View Full Version : Why are Beast-Warriors the testbed?

16th November 2015, 08:19 PM
I've noticed a few things; when it comes to certain tactics for monsters, Beast-Warriors are always some of the first archetypes that get in on the act. They're the second archetype to have a level 4 monster with 2000 ATK (Boar Soldier), they're the second or third archetype to get a level 4 Normal Monster with 1900 ATK (Vorse Raider), they're the second archetype to get a Normal Monster with 2000 ATK (Gene-Warped Warwolf), and they're the second archetype to have a high-level monster that you can Normal Summon without Tribute (Barbaros). They're the second archetype to get a TCG-Exclusive Normal Pendulum card (Dragoons of Draconia), the third to have a level 4 monster with Goblin Attack Force's ATK and effect (Lei Lei), the second to have a type-specific searcher spell for them (Tenki), they were the first Koa'ki Meiru monsters to show up, the second archetype to try Contact Fusion (Gladiator Beasts), one of the first archetypes to have more than 1 type of Extra Deck monster (Fire Fists), and one of the first competitive archetypes that had some involvement with Pendulums (Yosenju).

So, what makes Beast-Warriors such a test bed for different ideas for Konami? It's like, when they want to raise the bar on something, or they want to test out a new archetype, for the most part they'll always have a Beast-Warrior thrown in as a measuring stick.

16th November 2015, 08:24 PM
I personnally don't use that many Beast-Warriors in my decks, execpt my Tachyon Dragon deck (yes, Tachyon Dragon, with Heliosphere, Radius and all the other Mizar's dragons) where Barabaros revealed to be one of my ace cards.

They are sort of the guinea pigs of Yu-Gi-Oh! I'm perfectly agreed. Along with Warriors, Spellcasters, Machines and Dragons.

16th November 2015, 08:37 PM
I feel as though some of these qualifications are overly specific ("the third type to get a monster with goblin attack force stats") but generally they probably got a chunk of "new stuff" because they didn't really have much type support for quite a while, so they were a "safe" type to use

That said, the newer beast-warrior archetypes are probably made with some of the fire formations and such in mind

16th November 2015, 10:59 PM
Yeah, it does seem like Beast-Warriors didn't really get their kick until Fire Fists came out, and the Fire Formations became a thing. I know there were some attempts to make them more relevant, like the stuff in Duelist Revolution, but except for Horn of the Phantom Beast, no one really cared for them, much, until Fire Fists came into being.

If that's the case, then I wonder if Beast-Warriors will continue to be a litmus test for Konami's ideas, or if they'll use another type to do so?

17th November 2015, 03:05 PM
Beast-Warriors seems to be closely related to the Warriors in that sense.

I wish more Beast-Warrior support would be released so that Tenki could become more relevant (since Reinforcement was hit).

17th November 2015, 05:49 PM
Wonder why Tenki didn't get hit ....?

17th November 2015, 06:22 PM
Probably because there aren't enough viable Beast-Warriors out there to justify it being hit. Right now, the only semi-competitive Beast-Warrior deck out there is Yosenjus, and that is rouge at best. I think they tried limiting it back when Fire Fists were all the rage, but when that hype died down, they unlimited it again.

17th November 2015, 07:27 PM
Fire Fists got an edge over the competition with 3 Tenki vs 1 RotA but I think the only relevant thing they recently got was Red Resonator. Wonder if that'll push them ahead in viability?

18th November 2015, 09:41 PM
I dunno, but I would like more viable Beast-Warriors in the future, maybe an update to Yosenjus or Phantom Beasts or Fire Fists or something, or a new archetype, entirely. Hell, at this point, I'd like a new Beast-Warrior Koa'ki Meiru monster to facilitate the Beast-Warrior Koa'ki Meiru strategy out there.