I think there are some specific aspects that truly make a card broken: many effects packed into one card, effects that cannot be responded to, cards that prevent an entire mechanic, cards that offer easy generic advantage, and probably more I missed.
I think the take on your broken is really interesting and I kinda have to agree in some sense, broke usually means making an unfair game state or uninteractive power moves at this point to say quickly. Like I've been saying Shifter itself is not a absurdly broken card a lot, that's cause in many cases it isn't that bad it just took an archetype to send it to a new level to where it has become broken. It's less of having broken cards now and more how well cards interact with each other. There has become such a big pool of cards that even some of the oldest cards have become good because "oh hey, these cards kinda of meet these conditional statements that let's me do this and they also can (blah blah blah)" . The most unfair things in a vacuum is one sided floodgates, but then you have decks that take blatant floodgates and says "nah" so they almost become one sided through the technic you work around (cough* skill drain). So really broken at this point becomes anything you don't like mostly because it probably is unfair but that's the state of the game is to gain oppressive control through either effect, attack, /or board suppression. So I think a good percent of the card pool is probably broken in some context or another in all honesty
I think "broken" cards are often cards that are unrespondable or facilitate an unrespondable gamestate. My example of a card like this is branded lost, if you allow it to resolve outside of ash you will probably lose. There are also "broken" cards in the more literal sense like gimmick puppet where players took advantage of the rules to abuse a cards restrictions in an unforseen way.
3 things that make a card an objectively broken card: - Splashability: the possibility of a card to work on so many decks, aka how generic it is - Effect(s): how many, how useful, how easy is the requirement - Accesability: how easy it is to get to your hands and be used asap. Either by search (for spell or trap) or its type, level & attribute for monster You can have or make any card as strong as you want, as long as it doesnt have all those 3 things in 1 card. It can be generic and have great effects, but it must be at least hard to access to balance it (ex: Rainbow Neos), it can be asy to access and very splashable, but it mustnt have too good of an effect (either by making the requirement too specific or tone it down, ex: any equip or pendulum cards...they even suffer from this because they musnt have any too good effects or else Konami must ban a lot of card that support them. Being suck is like a destiny for them)
Broken cards to me are cards that provide no interaction for the opposing player but unlimited benefits for the player using it. Like cards that cannot be responded too or have that much protection that you’d have to use your whole hand to out.
Yeah shit like zexal and hot calamity and any other card that stops you from actually using a card and physically doesn't let you play is not ok and should never had been printed they just need to stop making cards you can't respond to and basically be a dam turn skip
My problem with competitive Yugioh today is how often strong utility cards that can be used in any deck get banned cuz it pisses off all the meta players who all seem to be playing the same 5 decks. It feels like there's a major lack in the diversity for what is good. I don't remember that kind of balance being as much of a problem when you were setting your board up a couple pieces at a time and having to be 3, 4, 5 steps ahead of your opponent instead of just being able to set up your whole board on one damn turn. It's like that whole infinite mana thing with MTG. There are just some mechanics that just shatter the traditional game and make it feel very unaccessible to more traditional players.
this is exactly how I feel any time I play against a combo deck an how they abuse Sp.Summons, just to end their turn on an omni protected board that I would literally need DRNM to even have a chance at playing an having combos is ok but too much of one thing can break the game if it means you shut the opponent out of playing. its the same as Flood gating but with more steps involved. add on top of that any hand traps they drew and didn't need for their combo and you basically just end up scooping.
"Broken" requires both effectiveness and splashability. It doesn't matter how strong a card is if only one deck can use it, as then all you'd have to do is run counters to that deck to keep it from being a threat(alternatively if that deck gets hit hard enough the card will fall out of favor for a while). Consistency cards and high impact board wipes often fall into this category since usually a large number of decks can use the things effectively and they always do something noteworthy for those decks. A lot of "combos" that wind up making cards reach broken status come from unintended oversights, like how on first glance the Ishizu Fairy cards should have been a counter to Tearlaments because of their graveyard control tools, but because of their ability to send cards to the graveyard they wound up appropriated into the strategy instead, making it more consistent than it was ever intended to be. And other decks can still run bits of the Ishizu and Tearlaments cards if milling cards makes them more effective as well, so that "splashability" aspect is also in play, especially thanks to the lack of restrictions applied to the cards.
@@abdurachmanromzy4778 The issue comparing bystials to ishizu cards is that milling and shuffling the graveyard will almost always be relevant while the bystials need the other opponent to be playing a dark/light deck otherwise they are just regular extenders in the deck they are being played in. Its even worse when they are being played in a meta dominated by a deck that doesn't care about banishing or is not dark or light for example kashtira.
A broken card is a card that has little to no reasonable counter play (Evenly Matched, Super Poly), OR a card that enables so much advantage and is difficult to stop (Kashtira Birth, SHS Scarecrow).
I really like your definition of broken. We might dislike cards that feel unfairly strong, but a card that feels way stronger than it was intended to be is a different conversation. I feel like Maxx C for example feels like an interesting idea that didn't really took into account how much special summons and card advantage mean in the game. Maxx C in a different card game could've been a strong but fair card, but in ygo it has such a high impact that people can't stop discussing about it.
The term “broken” often gets used improperly by many people playing card games, especially in yugioh. The only time a card is broken in card games is when the card creates situations that the rules never intended to occur in the game. Red eyes fusion is a card with a harsh restriction on activation, but when yugioh printed Predaplant verte anaconda the card saw immediate play to bypass the activation drawbacks of red eyes fusion. Predaplant verte anaconda literally defines what a broken card is by breaking the rules of the game in an unintended way by letting you play your turn anyway you want and ending on dragoon even though Konami probably never intended for that to happen. Predaplant verte anaconda was probably designed to help the Predaplant deck, not to be the end monster on anyone’s board that could summon it. Union carrier is another card with the same problem. It was probably made to help union decks, instead helped already powerful decks buster lock opponents so they couldn’t access their extra decks and pretty much ending the game on the spot. I’d also like to preface this with I’m not an expert on game design but I have played magic the gathering for 20 years and I have seen my fair share of broken cards ie “amulet of vigor” giving lands untap triggers when it should have read “enters the battlefield untapped” instead. So please don’t take my comment and brush me off like an opinionated arrogant internet commenter. I just wanted to give my two cents on the subject.
Things that bypass fundamental mechanics aren't necessarily broken, but when it is combined with the result of a way stronger than what you can make by it's usual method. Red-Eyes Fusion and Red-Eyes Dark Dragoon, Cyber Stein are definitely examples. Upcoming King Calamity is probably going to get called broken when Synchrony Summoned on opponent's turn as a turn skip.
Predaplant Verte Ananconda is prime example of “broken” card. It was broken from the gitgo and gained more notoriety of that as cards like Dragoon and DPE were abused because of it. Konami couldn’t have designed this card without considering how busted it would be with the amount of good fusion monsters and spells we have in the time it was released.
Modern cards that are able to act as removal and advantage generation at the same time is what I would qualify as broken. Look at Gold Pride - Start Your Engines! , which is functionally Toon Page-Flip with a targeted destruction effect in the same resolution for an archetype that's able to diarrhea monsters onto the field. Look at Big Welcome Labrynth, which is able to search out Lady Labrynth and then act as a Compulsory Evacuation Device on the next turn. The cards that don't have costs but are able to put your opponent at a loss are the ones that are really broken in my opinion, but nobody focuses on those because they're looking at the big bosses that are designed to clean up shop.
Triple effects that is far too easy/consistent to bring out. Examples: Kashtira Fenrir, Spright Elf, Tearlaments Kitkallos, Kashtira Ariseheart, Red-Eyes Dark Dragoon (via Predaplant Verte Anaconda). All of those cards have 3 effects, usually have high stats, and are brought out far too consistently for too little investment. Strong card vs broken card: Strong cards can have triple effects but MUST require significant investment to summon. Broken cards have triple effects are easy to summon. Example: I can splash 3 Kashtira Fenrir in ANY deck with ZERO downside.
I feel the difference is when a strong card becomes too easy to bring out is when it becomes broken, in master duel today i ran into 2 different boards that end on 5 material Rhongo and other monsters.
Broken to me is a combination of accessibility and power level. I think Barone is broken not because she's overpowered but she single handedly makes entire boss monsters borderline obsolete simply because she's a generic level 10 that fits into any deck that can easily get her out.
Broken cards: Easy to use, versatile (can be used in almost every Deck), and offer huge benefits to the player using it. Examples: “Bystial Magnamhut” (a case can be made for almost all the Bystial cards really), “Kashtira Fenrir”, “Triple Tactics Talent/Triple Tactics Thrust”, “Pot of Prosperity”, “Anti-Spell Fragrance”, “Eradicator Epidemic Virus”, and “Dimensional Barrier”.
What the Konami representatives said perfectly explains the problem -- power creep is by design and they know exactly what they're doing. The issue is the business model and the structure that Yu-Gi-Oh uses. It creates this perverse incentive for companies to power creep content to bolster short term sales. But this comes at the cost of the game's long term health and stability. In my view it's time the game split into two formats like its competitors with a wild format + banlist and then a set rotation one. Alternatively they could give us a nuclear banlist the likes of which we've never seen before and/or tweak some rules to forcibly slow the game down again.
@@ChaosSwissroIlGood point I’d be perfectly content with that. I still enjoy modern Yu-Gi-Oh I just enjoy the more middle Yu-Gi-Oh eras the most and really by far. I’d like to have a permanent format for that style again or I’m sure there are a number of other solutions the community can come up with as well.
Having Tearlaments make fusions of any kind of monster and not just Tearlaments monsters in particular makes them so open to any play possible which makes it near impossible to stop fully. There is a reason why we say we cheat out monsters, it's just too easy to do it.
