PDA

View Full Version : Pure vs. Mash-up: which one do you prefer?



SynjoDeonecros
4th October 2015, 02:00 AM
So, I've seen lots of decks in the long, long decade or so I've been into the game, and with the advent of Archetype decks like Gladiator Beasts, T.G., Fire Fist, and Nekroz, it seems like the pendulum (heh) of deck construction constantly fluctuates between pure builds and mash-up builds being top. For instance, I play U.A. as one of my myriad decks, and I've seen people play both pure and mash-up versions, with constant flip-flops between which version is better at a certain time; sometimes a pure U.A. deck is good enough, sometimes people say Clownblade engine or some other engine works better for it. We all have our preference, but when it comes to using Teh Bestest Dek, which would you prefer? Do you go with the pure builds, staying true to the theme and the spirit of the deck's archetype, or do you submit to the mash-up and experiment with out of the box engines to make your deck better?

Personally, for me, I go for pure as much as I can; I feel it's a betrayal to mix and match deck themes, to be perfectly honest, unless it's absolutely necessary. For instance, back when I played Baby Raccoons, I was cool with mixing non-Raccoon cards in it, as long as it helped the general beast theme, but got into a huge flame war when I argued against using Quillbolt Hedgehog in it as a Synchro engine. Same with Normal Pendulums; I don't mind mixing in a few cards to make it better, but felt cramming in 8 cards with the Genex Undine engine to get out one Synchro (Trishula) was pointless and a waste of energy and resources - and subsequently got into a big flame war over that, as well. It just... seems like you're going against what the deck is supposed to be, when you do mash-ups with a clearly self-contained archetype.

However, that's just me, and I recognize and acknowledge that there are people who feel otherwise. I'd like to have a civil discussion about this, so please, no flames over differences in opinion. With that said, what's your view on which version of an archetype deck is better, in general?

Blue
4th October 2015, 02:04 AM
I try to play pure when possible, unless the deck was themed around mixing it (Mermails + Atlanteans or Zefra+any of the 5 archtypes included)

It's more fun to play cards that fit thematically with the deck but still work on a competitive scale too.

Cheesedude
4th October 2015, 02:10 AM
I prefer pure.

I have no actual reasoning for this that isn't "because I don't like mixing archetypes". I just don't.

Even if it will make the deck better. I'm not throwing Machinas into Gimmick Puppets, for example.

Alternately, a non-archetype deck altogether.

Thanako
4th October 2015, 02:12 AM
Could I say both? Throughout my time I've humorously made quite a lot of mash decks. Anything from a Scrap-Gusto hybrid to Prophecy-Shaddolls. But I always love to see how Konami intends a deck to be played. I actually try out the awful cards in an archetype just to see how Konami actually thought they'd work, as well.

SynjoDeonecros
4th October 2015, 02:31 AM
Yeah. You'd be surprised at what you can find; for instance, I know a lot of people drop it from their version, but I love having Daibak in my Yosenju deck. There's just something about the extra 300 ATK upon battling that makes it all worth it, and sometimes I can get its summoning effect off, too.

Hope in the Interstice
4th October 2015, 04:55 AM
I prefer pure.

I have no actual reasoning for this that isn't "because I don't like mixing archetypes". I just don't.

Even if it will make the deck better. I'm not throwing Machinas into Gimmick Puppets, for example.

Alternately, a non-archetype deck altogether.
I'm also a pure man. I'm the sort of guy who plays to establish a sense of story, hence why I even bothered to use PSYFrames; I'm always envisioning this guy who's a rebel in the Synchro Dimension, who goes about making fools of Security like Sonic the Hedgehog and Eggman.

Archfiend
4th October 2015, 05:00 AM
Nothing wrong with a little of both. Thought I do enjoy play Mash-up decks since I think it more fun to use them and see the outcome of the duel. I feel that with a "pure" build, there is already a set plan that you have to follow on how to use them and I don't really like that at times even though it might be the best thing to do with the deck.

Eternal Dragon Of ChaOZ
4th October 2015, 07:40 AM
I like a little bit of both.

Currently trying out a Startrix with Clowns in it on YGO Pro.

