your hand since it'd be live (unless you already have Talents in your hand). I never really compared PoG to Desires either, I was comparing Desires to Extrav. PoG and Prosperity are both significantly better than those two, and if PoG were ever unbanned, you would run it along side the 1 copy of Upstart Goblin and potentially even the Danger cards if you need the extra gas unless if Konami were to limit or ban those cards (although Konami will probably hit the Danger cards again in the future regardless of if PoG were to come off the list due to Tearlaments). No one would really run Desires if PoG were legal outside of a deck like Gren Maju. Even in the current meta: Desires rarely sees any play to begin with since its cost outweighs its utility, and Extrav only sees play in Labrynth since it doesn't use an extra deck much at all. Part of why I want to move PoG to 1 is because those cards in the modern game aren't cutting it as alternatives to Prosperity, which I think deserves to remain at 3 given how the game has evolved up until this point (especially now that the card is affordable). Though the legality of Prosperity is a whole different debate. 2) Prosperity may give you "the one card" but PoG can give you 2 cards at NO cost to your deck searching ability NOR your extra deck. You are correct, a lot of decks would be able to utilize PoG without having to change too much about how they build their main deck and they wouldn't have to banish cards from their main deck in order to do it. Its also not OPT and could theoretically be looped in certain decks, though i figure if PoG were moved back to 1, we'd see a lot more limits and bans in order to hit consistent GY loops and FTK strategies (such as banning Knightmare Gryphon) if Konami chose not to errata PoG into a HOPT card before unbanning it. From what I found in my earlier debate, the topic of "optimal builds" tends to get into subjective territory since different players can have different habits and preferences when deck building since people who make decks from scratch build to suit their needs and playstyle. I personally believe that cards like Prosperity are just objectively better than PoG since I and many others prioritize consistency (since games end in so few turns), but I completely understand why someone else would see Pot of Greed as being oppressive since you could just as easily draw into one of those searchers plus some other useful card (even though statistically speaking, you're most likely to search it off of Thrust going second than you are to see it in your opening hand going first when its at 1 copy). However, some of us would just rather not gamble to begin with if we had a way to always see the cards we need. The way I see it: it does seem like personal preference as to whether or not you'd run PoG or Prosperity (with your answer fluctuating depending on the deck you're on). A card like PoG when going first is only really a marginal boost compared to the output that decks already perform at without PoG or even Prosperity. And because Thrust exists at 3 copies, the chances of a game where only the turn 1 player resolves PoG would be decreased significantly unless your deck already has a built-in draw engine. You also don't even have to always banish 6 cards from your extra deck with Prosperity, some people just use it like they would Pot of Duality depending on the quality of their hand (or because they can't risk banishing 6 cards). Banishing 3 from the extra deck is perfectly serviceable in almost any deck. As for the Diabellstar comment: yeah, you could just proc the Prosperity if you draw it off of Pot of Greed. But why run Prosperity at that point if you could just run other draw cards that don't prohibit stacking draws such as Upstart and Dangers (assuming Konami doesn't just up and ban them)? That's why Prosperity is at 3 in decks that run it, and in decks like Branded which run it at 2 whenever they do (outside of Branded Chimera which does run Prosperity at 3), its because they don't have the real-estate for it since they'd rather run max copies of their starters like Fusion Deployment for consistency. I do think that if Prosperity were to be limited in the future though, then there would be next to no risk in running both 1 PoG and 1 Prosperity, so i'll give you that. One thing i will concede to though (which i already conceded to in my earlier discussion) is that I probably could've found better examples for decks that wouldn't want to run PoG over Prosperity since Branded and Tearlament could totally get by with running PoG. It really didn't occur to me just how subjective people's deck building habits are when i was writing my script, and while i think Prosperity and Card Destruction would be more optimal than PoG in Branded and Tearlaments respectively due to the few turns a game of Yugioh takes and the strategy of those decks, they could most certainly run PoG if a player wanted to. But that's the thing: its less that PoG would be unplayable in those decks and more that there's better alternatives to PoG in some cases because its been powercrept. The whole point of a meta existing is so that players can use the most effective tactics available (its literally what the acronym stands for), so a deck "wanting to run PoG" means that it would be the most optimal thing to do for that deck, which I just don't think is true for every deck. I'm also not going to repeat here about how PoG wouldn't affect how we nerf meta decks. As for "casual Yugioh" (Kitchen Table Yugioh, Playground Yugioh or whatever you want to call it): they aren't tied to the forbidden and limited list to begin with and can play and not play whatever tf they want. So using casual Yugioh as an argument here would be pretty weak. Locals still falls under the competitive umbrella, but that doesn't change the fact that the meta still exists. If someone wants to take a pet deck to a locals, that's fine, but they're going in with the knowledge that they're entering the tournament as an underdog.
So update: i wanna say that after responding to some of the other comments, i've come to the conclusion that resolving both Talents and PoG for essentially a +4 off of Thrust sounds incredibly busted even by going second standards. My current stance now is that PoG cant come off the list until Talents is banned. I still don't think that means my other arguments both in the video and in my replies hold no merit, its just that that counter-argument specifically is pretty inarguable. Though that may also signify that Talents may need to be banned at some point, regardless of if we ever move PoG to 1. Its already effectively 3 Sentry and Change of Heart on top of being PoG.
I've seen this coming for a year, and I've been saying it since this last format. Things like tearlament and kashtira have forty card acitype decks plus staples. I think it benefits decks that are just outside of meta alot more than it does Meta decks if you allow more consistency through pot of greed vs meta having win cons they choose though which staples they pick.
Thrust exists. Most meta decks are on thrust. Pog is a thrust target. You would always be on it because it's free advantage and most meta decks have more non engine room which gives them more versatility
To look at Yugioh another way. Yes, most matches only last a few turns and it seems like pace of the game is faster, but you have to look at it this way. Turns are now similar to taking multiple turns in the older days because during a turn, you can interact with the turn player. You have to think of that interaction and taking turns back and forth. In older Yugioh you couldn't interact in that way. So really, the first 2 turns now, are like taking 4 to 6 turns in older Yugioh.
That is a fair way to look at it assuming you were to always see disruption/board breakers in your hand going second. While they help, there are some games rarely where you open none of those cards and you just have to hope you can play through whatever board your opponent made, which obviously varies depending on your deck's placement in the meta. While i've gotten wildly different responses to the MR6 suggestions (and people just calling it outright disrespectful that i suggest anything), the most receptive one out of the three seems to be the turn 2 player opening with 6 cards before starting the game so that they begin turn 2 with 7 cards in hand. I still dont think that'd be enough personally (nor would it accomplish the goal of that section, which was to change enough of the rules to ensure we couldnt ever justify unbanning PoG), but it is nice to see some positive reception to that one.
@@four-en-tee In most good decks you open good cards though so even if you don't draw board breakers you instead have a bunch of extenders there. We should use the banlist to do away with boards that require a boardbreaker such as lingering or continuous floodgates. At the top level most decks have been able to play 1st and 2nd for a while.
I believe your thoughts were well thought out and well spoken. Drawing more cards is something Rush Duels does currently. I think that making both players undamageable until turn 3 is similar to Cross Duels, where both players set up their boards at the same time. (I miss YuGiOh Cross Duel) I agree with almost everything you said... sure, it is a costless +1 in hand size and -1 in deck size... but how is that any better than some of the other cards that commonly see play and mill way more... Even using my beloved Earth Machines as example, Normal Summon Machina Gearframe -> add Machina Unclaspare -> special summon Unclaspare -> Unclaspare puts Machina Ruinforce, Fortress, or Citadel in the GY... There are SO MANY cards that are WAY better than Pot of Greed that it's risky to put in modern decks and makes older decks more viable, even if it's a small bit.
Thrust exists now. It literally makes pog searchable that gets you to cards like ash or imperms that aren't searchable cards. You're not using pog to get archtype stuff you're using it to gamble on drawing into more stuff that adds more layers ontop of what your opponent has to deal with. And with pog blanks 2 cards your chances of drawing non engine goes up with it especially as you've already drawn 5 but also thinned the deck through normal combos.
the main issue i see with PoG is that it is so painfully uninteresting/boring. even something like prosperity has the big downside of essentially telling your opponent what you are playing, and it can reveal information on your opponent's hand depending on what they add or not. It heavily rewards meta/matchup knowledge (although honestly it's probably still too strong and imo should be banned too). PoG is just a card you would almost always play soley because its free, and it basically just lets one player start with an extra card in their deck with absolutely zero skill expression required. It's kind of boring and doesn't really bring anything to the table except adding even more of a random chance that one player's hand is just going to be strictly better than another.
Personally, as an admitted Yugiboomer, my biggest frustrations are how archetypes work and how the Extra Deck functions as a second starting hand. Sorry for the wall of text but I have strong feelings about this and am not a video essay kind of guy. While I agree with MBT's recent take that "Yugioh is archetypes," I personally feel that archetypes that function primarily by referencing each other by name shouldn't exist. However, archetypes that reference each other by game mechanic are fucking awesome. I can think of no better modern example than Ghoti. Ghoti specifically wants to banish fish and use them to synchro - but almost NONE of them actually use the word "Ghoti" in quotes to reference any card other than themselves. Because they aren't referencing each other by names, I can use niche generic cards to cool effect. But with name-based archetypes, I am forced to include specific cards because the archetype engine says so. I can't tell you how many times I tried to break back into YGO, build a deck around a fun card with an otherwise interesting effect, and then give up when every interesting card that could go along with it required me to play an archetype by name. I'd also reference Rank10YGO's Train archetype videos as he specifically mentions this and says that despite the cards not referencing each other by name, the archetype still plays beautifully and excitedly with a fun set of payoffs and his section on tech choices including Malefic Cyber End, Exodius, and even Metal Reflect Slime reference my exact same frustration with "reference by name" archetypes that would never have let me play with those cards. The second rather pervasive problem regarding power level and consistency which somehow isn't brought up often, is the Extra Deck. If you have any experience with MtG, you may be familiar with the Companion mechanic - a means by which players could start with a specific card outside of their main deck that they could either play at any time for its cost (at first printing) or later, by paying an additional cost to put the card directly into your hand. It should sum up the problem when I say that this is the only time in MtG's history after the first year or two of card releases that any of their cards have ever received a power level errata. Companions - which are MtG's extra deck - were broken because they meant that you always started the game with not only an extra card in your hand, but a guaranteed copy of a specific card that you could build around. Yugioh gives you FIFTEEN of these cards, many of which have grotesquely trivial requirements which can be as simple as "2+ monsters" - and gives you a huge selection. MtG never printed companions past the first release, which was only a dozen cards total. Yugioh has hundreds(!!) of options to put in any given Extra Deck. I think that the early Synchro era (even before Edison, so perhaps the formats that included only the very first set or two with them) was what Yugioh should have aspired to. Cool combo potential, lots of interactive game pieces that didn't force you to play exact cards, and an Extra deck that was somewhat accessible but not so accessible that you would see cards from it hit the field every game. When I say "aspire to," though, I don't mean we should cap the game at those sets and never add anything, rather the power level of Yugioh should have capped its power level and combo accessibility at the levels that existed at the time. These were games that could go long (10+ turns) but weren't necessarily guaranteed to. So what does this have to do with Pot of Greed? Well, if Yugioh is in a place where this kind of argument can be made, then I think the game is in a concerning state. Power creep keeps entire archetypes from being playable a few months after release, consistency is so powerful that a free +1 in a game with no standardized resource costs to play cards might not be the strongest thing in the game, and games boiling down to "did you draw the out" is just not fun for new or returning players. The idea that Konami can release some new digital or paper product that will magically get those players back for good is a pipe dream - those players do not want to play competitive solitaire, let alone learn a competitive solitaire game with more than 10,000 playable cards in a single format. New MtG players aren't taught Vintage as their method of introduction to the game. Last thing I'll say is I don't have a good solution for these problems. Yugioh has dug itself a pretty deep hole in regards to its power level, consistency, and homogeneity of gameplay experience. I just feel like nobody else sees or accepts these problems for what they are, and it's frustrating to watch video after video dance around these truths, basically admitting in everything but the actual words that it's the problem, but when confronted on it, place the blame anywhere else they can think of and/or deny it. A bigger banlist won't fix this (unless they ban several thousand cards) and a change in future card design won't fix this (as all past problematic cards will still exist). A new MR with some kind of summon limit might, but I don't have confidence in Konami to create one that would both meaningfully address the issue and also be something players enjoy. Thanks for coming to my BEWD talk.
I've also come to many of the same realizations that you have. Yu-Gi-Oh today is very much competitive solitaire and the fact that we can even talk about cards like PoG and Delinquent Duo coming off the Forbidden section of the F&L list does not bode well for Yu-Gi-Oh's future
Ngl pot of greed still being banned is kinda unnecessary at this point of the games state, when we can just search out 80% of our deck, flat out prevent PoG from resolving in a million ways, and and have tons of other cards that can allow us to draw and isn't once per turn. Errata it to once per turn and limit it.
I got through most of your video before leaving this comment here, but, the idea that a player shouldn't surrender within the first two turns is laughable. Some decks will scoop after turn 1 or 2 in a best of 3 format in order to keep card knowledge to a minimum and make sideboarding much more difficult. When a combo like Neospace connector and aqua dolphin hit the field, the opponent IMMEDIATELY gains critical hand knowledge based on that interaction alone. Making Battle Damage go to turn 3 absolutely murders several different strategies based around OTKs, like Numeron (Not that I care about Numeron but I digress).
It wouldnt murder OTK decks because OTK strategies would want to go first and not commit to much of anything turn 1 so that they can attack for game turn 3 with a potentially 7 card hand. The idea behind that is that it would give both players an opportunity to execute their strategies (especially if neither player is on an OTK deck). Going first being too OP is a very common complaint about the modern game. But you are right, it would nerf OTK strategies (not that it matters too much, 7 cards is still a lot of resources). It would still maintain the sort of risk/reward that comes from playing those kinds of decks while otherwise fixing a lot of issues with the game as a whole. But yeah, thats a fair critique as far as scooping goes. Perhaps the rule changes wouldnt change players scooping habits, but it would at least still fix the balance between going first and second.
I’d say that there are three main arguments not mentioned in the pinned comment The first is that of card draw and consistency, while yes a pot of prosperity at 3 is better than 1 pot of greed 1 greed 3 prosperity is better than either independently. While they do lock the other out prosperity can be used to grab a non-greed card and greed can be used in absence of prosperity. It’s not substantially different than drawing a garnet in the opener or drawing redundant HOPT searchers. Secondly pot of greed, just like any card, needs to justify its inclusion in decks but it has the inverse effect on deckbuilding. You need to have a compelling reason to not run pot of greed rather than a compelling reason to run it. It’s similar to cards like sol ring in Magic the gathering’s commander format where it is so generically powerful you’d need a reason to not play it. Lastly is a question of game design. With pot of greed legal it limits design space to make new, interesting sidegrades to pot of desires, extravagance, avarice etc. while those cards are not the best right now they are allowed to exist in the format because pot of greed doesn’t. There’s substantially less incentive to run those cards while pot of greed is legal
+1 and a 39 card deck doesnt seem that broken i mean id play it everywhere that doesnt die with spells in grave because why not. It would create the fabled 38 card deck with upstart :)
If we had a similar limiting system to duel links where for example the limited to 1 list means you can only use one of the cards in that list then pot of greed could easily be in the limited list
problem with unbanning pot of greed is if you let to much deep draw into the game you end up letting degenerate FTK deck become more consistent so they has to be a balancing act on how much decks are allowed to draw
You made a very compelling argument that Pot of Greed has been power crept. Prosperity conflicting with it is a killer. And it only being an effect occasionally used on Talents is another area of note. But I still don't feel there is a strong case to bring it back to 1 for casual play. You have however made me okay with the concept of the card at 2 or 3 copies and work as a functional replacement to Pot of Extrav. Some casual decks just need a +1 more than additional consistency. For the new master rule, I am unsure how to feel. It would definitely warp deck building but I haven't played seriously since pre-covid.
Right, I didn't even think of the frequency of use when it comes to Talent's draw 2! Yeah, most people just use its Sentry effect or its Change of Heart effect if going second. All that was really going through my head when writing that part is "if they don't open Prosperity, then using the draw 2 off of Talents is typically fine." The only reason i didn't suggest PoG at 2 or 3 is because people would realistically run it along side the 1 copy of Upstart Goblin along with maybe Mothman or whatever other draw engine they're running such as Flame Bufferlo in Salad decks. Moving it to 1 keeps it from being a complete auto-include in every deck, which is one of the reasons why it was banned to begin with. That, and drawing Pot of Greed off of Pot of Greed could get a bit out of hand unless Konami were to errata the card to have a hard once per turn. Konami could maybe experiment with moving it to 2 if moving it to 1 turns out to be fine, but i personally think that'd be overkill without an errata. For what its worth though, you'd be able to grab Pot of Greed with Thrust, so you're effectively running 4 copies of the card in a deck even while its at 1.
