Why does Yu-Gi-Oh's SEMI-LIMITED LIST... even exist?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 кві 2024
- You know the drill by now - we're ramblin'!
Edited by Hypnocorn:
► / @hypnocorn
Affiliate Links and Discounts
►mbtyugioh.bio/
Patreon:
► / mbtyugioh
Twitter:
► / mbtyugioh
Twitch:
► / mbtyugioh
Discord:
► / discord
#YuGiOh #MBT #Discussion - Ігри
Banned: Prison
Limited: House Arrest
Semi: Probation
what would "this card cannot be used in a duel" be?
Death row
If this was true every Traptrix would be banned or limited
@@mikevasquez9799 what I was thinking lol
@@magicwindow6682 Deportation
Malicious watching everyone enter and leave his house more than an NPC in an RPG
He's the old guy from the end of time in Chrono Trigger
@@Rhakimdar LOL
@@Rhakimdar BRUH
aged like wine
@@venjiemin5370 the finest wine ever!
it's Malicious' house :)
Edit: NOT ANYMORE I GUESS, KONAMI EVICTED HIM
He should invite misc over
@@hydr3537 block dragon should invite misc over
@@Lich_V.misc should invite block dragon(im totaly not playing adamancipator)
they should just make him hotp and remove the semi list
Tour Guide as well
Honestly at this point semi-limited is just Malicious's holding cell. I like to imagine that every hit to the semi-list brings a new temporary friend to him before leaving later
Konami don't want Mali to feel sad bc he's the only one in that apartment building
Yu-Gi-Oh’s Calypso
I wish Zoodiac Ratpier was Semi Limited so it would be able to use it's Effect to Special Summon another Zoodiac Ratpier because it's almost useless at 1 copy compared to the unbanned Zoodiacs.
He got evicted
the Semi-Limited list was created back in 2000 for the purposes you listed in the video (I have not watched the video) and with the knowledge that they would eventually release a card named "Destiny Hero - Malicious" and that it was destined to be on that list
Imagine Malicious had mtg-esque typing "you can only have two copies of this card in your starting deck"
@@ummmmmactuallythat's very close to how they would write the restriction. It would probably be more like; your deck may only contain two copies of a cars named "Destiny Hero Malicious ".
The simi-limited list makes more sense in a game that lasts longer than one turn.
@@Metaknight145 Thats what I thought MBT would mention in the repeatability point, a grind game in which you only have 2 copies of a card needed for grind suddenly becomes less winnable, but I can't really think of a card that was semi-limited for such a reason recently.
@ummmmmactually A more elegant solution might be "You can only use this card's effect once per duel". As far as fitting in with existing card text, but yeah, this cuts a player off from using Malicious again if they get any copies back into the deck.
On a completely unrelated note: I now want official art of Mali adopting Purrely
Like Doom Guy and Isabelle
...I need that more than you know
yikes. furries can yiff in hell@@HazeEmry
I think there’s a 6th reason to semi-limit a card I haven’t seen anyone else ever mention. That being, deck-building considerations. There are currently several cards I can think of that might fit under this justification, namely; Pot of Desires, Pot of Extravagance, Sekka’s Light, Fusion Destiny, etc. This entire category of card is predicted on the fact that you are required to build your deck in a certain way to accomodate for these cards. These cards are typically incredibly strong when you open them, but lower the overall consistency or power of your deck when you don’t. Decks like Swordsoul might prefer to play 1 Taia but would absolutely crumble without access to it so they choose to play 2 to accomodate Desires. Similarly, the Extravagance version of Spyral in 2020 would no doubt prefer to play a full extra deck, but the benefits that Extravagance brought were too strong for many to pass up. If these cards become semi-limited then the deckbuilding decisions become much more complicated when choosing to include these cards. Some decks require all the power they can get and so choose to still include these cards along with the corresponding deckbuilding costs, others may value consistency or utility more and will instead choose to completely omit the card. This essentially leaves the card available for the decks that benefit most from these cards while effectively removing it from decks which aren’t reliant on the extra power these cards bring.
It's REALLY noticeable for grind/control deck like Labrynth.
OCG has Big Welcome semi limited, and it's noticeable if you're going against other control/midrange deck.
Or Masterduel with only 2 of each furniture instead of 3.
Yeah, furniture at 2 actually hit the consistency for Labrytnh
That's what I thought MBT would argue when he said repeatability, then he went into the most nonsensical example ever.
@@mateusrp1994 Yh I was hoping for it to be mentioned but it never happened.
In many of my games, I feel like I'd have a reasonable chance if I didn't need to play around a card for the third time.
The main win con in these situations is run them out of such and such cards and if the card is semi'd it's very noticeable.
Yes a card being at 2 hinders the chance of drawing it, but I think the semi limited list is underestimated in how it affect's a decks grind/follow up game.
For example, Souleating Oviraptor in Dinos being at 2 in masterduel. You can feel the difference in your grind game when its at 2 compared to 3, since there's no real way to recycle the used ones in the gy in that deck. Its not a HUGE nerf to the deck, but its a noticeable one nonetheless. Which is what the semi list is intended for ig.
I think that lends to the "repeatability" section of this video. It's just not as relevant generally since most decks aren't trying to play past turn 2 lol
It matters to dino because it tends to play a bit more "midrangey" - not a stun deck but also not necessarily trying to just combo into the sun turn 1
Yes this is what I notice the most in MD. I think it applies to a lot of decks hit with those various semis but I feel it especially when playing Runick builds. Yes it's a bit of a meme how half the runick spells are semi-limited but when playing there are times where you REALLY wish you had another copy of the semi-ed spells. Spell usage sequencing becomes more important because you don't want to waste an important spell like Freezing curses on getting out Hugin when you know the other copy could be stuck anywhere in your deck and you don't have easy access to it.
I think too often in these discussions people focus a lot on the ideal game state where a deck either draws the semi-ed card and gets to their end board or they don't. Where I personally feel like it has the biggest impact is when a deck doesn't have an ideal "i win now" board state and has to get into the grind game.