I feel when it comes to these types of cards, it's a matter of here a bunch of archetypes that have to go through their gimmicks/chores in order to get to their respective strong cards only for low effort broken cards to disrupt, negate, remove them for practically no trade-off/penalty. The game has been doing this for so long that players look at "weaker" cards and compare them to the broken cards and call them worthless or at the very least ineffective against the broken cards currently around. For me, strong cards are cards that took some work to get to. They don't have a lot of protection on their own and require other cards in their archetype (or whatever theme they are apart of) to function properly. Often they are a combination of cards that, together, make them strong. They likely have some exploitable weakness that they'll have to cover in some way, but the point is that they are not impossible to break with a bit of brain power and effort. Broken cards are the ones where they pretty much counter whatever you were going to do with little to no cost for doing so. They are easy to play, often with just 1-2 cards, they render a player unable to do anything relevant with their deck even when there's nothing on the field yet. These cards are "memorable", not because you like them, but because they constantly remind you that you're about to have a bad time playing against them. And sure, people can opt to use broken cards, but that's not really out of excitement of using them, but more of a necessity if you actually want to play the game. They are marks of showing where the game has gotten to in terms of preparing to lose on Turn 1 almost immediately. It is very intentional that these cards are made as they are the chase cards, the cards that over-step other cards/decks due to some crazy effect like idk "Your opponent can only have 2 cards on the field at a time and their hand size is 2" or something worse than that. It's not that people are "excited" to see these types of cards, but rather anxious in knowing if those cards are what they have to deal with for the coming months/years.
So what makes a Broken Card broken in my eyes is the ability to use it without restrictions. Sure Super Poly is unresponsive and Kaijus your field...But that's literally what it was printed to do. It was crafted to boost heroes to give them a way to deal with Broken Boss Monsters like Towers. Verte Anaconda is a prime example of what I refer to as Broken because Konami refuses to give restrictions. Verte is a strong and useful tool for Predaplant and even some rogue decks are more consistent with it in their arsenal like Relinquished, but it being so generic means that everyone and their mother could use it, pair that with the DPE 4 card package and now you have a 5 Card Package that can go into any deck and give you a repeatable pop and debuff boss monster for the low cost of 2k. Had Konami restricted it to require a Predaplant Monster, or Hell even just 2 Dark Monsters(Since all Predaplant are Dark and can use Dark Support) it would remove the Broken Status and place it in the Strong Category. Baronne De Fleur is the same boat. Had Konami made it require a Fleur Synchron many players wouldn't consider it Broken. It would be accessable to the Synchron players, and the Fleur players or anyone willing to run the needed cards but not just toss it in cuz they have the spare room in the ED and can make a 10.
Problem is where Konami makes generic cards. Not like it's the worst thing in the world but they should focus on releasing cards to boost up archetypes that really need support.
@@snootydooty3543 Icejade got Ran Aegirine, tho. A Tuner that summons itself, makes a token, and creates the ace of the archetype? So damn good. Icejade is criminally underrated.
For real. Fortune Lady is my favorite, and it's so painful against things today. I want so bad for it to get an update. I also hope they make a full-fledged archetype out of the Lady of Lament monsters. IMO they're some of the coolest monster designs I've ever seen.
@emissaryofcharybdis105 nah my dude I love icejade and I try so hard to make it work...needs some more support. It's crazy how icejade is involved in all this branded despia lore but...only for a lil bit.....then you got all this bystiall and swordsoul dogmatika bullshit coming out....and us icejades just got a monster summon a tuner and that's it... not good enough to be in roug...
@@snootydooty3543 What type of support would you like to see for it? Maybe some more negate options? As of now the archetype only has the trap, and while it can set off a chain reaction within the archetype's graveyard abilities, it's definitely not perfect. What I found to really help the archetype is Red Reign. It's a not-targeting Dark Hole that banishes everything but the highest level Synchro. Gymir, being level 10, can really make this monstrous.
The problem is that there is too many cards to keep interactions in check... Super poly is the best example, the more generic cards get printed the more broken the card gets. I loved when super poly felt like a weird tech choice when it came out, mostly with machines and some heroes, now it just feels oppressive.
*Broken cards are cards that say "once i'm activated/summoned, i win the game" *Strong cards are cards that say "once i'm activated/summoned, I turn the tables"
Generally, I'd say how much value the card offers. Zeus can potentially remove 12 of your opponent's cards, Baronne can negate a vital effect in your opponent's strategy and deny them the ability to effectively continue their turn, Destroyer Phoenix Enforcer is a self reviving card that can generate a great amount of advantage over the course of a duel, Mystic Mine shuts down over a third of the card pool just because your opponent decided to play Yu-Gi-Oh. I'd consider cards to be Broken when their power far exceeds what is typical for the respective purpose. Mystic Mine is broken for the fact that it doesn't take up your spell and trap zones, it's a field spell so it's searchable, it shuts down all monsters and prevents your opponent from attacking (additionally protects itself from monster effects that remove spell cards), and compared to other floodgates it exceeds what they're capable of by combining several floodgate effects together. Zues is definitely strong, almost broken however it is still a better telegraphed effect and there are ways to maneuver around its board wipe. I'd consider Super Poly to now be a broken card due to fusion monsters having progressively more generic materials, leading to you being able to make up for the initial minus two cost of the effect and yield a plus one at the end (removing two of the opponent's monsters for a fusion monster), and to top it off no one can respond to Super Poly's activation.
I agree with super poly. I NEVER run fusion monsters in my decks but tossing 1 into your extra deck just to use super poly as a removal card is really good. 😢Even worse if you combo it into certain floodgate decks where you can remove the floodgate for yourself, tribute your opponents monsters they tried so hard to get out, then reapply for floodgate before the turn is over... but im just evil like that lol.
You may have a point with Mystic Mine if we didn't have harpie's feather duster, mystical space typhoon, twin twisters, cosmic cyclone and other spell/trap removal that isn't monster effects. I feel people don't like it because they chose to not add backrow removal and want to rely on monster effects. I may be off though.
@@naruhinanatzaforver9298i feel thats alotta decks nowadays that want the otk so they dont put in enough negates/defensive cards to get around stuff like that. Harpy/mst/mirrorforce is literally in all my decks
@@naruhinanatzaforver9298 The issue is that those cards lacked a consistent means of being obtained in a duel, the Mystic Mine user is very likely to run spell/trap negates to further protect their Mine from removal. Rivalry/Gozen/TCBOO all are still quite susceptible to monster effect removal and Skill Drain doesn't affect monster effects outside of the field. Mystic Mine also doesn't have a standing tax to remain on the field like Messenger of Peace. Mystic Mine warped standard deck building for a while because it mandated so much presence. Anyone could drop the card to stall the game in the faint hope of recovering from a losing position, which leads to stale game states until someone has a means of removing the Mine. I like a slower game as much as the next person, however Mine handles this in the worst way possible.
Strong - a powerful card that has very strong powerful effects but can be stopped with the right out (DRNM, Evenly, Mystic Mine). Broken - a powerful card that gives a player an unfair u balanced advantages over another that cannot be responded to ina. Proper timeframe (Delinquent Duo)
Difference lies heavily in its general versatility. Is a card being prioritized during a game over the deck's actual strategy? Do decks fundamentally alter the way they're constructed JUST to play the thing? Is it being abused by a ton of different decks more than it is elevating its own strategy? The Adventure engine is probably a good example about the point back when it was everywhere. You had to tear out 9 cards from your main deck to cram in the engine, but if you weren't playing it then you'd be at a huge disadvantage. And there would probably even be times where you might have to choose between making the plays that your deck is designed to do and playing Rite, because your deck's central plays needs to use a normal summoned monster's effect. It's even likely that you choose to play Rite because it was just outright better than the cards you are ALLEGEDLY centering your strategy around (though with the need for staples you might actually have more Adventure cards in your deck). And thirdly, the engine wasn't even playing the full-on Adventure strategy, it unironically was better just being a 9 card engine than played pure even though pure Adventurer should be theoretically maximizing its consistency and power.
Being too generic, that's about it. Like why doesn't Baronne require Fleur Synchron like Chevalier when the former is literally the latter on a horse? Why Doesn't Access Code require at bear minimum a code talker as one of its materials or as cost for its effects? Or why doesn't Savage require a Rokket or Borrel for its summoning or for any of its effects. Personally, I believe that archetypal cards need to, have to be as xenophobic as possible, if there needs to be generic go to monsters then make them, but without the archetypal piggybacking, like Apollousa, but the fact that I can make Avramax , and then proceed to Voltron him behind not one but two archetypes worth of spell/traps is a bit much.
Accesscode / Apollousa / Barronne 3 of the most bannable cards in the game. Do I use them in every deck I can? Yep. And so does everyone bc they essentially make every other card in their pool (Link 4 Synchro 10) worthless comparatively.
Not really considering some archetypes do need their own cards the only thing these cards are good for are generic staples that some decks can't even use. For example branded can't use either one and any deck locking you into a certain mechanic can't utilize all of them so unless you're running some super generic deck they aren't ban worthy.
@@TraaaaaasshBooooaaaatttt I can see why people have issues with all of them. Baronne and apollousa in particular are pretty generic, and they perpetuate the difficulty with breaking boards with engine alone. At the same time, almost all decks have some toxic win cons.
@@kevinlee5753 Not every deck can use them, but they are still widely accessible. While i think it is bad, even branded has s variant that uses synchros. The main issue people have with them is that decks that can play them will, and at least two of them add to negation that prevents attempts at putting up counter Play Issue is that you would have to hit power cards for going second as well.
I think the main problem are the generic powerful monsters like barone, acces, apolusa, etc. In the case of Barone as an example, personally I dont considere it a broken card but the fact that it is quite generic makes it ban worthy in my opinion.
Baronne specifically I despise for just being generic. the card invalidates every single other level 10 synchro in the game and will continue to do so unless powercrept or banned. And if it is powercrept, whatever powercreeps it is going to invalidate every other level 10 synchro in the game.