@@insertcolorherehawk3761 You are likely referring to Traditional Format, where all Forbidden Cards are Limited instead. ...and the fact that Traditional Format is viewed as the Casual one by most shows just how bad the promotion of it by Konami is.
@@four-en-tee I was only thinking about it in terms of my realm of interest for the game. Again I have no interest to try and keep up with the meta. Playing casually with dumb decks is where I would find value in Pot of Greed but only at more copies.
Thats more of an argument to ban Prosperity. PoG is still the baseline for dumb power spell that can't ever come back. Some cards being more busted is just more of a reason to ban those. Goat players have to experience PoG and they really hate it because its incredibly impactful variance. Extrav is only fine being legal because it cannot be run by most decks, its a really strong pot overall if your deck can play it. Removing the once per turn on the pots is also just way too broken.
I think Small World was glossed over here in a way that severely misrepresents how usable it is. While you can always include a bridge to make it more playable, the explanation in the video neglected to mention that Small World requires exactly 1 property to be identical, not just "some property". If it really was just that one or more property could match, every deck would run small world without a brick, as the vast majority of archetypes have their monsters share at least one property across the board. To take an example completely removed from the meta, let's look at how it would interact with a pure Jurrac deck. They wouldn't be physically able to play it, because all their monsters share two properties at least, their type and attribute. But put a Soul-Eating Oviraptor in there and you can search any Jurrac monster that isn't level 4, has 1800 ATK or 500 DEF. Small World's existence makes Yugioh deckbuilding more interesting, because the exact bridge with the best balance between things it can help you search and what it can do if you do draw it varies massively from deck to deck. And it doesn't powercreep Pot of Greed at all, as your interest in playing it is directly correlated to how much of a brick the bridge would be. If it's a proper brick, you're forced to weigh the consistency of drawing the card you want to search against the inherent inconsistency that such a brick adds. Pot of Greed is always good in every deck, no matter how the meta looks. There is no decisionmaking to be made. That makes it poor card design. Even Infernity would play it, despite the entire archetype revolving around your hand being empty. Even if we accept that it wouldn't be gamebreaking or unfair, it would just further homogenize decks. X slots less to play around with, where X is legal copies of Pot of Greed. Some staples are currently auto-includes in most decks. Ash Blossom being a core example, and Maxx "C" in formats where it's legal, and while I never see that not being the case, that's because gaining advantage from your deck is an amazing effect that every deck benefits from. But them being good has a condition. If very few decks, very bad decks had access to draws, foolishes and searches, Ash would be a terrible card. Even if it would be amazingly powerful in those matchups, running it would be a waste of space. Similarly, if we theoretically had a meta where special summoning more than twice is very rare, Maxx "C" is just a less consistent upstart goblin. The way the game has evolved and will evolved, those two hypotheticals will never occur, but they theoretically could. We can imagine a world where both those cards would be bad. The only way Pot of Greed could ever be bad is if every deck had access to extremely powerful effects that only become live after your opponent draws with a card effect, and even then those cards would have to also have merit in games where your opponent didn't play their pot. It's not that Pot's power is what's keeping it banned, but that it's power, convenience and versatility is completely unacceptably terribly designed.
I agree with your points on pot being unbanned. Regarding a master rule 6, I think the better change would be the implementation of Duel Links' limited 3 concept, meaning you can only play X amount of cards from the limited X pool. Which would keep banned only the really problematic stuff while players have to think more deciding which limited card they want to play. Downside is that sounds very complicated to properly balance and would require some careful planning and understanding the game from ... Konami.
I am so confused by the reasoning here, assuming there's a garnet in the deck that your usual combo needs to go through, why wouldn't you just....conduct your usual combo before using pot of greed? If the argument is that having a 1 off pot of greed in the deck makes it so you are slightly less likely to open a combo starter and if that happens and you pot of greed, you mayyy draw into a brick then that just sounds like an insane persons argument I have no clue whatsoever how pot of greed and pot of prosperity conflict either, not do I understand what the benefit of limiting pot of greed is? Any deck that's running hand traps and has a consistent combo has good reason to run pog, finish your combo, go through whatever bricks if you have any, draw 2 in hopes of a handtrap or extender Or ofcourse if you get interrupted midway through the combo with ash, etc, pog in hopes of an extender, I'm massively confused as to the thought process here? I'm not an expert on the tcg, I play master duel more but I cannot help but be baffled at how limiting pog helps the game? Even if everything you said is true, isn't there always and consistently a risk that some deck either right now or down the line finds a way search and/or recycle pog to break the game with its non-opt effect?
I already mentioned this in both the pinned comment and on my recent community post, but basically: I realize in hindsight that I fumbled the ball with this video. The only reason I'm still keeping it up (aside from the fact that i put months of work into editing this all by myself, so it deserves to stay up for portfolio purposes) is because it gives other people the opportunity to come forth with their own counter-arguments and it serves as a physical reminder now for what I shouldn't do when making a video. A major goal of this video was to generate new arguments for and against PoG from the community since the discussion has been incredibly stagnant, and the video has at least succeeded in doing that. And as for it being a physical reminder: i have a very perfectionist mentality, so knowing in the back of my head that this video exists is going to force me to improve going forward. A lot of the errors in my arguments come down to the fact that I should've revised my script more before committing to recording, as well as that I missed quite a lot of other arguments entirely during my research. I also went in with untrue assumptions (such as that people wouldn't miss Extrav or Desires if PoG went to 1), I undervalued the worth of a free +1, and I missed certain interactions like Talents and the increased frequency of Droll in main decks if PoG were to be put to 1. But there are still some arguments that I stand by even after my self-reflection. I still don't think that Prosp and PoG would be played together as much as people argue they would given that the argument is format dependent. You would have to already be running an archetype or engine that procs dead cards to begin with, or else if you opened with both a Prosperity and PoG, one of those cards is going to be dead for the rest of the turn once you fire off the other. There's also the 1 Upstart and Danger thinning, but the Danger cards flip flop off the list constantly even without PoG. I also didn't really give a shit about GY looping given that we could just ban FTK enablers like Selene or spell recovery cards like Knightmare Gryphon (which was why i write during the Kashtira section that PoG would promote more aggressive forbidden and limited list hits). But other arguments like my SW example were pretty weak and, as you mentioned, you could just do your SW line first assuming you didn't draw into SW and the garnet off of PoG (which is a very unlikely occurrence). I would've probably caught that had i revised my script more before committing to recording, but I didn't and that's a mistake I'll have to avoid repeating going forward. My current living situation isn't really one where I can easily re-record lines whenever and I made the whole video by myself, so I don't get a lot of opportunities to record to begin with and editing eats up a lot of my time since i'm still juggling YT, a full time job and my social life. As a result of this: once I record something, its just full steam ahead with little to no room for course correction (its why there's a lot of written segments throughout the video aside from side tangents, which is another thing i need to avoid). So my biggest takeaway from this project is that i need to constantly revise and scrutinize my script more before committing to recording. TL;DR: I'm aware I made a bad video essay in hindsight and i'm glad that it was at least my first rather than one later down the line. I'm going to have to come back to this video once I get better at writing video essays and just clean up this whole mess. I kinda owe it to the Yugioh community at this point since people are going to parrot a lot of my weak arguments now going forward, and once that's done, i can finally put this video behind me. So look forward to that ig, this has been a very humbling experience for me lol.
Tbh I agree, YuGiOh is an era where you literally summon 10 monsters from the deck to the field, you can literally use your cards in the GY, you can honestly negate anything in turn 1.
This is the main reason why the banlist is nonsensical. We're talking about a meta where games tend to end in 2-3 turns on average and people really want to argue about deck consistency, 'degenerate cards', draw advantage and so on. The game is already at a point where these points just come across as petty; its just too fast to even bother considering such things anymore. And we know the real reason Konami loves their banlist is to force people to purchse their new releases. Not game balance, are you kidding me.
@@1stCallipostle Flawed premise. What you see as problems, I see as enjoyable. And no counterplay? Don't make me laugh, ban-stans absolutely hate the concept of counterplay, they'd rather whine and moan until everything gets banned. Its no different from Smogon and Pokemon. If so much about the game has to be restricted and banned, than the so-called 'competitive' game probably isn't meant to be competitive at all. Smash, Pokemon and Yugioh. I say just let the games be played in the state they arrived in.
@@Ergeniz Almost everything that has been banned has a part in making sure your opponent cannot play the game. Pot is one of the worst offenders. If you have a resource advantage going first, you have an exponentially higher chance of just playing through everything in your way, and making your already insane moment in this age even more consistent, unbreakable, and braindead. This game is SHIT without the list
@@1stCallipostle Game is shit regardless of the list or not. So we may as well go for broke imo. Again, it makes little sense to me to be so attached to a game one admits is shit in its natural state. And then go through all these bans and restrictions to make it tolerable. Seems to me it would be easier and more sensible to go play something else.
My problem with unbanning POG is that that it essentially becomes a 4th copy of any draw 2 you okay just with out the down sides essentially giving better odds of opening a draw spell. For an example I play pendulum magician and my draw 2 of choice is allure of darkness, draw two and then banish a dark monster from your hand or you have to banish your hole hand if you don't have a dark monster to banish, I would instantly add in POG because now i suddenly have better odds to open a draw spell that helps by drawing potential extenders/interruptions for my opponents turn that doesn't have to down side of banishing a card/cards. It's like upstart where you are basically playing a 39 card deck but with POG you would basically be playing a 38 card deck and no one will ash it because they want to save it for searchers but with POG you can also draw into cards counter cards like called by grave or crossout designator to stop the ash Unbanning POG at least to me sounds more like a catch 22 scenario where yes you stopped them from drawing 2 but hay now you can't stop their searchers and they combo off and potentially ended up in the same position as if you didn't have that hand trap to stop their more important cards. But this is just how I see it. Great video by the way
![Red-Eyes Dragoon + Naturia Beast: The Best Counter to Meta Decks! [Yu-Gi-Oh! Master Duel]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qw1h1VkSRcw/mqdefault.jpg)
Do you think Pot of Greed should be unbanned? Leave your thoughts in the comments!
-------------------------------------
Within the last 3 days of uploading this, its become clear that I missed certain arguments and got a fair amount of information wrong. I do apologize for that, and i'll certainly have to revisit this video at a later date and both analyze what still holds up, where I was wrong and address other arguments posed in the comments (assuming someone doesnt beat me to it, but even then i'm sure there's still some worth for me doing it for self-reflection purposes). At the moment, my current standing after posting this is that PoG can't ever feasibly come off the list while Talents is still legal due to Thrust. Thinning the deck by 5 cards is ludicrously powerful, even when going second. But moreso, I should've really thought about what sort of benefits it'd bring to the game beyond just making decks more consistent (which causes more problems than it solves). I do think there could be some valid reasons (whether objective or not), but at the moment, I don't really have an answer to that question.
A major goal of this video was to generate new talking points for and against the card beyond what all I came up with in my video (since the discussion has been stagnant for years and all the arguments i had to tear down during my research was old talking points that have been parroted ad nauseum), and some of these new arguments are really compelling stuff. For the sake of convenience, i'll be pinning some of the stronger talking points that people have brought up in this comment so that people don't have to dig for them. Think of this kinda like a repository for modern discussion surrounding Pot of Greed. I'll be crediting those who mentioned them here as well.
@marktwayne9796 writes "I was previously of the opinion that it could go at one and be irrelevant, because it would be unsearchable and unrecyclable. But then Triple Tactics Thrust became a thing, so nah. I know you can just Thrust into Talents to draw 2 anyway, but imagine already having Talents (which is at least a 2 of from what I see) and then Thrusting into PoG to get another 2?"
@larhyperhair3188 writes "This would definitely make droll mandatory and I don't know if I wanna live in that world. Though it would make for a very funny droll-mini-game. Do I fire the pot and get drolled after? (Locking me out of my searches for 2 cards) Or do I get my specific search first, and then get drolled? (Lose out on the 2 cards this turn)"
It shouldn't come back. Pot of Desires is semi-limited even though you can only activate it one per turn and it banishes 10 cards from your Deck, so a card that lets you do that for free? No thank you. We don't want to give more consistency to FTK Decks.
@@revolverkyosuke7049in that case banishing can help cards like all the Kashtira monsters and GrenMadju or however you spell that guy. Definitely not the best argument against that tho.
Also not all decks could handle losing 10 cards because what if some of their best cards are at 1? Then if they banish it face down its gone forever. So it is definitely in my opinion a case by case basis.
@@Mimiyan_or_Pikapikafan If Pot of Desires is semi-limited despite not being usable in all Decks, then why should Pot of Greed come back? If it comes back, it will affect Deckbuilding nearly as drastically as Maxx C did (Basically, every Deck would use it. Why wouldn't you want to use a card that freely lets you draw 2?)
Here is my argument to what markt said:
Would you want to grab Pot of greed or some other spell like Forbidden Droplet? Droplet actually sounds more appealing to me in almost any scenario like that
@@revolverkyosuke7049 ok have you watched the video you are commenting on?
Also Maxx "C" is a handtrap that also allows you or you opponent to either draw a lot of cards or make the other player forced to play using a weaker end board, Pot of Greed is just drawing cards, and usually less. That's a big difference there, so it's not a fair comparison. I've seen what happens what Maxx "C" is used in Master Duel enough first hand both sides and even tho it definitely helps me win games, I definitely want it banned. It's one-sided no matter what. Pot Of Greed doesn't create a situation like that
This isn't an argument for Pot of Greed to be unbanned. It's an argument for Pot of Prosperity to be banned.
true but its useless, after Prosperity is banned, Konami will just make a new one as strong but more limited version for players to pay for it again, just like happened with pot of greed
If we're being honest, the only balance pot card is desire
I think youre looking at this wrong. If you assume that PoG wont be Ash'd then PoG effectively just says "Both players have a 12.5% chance to draw 6 cards on their first turn" and thats just very uninteresting variance.
Can you please explain, why is it 12.5% chance to draw 6 cards? I don't get it
@@Romashka_Sov Because you have a 12.5% Chance to draw a one of card in a 5 card starting hand. if that one of is pot of greed you draw 2 extra cards then you will have 6 cards in hand
@@ozzy6831 oh, thanks. I somehow thought you mean "after players' first turn starts" and couldn't see how one pot of greed can draw you six cards 😅
@@ozzy6831he said limited to 1 copy though
@@Forsakenruler Yes, if Pot of Greed is limited to 1 you have a 12.5% chance to open with 6 cards. If it was unlimited you would have a 34% chance to open 6 cards
Unbanning pot of greed wouldn't suddenly break the game in the way unbanning something like for example, delinquent duo, where getting even two activations of it would leave the opponent practically defenseless. I can agree on that much.
But multiple retrained versions of pot of greed with downsides are heavily played, and dancing on and off the banlist of different formats for being too powerful already. The effect is worth even the heavy cost of these retrains. This isn't a matter of my opinion as some random in the internet, but is evidenced by any number of topping decklists.
You got me to watch and share the video though, and now I'm commenting on it, so that's a win for the content. I had something enjoyable to listen to while making banana bread and applesauce.
People will delete 10 of their cards from the game to draw 2.
And it had to STILL be limited!
@@1stCallipostle
Like someone has said before: "Yugioh players will commit war crimes suggested by the Geneva Convention to draw cards."
@@1stCallipostle Deleting cards is not really a big downside for some decks
Pretty stupid take ngl, drawing cards is bad just search 20cards a turn like every meta deck 😂
So you're telling me drawing 2 is better than any meta deck I can play right now that searches the first 20 cards
@@vollied4865 You can just draw 2 cards that then search you other cards
I think one of the biggest issues with PoG is that it arguably is quite a bit better for the going first player. The going first player gets to fire it off with basically only Ash as an answer, going second if they setup a strong enough board off that you might just not get a chance to resolve it.
did you forget droll exists
Incorrect, as going second you can bait out whatever you need first, and then possibly pot of greed into any form of extension
@@reeonboi937Incorrect my opponent can see the future
Dimension Shifter would also work cause yeah you draw it... But then can't use the rest of your shit cause you don't want it banished because it would fuck your combo and well multiple other cards.