Yea I think MBT misses this point. His point about S:P doesn't track because he is talking about combo decks, this is a case where limiting works as it restricts cards to only the first turn combo or weakens that combo in some way (look at the discussion around limiting Flamberge). Semi-limits are about grind game hits, where you are expecting to use the card multiple times but you reach the stage where you are running out of resources sooner, this is good for cards like Big Welcome and Runick Fountain as the weakness doesn't happen in deck building as much as how the deck ends up being piloted.
Oviraptor is semi'ed?!
@@JakeFish5058 Yes, this is repeatability, but MBT understated the impact of repeatability hits.
Everybody knows it’s Mali’s house, and other cards only go there to visit and have a good time with him… he gets lonely 😔
I kinda like the idea of designing cards with the foresight that they can be "fixed" by putting them to two, like Sleepy memory
I think the semi-list makes sense for exactly engine pieces- like the difference between 2 engage and 3 engage is pretty big
But these non-engine consistency hits make me so angry
Also yes I did finish the video I watch on x2 speed because I'm mentally ill
Yes exactly. That is meaningful.
MBT has some personal vengeance with the semi limited list.
It matters, but it doesn't matter that much. Using engage as an argument is kinda bad when most cards are hard or soft once per turn effects and even if it went to 3 right now it wouldn't make the deck FAR better. Even in toss format it started falling off bc engage and their other options went to one first. Current sky striker is more lethal bc of both triple tactic cards can basically search your entire deck. Decks can usually settle or ignore having two cards pretty easy these days and nowadays they can be looped for the next turn like runick decks just keep bringing back fountain.
@@galaxyvulture6649 Not every change has to be big.
@@xCorvus7x Sure, but you at least want the change to at least hurt the top deck so other decks can stand a chance. Current decks can loop one copy of certain cards the whole game almost. Little knight to 2 does nothing as well as the current snake eyes hits.
@@galaxyvulture6649 Extra deck monsters are naturally a bad example for hitting repeatability since most are played at one anyway. There are already too many things you _could_ put in your Extra deck but don't because there's not enough room, so if your deck doesn't lock itself into Fusions or something it can probably replace one option (or one copy thereof) with another.
However, having only one copy of an important card remaining in your deck (or zero, if your initial setup goes through two copies) is in fact a significant hit.
Why would they not use this design space?
The consistency counterargument only works for those cards that do read "win the game" though (and also calls into question why the limited section of the banlist exists). There are cards that may make a combo safer to go for if drawn in the opener or cards that can be searched if they're not opened, but doing so lowers the ceiling, and those types of consistency hits make a lot of sense.
It's also worth considering how repeatability comes up in decks that aren't combo decks as many others have mentioned.
I feel like your consistency argument only works for those cards that do read "win the game" though. There are cards that may make a combo safer to go for if drawn in the opener or cards that can be searched if they're not opened, but doing so lowers the ceiling, and those types of consistency hits I think make a lot of sense.
Yup, exactly. Obviously a card that reads "win the game" should just be banned. The sackiness argument would also be equally valid for cards going from banned to limited, in the sense of drawing the one-off. I feel like the crux of the argument against semi-limit is moreso the misuse of it, semi-limiting cards that should've been limited or banned, and that semi-limit as a possibility somehow leads to confusion from Konami's side on how to balance cards appropriately hence removing it as an option. I don't really see that argument as strong personally, I feel like the way Konami balances cards anyhow is moreso pegged to their business interests, the folly of semi-limit as an option hardly registers.
Very rarely are those cards you mentioned good enough to hit. It makes more sense to hit the problem card than the consistency of cards that benefit from the problem card.
That's a hyperbole clearly, but semi-ing blue so that sometimes you need to use starter to start your combo slightly more often still isn't good design either, it just means when your opponent still draws blue you're 10% more annoyed in exchange for not being annoyed 10% more often, which like, if a card is toxic to the point where that trade is worth it, it eiher reads win the game, or it reads your opponent cant play the game
i dont understand why the semi limited list is so controversial. the reason for it is obvious it is a way to slightly nerf a deck without destroying it completely and making it unplayable. like for example when ABC was the tier 1 deck of the format - if ABC dragon buster was limited to 1 then the deck would become immediately unplayable. once you get over the first ABC dragon you could play confidently that a second one will not be coming out at a moments notice - janky ways of returning the card to the extra or reviving it from the grave like call of the haunted would be needed which are usually unsearchable cards. same can be said for main deck monsters - if soul eating oviraptor was limited to 1 then dino decks become more or less unplayable after their first turn board if it is broken, there is no recovery for them anymore without raptor. but if soul eating raptor or ultimate conductor tyranno are limited to 2 then its a nice way of balancing the deck without destroying it completely - the opponent has to get over 2 tyrannos or negate 2 raptors which is more fair than 3 if dinos are the tier 1 deck and the chances of the opponent starting with one of these good cards decreases by 33%. but to be honest both the limited and semi-limited lists should not exist because if a card is deemed to be too powerful to be played like the rest of the cards in the game then it should be immediately banned and i should not be able to have 1 or 2 copies of it in my deck either because i can still draw these unfair cards. a much better solution to the ban list would to be not to ban to limit cards but instead to ban combinations of cards being put in a deck - like for example you cannot play both nekroz unicore and djinn releaser of rituals in the same deck. or you cannot play both barrier statues of the winds and the link simorgh bird of sovereignty in the same deck. and if there is a card that is just generically good on it's own like pankratops then this card should be banned in combination with the main engine monster of all the tier 1 decks in the format.
I agree that it's purpose is clear and the controversy is unnecessary (the limited use for balancing by Konami should be the controversial part).
As for not having a limited and semi-limited list, I have to disagree. Some cards are only broken because of their repeatability or self comboing. Limiting copies can also balance the opportunity cost of cards with multiple possible effects (again, poor use by konami is a different problem).
As for banning specific combinations of cards, it just can't be done with physical cards. It would be a logistical nightmare for both deck building and deck checking in tournaments.
@@Lira_orpheus checking if a deck has a combination of 2 cards takes 70 IQ lol and a deck list has to be submitted at tournaments so the chances of someone getting away with it is 0.0001%. it can very easily be done
@@lordrevan7569 Yeah, one is quick and easy but what about checking for 10 combinations? And what about 20 or 30?
