PDA

View Full Version : Concept Comparison: Xyz vs Synchro



clairedestroyer!
13th January 2016, 11:25 PM
There is an idea that I hope to dispel, using this post. That idea is that Xyz are inherently better than Synchro as mechanics, instead of the relative strength of Xyz & Synchro monsters being a result of the design era (and fundamentally, the fact that card strength will grow over time). I will try my best to share every thought on feeling on the matter, in order to help you understand my point.

Firstly, a very brief tl;dr of my arguments:


The idea that Xyz, as a mechanic, is stronger than Synchro, as a mechanic, is incorrect for a number of reasons.
Xyz are on average stronger than Synchro on average solely because the power of cards in a game rises over time and Xyz are newer cards.
Ergo, to disdain Xyz as a concept is incorrect, because if the release order were reversed and Xyz existed first, Synchro would be the stronger and better mechanic.
Because of this, the real thing to take issue with is not any one particular mechanic, but the level of power the game reached at a certain time.
If that is what you take issue with, the recourse is to limit your play to a time when the level of power is closer to your ideal, or to manufacture your own format of play if the former action is infeasible.


Let's start with the direct comparison of mechanics. Note that several items are not a valid subject of comparison, because these items arise not from the mechanics themselves. Again, we must excise any and all factors that exist due to the card pool or individual design at a point of time because this is an uneven comparison.

As such, the following are not valid:

The relative stats of any Synchro/Xyz monster, as well as the comparitive strength of the effects of any real card (with very few, mostly illustrative exceptions). This is merely a factor of time favoring the newest cards.
The "ease" of making an Xyz Monster vs a Synchro Monster, as the ease of making these cards is solely dependant on how good the materials are (ie it's another factor of time).
Any reference to the current meta, as the meta is defined by the best cards, so to repeat myself ad nauseum it is a factor of time.
The ability to build a deck that focuses on one of these mechanics, because deckbuilding is yet again defined by the relative strength of cards (I'm sure you're tired of hearing about this at this point).


So what is there left to talk about with all that gone? The deep, deep theoretical and conceptual ideas beind the mechanics. As such, there will be little to no reference to the strength of any real card. Remember, any power comparison between cards is innately unfair unless the cards are contemporaneous, which is incredibly limiting. We aren't here to discuss why one card is better than another; it is secondary to our goal. This is solely about the fundamental aspects.

With all of the preamble out of the way, let's (finally) get to the comparison itself. So what exactly makes Xyz weaker than Synchro? Multiple aspects combine to make this relationship: possible inputs, delayed resource recovery, self-limiting design. For two of these, Xyz can only at best match Synchro. For the other it is far and away worse. Let's start with the latter to illustrate.

Possible Inputs

To make this as simple as possible, this one will involve one of the few comparisons of real cards. Specifically, we will be looking at two monsters designed at the same relative point in their mechanic's lifespan (very early) and who share a possible input (not to mention overall design ideals). These two monsters will be Stardust Dragon and Number 39: Utopia. For those who are unaware, I will give the stated possible inputs on the cards. Stardus Dragon is "1 Tuner + 1 or more non-Tuner Monsters" with the additional caveat that their combined levels equal 8. Number 39: Utopia is "2 Level 4 Monsters". So what does that mean for inputs? Well, Utopia has exactly 1: 4+4. That's about as limited as you can get in terms of inputs in this game without resorting to specific named cards. Stardust can also accept 4+4 gladly, but it can go much further than that. In the following spoiler will be all possible inputs that can lead to a Stardust Dragon:

2 monsters:
1+7
2+6
3+5
4+4

3 monsters:
1+1+6
1+2+5
1+3+4
2+2+4
2+3+3

4 monsters:
1+1+1+5
1+1+2+4
1+1+3+3
1+2+2+3
2+2+2+2

5 monsters:
1+1+1+1+4
1+1+1+2+3
1+1+2+2+2

The number of possible fields that can make a Stardust Dragon far exceed the number of fields that can make a Utopia, with the natural caveat that you need 1 and only 1 tuner. The relative ease of that is determined by the strength of such cards at any one time, as well as the overall cardpool so it is outside our scope. Remember that the only reason Xyz seems easier to play into and build around is that the cards that specifically support Xyz were released later and ergo are just natively better. Remember also that the Extra Deck size limit did not exist until Synchros, and came about as a direct result of how easy to access Synchros are. Whether Xyz being released first would have caused the same limit is unknowable, but I personally doubt it. Especially if we are talking about our hypothetical 2008 were Xyz premiere as the brand new card type, the pool of monsters of the same level would still be much smaller and weaker, on top of Xyz as a concept limiting it's own input. Even in instances of "x or more (max 5)" this is limited by the requirement of same level. That monster would have at most 4 valid inputs (for 2 or more), compared to 17 for our Synchro Monster here. Compound this yet again with Xyz disallowing tokens, cutting out even more cards that Synchro can use freely. To say Xyz are innately easier to make than Synchro is incorrect. The reason this happens in reality is due to the relative lack of good tuners, which could easily have not been the case in a scenario with a different release timeline.

