This article refers to archetypes that have a single or two MAINDECK monsters and a plethora of Spells/Traps. I don't think there's anything wrong with archetypes that have 1-2 Extra Deck monsters, and this article doesn't cover archetypes that barely have any cards either.
Eldlich
We're gonna start with possibly the strongest contender in our list, because the rest follow certain patterns which Eldlich don't.
Intro: Boasting a single monster that brings to mind a Structure Deck boss, "Eldlich" are famous both for the "Golden Lord"'s beefy stats and targeted send, and for their spells/traps' ability to float, replacing themselves with new cards from the Deck. This ability basically means that just by drawing one of them, you gain access to a nearly inexhaustible supply of spells/traps. Honestly I find the mechanic broken, as it essentially translates to an absurd 7 different searchers, even if they try to patch things up by sticking a (pointless) hopt with a choice.
The performance: "Eldlich" still largely dominates the game due to the insane consistency boosting and the "Golden Lord"'s status as self-recurring beatstick/removal. GY removal can hurt them, but without the "Golden Lord" himself being limited by the banlist, there is little point to it. They are usually mixed in with other problematically designed engines for largely unfocused Decks that rely on removal, and are themselves largely unaffected by it, seeing how any Spell/Trap in the GY can replace itself.
The lesson: There are 2 things to note from "Eldlich". 1)The single monster of the archetype is both searchable and largely self-recurring. "Golden Lord" fits both categories, summoned from the Deck by 2 different cards and added with another one, which are in turn searchable. After he has found himself on either the field or the GY, he can recur at a minimal cost with his own effect, much like a Strucutre Deck boss would. 2)With only 1 monster keeping the archetype together, the Spells/Traps need to have their own common mechanic, and boast frankly broken consistency boosting so the whole thing doesn't collapse on itself.
The problem: It's 10 different search effects total, in an archetype with 10 maindeck cards, this is NOT good design.
Invoked
The pattern I mentioned earlier, is the idea of various Extra Deck forms for a single maindeck monster. Now, this is nothing new, going all the way back to "Elemental Hero Neos" and his various Fusions, but the single/dual monster archetypes other than "Eldlich" all seem to converge towards this idea.
Intro: With the single monster of the archetype being a recurring Fusion Spell and a potential "Honest" for his Extra Deck forms, the entire deck revolves around the Fusion Spell. The Fusions Summoned by this are a combination of the single maindeck monster + an Attribute, and the Fusion Spell is able to banish materials from either GY. This gives great versatility to the Deck (at the cost of some consistency), as it means that you can both banish dangerous monsters from your opponent's GY and rely on them for at least 1 of the Fusion Materials. Afterwards, the Spell floats, returning its searcher to your hand and shuffling itself in the Deck, basically translating to you having access to it at least X1 every single turn.
The performance: "Invoked" are still mixed into a lot of Decks today, due to how few cards the maindeck engine needs (merely 3 different ones, all of which either search or readd each other). With the Link 2 providing even more consistency boosting, you could technically even cut it down to 1 maindeck card if you needed to.
The lesson: Once again, we see that crazy consistency boosting is required for these decks to function, with every single card of the core engine in some way providing card advantage.
The problem: While having 3 different searchers sounds annoying (and it is), it's not that huge an issue for an archetype with so few maindeck cards.The problem is "Invocation"'s ability to function entirely through GY banishing for materials, essentially turning it to an one-card fusion engine, and as we've seen from "Red-Eyes Fusion", that is always a recipe for disaster. Destroying, sending to the GY or bouncing the maindeck monster does nothing, making "Invoked" largely unaffected by most forms of removal. Simply put, "Invoked" have a medium to high output with zero investment.
Sky Striker
As I've often said, whatever effects your Link 1 has are basically additional common mechanics of your entire archetype, but what happens when the archetype only has 1 monster and multiple Link 1s?... The same thing.
Intro: The archetype only has a single monster and spells, with the Spells having the common mechanic of triggering an additional effect if there are 3+ Spells in your GY, a mechanic easily fullfilled. Moreover, none of them can activate if you control monsters in the MMZ, meaning that the Link 1s are the only way to go, and you will rarely control more than 1 monster at a time. The maindeck monster can quickly tag out into any of the Link 1s if it is targeted, and can self-resurrect if any of the Link 1s bite the dust. Moreover, most of the Link 1s had some kind of consistency boosting, and were able to use other Link 1s as Link Materials. The deck became most infamous for its searcher spell.
The performance: "Sky Strikers" utterly dominated the formats that saw them at full power. Konami tried various unsuccessful limitations without removing the main source of their power, the searcher spell, before giving up and outright banning it, along with limiting one of their most splashable cards and their second strongest advantage generation spell. Since then more "Sky Striker" cards have been released, but they have seen no real play to speak of, with the single searcher of the maindeck still banned.