And what if a card is only broken with two other cards in the deck? Would there be a list for 3 card combos? What about 4 so you can't have together whatever new Dragon Ruler retrains Konami made?
You are failing to see the scale of your suggestion.
@@Lira_orpheus no you are just putting words in my mouth. you wouldn't need to ban combinations of 3+ cards only 2. if there is a time where 3 cards are a problem then you just take the most powerful of the 3 and ban combinations of it with the other 2. it wouldn't be any harder to check for banned cards than it is now. if you enter a tournament you fill out a form listing all cards in your deck and then the form is scanned into a system where a computer checks if it is legal. and if someone enters with an banned combo of 2 cards then i am pretty sure the opponent will pick up on it very fast if they summon a barrier statue off of a simorg lol. plus the biggest tournaments are all livestreamed to thousands of people it would literally be impossible to cheat. it wouldn't be any harder than checking for players playing 4 copies of raigeki lol. it would just be hard for you for some reason because you are a very unintelligent person. the referees know what cards are on the banlist they will know if your deck is legal or not and if occasionally a human error is made at smaller tournaments and an illegal deck is enter it will eventually be discovered by the opponent. so no i dont see any issue with it only you do
@@lordrevan7569 Ok first, I didn't know about the scanning of decklists, so I apologize on that.
Second, I am not putting words in your mouth. My intention was to point out a case that wasn't covered by your initial explanation. My reason is that I doubt you thought about that before I pointed it out and want both of us to see the widest way possible.
Third, while it could happen, my concern is not for a banned combo to slip through the decklist check an win the tournament. Is about things like catching it mid match and having to call a judge or the TO, or losing at your locals just to find out the next round your opponent was using a banned combo that you didn't catch being a casual player. That kind of things that are not that big of a deal but are annoying and take away from the experience. I know they are not unique to this system but I think it could make them more common.
Finally, I agree your idea is more viable than I initially thought. However I still think there's some problems.
-Deck building is more annoying unless you are using a tool like Neuron.
-Knowing by memory the banned combos would be harder since you are doubling the amount of information per entry. Yes, you can do it, is just more annoying to do so.
Reborn Tengu also falls under the Destiny Hero Malicious justification
See also: Zoodiac Ratpier
@@MFChanical If only they didn't just Semi Ratpier and call it a day, that could have been a more balanced format. But design wise, semi is exactly where Ratpier should (but can't) be
While consistency hits don't have a huge impact mechanically, there's a human element I think you're overlooking.
Take Swordsoul, Adamancipator, and Virtual World for example. They were all meta level decks in early Master Duel that were very popular with tons of dedicated fans.
They were also largely fair, once you get rid of non-archetype haymakers like VFD and Block Dragon.
Despite this, many players grew sick of facing these archetypes after a few months, and put pressure on Konami to do something about them.
However, killing those decks outright with bans or limits would have felt bad to the many fans who invested time in learning those deck and didn't yet have any backups. Remember that most players, (and especially newer ones), can't jump from deck to deck like you and I can; even if Konami would like them to for the sake of card sales.
This puts Konami is a difficult position. Half their players are begging for bans, while the other half want to keep playing their favorite decks.
Mechanically there's no reason to hit the deck, but economically they want to incentivize people to move on & try something new.
The compromise solution is a semi-limit.
This allows them to technically hit the deck, while also leaving it mostly in tact; satisfying both camps.
Dedicated Adamancipator players COULD continue on with one less Researcher and not see a huge hit to the deck, but anyone with slight reservations would see this as an opportunity to move on, resulting in less Adamancipators on the ladder.
In that way, I think the semi-limited list functions in the same way that most security measures do; it brings comfort. It makes people FEEL as though things are better, even if their practical impact is negligible.
Former adamancipator player here: the analyzer semi-limit was one of the most nonsensical hits I've ever seen. Like straight up all it did was make the deck more consistent because you were shoehorned into playing over 40 anyway due to the existence of maxx c (and full prank variants were playing over 40 regardless because the battle butler package). If they had semi'd any other adamancipator tuner the deck would have been more affected, but researcher is easily the worst one. I guess it reduced the consistency of the instawin known as analyzer hit rocksies? But that didn't even matter once small world dropped and the deck became stupid consistent thanks to tenyi spirit adhara being the literal perfect bridge if you weren't playing nibiru
Literally no one was satisfied with the early MD semis. If people want a deck gutted they want it GUTTED. In fact, lightly tapping a deck you feel shouldn't be playable is even worse because it's not doing "enough". So this is just post-hoc rationalization nonsense.
That may work on something like MD, but doesn't work in irl play.
@@geek593... I forgot that players are oftentimes beings without empathy. They really forget the other side, on how making decks unplayable is a reason why the game is so expensive.
@@N12015 It's unfortunate the card design of modern Yugioh has to be toxic by nature or else it's probably not worth playing. It's also a shame decks are designed to be fun to play but being fun to play against is never considered by the designers. So it's not a surprise people end up being monsters asking for decks to be gutted. The game requires that.
I think the big problems with the semi-limited list are the lack of the list itself being used and the lack of grind in modern Yugioh. Say a deck has 3 unique starters. 3 semi limits can turn 9 copies of starters into 6 which is a significant drop in powerlevel, while preserving potential variety in combo lines. If a deck is built out of a couple distinct strategies, semi-limiting cards from one half of the deck can leave them still available for play, but emphasize the other half of the deck, forcing players to look at that other deck's cards to fill the holes that had been opened and freshening up the lines players see out of the deck. Deck building and format solving are part of playing the game and moving stuff around on the list to force optimization in a deck that's strong but not so strong as to deserve being removed from the format outright is worthwhile, but it probably takes more than just 1 semi limit. The lack of grind is also a factor. Extra decks are often filled with 15 different cards as many have pointed out over the years. Part of that is that players largely assume that if their strat gets outted once, their opponent is going to end the game that turn, so there's no point on multiples of their extra deck endboard and combo pieces. Better to run utility monsters that win different games. If the game were grindier running extras of of those monsters would be much more relevant, but it isn't.
they fear the power of the 2000 card called destiny hero malicious
This man lost to normal summon clayman
There is another case. When you semi limit a starter in a generic engine, think Rite/Sorc for Aremisir in Master Duel, the semi limit on the Phantom Knight normal summon, or Tour Guide for a level 3 foolish burial and 5 link material, you make it a less desirable tech in decks than can use it. 3 starters with 2-3 bricks can be justifiable, 2 starters with 2-3 bricks is harder to justify. This leads to less players using a targeted engine in a given deck, not only reducing consistency of decks as established in the video, but also decreasing the overall power level of a deck as less pilots include these increasingly bricky engines.