Self-limiting Design

This one is a more intuitive and obvious idea, in fact it has already been mentioned elsewhere: Xyz, for the most part, have their effects limited by their materials. Note that while our current cardpool has Xyz having more powerful effects overall, that is not a product of the mechanic itself. If Xyz were released earlier, it is incredibly feasible to expect they would be limited even further (by making overall effects weaker to fit the time and possibly making material costs more stringent), if not mandatory. The absolute best an Xyz can do in terms of self limiting effect is to match a Synchro Monster (by having absolutely no effects that rely on it's materials in any form), but only 4 Xyz Monsters that currently exist have effects that do not rely on materials. These are Number 58: Burner Visor, Gaia Dragon the Thunder Charger, Number 69: Heraldry Crest and Number 8: Heraldic King Genom-Heritage. Two of these copy other Xyz Monsters effects as a major part of their own effect, meaning their effect is only as good as the other Xyz Monsters on the field. Compare this to the vast majority of Synchro Monsters, who can keep doing the same thing as long as nothing else removes them from the equation or limits their effects. The difference is pretty plain, and would be far more noticable if Xyz Monsters didn't usually get better effects than Synchro counterparts, due to their more recent design.

Delayed Resource Recovery

Another more intuitive concept, but people tend to not follow this one through to all its endpoints. Xyz Monsters do not immediately put their materials in a usable place. They are stuck "in the void", so to speak, unable to be recovered from where they are until they go somewhere else. synchro Monsters, by comparison, put their materials in the Graveyard which has always been a fairly accessible area of the game. This is relevant for the reason of the sorts of plays you can make using those materials in multiple contexts. An Xyz Monster can match a Synchro Monster in that regard, if it is removed from the field and puts it's materials in the grave, and only in that instance. Those materials can be locked by a multitude of things, including: being unable to use all the materials on a card at once, being unable to use the effects of a card at all due to the effects of other cards such as Mistake, not having any detach effects at all, and the generally small number of cards that let you interact with Materials that aren't associated with that particular card. Things like prioritizing detach order or not wanting to use certain monsters as Xyz Material as they are comparitively worse are habits and ideas that arise from this weakness. Not being allowed to immediately take advantage of every card you used at once is a drawback and the choices players make to mitigate that drawback is a factor of skill. The only real drawback Synchro faces is the possibility of missing the timing, and Xyz is not immune to that either.

As a final note on resources, Pendulum as a mechanic favors Syncho more than Xyz. This is pretty innately obvious as using Pendulum Monsters as Xyz Material don't go to the Extra Deck to be recurred, while Synchro Material do. The reason Pendulum Decks at the current moment use more Xyz Monsters is solely because these are the best options despite the drawback. This is not some innate factor of Xyz Monsters that make them better. The best cards to use in your Extra Deck just happen to have black borders right now, and that's debatable to an extent (Ignister, Omega, Scarlight, Meteorburst, Naturia Beast are all powerful Syncho Monsters being used, and decks will even dip to cards like Masked Chameleon to be able to use them).

It is absolutely fine to think that cards behave in a way you don't enjoy. I just ask that you do not react solely from an emotional level, but to really consider every aspect involved. This is a positive for you as well. If you can really point out the issues of something and you have the facts and arguments to back it up, your point is that much stronger. Anyone can say "x is unfair, end of discussion" or "cancer", so the value in those statements is greatly diminished. The conversation, and the knowledge and growth of everyone involved will only benefit if people take the time to do this. It is a positive for everyone to have a more in-depth view of things, even if the end conclusion is the same.

As for my last points, I have only one real thing to say: Please understand that problems you feel exist in the game are not universal. Even in the majority of what would seem to be open and shut cases, whether a card is broken, discussion needs to happen and proof offered and considered in the wider context of the whole game. This is not a statement to ignore problems, but to take solving them on a personal level. Spending time attacking others for enjoying certain aspects you dislike, or even just being dismissive of those aspects in themselves, does not do anyone any favors. Live and let live must become the order of the day. While one half is rigorously defended (notice how much energy people will spend defending casual play), it is worthless without the other. The few posters I can think of with an interest in competitive play on this site have mostly been yelled into silence. One of them seems to have even left entirely due to every one of their deck profiles turning into a fight about why they were being cancerous, or unfair to their opponent for the card choices they made. That is unacceptable for any community who wishes to be open to all. A news site is at the forefront of any such community. Being maligned by others is not justification for turning around and doing it back. Show that you can be the bigger person, the more open person, the person willing to put time and energy in something they love to change it. Even if only on the small scale, doing this shows an admirable strength of character. Maybe you are unable to change Konami's process or ideas about things. In fact, you almost definitely can't do that. Instead, take what power you do have to enact things in your sphere of influence. Things like ARG tournaments and NewGiOh show that you are not alone. Everyone has things they feel would improve the game. Let those ideas come out in any way they can, do not feel like Konami, or anyone else's thoughts about the game restrict you personally. And in return, offer everyone the respect they deserve by nature of everyone having the same goal: to enjoy Yu-Gi-Oh, on some level.

Mystic TimeKeeper
13th January 2016, 11:50 PM
Ok, that's a nice wall of text, I agree with most of it on a theoretical base but I have some things to say about it:

1. About the possible inputs, I have to disagree on this part. You said that "The number of possible fields that can make a Stardust Dragon far exceed the number of fields that can make a Utopia", that is true but I read it as saying that this fact is a plus to the Synchro mechanic while I'd rather say it doesn't matter because in the actual deckbuilding you would favor the easiest combination accessible instead of keeping things diverse. Given the choice people would have mostly choose to focus on a single level as to get the most consistence in summoning, and having Tuner of the same level coupled with same level Non-Tuner gives the best ratio (admitting the focus on one level). Xyz makes this even more consistent by removing the need for the tuner altogether making that with all LV4 monsters deck unlike Synchro as soon as you draw 2 monsters you are guaranteed your Extra Deck summon with no concern for Tuner ratio of the sort. On this part I say that Xyz got a serious advantage.

