BUSHIROAD, MAKE HIM A BLITZ ORDER YOU COWARDS!
Posted Mar 9, 2021, 5:34 AM UTC
2729
to this day, I still think that denial griffin and the lock mechanic is the true form of "control" for vanguard. everything else just feels like a inconvenience to the opponent
7
I agree. I think the reduction in power on imprison when compared to lock or bind will hopefully see a return of proactive removal/control mechanics.
4
I prefer playing my turn and letting my opponent play their turn without interruptions like Denial Griffin. Reason I quit Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh! was because the opponent could interrupt you on your turn, and I really love that Vanguard doesn’t focus on that. It’s what makes it stand out. Plus there’s no worse feeling in a game than paying a cost only to have the effect negated and the resources wasted.
6†
But in turn, a horrible feeling is the opponent doing a massive win play and you couldn't do anything to prevent it cause the costs are too low to deny resources meaningfully and theres no interaction.
Stares at DOTX, Gavrial and Astral Poets
(I know they're not unbeatable but most of the time you have no decisions whether you won or loss as all you can do prey they can't kill, making the game feel too automated which isn't fun)
10
G guards are a great mechanic and interaction during the guard phase is fun. It doesn't need to be direct board control, but giving us more opportunity for good play to show itself beyond just guarding well is a good thing. I'll never understand why people want a less interesting game.
3
I do want some sort of interaction with Blitz Orders, I just hate the idea of my rearguard being removed from the field during my own turn. As long as the interaction doesn’t go that far with it, I think it’ll be fine.
1
On the other hand, it forces you to plan around them using that removal. Whether by setting up backups or limiting their open damage, it's partially on you and forces you to play in creative ways which can be fun in its own right. Whatever card does that just needs to be appropriately costed.
2
I see your point, and I understand the lack of control over the opponent can make it unfun sometimes, but I think the real issue is in the card design (especially lately).
Vanguard definitely has times where I don’t need to have control during my opponent’s turn to survive, especially during base set and early LB where most of the cards were balanced equally.
Back then, smart guarding bought you an extra turn, and it was a white-knuckle battle for survival, which I found really fun. Whereas in V Series, it’s a race to pop off harder and faster than the opponent, which makes it less fun as a non-interruption heavy card game. I’ve definitely been burned out on V Series lately for that exact reason.
If the cards are designed well, I honestly don’t think it needs to be based around play-interruption of any sort, because play-interruption sucks in my opinion. But that’s a big “if”.
Hyped to see how D Series plays, though. Just gotta see if smart guarding matters as much as it did in early Vanguard. Because smart guarding feels really satisfying to pull off.
2†
It is impossible. If you don't accept some control during your turn (either directly by griffin or extended from last turn like lock or anything similar), multiattack reigns over all decks as the mechanic without any counter.
Your ideal may be possible at the beginning of the game when aggro is not yet that developed (like now in D), but it will ultimately degenerate in autopilot decks once it gets powercreeped a little. G and V are there as examples and G is even worse as griffin and lock actually existed there without being able to stop the absolute rule of aggro.
2
[removed]
1
But still, the problem there is the card design, because cards were designed to degenerately multi-attack. The problem can be solved by cards not being allowed to do that.
And also, the two best decks at the end of G were Kagero and Chaos Breaker, because they had Griffin and Lock, so saying they couldn’t stop the absolute rule of aggro is probably inaccurate since they didn’t use aggro to become the best two decks in the game.
To be clear, I do think control is necessary, but the opponent having control on your turn is super annoying. I think the opponent should have control only on their turn, because that’s how Vanguard was designed to be.
I don’t mind Blitz Orders, I just hope they can’t touch the opponent’s field during the opponent’s turn.
0
Sounds like you would really like the Pokemon Tcg.
2
For me, the Pokémon TCG isn’t as fun as Vanguard. Been playing Vanguard since Limit Break, and I’ve never had as much fun with Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh!, and Pokémon as I’ve had with Vanguard.
2
agree. In yugioh sometimes your opponent uses more time of your turn to combo than you do. Its just unfun to see your opponent basicly otk you while its your turn.
1†
laughs in Orcust
3
Okay, but without control YuGiOh literally becomes a game where whoever goes first wins almost automatically.
3
Yu-Gi-Oh! the way it is now absolutely needs play-interruption. The way it was during the beginning of the game was designed to have no play-interruption. But now it’s become a game where the best course of action is to concede the game if you don’t open hand traps. Yuck.
0
If we have Denial Griffin in V. Itll counter a lot of RG dependent Decks
I like it
4
What part of 3000 years into the future did you not get?
1
That would be wayyy too op
1
I think Brandt Gate especially are likely to get blitz order removal.
0
Good lord no
0
Good (over)lord yes
3
This is the savior V series needed.
Not like it would be enough to fix that mess. It would need realiable control allies.
0
I do think we'll get something like this for DE as a blitz. Maybe unique flavors of that type for other blitzes, like a DS one that puts a rear guard the opponent controls into their soul, or a BG one that imprisons them.