I feel like the repeatability argument was dismissed a bit too quickly and the exemple wasn't really the best. If you have a deck that wants to send their extra deck monsters to the graveyard to use a powerful effect, having two copies reduces the ability of the deck to play for a long time and lose because of it. Same thing if you have a trap card that needs to be sent to the graveyard or banished. 3 copies gives the deck too much gas? Limited is too harsh? Semi limited might be the answer.
Or imagine Kashtira topdecking Unicorn after you broke their board.
I would also argue that there is one more reason that I card would be semi-limited: deck-building cost. For a card like Pot of Desires you sometimes have to genuinely consider other things with your deck, like maybe you can justify an extra copy of garnet. Semi-Limiting this card makes it to where it's harder to justify it's inclusion. Another card that I could think of that fits this is Fusion Destiny. DPE was a very powerful card (admittedly because of Verte, but play along) and the ability to just sometimes add him to an end board, or just summon him when you've drained all of your opponent's interaction was very strong for some decks, but you also had 2 garnets in deck that done next to nothing if opened. Semi-Limiting Fusion Destiny makes this package arguable a lot worse than if it was just stand alone card. You went from 3 power card: 2 brick ratio to a 2 power card: 2 brick ratio, which to me felt a lot worse justifying the card (Again Verte is the main power source for this engine, but I swear this still mattered for decks like Sky Striker)
Zoodiac Ratpier is another one that could be justifiably semi'd, as it gives beast-warrior monsters it's under the ability to special summon Ratpier exactly. By limiting the card, they've effectively banned the second effect without banning its first effect. At 2, its inherited effect couldn't be used more than once without putting one back into the hand or deck.
Nay.
Ratpier is a searchable foolish so it's already completely busted.
But if you had to that it's second effect, you get a card that foolish and makes 2 archetypal Xyz monsters. And from that you can get to all kind of tomfoolery.
@@MrLednard its not that much crazier than the plethora of modern one card combos. as sad as it is to say, raptier isnt even that wild anymore. nowadays (only in MD btw, since drident is banned in tcg/ocg), what, you get a one card udf + armor xyz? maybe a drident too if you have some other cards in hand? sure, but also look at other one card combos with similar value or higher such as SE ash, wakaushi, circular, kash unicorn, and hell i'll even throw in soul resonator to push the point. and mind you, a zoo engine is taking up a sizeable portion of your extra deck in a world where those spaces are increasingly more important, especially if youre running a larger package for follow-up. due to konami's insistence on these plethora of one card starters, we're just already in the world where zoodiacs got outpaced years ago.
i will say, however, if i had to guess why she's not semi'd already in paper, if not just because konami doesnt really care, is because she is one card udf for decks that dont normal summon, though if MD has shown anything, that doesnt even matter. at that point, just run adventure tbh for a much more flexible engine. as i say, i think zoodiac got outpaced ages ago, as both a splashable strategy and the main strategy. broadbull can stay in jail though, that guys just nuts...
@@MrLednard I said *could,* not should. I'm very aware it's pretty busted. I was just saying it's one of the cards like Mali where the number of copies *always* matters
@@JZblue9zoo is just xyz snake eye
Like one snake eye ash doesn't get you far by itself, you get to what, amblowhale(princess) + masquerena? Not that much stronger than udf + xyz, and if zoo still had the fusion sub stuff they could go for a couple draws too on top of this
Even kash unicorn doesn't get you too far, although ariseheart + shangri is probably enough to beat most decks and stronger than the two examples above, but also less resilient to hand traps and has half the one card starters
Also keep in mind that imperm, veiler, ash and even shifter are all useless against ratpier openers, zoo is extremely resilient to hand traps
One card combos usually don't get to exceptionally powerful boards anyway, besides kash, shs and maybe prank kids, as double butler will usually be stronger than what ratpier/ash get you to, but all of these decks are very fragile to (certain) hand traps
Kash and shs also only have 6 one card starters, zoo had 12 and snake eye usually has 10 + diabellstar which needs any other card so a 1.5 card starter
The strength of zoo and snake eye is them playing up to 20ish non engine and having insane follow-up while not losing to their opponent's hand traps, I wouldn't say full power zoo got outpaced
I did not expect to start a conversation about the viability of Zoo when I just wanted to say that it'd actually matter if Ratpier was at 2 compared to 0, 1, or 3
By this logic, putting cards to 1 also doesn't meaningfully hurt their consistency and repeatability, so we should just get rid of that list too.
And people who think putting cards to 2 doesn't do anything to a deck should replace all their 3-ofs with 2-ofs. Apparently it won't hurt your deck, but it will give you more options, so it must be an improvement.
MBT displays a very idealist/reductive, black-and-white look on things here.
@@xCorvus7x in this case, he addressed it. hes aware that it makes the deck weaker, its just that it doesnt really usually matter that much in the grand scheme of things as a meta deck is probably still the strongest deck regardless of 1 hit like this
Hoping I high roll is also not something i think is healthy for the game. id rather do a job consistently than do amazing once every few games and then have a super low ceiling elsewhere
@@avatarmufasa3628 His argument was that it doesn't matter if your deck is less consistent because you still win if you open the right cards. Which either means that he doesn't understand how consistency works, or that he really thinks that there also shouldn't be a limited list, and every card that's too strong to be at 3 should be banned.
And if anyone does want to take that stance, that's fine. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I don't think it's unreasonable. But that isn't what MBT said anyway.
@@avatarmufasa3628 He downplays the effectiveness of semi-limitation on every point.
While the purpose of consistency hits is debatable, there is certainly merit to the other reasons he addressed, especially repeatability.
Modern decks are able to shrug off semi-limits is by having various ways to access every part of their engine.