2. Theoretically true but considering actual game-state there aren't much chances for Synchro and Xyz alike to stay on the field more than one turn, coupled with common OPT clauses I find this point not much relevant nowadays

3. Here I have nothing to say, I always thought this was the only true advantage Synchro had over Xyz so I won't say anything about this (I do think however that Pendulum working well with Synchro will probably work against them but that's another story).

So my conclusion is that I think that conceptually Synchro and Xyz are on the same level, but external factors made so that one is overshadowed by the other.

Pendulum
14th January 2016, 12:03 AM
Ok, so... I don't want to start a big fuss over this, it's not really necessary.
So I'll try to take a summarized approach to this:
I don't agree with you. Xyz are better than Synchros. You can easily Xyz summon than Synchro summoning. You will always have a way to Xyz summon in a dedicated deck, while on a dedicated Synchro deck you'll still brick, because you need Tuners. Xyz decks don't need ratios. Xyz don't need so many resources.
It's true you have more combinations to pull a Stardust than a Utopia. But it's way easier to Summon 2 Level 4, than any of those combinations for Stardust with a Tuner among them.
You need more summons to pull a Synchro.
Sure, Synchros can always use their effects, as opposite to Xyz who need Materials. However, they don't last more than one turn. Xyz are meant to appear, do their job, and then... Well, then is doesn't really matter. Synchros will disappear also, in general.
Xyz have a better toolbox. You can summon the tool you need with any combination (2 Level 4). Unlike with Synchros (you may need to summon BlackRose, but you can only go for Stardust, for instance).
Xyz are easier to use (less reasoning behind them).
Pendulums favor Xyz more. Look at the decklists. We are still missing generic Pendulum Tuners to make Synchro able to abuse the Pendulum Mechanic.
There are more defined Xyz decks than Synchro ones. And the majority of those Synchro decks are outdated now.
So, Xyz are better than Synchros. Look at PSYFrame. They are the Synchros of today (because they were conceived in the today's game), they are not that good.

Mystic TimeKeeper
14th January 2016, 12:07 AM
Ok, let's start this:


Ok, so... I don't want to start a big fuss over this, it's not really necessary.
So I'll try to take a summarized approach to this:
I don't agree with you. Xyz are better than Synchros. You can easily Xyz summon than Synchro summoning. You will always have a way to Xyz summon in a dedicated deck, while on a dedicated Synchro deck you'll still brick, because you need Tuners. Xyz decks don't need ratios. Xyz don't need so many resources.
It's true you have more combinations to pull a Stardust than a Utopia. But it's way easier to Summon 2 Level 4, than any of those combinations for Stardust with a Tuner among them.

True, the best combination for Stardust would be 2 LV4 and the Tuner part scerws on it


Sure, Synchros can always use their effects, as opposite to Xyz who need Materials. However, they don't last more than one turn. Xyz are meant to appear, do their job, and then... Well, then is doesn't really matter. Synchros will disappear also, in general.
Xyz have a better toolbox.
Xyz are easier to use (less reasoning behind them).

Guess it's true for various reason, but not a fault of the mechanic itself.


Pendulums favor Xyz more. Look at the decklists. We are still missing generic Pendulum Tuners to make Synchro able to abuse the Pendulum Mechanic.
There are more defined Xyz decks than Synchro ones. And the majority of those Synchro decks are outdated now.
So, Xyz are better than Synchros. Look at PSYFrame. They are the Synchros of today (because they were conceived in the today's game), they are not that good.

False, that has nothing to do with the mechanic itself. Pendulum obviously favor Synchro way more than Xyz, but Konami is biased towards Synchro because Xyz sells better and they want them to stay relevant, at least that's the impression I have.

Pendulum
14th January 2016, 12:14 AM
Guess it's true for various reason, but not a fault of the mechanic itself.

2 Level 4 are easier to use than a Tuner and whatever you need to fill the Level space of the Synchro monster. It's easier to build to it. So, since it's a necessity for the mechanic (2 Level 4 or a Tuner and whatever the Levels you are still missing (which is harder to have than two monsters with the same Level)), I'd say Xyz Summoning is easier than Synchro Summoning.




False, that has nothing to do with the mechanic itself. Pendulum obviously favor Synchro way more than Xyz, but Konami is biased towards Synchro because Xyz sells better and they want them to stay relevant, at least that's the impression I have.

Well, I gotta give you reason on that, it doesn't have to do with the mechanic. With Pendulum, you can splash everything you need to go towards Xyz or Synchro. But to go with Synchro, you need the Tuner. That makes things harder. But discussing Pendulum here is not that really important, in my opinion.
Pendulum, at the least, favors both mechanics equally. But Xyz will lose their Pendulum fodder, as opposite to Synchros (who will lose only the Tuner, due to the lack of generic Pendulum Tuners).

Jakinus
14th January 2016, 12:23 AM
So... It comes to the individual card designs rather than the mechanic itself. Also the moment that the mechanic is released afects the efficiency and power of the mechanic because a bigger card pool means more options, this could leave to another point that the Xyz mechanic had the improvements that the Synchro era brought to the table, and that make them really good.