@@Flexy59Ah yes, electric snake also exists, so let's unban delinquent duo!
When you say that "Pot of Greed is weaker than powerful searchers", you're neglecting that nowadays decks are composed of almost entirely Searchers, Starters, and Interaction (read Handtrap/Boardbreaker/Trap). This means that Pot of Greed, in decks with modern deckbuilding sensibilities, is going to be converting ITSELF into a pair of Searcher + Searcher, Searcher + Starter, Starter + Interaction, etc. It's why Swordsoul is always super happy to be running Desires: there are vanishingly few pairs of dead cards that Swordsoul can draw from Desires besides more Desires, which is not a thing you can say when you can put Pot of Greed in Swordsoul. Pot of Greed into Desires from Swordsoul turn 1 is a 7 card starting hand on a lean threat dense midrange deck. Is Swordsoul the best deck: no, but it's emblematic of the fact that lean midrange is a design space that Konami has been exploring a lot recently (Swordsoul, R-ACE, Vanquish Soul, new Unchained, etc), and that all of those decks will have their biggest soft-spot dampened by lifting their floor higher by a not insignificant amount. That's the part I'm most scared of: raising the floor of already highly consistent decks, rather than a high-roll combo deck raising its ceiling by a bit. Looping back around, Pot of Greed is as good as these powerful searchers because it BECOMES a Searcher and/or a Starter, because it's converting nebulous card advantage into immediate leveraged advantage by means of lean deckbuilding that cuts the fat.
Might be worth considering Time-Tearing Morganite here - not because it's exceptional on its own, but because it opts you into a slower style of game, and might indicate that Konami is trying to find ways to slow the game down not entirely unlike your proposed Master Rule 6.
Morganite locks you out of handtraps other than impermanence and evenly matched. I don’t think it slows you down too much, but with the state of the current game I think even Maxx “c” could return to the tcg.
I don't even know what that card is: but my response is laughing in opening Maxx C, Evenly, Fenrir, Thrust.
Morganite is a spell card that basically says you draw 2 cards every turn and can normal summon one additional time each turn but you are locked out of activating monster effects in the hand for the rest of the game.@@SaintClutch
@@SaintClutch it says you cant activate monster effects from the hand, you get an extra normal summon each turn and you draw 2 cards instead of 1 for every draw phase
@@SaintClutch As pointed out, the Maxx C would only be live turn 1, and is only good if your opponent went first.
Basically:
Player A starts his turn, Player B drops Maxx C on a mandatory special summon effect.
Player B draws 1 card.
Player A now decides between ending combo, or trying to full combo anyways.
Either Player A full combos by drawing Player B to death, or passes and Player B gets to play with a shit ton of cards.
Now your Morganite puts you on a very dangrous clock.
Better to just look at the Runick Floodgate list from YCS Indy 2023 for a good deck to run Morganite in.
You’re absolutely coping. The problem with PoG is none of the things you mentioned. It is that there is no legitimate reason to NOT run PoG in every deck. Garnets don’t matter. People will run extra copies of garnets if their deck needs the draw power to ensure their 1 card combo (@ignister did this w/ Desires for years).
Almost every deck that even has garnets today has soft garnets which can still be useful in hand. It’s a card exactly like Maxx “C” in terms of how generically powerful it is. If it’s legal there is no reason to remove the 1 copy from your deck. Even if deck space is tight you can just run 1 extra card being PoG and still have the same deck size effectively but get 1 extra card in hand in some small % of games.
To top all of this off PoG becomes increasingly more powerful when you consider how it is an almost forced point of interaction when going second. You can easily fire a PoG into an opponent’s complete board and if they don’t stop it they risk you getting to draw into an out like Lava Golem or Droplet.
It’s not like other generic cards from the DM era where limiting them makes them less consistent so they aren’t an issue, adding it to any deck makes them MORE consistent. It’s just a net boost to the power level of every deck in the game with no restrictions on it.
Also Thrust is a reason to keep PoG banned, not one to bring it back. Nothing stops you from also running PoG in the same deck you run Thrust/Talents and if you draw 1 of the Thrust garnets just adding the other and drawing 4 or drawing 2 and using another Talents effect.
This.
The real power of PoG is that literally every deck that's not like, Superheavy Samurai or doing something really weird, would not hesitate to go to 41 cards, if PoG came back with a stipulation that it could only be put in decks of 41 cards or more.
Even if there is absolutely no way to cut anything from your 40 card deck, you should STILL put PoG in and go to 41. And most decks would happily ditch a duplicate of something, or that Terraforming or what have you anyways.
I don't even think Maxx "C" has that power.
And, it's just one more drip that goes into Exodia consistency, too.
Consider also completely unlimiting Mystic Mine. I think it fixes most of what you mentioned and lets pog stay at 1
A lot of what you’re saying is true except the garnet part. I don’t think that issue is as simple as “run more copies”. That’s not how probability math works and could cause more bricks.
With this reasoning, with PoG at one, I DO think there are reasons some deck might legitimately choose not to run the card. Namely the conflict with Prosperity. But there are other reasons.
Do I think that this handful of decks is a reason to unban the card? No, and for many of the other reasons you mentioned.
But it’s not complete cope to suggest there are decks that might not use PoG if it was at one.
Well, in a Superheavy Samurai Deck, you don't want to have PoG. Also PoG can be Ashed, which leaves you with a card disadvantage. Moreover PoG is bad, if you are going second, because it means less hand traps for you.
@@pi_xi
PoG getting ash blossomed is probably the least harmful use of an ash blossom, that someone with an ash blossom will still feel motivated to use it on. It isn't breaking a combo, or shutting down a vital play starter. It's just going 1 for 1 on a card that was a nice extra.
While a little weird to conceptualize, PoG is actually more of a counter to ash blossom than it is countered by it, because at worst it's a 1:1 trade (unless you're playing against a zombie deck or something), but baits the ash blossom by threatening to go +1, when an Ash Blossom can just brick a hand on the spot by jamming a central play, or cripple a board halfway through.
And yeah, Superheavy Samurai isn't running it, and I'm sure you can find some other weird or otherwise highly specific builds that wouldn't. But, 99% of decks would go to 41 to run it, assuming there is literally no card they can take out. Most decks do have a card to take out.
The fact that Superheavy Samurai has to come up in the discussion of PoG at all is showing the insane splashability and the real problem here.
Superheavy Samurai is THE line for this thing. Has there ever been an XYZ monster that made people talk about Impcantations?
Rebuttal:
Pot of greed at 1 would create the most swingy game states at every level of play. At low levels it makes you feel like an anime protagonist by top decking your one of pot of greed. At high levels you can shut down your opponent’s turn 1 kashtira combo but then they just drop a pot of greed and draw 1 of their 12 starters and full combo.
Continued:
And that’s without building your deck around it’s cost or restriction like the other pot retrains
You say this like it isn't what the people Konami actually listens to are just straight up demanding...
I think the biggest issue with Pot of Greed is that nobody can remember what it does, and this would be too confusing for new players.
I always make sure to explain pot of greed's effect when I play it, but sometimes I accidentally draw Uno or Baseball cards instead of Yugioh cards. The card doesn't specify where you draw the cards from, what game they are from, if they have to be in your deck, or if Andrew promised his friend Michael that he would trade them with him later, and we can't play with those cards right now because they might get scratched, and then Michael won't trade his gushers with him. You basically need an entire rulebook just to explain this singular card, and I'm not sure the average Yugioh player knows how to read still.
I knew I'd find this comment 😂
What?
@@MrThemellomangot of preed
Luckily for me i just bought my 3rd Ash Blossom just today. And i'm ready for anything now... for any pot.... for any kind of pot...... even the kind that gets you high zwz
The issue with PoG is not that it's the best card singular card in the game in terms of immediate impact once it resolves
The issue is it essentially magnifies the power of your entire deck FOR ZERO COST
The moment you draw it and your opponent does not, you immediately gain a significant advantage over your opponent just because you happened to draw it. Gaining a free extender, hand trap, or board breaker by sheer dumb luck will always increase the power level of your deck overall just because you happened to draw into it
Also, un-banning it does not give an overall net positive effect on the game. It's generic and boring as all hell to use, so there is no good reason to unban it over just leaving it there
Painful Choice and Graceful Charity would have much more impact in today's game. And for the most part, "cost" in today's game provides a benefit for the deck in question today, usually for additional setup such as sending a card you need in the GY to the GY (many decks) or paying LP because you want to have lower LP then your opponent (P.U.N.K.). But no, PoG should not be unbanned because it becomes 1) sacky and 2) one too much in addition to in-archetype consistency/extension. It's the same argument I make for generic interruptions such as Baronne and now Little Knight. They become one too many interactions that most decks can abuse in addition to their in-archetype ones. A.K.A., when do you ever see healthy boards with these slapped on top of them?
I mean you can make the case that handtraps do just that as well. They don't make going second better, they make going first that much harder to break
But yugioh is all about luck with like setting up decks that basically autoplay themselves coming secondary (which results in the meta being what it is or tournaments having non-stop mirror matches.)
It's always been a 1 player game.
Personally I think banning cards has never solved anything.
They should unban everything, and then balance the card game as a whole mechanically that gives both players the opportunity to not just get locked out or not with no interaction or response.
Banning doesn't nerf anything.
Konami just ends up releasing new cards that do the same or better.
So I've always found that banning cards impacted nothing in yugioh
@@vexzel5550 does your "banning cards has never solved anything" also include the simple design mistakes Konami has made with card that were simply way too unfair to exist in the game?
what about older cards that become unfair later in the game's lifespan because of new combos/decks that pop up?
is every other major card game also wrong for banning cards?
@@Wooker a mechanic to fix the balancing of the game to resolve this issue is the only logical course of action.
With proper errata and rulings implemented to create order.
Don't ban cards
Create solutions
I don't really get your counter arguments, especially at 27:44 just as an example. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about for the branded portion: branded doesn't even traditionally run desires due to its high density of 1-ofs, and even if you were to run desires, it doesn't conflict with pot of greed at all. Also not sure why you brought up dangers in regards to branded since they also aren't played, pot of greed doesn't conflict with fusion lines whatsoever and "doesn't provide enough board advantage" doesn't really apply to a consistency card that can draw you 2 more cards from your deck that can apply advantage. Same with tearlament, just because the card doesn't have any utility in the grave doesn't mean you don't play it. Why run handtraps or board breakers if they are dead mills by that logic, why run primeval planet if it doesn't have a gy effect? It's like you said, its about measuring card quality, and the thing about pot of greed is that there is absolutely zero reason to not play it (unless your playing superheavy samurai specifically because having a spell turns off all of your engine), its deck-thinning and a free +1. And your crazy if you think people will pass up playing a free +1 just because they're already running prosp, mathematically you aren't seeing one of your 3 prosps and pot of greed in your hand very often, and even if you did, the free +1 makes up for the "dead" card in your hand anyways, even though prosperity for follow-up is hardly dead. You would absolutely play this in branded or tear, control, midrange or combo. It would be one hell of a sacky 1-of, wow your opponent got lucky guess they get a free card for some reason. Not to mention the pricetag, seeing as all its printings are relatively old and it would be mandatory in literally everything, it would just be terrible. The only real argument for it, is that its just a very iconic card and regardless of the impact on the game, it would sell product and maybe bring back old players for nostalgia. But in respects to the card game itself, I don't see how this would be a good idea whatsoever
Part of that has to do with the fact that I was operating off the mindset of "well, if they run PoG and Prosperity together, it turns into a 3 Extrav situation where you have dead cards in hand or could draw into dead cards, so running other draw cards like Upstart and Danger Mothman would probably be what would happen if players wanted to create a draw engine for PoG on top of whatever deck they're building."
And so i was looking at Branded from that perspective.
But you're right, i should've came up with better examples of decks where drawing 2 could hurt with their engine (although its becoming clear that I really underestimated just how much people would change their deck options to accommodate running PoG, even though I think Greed and Prosperity are both equally powerful cards despite Prosperity having a maintenance cost). And I didn't have a lot of time to sit and think about a lot of this stuff because each time the meta shifted while working on this (which was at least once a month), I had to go back and change parts of my video. I didn't want this to be in development hell for another 2 months, i just wanted to get this out and move onto the next project.
There's gonna be tear downs of this video for sure, which i'm AOK with btw (i state that in the introduction), but i'll just be happy to see people talking about this again and bringing forth new arguments beyond "you're running a 39 card deck" or "ash would be mandatory."
@@four-en-tee You are correct with that prosperity is a crazy good card, and once konami has made their profit with reprints I think that card is most definitely going to be seeing a hit. Whether it be banned or put to 1 or 2 (not ideal because sacky cards just kinda suck but prolly going to happen knowing konami). Another argument that is plausible (but ultimately wrong just because a +1 is always worth it) is droll, sometimes drawing outside of your engine and getting drolled just ends turns and the cards already seen lots of play these past formats. Also yeah I get what you mean with trying to keep up with the formats, but for the casual viewers sake I think I would try keep it simple instead of back-tracking for it to make sense. Like, as a player myself it made perfect sense but I feel like this video will be a pretty confusing watch for anyone who isn't too involved with the game. Anyways, goodluck with your future projects and the such!
@@kalcyte725 Thanks, and I really appreciate yours and everyone else's contributions to the discussion.
I'll admit that my opinion has shifted after releasing this video (that being PoG really cant come off the list while Talents is legal due to Thrust; thinning the deck by 5 cards is absolutely insane).
28:00 Ancestral Recall is RIGHT THERE! It's a much closer comparison to Pot of Greed. Yes, it costs 1 mana instead of 0, but you usually have 1 mana on turn 1, so it's much closer overall.
I debated on it for, like, a day or two, but everyone compares it to Black Lotus in a lot of debates, so that's what i went with.
The thing is, ancestral recall is way stronger in mtg than pot of greed is in yugioh
Painful Choice is analogous to Black Lotus. Maxx "C" is Time Walk, and Graceful Charity is Ancestral. I'd say the Unholy Floodgate Trinity (IO, Oppression, and Emptiness) and the Mass Revival Duo (Dimension Fusion and Soul Charge) are analogous to the Moxen. As for Pot of Greed, I'd compare it to Timetwister - a card that's still incredibly broken, but no longer a real contender in the "top 10 most busted cards ever" debate.
@@mattjayce2339 I mean none of those are in the debate. Extra deck pieces and searchable pieces are just far superior. I'd argue gofu clears every main deck unsearchable aside from painful.
@@GodzillaFreak aside from Shock Master and the pre-errata versions of Firewall Dragon and Dark Strike Fighter, I can't think of a single extra deck monster that's arguably among the top 10 most busted cards ever.
we should always keep in mind that that colourful deckbuilding of goat and edison only happened because they were the lowpoints of the era when it came to the maximum powerpoints of making a deck. most stuff was at 1 or banned so players ran jank to fill up to 40
*Reads the title*
In CJs voice: _“What?! You out your mind!”_
Who cares how many cards you have if you can play the game from the grave
Ah yes graveyard effects!
Or banished lol
Spell and trap retrieval. Many still do not have GY effects.
Everyone lol
Must not play YuGiOh or any card game
The few decks that like to banish: Standby, Dimensional Shifter.
Everyone else: Konami, ban Shifter! It’s sooooo unfair!
This video convinced me that pot of greed must never be unbanned
Some cards are on the ban list more as shameful admissions of poor design than as an issue of power level.
Upstart Goblin has historically occupied space on the list because including it in the format amounts to reducing the minimum deck size.
Pot of Greed is even sillier, essentially reducing minimum deck size and also shuffling a second card into the sleeve of another’s somewhere in the deck.
It honestly isn’t relevant whether there are cards which effectively accomplish more in a single turn; Pot of Greed is a card that should ALWAYS be included in deck, unless you literally need all 60 slots to be specific, exact cards. A 41 card deck with PoG will always be better than a 40 card deck without it.
Including PoG in the game isn’t a change to the card list, it’s a change to the rule set.
I think a big issue with pot of greed is that it forces Ash blossom.
While the other pot cards also do this, the biggest thing to keep in mind is that the most used pot cards (prosperity, extravagance, desires), heavily conflict with each other and have hard once per turn clauses.
Having more ways to deal with ash only strengthens combo strategies and ensures dice roll wins.
And with thrust/talents running rampant you can really punish disruption and gain massive advantage.
Test hand going first (talents, greed, called by the grave, 2 bricks)
-Ch1 greed, ch2 opp ash, ch3 called by resolve
Draws 2
Activates talents, draw another 2
Draw into desires.