However, whether these ways are something you can top-deck in a simplified gamestate just as you would another copy depends on how round-about they are: top-decking Branded Fusion is likely game-winning but drawing Shrouded Albion, which can be used as one part of a two-card combo to fetch Branded Fusion, would barely do anything.
@@xCorvus7x I mean, this is true. His point isnt wrong though, its just he would probably have to expand his video quite a lot when this is more an overview.
You could quite easily expand this to a half an hour video with historical examples.
To me, the bigger hiccup with reasoning is that I dont think he mentioned grindgame at all. And this id argue would be a super solid reason for a semi limit. Rather than the murky waters of just how hard a hit is between 3 to 2 reduced consistency.
And the end summary is the stupid "Cimo take on semi-list" since he popularized this opinion. That 10% drop in consistency matters a lot during a tournament. Even if 5 round locals unless you 2-0 everyone you would have to play 15 games so it WILL affect your performance.
As other comments said, cards that loop themselves like Fenrir are ideal for the semi-limit list. What is severely underutilized in TCG are combination hits that can tone a deck down a bit without outright crippling it. This happens even for the limited-list where sometimes a card gets banned instead of limiting 2 cards. For example instead of hitting SE Ash because it's a super so you now have to run 3 Bonefire no matter what (not running it now isn't the optimal but passable enough), they could instead slap both Poplar and Flam to 1 in order to make Poplar a "soft brick" as well as give value to DD Crow (banishing removal in general) on Flam and hurt the anti-Nibiru lines a bit that the field spell will otherwise ignore (the proper hit is OSS to 0 but this kills the deck)
Engage, Harp, even OG Thunder Dragon would be viable hits during TOSS on the semi-list for different purposes (Engage for overextending, Harp for consistency, Thunder Dragon to limit the ceiling of Titan).
While semi is definitely the least impactful place on the list, it still works fine.
Finally someone gets it. I remember cimooo saying tri-brigade was just a tiny bit too consistent in a format that was otherwise perfect and then raged when tenki went to 2 and did exactly as he asked.
Small percentages matter over long tournaments. They don't change the issues of game feel. They arguably make them worse.
Was looking for the tournament point. That 10% difference in the opener can lead to losses because you just didn't draw a key card and keep you from advancing.
@@geek593 banlists are for competitive events, not a casual 4 round locals where you can just implement house rules and have fun. So you essentially agree with my point.
@@bubblebubble1058 it is now more than ever that we can see the different points of view from actual competitive content creators like Josh, Jesse, Pak, Cristian Urena etc compared to the past where casual players (or just enjoyers of the game in general) just talk out of their ass without any valid point to back up their claims.
As a player who pivots from competitive to semi-competitive to only judging depending on the format (I have a horrible competitive player mentality of not tryharding if I don't like the playstyle or even art of the current meta), I respect even the junkiest of hot takes without caring about credentials provided they have at the very least some logic behind them or even a credible theory backing them up (in this case probability).
The biggest thing you missed is Critical Mass.
Some group of cards practically do the same thing, such as draw spells, but when you reach a certain number of draw spells, the whole becomes completely broken
So you can ban a certain draw spell, limit a few...
Or just hit them all with a semi limit
It's a "everyone gets slap" scenario rather than being biased towards one draw spell over another
Big fan of the semi-limited list here. I think that it has a lot of potential, for example semi limiting multiple cards from a deck instead of limiting or banning its best option, specifically with starters or even more so extenders. This allows for the consistency of a deck or specific play line of a deck to be hit without having to make it as sacky or force the play of more suboptimal cards, especially when it comes to the play line aspect(2 of best in slot and 2 of second best in slot can have advantages over 1 of best in slot and 3 or second best in slot in a lot of ways basically). It also is good against decks that use a card as a resource consistently, easy example is that early branded went through 3 tragedy pretty often, IF that became a problem back then and you wanted to slightly hit the decks ability to sustain play longer then that could have been a hit to 2. Generic cards that have alternatives also fit into 2 well, even when Pankrotops was a problem, you could have probably put it to 2 and another card that filled the same slot to 2 and you then give players more options to play the card and play with that concept in different ways . Same could be done with the Kaijus that tribute more cards, if they got too good you could do a 2 Lava Golem 2 Laval Queen kinda setup(or a 2 of one 1 of the other) where you still allow people to play multiple of these cards but force them to play more varied versions that sometimes wont be as optimal instead of saying 1 and 3 or 0 and 3 for those cards where you dont allow the players any real option to play the good side of it.
These are all just example to try and put these into simple terms that most players will get, but a LOT of decks and cards could be using the semi-limited list to great effect to give more nuisance to the list.
The semi-limited list(in theory) shines as being used as a mid way point between 1 and 3(obviously) which Konomi really never uses it as though and because of that, if well thought out in the list, it could lead to diversifying of decks or playstyles, more fair hits to consistency, hits to power sealing, or hits to many other parts of the game in ways that simply saying "3 or 0" cannot do, nor can putting a card to 1, at least not as well.
Another example I thought of at the end that can put this better into perspective. With something like tear, if it was too good and too consistent, instead of hitting the best card for milling to 1 or 0 you could hit multiple, maybe even 3 or 4 cards to 2. Would take testing but you could get it so that you still have the same power level and consistency you'd want with the 1 or 0 hit but you wouldn't completely remove a card from the decks arsenal which really only serves to simplify it in a way nobody wants.
The semi-limited list is for cards too good when at three and too bad when at 1, duh. (Non-jokingly, this explanation unironically applies to Malicious.)
I feel the example of being luck-sacky applies just as much to the limited list as the semi-limited list. I don't think it's a particularly compelling arguement against the semi-limited list alone. Heck it's a decent argument for removing both. Cyber-Stein, Instant Fusion, and Soul Charge come to mind.
Grass can come back to semi I blieve. Seeing 2 of card in 60 card deck is small chance compared to 3 but at one whoever draws it will lucksack. So at 2 they have a chance but really small one and also feels not sacky. Also why not keep it banned you ask? Well cuz that card is so fun to play with and makes pile decks a thing. I honestly do blieve that card should exist with current rear hits it shouldn't be a hıge problem.
@@zaleww5824Grass always felt sacky even at 3. Having it at 2 wouldn't make that any better, it would just make pile decks worse and less fun to play.