Archfiend
4th October 2015, 08:21 AM
I like a little bit of both.

Currently trying out a Startrix with Clowns in it on YGO Pro.

Startrix? Is that Star Seraphs with Traptrix?

Mystic TimeKeeper
4th October 2015, 08:34 AM
It depends on the art, I can mash-up if the art of the addition is on the level of what I'm trying to play, but otherwise I stick to pure decks.

SynjoDeonecros
4th October 2015, 04:42 PM
I prefer pure.

I have no actual reasoning for this that isn't "because I don't like mixing archetypes". I just don't.

Even if it will make the deck better. I'm not throwing Machinas into Gimmick Puppets, for example.

Alternately, a non-archetype deck altogether.

That's what I played for a long while, too, non-archetype decks that I just threw together. I still have a variation of my Wanghu Stun deck. That reminds me, why don't we see more non-archetype decks in the anime, anymore? It's always archetype decks being used, even the little kids in the Maiami Cup had archetypes.

Noir
4th October 2015, 04:45 PM
I'd do both sometimes.

Mystic TimeKeeper
4th October 2015, 04:46 PM
That's what I played for a long while, too, non-archetype decks that I just threw together. I still have a variation of my Wanghu Stun deck. That reminds me, why don't we see more non-archetype decks in the anime, anymore? It's always archetype decks being used, even the little kids in the Maiami Cup had archetypes.
I say that archetypes as a whole are almost a necessity now because it's harder to balance things when they interact with too much stuff, conversely having a close environment helps designing strong effects without going overboard (just imagine Triveil being generic 3-mat).

I mean, get a "you can special summon only Performages the turn you use this effect" on Trickclown and see how much top they get (and i still don't get why they managed to print that on Fuzzy and not on Clown).

Dread Kaiser
4th October 2015, 04:47 PM
Pure. all decks I use are near 100% pure. I also try to minimize Generic stuff too

Exception: if something is so damn good for the deck not running it would be stupid, even if it doesn't match theme.

Mofiz
4th October 2015, 05:02 PM
Definitely mash. I see no fun in taking a Deck like Konami presented it for me. I want to be creative and individual and make my own stuff and not what everyone else already does. There is no challenge in just taking an Archtype and playing the obvious moves over and over again.

Mystic TimeKeeper
4th October 2015, 05:05 PM
Definitely mash. I see no fun in taking a Deck like Konami presented it for me. I want to be creative and individual and make my own stuff and not what everyone else already does. There is no challenge in just taking an Archtype and playing the obvious moves over and over again.
There is the other side where you want to feel like Shun and OTK people with Rise Falcon, at least for someone like me that likes doing character decks since I was a kid (and why in the heaven's name I tried to make a Mai deck when I had only 3 Harpies is beyond my comprehension now) it's more fun that way.

Dread Kaiser
4th October 2015, 06:00 PM
Definitely mash. I see no fun in taking a Deck like Konami presented it for me. I want to be creative and individual and make my own stuff and not what everyone else already does. There is no challenge in just taking an Archtype and playing the obvious moves over and over again.

Right, reminded me of a detail I forgot
My rules in their entirety

If you have the ability to build it, BUILD IT. Having cards sitting and collecting dust when they could be used it inexcusable
When you build an archetype deck, use as much in-house support as you can, Staples are for filler. ESPECIALLY use in house versions of generic cards. out of house support can die unless it can match theme.
Exception 1: if something is so damn good for the deck not running it would be stupid, even if it doesn't match theme.
Exception 2: Character decks can use out of house decks used by that Character
*No stupid ass auto-play decks. Those can crawl in a Trap Hole and die. A Loli-less trap hole.
*Decks like Madolche will NOT use that checklist combo (if I built Madolche, I'd go for the Burn Loop, but I hate madolche so that probably won't happen)
*Decks like Blackwings or Bujins will use some of the "Shitty" members of their archetype.
*Impractical but Awesome boss monsters, if present, WILL be the end goal of the deck. No exceptions.
OK 1 exception, Perfectly Ultimate Great Moth. It just can't be done. I've done Armintyle, I've done Gate Guardian. THAT simply will never happen. PUGM should have a win condition attached to it. "summon this and win the tournament, forever"

Archetype-Hybrid decks (ie, HAT): With a Single exception, I never mix Archetypes unless they were basically made to do so (IE, Merlanteans, Zefra, etc)

Non Archetype decks: are probably built to do something crazy-awesome to begin with (Typically a God Deck), anything goes and it will be GLORIOUS.

