Articles are cross posted here from the main site.
Comments posted under these articles will also appear under them in the main site.
  • User avatar
  • User avatar
  • User avatar
  • User avatar
  • User avatar
  • User avatar
  • User avatar
#81133
Side deck pal wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:50 pm
I think Konami should change "You can pay 2000 LP and send 1 "Fusion" or "Polymerization" Normal or Quick-Play Spell from your Deck to the GY" to "You can pay 2000 LP and send 1 "Fusion" or "Polymerization" Normal or Quick-Play Spell THAT MEET IT'S REQUIREMENTS from your Deck to the GY", i believe this would make summoning Dragoon impossible and also letting other decks use this as a generic fusion support.
What do you mean by meet its requirements? Not sure I understand this wording and what it accomplishes?? Can you give me an example of how this works?
#81153
DarkMahad87 wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:40 pm
Side deck pal wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:50 pm
I think Konami should change "You can pay 2000 LP and send 1 "Fusion" or "Polymerization" Normal or Quick-Play Spell from your Deck to the GY" to "You can pay 2000 LP and send 1 "Fusion" or "Polymerization" Normal or Quick-Play Spell THAT MEET IT'S REQUIREMENTS from your Deck to the GY", i believe this would make summoning Dragoon impossible and also letting other decks use this as a generic fusion support.
What do you mean by meet its requirements? Not sure I understand this wording and what it accomplishes?? Can you give me an example of how this works?
Red-Eyes Fusion says "You cannot Normal or Special Summon other monsters during the turn you activate this card". Currently, you can send it with Verte because Verte ignores this clause. If the text was changed, it would make it unable to send REF during the turn Verte (or anything else) is summoned.
This would never happen though, because the OCG (the only place where the errata could happen) just banned Dragoon and Fusion Destiny doesn't have any activation requirements.
#81181
Shiqui wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:19 am
DarkMahad87 wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:40 pm
Side deck pal wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:50 pm
I think Konami should change "You can pay 2000 LP and send 1 "Fusion" or "Polymerization" Normal or Quick-Play Spell from your Deck to the GY" to "You can pay 2000 LP and send 1 "Fusion" or "Polymerization" Normal or Quick-Play Spell THAT MEET IT'S REQUIREMENTS from your Deck to the GY", i believe this would make summoning Dragoon impossible and also letting other decks use this as a generic fusion support.
What do you mean by meet its requirements? Not sure I understand this wording and what it accomplishes?? Can you give me an example of how this works?
Red-Eyes Fusion says "You cannot Normal or Special Summon other monsters during the turn you activate this card". Currently, you can send it with Verte because Verte ignores this clause. If the text was changed, it would make it unable to send REF during the turn Verte (or anything else) is summoned.
This would never happen though, because the OCG (the only place where the errata could happen) just banned Dragoon and Fusion Destiny doesn't have any activation requirements.
This is true, there is no activation requirements on fusion destiny, instead it locks you AFTER it’s played.
#81214
Verte has always been the problem, if you look at the list of Banned Link monsters almost everyone directly or indirectly Special Summons monsters from the deck or extra deck like Guardragon and even Electrumite indirectly becomes not just a dumb enabler that breaks the mechanic Pendulum but generates much more summons to the field and Verte is one of those cards. Having very powerful Fusion Spells is part of the game's evolution and it's completely correct to use the material directly from the deck for this because Fusion and Ritual are the oldest mechanics in the game and they had to adapt to remain playable. Look at the Ritual, you had Nekroz, Impcantation, Megalith and now Drytron. Fusion went through the same process with Shaddoll Fusion, look at the new archetype Dinoruffia, if he didn't fusion straight from the deck he would be completely unplayable in the current yugioh. Verte is the problem and as long as it exists Konami should limit all its creativity in making Fusion mechanic cards in order not to become a new splashable engine.
Last edited by Jonathan Martins on Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#81216
Verte allowed dragoon to be splashable in any deck, and everyone was doing it so much in the OCG, that it first called for Dragoon to be limited, and eventually banned. The fact is, by himself, he can potentially win games with ease. Dragoon would not be as abused as much if 1) he didn't live up to the hype and 2) Verte didn't allow you to set up full board and end on an omni negate that gets stronger with built in protection and could deal burn damage. So yes, verte is a problem, and Dragoon is good. And I'm not bashing the DPE package, because it's good in its own way. But to say that one sucks just because you prefer the other just seems heavily biased, and unfounded.
User avatar
By kpnut
#82047
The whole Verte or Dragoon debate kinda reminds me of the Dragon Ruler debate that raged in 2014 or 2015 (I forgot, it was about then though I'm sure) where a relatively harmless card like Dragon's Ravine got limited in an effort to stop the Dragon Rulers dominating but they just pivoted to using another card to continue their degeneracy (not the word I wanted I don't think but I couldn't think of another one) leaving Dragunity (a deck that was somewhat powerful but not meta) high and dry until the Dragon Rulers themselves got banned.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm falling on the side of Verte needs to be banned rather than Dragoon (despite not playing in person or with the latest banlist anymore.)
Casual Solfacord

The following is a small excerpt of deck/article.[…]

Shark

The following is a small excerpt of deck/article.[…]

The following is a small excerpt of deck/article.[…]

Budget Altergeist

The following is a small excerpt of deck/article.[…]