The way to make pile decks a "real thing" would be to add more than literally 1 card that cared about the size of your deck. (Like how hearthstone has multiple cards that benefit from you running a deck without duplicates)
@@JakeFish5058 yes they should make more 60 card deck cards but still millimg 20+ cards is so fun dude. Imagine 60 card paleo frog with ronin as well or lightsworn with new support with some chaos cards. That card makes me want to go play those so hard
MBT makes a video about semi-limited list(mali's personal jail)
*some random konami employe on a saturday night: Yeah just free him*
The thing they don't want you to know is that the limited list is just about as questionable as the semi-limited list
Also dismissing repeatability as a valid reason to limit/semi-limit cards seems straightforwardly wrong
Mbt back with another -nother -nother mild take
Up next: "Are Floodgates bad for the game? (Yes)"
One day magical hats will return
I don't think there's anything wrong with making videos like these, they feel more tailored to newer people who don't know all about the oddities of yugioh
@@__-be1gkdepends on the floodgate like some are bad others are not
Dont all the arguments against the semi limited list also apply to the limited list
Here's the obvious follow-up: Why is there a limited list? Sure, repeatability of extra deck cards is reasonable (OCG/MD Zeus, Halq for a while, Omega), plus cards that interact with other copies of themselves are reasonable (Ratpier, Chaos dragons, benten for a while).
Realistically, though, why is Reborn at 1? Foolish? Duster? Rota? If these cards are not okay at 3, why are they okay at 1?
I'll be honest, Reborn could come back at 3 and would not see play.
@@N12015 The thing about Reborn is much like every draw power card on the list on their own they aren't powerful enough to really be an issue but if you hit a critical density of them they create incredibly unfair and powerful strategies
Because they have no once per turns. The idea is that it's okay to have such a card aslong as you aren't able to use it multiple times a turn.
Like imagine you open foolish + prosp and get a 2nd foolish of the prosp. Some decks could do alot of things with that.
@@michaelkeha Aren't drawing spells kinda useless when going second? People worry too much about draw when tutoring is stronger and given like candy; it should be the other way around if anything.
Same applies to reborn when every monster floats or has some reborn on summon, not to mention it doesn't work with many of the best monsters who are hard once per turn.
@@N12015 tutoring is stronger and there are many many monsters that do float can reborn themselves or reborn others in their own archtype the thing a critical density of either allow is for you reliably get to things you normally can't tutor for or reborn by their own means ie this doesn't break archtypes as much it's ways to break old poorly designed cards that don't have things like once per turn clauses
I don't mind the semi list if it's for cards that interact with copies of themselves, or curb usage of non OPTs (Something like Infernity Launcher comes to mind) or even to be annoying for consistency. I hear the "Just put it to three" way too often and at this point like...no? If something's powerful at 3 and people complain, those same people will say 2 copies changes nothing, and 1 is sacky so you can't really win with this dynamic. I don't really get the mentality of "Just get rid of it" because why would you not want to ever at least have the option of such a section in the F/L list in a game with around 14000 cards
Ah you see you have hit the wall that is the yugioh player mentality see cards that are unfair, unfun and uninteractive should be banned when your deck can't make them but the other person's can
"Reason 3 : Destiny HERO Malicious"
the new banlist :
No one can predict Konami being Konami sometimes
Petition to rename the semi limited to 'Malicious's home'
On the repeatabiliy aspect, I don't think you were very fair by only talking about it in an easily replaceable combo. If drytron needs 3 benten for a toxic combo but is fairish with 2 then thats a good reason for a semi limit because it wouldn't be easily replaced (idk if this is true but I agree with the general idea). In grind game decks, it would also be important like limiting conquistador for eldlich if you want them to be more conservative with their resources or semi limiting salamangreat sunlight wolf if you want trying to banish their key resources to be a strategy.
Idaten and playing around the resource grind: allows us to introduce ourselves
One other reason, that is somwhat legacy at this point, is that it was once used to house Machine Duplication targets like Card Trooper and Cyber Valley back when that was a legitimatley powerful play
Genuinely love these discussion videos.
I think the bigger issue with the list, and I realize why they can’t do this, is that semi-limiting only a small handful of cards in order to theoretically reduce consistency only works if it actually hits functional engines. Having 10 or fewer cards on the SL list doesn’t effect much of anything if they’re just a way to slightly weaken an already dominant deck or reduce the likelihood of loops, if other huge loops or plan B’s are possible. Basically, in order for the list to matter, it needs to actually be an enormous list where like 30+ engine cards in the game are weakened. Obviously they can’t do this because of players having to keep track of way more cards that have restrictions.
Take danger darkworld for example: A select few cards in that format were banned or limited in order to stop the most powerful plays, but with semi-limiting basically every card in the engine, they can theoretically do it, but it’s a lot more susceptible to disruption or ending at a lower power ceiling.
Let’s go back to the ancient era when people were chaining recruiter monsters like Mystic Tomato and Shining Angel. Seeing these cards less frequently will present a much lower probability in setting up a flurry of light and dark monsters in the grave early on. Even basic deck thinners like Toon Table of Contents would be far less usable at 2; if you open both, that can cause a problem unless you’re actually running multiple Toon Monsters.
Several power cards, main deck boss monsters that can be searched by the engine pieces, and more than 95% of extra deck monsters would have almost no damage to their playability if they got put to 2, but the cards that get them into the hand or field consistently would make the huge board a near impossibility.
I’m curious what was the highest number of cards semi-limited at one time, but a wide majority of the time, it’s probably just going to stay in its current, awkward structure of keeping barely any cards on there.
Honestly I think its fine, it just gives options instead of just like nuking a deck. Some decks completely fall apart if they are limited to one and makes them unfun to play.
Another reason: Why have 0, 1, 3, and not 2?