Activate desires, draw another 2
You now drew 6 cards deep into your deck for punishing an ash that wouldn’t matter even if they tried hitting a choke point instead.
I wouldn't ash Pot of Greed tbh. I would rather wait for an in-archetype search/summon or a normal summon effect
I hate ash.
Oppressive boring unfair luck based flowchart Yugioh card.
it doesnt force ash it just makes your deck better for no good reason
A lot of decks can force ash tho
This would definitely make droll mandatory and I don't know if I wanna live in that world. Though it would make for a very funny droll-mini-game.
"Do I fire the pot and get drolled after? (Locking me out of my searches for 2 cards)
Or do I get my specific search first, and then get drolled? (Lose out on the 2 cards this turn)
Exactly what I was going to say. Droll is already very good against some meta decks like dragon link, purrley, or Runick. If pot of greed is allowed and droll becomes an even more popular staple then all the non-meta decks would consequently get hit/would not be affected because they cannot access their usual searchers, and would instead just get a random +1 from pot of greed
That's also a pretty strong point.
While I personally don't think people would play Ash more than they already do (and the Thrust argument people are posing in the comments is somewhat blown out of proportion aside from resolving both PoG and TTT going second), I hadn't considered that more people would be on Droll if PoG does become an issue.
Droll is already a turbo ass card to play against and only tends to show up in especially unhealthy formats, the last major one I remember being Drytron format with Union Carrier still unfortunately legal and them ending on either Vanity’s Ruler or a Herald of Ultimateness with 4 negates. You’d also always search first to dilute the pool so your draw 2 has a better chance of hitting non engine. You’re also less likely to be absolutely screwed versus Droll in that scenario unless you’re playing a deck that searches a bunch
You make it sound like other link or hand traps aren’t already needed for everyone to have.
Ok, I'll structure my response as I watch the video:
13:46 They would produce even more with PoG legal. Like PoG only furthers the divide between Top Meta and Rogue. it is also quite highrolly, in a similar way to Maxx C. I don't think that the "PoG minigame" would be not something that is healthy for the game
14:23 Yes but it creates unfun game states. There will always be the best deck, but I still think Maxx C or PoG aren't healthy. If you don't draw them and your opponent does it's quite annoying. It also lowers deck diversity...
14:40 I'd argue that PoG is stronger. Both demand a negate, but PoG has fewer answers than Maxx C. It lets you use the resources you gain immediately
16:36 It makes pot even stronger no? It is an advantage engine you can negate. And it may render your use of ash useless. Let's say you are playing against Mathmech. They open circular and PoG. They fire PoG and you can't ash it cuz you know u need it for the chokepoint (circular add or alamb add) so you don't fire it, but they draw either Called by, small world, cynet, diameter itself your ash is useless (maybe not useless but way less useful)
21:12 I agree the effect of prospy is stronger than the effect of PoG. But the first one has a steeper cost
Let's also not forget- a lot of the more modern pots, prosperity, extravagance, and desires, are all recently getting hit in various ways across the different banlists. Draw cards do not really have any counters other than Ash Blossom. Droll is a check, but it DOESN'T negate. If your opponent can play through droll, it does NOTHING. If you Ash a pot, well, that doesn't help you either unless the rest of their hand is a brick.
During one of MBT's moron banlist tournaments, the card that proved to be a big problem was into the void, a crazy draw spell, because it enabled so much crap. Drawing cards in yugioh is insane- don't even get me started on Runic Fountain.
It is worth noting that one of the reasons why i wasn't taking MBT's masochist banlist videos into consideration is because there were way too many unrelated variables to consider since those videos unban a LOT of other cards as well. That, and in hindsight: it would've made the video even more unfocused than it currently is (i seriously need to do a follow-up to this and just go over what all i either missed or got wrong, as well as i need to avoid going on tangents; I can see that this essay was very unstructured now that i'm working on my Wet Dry World video).
Like, those videos are made for entertainment. Its not like MBT takes off a single card for a tourney to see what that 1 card does to the current legal card pool & meta, although i'd LOVE to see someone like MBT or Farfa do that in the future for research purposes.
I'll definitely need to go back and rewatch that MBT video before I put together that follow-up video though for argument's sake. Paul's recent video on the legality of Pot cards is also in my privated reference playlist for whenever i think i'm ready to do it.
My current stance atm is that while it hypothetically could come off if Talents were banned and not effect the game that much (i actually find grabbing it off of Thrust to be a cool idea since that boosts going second more than it would going first due to how Thrust works), it would probably just make the game objectively a bit more boring akin to Maxx "C" (even if PoG isn't a soft floodgate like Maxx "C"). Though there's gonna be a lot of time between now and when that video comes out, my opinion could change again as I put that video together and tackle a lot of the arguments posed here in the comments.
@@four-en-tee I think the big thing with pot of greed is that it's super sackey. If they draw into it, it'll either eat your hand's ash blossom, which you may need, or just kill you. If you’re looking for a great example of what pot can do- look at progression series 2 right now. It's at 1, they haven't hall of famed it, and good god has it scummed some wins there.
Upstart goblin similarly is at 1 in the tcg, and people STILL play it despite the downside of giving your opponent life points. If it was at 3 it'd be in most decks rn too. It's like playing a 37 cards main deck. Pot would be an even better version of it.
@@adsventuresome7511 I mean... Upstart doesn't though? If you go on YGOPRODECK, search for tournament decks and filter for decks that contain Upstart Goblin, the lists are weeks in between and they're only in decks with draw or deck thinning engines already built into them like PUNK, Sky Striker or Danger (which, mind you, was an argument for why I thought PoG wouldn't see as much wide play either because I already observed this with Upstart).
ygoprodeck.com/deck-search/?&cardcode=Upstart%20Goblin%7C&_sft_category=tournament%20meta%20decks&tournament=Yes&offset=0
Upstart doesn't see anywhere near the same level of play as something like Prosperity or even Desires, nor does it see as much play in the same amount of different decks as those two cards when it comes to the meta. And as far as Progression goes: that's a draft format which is completely different from constructed play. They're not equivalent, and if your argument has to do with it being relevant to something like casual play: the ban list doesn't mean shit for casual players since they're just gonna self select and play what's fun. My arguments really are only concerned with the meta since its what the forbidden & limited list is made for.
Regardless though, i did underestimate the power of a +1 in this essay and its something i'll have to address in my follow-up video. Its easily the biggest complaint that i've been getting from people here in the comments, and while i and many others still prefer consistency over raw card economy since some decks only need so many draws to do what they need to do and would rather run other tools, i still need to rectify that mistake in my future video given that its cost is free. Its just one of those arguments that I didn't really grasp the full weight of and thought was overblown. It really would see more play than Upstart (especially if people ran both of those 1-ofs in decks), and it would force people to consider main decking Droll to counter the additional consistency to decks (or hell, maybe even Crossout as a side deck option since a lot of people would be on PoG along with Thrust and it negates unlike Droll). Though the problem you run into with Droll is that it'd eat up deck real-estate, and like i already mentioned: the card is nowhere near as game warping as Maxx "C" which is a borderline floodgate. A lot of people already treat Pot cards as baits to begin with, although I honestly underestimated just how much of a split opinion that is in the Yugioh community. If anything, seeing the split between those running Droll and those who aren't would be pretty interesting though.
This is just one of those matters that I REALLY have to sit down and go over thoroughly the next time i talk about this card. I'll have to accept that there's probably not a right answer to this question given how subjective the debate of card quality vs card economy is and that the answer i give is going to inherently be biased to some degree. Like, a good deck has to have a balance of both, but where that balance lies is where people differ in opinion. I'm also gonna have to accept that a lot of people are going to disagree with me regardless of what conclusion i come to, especially after having released this video lol.
Hell, i had a person here in the comments saying we could put Delinquent Duo back to 1 and he had this whole list of reasons and evidence and everything, and i'm just sitting here thinking he's insane. Talents is already ridiculously strong going first, and while a draw 2 doesn't rip away the potential of what your opponent can do going second more than what your deck is naturally capable of (which is why i think the meta deck argument makes no fucking sense for cards like PoG since meta decks will dominate the game period until they're hit directly on the list BECAUSE THATS WHY WE MADE THE FORBIDDEN LI-), a hand rip does since your opening hand defines what you can do that game. Even if you go down in LP by 1000, gain no hand knowledge and the second hand rip is your opponent's choice, it still rips 2 from the opponent's hand which greatly limits what their deck can feasibly do in a lot of cases. They would literally have to be on an archetype which benefits from hand rips to even gain anything from that, and unlike PoG where you at least have options to counter it if you personally think its an issue (as well as i've said how i don't think its as problematic as Maxx "C"), there's no real counter to Delinquent Duo if someone slaps that down because no one in their right mind is going to main or even side deck PSY-Framegear Delta in Master Rule 5. Either you're running tech cards to stop special summon combos, stop search effects, or to remove continuous spells/traps along with field spells and set backrow cards. That's modern Yugioh in a nutshell. At most, it'd further boost the amount of decks playing Bystials. And as for the LP situation, you would just side it out game 2 and never put it back in the rest of the set to avoid losing to time since you're not going to lose to time game 1 unless if you're just a bad duelist and don't know when to concede and move on to the next game of the set. Playing the clock is an essential skill of playing this game in person, so if you're playing the game optimally: you're never going to lose because of a 1000 LP cost unless your opponent drops Psychic-End Punisher onto you out of nowhere. At that point you just deserve the L if they're willing to waste a slot in their extra deck or side deck just to troll you.
Like, that's the thing: people are saying PoG would limit deck creativity (even though their evidence beyond the card advantage arguments - which i will get to when the follow-up video comes out - hinges off of an infinitely more busted card legal at 3 in the OCG and MD that just creates this false comparison and skews the perception of PoG), but a card like Delinquent Duo would literally funnel everyone into running a very specific package to even have a chance of countering it. And it really goes to show just how subjective the debate of card economy and card quality is.
And while this is a bit of a side tangent: I personally think comparing PoG to engines like Sinful Spoils is a false comparison (although I do agree that PoG would further boost that engine which others have pointed out) since that package does more than just draw a card after banishing Wanted from the GY. The reason its oppressive is that aside from a free draw 1, it also further reinforces an oppressive turn 1 board with its recursive omni-negate trap and the beater it puts out is effectively a Dark Magician that recurs itself from the GY (so the deck has a fair amount of board presence as a result). The engine is literally Adventure 3.0 (i say 3.0 since 2.0 goes to Runick). Its just an incredibly flexible package, and the procs that Diabellstar does bring up a fair argument for why some people could justify running both Prosp and PoG if both of them were available for play (even though I think it'd be more bricky than others would like to admit).
But yeah, generalizing Sinful Spoils as "its busted because it draws" is just such an inaccurate description. Runick i can at least understand because it can draw up to 3 cards a turn even during the opponent's turn (so a potential draw 6 before you even have your next draw phase discounting any other draw cards or effects), but this is just silly.
Having Pot of Greed introduces a big problem from a deck diversity standpoint. This is a observation I learned from dpygo; a large part of Konami's philosophy when it comes to banning cards is to remove cards that limit people's creativity. For the longest time I didn't understand why Called By The Grave got limited to 1 even though it made for such interactive gameplay, but at the time, basically every deck played 3 copies of Called By, which meant every deck loses 3 slots during the deckbuilding process. Basically, Called by is limited for the same reason Upstart Goblin is limited, not because of the cards' power, but because people can play it too often easily over something else. If PoG were unbanned it would basically be the same thing, it would only take up one deck slot, but a lot of people would just mindlessly throw in PoG in a slot where they could have found a cool new tech card.
Something similar applies to combo diversity. You talk a lot about finding the right choke point in someone's combo, which is something I find a really engaging part of modern yugioh. However, if someone were to play PoG on turn 1, you basically HAVE to negate it with Ash. It's not a choke point, but negating it puts them down a card, which is still a huge advantage even if their remaining hand lets them start a combo. If you don't believe me, make a room in omega, set hand size to 4, and test a few rounds, see how that turns out for you. And if you don't negate it, they get TWO extra cards in exchange, and they could hit really powerful cards balanced around being non-searchable (Small World, Thrust, Imperm, Shifter, etc). Basically, you MUST negate PoG, which means your ability to interact with your opponent ends as soon as they play it.
Finally, I have to stress that this argument VASTLY underestimates how important card economy is in this game. In a game where a single card can do so much, having even one extra card is an overwhelming advantage. I could spend forever explaining every reason why but again, just go to Omega and have a few matches with different hand sizes. You can see it for yourself, it completely changes the game.
I'll read the rest tomorrowI'm sleep
Good read
Everyone plays the same cards eventually or combos. Yeah they ban but everyone just does the same thing. Get the same cards.
God reading this makes me somehow even more pissed about MD's banlist and how 99% of decks have their first 8 cards decided.
Meanwhile OCG & Masterduel with Maxx c legal forcing every deck to dedicate a QUARTER of their deck to the Maxx c + Anti-Maxx C package.
finally somone who can see pot of greed as what it actually is a bait
Well they ban Terraforming to suck off Tear so...
even as a bait it's simply the best card in the game and automatically required in every deck that isn't infernity or some other jank. Ash upstart goblin? Good job you just negged. You can literally never go wrong disrupting pot, because you can literally never go wrong PLAYING pot at any time with it's lack of restrictions. Get disrupted at a key choke point? Oops lol pot of greed grabbed the extender and imperm for no cost.
@@Bruhskivibesbut at the same time if you ash pot then you can't ash other search methods. You can guarantee what you search. Pot is still somewhat random. Unless you can reliably top deck what you need.
@@BruhskivibesPot is not the best card in the game, it's painful choice.
@@Bruhskivibes prosperity essentially does the same thing but better because you see more cards
I think you addressed this with the video specifically being tied to pog being allowed at 1 copy, but an important distinction between the other pots and pog is that those cards despite having minimal costs on first activation do have costs associated with them. There are good reasons why it's tragic to see a second copy of desires off desires or why activating the second prosperity can lose you the game upon choosing 6 again. These cards, while extremely powerful, do have deckbuilding costs associated with them whereas pog is always live and always high impact. I do think that pog is actually worse than the first prospy activation by a significant margin due to seeing much less of the deck, but the fact that it's a brainless +1 really gets on my nerves. More than that I don't think there's very many good reasons to add pog back into the game, it isn't a very interesting card to add into a deck or to activate and play around like triple tac or thrust.
Loved the editing on this video. Keep up the good work!
I actually agree with the point about it being very uninteresting to add to the deck as opposed to a card like Desires (even though hardly anyone is even running Desires to begin with outside of decks that already have draw engines in their normal combos like PUNK or Salamangreat since its cost just outweighs its draw 2 compared to Prosperity).
While i personally would like it back at 1 (unless if a future Master Rule 6 just completely makes PoG overkill), I totally understand why Konami could keep it banned for deck creativity reasons. This video more so is designed to lay out the argument that there aren't many _objective_ reasons for keeping it banned given the power ceiling of the game currently, and that PoG coming back to 1 could realistically happen if Konami ever decided to. Although it would probably just be easier for Konami to make another Pot card.
So whether people agree that we could unban PoG or the video serves as a wake up call that we need to focus on fixing hidden issues with this game, i'm honestly cool with either or. The goal of the video is to get people talking since this conversation has been stagnant for years, and i'm really happy to see some of the new arguments. The combined +2 off of Thrust, PoG and Talents is a really strong counter-argument that one of the commenters here mentioned for example. It convinced me that Talents may be a lot more busted than I really gave it credit for and could potentially see itself be banned in the future regardless of if PoG ever came back to 1. Its stuff like that why i'm glad i made this video.
But Maxx C is still legal in MD
I'd rather ban maxx c and limit pog. With maxx c, t's either pass and pray your opponent doesn't otk you next turn or play through it and pray your opponent doesn't draw multiple hand traps or board breakers and extenders to otk you next turn. It's still the same thing, you lose to maxx c. Not all decks but most of them. And hey, when do you lose to draw 2 of extravagance, almost nothing.
@@speechless1887imagine playing master duel
@@a_man_with_a_plan *masterduel and in the ocg
"A free plus one isnt that good" This is severely downplaying how much being "Free" makes something better.
The best argument I can think of for Pot being unbanned is the fact That Upstart goblin isnt played in every deck. The life cost is nothing in modern yugioh, so its essentially a free redraw. But many decks would rather just have more copies of the cards they would want to redraw into if they run Upstart. The difference between Upstart and PoG however is that while both are free, only PoG gives you an extra free card. So while Upstart will only thin youre deck one and replace itself with a card you might actually want to play. PoG replaces itself, and then generates an extra card.