The lesson: A few things to note here. 1)Having multiple Link 1s is a very bad idea, essentially giving the single maindeck monster or the Token FOUR different effects accessible at any time. 2)Allowing Link 1s to use other Link 1s as materials is just cheap. Sky Strikers could basically gain access to 4 different effects through the extra deck at any time, while at the same time funneling their GY for cards like "Pot of Avarice" with zero investment. 3)Having a searchable, recurrable searcher that also +es you with no hopt is just dumb. They should probably have diversified the effects somehow, giving the free draw to another of their spells and having the bonus effect of "Engage" be something completely different. 4)When sticking so many limitations to your mechanics, essentially dooming it to being largely unmixable with other cards, it is quite likely that the archetype has to end up completely self-reliant, and that is hard to do without ending up busted.
The problem: "Engage" was just dumb from the start, it could not end in any way other than it being banned. A searchable, recurrable searcher that +es with no hopt, how could they not see that coming when designing it? Other than that, we once again see that it is dangerous to give Link 1s consistency-boosting effects, which, fortunately, Konami seemed to realise later down the line. Finally, while I understand the intent when designing them, having multiple Link 1s in a single archetype that can Link off each other is just crazy. "Sky Strikers" essentially had a second toolbox right in the extra deck that required no investment to be accessed. A frankly underwhelming low to medium output, but at zero investment still ended up being broken.
While "Sky Strikers" did end up getting a second maindeck monster, it never saw real play, which is why I'm largely considering them a single-monster archetype. The following though were designed from the start to be dual-monster archetypes, in a clearly experimental phase by Konami.
Evil ★ Twins
Konami was really going mad scientist with these. With each of the dual maindeck monsters acting as its own mini-archetype meant to compliment the other one, the deck had a warm reception but largely underperformed in the end. We await to see how their upcoming support will affect them.
Intro: With each of the maindeck ladies Summoning the other one if you have no other monsters, and each of their Link 2 Versions able to Summon the other (indirectly) and triggering a different toolbox effect off it, "Evil Twins" seem to have a good thing going on. Unfortunately, the Spells/Traps have f@ckall to do with the common mechanic of the monsters. They mention both of the mini archetypes interchangably, and do not benefit from their duality in any way.
The performance: As excited as people were to play an archetype with such a fun theme, "Evil Twins" ended up pretty souless. Their entire gameplay was summized in a single average combo of having 2 Link 2s trigger either a single destroy or a draw, and while that's not too bad on itself, they did not extend beyond that. The Level 8 monster might as well have not been there, forcing players to rely on outside Link 4 help, particularly "Accesscode Talker" that noone can afford irl. The disappointed players quickly abandoned them.
The lesson: Your archetype needs some kind of end-game board. The Level 8 being a brick in most scenarios didn't help (it needed a discard effect), + as an end-game plan it was really underwhelming, asking you to overcommit for sub-par results. The second issue, is that you need to commit to the common mechanic, which "Evil Twins" did by... 50%, ironically. The Spells/Traps really do not care about which of the "Evil Twins" you control, basically making for half a common mechanic, and without that to keep the deck together, they collapsed quickly.
The problem: I mentioned most of the main problems (Spells/Traps unrelated to the common mechanic & lack of an end-game plan) above, so there is only one more thing to mention here: Your Field Spell NEEDS to be strong. "Channel" is not even worth running for the most part, and passes more as a mediocre Continuous Spell than a Field Spell. At this point, I'm not sure how "Evil Twins" can be fixed without adding overwhelming amounts of consistency boosting that will just make them cheap. It's a shame for such a fun theme to be wasted.
Dual Avatar
Released around the same time as "Evil Twins" as part of the dual archetype experiment, "Dual Avatars" were a joke from the start.
Intro: Normally this is the part where I would talk about the common mechanic that keeps the deck together, but I'm not sure "Dual Avatars" have one. They have 3 cards that create Tokens in some way, and some of their cards trigger extra effects if you control a Fusion that was summoned using Effect Monsters.
The performance: Frankly, a complete disaster. The deck can barely function, overly relying on the Quick-Play Spell to do anything (and not its full effect mind you).
The lesson: Archetypes need a common mechanic to keep them together. You can't just throw a bunch of random cards together, add a common name to them and call them an archetype.
The problem: If you're gonna have 2 different playstyles, at least let them compliment each other. The archetype focuses on creating Tokens on one hand, then punishes you for using exclusively Tokens on the other. You're basically only supposed to use 1 Token for each of the smaller Fusions and 2 for the larger Fusions, making "Invitation", one of their best cards, completely pointless if you exclude the fact that it is the ONLY way for the archetype to Fusion Summon. Both the maindeck monsters are overbloated with effects that end up completely pointless, as your end-board is basically vanilla beatsticks with underwhelming stats.
Epilogue
I think you can notice the patterns here. All of the single monster archetypes ended up being busted, filled with absurd consistency boosting that simply made them feel cheap, mostly in the form of common mechanics either for the Extra Deck monsters or the Spells/Traps. The dual monster archetypes on the other hand fell flat on their faces, quickly becoming notorious for how much they underperformed, having no real end-boards and either no common mechanic to keep them together, or not fully commiting to said common mechanic for the same results. They tried to hide the issue with brainless consistency boosting, that still proved not enough in the end, only making them feel cheap.
The issue is clear: If your archetype lacks in one department, you end up having to overcompensate with the others, which end up taking the job of the missing department. While I do think dual archetypes are worth giving another go by Konami, in the end I would label both single and dual archetypes a failure of design.
No comments:
Post a Comment