Decks do not retire unless they become completely unplayable (ie, Macro deck because Macro was limited, Rock-Flip deck because the game picked up speed, it can't keep up and RDA exists)

In my case, I prize Uniqueness over all else and as such archetypes are basically what I like to see by definition, Distinctive groups with Distinctive play styles.
Mash-ups are welcome too of course.

I keep generic staples out of any deck I don't intend to take to locals unless it needs to be filler'd to 40. As a result I have most of these decks without a 15 card extra....though I also have 82 ( I shit you not, I counted) of them so I probably don't have enough extra to go around anyway....

Even if its "Something Konami Presented me" its not like unique things can't be done with. so when I pick up someones deck and see its basically the same as the guy next to him, I get sad.
"Oh hey infernoids, don't see those often *Plays reasoning, summons Raiden* and I'm out..."

That said, the Decks I am Most proud of are Mash-ups, Namely my Wicked Gods

What I REALLY Like to see are decks like D/D or Synchrons. Archetypes that do NOT have some floorplan set out for you. Options for Days, Plays for years

Icematoro
4th October 2015, 06:39 PM
As for me, I always make my first build pure, and then tweak it as I play and play.
As a result, The majority of my decks are mostly pure, like 70-80% (without counting Generic Spell/Trap Support)
I tend to incline to what works very well, or what's so dumb I can't help but playing it.

Can you consider a deck pure if you count the Extra Deck tho? lol

Sakuya
4th October 2015, 06:39 PM
geeeenerally pure with maybe 1-2 tech choices, but recently U.A. is so mindnumbing when you brick that i had to run the speedroid variant to make the deck not make me wanna just play something else 25% of the time

Dread Kaiser
4th October 2015, 06:42 PM
Can you consider a deck pure if you count the Extra Deck tho? lol

As long as you actually use the in-house extra with it, yes

Icematoro
4th October 2015, 06:52 PM
geeeenerally pure with maybe 1-2 tech choices, but recently U.A. is so mindnumbing when you brick that i had to run the speedroid variant to make the deck not make me wanna just play something else 25% of the time

Have you considered Heroics instead? Tribute Fodder, Warrior-Typed, More RotA Targets, and Rank 4 options (Not to mention TCG playable)


As long as you actually use the in-house extra with it, yes

If it's good, yes, most of the time, but those usually take less than 5 spots in the extra deck, 5/15 doesn't really scream Pure to me, but hey, Opinions are nice!

Dread Kaiser
4th October 2015, 06:54 PM
If it's good, yes, most of the time, but those usually take less than 5 spots in the extra deck, 5/15 doesn't really scream Pure to me, but hey, Opinions are nice!

well if an archetype only has, say 3 extra cards, how much purer can their extra get?

Icematoro
4th October 2015, 06:56 PM
well if an archetype only has, say 3 extra cards, how much purer can their extra get?

Precisely, that's exactly what I was talking about, there's only a handful of decks that can fill the Extra with their stuff, but most of them won't, as it's not the best policy. So much for pure tho =I

Dread Kaiser
4th October 2015, 06:58 PM
Precisely, that's exactly what I was talking about, there's only a handful of decks that can fill the Extra with their stuff, but most of them won't, as it's not the best policy. So much for pure tho =I

Its as close as they can get without hindering themselves. Its enough

Sakuya
4th October 2015, 07:03 PM
Have you considered Heroics instead? Tribute Fodder, Warrior-Typed, More RotA Targets, and Rank 4 options (Not to mention TCG playable)

If it's just the thousand blades/halberd thing, I definitely think that the speedroid engine fares better as you don't have to risk attacks and turn 1 is better. Synchro access and rank 3 lets you knock out midfielder as an issue 99% of the time through opening beigomax to make invoker.

