PDA

View Full Version : Potential Rule Change : Monster Effects not activating when used as Scales



Jolan
4th December 2015, 02:15 AM
This post here (http://ygorganization.com/forum/showthread.php/552-Performages-or-Speedroids-which-is-the-better-engine?p=15206&viewfull=1#post15206) got me thinking, currently both Ariadne and Plushfire are considered extremely broken due to both lacking OPT clauses and the ease of popping them with your own cards since they can just be set as scales and have their monster effects abused. Setting a scale is much easier than getting them out on the field.

Therefore, what if Konami went forward with a ruling that made it so Pendulum Monsters could not activate their monster effects if they were to be Destroyed while acting as a Scale? It would allow for cards like Plushfire and Ariadne to exist in the future, but floating Pendulum scales would not exist unless the Pendulum effect itself listed 'em.

What do you think? IMO a change like that would be beneficial, even though it's not as easy as just moving Ariadne and Plushfire to the banlist in various positions, be it limited or banned.

Dread Kaiser
4th December 2015, 02:19 AM
Would love to see that
Would not get hopes up

SynjoDeonecros
4th December 2015, 02:21 AM
That would make sense, since usually, when a monster is treated as a spell/trap card, and it's destroyed, it's destroyed as a spell/trap card, and gains the appropriate effects.

Dread Kaiser
4th December 2015, 02:22 AM
That would make sense, since usually, when a monster is treated as a spell/trap card, and it's destroyed, it's destroyed as a spell/trap card, and gains the appropriate effects.

thing is, while that'd be nice, its not consistent with existing rulings, which is why it works the way it does now
Destroyed as Spell/trap doesn't matter, what it is when the effect timing is right (a monster in the extra in this case) is what counts

Jolan
4th December 2015, 02:42 AM
thing is, while that'd be nice, its not consistent with existing rulings, which is why it works the way it does now
Destroyed as Spell/trap doesn't matter, what it is when the effect timing is right (a monster in the extra in this case) is what counts
Yeah, for example with Hastorr, his ruling states ''when this card is sent from the field to the Graveyard while a Monster zone...'' to prevent infinite looping. But there's no such thing on Pendulum monsters.

Pendulum
4th December 2015, 09:40 AM
Yeah, for example with Hastorr, his ruling states ''when this card is sent from the field to the Graveyard while a Monster zone...'' to prevent infinite looping. But there's no such thing on Pendulum monsters.

I also agree that they should have had something like that.
But knowing Konami, they won't make that happen now or ever.

Amaryllis
4th December 2015, 11:25 AM
It'd be like the ruling changes on Ignition Priority and End Phase duration. I think it's a change that has to happen to bring the Performer deck to heel.

I didn't realise that this entire post was inspired by one of my comments! I'll be doing a video on that very subject today. Thanks for bringing it to light in a topic, Jolan.

Acetraker
4th December 2015, 03:06 PM
Konami never makes rules that limit the possible creation of new themes or mechanics. This rule does. One of the reason why Konami don't officially make a rulebook explaining every aspect of the game mechanics and they do per card basis or leave it up to TO's.

They can make powerful cards like plush and then limit them when they sold enough. This is their business model and it works. You might not like it what is fine.

Deadborder
4th December 2015, 03:15 PM
honestly I don't think the idea of monster effects triggering from destroyed pendulums is inherently bad, I think it's just been poorly implemented in the cases where it does exist

if you really want a pendulum that doesn't trigger when popped as a scale, just write it in the effect text

additionally, these types of effects would have some of their impact lessened if they actually put hard OPT limits on them

Long story short, we've come a long way from the days of Woodland Sprite and Gilfer and it seems silly to block an entire avenue of potential card designs because some of them are poorly done

Volteccer
4th December 2015, 03:41 PM
They can make powerful cards like plush and then limit them when they sold enough. This is their business model and it works. You might not like it what is fine.

But, Plushfire is a common card. You can buy a playset for a song It's not even short print like Chicken Game.

Pendulum
4th December 2015, 04:01 PM
honestly I don't think the idea of monster effects triggering from destroyed pendulums is inherently bad, I think it's just been poorly implemented in the cases where it does exist

if you really want a pendulum that doesn't trigger when popped as a scale, just write it in the effect text

additionally, these types of effects would have some of their impact lessened if they actually put hard OPT limits on them

Long story short, we've come a long way from the days of Woodland Sprite and Gilfer and it seems silly to block an entire avenue of potential card designs because some of them are poorly done

I kinda agree with you.
The problem is they made a mechanic with some bugs, let's call it this way, and they're abusing of those bugs. You can't deny Flame Mascot or Ariadne are good cards, they just abuse to the max of the mechanic.
Even Deskbot 005 and 006 have floating effects. But their effects only trigger when destroyed from the Pendulum Zone and are Once Per Turn. I think these Deskbots are good, because you can make big plays with this effects but you can't abuse them so much it's annoying, like with FlameMascot and Ariadne.