A point for consistency that makes sense is hitting multiple cards in an archtype that has a reveal system or something of the sort. A good example of this currently is Master Duels semi limiting of multiple card froms runick. Runick is nutty when you can run a ratio of about 20ish runick cards main deck cause when you draw 3 off of fountain some of the best things to draw into in more runick interaction. So the consistency aspect is more pronounced that the 11 percent decrease
Your reasoning for why semi-limits don't work from a consistency perspective seems flawed, if a card is broken and unhealthy then it should be banned yes, banned, not limited to 1, so by that same logic we shouldn't have a limited list either. I do think there have been a lot of silly semi-limits throughout the years, but I think the list can serve an important function, beyond just for cards like malicious, as an example: if you have a powerful archetype where no 1 card seems to be why it's so good, then instead of banning or limiting 1 of the cards at random, you could semi-limit multiple of them, this is the kind of "consistency hit" that I think can be good for game balance, though my mindset is generally to avoid hitting cards when possible cuz I feel that it limits deckbuilding creativity, in a way that multiple semi-limits doesn't.
I'm surprised you didn't talk about something like Engage. Having 2 means that you go Engage, Raye, Kagari, add back Engage and then Shizuku for the 2nd one which is a strong enough play going first for the deck, but for other decks to have access to 2 Engage wouldn't mean much. Other decks having access to 3 Engage would maybe be too powerful.
You can't add Engage off Shizuku if there's an Engage in grave.
@@thecorbeauxking7342 thats why you go kagari first
Engage went to three in OCG. It could go back to 3 here. It would not matter that much.
@@orga7777striker is doing alright in the ocg, they have double digit tops in snake eye format where voiceless is still a top pick with their targeting protection
Although they probably wouldn't be anywhere near tier 1 without mine, 3 tcboo and/or verte for dpe + celestial draws
@@andrejv.2834 OCG is glorified locals. The fact it is only just barely getting some tops doesn't matter much for TCG. Engage could go to three and it would change little.
I just wanna point out, the first 2 arguments dont actually go against the semi-limited list specifically, they both actually seem to target the limited list as well, and i dont think i buy your counter-arguments on them for that reason, the "you win the game card" example you gave, would also justify getting rid of the limited list, and just banning everything, which we know isnt necessary or even a good idea, and the repeatebility example was also too general, i feel like in those cases you just explained why there are cards that should be banned, which isnt even whats in debate here, but not why a semi list shouldnt exist, the only point of the video where you get close to give a point against the semi list specifically, was ironically when you started talking about why it does exist for only very specific edge cases, and yeah i think that is the main point against it, very few cards become well balanced when out in that list, but since they exist, thats why the list exists as well, essentially i think most of these points are either not very well explained or just made too generic to the point they could be applied to the limited list as well
With regard to the hints part, there's definitely a bunch of occasions where cards have been semi'd to imply the nature of future releases. I can buy it!
Hi VonKarma! Love your vids.
Looking at the thumbnail I thought it was another Bonefire video for a second
shout outs to my homie glup shitto
I liked how necroface was at 2 for the longest time because they were afraid of it banishing itself a few too many times. "Banishing 15 cards from your opponent's deck? Eh, that's a bridge too far"
that into was so real of you im subscribed now.
Something I think is also worth bringing up is before you could get any card in your deck through tutors or searching. And also before like 10-12 years ago when there was a good rank 3/4 toolbox the semi limited list made sense. In goat and edison there are cards that make sense for the power of the game to be at 2. Cyber dragon is a great example.
Funnily enough I was talking with my friend about how interesting it would be to see MTG to have x2 and x3 semi limited categories. Tho we were only doing speculative mathing about it and pondering if it would help modern formats with their issues since wizards have been way too timid with bans in recent years so giving option to balance but not delete 50$ investment.
From a theoretical standpoint, I think semi-limiting a card for consistency purposes is reasonable. Variance is an intrinsic part of the game, and (at least on paper) archetypes are designed with a balance of power and consistency - a deck with a high ceiling is gated by the difficulty of reaching that ceiling.
This can be done with complex combos, but that brings us to the game's notoriously steep learning curve - and ends up getting "solved" eventually, anyway. It can be done with hand traps and choke points, but that leads to zero-sum fun in which the winner is decided by whether or not the out was drawn, which doesn't sound ideal, either. Both of these things have been used to balance the game, and they've led to their own shares of feels-bad scenarios.
Maybe the "solution" is to avoid designing decks that deviate from what we perceive to be "healthy" decks, but when part of the game's appeal is its variety, arbitrarily deciding high-rolling decks are "bad game design" doesn't feel like a great fix. Moreover, that solution is just "design things better," which can be applied to pretty much any problem. FWIW though, I do think they could dial back the power creep (but they don't need to remove semi-limiting for that).
Semi-limiting for consistency purposes has its share of issues, but I honestly don't think it's that bad.
I wonder what other cards, similar to Malicious, should ideally be/stay at 2 for balancing reasons?
An immediate one that comes to my mind is Runick Fountain. I think the card feels really good at this spot, and it provides Malicious clean drinking water.
Less impactful pots like desires
Honestly, aluber on the semi-limited list in master duel in combination with Despia opening hurt some of my branded builds. I think they work better in combination with another hit
Honestly I’d prefer if they treated the semi-limited list like they did in duel links, where it means that you can only play 2 semi-limited cards TOTAL in your deck. It’d make for an interesting design space where if there is a card or combination in the current meta that ruins it, they can place the offending cards on the semi-limited list and force people to start getting creative or it could make the existence of cards like ash blossom a lot more impactful for a deck list, sure I could play my two ash, but then what if I need S-L slots for combo.
IDK, what do y’all think?
Nah, they may introduce such a banlist alongside the normal one but having semi-limitation work completely differently than limitation is nonsensical.
There's also cases of cards that trade one-for-one very favorably, like called by, where making it so you cant trade away against all 3 copies of your opponent's cards is meaningful.
Cards where the difference between 2 and 3 copies doesnt affect turn 1 endboards much, but does affect recovery ability after making a full board also come to mind, namely infernity launcher.
The consistency reason makes sense though, you can’t build a strategy around drawing an unsearchable 2 of that requires a garnet, looking at you terror top, you can stay at 2.
MBT, you forgot one more explanation for the semi limited list. When Runick Fountain was semi limited, Konami basically fixed every deck that was running three, and was slightly less optimized that those than had two. Sometimes Konami wants people to play cards at the correct ratios. Also I completely believe the las reason you listed, that's how Konami communicates.
Like with Pot of Desires. Konami made it known to us that 2 was the correct number.