Drakylon
4th October 2015, 08:57 PM
I tend to just throw together things that work together. Usually it's an archetype base with anywhere from zero to several out-of-house options, but sometimes I just take bits and pieces from multiple archetypes whose effects mesh well. Sometimes there's either no archetype big enough to fill a deck (a true Normal Monster deck, i.e. not Igknight), or simply no archetype there ('EARTH Psychic-type' or 'EARTH Level 10 Machine-type').

Pendulum
4th October 2015, 09:21 PM
Even if it will make the deck better. I'm not throwing Machinas into Gimmick Puppets, for example.

Alternately, a non-archetype deck altogether.

I'm just like this.
But I also like assembling several small engines and combine and mix them.

Eva
4th October 2015, 11:34 PM
This isn't a real question, you play the best version of a deck. If the best version of the deck is sticking only to one theme, then you play that, if the best version of the deck requires you to use an engine from a different group of cards, you play that.

Intentionally gimping yourself and your deck just to stay "pure" is nonsense.

Hope in the Interstice
4th October 2015, 11:35 PM
This isn't a real question, you play the best version of a deck. If the best version of the deck is sticking only to one theme, then you play that, if the best version of the deck requires you to use an engine from a different group of cards, you play that.

Intentionally gimping yourself and your deck just to stay "pure" is nonsense.
Some of us don't play competitively.

Eva
4th October 2015, 11:41 PM
It's not about competitive vs not competitive. You can play Infernity with Dwarf if you really wanted to, but why would you. There will always be card choices that are superior for each specific deck, choosing the inferior option just because you're not "being competitive" is just silly.

If you're playing gag decks or fan decks, that's a different story, but in that case, what's the point of this thread.

Hope in the Interstice
4th October 2015, 11:47 PM
It's not about competitive vs not competitive. You can play Infernity with Dwarf if you really wanted to, but why would you. There will always be card choices that are superior for each specific deck, choosing the inferior option just because you're not "being competitive" is just silly.

If you're playing gag decks or fan decks, that's a different story, but in that case, what's the point of this thread.
I'd never play Blackwing — Jin the Rain Shadow in Blackwings, God no. However, in many cases, I'd do what I could to stay pure to the archetype. That doesn't mean running every single card from an archetype ever but using cards from no other archetype except that one.

Eva
4th October 2015, 11:53 PM
Certain decks can function even better with cards from other themes. Like Deskbots are amazing for Ritual Decks, but would you choose to not include them just because they're not "in-theme"?

Hope in the Interstice
4th October 2015, 11:54 PM
Certain decks can function even better with cards from other themes. Like Deskbots are amazing for Ritual Decks, but would you choose to not include them just because they're not "in-theme"?
Actually, yes.

Dread Kaiser
4th October 2015, 11:57 PM
Certain decks can function even better with cards from other themes. Like Deskbots are amazing for Ritual Decks, but would you choose to not include them just because they're not "in-theme"?

Bascially, yes

clairedestroyer!
4th October 2015, 11:57 PM
A Deck should run whatever cards it needs to play to it's strengths as much as it can and concession cards so it doesn't lose to what it otherwise can't beat. Whether that's in-theme or not doesn't really factor.

Hope in the Interstice
4th October 2015, 11:59 PM
Bascially, yes
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnzz99vjNF1qcj56b.gif

Dread Kaiser
5th October 2015, 12:04 AM
A Deck should run whatever cards it needs to play to it's strengths as much as it can and concession cards so it doesn't lose to what it otherwise can't beat. Whether that's in-theme or not doesn't really factor.

Believe it or not, there are these things people have called "Priorities"
in those, "Winning" is not always going to be higher then "Doing things the way we find aesthetically pleasing"

- - - Updated - - -


http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnzz99vjNF1qcj56b.gif

Geez you really do have a responce for everything don't you

clairedestroyer!
5th October 2015, 12:05 AM
To paraphrase David Sirlin, if you impose rules on yourself beyond the rules of the game itself, you are playing a fundamentally different game.

I don't expect to win all the time, or even very much. I just don't see very much fun in playing that kind of Yu-Gi-Oh, where I ignore the most usable options (which by nature let me play more significant turns) because it has a different name or art than something else.