Canvasofgrey
6th December 2015, 11:28 AM
But, Plushfire is a common card. You can buy a playset for a song It's not even short print like Chicken Game.

It has nothing to do with the rarity of the card. A broken card that has no PST nor an errata is still broken regardless of its rarity.

Volteccer
6th December 2015, 02:24 PM
It has nothing to do with the rarity of the card. A broken card that has no PST nor an errata is still broken regardless of its rarity.

Yes, but it does mean that Konami isn't actually making all that much money from selling it. So "limit it when it's sold enoigh" doesn't make much sense.

citrus
17th December 2015, 04:22 PM
Yes, but it does mean that Konami isn't actually making all that much money from selling it. So "limit it when it's sold enoigh" doesn't make much sense.

In this case, even though Plushfire is not a high-rarity card that's valuable in itself, Plushfire does drive up the value of many other cards that it depends to function to its full potential. It's actually a much more calculated move, and it has the potential to drive more sales than if it was just one expensive card. Look at it this way:

Luster Pendulum is basically expensive only because it's one of the best ways to take advantage of Plushfire's effect. This immediately drove up the value of Luster Pendulum (which is problematic in itself, but is relatively inert on its own, just like Plushfire), and subsequently boosted sales of CORE/CORE-SE products. Once BOSH drops with Clash of the Dracorrivals, the synergy between all these cards will drive sales of BOSH, and subsequently DOCS/DOCS-SE for Vector Pendulum.

Essentially, by creating a cheap, widely available, high-powered card, KDE introduces a sort of "gateway" that leads to many other (initially) cheap, widely available, high-powered cards. This will especially be the once BOSH launches with the new pack format. The fundamental idea is to decrease the barrier of entry to game and make powerful strategies more generally available. OCG has been doing this for a long time, and because of this, their player base is larger, younger, and (typically) more innovative (cost of innovation is low).

Granted this doesn't bode well for the long-term value of the high-rarity, high-powered cards, but it's better for the game as a whole in terms of advancing game strategy and knowledge spread. And for Konami, it means more sales from a wider player base, some of whom may be otherwise discouraged from purchasing product by the high costs and low pull-rates of high-rarity, high-powered cards.

The change in TCG pack structure, I believe, is KDE's realization that banking on high-rolling, experienced players to make the bulk of product purchases is unwise and unsustainable, because it leads to a less vibrant tournament scene (less tournament revenue) and stagnant knowledge state. The metagame becomes easy to predict and counter, and simultaneously becomes less interesting to and challenging to participate in (literally becoming pay-to-win).

The fact that Kozmos are still a high-rarity, high-powered archetype is probably attributable to the "old" way of thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if TCG's R&D team catches on, and future TCG exclusive archetypes will be similarly be low-rarity, high-power. For the KDE's needs, pack structures with easy access to powerful archetypes and high-rarity chase cards (with wide appeal) will do best for their revenue.

Acetraker
4th January 2016, 01:05 AM
But, Plushfire is a common card. You can buy a playset for a song It's not even short print like Chicken Game.

rarity doesn't matter, it's about a making a product multiplier.

I will simply explain Konami's business model.

They sell large stock to retailers, this is their sole profit. They make desirable cards so that more stock is sold, as it has a higher demand. This increases their profits.

This is one of the reason's why Rarity creep exists in the tcg. Making cards and mechanics that actively increase units sold to retailers is how the remain in business and prevents them loosing to the 2nd hand market.

Plushfire does sell more boxes of the set it's in regardless of it being a common etc.

Blanket rules like this will never be signed off as it limits creativity and at worse can be forgotten by design and miss by QA (if they have any on effects). That can lead to serious drama and issues.


Yes, but it does mean that Konami isn't actually making all that much money from selling it. So "limit it when it's sold enough" doesn't make much sense.

The above phrase I used was in reference to power creep. Once a set has sold enough units that surpasses the cost requirement to MAKE that set. They want to move onto the next set or product. The idea is say I want 100 million cards printed for bosh to sell around the world I need x money to buy the materials used, I create an investment in that product, I want it to sell well. Once it does sell well I move onto my next product.

Due to this they hit cards that would compete with newer products as if they allowed the older products to remain viable they would sell less units of the new products. Or worse they would have to make new products drastically more powerful than previous products. What isn't good for the game.

It's only a temporary way to make a profit over the cost of producing the product. An the goal of remaining profitable is always to increase the demand for STOCK that retailers buy in bulk. As that is where Konami makes their money.

This business model is very player independent. An a very good one from a business standpoint regardless of peoples opinions of them as a company is.