Another point in favor of unbanning Pot of Greed might be that in the no banned list tournaments the dominant version of Tearlaments doesnt run it despite all of arguments about it being in autoinclude in every deck. I would say that Tearlements is an outlier archetype, since its main strategy is milling itself for value. PoG does nothing in the graveyard, so its usually zero cost now has a cost when milling it makes it a garnet. However any archetype who doesnt have its main strategy add a cost to the free effect of PoG will run it at however many copies is allowed.
8:00 yes tell that to the ocg with maxx c and ash blossom in every single deck, cards being too strong with no drawback like maxx c and pog will be slot into decks, and most decks play ash and imperm cuz they are almost always good, cards being generically good with little to no rawback like maxx c are put into most decks unless special cases like ftks. 8:38, unban kitkallos when, not just being generic in every deck does not mean something shouldn't be banned, 26:40 yes card advantadge does matter, the only resource in ygo is cards, and having an extra card to do something is going to matter, it is like mana vault in mtg commander, just free reosources, but its even better as mana vualt has a health cost which can matter, pog doesn't 29:28, just limit prosperity, i hold that position too, its way too strong at 3, also just +1 is giving a thrust, or ash, or just the card you want from small world, +1, it mostly won't inheibit, yes 5 or 4% of the time you get a bad draw, or draw garnets, but you will win more often than that loss%
not once did you argue that we should unban pog, just that we can, smaller banlist dosn't equal better, and you didn't argue why that happens, your ending statement was good though, i think that ancient leaf ban + 10k lp is also a good solution, cards are not in the game without context, pog mostly dosn't do anything but give you more cards drawing garnets will always be a risk and citing that as a risk is not very good
thank you for making this video, it made me think a little more about ygo, i think that otk decks should exsist still, so the third rule i think should be deal half damage on t2-t3, and with 10k lp can make otk decks a neiche deck type but viable, but also i understand that many still love that ygo is so fast and has microinteractions that matter so much, and that don't wish it to be slower
my position now is that pog is not broken, but does not make the game better, and there is no reason to add it back, even though we could
one peice of critisism left is that you should try to make and stick to a thesis more rigidly, and structure your argument more, not neccesary but helpful
i can't spell pls forgive me
I was previously of the opinion that it could go at one and be irrelevant, because it would be unsearchable and unrecyclable. But then Triple Tactics Thrust became a thing, so nah. I know you can just Thrust into Talents to draw 2 anyway, but imagine already having Talents (which is at least a 2 of from what I see) and then Thrusting into PoG to get another 2?
There's an argument that could be made that because of Thrust, Talents should probably be limited since its also additional copies of Change of Heart. Although Thrust can convert into literally anything like Lightning Storm, Dark Ruler, Feather Duster, Evenly Matched, etc.
Another thing is that Sentry is banned but Talents is at 3. Its kinda nutty that you can effectively have 3 copies of The Forceful Sentry in your main deck and activate it just because the turn 2 player is trying to keep the turn 1 player from walling them to death. It literally rewards oppressive turn 1 boards when you're able to main deck it like that, lmao. This isn't too far off from why we banned Appointer.
But yeah, a hypothetical +2 that thins the deck by 5 cards (since Thrust grabs Talents or PoG in that interaction) sounds nutty. That could be a decent reason to either keep PoG banned unless Konami is willing to just ban Talents outright due to its flexibility. GRANTED, Thrust only adds to hand going second unless your opponent is on Gamma or something, but even still, the turn 2 player being able to thin the deck by that much sounds almost ludicrous. Like, turn 1 boards are oppressive, but they're not THAT oppressive.
I guess we just gotta hope that if Konami ever decides to take off Pot of Greed, they ban Talents first.
@@four-en-tee I have a love-hate relationship with those cards. On one hand they've saved me plenty of times. On the other, giving you access to three broken effects or *any* normal spell/trap in the game just like that is super toxic.
Imagine jumping right into a Harpie's Feather Duster, or Evenly Matched, or Dark Ruler No More just because your opponent had the audacity to Ash your combo?
@@marktwayne9796 True, though at least you won't see it in your hand turn 1 unless they hit you with Gamma or Nibiru. Turn 2 its a bit more balanced because the turn 1 opponent is actively trying to stop you from doing anything.
@@marktwayne9796 Ban Thrust is the best solution :)
39:38 Giving the going first player 5 cards, and the going 2nd player 8 is the funniest, biggest over-correction I've ever heard. Got a good chuckle out of me.
MR6 Changes;
1. Players can normal Summon once per Main Phase.
2. OCG Problem solving card text.
3. During each Draw Phase, the turn player draws cards until they have five cards in hand.
Detail;
1. This rule heavily improves going second.
Going second you now have the opportunity to not only draw back the cards you may have used to hand trap your opponent but also now have two* normal summons. (Albeit one without a battle phase)
This will offset the extreme power imbalance and promote points of interaction between players.
As the amount of cards being used is greatly increased.
The 1st Turn players turn is relatively unchanged.
Since they do not have a MP2 they can only normal summon once and do not benefit from the second rule.
However the power of going first is still maintained.
Accumulative turns also benefit from this change as going third restocks your hand and give you access to 2 normal summons with the added bonus your opponent should have used a lot of their resources going second.
I believe this change will not only give a valid reason for decks to play going second but also incentivize the back and forth nature of yugioh players love, while simultaneously adding tension.
2. Incentives greater amount of turns.
Due to this new rule the power level of decks will increase but also the amount of hand traps players have access to.
This, in turn, should allow players to play the game with more back and forth.
Not to generalize, but player do not mind very low turn counts as long as they have a lot of interaction points and decision making. This fast paced nature inst just accelerated by the change but forces the game to move in a direction the community wants.
With the new ruling it is important to understand if Konami were to make this change they would print cards and effects / limit cards that would lead to less fun experience.
3. New player experience.
Its is important to remember that the game is hard for people to learn. This change, in my personnel opinion, does not change that overall skill floor. Player still need immense knowledge of their and others decks this merely sits adjacent to that issue.
With that being said, this ruling change may bring life into the game again.
Any Master Ruling has always done this, but those who have been put off of yugioh because it is so different from the anime / the game they enjoyed as a kid, will not be discouraged as the games exterior of a harsh learning courve is still maintain.
4. OCG Problem solving card text
Konami please I am begging you. Literally just use bullet points, clear spacing, keywords and conventional modern day card game descriptions.
They already do some of this in the OCG. Look at any card we get spoiled and its literally night and day.
This of all things should be the easiest and most pertinent issue.
Having 10000 cards is not an excuse. Just print any new cards with the updated text.
Its not only not confusing but the old cards still work as intended the game would remain the same.
5. Thanks for reading!
There is obviously more to these rules as they would have incredibly wide reaching effects but I just wanted to give my 2 cents.
Conclusion:
Maximize Points of interactions.
Fix second turn player
Keep what makes Yugoh special
limiting special summons that harshly would be horrible. The only decks that wouldnt care that much are decks specificslly designed with the gimmick of only normal summoning (think floo or monarch) and these decks basically special summon with a different name and control/stun decks because they just floodgate you. The game would revert back a lot because you can feasibly find cool combos. The only way to make this work is by fundamentally redesigning the game as like 95% of archetypes are dependant on special summons. Most decks just cant get out an actual board with only one special summon. This would also make board breakers or interruptions so much more toxic. Btw saying the turn 1 player is unchanged isnt true because the big advantage with going first is building up a full board before your opponent so they have to ülay through interruptions on their turn. This mechanic does help out the going second player but its still an overall negative. Really just imagine getting gearframed on one of the 2 summons you have. This rule again just encourages players to just not let the opponent play the game because not letting them play the game is a lot easier when they have so few ways to play in the first place. Also the draw 5 per turn is so absurd i dont even know how to adress this. People could draw through their entire decks in 8 turns without even searching or running any draw card. The turn 2 player would have 10 cards to work with on their first turn, a quarter of their entire deck. Its hard to explain the issues wi5 this just because there are so many
Pardon me I incorrectly articulated 3.
3. During each Draw Phase, the turn player draws cards until they have five cards in hand.
I edited to make it more clear.
Essentially I want the Rush Duel mechanic as I feel it is more inline with what yugioh should be in the modern Era. Details in post.
Also I specifically said "Players can **Normal Summon** once per Main Phase".
I actually really enjoy the amount of special summoning in the modern game.
I obviously enjoy the current summoning mechanics as mentioned in my post.
Really I just want the Going second player to have more options.
Thanks for responding I rewrote parts to make my case more clear
@@trhtdjgtjdtj8469
@@shr_g9490 oh sorry I misread the normal summon part. My question is more, what do you want to achieve? There is only one normal summon rn and if you mean that it's a hard limit that can't be changed you're really only hitting like floo and similar decks that really just call special summoning normal summoning. Thanks for explaining that part
The only problem I would have with bringing POG back would be the level of variance that it would create in the meta, because if pot resolves then that player is highly favored for that game. While it may not be particularly good, it would create a solid amount of sacky non games decided by the extra resources this card gives you.
And removing the limit doesn't really help either, because getting 1 means you're more likely to get another.
Not even getting into things like Exodia getting ahold of 3 pots
In what world. Games already last 1-3 turns. You either survive to have a turn or you’re fucked. That’s current yugioh.
definitely not on board with moving battle damage from turn 2 to 3, that seems to essentially just reinforce the turn 1 advantage, as the battle phase is rarely used for just monster removal, and it's primary purpose is to push for game, whether that's on turn 2 or 3.
imo the best argument against pot of greed is the simple fact that almost all the cards that essentially read "pot of greed but [cost]" or "pot of greed but [requirement]" are commonly played staples already, and if it's good enough to regularly be played with such restrictive costs as banishing a quarter of your deck or just shy of half your extra deck, either risking losing important combo pieces or limiting your extra deck options during deck building, then why wouldn't you want to run a 4th copy without any downsides, or at least replace one with what is essentially a better version of itself?
in the case of drawing cards it seems kind of impossible to power creep, as the stronger cards get the more valuable drawing them becomes, especially when it comes to non-searchable staples like ash blossom (or maxx C in OCG/MD), in fact maxx C itself provides a good example. players under maxx C will often decide that skipping their own turn entirely is a better outcome than allowing their opponent to draw more cards, not even just cutting their combos short at 1 boss monster. personally i'd love to see a player study to figure out at exactly which point "draw X cards" becomes a better effect than "skip your opponent's turn", but players have certainly decided that 2 cards is at least worth the heavy costs of the draw cards that they're already using.
Maybe at 1 it wouldn't be more than bait but the more "must play" cards Yugioh has the less room we have for deck building creativity.
My big problem with Maxx C is that everu deck now has to play 3 Maxx C and 3 Ash to help cover that (and called by the grave at 1 or 2 to help negate those 2). So thats 7-8 cards out of a 40 card deck that are now Mandatory just to play YGO.
That means only decks that allow smaller archetypes / engines (or the same engines but less varied choices and less spice) to be as consistent since they have all the room to fit these cards in + the format specific hand traps, tech cards, or board breakers on top of these.
Pot of Greed doesn't really make the game more fun either. It's just one more Ash bait.
There is no legitimate reason to not run the max legal amount of Pot of Greed ever in any deck at any point in this games lifespan. The fact that any deck builder would have to justify not running PoG is why the card is broken.
I think we can all agree that Metamorphosis should be unbanned. The main reasons are the amount of power creap in fusion spells, and the amount of good fusion monsters that need to be fusion summoned. Its just too slow and weak to be worth it. This unban would also make all 5 neo-bubbleman fans happy.
Not to mension that monsters level 5 and lower can also be summoned by insta-fusion, which is better in almost every way. As life points dont matter and you dont need a monster on the feild.
My solution to the weird turn player advantage junk was actually just making a mulligan system. I run a custom format for me and my friends, (Yet another Deck master format) which is effectively just commander but in YGO. And the way you can help the turn 2 player the most I've found Is by allowing mulligans.
The way we resolve mulligans in YAD is "Draw 7, put two back" then from there if you still hate your hand, you can put any 2 cards to the bottom of the deck to draw one card (you can repeat this until you have one card in hand if you're insane)
I find this level of hand-crafting tends to help players alot, since you resolve mulligans AFTER deciding who goes first, and therefore you can plan around whether you're on the draw or the play.
Also I thought it would be very "Yugioh-y" to have the mulligan be a kind of gamble, a sort of "I'm betting it all on THIS draw!" Kind of thing. I think it allows the mulligan to still FEEL like YGO in the anime
@@larhyperhair no that would make things even worse.
There are a lot of one card combos in the game. Mullingan would allow you to do just keep looking for your one card combo. Also running garnets wouldn't be an issue anymore, because if you draw the garnet, you can just put it back into the deck, which would make insane cards like genex undyne even stronger and would increase the overall power ceiling of the game even more because combos with 2-3 garnets wouldn't be as bad to play anymore as it is today.
@@PamellaCardoso-pp5tr yeah they already have this problem in MTG, the existence of a mulligan really enables the most bs solitaire ftk-like combos to work competitively.
@@PamellaCardoso-pp5tr yeah that was actually the plan, I think decks getting access to their starters and avoiding bricking makes for more interesting games. It's true, giving players the ability to craft their hands HAS lead to me getting DRNM'd and Evenly matched more often, but I think it's important to give people a way to not just craft their decks, but sculpt their HANDS as well depending on going first or second.
My sample size is currently small, like only me and my friends play YAD format as far as I know, but being able to mulligan has so far lead to a lot more interesting interactive games where each player has a much lower chance to brick, while still making it not wholly impossible. A Circular or an FD or a little Genex guy may now be a 1 card FTK, but they're still not impossible to miss when you have to put two cards back to get 1.
@@frig7014 I still genuinely think that kind of kicks ass weirdly? Like why not give gimmicky strategies a chance to shine by letting them sculpt their hands a little bit more depending on being on the play or on the draw? Give decks the ability to pop off nigh every round and give them the ability to put those bricks back if they drew too many.
With the way power creep is evolving, Konami will print an archetypal draw 3 and people will, somehow, still argue PoG is "too broken" to be unbanned.
Commiting to an archetype is quite literally the biggest drawback requirement you can print.
@@1stCallipostle not if the archetype is tier 1. Look at Engage and how it was limited for years for that reason.
commiting to an archatype is a huge drawback
if you restrict a card to a bad enough archatype like guardians or something
you could easily make a card draw 10 and see no play
just because the archatype it's restricted is so bad
meanwhile pot of greed isn't restricted to anything
I really don't think it would make that much of an impact on the game at this point as long as it's kept at one. I mean there was a time I never thought change of heart would come back at all and yet here we are.
it doesn't make an impact at 3 unless it's a lower tier deck drawing random cards isn't good in a meta deck that's prosperity is played over a desires or allure is a dark deck. drawing in a deck however that needs more to access it's combo is good
@@anakinsmith4770it would literally be played in every single deck. Even at one EVER deck would play it
I mean even when ALL cards are legal in “no banned” tournaments….every single deck (except for a single one) played 3 pot of greeds
@@gabrielsalahi3656 that is false i remember the top deck maybe played 1 they opted for graceful instead ands lets be honest when you have a bunch of generic good cards to draw pot of greed becomes good when you trying to see specific cards it isn't and that's where we are currently. if we're gonna use that argument then fine lets bring calamities, zexal and mine back because barely anyone used them in the anything banned. also if you believe for a second every deck would play it your crazy because pretty much not dark deck is playing allure and hardly anyone is playing talents so clearly drawing two random cards sucks
@@anakinsmith4770 it’s not false. The top deck WAS the one exception and everyone talked about it because it was so funny that he didn’t play it despite EVERYONE else playing 3 (with Graceful with it too)
Even the winner said that he got lucky which makes sense when half the players are trying to mill themselves in a mirror match
@@gabrielsalahi3656 it's like your trying to compare modern yugioh to past yugioh did you forget the amount of old cards that lack once per turn effects. you seem to forget no amount of draws makes a once per turn twice per turn. honestly i'd put pot at 2 because three maybe to much and 1 hell no especially when thrust is a card while that card exist no normal trap of spell can ever be put to 1. also i guarantee if you left a tournament like that go on for months people would evolve you would see power cards like foreceful, duo, pot of greed fall out of favour because consistency is always key that is why tearlament still won also over time tear would still dominate that tournament and would only play graceful if they even wanted to play a draw card. people need to stop claiming pot of greed is to broken because it's getting old.
the garnet argument doesn't work because you can play it last in your main phase or your second so you can play a 4 card hand get your sp your garnet then play pot
Absolute banger of a video. Amazing editing and work. Would love to see you talk about where power creep got out hand.
unban pot greed to 3 copies and then change its effect to: Search in your deck for any 2 cards and add em to your hand.