Cheesedude
5th October 2015, 12:06 AM
Yeah, I wouldn't include them either.

But I basically ONLY play gag and fan decks (AND MY MIGHTY STALL BURN DECK), so w/e.

Hope in the Interstice
5th October 2015, 12:11 AM
To paraphrase David Sirlin, if you impose rules on yourself beyond the rules of the game itself, you are playing a fundamentally different game.
No we're not. We just using different cards. It's Mystical Space Typhoon versus Galaxy Cyclone.

Dread Kaiser
5th October 2015, 12:13 AM
I don't expect to win all the time, or even very much. I just don't see very much fun in playing that kind of Yu-Gi-Oh, where I ignore the most usable options (which by nature let me play more significant turns) because it has a different name or art than something else.

And likewise I do not see much fun in playing whatever is most competitive or whatever is the "best".

Like I said, its a Personal thing. some people enjoy certain aspects of a game more then others. I probably have the more fun BUILDING decks then anything.
Its a "if you don't understand it, you probably never will" thing. I could (and have in the past) played competitively but I enjoy the ...how to say Lower Tier play more then higher tier.

Just don't start saying "you can't play the best options because you don't have the skill for it" or anything of that sort, That's asking for problems.

SynjoDeonecros
5th October 2015, 12:14 AM
There's also budget constraints to consider; some of us don't have the money to pay for the best and brightest support, even (and ESPECIALLY) generic support, so we have to compromise. Call it a cop-out if you want, but I think it's a justifiable reason for keeping pure, beyond aesthetic reasons.

Hope in the Interstice
5th October 2015, 12:15 AM
I prefer to play with my opponent rather than at their expense. If I play a deck that takes up more of their time than Ritual Beasts, I feel really bad. I hate OTKs and convoluted combos for taking the fun away from an opponent.

Cheesedude
5th October 2015, 12:18 AM
I prefer to play with my opponent rather than at their expense. If I play a deck that takes up more of their time than Ritual Beasts, I feel really bad. I hate OTKs and convoluted combos for taking the fun away from an opponent.

This is where we differ, then. My goal is to god-draw into an OTK. Even if it almost never happens, that's my ultimate aim in most Decks, (Stall Burn notwithstanding).

Dread Kaiser
5th October 2015, 12:19 AM
There's also budget constraints to consider; some of us don't have the money to pay for the best and brightest support, even (and ESPECIALLY) generic support, so we have to compromise. Call it a cop-out if you want, but I think it's a justifiable reason for keeping pure, beyond aesthetic reasons.

or in my case, too much deck to go around. I don't dismantle or sell my decks So I have a lot of them. Can't have those generic cards being in 81 places at once

clairedestroyer!
5th October 2015, 12:19 AM
I'm not gonna make comments about player skill (because that doesn't factor). Budget is an issue IRL absolutely, but not if you play online. This is also not a tier thing. You can play a deck that has almost no competitive viability and even then it should be expected you pick the best options for that deck. Finally, cards don't exist in a vacuum but in the entire cardpool and also the local "meta" of whatever you expect to play frequently. There will always be a best card for a situation and a most common situation to be in. Solving the multiple puzzles those facts present you is part of deckbuilding.

SynjoDeonecros
5th October 2015, 12:19 AM
And likewise I do not see much fun in playing whatever is most competitive or whatever is the "best".

Like I said, its a Personal thing. some people enjoy certain aspects of a game more then others. I probably have the more fun BUILDING decks then anything.
Its a "if you don't understand it, you probably never will" thing. I could (and have in the past) played competitively but I enjoy the ...how to say Lower Tier play more then higher tier.

Just don't start saying "you can't play the best options because you don't have the skill for it" or anything of that sort, That's asking for problems.

