Has balancing power, consistency, and defense become easier than ever in today's metagame?
**Tldr;**
* Smaller combos = higher consistency * Smaller combos = more deck space for disruption * Issue: High consistency and high power are now intertwined * Issue: High consistency + power decks are backed by back-row and hand-traps * [Sample Wind Witch Eidolon Decklist Here](http://i.imgur.com/Y6TPJAv.jpg) * Sample deck has a 93% chance of disrupting opponent on first turn, 2x + 52% * Theory: The opening user needs only to exhaust at least 2 cards of the opponent's opening hand to ensure victory * Is this bad for the metagame going forward?
Today's metagame in both the TCG and OCG consists of turn one players summoning big monsters capable of disrupting the opponent. In addition, a variety of set spells and traps and or hand traps back up the summoned monster. Furthermore, such decks are capable of summoning multiple monsters with similar or complimenting abilities in order to lock down an opponent. Such a scenario is extremely difficult to deal with.
How did we get here? The combos. Why are rank three and four decks so consistent? Many of these decks are capable of summoning powerful monsters with only two cards. Two cards represent 40% of a turn one player’s opening hand. This allows for the rest of the hand to be whatever the user requires complementing their play style. However, we are now in the era of one-card plays featuring cards such as Speedroid Terrortop, Windwitch - Ice Bell, Zodiac Triangle, and so on. A one-card play represents 20% of player’s opening hand, leaving, even more, room for other cards.
Therefore, a compounding effect occurs with the reduction of cards required to summon powerful monsters. The first front involves having more room in the hand for increased flexibility and disruption capabilities. The second is simply the consistency of it all. For example, consider the Blue-Eyes archetype and the summoning method of Blue-Eyes Alternative White Dragon. This monster requires a copy of Blue-Eyes White Dragon in hand in order to achieve a special summon. For maximum consistency, a player will elect to play multiple copies of both monsters. So for this example, consider the deck has three copies of each card.
Thirty-four percent is the percent chance of obtaining one copy of each monster in a five-card opening hand. However, eleven percent is the percent chance of obtaining both monsters in the same five-card opening hand. Eleven percent means a player will most likely not draw into this combo once in a match against an opponent. This is why one-card plays are especially dangerous to encounter. Three copies of Speedroid Terrortop means, this monster will see the field once out of every three duels. The final output of each play involves a monster with at least 2500 attack points if we are considering Clear Wing Synchro Dragon or its pendulum counterpart.
Such statistics illustrates the inherent advantage small combo decks have over the competition. Pardon me, as many competitive duelists know this. Smaller plays increase consistency. However, today’s game may be in a disarray considering that most consistent decks did not feature monsters capable of outputting monsters with high attack points. Not unless the user went out of their way to do so. ABC Dragon Buster, Crystal Wing Synchro Dragon, Cyber Dragon Infinity, and even the rank 8 pool of Xyz monsters are now accessible via highly consistent, one-card and two-card combo decks.
However, this explanation is not why this article is here. Experimenting with decks, along with observing and dueling has revealed something. A duelist is in great shape if he or she is capable of disrupting at least a third of the opponent’s opening hand (2 cards). Especially so if the opponent has consumed their normal summon. This theory has led me to construct decks based around it. For example, consider Windwitch, Eidolons, and Speedroids. Together, the archetypes are capable of summoning disruptive monsters on the first turn with a rate of 76%, which is more than twice out of every three duels. From here, the deck allows enough room to include other cards such as traps and other cards of the disruptive variety. Therefore, I have included eight of those in total, for an opening hand consistency of 69%, which again is more than twice out of every duel.
The result is a deck that will feature a disruptive monster with 2000+ attack points, backed by at least one other disruptive spell, trap, or hand-trap card 52% of the time. Overall, the deck will feature at least one card to disrupt the opponent 93% of the time, which is absurd. Such results are achievable with other decks and archetypes such as Blue-Eyes, ABC’s, Zodiac Beasts, and I have even created a Cyber Dragon Infinity deck following this theory. However, most of the credit here goes to the Eidolon archetype, as it is virtually a one or two card engine boosting the viability of many other archetypes lacking defensive capability, but I digress.
In conclusion, the reduction of cards necessary to summon powerful monsters to one or two cards provides much room for disrupting the opponent. Those resulting monsters being capable of disrupting plays with their own effects exacerbate the issue for opposing players further. In tandem, a user is capable of obtaining a combination of at least two disruptive card effects twice in the opening turn half of the time, and at least once, over 90% of the time. Is this level of power and consistency absurd?