MBT: “So this is where the brain worms started.”
I like how a section of this video is "waah waah floodgates bad I have to side backrow removal for gozen"
A lot to talk about with this one.
Structurally this video should probably have been multiple seperate videos, I personally think the sweet spot would be 3. The first about the current state of the game, the second about pog and the third about your proposed rule change after actually doing some testing with it and making sure that you actually like your changes in practice, not only on paper.
Splitting it would've also helped you get the opinions about the game and meta out there while it was still that format.
All the sidetracking during the discussion made me wonder if mentioning this was somehow integral to the discussion, but most of the time it was not that relevant to why pot of greed can be unbanned and more important for the rule-change conclusion which doesn't really fit to the title of the video.
This part is just opinions/discussion. No, we cannot unban pot of greed. You're right in that the banlist's purpose is controlling the power level of cards, but usually to get off the banlist a card needs to provide a potential benefit to the game. If we look at recent unhits it's mostly been tools for decks that were meta a long time ago (salamangreat, spellbooks, striker) or cards where unbanning them might improve the game overall (change of heart strengthening going 2nd strategies). Sure, there were misses like fairy tail - snow, but even there I can see arguments like wanting to strengthen gy strategies. Pot of Greed does not provide any benefits to the game as it strengthens going 1st and 2nd in the same way (maybe even hurts going 2nd in handtrap-heavy metas slightly as it decreases your chance of seeing handtraps in your opening hand).
At the same time, it makes handtraps less valuable. In a lot of decks a free +1 is almost equivalent to another extender that lets you play through a handtrap (think of decks like dlink). As the deck doesn't have a real chokepoint and almost any handtrap that trades one-for-one can be mitigated by an additional extender.
Plus, by increasing consistency, it strengthens the most unfun type of decks: FTKs and other inconsistent decks that make a lot of negates t1.
The FTK argument is easily countered by Konami directly hitting those decks if they become too prominent (banning Knightmare Gryphon or Selene for example), but your argument about reasons for unbanning cards is one i hadn't considered when making the video.
Like, i've just been looking at it from a utilitarian perspective to see whether or not it _could_ ever realistically be unbanned (my subjective want for it coming off aside), but the argument about what it would offer for the game is definitely one I haven't considered besides "Desires isn't cutting it in the modern game" (and i dont really see Desires falling out of play being an issue since people dont even really play Raigeki over Lightning Storm or Dark Hole and Raigeki is at 3; Desires would be a similar situation, and i dont hear people crying over Raigeki because of that).
I figure its probably easier though for Konami to just make another Pot card, and my opinion has changed after reading some of the comments since thinning the deck by 5 cards off of PoG, Thrust and Talents is absolutely ludicrous and wouldn't be okay.
The last sentence was part of the authors discussion.
Ftk’s and decks with strong boards are the game. Advanced format is a turn 1 game.
Because profit is a motive, Konami will never stop power creeping cards, and MR4 was so wildly unpopular players stopped playing the game.
Pot of greed (limited) simply replace one of the following in a deck:
- pot of desires
- pot of extravagance
It doesn’t change the format in a way that is worth arguing. Pot of greed will make it into your hand statistically 1 of 7.27 games.
That means for one game you’ll be able to maybe extend from your extra deck or main deck fractionally more.
If we were having this convo in any era except 2023 I would say pot of greed is too good.
With how many cards /combos in the game that generate plus 1. I find it hard to provide a convincing argument against Pot of greed at 1.
If you put it semi-limited. Ash loses a ton of power.
Reason why ash is so powerful is it turns into a negate one draw + banish 6 cards from your opponents extradeck of their choosing, or banish 10 cards from their deck FD.
Even then decks still play around that minor stun. Crazy.
Limiting it or forbidding it doesn’t change the game.
Honestly that’s probably why they haven’t removed it. There’s no reason for or against it because of its minor impact.
i wouldnt have clicked a vid about this if it was in 3 parts, because i probably wouldnt see that it was in 3 parts. 1 long format video is much easier to spread around
"Pot of Greed is worse than some searchers" goes out the window when you draw that searcher and an extra card by playing Pot of Greed
One thing I‘d like to add is that while pot of greed would definitely be a staple draw card, we actually already have superior in-archetype draw cards.
Let’s take Engage. Like pog it’s a + 1, but you can search it from deck, recycle it from the graveyard and you can choose one of the cards. None of those points apply to pog.
Slifer actually has a draw 6 and Ursarctic even a draw 7 card. Sure, both decks are far from being meta relevant, but if we are already at the point where Konami is willing to print + 6 cards for weaker decks, what is stopping them from giving future meta decks draw cards that power creep pog?
nothing can powercreep pog, literally every deck ever will want it and will use it, it makes absolute zero sense to not run it even if there are better option, you would just play them all
Ursarctic radiation or however it's called is basically tg hyper librarian, so calling it a draw seven seems dishonest, you'd have to call librarian a draw infinite, but its super hard to facillitate, and basically impossible in ursarctic
While they probably will print more archetypal stuff as strong as it, I really think the answer isn't that complicated
Youre effectively proposing giving these future broken decks their broken spell AND pot
If the future will just be more broken then why add more broken generic tools to the mix
If we're talking about busted in-archetype searchers, look no further than Machina Redeployment. Puts a card from your hand in the GY to search any two Machina monsters, or any two Machina *cards* if the card you put in the GY was a Machina.
That's all well and good for decks that have and can use things like that, but not all can/do. This is why having PoG at 1 would be fantastic because EVERY deck, regardless of what support they do or don't have, it provides at least some form of consistent draw power without relying on other generic options.
As MD player only i can say that i take 3 maxx c than 1 pot of greed any day of the week. And pot of greed would never be at 3 because literally all pot cards get hit to 2 or 1 in MD. Most of the time i never ash or negate draw card anyway if they eventually search their specific 1 card combo that more important that any card in their deck.
what are you smoking lol, a free +1 is much more healthy than Maxx C putting an end to your turn
I applaud the effort of putting this video up and the editing, but unfortunately I still not convinced to unban pot of greed, and here is why and I try to make it as brief as possible:
1. Powerlevel Aspect
while I can buy that there are cards that just better than PoG, it's still way stronger than about 90% of cardpool. Comparing it to two of current strongest staple like prosperity(already limited on ocg) and thrust is still speak of PoG power. So yeah, PoG is no more 'broken' but it's still superb card in term of power. "So if the power is not broken, it could come back, right?" well maybe could but my answer would be on "Should not" by my 2nd point
2. About pre-game a.k.a deckbuilding, one other thing banlist should do for a game with non rotation, is to actually create variance, so people not playing same deck or cards forever.
While in the game itself the impact of resolving 1 PoG is not broken, it will hugely impact on deckbuilding, I think the assumption of "not every deck gonna use PoG" I felt it's literally means if not in 100% usage, it comes out of banlist, which I think not true, if already 90% deck used that card, that already something worth noting. 90% of people would feel they must include the cards, your actual deckbuilding space is reduced from one, this is on theory also the problem with super-staple like Ash that have very high usage, but currently is necessary evil, so 90% of the time, your deckslot would start with 3 ash 1 PoG, which is demerit to deckbuild creativity. And back to the point of 'not all deck wanna use PoG' I think otherwise, big majority of deck will still profit by including it, you have 1 garnet in deck that a bad news if drawn? the chance is low tho because you built it like that, so how about flat +1 sound? nice isn't it?. And by deckbuilding space, other comment already mentioned that other pots has more of deckbuilding cost approach and actual cost to make it more fair, while PoG not.
tl;dr power isn't the only angle we should view banlist, there's variation and creativity space too
The actual answer is just Konami doesn't want it because it's what people knows while a majority of newer players coming in won't know the things people actually use.
That's it.
@@RavenCloak13 I struggle to understand your point. Or is it "they won't know what PoG does" joke?
honestly, there are so many broken cards these days, I don't even see the point in the ban list, limited maybe, but not banned
Great video, here is main issue that I have with your argument (my opinion only), you are comparing the power level of POG with other card but what makes POG broken is when you play with them.
-POG is a extra copy of what ever pot variance that your playing which basically lower your deck size to 39 card instead of 40 which most people would love.
-POG could be activate after your key card that you do not want to be draw gets played first.
-POG variance has similar effect than POG but there is a reason why you dont run different type of them since the cost prevents it, but POG can just be put in no matter the deck hence you have 4 pot instead of 3...
-POG allows you to draw into card like trust and small world more consistantly since your deck is have fewer card.
People can just ADD whatever cards they want from their deck, anyway. A deck went +11 on me the other day had 4 back row and 2 beat sticks and an Omni negate. With 3 cards in hand by end of turn. POG is not a big deal, anymore. If anything it will just make older decks a tad more consistent.
Something i didn't think was possible is convincing me that Pot of Greed could be put to 1. If i could get a gold star sticker and give it to you, i would consider it, remember im currently broke, and go back to whatever i was doing in the moment.
Great job!
It can’t be put at one
It would just be unfair as the person who draws that 1 out of 40 cards suddenly had a pretty but advantage that no other 1 of card in the game gets close to
While I agree that we have a ton of negates and locks and cards with graveyard effects so they are kind of two cards in one and a lot of searching
Doesn’t change the fact that EVERY deck would play pot of greed. ALL of them. 100% for sure. This had already been tested with “no banned cards” tournaments
@@gabrielsalahi3656 have you ever watched the video you are commenting on?
Cardfight Vanguard really does make the best video essay music
I'm only about 10 minutes into this video, but you've addressed the plethora of reasons I both love and hate this game. The amount of counters etc al have turned me off from playing anything other than casually, but it's the unique interactions and deckbuilding synergy that make me always keep a deck within reach despite me having moved onto investing into other games. So good on you for that.
Also appreciate you highlighting the context of the era Pot was banned in.
I don't particularly like this video but I think most of that is my old-school yugioh brain saying "You can't take it off the banlist, there's a reason things like Chicken Game are banned, Exodia will be busted" which I feel like is so far removed from your perspective that it was important I watch this anyway. I like the intentions and the person behind it seems lovely. If PoG ever comes off, I'll at least be slightly mentally prepared for it now and won't have the same reaction I did with Change of Heart or especially Harpie's Feather Duster, that being "Lmao surely that's fake... wait what? How? What? Why? Surely not? Tf? Who thought this would be okay?". Wishing you the best and hoping you continue to make content, your editing skills are out of this world :)
We tried a format where we drew more cards on draw phase and could only kill at turn 4 and the format basicly was terrible. The game plan was either set up giant negate board good enough to just not care for board breakers or don't do anything till turn 4 and then just board break opponents and otk. The problem with the waiting till later turns is that you basicly don't care about your first turn as you are 100% from dying turn 1 or 2 so you only start playing on turn 3. And the draw cards give so much advantage that any deck can make the best board and only boosts the most powerfull decks to be even more powerfull. So while the pot of greed to 1 is interesting the new master rule would cause more problems. Really master rule 6 should be. A pendulum zone revert to old, something to boost some spell card speeds and something to make battle phase important.
Pendulum was worse, Tearlament and Kashtira is making you remember them differently
@@otroweonllamadoseba fair but its like the only thing that they possibly could do to really make a new master rule except for changing the phase rules
Agree, theres tons of negates to the point its stupid, pog will never be unbanned since konami doesnt gain money from it.
Konami makes money selling pog variants, unbanning pog only means that the company cant make more money selling clones of pog.
Not making money won't necessarily make them not unban a card.
If it prevented them from making money then you could argue that but there are better reasons then just money.
This is just pointing malice where there is non.
I think the only reason PoG is still banned is because certain decks that are designed to recycle cards, like deep draw decks, and decks that want to dump spells in grave as fast as possible, like Sky Striker, would benefit too much from it. I'm sure there's more examples, but those are some of the top ones I can think of. I mean, some decks run Upstart Goblin just so they can make their deck "39 cards". The same would happen with PoG.
Also, subbed. Good video.
“Board control is king”
Yeah, so why would we allow a card that helps the turn 1 player access the non-engine more easily? Imagine you get full Swordsoul combo’d, and before they end their turn, they use Pot of Greed to draw into 2 hand traps. Or better yet, same scenario, but it’s game 3, and Swordssoul sided in Anti-Spell and floodgates. In both scenarios, PoG was able to draw deeper into the deck to access unsearchable cards that basically ensure they win the game. While I don’t think Anti-Spell is not an issue, the fact that PoG made a one sided game more one sided really doesn’t help.
And yeah, Pot of Desires basically does the same thing, but with a cost, and it can be a brick in your hand if you open both, so it’s not completely free real estate. It also has the chance of locking you completely out of an aspect of your deck if you use it as an opening if you banish all 3 copies of a particular card, like Rite of Aramesiur.
Also, just because we technically can unban it without dynamically changing the way we play the game doesn’t mean it won’t actively hurt the game. Cards like Fiber Jar are banned, not because they are good or meta warping, but because they actively make the game worse with their inclusion. I fail to see how adding a sacky 1 of would make the game better for competitive or casuals alike, since both players will be salty if they lost because of a sacky 1 of. At best, nobody notices it because they didn’t draw it or did draw it, and drew into bricks. At worst, it just make the game feel more luck based, and only serve to amplify problem cards/deck.
huh, this video was way better than I expected. Still don't think Pot of Greed should be Unbanned though. In a resourceless system like YuGiOh, it's literally just a card that is two cards.
tbf, unbanning pot of greed would be INSANE yugiboomer bait and be a huge marketing ploy for konami
Would this mean, if you want to have the highest chance of negating the Pot of Greed with Ash Turn 1, they would need to Ban cards like Called by the Grave and Crossout?
The thing is, you can take literally any 40 card deck or even any deck with 59 or less cards and add pot of greed to it without a second thought, and its gonna be better
Pog couldnt be unbanned. The consistency it adds for no drawback is strong. Desires has been hit on the list and theres a cost to it. Plus you can draw desires off of desires and its dead. Drawing pog off of desires is lit. While prosperity is good for picking a specific card, pog just gives you more ammo. And if every card in your deck is deadly then it wont give you bad draws. It would be cool to have but it cant come back
Pot of greed speeds the game up since it gives a player more cards to play through hand traps as the meta decks of today play through 1-2 hand traps just because your rogue dog shit deck needs it to be consistent doesn’t mean it’s healthy
Tbh, I’m fine with POG being limit 1. I play on master duel and at least 1 in every 3 duels I play starts with the same 3 cards being played. First is maxx C, then asheblossom, then crossout designator. I think POG would be an interesting mind game because if your opponent sees a pot activated, they have to decide if they should use Ashe, or hold it for an even bigger effect to cancel. It would be an interesting mind game to see.
My brother in christ prospy, extrav, and desires already create this mind game
Prospy, extrav, desires all do this and actually have a real cost and risk for both people on risk eating ash Vs ashing the cards
....Great. At least its guaranteed þat þree pots is in each deck instead of a pest.
The more mindgames and chances to play the game, the more games that take longer than 2 turns. I just don’t want every game to be the same thing, build a board, negate three plays, and win. It’s so boring at this point.
As compelling as the arguments made in this video are, at the end of the day Pot of Greed is so supremely easy to add to a deck that it fundamentally interferes with the deck size mechanic of the game. Except for tiny niche situations where for some reason you drawing 2 cards isn't something your game plan wants(???), every single deck on the planet wants this, so every deck has 1 less deck slot down from 40 to 39, because you'd be high to not run Pot of Greed because assuming the rest of your deck has good cards, 2 good cards is better than 1 good card.
It's kind of the same reason Upstart Goblin is currently limited, because aside from lists who are genuinely hurt by the tiny cost attached to that spell, it's 1 more deck slot doomed to the bare minimum staples and 1 less deck slot for archtype sauce. The less homogenous lists are, the better.
Me personally, I want to see less super generic staples that you must include in your deck.. POG is free and there is no reason to not run it versus a card like pot of desires or extravagance where you need to build the deck with that card in mind and even then, you still pay a price. Cards that you put into every single deck are just not that fun in any case. I've always loathed the super generic boss mounters Konami pumps out because in archetype ones either have to be strictly better or they just don't see play in their own deck. And the bare minimum for a boss monster now is an omni negate and a pop thanks to Barrone De Fleur. More generic cards worked back then when the game was simpler, but now, I don't think generic staples should have as big a place in yugioh as it does now
I wish every RUclips video was as loud as yours but please turn your background audio down it is very difficult to understand you. 31:00-32:00 as an example
It easily could come back to 1, since there’s cards that easily draw 2….however it would be ran literally in every deck. I could see Konami unbanning it as a publicity stunt to get more eyes on the game.