@@hunterapena If your opponent gets to access, then you were already in a bad spot to begin with. But I do get the idea of banning it because of its ability to clear boards, thus meaning you don't have much left if the opponent passes turn
@@chewdoom8415 that's assuming they don't play it turn one. Not likely but not impossible. But that's what I get for not believing in disconnecting on coin flip lost lol
I think they really need to circle back to the classic older archetypes and push them to current power level and I mean like all the archetypes they haven’t printed legitimate support for in awhile
When things don’t have a restriction. Ex: Most “broken cards” will say- “when this card is summoned…” And other “fair cards” will say - “when this card is normal summoned.”
For me broken comes less from just being powerful but how easy it is for certain archetypes and strategies to get access to, It's why I personally wish generic extra deck options came with more downsides let them be powerful but give them heavy downsides or make access simple in all archetypes. Baronne De Fleur on it's own is powerful and fine if it wasn't as accessible, like say requiring 3 cards to make it, or if it had to pop a card on field on summon meaning it pops itself or one of your own cards if your going first or make it have to negative the first thing that activates after being summoned including your own cards. As it is now Many of these cards dilute their summoning mechanics it in a sense breaks the concept of archetypes linked to specific summoning mechanics, unless your deck specifically has easy access to one of these power cards then you are playing with a handicap. Now it would be less bad if say we had generic cards that instantly summon them for any deck, so instead of say sword soul having a 1 card Baronne De Fleur every deck gets access to a one card set up. And lastly I think personally none generic options should always be better and give reasons for locking you into those archetypes, like give all synchro decks new boss monsters with the same type of power in mind but offer better utility and are even more powerful in their own archtype so picking the generic option becomes a second best if you have to option. And it isn't like Konami can't do a entire set or two dedicated to nothing but updated older archetypes and giving new boss monsters, which I believe would sell decently well, the more things playable with new support the more experimenting that happens the more drive their is to get new product.
I feel like Super Poly is just straight up unfair and broken. Mainly for the fact it’s spell speed 2, so if you were ready for it you can’t flip D barrier or anti spell for that matter as it can just chain onto it. Either way, you’re losing two monsters without having a say.
The only reason that "Tear 0" was a problem was because there was nothing else that could deal with it. Of the seven Tier 0 formats the TCG has seen, it was unquestionably the least toxic. It has lots of interaction, it doesn't just lock you out of playing the game like the other ones did.
Functioning as intended is very different from healthy for the metagame. If a card regularly makes games one-sided or otherwise not fun, then I think the term Broken applies.
That's one I've answered for myself quite easily. It's one that necessitates extremely specific outs. Maxx-c, Ishizu and Bystials all 3 need extremely specific outs and if you didn't draw them you lose, yes despite bystials only working on dark and light they are still busted cause they gatekeep entire decks. Baronne, accesscode, elf, These are not broken cards, they are simply good cards that's why they are everywhere, in fact besides elf the rank 10s do contest each other and so do the link 4s.
@@heulg.darian2536 Okay, well Spright Elf is actually broken. It's generic, splashable. Provides targeting protection, an extender during player's turn, or additional disruption during opponent's turn.
I don't think there is a world where Konami made the ishizu cards with no regards to tearlaments. Just because it impacted the game in this way doesn't mean they never intended the cards to work together. Same thing with tcg making garura.
It's kinda hard to define what broken means until you experience it. Like losing half of my deck before my turn 1 is mad annoying, so ishizu is broken in my eyes
It`s hard to define, but I believe Zeus, Dark Ruler, Nibiru are strong, while Shifter, Dweller, Skill Drain are broken because they are mostly hard to prevent and/or counter.
Broken is when is advantages far proceeds the cost, or requires to get to or activate. Pot of desires does the same think as pot of greed, but desires require a payment beyond activation. Theres risk along with advantage.
I think broken cards are generally a problem of available card pool. Like Exodia in a no ban list tournament due to the amount of draw power that you are giving to the deck. Whereas in a tournament with a banlist exodia is pretty fine because the supporting tech isn’t around it to make it the ultra reliable menace that it is in said format. So three things I’d say have to be considered opportunity cost (what do you give up for going for a certain line when building the deck), reliability (both with and without opponents interaction), cost vs payoff (how many resources are you going to expend on the play and what is the effect). These all change depending on the scenario for example if for some reasons Floo becomes the deck run by 90% of players and decks are built to counteract it. Then Maxx C is no longer a broken card within that format. Same with Artifact Sycthe so you might exchange a scythe package as the opportunity cost is to high after all floo don’t use the extra deck why dedicate x amount of slots to that strategy?
I really feel like genericness is a big factor in this. I get a lot of cards should be generic too allow creativity, but some big generic bosses should make you jump through some hoops to get them. Shooting Quasar made you have to set up Synchro plays, buy something like Accesscode can be casually made in any deck without restriction. Something like making all its materials Link monsters would go a long way in making harder to get out (albeit only marginally nowadays). Or just locking you into Cyberse. That way, it makes stuff like Salads or Code Talkers stronger, while not providing another generic beatstick to every other deck. You see that they solved this issue in Firewall by the errata making it Cyberse exclusive.
A card is made and is intended to be strong or weak card. This is up to the card designers. We as players can only assume and this becomes the intentioned level of the card. If the card performs at a higher level over the intentioned level, then it is broken. If the card performs at a lower level under than the intentioned level, then it is underpowered. If the card performs at the intentioned level, then it is just a strong or weak card.
This conversation is very opinion based. One way to look at it is affect vs cost. Let's look at one of my all time favorite cards, pendulum area. (Normal trap, destroy your scales, if you do, players can only pendulum summon this turn) so a floodgate that works for pendulum decks, but at the cost of losing your scales. Well, I play pendulum magicians/zarc. In that deck, specifically the pen magicians portion (black fang/purple poison/double iris) you get benefits for destroying those scales. So it turns into a lock out with upside. Strong? Very strong? Over powered?
Anything without a Xenolock. Most extra deck tools would never be a problem if the materials were somewhat specific, the most recent offender being Spright elf. It could just say "2 SPRIGHTS" or even 2 monsters including a spright. I'm not going into the floodgate/Board Breaker/Handtrap side of things because you at least have to Draw those. The extra deck being this ever so accessible place makes anything inside it more offensive
It depends on context IMO. Barrone by itself isn’t that much of an issue, but alongside Borreload and Chingzhou for example, becomes a major issue to beat. Even the cards I consider broken, like Snow, are more often strong because of what the state of the game is. Ultimately, I blame the players for making the cards broken rather than strong. I don’t have issues with Omni Negates, board breakers etc, it’s when everyone decides to keep using it, and use it as the all-solving hammer that it becomes an issue. Even the stuff I despise, like Wok Burn, Sales Ban Rhongo, and Cyberstein/Repro/TCC abuse, wouldn’t be that much of an issue if people stopped trying to optimize the strategies and make them unresponsive to their opponent.
I'm kind of a boomer, so my perception of broken may be outdated. I would say broken refers to a card or deck that is too powerful relative to everything else in the game, creates an auto-win situation (like Butterfly Dagger Elma), has no counter-play, invalidates a crucial element of the game (like how Upstart Goblin essentially allows the player to play a main deck that's under 40 cards), or a card that there's virtually no reason for anyone to leave it out of their deck (like Pot of Greed).
X=(a+b)÷c Where x is how broken is a card A is how easy a card achieve it s goal B is how generic is this effect And C is the banlist affects this card
in my honest opinion what makes a card broken is a card that can shut down an entire turn, deck, game by just being there for example heroic champion rhongomyniad, that shit with 6 or more materials was pretty much a game over, your opponent couldn't kaiju it cause it didn't allow normal or special summon you couldn't get rid of it because it was unaffected, so your only option was sit down and wait to the card to lose materials slowly, and by then your opponent either won already or set a board, a broken card is a card that is powerful and on top of that cannot be interacted on any way either by being unaffected or have a way to counter the interactions
I like to think of Konami's powercreep as a game of blackjack. Rather than settling for a 17 or lower like most players would (or maybe that's just me), they always want to go for that perfect 21. This naturally results in a lots of busts. 22's and 23's and so on. Those busted cards that are way over the top of what they were intended for (though, one could argue this metaphor would just as easily pertain to the many unplayable cards they keep printing, but in the opposite way). Such is the consequence of striving for power over balanced gameplay. You cross that line way more often than what many players would prefer.
broken cards *little to no cost and generate huge card advantages ex) pot of greed, card of safe return *monster with multiple layers of protection ex) dark dragoon *cards that allow an endless loop of special summoning ex) soul charge *easy token generator ex) dandylion *combo decks with over 15+ special summons per turn ex) swordsoul/tenyi, ishizu/tearlament
So I'm really not an expert on card design, but in my layman opinion I think there are a few types of ways a card can be broken. The first is when a card is above the curve, as in it gets you more advantage than other avenues for the same amount of resources. This is usually expected to some degree as formats evolve, like a rank generic 4 XYZ might start off with a single target destruction effect and then evolve into single target non-destruction removal as cards that gain recursion or advantage off destruction come into the game. This gets to be broken when the card gives you significantly more advantage than the format calls for, and so the meta winds up warping around the card. Luckily while these cards can be problematic they are also self solving, give it time and the curve will eventually catch up and pass them. There are plenty of examples of the gripes of formats past now being comically irrelevant. Second type of broken cards are cards that dramatically warp the game state or have an effect that grants unintended advantage with modern context. A lot of times these are older cards, because those cards were created with a lot less restrictions and the creators were really ok with cards just dramatically affecting how the game was played back then. What's scary is that a lot of cards can theoretically fall into this category with a change in game state or player attitude. Like Skill Drain used to be a decent card and now its considered overpowered. Maxx C and Vanity's Emptiness were also largely slept on initially. The heavy focus on graveyards over the years have retroactively made cards like dimension barrier and macro cosmos extremely powerful. The relevance of cards like There Can Be Only One and Rivalry of the Warlords fluctuates by what powerful decks can benefit from them at the time, and all of this with effects that don't seem to initially, in a vacuum, offer any real advantage. These are a bit harder to solve because a lot of cards can wind up being completely fine or even kind of suck until a format or change in deck design philosophy completely breaks them, and sometimes they solve themselves while other times they linger on for far too long. Hell, sometimes these cards even need to be a bit busted in order to help otherwise suboptimal decks compete with more aggressive combo decks. Then you have cards that are designed to not have limits, or just have a bunch of good effects on them, in defiance of conventional wisdom. These are the ones where you just raise an eyebrow an go "That's not a hard once per turn" or "Wait, that's permanent"? Konami knows what they are doing when they create these and they are pretty much the first type I mentioned, but they tend to linger around a lot longer or get banned. I think these ones are usually Konami's attempt at manipulating formats. What's really infuriating about this is a lot of times Konami will then make other cards and archtypes with potentially interesting mechanics or themes that have an overabundance of restrictions or fail to give worthwhile effects, even placing them well behind the curve. Finally the most insidious of broken cards are the mandatory staples. I never really thought of Ash as unfair, she stopped one interaction by discarding herself to the grave and is a hard once per turn, and there are counter cards to stop her even outside of omninegates. Question, though, how many copies of Ash Blossom and Joyous Spring do you run, how many do normal players run? Do you ever feel like creating a deck without her? Or is she something of a mandatory staple in most decks in most formats? There is also a discussion to be had over engines facilitating cards being brought out with more ease than originally intended or creating higher ceilings for end boards, but that's a far more complicated issue to quantify or pin down exactly what card is the problem. Boss Monsters and Floodgates will usually get called out as problematic by name but a lot of times the issue is the engine that facilities those boss monsters or necessitates the use of those floodgates to function on an otherwise suboptimal strategy. TLDR; Cards that get you more bang for their buck than the format demands, cards that warp the game state in a way that prevents current decks from functioning, cards with a lack of reasonable restrictions and cards that are so good they become mandatory staples. Also engines should be included in this discussion.