Now that I think about it this is why a lot of people complained about the Synchros, the new cards that got released were more powerful and easier to get on the board than in the previous era to make the mechanic viable, because at the start of the 5D's era you're needed 2 monsters to bring one, an inherent minus. They needed a way to make those Synchros worth it, and power creep make it possible. Then Xyz came and another wave of power creep needed to happen.

The way I saw Xyz mechanic when it was announced was that they're easy to make, to make up for a flaw that a deck could have, they do their job and you don't use them anymore, disposable tools. Now Xyz are the "superior" mechanic because they are the result of two important waves of power creep that the game needed to keep it fresh and how weakly balanced are a lot of cards to make the mechanic attractive.

What happened with Xyz is what is happening with Pendulum, the result of a third wave of power creep, not only having the Synchro but also the Xyz mechanic to make it strong.

clairedestroyer!
14th January 2016, 12:26 AM
Ok, that's a nice wall of text, I agree with most of it on a theoretical base but I have some things to say about it:

1. About the possible inputs, I have to disagree on this part. You said that "The number of possible fields that can make a Stardust Dragon far exceed the number of fields that can make a Utopia", that is true but I read it as saying that this fact is a plus to the Synchro mechanic while I'd rather say it doesn't matter because in the actual deckbuilding you would favor the easiest combination accessible instead of keeping things diverse. Given the choice people would have mostly choose to focus on a single level as to get the most consistence in summoning, and having Tuner of the same level coupled with same level Non-Tuner gives the best ratio (admitting the focus on one level). Xyz makes this even more consistent by removing the need for the tuner altogether making that with all LV4 monsters deck unlike Synchro as soon as you draw 2 monsters you are guaranteed your Extra Deck summon with no concern for Tuner ratio of the sort. On this part I say that Xyz got a serious advantage.

2. Theoretically true but considering actual game-state there aren't much chances for Synchro and Xyz alike to stay on the field more than one turn, coupled with common OPT clauses I find this point not much relevant nowadays

3. Here I have nothing to say, I always thought this was the only true advantage Synchro had over Xyz so I won't say anything about this (I do think however that Pendulum working well with Synchro will probably work against them but that's another story).

So my conclusion is that I think that conceptually Synchro and Xyz are on the same level, but external factors made so that one is overshadowed by the other.



Remember that my point is to ignore external factors, because obviously right now one is favored, but that is not a static relationship. This is to combat the perception that, for example (not quoting anyone in particular), Xyz ruined the game or that it is an innately unhealthy or skill-less mechanic. Those properties, if they exist at all, come from the overall state of the game itself.

I can contest the points you bring up.

As for the first, the "ease of deckbuilding" you bring up is fallacious. It adds inordinate value to cards for the sake of "summoning consistency" (which can, sjhould, and usually will be overcome with card effects). The actual process of deckbuilding overall should be done with a goal in mind. If that goal is to have fun, stop here. If fun is the ultimate justification, nothing is off bounds. Wanna play Gate Guardian? Go for it. The strength of the cards themselves are entirely secondary to your personal feelings. So if you wanna use all monsters of one level, or monsters of every level, that's the end of the discussion. If your goal is to win, then there is no "consistency" that overrides your major directive: to win. The best cards are the best cards, even if some time and debate needs to be had to discover them. If your goal is to use the best cards, you have no reason to cut them for something suboptimal. For example, if Doppelwarrior is the best card in it's niche at the moment, and the niche Doppelwarrior has is vital to winning, you run Doppelwarrior. It doesn't matter if the best tuner to pair with Doppel is a different level (like Junk Synchron as an example) because whatever downside there is to not having a level 2 to pair with Doppel doesn't matter if that's what it takes to win. Again, the reason Xyz is currently better is the cards used to make them are better. If we were playing with the 2008 cardpool, and we had Xyz instead of Synchro, the mechanic would probably flop, even if tuners were reworked to remove the tuner status and gain an effect that would aid Xyz Summons.

As a currently relevant example (stretching a bit perhaps), pendulum magicians were (and in the TCG are at the moment) considered the best deck by some people. In that instance, running cards that are a strong part of the deck's play like Odd-Eyes (an actually awful card outside this context) or Re-Cover (to make Naturia Beast, even though the chances of resolving it's effect aren't fantastic and it is entirely unable to be Pendulum Summoned) will happen even if it doesn't match the level of a Magician. The lack of tuners is, again, a function of the cardpool. The majority of our tuners exist from before Xyz, and are ergo products of their time with all the weaknesses inherent in that. That does not mean that it is innately easier, in all theoretical cardpools, to go for Xyz. Just in ours.

As for point 2, you are looking to the current meta, which can change. In a meta were monsters stick around longer, the lack of repeatable effects is a huge problem. As an illustrative example, compare Junk Gardna and Tin Archduke. In a format where monsters are relatively hard to kill, Tin Archduke becomes much worse. Archduke can effect the field at max 3 turns. It is possible to strip it of it's uses and then ignore it as it becomes a vanilla. Junk Gardna can do what it does forever. The only limits come from it surviving (which in this theoretical meta won't be hard) and avoiding other card effects that can stop it, which Archduke also suffers from. Almost any Xyz can eventually be invalidated by itself, solely due to their nature. Most synchro monsters will do what they do until stopped by force. That's a significant advantage in favor of Synchro.