I figure if Konami ever decided to, that'd be the reason.
Yeah, there's only one deck that wouldn't play it in their deck building, being pure Superheavy decks, and beyond that, it's likely gonna be a staple of many decks, or at least a really good pot card
Flower Cardian would maybe not run it as they need cardians on top of their deck@@spearghost225
This.
The main problem is that any non-weird deck, if faced with PoG, would ABSOLUTELY go to 41 cards, if they could only add PoG as a 41st card. There's no reason not to.
Let alone cutting some other piece, duplicate of something, ect.
26:30
"Games last shorter, ergo card advantage matters less."
This is completely, 100% incorrect. If cards are determined by how strong they are as starters/tech cards et at, then intrinsically, a card that grants you 2 cards for no real restriction is worth its weight in GOLD compared to something like prosperity; where yeah, you get one card, but picking two random cards is always gonna be better if you build your deck right.
Comparing Prosperity to desires to PoG is also kinda laughable; Desires has an actual tangible cost on your deck and deckbuilding; banishing 10 cards from your deck that you're gonna be searching from is a gamble, and limiting your extra deck CAN be a dealbreaker for some decks.
PoG doesn't have EITHER drawback. Also, PoG does contain the secret sauce that you're kinda ignoring; it gives you more tools. Desires does do that, but at the cost of potentially crippling your deck consistency and toolbox.
Prosperity may give you "the one card" but PoG can give you 2 cards at NO cost to your deck searching ability NOR your extra deck. Hell I would bet most people who would choose to run Prosperity would play 1 PoG and 2 Prosperities since you don't always see prosperity, so why not just run a better version? Oh no, one in every 6 games it bricks; well, I guess I can just use it as a discard cost or Diabellestar proc or something.
But the real deal breaker for PoG is that it is a consistency boost for garbage FTKs that nobody wants to deal with and CANNOT be competitive.
sorry for dropping the first hater comment.
@@TheJiminatorHS Nah, its fine. I'm honestly expecting about 70% of people who watch this to disagree with my stance since its a pretty unpopular opinion.
I'll need a bit to digest all that and write my rebuttal, though I do appreciate seeing people's criticism. That was one of my goals for making this video: to get people talking about this subject again since its been stagnant for years.
I wanted to also add, I think your argumentation is decent for why something like Upstart Goblin could move up theoretically. @@four-en-tee
@@TheJiminatorHS I think the best way for me to approach this is to isolate what we do agree on and go over divergences from there.
1) PoG doesn't have any sort of restrictions.
While I agree with that statement, I just don't see it as an issue since i believe PoG has been powercrept by other staples in the game (we'll dig into your statement about Prosperity in a sec), and out of these commonly ran staples, the only one PoG really synergizes with without any sort of caveats is Thrust. Someone else i was debating with earlier tried to argue that Thrust effectively means you're running 4 copies of Pot of Greed, and while I agree with that, that's only true going second (since the likelihood that the turn 2 player will have a monster on the board turn 1 is incredibly slim unless they're playing a deck like Labrynth or Tearlaments). 9 times out of 10 when you're resolving Thrust turn 1, you're setting a card that can't be activated that turn. You're better off grabbing a normal trap in that situation like Evenly or Imperm. As for grabbing PoG with Thrust going second, i find that to be fair since the turn 1 player already had their opportunity to play the game and is actively trying to shut down the turn 2 player. Though at that point, you may as well grab Talents if its not in your hand since it'd be live (unless you already have Talents in your hand).
I never really compared PoG to Desires either, I was comparing Desires to Extrav. PoG and Prosperity are both significantly better than those two, and if PoG were ever unbanned, you would run it along side the 1 copy of Upstart Goblin and potentially even the Danger cards if you need the extra gas unless if Konami were to limit or ban those cards (although Konami will probably hit the Danger cards again in the future regardless of if PoG were to come off the list due to Tearlaments). No one would really run Desires if PoG were legal outside of a deck like Gren Maju. Even in the current meta: Desires rarely sees any play to begin with since its cost outweighs its utility, and Extrav only sees play in Labrynth since it doesn't use an extra deck much at all. Part of why I want to move PoG to 1 is because those cards in the modern game aren't cutting it as alternatives to Prosperity, which I think deserves to remain at 3 given how the game has evolved up until this point (especially now that the card is affordable). Though the legality of Prosperity is a whole different debate.
2) Prosperity may give you "the one card" but PoG can give you 2 cards at NO cost to your deck searching ability NOR your extra deck.
You are correct, a lot of decks would be able to utilize PoG without having to change too much about how they build their main deck and they wouldn't have to banish cards from their main deck in order to do it. Its also not OPT and could theoretically be looped in certain decks, though i figure if PoG were moved back to 1, we'd see a lot more limits and bans in order to hit consistent GY loops and FTK strategies (such as banning Knightmare Gryphon) if Konami chose not to errata PoG into a HOPT card before unbanning it.
From what I found in my earlier debate, the topic of "optimal builds" tends to get into subjective territory since different players can have different habits and preferences when deck building since people who make decks from scratch build to suit their needs and playstyle. I personally believe that cards like Prosperity are just objectively better than PoG since I and many others prioritize consistency (since games end in so few turns), but I completely understand why someone else would see Pot of Greed as being oppressive since you could just as easily draw into one of those searchers plus some other useful card (even though statistically speaking, you're most likely to search it off of Thrust going second than you are to see it in your opening hand going first when its at 1 copy). However, some of us would just rather not gamble to begin with if we had a way to always see the cards we need.
The way I see it: it does seem like personal preference as to whether or not you'd run PoG or Prosperity (with your answer fluctuating depending on the deck you're on). A card like PoG when going first is only really a marginal boost compared to the output that decks already perform at without PoG or even Prosperity. And because Thrust exists at 3 copies, the chances of a game where only the turn 1 player resolves PoG would be decreased significantly unless your deck already has a built-in draw engine. You also don't even have to always banish 6 cards from your extra deck with Prosperity, some people just use it like they would Pot of Duality depending on the quality of their hand (or because they can't risk banishing 6 cards). Banishing 3 from the extra deck is perfectly serviceable in almost any deck.
As for the Diabellstar comment: yeah, you could just proc the Prosperity if you draw it off of Pot of Greed. But why run Prosperity at that point if you could just run other draw cards that don't prohibit stacking draws such as Upstart and Dangers (assuming Konami doesn't just up and ban them)? That's why Prosperity is at 3 in decks that run it, and in decks like Branded which run it at 2 whenever they do (outside of Branded Chimera which does run Prosperity at 3), its because they don't have the real-estate for it since they'd rather run max copies of their starters like Fusion Deployment for consistency. I do think that if Prosperity were to be limited in the future though, then there would be next to no risk in running both 1 PoG and 1 Prosperity, so i'll give you that.
One thing i will concede to though (which i already conceded to in my earlier discussion) is that I probably could've found better examples for decks that wouldn't want to run PoG over Prosperity since Branded and Tearlament could totally get by with running PoG. It really didn't occur to me just how subjective people's deck building habits are when i was writing my script, and while i think Prosperity and Card Destruction would be more optimal than PoG in Branded and Tearlaments respectively due to the few turns a game of Yugioh takes and the strategy of those decks, they could most certainly run PoG if a player wanted to.
But that's the thing: its less that PoG would be unplayable in those decks and more that there's better alternatives to PoG in some cases because its been powercrept. The whole point of a meta existing is so that players can use the most effective tactics available (its literally what the acronym stands for), so a deck "wanting to run PoG" means that it would be the most optimal thing to do for that deck, which I just don't think is true for every deck.
I'm also not going to repeat here about how PoG wouldn't affect how we nerf meta decks.
As for "casual Yugioh" (Kitchen Table Yugioh, Playground Yugioh or whatever you want to call it): they aren't tied to the forbidden and limited list to begin with and can play and not play whatever tf they want. So using casual Yugioh as an argument here would be pretty weak. Locals still falls under the competitive umbrella, but that doesn't change the fact that the meta still exists. If someone wants to take a pet deck to a locals, that's fine, but they're going in with the knowledge that they're entering the tournament as an underdog.
So update: i wanna say that after responding to some of the other comments, i've come to the conclusion that resolving both Talents and PoG for essentially a +4 off of Thrust sounds incredibly busted even by going second standards. My current stance now is that PoG cant come off the list until Talents is banned.
I still don't think that means my other arguments both in the video and in my replies hold no merit, its just that that counter-argument specifically is pretty inarguable. Though that may also signify that Talents may need to be banned at some point, regardless of if we ever move PoG to 1. Its already effectively 3 Sentry and Change of Heart on top of being PoG.
I've seen this coming for a year, and I've been saying it since this last format. Things like tearlament and kashtira have forty card acitype decks plus staples. I think it benefits decks that are just outside of meta alot more than it does Meta decks if you allow more consistency through pot of greed vs meta having win cons they choose though which staples they pick.
Thrust exists. Most meta decks are on thrust. Pog is a thrust target. You would always be on it because it's free advantage and most meta decks have more non engine room which gives them more versatility
Nobody is running 60. If you aren't, you don't have to "make room" for pot, you just slap it on top and get +consistency at no cost.
Look at u
Getting them numbies for the video u put lots of effort into
U deserve it
I think that the problem with the card doesn’t come from getting advantage. It comes from making decks smaller
it comes from both
it both gives you free advantage and also thins your deck
To look at Yugioh another way. Yes, most matches only last a few turns and it seems like pace of the game is faster, but you have to look at it this way. Turns are now similar to taking multiple turns in the older days because during a turn, you can interact with the turn player. You have to think of that interaction and taking turns back and forth. In older Yugioh you couldn't interact in that way. So really, the first 2 turns now, are like taking 4 to 6 turns in older Yugioh.
That is a fair way to look at it assuming you were to always see disruption/board breakers in your hand going second. While they help, there are some games rarely where you open none of those cards and you just have to hope you can play through whatever board your opponent made, which obviously varies depending on your deck's placement in the meta.
While i've gotten wildly different responses to the MR6 suggestions (and people just calling it outright disrespectful that i suggest anything), the most receptive one out of the three seems to be the turn 2 player opening with 6 cards before starting the game so that they begin turn 2 with 7 cards in hand. I still dont think that'd be enough personally (nor would it accomplish the goal of that section, which was to change enough of the rules to ensure we couldnt ever justify unbanning PoG), but it is nice to see some positive reception to that one.
@@four-en-tee In most good decks you open good cards though so even if you don't draw board breakers you instead have a bunch of extenders there.
We should use the banlist to do away with boards that require a boardbreaker such as lingering or continuous floodgates.
At the top level most decks have been able to play 1st and 2nd for a while.
I believe your thoughts were well thought out and well spoken. Drawing more cards is something Rush Duels does currently. I think that making both players undamageable until turn 3 is similar to Cross Duels, where both players set up their boards at the same time. (I miss YuGiOh Cross Duel)
I agree with almost everything you said... sure, it is a costless +1 in hand size and -1 in deck size... but how is that any better than some of the other cards that commonly see play and mill way more... Even using my beloved Earth Machines as example, Normal Summon Machina Gearframe -> add Machina Unclaspare -> special summon Unclaspare -> Unclaspare puts Machina Ruinforce, Fortress, or Citadel in the GY...
There are SO MANY cards that are WAY better than Pot of Greed that it's risky to put in modern decks and makes older decks more viable, even if it's a small bit.
Pot of greed gives you 2 of these busted cards. So PoG is always twice better than the average card in your deck.
Thrust exists now.
It literally makes pog searchable that gets you to cards like ash or imperms that aren't searchable cards. You're not using pog to get archtype stuff you're using it to gamble on drawing into more stuff that adds more layers ontop of what your opponent has to deal with. And with pog blanks 2 cards your chances of drawing non engine goes up with it especially as you've already drawn 5 but also thinned the deck through normal combos.
@@Fencer_Nowa"thrust exists and searches ash"
Opinion invalid 💀
the main issue i see with PoG is that it is so painfully uninteresting/boring. even something like prosperity has the big downside of essentially telling your opponent what you are playing, and it can reveal information on your opponent's hand depending on what they add or not. It heavily rewards meta/matchup knowledge (although honestly it's probably still too strong and imo should be banned too).
PoG is just a card you would almost always play soley because its free, and it basically just lets one player start with an extra card in their deck with absolutely zero skill expression required. It's kind of boring and doesn't really bring anything to the table except adding even more of a random chance that one player's hand is just going to be strictly better than another.
Personally, as an admitted Yugiboomer, my biggest frustrations are how archetypes work and how the Extra Deck functions as a second starting hand. Sorry for the wall of text but I have strong feelings about this and am not a video essay kind of guy.
While I agree with MBT's recent take that "Yugioh is archetypes," I personally feel that archetypes that function primarily by referencing each other by name shouldn't exist. However, archetypes that reference each other by game mechanic are fucking awesome. I can think of no better modern example than Ghoti. Ghoti specifically wants to banish fish and use them to synchro - but almost NONE of them actually use the word "Ghoti" in quotes to reference any card other than themselves. Because they aren't referencing each other by names, I can use niche generic cards to cool effect. But with name-based archetypes, I am forced to include specific cards because the archetype engine says so. I can't tell you how many times I tried to break back into YGO, build a deck around a fun card with an otherwise interesting effect, and then give up when every interesting card that could go along with it required me to play an archetype by name. I'd also reference Rank10YGO's Train archetype videos as he specifically mentions this and says that despite the cards not referencing each other by name, the archetype still plays beautifully and excitedly with a fun set of payoffs and his section on tech choices including Malefic Cyber End, Exodius, and even Metal Reflect Slime reference my exact same frustration with "reference by name" archetypes that would never have let me play with those cards.
The second rather pervasive problem regarding power level and consistency which somehow isn't brought up often, is the Extra Deck. If you have any experience with MtG, you may be familiar with the Companion mechanic - a means by which players could start with a specific card outside of their main deck that they could either play at any time for its cost (at first printing) or later, by paying an additional cost to put the card directly into your hand. It should sum up the problem when I say that this is the only time in MtG's history after the first year or two of card releases that any of their cards have ever received a power level errata. Companions - which are MtG's extra deck - were broken because they meant that you always started the game with not only an extra card in your hand, but a guaranteed copy of a specific card that you could build around. Yugioh gives you FIFTEEN of these cards, many of which have grotesquely trivial requirements which can be as simple as "2+ monsters" - and gives you a huge selection. MtG never printed companions past the first release, which was only a dozen cards total. Yugioh has hundreds(!!) of options to put in any given Extra Deck.
I think that the early Synchro era (even before Edison, so perhaps the formats that included only the very first set or two with them) was what Yugioh should have aspired to. Cool combo potential, lots of interactive game pieces that didn't force you to play exact cards, and an Extra deck that was somewhat accessible but not so accessible that you would see cards from it hit the field every game. When I say "aspire to," though, I don't mean we should cap the game at those sets and never add anything, rather the power level of Yugioh should have capped its power level and combo accessibility at the levels that existed at the time. These were games that could go long (10+ turns) but weren't necessarily guaranteed to.
So what does this have to do with Pot of Greed? Well, if Yugioh is in a place where this kind of argument can be made, then I think the game is in a concerning state. Power creep keeps entire archetypes from being playable a few months after release, consistency is so powerful that a free +1 in a game with no standardized resource costs to play cards might not be the strongest thing in the game, and games boiling down to "did you draw the out" is just not fun for new or returning players. The idea that Konami can release some new digital or paper product that will magically get those players back for good is a pipe dream - those players do not want to play competitive solitaire, let alone learn a competitive solitaire game with more than 10,000 playable cards in a single format. New MtG players aren't taught Vintage as their method of introduction to the game.
Last thing I'll say is I don't have a good solution for these problems. Yugioh has dug itself a pretty deep hole in regards to its power level, consistency, and homogeneity of gameplay experience. I just feel like nobody else sees or accepts these problems for what they are, and it's frustrating to watch video after video dance around these truths, basically admitting in everything but the actual words that it's the problem, but when confronted on it, place the blame anywhere else they can think of and/or deny it. A bigger banlist won't fix this (unless they ban several thousand cards) and a change in future card design won't fix this (as all past problematic cards will still exist). A new MR with some kind of summon limit might, but I don't have confidence in Konami to create one that would both meaningfully address the issue and also be something players enjoy.