I'd argue too many people hyperbolize too many stuff that everything became really grey and tough to discern between the 2. For instance, we got 3 new "destroy all cards" boss monsters and like only 1 gets considered good. Another thing is probably depends on how tuned a card is since most things get since number of effects on a card isn't the reason when things that just do 1 thing is considered broken like as you said Cyber Stein and Super Poly but there's definitely times where the 2 have became a detriment even as of recent because of a situation etc. I guess it's all just subjectiveness at that point since not everyone has used every card in Yu-Gi-Oh and have found/synergized everything
A broken card is a card that generates much more advantage than the cost it takes to use that card, a card that "breaks" the fundamental gameplay loop, which in most games, is supposed to be fair. Making the cards generic reduces, if not removes, that cost. Baronne should've required Fleur Synchron, Halqifibrax should've required a Crystron monster, Accesscode Cyberse monsters, and so on. Creating generic cards that are clearly more powerful than the cards with more specific requirements is not good game design. More specific requirements should always have the better effects, but that's not what we're seeing.
I think strong card's are cards are card that are powerful and at least have some counters to them and broken are cards Cards with little to no counters to them thats my take feel free to fill some in some gaps
Extenders, especially those in the extra deck break yugioh. What easy access to extenders means is that a deck either goes crazy or does nothing. This causes an extreme binary. Something like accesscode which in theory takes 4 material wouldn't make anyone blink twice if it wasn't so easy to summon using Splash Mage and Transcode Talker didn't make Accesscode Talker summonable with any two cybers monsters.
I think many of the overly strong borderline broken cards just don't have a steep enough cost or activation requirement compared to their inferior counterparts. Compare Baronne's effect to Shooting Quasar Dragon's effect. Sure Baronne can only negate once with a smaller body, but it also has spot removal and is insanely easier to summon. That's just the nature of power creep to move product and advance the card pool, but generally omni-negates should have a high cost (Solemns) or activation requirement and not have other effects on top. Thats to balance the "No U" factor with having needed to expend resources to negate.
The way I see it, broken comes when its easy to get out. If ots hard then if it's op then cool but a turn 2 omni-negate that isn't part of their archetype...
My opinion on what makes a card broken has been the same ever since Raigeki was a thing - what makes a card broken is having zero cost. I use Raigeki as an example because it doesn't have any stipulation for what it does. Destroy all enemy monsters, period. No attack position only, no face-up only - ALL monsters. The only thing that stopped Raigeki from being this now is modern cards having negates and effects that protect them from being destroyed. Even now though - it's strong as hell. Compare this to Dark Ruler No More - what I consider a fair card. Dark Ruler has a stipulation that your enemy can't take damage when you use it. This allows them to respond to its use. Sure, if your board is broken and cleared because of it, you're in a bad spot. But, you're not out yet, and you can still use it yourself if you have it. You can still make a play and come back. A strong card, or set of strong cards, needs stipulations that keep it from ruining everything. Ishizu, for example, needed more stipulations with what it could affect.
The overused term of "broken". According to everyone broken means if a card does literally anything slightly good. I remember when "broken" meant something being completely unbeatable or if something in a video game is not coded right.
I have very few issues with Prospi itself, just the price tag it has. Extrav I feel is an infinitely worse designed card because it forces you to buy multiples of extradeck cards you usually need one of, which often MASSIVELY inflated the price of a deck, and back in the card's heyday, it wasn't cheap either. So it was just insanely expensive to use and yet you needed it for certain decks to function. Prospi is a much better designed card in my opinion
Broken cards would either be incredibly good while being the easiest to use/summon. Or having an effect so powerful it single handedly shuts down decks. Maxx c, zeus, baronne, pot of greed, delinquent duo, access code talker. All cards that just about every deck could just add at any time regardless of its playing. Even control decks could get materials out for access code or put 2 same levels on field for zeus. Every deck can play maxx c and pot of greed because there's no situational use to it. Just activate the card and gain advantage. Then you have rhongo, true king of calamities, shock Master, protos where it isn't technically easy to summon them, once they get on the field you might as well scoop. Both fulfill "broken" under 2 different styles but all SHOULD be banned. Yes even baronne. When decks who have completely different playstyles can play all these cards, the cards are just way out of balanced. Even if it doesn't seem like it cause we've been used to seeing it played all the time but thats more reason for its banning
A strong card is annoying to play against, of course, the same goes to you and your opponent. A "broken" card is FRUSTRATING to play against. Sometimes discouraging.
Broken is when it’s consistent and warps the game state like VFD & Rhongo. There’s a lot of cards that are good nowadays but they won’t win by themselves unless you were already in the position to win anyways.
Yeah cards like VFD, shock master and anything else that cuts you off from playing the actual game shouldn't be legal and now we have the crimson dragon and going to have to deal with the bullshit of the level 12 calamity
Broken cards are cards that by themselves they are so powerful they can end games. It doesn't matter how powerful your board is, I have super poly. Also the more generic it is the closer it goes from powerful to busted.
Generic cards should always be worse than non-generic cards of the same tier. The game would be a lot better, imo, if they took the philosophy that, say, every deck can play Lightning Warrior, but the non generic options of that same Level are things like Clear Wing Fast Dragon. Maybe not to that extremity, but I think that the philosophy is sound. It’s kind of like how vanillas back in the day had better stats than effect monsters, as a rule of thumb. Alternatively, print things like Odd-Eyes Meteorburst, which are okay on their own, but have a clear benefit in their dedicated strategy. (one that is worth more than its generic effect). Or, cards like Transcode, which can be made generically, but only have use in their intended strategy. If we go back to earlier shades of Yugioh, I wouldve loved to see things like Black Rose’s ATK manipulation effect being generic, but the board wipe is Plant locked, or Stardust Dragon negating being generic, but only coming back if there is a Synchron in your GY. Crazy how cards like Trickstar Bella Madonna and Salamangreat Pyro Phoenix are not generic yet Accesscode is and eclipses them both by a million. It makes no sense to me.
I think there are some specific aspects that truly make a card broken: many effects packed into one card, effects that cannot be responded to, cards that prevent an entire mechanic, cards that offer easy generic advantage, and probably more I missed.
Good effects stapled on cards that are too easy to use
The most broken cards in Yugioh are the most generic
Also the most confusing, like figuring out what pot of greed does
The game would be better with more generic cards. It allows for more creativity.
@@fadedcrayon4764 strongly disagree with you on that, too much generic cards are the problem.
@@fadedcrayon4764
Dear fucking god NO, more generic cards to splash into meta decks is not what this game needs.
Sparks.
I think the take on your broken is really interesting and I kinda have to agree in some sense, broke usually means making an unfair game state or uninteractive power moves at this point to say quickly. Like I've been saying Shifter itself is not a absurdly broken card a lot, that's cause in many cases it isn't that bad it just took an archetype to send it to a new level to where it has become broken. It's less of having broken cards now and more how well cards interact with each other. There has become such a big pool of cards that even some of the oldest cards have become good because "oh hey, these cards kinda of meet these conditional statements that let's me do this and they also can (blah blah blah)" . The most unfair things in a vacuum is one sided floodgates, but then you have decks that take blatant floodgates and says "nah" so they almost become one sided through the technic you work around (cough* skill drain). So really broken at this point becomes anything you don't like mostly because it probably is unfair but that's the state of the game is to gain oppressive control through either effect, attack, /or board suppression. So I think a good percent of the card pool is probably broken in some context or another in all honesty
I think "broken" cards are often cards that are unrespondable or facilitate an unrespondable gamestate. My example of a card like this is branded lost, if you allow it to resolve outside of ash you will probably lose.
There are also "broken" cards in the more literal sense like gimmick puppet where players took advantage of the rules to abuse a cards restrictions in an unforseen way.
3 things that make a card an objectively broken card:
- Splashability: the possibility of a card to work on so many decks, aka how generic it is
- Effect(s): how many, how useful, how easy is the requirement
- Accesability: how easy it is to get to your hands and be used asap. Either by search (for spell or trap) or its type, level & attribute for monster
You can have or make any card as strong as you want, as long as it doesnt have all those 3 things in 1 card. It can be generic and have great effects, but it must be at least hard to access to balance it (ex: Rainbow Neos), it can be asy to access and very splashable, but it mustnt have too good of an effect (either by making the requirement too specific or tone it down, ex: any equip or pendulum cards...they even suffer from this because they musnt have any too good effects or else Konami must ban a lot of card that support them. Being suck is like a destiny for them)
The ability to pivot freely into another boss monster because of ease of access is something I am noticing as a newer player.