I'm the same way; I like building quirky decks and trying to make them viable (and by "viable", I don't mean "can kick everyone's ass right off the bat", but "can survive the top tier decks beyond a handful of turns and/or give them a run for their money - I learned that when I frustrated a then-cookie cutter Envoy-Yata Lock deck with a pathetic gimpy feline-themed bounce deck and got complimented for it after he finally overcame the lock), not the top tier decks that frustrate so many. My boyfriend also plays decks for different reasons than the top tier duelists, even though he winds up choosing decks that wind up becoming the meta; with his Burning Abyss deck, for instance, he felt he was required to build it after we got one of each of the initial core cards in a box of the first set it came in - it wasn't because he wanted to top Regionals or something, just he felt that the cards were begging him to build a deck around them.

Dread Kaiser
5th October 2015, 12:23 AM
I prefer to play with my opponent rather than at their expense. If I play a deck that takes up more of their time than Ritual Beasts, I feel really bad. I hate OTKs and convoluted combos for taking the fun away from an opponent.


This is where we differ, then. My goal is to god-draw into an OTK. Even if it almost never happens, that's my ultimate aim in most Decks, (Stall Burn notwithstanding).

I like to dominate my opponent, but not disallow them the chance to fight back. IE no floodgates

basically what Jack did to Yuya

Vandar
5th October 2015, 12:24 AM
Depends on the deck.

Symphonic Gusto are one of the most fun decks I've played, and it's a complete mash-up.

Dread Kaiser
5th October 2015, 12:34 AM
I'm not gonna make comments about player skill (because that doesn't factor). Budget is an issue IRL absolutely, but not if you play online. This is also not a tier thing. You can play a deck that has almost no competitive viability and even then it should be expected you pick the best options for that deck. Finally, cards don't exist in a vacuum but in the entire cardpool and also the local "meta" of whatever you expect to play frequently. There will always be a best card for a situation and a most common situation to be in. Solving the multiple puzzles those facts present you is part of deckbuilding.

Ok good you aren't one of those idiots. I see too many people who think lack of skill is the only reason you wouldn't play like they do, because you obviously would if you could.
Those people wouldn't last real long here, this place is mostly casual. and we got a handy ignore feature now.

Yes, you are totally correct there is almost always a build or option that beats out the others. we all understand that. But As I said, some people just place Aesthetics over the optimum build. Its all personal preference. either for simple aesthetic reasons or because we like like seeing crazy shit like Armory Arm boosted Junk Warrior punching out Obelisk.

In my case, I am up against like minded individuals so I can get away with more or less whatever build I want.

Teddy
5th October 2015, 12:35 AM
I usually try to build as pure as possible, only using out of theme cards when they are absolutely necessary. But lately I've tried to mix things up, the Buster Blader with Pendulum Magicians deck is one of the most fun and non-linear decks I've built in a long time.

Also, this is not really a discussion, trying to present arguments for either side is a waste of time. Some people play this game to mirror the feeling they got (or get) watching the anime, some people just want to win. Both sides are equally valid.

Dread Kaiser
5th October 2015, 12:45 AM
Also, this is not really a discussion, trying to present arguments for either side is a waste of time. Some people play this game to mirror the feeling they got (or get) watching the anime, some people just want to win. Both sides are equally valid.

We are aware. the Casual VS competitive thing has been around for a while. This has probably been the most civil conversation regarding it I have ever heard of.

Normally the other side has already resorted to "Scrub", "Noob" or some other petty insult for not using (insert winning deck of the time here)

SynjoDeonecros
5th October 2015, 01:01 AM
And I usually call the meta side "elitist", despite being slammed as incorrect for doing so (news flash: being an "elite" duelist and being an "elitist" duelist aren't the same thing). I'm glad everyone's being so damn civil with this discussion; it's good to discuss such a topic without having to turn into Asbestos Man.

Dread Kaiser
5th October 2015, 01:05 AM
And I usually call the meta side "elitist", despite being slammed as incorrect for doing so (news flash: being an "elite" duelist and being an "elitist" duelist aren't the same thing). I'm glad everyone's being so damn civil with this discussion; it's good to discuss such a topic without having to turn into Asbestos Man.

I call them Tournyfags
Playing competitively is fine
Playing casually is fine

saying the other side is wrong for not playing like you do will get you lit up faster than napalm covered in Chlorine Trifluoride

Megamaw
5th October 2015, 01:06 AM
Pure, or 'unpure' variants-- I honestly do not have any problems using either.