Thanks for coming to my BEWD talk.
I've also come to many of the same realizations that you have. Yu-Gi-Oh today is very much competitive solitaire and the fact that we can even talk about cards like PoG and Delinquent Duo coming off the Forbidden section of the F&L list does not bode well for Yu-Gi-Oh's future
@@AbbyJohnson3456who would unironically argue about unbanning Delinquent Duo
@@HoangNguyen-ej4wb my argument is just ya never know
Someone might be crazy enough
I used to think TheDuelLogs was crazy for making a 30 minute video on Maxxx C. This guy clearly surpassed him.
Ngl pot of greed still being banned is kinda unnecessary at this point of the games state, when we can just search out 80% of our deck, flat out prevent PoG from resolving in a million ways, and and have tons of other cards that can allow us to draw and isn't once per turn. Errata it to once per turn and limit it.
Pot of greed unbanned would make the game more interesting
Over half the banlist being unbanned would make the game more interesting for that matter.
Ah yes the best way to make a competitive game more interesting: a roughly 12% chance that it will legitimately just be unfair and weighted on luck
*Deep inhale*
I just came back to the game and have no strong opinions, this is gonna be good.
I got through most of your video before leaving this comment here, but, the idea that a player shouldn't surrender within the first two turns is laughable.
Some decks will scoop after turn 1 or 2 in a best of 3 format in order to keep card knowledge to a minimum and make sideboarding much more difficult. When a combo like Neospace connector and aqua dolphin hit the field, the opponent IMMEDIATELY gains critical hand knowledge based on that interaction alone.
Making Battle Damage go to turn 3 absolutely murders several different strategies based around OTKs, like Numeron (Not that I care about Numeron but I digress).
It wouldnt murder OTK decks because OTK strategies would want to go first and not commit to much of anything turn 1 so that they can attack for game turn 3 with a potentially 7 card hand. The idea behind that is that it would give both players an opportunity to execute their strategies (especially if neither player is on an OTK deck). Going first being too OP is a very common complaint about the modern game. But you are right, it would nerf OTK strategies (not that it matters too much, 7 cards is still a lot of resources). It would still maintain the sort of risk/reward that comes from playing those kinds of decks while otherwise fixing a lot of issues with the game as a whole.
But yeah, thats a fair critique as far as scooping goes. Perhaps the rule changes wouldnt change players scooping habits, but it would at least still fix the balance between going first and second.
Seeing how rarely I use the „draw 2“ of TTT…
I would be a very happy man if i could play pot of greed again!!🤩
I’d say that there are three main arguments not mentioned in the pinned comment
The first is that of card draw and consistency, while yes a pot of prosperity at 3 is better than 1 pot of greed 1 greed 3 prosperity is better than either independently. While they do lock the other out prosperity can be used to grab a non-greed card and greed can be used in absence of prosperity. It’s not substantially different than drawing a garnet in the opener or drawing redundant HOPT searchers.
Secondly pot of greed, just like any card, needs to justify its inclusion in decks but it has the inverse effect on deckbuilding. You need to have a compelling reason to not run pot of greed rather than a compelling reason to run it. It’s similar to cards like sol ring in Magic the gathering’s commander format where it is so generically powerful you’d need a reason to not play it.
Lastly is a question of game design. With pot of greed legal it limits design space to make new, interesting sidegrades to pot of desires, extravagance, avarice etc. while those cards are not the best right now they are allowed to exist in the format because pot of greed doesn’t. There’s substantially less incentive to run those cards while pot of greed is legal
Honestly, I'd love to see the effects on the meta having Pot of Greed back would cause. Also, hearing Homestuck music slapped me silly.
It would just make the game more RNG based and reduce deckbuilding.
I can't see any net positive happening with PoG legal.
@@JM-vl3cyEngines that already draw a billion get to draw a billion and one! They'll be happy
Even if a 40 card deck had no room for pot, a 43 with 3 pot of greed would be a better deck in general
+1 and a 39 card deck doesnt seem that broken i mean id play it everywhere that doesnt die with spells in grave because why not.
It would create the fabled 38 card deck with upstart :)
Considering Prosperity and Extravagance are in the format, it makes pot of greed worse being that they lock you out of drawing
If we had a similar limiting system to duel links where for example the limited to 1 list means you can only use one of the cards in that list then pot of greed could easily be in the limited list
Yes. Some kind of list where If you are playing Appoulusa you can’t also be playing Barrone and Borreload.
problem with unbanning pot of greed is if you let to much deep draw into the game you end up letting degenerate FTK deck become more consistent so they has to be a balancing act on how much decks are allowed to draw
You made a very compelling argument that Pot of Greed has been power crept. Prosperity conflicting with it is a killer. And it only being an effect occasionally used on Talents is another area of note.
But I still don't feel there is a strong case to bring it back to 1 for casual play. You have however made me okay with the concept of the card at 2 or 3 copies and work as a functional replacement to Pot of Extrav. Some casual decks just need a +1 more than additional consistency.
For the new master rule, I am unsure how to feel. It would definitely warp deck building but I haven't played seriously since pre-covid.
Right, I didn't even think of the frequency of use when it comes to Talent's draw 2! Yeah, most people just use its Sentry effect or its Change of Heart effect if going second. All that was really going through my head when writing that part is "if they don't open Prosperity, then using the draw 2 off of Talents is typically fine."
The only reason i didn't suggest PoG at 2 or 3 is because people would realistically run it along side the 1 copy of Upstart Goblin along with maybe Mothman or whatever other draw engine they're running such as Flame Bufferlo in Salad decks. Moving it to 1 keeps it from being a complete auto-include in every deck, which is one of the reasons why it was banned to begin with. That, and drawing Pot of Greed off of Pot of Greed could get a bit out of hand unless Konami were to errata the card to have a hard once per turn.
Konami could maybe experiment with moving it to 2 if moving it to 1 turns out to be fine, but i personally think that'd be overkill without an errata. For what its worth though, you'd be able to grab Pot of Greed with Thrust, so you're effectively running 4 copies of the card in a deck even while its at 1.
Isn't it already at 1 for casual play?
@@insertcolorherehawk3761 You are likely referring to Traditional Format, where all Forbidden Cards are Limited instead.
...and the fact that Traditional Format is viewed as the Casual one by most shows just how bad the promotion of it by Konami is.
@@four-en-tee I was only thinking about it in terms of my realm of interest for the game. Again I have no interest to try and keep up with the meta. Playing casually with dumb decks is where I would find value in Pot of Greed but only at more copies.
Thats more of an argument to ban Prosperity. PoG is still the baseline for dumb power spell that can't ever come back. Some cards being more busted is just more of a reason to ban those.
Goat players have to experience PoG and they really hate it because its incredibly impactful variance.
Extrav is only fine being legal because it cannot be run by most decks, its a really strong pot overall if your deck can play it.
Removing the once per turn on the pots is also just way too broken.
It has NOT always been expensive to play local Yugioh tourneys. Back when synchros came out it was actually pretty affordable.
I remember blackwing armor master being like $25, but the main deck stuff was really cheap. Amd you really only needed 1 armor master
if pot of greed gets errated and just adds "it cant be activated the first turn of the duel" it could literally fix yu gi oh
I think Small World was glossed over here in a way that severely misrepresents how usable it is.
While you can always include a bridge to make it more playable, the explanation in the video neglected to mention that Small World requires exactly 1 property to be identical, not just "some property".
If it really was just that one or more property could match, every deck would run small world without a brick, as the vast majority of archetypes have their monsters share at least one property across the board.
To take an example completely removed from the meta, let's look at how it would interact with a pure Jurrac deck.
They wouldn't be physically able to play it, because all their monsters share two properties at least, their type and attribute.
But put a Soul-Eating Oviraptor in there and you can search any Jurrac monster that isn't level 4, has 1800 ATK or 500 DEF.
Small World's existence makes Yugioh deckbuilding more interesting, because the exact bridge with the best balance between things it can help you search and what it can do if you do draw it varies massively from deck to deck.
And it doesn't powercreep Pot of Greed at all, as your interest in playing it is directly correlated to how much of a brick the bridge would be.
If it's a proper brick, you're forced to weigh the consistency of drawing the card you want to search against the inherent inconsistency that such a brick adds.
Pot of Greed is always good in every deck, no matter how the meta looks. There is no decisionmaking to be made. That makes it poor card design. Even Infernity would play it, despite the entire archetype revolving around your hand being empty.
Even if we accept that it wouldn't be gamebreaking or unfair, it would just further homogenize decks. X slots less to play around with, where X is legal copies of Pot of Greed.
Some staples are currently auto-includes in most decks. Ash Blossom being a core example, and Maxx "C" in formats where it's legal, and while I never see that not being the case, that's because gaining advantage from your deck is an amazing effect that every deck benefits from.
But them being good has a condition.
If very few decks, very bad decks had access to draws, foolishes and searches, Ash would be a terrible card. Even if it would be amazingly powerful in those matchups, running it would be a waste of space.
Similarly, if we theoretically had a meta where special summoning more than twice is very rare, Maxx "C" is just a less consistent upstart goblin.
The way the game has evolved and will evolved, those two hypotheticals will never occur, but they theoretically could. We can imagine a world where both those cards would be bad.
The only way Pot of Greed could ever be bad is if every deck had access to extremely powerful effects that only become live after your opponent draws with a card effect, and even then those cards would have to also have merit in games where your opponent didn't play their pot.
It's not that Pot's power is what's keeping it banned, but that it's power, convenience and versatility is completely unacceptably terribly designed.
I agree with your points on pot being unbanned. Regarding a master rule 6, I think the better change would be the implementation of Duel Links' limited 3 concept, meaning you can only play X amount of cards from the limited X pool. Which would keep banned only the really problematic stuff while players have to think more deciding which limited card they want to play.
Downside is that sounds very complicated to properly balance and would require some careful planning and understanding the game from ... Konami.
I like how you put ... before Konami. Man this company sucks
This is pretty much what they would need but you think that Konami understands their own game or will hire people who do 😂😂😂😂😂
I am so confused by the reasoning here, assuming there's a garnet in the deck that your usual combo needs to go through, why wouldn't you just....conduct your usual combo before using pot of greed?
If the argument is that having a 1 off pot of greed in the deck makes it so you are slightly less likely to open a combo starter and if that happens and you pot of greed, you mayyy draw into a brick then that just sounds like an insane persons argument
I have no clue whatsoever how pot of greed and pot of prosperity conflict either, not do I understand what the benefit of limiting pot of greed is? Any deck that's running hand traps and has a consistent combo has good reason to run pog, finish your combo, go through whatever bricks if you have any, draw 2 in hopes of a handtrap or extender
Or ofcourse if you get interrupted midway through the combo with ash, etc, pog in hopes of an extender, I'm massively confused as to the thought process here? I'm not an expert on the tcg, I play master duel more but I cannot help but be baffled at how limiting pog helps the game? Even if everything you said is true, isn't there always and consistently a risk that some deck either right now or down the line finds a way search and/or recycle pog to break the game with its non-opt effect?
I already mentioned this in both the pinned comment and on my recent community post, but basically: I realize in hindsight that I fumbled the ball with this video. The only reason I'm still keeping it up (aside from the fact that i put months of work into editing this all by myself, so it deserves to stay up for portfolio purposes) is because it gives other people the opportunity to come forth with their own counter-arguments and it serves as a physical reminder now for what I shouldn't do when making a video. A major goal of this video was to generate new arguments for and against PoG from the community since the discussion has been incredibly stagnant, and the video has at least succeeded in doing that. And as for it being a physical reminder: i have a very perfectionist mentality, so knowing in the back of my head that this video exists is going to force me to improve going forward.
A lot of the errors in my arguments come down to the fact that I should've revised my script more before committing to recording, as well as that I missed quite a lot of other arguments entirely during my research. I also went in with untrue assumptions (such as that people wouldn't miss Extrav or Desires if PoG went to 1), I undervalued the worth of a free +1, and I missed certain interactions like Talents and the increased frequency of Droll in main decks if PoG were to be put to 1. But there are still some arguments that I stand by even after my self-reflection. I still don't think that Prosp and PoG would be played together as much as people argue they would given that the argument is format dependent. You would have to already be running an archetype or engine that procs dead cards to begin with, or else if you opened with both a Prosperity and PoG, one of those cards is going to be dead for the rest of the turn once you fire off the other. There's also the 1 Upstart and Danger thinning, but the Danger cards flip flop off the list constantly even without PoG. I also didn't really give a shit about GY looping given that we could just ban FTK enablers like Selene or spell recovery cards like Knightmare Gryphon (which was why i write during the Kashtira section that PoG would promote more aggressive forbidden and limited list hits). But other arguments like my SW example were pretty weak and, as you mentioned, you could just do your SW line first assuming you didn't draw into SW and the garnet off of PoG (which is a very unlikely occurrence).
I would've probably caught that had i revised my script more before committing to recording, but I didn't and that's a mistake I'll have to avoid repeating going forward. My current living situation isn't really one where I can easily re-record lines whenever and I made the whole video by myself, so I don't get a lot of opportunities to record to begin with and editing eats up a lot of my time since i'm still juggling YT, a full time job and my social life. As a result of this: once I record something, its just full steam ahead with little to no room for course correction (its why there's a lot of written segments throughout the video aside from side tangents, which is another thing i need to avoid). So my biggest takeaway from this project is that i need to constantly revise and scrutinize my script more before committing to recording.
TL;DR: I'm aware I made a bad video essay in hindsight and i'm glad that it was at least my first rather than one later down the line. I'm going to have to come back to this video once I get better at writing video essays and just clean up this whole mess. I kinda owe it to the Yugioh community at this point since people are going to parrot a lot of my weak arguments now going forward, and once that's done, i can finally put this video behind me. So look forward to that ig, this has been a very humbling experience for me lol.
Tbh I agree, YuGiOh is an era where you literally summon 10 monsters from the deck to the field, you can literally use your cards in the GY, you can honestly negate anything in turn 1.
This is the main reason why the banlist is nonsensical. We're talking about a meta where games tend to end in 2-3 turns on average and people really want to argue about deck consistency, 'degenerate cards', draw advantage and so on. The game is already at a point where these points just come across as petty; its just too fast to even bother considering such things anymore. And we know the real reason Konami loves their banlist is to force people to purchse their new releases. Not game balance, are you kidding me.
@@ErgenizSo your solution to problems is to... Make them even stronger problems? Make counterplay weaker?
@@1stCallipostle Flawed premise. What you see as problems, I see as enjoyable. And no counterplay? Don't make me laugh, ban-stans absolutely hate the concept of counterplay, they'd rather whine and moan until everything gets banned. Its no different from Smogon and Pokemon. If so much about the game has to be restricted and banned, than the so-called 'competitive' game probably isn't meant to be competitive at all. Smash, Pokemon and Yugioh. I say just let the games be played in the state they arrived in.
@@Ergeniz Almost everything that has been banned has a part in making sure your opponent cannot play the game.
Pot is one of the worst offenders.
If you have a resource advantage going first, you have an exponentially higher chance of just playing through everything in your way, and making your already insane moment in this age even more consistent, unbreakable, and braindead.
This game is SHIT without the list
@@1stCallipostle Game is shit regardless of the list or not. So we may as well go for broke imo. Again, it makes little sense to me to be so attached to a game one admits is shit in its natural state. And then go through all these bans and restrictions to make it tolerable. Seems to me it would be easier and more sensible to go play something else.
My problem with unbanning POG is that that it essentially becomes a 4th copy of any draw 2 you okay just with out the down sides essentially giving better odds of opening a draw spell.
For an example I play pendulum magician and my draw 2 of choice is allure of darkness, draw two and then banish a dark monster from your hand or you have to banish your hole hand if you don't have a dark monster to banish, I would instantly add in POG because now i suddenly have better odds to open a draw spell that helps by drawing potential extenders/interruptions for my opponents turn that doesn't have to down side of banishing a card/cards.
It's like upstart where you are basically playing a 39 card deck but with POG you would basically be playing a 38 card deck and no one will ash it because they want to save it for searchers but with POG you can also draw into cards counter cards like called by grave or crossout designator to stop the ash
Unbanning POG at least to me sounds more like a catch 22 scenario where yes you stopped them from drawing 2 but hay now you can't stop their searchers and they combo off and potentially ended up in the same position as if you didn't have that hand trap to stop their more important cards.
But this is just how I see it.
Great video by the way