Broken cards to me are cards that provide no interaction for the opposing player but unlimited benefits for the player using it. Like cards that cannot be responded too or have that much protection that you’d have to use your whole hand to out.
Yeah shit like zexal and hot calamity and any other card that stops you from actually using a card and physically doesn't let you play is not ok and should never had been printed they just need to stop making cards you can't respond to and basically be a dam turn skip
My problem with competitive Yugioh today is how often strong utility cards that can be used in any deck get banned cuz it pisses off all the meta players who all seem to be playing the same 5 decks. It feels like there's a major lack in the diversity for what is good. I don't remember that kind of balance being as much of a problem when you were setting your board up a couple pieces at a time and having to be 3, 4, 5 steps ahead of your opponent instead of just being able to set up your whole board on one damn turn. It's like that whole infinite mana thing with MTG. There are just some mechanics that just shatter the traditional game and make it feel very unaccessible to more traditional players.
this is exactly how I feel any time I play against a combo deck an how they abuse Sp.Summons, just to end their turn on an omni protected board that I would literally need DRNM to even have a chance at playing an having combos is ok but too much of one thing can break the game if it means you shut the opponent out of playing. its the same as Flood gating but with more steps involved. add on top of that any hand traps they drew and didn't need for their combo and you basically just end up scooping.
"Broken" requires both effectiveness and splashability. It doesn't matter how strong a card is if only one deck can use it, as then all you'd have to do is run counters to that deck to keep it from being a threat(alternatively if that deck gets hit hard enough the card will fall out of favor for a while).
Consistency cards and high impact board wipes often fall into this category since usually a large number of decks can use the things effectively and they always do something noteworthy for those decks.
A lot of "combos" that wind up making cards reach broken status come from unintended oversights, like how on first glance the Ishizu Fairy cards should have been a counter to Tearlaments because of their graveyard control tools, but because of their ability to send cards to the graveyard they wound up appropriated into the strategy instead, making it more consistent than it was ever intended to be. And other decks can still run bits of the Ishizu and Tearlaments cards if milling cards makes them more effective as well, so that "splashability" aspect is also in play, especially thanks to the lack of restrictions applied to the cards.
Same applies to bystial ironically
@@abdurachmanromzy4778 The issue comparing bystials to ishizu cards is that milling and shuffling the graveyard will almost always be relevant while the bystials need the other opponent to be playing a dark/light deck otherwise they are just regular extenders in the deck they are being played in. Its even worse when they are being played in a meta dominated by a deck that doesn't care about banishing or is not dark or light for example kashtira.
Broken cards can also be overpowered or degenerate on their own. Painful Choice comes to mind as an old school example.
A broken card is a card that has little to no reasonable counter play (Evenly Matched, Super Poly), OR a card that enables so much advantage and is difficult to stop (Kashtira Birth, SHS Scarecrow).
I mean, you can counter evenly with a spell negate, but not all decks have access to that
I really like your definition of broken. We might dislike cards that feel unfairly strong, but a card that feels way stronger than it was intended to be is a different conversation. I feel like Maxx C for example feels like an interesting idea that didn't really took into account how much special summons and card advantage mean in the game. Maxx C in a different card game could've been a strong but fair card, but in ygo it has such a high impact that people can't stop discussing about it.
The term “broken” often gets used improperly by many people playing card games, especially in yugioh. The only time a card is broken in card games is when the card creates situations that the rules never intended to occur in the game. Red eyes fusion is a card with a harsh restriction on activation, but when yugioh printed Predaplant verte anaconda the card saw immediate play to bypass the activation drawbacks of red eyes fusion. Predaplant verte anaconda literally defines what a broken card is by breaking the rules of the game in an unintended way by letting you play your turn anyway you want and ending on dragoon even though Konami probably never intended for that to happen. Predaplant verte anaconda was probably designed to help the Predaplant deck, not to be the end monster on anyone’s board that could summon it. Union carrier is another card with the same problem. It was probably made to help union decks, instead helped already powerful decks buster lock opponents so they couldn’t access their extra decks and pretty much ending the game on the spot. I’d also like to preface this with I’m not an expert on game design but I have played magic the gathering for 20 years and I have seen my fair share of broken cards ie “amulet of vigor” giving lands untap triggers when it should have read “enters the battlefield untapped” instead. So please don’t take my comment and brush me off like an opinionated arrogant internet commenter. I just wanted to give my two cents on the subject.
Things that bypass fundamental mechanics aren't necessarily broken, but when it is combined with the result of a way stronger than what you can make by it's usual method. Red-Eyes Fusion and Red-Eyes Dark Dragoon, Cyber Stein are definitely examples.
Upcoming King Calamity is probably going to get called broken when Synchrony Summoned on opponent's turn as a turn skip.
Predaplant Verte Ananconda is prime example of “broken” card. It was broken from the gitgo and gained more notoriety of that as cards like Dragoon and DPE were abused because of it. Konami couldn’t have designed this card without considering how busted it would be with the amount of good fusion monsters and spells we have in the time it was released.
In fairness, Verte/Halifiber/Electrumite were aftershocks from the MR4 era.
Modern cards that are able to act as removal and advantage generation at the same time is what I would qualify as broken. Look at Gold Pride - Start Your Engines! , which is functionally Toon Page-Flip with a targeted destruction effect in the same resolution for an archetype that's able to diarrhea monsters onto the field. Look at Big Welcome Labrynth, which is able to search out Lady Labrynth and then act as a Compulsory Evacuation Device on the next turn. The cards that don't have costs but are able to put your opponent at a loss are the ones that are really broken in my opinion, but nobody focuses on those because they're looking at the big bosses that are designed to clean up shop.
I think you still have to play the archetype names in order to activate in the first place, otherwise it's a dead card... I could be wrong though...
@@theazuredemon4854 you do its not splashable outside the engine.
@@theazuredemon4854 That doesn't really stop them from being broken cards. They aren't generically splashable but they're still broken cards.
Triple effects that is far too easy/consistent to bring out. Examples: Kashtira Fenrir, Spright Elf, Tearlaments Kitkallos, Kashtira Ariseheart, Red-Eyes Dark Dragoon (via Predaplant Verte Anaconda). All of those cards have 3 effects, usually have high stats, and are brought out far too consistently for too little investment.
Strong card vs broken card: Strong cards can have triple effects but MUST require significant investment to summon. Broken cards have triple effects are easy to summon. Example: I can splash 3 Kashtira Fenrir in ANY deck with ZERO downside.
I feel the difference is when a strong card becomes too easy to bring out is when it becomes broken, in master duel today i ran into 2 different boards that end on 5 material Rhongo and other monsters.
Rongo is banned? xD
Banned in tcg not master duel
I ran into 2 Amazon decks in plat today. Doesnt have anything to do with that, just found it interesting
@@noxus2458 oh shit you're right, woops
@@noxus2458 fucking should be shit like that shouldn't be legal no matter how bad it is
Broken to me is a combination of accessibility and power level. I think Barone is broken not because she's overpowered but she single handedly makes entire boss monsters borderline obsolete simply because she's a generic level 10 that fits into any deck that can easily get her out.
Broken cards: Easy to use, versatile (can be used in almost every Deck), and offer huge benefits to the player using it.
Examples: “Bystial Magnamhut” (a case can be made for almost all the Bystial cards really), “Kashtira Fenrir”, “Triple Tactics Talent/Triple Tactics Thrust”, “Pot of Prosperity”, “Anti-Spell Fragrance”, “Eradicator Epidemic Virus”, and “Dimensional Barrier”.
What the Konami representatives said perfectly explains the problem -- power creep is by design and they know exactly what they're doing. The issue is the business model and the structure that Yu-Gi-Oh uses. It creates this perverse incentive for companies to power creep content to bolster short term sales. But this comes at the cost of the game's long term health and stability.
In my view it's time the game split into two formats like its competitors with a wild format + banlist and then a set rotation one. Alternatively they could give us a nuclear banlist the likes of which we've never seen before and/or tweak some rules to forcibly slow the game down again.
@@ChaosSwissroIlGood point I’d be perfectly content with that. I still enjoy modern Yu-Gi-Oh I just enjoy the more middle Yu-Gi-Oh eras the most and really by far. I’d like to have a permanent format for that style again or I’m sure there are a number of other solutions the community can come up with as well.
@@ChaosSwissroIl I think that’s a great idea.
Solemn Judgement vs Red Reboot. All I'm going to say.
Broken= easy or consistently summoned, no drawbacks, or one card that turns into 6!
Having Tearlaments make fusions of any kind of monster and not just Tearlaments monsters in particular makes them so open to any play possible which makes it near impossible to stop fully. There is a reason why we say we cheat out monsters, it's just too easy to do it.
I feel when it comes to these types of cards, it's a matter of here a bunch of archetypes that have to go through their gimmicks/chores in order to get to their respective strong cards only for low effort broken cards to disrupt, negate, remove them for practically no trade-off/penalty. The game has been doing this for so long that players look at "weaker" cards and compare them to the broken cards and call them worthless or at the very least ineffective against the broken cards currently around.
For me, strong cards are cards that took some work to get to. They don't have a lot of protection on their own and require other cards in their archetype (or whatever theme they are apart of) to function properly. Often they are a combination of cards that, together, make them strong. They likely have some exploitable weakness that they'll have to cover in some way, but the point is that they are not impossible to break with a bit of brain power and effort.
Broken cards are the ones where they pretty much counter whatever you were going to do with little to no cost for doing so. They are easy to play, often with just 1-2 cards, they render a player unable to do anything relevant with their deck even when there's nothing on the field yet. These cards are "memorable", not because you like them, but because they constantly remind you that you're about to have a bad time playing against them.