King
14th January 2016, 12:31 AM
Nice place to leave this >> Xyz Master Race Bullshits aside lets be serious

if you compare a Level 8 Synchro Monster to an Rank 4 Xyz which both of the situations uses 2 Level 4 Monsters, most of the time (excluding some exceptions) the Synchro Monster will always outpower in ATK and effects the Rank 4 Monster, an example is Scarlight Red Daemon Dragon vs Castel, In the first Situation you use 2 Level 4 monsters to summon a monster that can Wipe a good part of the field plus giving some damage and is a 3K ATK beatsick, now in the other side we have a monsters that uses 2 Level 4 monsters but can only set a monster face-down or shuffla a card to the deck and only have 2K ATK in theory doesent seem to do that much, like it was said before synchros will most of time be stronger even in some cases against a 3 Level 4 Monsters Rank 4 the only thing that makes them barely used is the Lack of Usable Tuners to be used as Material and something that Xyz does not lack is usable Materials they are to easy to access in any deck hence they are weaker than a ton a synchros, if we have a good variety of decent tuners this scenarion can change, you can count on your fingers the amount of good tuners we have in terms of competitive gameplay here they are Effect Veiler, Ghost ogre, cherry blossom floathing ghost and Luster Pendulum (wich i believe is the best tuner we have at the moment)

Pendulum
14th January 2016, 12:34 AM
Well, to be honest, this discussion is a bit futile. I mean, times will change. If Konami suddenly decides to make Tuners that can special summon themselves and recycle themselves when sent to the grave (or generic Pendulum Tuners) and can be treated as non-tuners (like Phantom King Hydride) and make Synchro monsters with similar effects to Castel or other staples but stronger, I believe people would stop from running Xyz and would use Synchros, of course. It all depends on the game. You can't isolate the mechanics from the game.
Currently, Xyz are superior to Synchro due to the reasons I said above. And that's it.

clairedestroyer!
14th January 2016, 12:43 AM
So... It comes to the individual card designs rather than the mechanic itself. Also the moment that the mechanic is released afects the efficiency and power of the mechanic because a bigger card pool means more options, this could leave to another point that the Xyz mechanic had the improvements that the Synchro era brought to the table, and that make them really good.

Now that I think about it this is why a lot of people complained about the Synchros, the new cards that got released were more powerful and easier to get on the board than in the previous era to make the mechanic viable, because at the start of the 5D's era you're needed 2 monsters to bring one, an inherent minus. They needed a way to make those Synchros worth it, and power creep make it possible. Then Xyz came and another wave of power creep needed to happen.

The way I saw Xyz mechanic when it was announced was that they're easy to make, to make up for a flaw that a deck could have, they do their job and you don't use them anymore, disposable tools. Now Xyz are the "superior" mechanic because they are the result of two important waves of power creep that the game needed to keep it fresh and how weakly balanced are a lot of cards to make the mechanic attractive.

What happened with Xyz is what is happening with Pendulum, the result of a third wave of power creep, not only having the Synchro but also the Xyz mechanic to make it strong.

This is a good way to think about it, but the power creep waves you speak of happen more often than that. In fact, they happen every single time we get a new set. This is for an important reason: people will not buy a new set of cards (and invest more money into the game) unless it gives them new and better tools. That makes sense. Why invest the time and money and the random element of getting what you want (or trading more money to buy secondhand) if nothing you get will change your deck at all? Whether you do or don't is pointless if your deck is still the best 40 or so cards, and one of those choices is free.Ergo, it is imperative that at least some cards in every set are strictly stronger. How healthy or not your game is depends on how well you balance that with the curve you want your game to maintain. We've had examples of packs that have been just awful, Cyberdark Impact being the most infamous. Cyberdark Impact was, at the time, considered the most underpowered set ever. None of what it offered was relevant or useful at the time, except maybe Snipe Hunter. It sold awfully bbecause unless you really needed Snipe Hunter, or just bought for collection's sake, you could skip it entire. Ironically, advances in the cardpool made Cyberdark Impact much better (Instant Fusion, Black Horn, Vanity's Fiend, Chain Strike and Accumulated Fortune would at some point become much better cards when the cardpool changed) and this can sometimes happen, but you are then reliant on your game surviving to that point. While nearly everyone can agree that the power curve of Yu-Gi-Oh is becoming steeper and steeper over time, to think it is the result of any one mechanic in particular, instead of every single decision coalescing is a mistake. If we had some bizarro world where the release of Synchro, Xyz, and Pendulum were reversed, the power of those mechanics would almost certainly change acordingly.

Drakylon
14th January 2016, 01:22 AM
Synchro vs Xyz (vs Fusion vs Ritual vs Pendulum as well, for that matter) relies entirely on the quality of the cards currently in the game, so ignoring it makes the comparison moot. Every boss-type Summon has the potential to be stronger than the rest, even Fusion and Ritual, with the right cards. Imagine if Konami released a Polymerization that worked from the Deck, plus a slew of searchers for that specific card; Fusion would overpower both Synchro and Xyz in ease of summoning, while still having superior effects.

Fun fact: Currently there are only 286 Tuners in the entire game (spanning Levels 1-6), and a good chunk of them are restricted to a specific pool of Synchro Monsters. In comparison, there are 1701 Level 4 monsters. Assuming that 90% of each pool is generic, that makes about 257 usable Tuners and 1531 usable Level 4 monsters. No matter what combination of levels you use for Stardust Dragon, there will be fewer than 1531^2 combinations of 1 Tuner + 1 non-Tuner monster. (Level 4 is the most populous Level in the game; every other Level has less than 1000 monsters each.) Thus with the current card pool Utopia has more possible inputs than Stardust Dragon.

