PDA

View Full Version : Common misconceptions that make you rage



SynjoDeonecros
3rd February 2016, 10:52 PM
What common ruling, card effect, or play misconceptions do you keep on hearing that make you want to punch a baby?

For me, it's when people suggest Black Garden for a Wanghu deck. Both Wanghu's and Black Garden's effects are trigger effects, not continuous, so the latter's ATK-halving effect won't trigger the former's monster destruction effect. It's so simple to look this shit up, but no one seems to do so...

Thanako
3rd February 2016, 11:34 PM
I feel like Konami hasn't ever made an adequate enough effort in explaining missing the timing. Or maybe people just don't listen, but that's always been a big one for me.

Baroque
6th February 2016, 05:13 AM
I've got a misconception for ye: Negation VS the Graveyard.

I'm not talking things like Skill Drain shenanigans, mind you, I'm talking about when people seem to think that cards like Graydle Dragon or Onslaught of the Fire Kings -- which negate the effects of the monsters they summon -- will affect the effects of the monsters they summon which activate in the Graveyard.

Truth is: they do not affect such effects. They are designed to help you take advantage of those effects, if anything. If Wattsquirrel proves anything, it's that there is an extra little bit of fluff needed for the cards to behave as the misconception states . . . and yet, somehow I keep running into people that think otherwise. Gaaah. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-XEINagmaU&t=10s)

Butter
6th February 2016, 09:54 AM
MST Negates and "Spiritual beast monsters aren't ritual beast monsters" and other variations of that specific misconception.

SynjoDeonecros
6th February 2016, 10:34 PM
I hate, hate, HATE it when people try to argue against me playing a pure build of an archetype by saying "You're playing X Card, which isn't a part of the archetype (even though it's generic enough that it doesn't matter, or it doesn't have an archetype of its own), you're a bad player for doing it and not building pure". I want to cut their tongues out with their most expensive card, whenever they pull this semantics bullshit.

Jolan
6th February 2016, 11:33 PM
I hate, hate, HATE it when people try to argue against me playing a pure build of an archetype by saying "You're playing X Card, which isn't a part of the archetype (even though it's generic enough that it doesn't matter, or it doesn't have an archetype of its own), you're a bad player for doing it and not building pure". I want to cut their tongues out with their most expensive card, whenever they pull this semantics bullshit.

I've literally never heard of that. More often than not it's people telling ''Hey you should play X even tho it's not part of the archetype because it has synergies with it!'' to me, which is how I ended up with Majesty's Fiend in Monarchs.

SynjoDeonecros
7th February 2016, 12:07 AM
I've literally never heard of that. More often than not it's people telling ''Hey you should play X even tho it's not part of the archetype because it has synergies with it!'' to me, which is how I ended up with Majesty's Fiend in Monarchs.

They try that at first, but if you mention that you're trying to play pure (like with an archetype or something), they'll guilt you into playing the card they want you to play by saying "X isn't part of the archetype, so why are you playing it?" or "Technically, X is part of a different archetype, so you shouldn't have it in there". For instance, I've been told that, since I'm playing pure Yosenjus, I shouldn't be playing Tenki, since Tenki is technically part of the Fire Formation archetype, which is part of the Fire Fist archetype, completely ignoring the fact that its effect, in fact, does NOT have anything to do with Fire Fists, and has everything to do with generic Beast-Warriors.

I just got something like that, today, being told to play Kaiju over Santa Claws, because "Santa Claws isn't a Yosenju", and saying I should take out Flying "C" from my side because "it's technically part of the "C" archetype", not getting that a) I don't care about that shit, b) the cards I have are generic and don't pertain to any specific archetype in their effects, and c) I'm playing them in the side deck, where I'll only be using them when I NEED to, and not as part of the main deck, where I'll HAVE to play them.

Hope in the Interstice
7th February 2016, 12:11 AM
I just got something like that, today, being told to play Kaiju over Santa Claws, because "Santa Claws isn't a Yosenju", and saying I should take out Flying "C" from my side because "it's technically part of the "C" archetype", not getting that a) I don't care about that shit, b) the cards I have are generic and don't pertain to any specific archetype in their effects, and c) I'm playing them in the side deck, where I'll only be using them when I NEED to, and not as part of the main deck, where I'll HAVE to play them.
Not to mention "C" isn't an archetype but a series, like the Treasure Card series.