Deck-building, to me, is an activity that requires both creative, out-of-the-box thinking, and practical thinking.

To put constraints on these things would result in a far less interesting or usable end result. If my vision for the deck would work better in one fashion or another, I just kinda go for it.


A member of a playgroup that got me back into the game dubbed me a 'low tier god'. By this, he was comparing me to the fighting-game players that pick 'weaker' characters, characters lower on the tier list, like Dan in Street Fighter, and through their skill, are able to go toe-to-toe with people playing the more powerful characters.

So, I suppose, I use 'weaker' archetypes and deck ideas, and make them work against higher tier decks. It's just so much more satisfying.

tl;dr I purposefully use underused or underpowered decks and build them with the meta in mind to win against the meta because it feels good, and don't take 'deck purity' into account.

Hope in the Interstice
5th October 2015, 01:10 AM
Mind you, I'm a guy of thematics as well. If I have a Pendulum deck, I'll be more than willing to splash Archfiend Eccentrick, Rescue Hamster, or Luster Pendulum in as well. I see them as mercenaries up for hire by other archetypes. Same goes for Rescue Rabbit, Summoner Monk, Armageddon Knight, Maxx "C", Ghost Ogre & Snow Rabbit, and so on.

Dread Kaiser
5th October 2015, 01:15 AM
Mind you, I'm a guy of thematics as well. If I have a Pendulum deck, I'll be more than willing to splash Archfiend Eccentrick, Rescue Hamster, or Luster Pendulum in as well. I see them as mercenaries up for hire by other archetypes. Same goes for Rescue Rabbit, Summoner Monk, Armageddon Knight, Maxx "C", Ghost Ogre & Snow Rabbit, and so on.

Seems we have very similar views on that

Mofiz
5th October 2015, 01:17 AM
This is where we differ, then. My goal is to god-draw into an OTK. Even if it almost never happens, that's my ultimate aim in most Decks, (Stall Burn notwithstanding).

You are the kind of person that makes me run tripple Menkoto...

Teddy
5th October 2015, 01:19 AM
Mind you, I'm a guy of thematics as well. If I have a Pendulum deck, I'll be more than willing to splash Archfiend Eccentrick, Rescue Hamster, or Luster Pendulum in as well. I see them as mercenaries up for hire by other archetypes. Same goes for Rescue Rabbit, Summoner Monk, Armageddon Knight, Maxx "C", Ghost Ogre & Snow Rabbit, and so on.

Pretty much this.

scizor64
5th October 2015, 01:37 AM
This is a very good question to ask.

In real life I have two friends who I regularly play yugioh with. 1 likes to mash up different archetypes and see how things work. For example, he is currently trying to build a spirit/toon deck (not sure how that particular one will work out though). The other likes to stick with archetypes and run what you call "pure" decks. Im the one in the middle who does both, as in, try to build pure decks when i can and leave out other cards but if i have to - i will mash different archetypes. It all depends on how much support the archetype in question currently has at that point.

So in summary, i do both, prefer pure but have no problems running or going against mashed.

Dread Kaiser
5th October 2015, 01:45 AM
This is a very good question to ask.

In real life I have two friends who I regularly play yugioh with. 1 likes to mash up different archetypes and see how things work. For example, he is currently trying to build a spirit/toon deck (not sure how that particular one will work out though). The other likes to stick with archetypes and run what you call "pure" decks. Im the one in the middle who does both, as in, try to build pure decks when i can and leave out other cards but if i have to - i will mash different archetypes. It all depends on how much support the archetype in question currently has at that point.

So in summary, i do both, prefer pure but have no problems running or going against mashed.

I prefer pure but I can run whatever

I can tell that friend of yours that that deck is going to crash and burn...

Jakinus
5th October 2015, 02:30 AM
I usually play a pure variant first to learn how a deck works and if I see the gimmicks that they do have synergy with other archetypes, I mash them together (like Infernoids and BA or Shaddolls and Lightsworns). One of my favorite things of this game is to surprise my opponent. Most of the time ends with me and my opponent chatting about why of my card choices, ending in a duel where both are having fun, making the game more enjoyable than just playing a deck, winning or losing