And sure, people can opt to use broken cards, but that's not really out of excitement of using them, but more of a necessity if you actually want to play the game. They are marks of showing where the game has gotten to in terms of preparing to lose on Turn 1 almost immediately. It is very intentional that these cards are made as they are the chase cards, the cards that over-step other cards/decks due to some crazy effect like idk "Your opponent can only have 2 cards on the field at a time and their hand size is 2" or something worse than that. It's not that people are "excited" to see these types of cards, but rather anxious in knowing if those cards are what they have to deal with for the coming months/years.
So what makes a Broken Card broken in my eyes is the ability to use it without restrictions. Sure Super Poly is unresponsive and Kaijus your field...But that's literally what it was printed to do. It was crafted to boost heroes to give them a way to deal with Broken Boss Monsters like Towers.
Verte Anaconda is a prime example of what I refer to as Broken because Konami refuses to give restrictions. Verte is a strong and useful tool for Predaplant and even some rogue decks are more consistent with it in their arsenal like Relinquished, but it being so generic means that everyone and their mother could use it, pair that with the DPE 4 card package and now you have a 5 Card Package that can go into any deck and give you a repeatable pop and debuff boss monster for the low cost of 2k. Had Konami restricted it to require a Predaplant Monster, or Hell even just 2 Dark Monsters(Since all Predaplant are Dark and can use Dark Support) it would remove the Broken Status and place it in the Strong Category.
Baronne De Fleur is the same boat. Had Konami made it require a Fleur Synchron many players wouldn't consider it Broken. It would be accessable to the Synchron players, and the Fleur players or anyone willing to run the needed cards but not just toss it in cuz they have the spare room in the ED and can make a 10.
Problem is where Konami makes generic cards. Not like it's the worst thing in the world but they should focus on releasing cards to boost up archetypes that really need support.
Ejem ehem icejade....
@@snootydooty3543 Icejade got Ran Aegirine, tho. A Tuner that summons itself, makes a token, and creates the ace of the archetype? So damn good. Icejade is criminally underrated.
For real. Fortune Lady is my favorite, and it's so painful against things today. I want so bad for it to get an update. I also hope they make a full-fledged archetype out of the Lady of Lament monsters. IMO they're some of the coolest monster designs I've ever seen.
@emissaryofcharybdis105 nah my dude I love icejade and I try so hard to make it work...needs some more support. It's crazy how icejade is involved in all this branded despia lore but...only for a lil bit.....then you got all this bystiall and swordsoul dogmatika bullshit coming out....and us icejades just got a monster summon a tuner and that's it... not good enough to be in roug...
@@snootydooty3543 What type of support would you like to see for it? Maybe some more negate options? As of now the archetype only has the trap, and while it can set off a chain reaction within the archetype's graveyard abilities, it's definitely not perfect. What I found to really help the archetype is Red Reign. It's a not-targeting Dark Hole that banishes everything but the highest level Synchro. Gymir, being level 10, can really make this monstrous.
The problem is that there is too many cards to keep interactions in check... Super poly is the best example, the more generic cards get printed the more broken the card gets. I loved when super poly felt like a weird tech choice when it came out, mostly with machines and some heroes, now it just feels oppressive.
*Broken cards are cards that say "once i'm activated/summoned, i win the game"
*Strong cards are cards that say "once i'm activated/summoned, I turn the tables"
I've never heard it described that way and I really like it!
Generally, I'd say how much value the card offers. Zeus can potentially remove 12 of your opponent's cards, Baronne can negate a vital effect in your opponent's strategy and deny them the ability to effectively continue their turn, Destroyer Phoenix Enforcer is a self reviving card that can generate a great amount of advantage over the course of a duel, Mystic Mine shuts down over a third of the card pool just because your opponent decided to play Yu-Gi-Oh.
I'd consider cards to be Broken when their power far exceeds what is typical for the respective purpose. Mystic Mine is broken for the fact that it doesn't take up your spell and trap zones, it's a field spell so it's searchable, it shuts down all monsters and prevents your opponent from attacking (additionally protects itself from monster effects that remove spell cards), and compared to other floodgates it exceeds what they're capable of by combining several floodgate effects together. Zues is definitely strong, almost broken however it is still a better telegraphed effect and there are ways to maneuver around its board wipe. I'd consider Super Poly to now be a broken card due to fusion monsters having progressively more generic materials, leading to you being able to make up for the initial minus two cost of the effect and yield a plus one at the end (removing two of the opponent's monsters for a fusion monster), and to top it off no one can respond to Super Poly's activation.
I agree with super poly. I NEVER run fusion monsters in my decks but tossing 1 into your extra deck just to use super poly as a removal card is really good.
😢Even worse if you combo it into certain floodgate decks where you can remove the floodgate for yourself, tribute your opponents monsters they tried so hard to get out, then reapply for floodgate before the turn is over... but im just evil like that lol.
You may have a point with Mystic Mine if we didn't have harpie's feather duster, mystical space typhoon, twin twisters, cosmic cyclone and other spell/trap removal that isn't monster effects. I feel people don't like it because they chose to not add backrow removal and want to rely on monster effects. I may be off though.
@@naruhinanatzaforver9298i feel thats alotta decks nowadays that want the otk so they dont put in enough negates/defensive cards to get around stuff like that. Harpy/mst/mirrorforce is literally in all my decks
@@naruhinanatzaforver9298 The issue is that those cards lacked a consistent means of being obtained in a duel, the Mystic Mine user is very likely to run spell/trap negates to further protect their Mine from removal. Rivalry/Gozen/TCBOO all are still quite susceptible to monster effect removal and Skill Drain doesn't affect monster effects outside of the field. Mystic Mine also doesn't have a standing tax to remain on the field like Messenger of Peace. Mystic Mine warped standard deck building for a while because it mandated so much presence. Anyone could drop the card to stall the game in the faint hope of recovering from a losing position, which leads to stale game states until someone has a means of removing the Mine. I like a slower game as much as the next person, however Mine handles this in the worst way possible.
Strong - a powerful card that has very strong powerful effects but can be stopped with the right out (DRNM, Evenly, Mystic Mine).
Broken - a powerful card that gives a player an unfair u balanced advantages over another that cannot be responded to ina. Proper timeframe (Delinquent Duo)
when i use a card its strong, but when my opponent uses it its broken
Difference lies heavily in its general versatility. Is a card being prioritized during a game over the deck's actual strategy? Do decks fundamentally alter the way they're constructed JUST to play the thing? Is it being abused by a ton of different decks more than it is elevating its own strategy?
The Adventure engine is probably a good example about the point back when it was everywhere. You had to tear out 9 cards from your main deck to cram in the engine, but if you weren't playing it then you'd be at a huge disadvantage. And there would probably even be times where you might have to choose between making the plays that your deck is designed to do and playing Rite, because your deck's central plays needs to use a normal summoned monster's effect. It's even likely that you choose to play Rite because it was just outright better than the cards you are ALLEGEDLY centering your strategy around (though with the need for staples you might actually have more Adventure cards in your deck). And thirdly, the engine wasn't even playing the full-on Adventure strategy, it unironically was better just being a 9 card engine than played pure even though pure Adventurer should be theoretically maximizing its consistency and power.
Anything that opens with the effect lines “Both Players cannot” “Your opponent cannot” “Neither player” or “Tribute your opponents monster”
Being too generic, that's about it.
Like why doesn't Baronne require Fleur Synchron like Chevalier when the former is literally the latter on a horse?
Why Doesn't Access Code require at bear minimum a code talker as one of its materials or as cost for its effects?
Or why doesn't Savage require a Rokket or Borrel for its summoning or for any of its effects.
Personally, I believe that archetypal cards need to, have to be as xenophobic as possible, if there needs to be generic go to monsters then make them, but without the archetypal piggybacking, like Apollousa, but the fact that I can make Avramax , and then proceed to Voltron him behind not one but two archetypes worth of spell/traps is a bit much.
Accesscode / Apollousa / Barronne
3 of the most bannable cards in the game. Do I use them in every deck I can? Yep. And so does everyone bc they essentially make every other card in their pool (Link 4 Synchro 10) worthless comparatively.
I dont think any of those cards are bannable. They're pretty balanced and well designed with their own weaknesses.
Not really considering some archetypes do need their own cards the only thing these cards are good for are generic staples that some decks can't even use. For example branded can't use either one and any deck locking you into a certain mechanic can't utilize all of them so unless you're running some super generic deck they aren't ban worthy.
@@TraaaaaasshBooooaaaatttt I can see why people have issues with all of them. Baronne and apollousa in particular are pretty generic, and they perpetuate the difficulty with breaking boards with engine alone. At the same time, almost all decks have some toxic win cons.
@@kevinlee5753 Not every deck can use them, but they are still widely accessible. While i think it is bad, even branded has s variant that uses synchros. The main issue people have with them is that decks that can play them will, and at least two of them add to negation that prevents attempts at putting up counter Play
Issue is that you would have to hit power cards for going second as well.
I think the main problem are the generic powerful monsters like barone, acces, apolusa, etc. In the case of Barone as an example, personally I dont considere it a broken card but the fact that it is quite generic makes it ban worthy in my opinion.
Baronne specifically I despise for just being generic. the card invalidates every single other level 10 synchro in the game and will continue to do so unless powercrept or banned. And if it is powercrept, whatever powercreeps it is going to invalidate every other level 10 synchro in the game.
The irony of Accesscode being able to be accessed so easily lol.
The worse thing about Access is the defenders. Bro just don't let them get links in the grave!!!
You mean don't let them summon it?
@@hunterapena If your opponent gets to access, then you were already in a bad spot to begin with. But I do get the idea of banning it because of its ability to clear boards, thus meaning you don't have much left if the opponent passes turn
@@chewdoom8415 that's assuming they don't play it turn one. Not likely but not impossible. But that's what I get for not believing in disconnecting on coin flip lost lol
I think they really need to circle back to the classic older archetypes and push them to current power level and I mean like all the archetypes they haven’t printed legitimate support for in awhile
The crazy think with cyber-stein was it was emergency banned back in its youth for some OTK.
When things don’t have a restriction.
