The plethora of tier 1 decks which have emerged in Yu-Gi-Oh in recent times is quite astounding. No less astounding is that only a handful of them have been topping. On initial examination of recent tournament wins, perhaps we can put this down to an internal stratification of these tier 1 decks: some simply face-off against their counterparts better than others. Kind of like a Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock, to quote Sheldon. Chaos Dragons over Rabbit, Rabbit over Inzektors, etc. This logic falls to individual skill, of course, but when you're facing a potential 500 person tournament, you have to play the odds. Still, did any of us really expect Wind-Ups to win at the latest WCQ event? I have to say, I certainly didn't. And that, I believe, is part of the problem.
Side decking as a practice has always been based on a single factor: the locale. A side deck is almost wholly determined by the trends circulating in the localised meta. If Wind-Ups or Inzektors (however improbable that may be) aren't widely represented, then people may not side as heavily against them. This, however, is an acceptable rationale for your own locals alone. I can accept people who are testing at locals not siding against Wind-Ups. But once you hit the big leagues, you're basically anticipating and extrapolating from what little knowledge you have national trends, and sometimes, as will be the case on July 6th at the European Championships, continental ones.
Perhaps such exercises were done by the majority of players, tossing in their Maxx "C"s, Neko Mane Kings, or even D.D. Crows, thinking however casually that "I won't get looped". Or they simply weren't thinking. My question is how one could ignore or overlook a deck which requires a handful of two-card combinations to win in their opening hand. I dare say that no other deck can make such a claim - unless you consider something like Future Fusion in Chaos Dragons.
Clearly, however, the side deck choices of the other players weren't enough, especially considering that the final was a mirror match--though, I suppose Lewis' deck was a little unconventional. Either a reformulation of the Wind-Up sides needs to be popularised, or people need to get in line for those Wind-Up Carriers and whatever else is required for netdecking.
So why did Wind-Ups win? Maybe it was pure skill; maybe the sides were all correct for his opponents, but not drawn; or maybe it's because Tyler Tabman sensed a gap in the meta, a gaping need for Wind-Ups to go to town on Inzektors, on Rabbit, on Chaos Dragons in particular. And that's what he did, and with style. His build wasn't particularly daring or unconventional. The only comment I would have would be on the Instant Fusions--but if anything they helped him loop even more efficiently, and with, I assume, far greater frequency. As I mention in the above video, the deck also seems to have an out to everything, much like Inzektors. Veiler doesn't really scare them, since they always have alternatives. Unlike decks such as Chaos Dragons which are somewhat balanced, in that single card techs such as Macro Cosmos can give them serious problems, Wind-Ups have no single card which stops their momentum. I can hear people shouting Maxx "C", but honestly it doesn't stop the deck. Who is to say it can't loop you twice? And that the player won't simply draw Pot of Avarice (as Tabman himself did Game 3 of the final) in his/ her opening hand? Or within a couple of turns? If you Veiler a first turn Tour Guide, they can Instant Fusion (or else they wouldn't have summoned her). If you Veiler the Carrier, they can defend with backrow until the next turn, when I am sure they will proceed to loop you anyway.
The implications?
Well, issues arising from the deck's recent success include the price of Maxx "C", whether or not to main deck him, and ban list considerations. After the price of the card has just reached tolerable levels, will we now see it skyrocket again? Or will someone come up with a new revolutionary side that hundreds of world class players couldn't come up with? I doubt it, somehow. Next, should Maxx "C" be maindecked? Are such thoughts reactionary and unfounded? In my opinion, maindecking him at one might not be a bad idea, since even against decks where he isn't at his best, he still might net you a +1 (like against first turn Rabbit plays, for example).
As for the ban list, I can almost guarantee that one or more of these cards will be hit:
- Wind-Up Carrier Zenmaity (restrict or ban)
- Wind-Up Rat (restrict to 1)
- Wind-Up Hunter (ban, since only 1 is maindecked as it is)
- Instant Fusion (possible restriction which would cover not just Wind-Ups but also Ninjas and
Inzektors)
In all cases, the idea is to prevent the loop while still preserving the bulk of the deck. The loop, in fact, is incidental and often unnecessary. It simply helps the Wind-Up player get a few free hits when the opponent is down. But who is to say that the potential for card advantage which Wind-Up decks are known for isn't enough, and that the deck couldn't prosper if Carrier were limited?
In any case, I'm pretty sure things will change now that this news is out, simply given the amount of netdecking going on these days. I myself am guilty of it with Chaos Dragons (but hey, I topped at Nationals with them!). We'll just have to see what happens.
These were my Words of Wisdom -- take them to heart!
This is Weevil, and I am signing out.
No comments:
Post a Comment