In addition, (most) Xyz Monsters do not require specific materials to Summon. They are used because they are far less restrictive than Synchros in that manner. This would not be a problem if every archetype had a reliable and viable Tuner monster, as Synchro would then become more splashable, but alas, that is not the case. As it stands, Xyz is usable in more decks simply because of its generic requirements.

clairedestroyer!
14th January 2016, 01:45 AM
Synchro vs Xyz (vs Fusion vs Ritual vs Pendulum as well, for that matter) relies entirely on the quality of the cards currently in the game, so ignoring it makes the comparison moot. Every boss-type Summon has the potential to be stronger than the rest, even Fusion and Ritual, with the right cards. Imagine if Konami released a Polymerization that worked from the Deck, plus a slew of searchers for that specific card; Fusion would overpower both Synchro and Xyz in ease of summoning, while still having superior effects.

Fun fact: Currently there are only 286 Tuners in the entire game (spanning Levels 1-6), and a good chunk of them are restricted to a specific pool of Synchro Monsters. In comparison, there are 1701 Level 4 monsters. Assuming that 90% of each pool is generic, that makes about 257 usable Tuners and 1531 usable Level 4 monsters. No matter what combination of levels you use for Stardust Dragon, there will be fewer than 1531^2 combinations of 1 Tuner + 1 non-Tuner monster. (Level 4 is the most populous Level in the game; every other Level has less than 1000 monsters each.) Thus with the current card pool Utopia has more possible inputs than Stardust Dragon.

In addition, (most) Xyz Monsters do not require specific materials to Summon. They are used because they are far less restrictive than Synchros in that manner. This would not be a problem if every archetype had a reliable and viable Tuner monster, as Synchro would then become more splashable, but alas, that is not the case. As it stands, Xyz is usable in more decks simply because of its generic requirements.

I disagree that the comparison is moot on a theoretical level, because the differences do inform card design and ergo the card pool itself. Neither in reality exist on their own because they inform and influence each other, but both can be singled out and discussed. Absolutely the current cardpool makes Xyz more accessible, but that's because the current cardpool is in large part a result of multiple years of designing for Xyz combined with a previous card pool that doesn't explicitely reject it. I would not be surprised to see the proportion of level 4 monsters to other monsters drop or rise significantly at various periods of time. I think we are in a way agreeing that the current reality is a product of our circumstances. My contention is that our current reality is not immutable, much like how "there are only 20 types" was often considered immutable until Psychics were released. Nor does number of members directly relate to strength. If Synchro monsters were far and away better than they are now and/or the smaller number of tuners we have were better then we can very well imagine that those numbers would be less relevant. Making a rank 4 may be easier but if the impact is lesser (and it likely will be) you're still encouraged to take the risk.

Your point about Fusion is funny, because for a short time recently Fusion WAS the best mechanic, due to Shaddoll Fusion (and earlier, Super Poly). However, that was very quickly invalidated because the card pool changed and disallowed what made Shaddoll Fusion good from happening. My point is not to argue that we at all times ignore the cardpool. My point is that the relative strength is an example of the cardpool, and furthermore, you as a player always choose what cardpool to play under. There is nothing stopping anyone from making their own formats, except their own time/energy/motivation. NewGiOh is an example of an alt format that took off rather spectacularly, and it was based on using Goat Control as a starting point. ARG format was based on the Konami format at the time of inception, but with additional changes and it's own schedule separate from Konami.

My final statement, I guess, would be this: there are supporters and detractors of every format. You may hate something, and another person may love it. In the case of Konami's format, neither of those opinions override Konami's. You can certainly have issues with a format, but respect that other players may not and that everyone who plays the game deserves at least that courtesy. If any format is unpalatable, you always have the option to explore others. Goat Control is still perenially popular (it is in fact the most popular previous format in terms of play after it's over) and LTGY is common too. You can even make your own format, like NewGiOh or ARG, using whatever pool and justification you'd like. I ask that people consider being constructive with the energy and thought they put into Yu-Gi-Oh, as that benefits everyone.

Swampertmaster
14th January 2016, 02:22 AM
First:really good read. Second: despite your points (which are very good ones) I'm going with camp Xyz only because of the two it's the faster mechanic to use and speed in YGO nowadays is crucial. On an unrelated note I find that synchros and Xyz's, like any cards used right, can complement each other really well.

Thanako
14th January 2016, 03:09 AM
I've always been more fond of Synchro Summoning as opposed to Xyz Summoning. It does get a bit more complicated, though. Some cards simply create situations where a card can change in level, become a Tuner, or something else entirely. The game caters to so many different playstyle options, but not all of them are viable. Konami has been relatively pushing that all are treated on an equal playing field with decks such as D/D/D, Zefra, and the Draco/ deck, just to name a few.

Let me give a valid example of where I stand.

A player has Timegazer and Stargazer Magician as their Pendulum Materials and goes for a Pendulum Summon of 2 level 4 monsters, Angel Trumpeter and Steel Calvary of Reptier. Now this is where the paths diverge.

The first player with this field goes into Number 39: Utopia, and then uses the mechanic of Xyz Summoning Number S39: Utopia the Lightning. This player can effectively attack over the opponent's sole monster for game, using the effect.

The second player Xyz Summons into Scarlight Red Dragon Archfiend, activates the effect to destroy the opponent's monster, and then attacks for game.

Both players had a level situation and did massive comparable damage using a preferred Summoning method. On the same, level field these options still exist. People will argue that Tuners are rarer than non-Tuners, and that is true. There is always a chance to draw dead, as well.