Ex: Most “broken cards” will say- “when this card is summoned…”
And other “fair cards” will say - “when this card is normal summoned.”
the most broken card is white Duston 😂😂
For me broken comes less from just being powerful but how easy it is for certain archetypes and strategies to get access to, It's why I personally wish generic extra deck options came with more downsides let them be powerful but give them heavy downsides or make access simple in all archetypes.
Baronne De Fleur on it's own is powerful and fine if it wasn't as accessible, like say requiring 3 cards to make it, or if it had to pop a card on field on summon meaning it pops itself or one of your own cards if your going first or make it have to negative the first thing that activates after being summoned including your own cards.
As it is now Many of these cards dilute their summoning mechanics it in a sense breaks the concept of archetypes linked to specific summoning mechanics, unless your deck specifically has easy access to one of these power cards then you are playing with a handicap.
Now it would be less bad if say we had generic cards that instantly summon them for any deck, so instead of say sword soul having a 1 card Baronne De Fleur every deck gets access to a one card set up.
And lastly I think personally none generic options should always be better and give reasons for locking you into those archetypes, like give all synchro decks new boss monsters with the same type of power in mind but offer better utility and are even more powerful in their own archtype so picking the generic option becomes a second best if you have to option.
And it isn't like Konami can't do a entire set or two dedicated to nothing but updated older archetypes and giving new boss monsters, which I believe would sell decently well, the more things playable with new support the more experimenting that happens the more drive their is to get new product.
Thanks for saying it! Players don't like broken cards, but they won't like sets without these ones😪
I feel like Super Poly is just straight up unfair and broken. Mainly for the fact it’s spell speed 2, so if you were ready for it you can’t flip D barrier or anti spell for that matter as it can just chain onto it. Either way, you’re losing two monsters without having a say.
Cards that are auto-includes.
De Fleur. Ash Blossom. Lightning Storm.
The only reason that "Tear 0" was a problem was because there was nothing else that could deal with it. Of the seven Tier 0 formats the TCG has seen, it was unquestionably the least toxic. It has lots of interaction, it doesn't just lock you out of playing the game like the other ones did.
When you brought up Ishizu Tear I immediately thought of Block Dragon and Adimancipator
Functioning as intended is very different from healthy for the metagame.
If a card regularly makes games one-sided or otherwise not fun, then I think the term Broken applies.
That's one I've answered for myself quite easily. It's one that necessitates extremely specific outs. Maxx-c, Ishizu and Bystials all 3 need extremely specific outs and if you didn't draw them you lose, yes despite bystials only working on dark and light they are still busted cause they gatekeep entire decks. Baronne, accesscode, elf, These are not broken cards, they are simply good cards that's why they are everywhere, in fact besides elf the rank 10s do contest each other and so do the link 4s.
@heulg.darian2536 Agree, except are you talking about Spright Elf?
@@SunnyHF-nf4bc yes I am a masterduel andy, haven't played the physical format since glad beasts were meta.
@@heulg.darian2536 Okay, well Spright Elf is actually broken.
It's generic, splashable.
Provides targeting protection, an extender during player's turn, or additional disruption during opponent's turn.
I don't think there is a world where Konami made the ishizu cards with no regards to tearlaments. Just because it impacted the game in this way doesn't mean they never intended the cards to work together. Same thing with tcg making garura.
It's kinda hard to define what broken means until you experience it. Like losing half of my deck before my turn 1 is mad annoying, so ishizu is broken in my eyes
It’s more of a broken engine rather than a broken card.
Why didn't you just draw ash?
@@mrevilducky how can 1 ashe stop tear shizu you ape
@@mrevilducky They sent it to the graveyard turn 1
It`s hard to define, but I believe Zeus, Dark Ruler, Nibiru are strong, while Shifter, Dweller, Skill Drain are broken because they are mostly hard to prevent and/or counter.
Die to shifter is part of risk
Broken is when is advantages far proceeds the cost, or requires to get to or activate.
Pot of desires does the same think as pot of greed, but desires require a payment beyond activation. Theres risk along with advantage.
Having a negate or OTK used to make an archetype soecial. Now anything can make Apollousa and Borrelsword.
Cards that can be used to special summon or fusion summon during your opponent's turn are definitely broken.
I think broken cards are generally a problem of available card pool. Like Exodia in a no ban list tournament due to the amount of draw power that you are giving to the deck. Whereas in a tournament with a banlist exodia is pretty fine because the supporting tech isn’t around it to make it the ultra reliable menace that it is in said format.
So three things I’d say have to be considered opportunity cost (what do you give up for going for a certain line when building the deck), reliability (both with and without opponents interaction), cost vs payoff (how many resources are you going to expend on the play and what is the effect).
These all change depending on the scenario for example if for some reasons Floo becomes the deck run by 90% of players and decks are built to counteract it. Then Maxx C is no longer a broken card within that format. Same with Artifact Sycthe so you might exchange a scythe package as the opportunity cost is to high after all floo don’t use the extra deck why dedicate x amount of slots to that strategy?
I really feel like genericness is a big factor in this. I get a lot of cards should be generic too allow creativity, but some big generic bosses should make you jump through some hoops to get them. Shooting Quasar made you have to set up Synchro plays, buy something like Accesscode can be casually made in any deck without restriction. Something like making all its materials Link monsters would go a long way in making harder to get out (albeit only marginally nowadays). Or just locking you into Cyberse. That way, it makes stuff like Salads or Code Talkers stronger, while not providing another generic beatstick to every other deck. You see that they solved this issue in Firewall by the errata making it Cyberse exclusive.
The more scenarios a card is the best/really good option for the more broken it is. imo
Most broken cards are the cards you see your opponent play and go "(inhale) UUUGGGGHHHHH..."
There really isn’t anything to fix this game so Konami is just gonna keep the game broken since people are buying their products and cards
A card is made and is intended to be strong or weak card. This is up to the card designers.
We as players can only assume and this becomes the intentioned level of the card.
If the card performs at a higher level over the intentioned level, then it is broken.
If the card performs at a lower level under than the intentioned level, then it is underpowered.
If the card performs at the intentioned level, then it is just a strong or weak card.
This conversation is very opinion based. One way to look at it is affect vs cost. Let's look at one of my all time favorite cards, pendulum area. (Normal trap, destroy your scales, if you do, players can only pendulum summon this turn) so a floodgate that works for pendulum decks, but at the cost of losing your scales. Well, I play pendulum magicians/zarc. In that deck, specifically the pen magicians portion (black fang/purple poison/double iris) you get benefits for destroying those scales. So it turns into a lock out with upside. Strong? Very strong? Over powered?
Anything without a Xenolock.
Most extra deck tools would never be a problem if the materials were somewhat specific, the most recent offender being Spright elf. It could just say "2 SPRIGHTS" or even 2 monsters including a spright.
I'm not going into the floodgate/Board Breaker/Handtrap side of things because you at least have to Draw those. The extra deck being this ever so accessible place makes anything inside it more offensive
It depends on context IMO. Barrone by itself isn’t that much of an issue, but alongside Borreload and Chingzhou for example, becomes a major issue to beat.
Even the cards I consider broken, like Snow, are more often strong because of what the state of the game is.
Ultimately, I blame the players for making the cards broken rather than strong. I don’t have issues with Omni Negates, board breakers etc, it’s when everyone decides to keep using it, and use it as the all-solving hammer that it becomes an issue.
Even the stuff I despise, like Wok Burn, Sales Ban Rhongo, and Cyberstein/Repro/TCC abuse, wouldn’t be that much of an issue if people stopped trying to optimize the strategies and make them unresponsive to their opponent.
When they have a permanent unaffected by card effects those are the cards that’s broken
I'm kind of a boomer, so my perception of broken may be outdated. I would say broken refers to a card or deck that is too powerful relative to everything else in the game, creates an auto-win situation (like Butterfly Dagger Elma), has no counter-play, invalidates a crucial element of the game (like how Upstart Goblin essentially allows the player to play a main deck that's under 40 cards), or a card that there's virtually no reason for anyone to leave it out of their deck (like Pot of Greed).
X=(a+b)÷c
Where x is how broken is a card
A is how easy a card achieve it s goal
B is how generic is this effect
And C is the banlist affects this card
in my honest opinion what makes a card broken is a card that can shut down an entire turn, deck, game by just being there for example heroic champion rhongomyniad, that shit with 6 or more materials was pretty much a game over, your opponent couldn't kaiju it cause it didn't allow normal or special summon you couldn't get rid of it because it was unaffected, so your only option was sit down and wait to the card to lose materials slowly, and by then your opponent either won already or set a board, a broken card is a card that is powerful and on top of that cannot be interacted on any way either by being unaffected or have a way to counter the interactions
I haven't played yugioh in 10 months. Got into vrchat and have been hooked
I like to think of Konami's powercreep as a game of blackjack. Rather than settling for a 17 or lower like most players would (or maybe that's just me), they always want to go for that perfect 21. This naturally results in a lots of busts. 22's and 23's and so on. Those busted cards that are way over the top of what they were intended for (though, one could argue this metaphor would just as easily pertain to the many unplayable cards they keep printing, but in the opposite way). Such is the consequence of striving for power over balanced gameplay. You cross that line way more often than what many players would prefer.
A strong card has a reasonable chance of being overcome, a broken card doesn't.
broken cards
*little to no cost and generate huge card advantages ex) pot of greed, card of safe return
*monster with multiple layers of protection ex) dark dragoon
*cards that allow an endless loop of special summoning ex) soul charge
*easy token generator ex) dandylion
*combo decks with over 15+ special summons per turn ex) swordsoul/tenyi, ishizu/tearlament
Cards that can't be responded to or don't have hard OPT effects that can be exploited.
So I'm really not an expert on card design, but in my layman opinion I think there are a few types of ways a card can be broken. The first is when a card is above the curve, as in it gets you more advantage than other avenues for the same amount of resources. This is usually expected to some degree as formats evolve, like a rank generic 4 XYZ might start off with a single target destruction effect and then evolve into single target non-destruction removal as cards that gain recursion or advantage off destruction come into the game. This gets to be broken when the card gives you significantly more advantage than the format calls for, and so the meta winds up warping around the card. Luckily while these cards can be problematic they are also self solving, give it time and the curve will eventually catch up and pass them. There are plenty of examples of the gripes of formats past now being comically irrelevant.