Jolan
7th February 2016, 12:31 AM
They try that at first, but if you mention that you're trying to play pure (like with an archetype or something), they'll guilt you into playing the card they want you to play by saying "X isn't part of the archetype, so why are you playing it?" or "Technically, X is part of a different archetype, so you shouldn't have it in there". For instance, I've been told that, since I'm playing pure Yosenjus, I shouldn't be playing Tenki, since Tenki is technically part of the Fire Formation archetype, which is part of the Fire Fist archetype, completely ignoring the fact that its effect, in fact, does NOT have anything to do with Fire Fists, and has everything to do with generic Beast-Warriors.

I just got something like that, today, being told to play Kaiju over Santa Claws, because "Santa Claws isn't a Yosenju", and saying I should take out Flying "C" from my side because "it's technically part of the "C" archetype", not getting that a) I don't care about that shit, b) the cards I have are generic and don't pertain to any specific archetype in their effects, and c) I'm playing them in the side deck, where I'll only be using them when I NEED to, and not as part of the main deck, where I'll HAVE to play them.

Tbh I would probably also run a Kaiju over Santa claws bcuz it's cheaper and I dont give the opponent potential drawpower. But complaining about a tenki is like complaining that someone runs RotA . . . Like, where does the logic even begin?

Hope in the Interstice
7th February 2016, 12:33 AM
But complaining about a tenki is like complaining that someone runs RotA . . . Like, where does the logic even begin?
Reinforcement of the Army is not an archetype card. Fire Formation - Tenki is. Not that I don't use it all the same.

SynjoDeonecros
7th February 2016, 01:14 AM
Tenki is as archetypal as Odd-Eyes Advent is; it is affected by other cards in the archetype, but is itself way too generic to be solely used in that archetype.

ChaseLumsden
7th February 2016, 01:33 AM
When you play with someone with a 74 card Dark world Deck and see as they pull off 3 Card Destruction and Tribute To the Doomed, even though your opponent actually knows the banlist?

No? Good. That's my shit I need to deal with, but there is a reason why I brought this one up.

Activating cards that discard other cards as a cost, but still triggering the target(s) effect.
As an example, take the aforementioned Tribute to the Doomed or even Ultimate Providence, activate their effects by discarding a card (say, Grapha, Dragon Lord of Dark World), then activate the effect of said card, obtaining a swift and powerful advantage when they resolve.

Yeah, that doesn't work, but I know a few people who will say otherwise and will argue about it for no end.

Butter
7th February 2016, 05:42 AM
Isn't the deck limit 60?

Sanokal
7th February 2016, 06:21 AM
Hence why it makes him rage I'd imagine.

Jolan
7th February 2016, 06:32 AM
I would personally ignore the Extra Deck limit of 15 in casual play because not everyone owns multiple copies, so it's okay to have a single extra deck of 30 cards where you keep all your XYZs and Synchros, especially if you run like 3+ decks.

But main deck limit at 60? That's like, a rule that's important to deck building. Can't just ignore it. People try to hit 40 or less, you want 74? HOW.

SynjoDeonecros
7th February 2016, 05:47 PM
Not exactly a "misconception", but something that happened recently that I'm getting pissed off about; on Pojo, there's this guy who clearly hates Yosenju, think its rubbish, and wants it done away with and people move on to other decks, but he hangs out on the thread regardless spewing his hate. And yet, when I dismiss his "advice" on that principle, people call me a bad player for doing so, like I should take his advice seriously. The hell? Why should I listen to an obvious hater when I could be getting advice from other people who like the deck, knows the deck, and wants to improve the deck? Like, the guy says to get rid of Left Pillar and Secret Move, because he hates them and thinks they're "bad", but dismisses any evidence that tells him top players of the deck play both in their deck. Why should I listen to this dipshit, if he's clearly so fucking wrong?

Charly Ruri Raptors
10th February 2016, 01:18 AM
When someone tries to Solem a Fusion instead of the Fusion card.