Ignoring your advice of looking at existing cards, I will mention a deck like Blackwings. This is a deck that can drop its entire hand in one turn due to Special Summoning. The same can be said for a deck focused on Summoning Utopia.

Both formats require at least 2 monsters, and that fact alone is the greatest weakness. Ignoring every card in the game, the fact that sometimes, no matter what you're playing, you're going to have to set a card and pass your turn. Bricking is not exclusive to Synchro decks.

My argument is that they are on equal ground in practice and theory.

Hope in the Interstice
14th January 2016, 03:38 AM
The thought occurs that Synchro and Xyz aren't stronger or weaker than one another; each of which have their own advantages and disadvantages. That said, I'd like to contest a couple of your points.


Delayed Resource Recovery

Another more intuitive concept, but people tend to not follow this one through to all its endpoints. Xyz Monsters do not immediately put their materials in a usable place. They are stuck "in the void", so to speak, unable to be recovered from where they are until they go somewhere else. synchro Monsters, by comparison, put their materials in the Graveyard which has always been a fairly accessible area of the game. This is relevant for the reason of the sorts of plays you can make using those materials in multiple contexts.
The point of Xyz Materials being "locked" out of the Graveyard is relevant for as long as they have use in the Graveyard (Mimicry Lanius, Damage Juggler) or they can be taken out of the Graveyard (Call of the Haunted, Deskbot 004). Despite the trends of the current meta, not too many monsters actually care whether they're Xyz Material or in the Graveyard and those that do tend to be a very valuable minority. Furthermore, in any gamestate in which you are not simply stalling for time as your opponent has the advantage, you are often either setting up, on the offensive, or on a counterattack. In any case, you're most likely going to use your Xyz Material as soon as your Xyz Monster hits the field. Occasions in which Xyz Monsters that cannot detach their materials are few and far between. I'm not saying these occasions don't happen—I have actually gone into Blaze Falcon with Mimicry Lanius without being able to detach due to my stupidity—but it seems very situational to count this as a point against Xyz.

There's another point I want to bring up and that's this: Synchro Monsters require Tuners. With this, I believe that one advantage Xyz has over Synchro is versatility and the ability to be ready whenever and wherever, but also in regards to deck building. I know you discussed this with TK but the point bears mentioning. Whatever your ultimate goal with deckbuilding, at some point, you'll want to bring out a Synchro/Xyz monster (hypothetically for this discussion, anyway). The thing about Xyz monsters is that all they care about is Levels equal to their Rank. Say you have a deck that barely goes into its Extra Deck at all, like Kozmos for example. You notice that two of your monsters are Level 4. "Oh hey, I can run Castel". Or you run Monarchs and, instead of using the Extra Deck-limiting support, you realise that Aither is really good at pumping out a free Level 8 alongside herself. "You know what? I could splash Felgrand Knight in here."

Synchros, on the other hand, demand Tuners rather than same Levels and those are not as coincidental. No matter how much older Synchro is than Xyz, the fact remains that, to run Synchros, you must run Tuners and your deck must accommodate them. Very few non-Synchro specialised decks can run Tuners naturally as part of their strategy; you have Atlanteans/Mermails thanks to Deep Sea Diva, Shaddolls have Falco, and Deskbots have 001 (I include Deskbots in here because, although the deck can Synchro Summon, the emphasis is more on beatdown and Synchro Summoning happens to be a delicious side treat). Tuners, in other instances, are techs rather than inherent gears of a deck's engine. Effect Veiler and Ghost Ogre & Snow Rabbit are very useful techs almost to the level of Mystical Space Typhoon and Raigeki and have a lot of utility outside of Synchro Summoning. However, no matter how good Effect Veiler and Ghost Ogre are, you still have to go out of your way to Synchro Summon if you are running them. Kozmos and other decks also have to go out of their way to Xyz Summon but less so.

clairedestroyer!
14th January 2016, 03:55 AM
Remember, I am discussing as an overall, purely hypothetical scope. The fact that you need 1 tuner and other non-tuners, is a fact that is true solely because of our current design timeline. Konami has shown on at least one occasion that they can and will design Synchros that behave otherwise (Gottoms), as well as Tuners that behave otherwise (Hide Ride) and it is very much in the realm of probability that had Synchros been made later, these types of cards would be far more common.

It is also incorrect to say material lock is the exception. Even right now it is the norm. The majority of Xyz are detach 1, once per turn. That effect in itself is material lock because the only way to get the second material off is to remove the Xyz. Cards like Castel and Dark Rebellion do not change the fact that the majority of Xyz cards used (Feral Imp, Trapeze, Majester, Photon Strike Bounzer, Norito, Abyss Dweller, Dracossack, Big Eye, Infinity, Raflessia, Durandal, etc etc) suffer from the problem.

Hope in the Interstice
14th January 2016, 04:05 AM
Remember, I am discussing as an overall, purely hypothetical scope. The fact that you need 1 tuner and other non-tuners, is a fact that is true solely because of our current design timeline. Konami has shown on at least one occasion that they can and will design Synchros that behave otherwise (Gottoms), as well as Tuners that behave otherwise (Hide Ride) and it is very much in the realm of probability that had Synchros been made later, these types of cards would be far more common.
I fail to see how Gottoms fits into this since he still requires Tuners all the same, which was the basis of my argument.