Second type of broken cards are cards that dramatically warp the game state or have an effect that grants unintended advantage with modern context. A lot of times these are older cards, because those cards were created with a lot less restrictions and the creators were really ok with cards just dramatically affecting how the game was played back then. What's scary is that a lot of cards can theoretically fall into this category with a change in game state or player attitude. Like Skill Drain used to be a decent card and now its considered overpowered. Maxx C and Vanity's Emptiness were also largely slept on initially. The heavy focus on graveyards over the years have retroactively made cards like dimension barrier and macro cosmos extremely powerful. The relevance of cards like There Can Be Only One and Rivalry of the Warlords fluctuates by what powerful decks can benefit from them at the time, and all of this with effects that don't seem to initially, in a vacuum, offer any real advantage. These are a bit harder to solve because a lot of cards can wind up being completely fine or even kind of suck until a format or change in deck design philosophy completely breaks them, and sometimes they solve themselves while other times they linger on for far too long. Hell, sometimes these cards even need to be a bit busted in order to help otherwise suboptimal decks compete with more aggressive combo decks.
Then you have cards that are designed to not have limits, or just have a bunch of good effects on them, in defiance of conventional wisdom. These are the ones where you just raise an eyebrow an go "That's not a hard once per turn" or "Wait, that's permanent"? Konami knows what they are doing when they create these and they are pretty much the first type I mentioned, but they tend to linger around a lot longer or get banned. I think these ones are usually Konami's attempt at manipulating formats. What's really infuriating about this is a lot of times Konami will then make other cards and archtypes with potentially interesting mechanics or themes that have an overabundance of restrictions or fail to give worthwhile effects, even placing them well behind the curve.
Finally the most insidious of broken cards are the mandatory staples. I never really thought of Ash as unfair, she stopped one interaction by discarding herself to the grave and is a hard once per turn, and there are counter cards to stop her even outside of omninegates. Question, though, how many copies of Ash Blossom and Joyous Spring do you run, how many do normal players run? Do you ever feel like creating a deck without her? Or is she something of a mandatory staple in most decks in most formats?
There is also a discussion to be had over engines facilitating cards being brought out with more ease than originally intended or creating higher ceilings for end boards, but that's a far more complicated issue to quantify or pin down exactly what card is the problem. Boss Monsters and Floodgates will usually get called out as problematic by name but a lot of times the issue is the engine that facilities those boss monsters or necessitates the use of those floodgates to function on an otherwise suboptimal strategy.
TLDR; Cards that get you more bang for their buck than the format demands, cards that warp the game state in a way that prevents current decks from functioning, cards with a lack of reasonable restrictions and cards that are so good they become mandatory staples. Also engines should be included in this discussion.
I'd argue too many people hyperbolize too many stuff that everything became really grey and tough to discern between the 2. For instance, we got 3 new "destroy all cards" boss monsters and like only 1 gets considered good. Another thing is probably depends on how tuned a card is since most things get since number of effects on a card isn't the reason when things that just do 1 thing is considered broken like as you said Cyber Stein and Super Poly but there's definitely times where the 2 have became a detriment even as of recent because of a situation etc.
I guess it's all just subjectiveness at that point since not everyone has used every card in Yu-Gi-Oh and have found/synergized everything
Broken cards are cards that cross the boundaries of what I consider a healthy game.
A broken card is a card that generates much more advantage than the cost it takes to use that card, a card that "breaks" the fundamental gameplay loop, which in most games, is supposed to be fair. Making the cards generic reduces, if not removes, that cost. Baronne should've required Fleur Synchron, Halqifibrax should've required a Crystron monster, Accesscode Cyberse monsters, and so on. Creating generic cards that are clearly more powerful than the cards with more specific requirements is not good game design. More specific requirements should always have the better effects, but that's not what we're seeing.
I think strong card's are cards are card that are powerful and at least have some counters to them and broken are cards Cards with little to no counters to them thats my take feel free to fill some in some gaps
I left my yugioh cards in the washing machine and now they’re broken 😥
broken cards are the ones that are most: consistent+viable X repeatable.
Extenders, especially those in the extra deck break yugioh. What easy access to extenders means is that a deck either goes crazy or does nothing. This causes an extreme binary. Something like accesscode which in theory takes 4 material wouldn't make anyone blink twice if it wasn't so easy to summon using Splash Mage and Transcode Talker didn't make Accesscode Talker summonable with any two cybers monsters.
I think many of the overly strong borderline broken cards just don't have a steep enough cost or activation requirement compared to their inferior counterparts. Compare Baronne's effect to Shooting Quasar Dragon's effect. Sure Baronne can only negate once with a smaller body, but it also has spot removal and is insanely easier to summon. That's just the nature of power creep to move product and advance the card pool, but generally omni-negates should have a high cost (Solemns) or activation requirement and not have other effects on top. Thats to balance the "No U" factor with having needed to expend resources to negate.
Strong cards help assist your deck archetype/strategy. Broken cards prevent your opponent from playing the game.
If it’s generic and slapped with a nice “(Quick Effect)” in the card text
Super Poly, end of discussion. Whoever decided that the card can’t be responded to was smoking the Jaden Yuki Supreme King Pack.
Something like Toadily Awesome and Elf is a good example
Broken cards are the ones I lose to and that's unfair.
The way I see it, broken comes when its easy to get out. If ots hard then if it's op then cool but a turn 2 omni-negate that isn't part of their archetype...
Is Pot of Greed broken?
Is Monster Reborn broken?
Is Axe of Despair broken?
Is Scrap Iron Scarecrow Broken?
Is Horn of the Unicorn broken?
My opinion on what makes a card broken has been the same ever since Raigeki was a thing - what makes a card broken is having zero cost. I use Raigeki as an example because it doesn't have any stipulation for what it does. Destroy all enemy monsters, period. No attack position only, no face-up only - ALL monsters. The only thing that stopped Raigeki from being this now is modern cards having negates and effects that protect them from being destroyed. Even now though - it's strong as hell. Compare this to Dark Ruler No More - what I consider a fair card. Dark Ruler has a stipulation that your enemy can't take damage when you use it. This allows them to respond to its use. Sure, if your board is broken and cleared because of it, you're in a bad spot. But, you're not out yet, and you can still use it yourself if you have it. You can still make a play and come back. A strong card, or set of strong cards, needs stipulations that keep it from ruining everything. Ishizu, for example, needed more stipulations with what it could affect.
The overused term of "broken". According to everyone broken means if a card does literally anything slightly good. I remember when "broken" meant something being completely unbeatable or if something in a video game is not coded right.
I have very few issues with Prospi itself, just the price tag it has. Extrav I feel is an infinitely worse designed card because it forces you to buy multiples of extradeck cards you usually need one of, which often MASSIVELY inflated the price of a deck, and back in the card's heyday, it wasn't cheap either. So it was just insanely expensive to use and yet you needed it for certain decks to function. Prospi is a much better designed card in my opinion
Broken cards would either be incredibly good while being the easiest to use/summon. Or having an effect so powerful it single handedly shuts down decks.
Maxx c, zeus, baronne, pot of greed, delinquent duo, access code talker. All cards that just about every deck could just add at any time regardless of its playing. Even control decks could get materials out for access code or put 2 same levels on field for zeus. Every deck can play maxx c and pot of greed because there's no situational use to it. Just activate the card and gain advantage.
Then you have rhongo, true king of calamities, shock Master, protos where it isn't technically easy to summon them, once they get on the field you might as well scoop.
Both fulfill "broken" under 2 different styles but all SHOULD be banned. Yes even baronne. When decks who have completely different playstyles can play all these cards, the cards are just way out of balanced. Even if it doesn't seem like it cause we've been used to seeing it played all the time but thats more reason for its banning
A card idea I have has a pretty broken card in it but I've been trying to balance it.
A strong card is annoying to play against, of course, the same goes to you and your opponent.
A "broken" card is FRUSTRATING to play against. Sometimes discouraging.
Broken is when it’s consistent and warps the game state like VFD & Rhongo. There’s a lot of cards that are good nowadays but they won’t win by themselves unless you were already in the position to win anyways.
Yeah cards like VFD, shock master and anything else that cuts you off from playing the actual game shouldn't be legal and now we have the crimson dragon and going to have to deal with the bullshit of the level 12 calamity
If it basically goes: "Nope"
People throw out the word broken way too much. If a card is good now, people just call it broken.
Broken cards are cards that by themselves they are so powerful they can end games. It doesn't matter how powerful your board is, I have super poly. Also the more generic it is the closer it goes from powerful to busted.
Not so once per turn, has hard to response effect, some form of negation or board wipe if not all of the above
Im pretty sure i land on a specific part of the spectrum, but I can't afford the doctors to find out 😅
Generic cards should always be worse than non-generic cards of the same tier. The game would be a lot better, imo, if they took the philosophy that, say, every deck can play Lightning Warrior, but the non generic options of that same Level are things like Clear Wing Fast Dragon. Maybe not to that extremity, but I think that the philosophy is sound. It’s kind of like how vanillas back in the day had better stats than effect monsters, as a rule of thumb. Alternatively, print things like Odd-Eyes Meteorburst, which are okay on their own, but have a clear benefit in their dedicated strategy. (one that is worth more than its generic effect). Or, cards like Transcode, which can be made generically, but only have use in their intended strategy. If we go back to earlier shades of Yugioh, I wouldve loved to see things like Black Rose’s ATK manipulation effect being generic, but the board wipe is Plant locked, or Stardust Dragon negating being generic, but only coming back if there is a Synchron in your GY.
Crazy how cards like Trickstar Bella Madonna and Salamangreat Pyro Phoenix are not generic yet Accesscode is and eclipses them both by a million. It makes no sense to me.