It is also incorrect to say material lock is the exception. Even right now it is the norm. The majority of Xyz are detach 1, once per turn. That effect in itself is material lock because the only way to get the second material off is to remove the Xyz. Cards like Castel and Dark Rebellion do not change the fact that the majority of Xyz cards used (Feral Imp, Trapeze, Majester, Photon Strike Bounzer, Norito, Abyss Dweller, Dracossack, Big Eye, Infinity, Raflessia, Durandal, etc etc) suffer from the problem.
Indeed, I didn't account for detaching the second material but, in many circumstances, there's no need or want to. I can't remember the last time not being able to detach a second monster would be a detriment.

clairedestroyer!
14th January 2016, 04:23 AM
The basis being, that if it doesn't matter how many tuners you need, that's motivation to run more tuners because even 2 tuners can still make a synchro, especially if effects like Hydride also became common. It is not outside the realm of design to have a deck of more tuners than not, using effects such as these, and synchros such as these, or stuff like tokens, changing control, etc etc to make up the deficit.

Michelle
14th January 2016, 04:43 AM
I will be monitoring this thread.

Sotavento
14th January 2016, 04:48 AM
Ignister Prominence shits on all other Xyz monsters tbfh.

King
14th January 2016, 04:54 AM
Ignister Prominence shits on all other Xyz monsters tbfh.

best synchro ever made but he can only be that frightening because of the support Luster Pendulum which is the best tuner in the game provides to him

R3QU13M
14th January 2016, 05:13 AM
Contact Fusion, shows the pro & cons of each. As both methods Synchro and Xyz seem as if they branch of this method. For instance Gladiator Beast Gyzarus requires Bestiari and another GB monster where as Bestiari could be described as the tuner. Then you have Essedarii where you just need two GB monsters. Where it doesnt matter similar to the ease method of going for a Xyz summon..

Pendulum
14th January 2016, 10:11 AM
The basis being, that if it doesn't matter how many tuners you need, that's motivation to run more tuners because even 2 tuners can still make a synchro, especially if effects like Hydride also became common. It is not outside the realm of design to have a deck of more tuners than not, using effects such as these, and synchros such as these, or stuff like tokens, changing control, etc etc to make up the deficit.

Having more Tuners will make it brick more easily. Two Tuners won't always make a Synchro. They can, however, if they happen to be the same Level, perform an Xyz. You can throw an Xyz into pratically every deck, because every deck runs monsters with the same Level. But not every deck runs a Tuner, which are indispensable for Synchros.
And you are deviating this towards an hypothetical scenario. especially if effects like Hydride also became common. That's not the case. Xyz is better than Synchro at the moment. You can't compare them in the void, it makes no sense.
And let's not talk about material lock. Like Hope said, detaching the last material was never a crucial move. And they don't stand enough time on the field for you to worry about it.

- - - Updated - - -


Ignister Prominence shits on all other Xyz monsters tbfh.

Like Castel/Dark Rebellion/101/Exciton (previously) does on it on the following turn.

Michelle
14th January 2016, 03:31 PM
Ignister is more troubling when you couple it with the fact it's a non-targeting removal, that is especially hindering to Pendulum decks while being also a 2850 body, not to mention even if it didn't have fodder on the field, it can generate it by SSing a Draco from the deck.

It's power is subjectively well measured to the fact you'll most likely be using a specific Tuner to summon it, but the fact it's not a necessity in itself as its materials are barely less vague than average, and that said tuner facilitates its summoning so effortlessly you have the imbalanced Monster there is.

Did I mention Ignister can remove any card without following the procedures other cards should (Castel detaches 2 to Target a face-up card, Rebellion as well as well as requiring battle, ARK requires not only that, but only targets specific, albeit consistently spread targets), It examplifies how Synchro monsters trump Xyz in certain categories, such as raw stats and effect potency, in exchange for flexible availability, that's not to say Ignister is balanced, is clearly the most degenerate easy-boss we've had for a long while.







I still monitor this thread.

Pendulum
14th January 2016, 03:33 PM
Ignister is more troubling when you couple it with the fact it's a non-targeting removal, that is especially hindering to Pendulum decks while being also a 2850 body, not to mention even if it didn't have fodder on the field, it can generate it by SSing a Draco from the deck.

It's power is subjectively well measured to the fact you'll most likely be using a specific Tuner to summon it, but the fact it's not a necessity in itself as its materials are barely less vague than average, and that said tuner facilitates its summoning so effortlessly you have the imbalanced Monster there is.

Did I mention Ignister can remove any card without following the procedures other cards should (Castel detaches 2 to Target a face-up card, Rebellion as well as well as requiring battle, ARK requires not only that, but only targets specific, albeit consistently spread targets), It examplifies how Synchro monsters trump Xyz in certain categories, such as raw stats and effect potency, in exchange for flexible availability, that's not to say Ignister is balanced, is clearly the most degenerate easy-boss we've had for a long while.

Oh, Ignister is more powerful than Castel or the others, no doubts. But it will last one turn too, unless the opponent is really out of luck.

Michelle
14th January 2016, 06:29 PM
Oh, Ignister is more powerful than Castel or the others, no doubts. But it will last one turn too, unless the opponent is really out of luck.

Maybe, maybe not, fact remains due to it's stats, Ignister is in practice harder to remove than Castel since it's effect can generate enormous disruption to the opponent, and provided the coined removal is taken away, it still has nearly 3K ATK, so one can't conventionally kill it as easily without being disturb-trigger as well.

If we went that route, most cards without a safety net are unreliable.