@@thecorbeauxking7342 can't tell if trolling or
@@Brettendo64is a meme.
@@thecorbeauxking7342The correct number is obviously one, this way you don't draw into another desires. lol
Konami literally watched this and said "Good point streamer, Mali to 3."
6:20 with the logic of destiny hero malicious being at 1 making it useless, then we should bring back zoodiac ratpier. It’s all lonely at 1 and can’t summon another one from the deck, just forget all about the trauma and some random loop that’ll probably exist with daigusto emeral and other cards
Ratpier isn't useless at one, it's still one of the best Zoo names for its Normal Summon effect
Logically, each section has a distinct function. For cards that are unhealthy for the game because of the text on the card, that's what bans are for. Limited should be for things that are not unhealthy on their own, but become unhealthy if you can have more than one of them. Semi-limited, functionally, should be reserved for cards that aren't unhealthy at all, but make the decks that use them too consistent or too good compared to everything else. This is the part of the list that should be used to modulate the metagame for balancing purposes.
Ideally, this is how it should be, based on the traits of each category. There should not BE cards that are limited for power level reasons, or to bring certain decks more in line with others. If it's for power level reasons, banned is the only place it should go, and if it's for tweaking metagame balance it's always going to be more effective to semi-limit twice as many card names than to limit key pieces. The limited list should not be used for soft bans, there's literally no point in doing that. If them having the card is the problem, then banning it is the answer, not making it show up less often.
Why grinding game not in the discussion? While your opponent has 3 copies of good cards, while you only have 2. This will hurt your deck in a longer play. Or when you use a card like Pot of Desires, you will have a chance to lose a backup for the next turn. Also, we now have some cards/decks that can interact with the opponent's deck, directly like Runick or Kashtira.
.
Modern YGO players only know the coin flip and decide the winner from the coin and the turn 1 draw. So, they forget about the normal longer game.
The semi-limit list exists to keep Malicious as a pseudo one-time use. Unless it's the September 2008, September 2013, October 2019 banlists (Malicious has been on and off semi-limited and unlimited 7 times).
I think it just would feel weird if you had restrictions for playing cards at 3, 1 or 0 but not for 2.
Then everyone would ask why only that number is missing out.
The correct opinion.
Sometimes it's also for balancing. Not all cards do something overwhelming as you used in your example, some are just extenders for example and the deck they're played in just happens to be a little stronger than intended but not overbearingly so.
An example I can think off is Bonfire. That card searches an overall worse type than Warrior in Pyro and has a hard once per turn, but is still a reason the deck is problematic. You can easily justify it being semi though, which would hurt the deck somewhat without killing other pyro decks. People really love to dismiss probability in YGO, which isn't surprising considering how bad of deckbuilders they are.
Gold informative video !
There’s one more reason related to consistency and repeatability; the grind game. A semi limited can greatly weaken a decks ability to rebuild on turn three for the otk
Love the video:)
4:00 okay but that's why they wouldn't semi limit the tindangler. They would ban it, errata it or possibly even limit it to one (which is the same issue as semi limiting it, just less likely which apparently we're okay with now?)
Semi limits would be for a card that has just a few too many searchers.
5:30 yeah I can't disagree that the s:p hit in the ocg was stupid.
Overall I think the semi limited list does need to exist. Sure it isn't applicable for every card but it's better to have it exist than to not right?
The original purpose of the semi limit list was probably to make some strong cards only be used up to twice per duel (usually)
Which was reasonable when duels where often going into grind battles where people drew through half or more of their deck.
Low key loved the Ace Attorney music in the background haha
I think consistency and repeatability hits can be meaningful in some situations, but only if the deck getting hit is good at grinding, and of course only if they hit the right card. Take Labrynth for example. Not the Stovie and later Chandra hits to 2 in MD, but if Konami were to hit Big Welcome to 2, that would actually be a pretty big reduction in their grind game.
i think the semi list's best use would be hitting things that when in your starting hand make your end board better but aren't necessary to play. Like you semi the card that makes your end board 4 interactions rather than 3. The only example I can think of like this off the top of my head is Junk Synchron in Synchron which if opened alongside converter and a second tuner let's you search Synchron Carrier allowing you to go into TG Hyper Librarian as your first synchro rather than Speeder giving you like a million draws.
The thing with Malicious is you can put a once per duel effect on it and get pretty much the same result.
The semi-limit list I think gives the designers a rare space to explore in the game. Toon Table Of Contents (TTC) is one of if not the only search cards that can search itself and is a decades old staple in its namesake deck. I think it'd save on card text bloat and make for more potentially more interesting advantage loops if they experimented more with letting cards search themselves and using the semi limit list to curtail outliers in power using the semi limit to allow them to still use the TTC templating.
I think the s:p semi limit is a beautiful example of how Konami misses the mark with semi limits. I think depending on the power level of the deck, semi limits as a hit are reasonable and work to curve the power of certain decks and cards, but a lot of the changes are just like the little knight hit where they realistically don’t do anything regardless of the deck’s power
You know it's a good video when he pulls out the hypogeometric distribution calculator, but it did gloss over the difference between say, 6 copies and 5 copies. If we have redundant starters, semi-limiting one of them functions to drop the card from 2 whole playsets.
Vanguard has restrictions like that. Cards have been limited to 2,1,0 or even a restriction on two cards that you can't have together in a deck or are limited to a total of 4 between them
A Simple Hard OPT errata on Malicious would solve the whole Semi-Limit issue as you arent able to get the full advantage from the card over a single combo, but still have one available should the next turn roll around.
The banlist as we know it was largely concocted in the aftermath of IOC powercreep and the semi-limited list is a weird aftermath of that system not working the same way it did in 2003. Back then, once the chaos monsters were nerfed, it could be reasonable to expect you'd see a good portion of your deck over the course of at least one of the 3 games in a match. Games were slower, the best in-archetype engine was Gravekeepers Spy summon Gravekeepers Spy and power was concentrated in individual cards with limited chance of recursion.
In that context,.only having 2 of a card can be pretty impactful in dealing with cards slightly over the line. For Yugioh today, it just doesn't apply outside of the obvious corner case of Mali.
Worth noting, a lot of the criticisms of the semi limited list also apply to the limited list. I remember back many years ago when people made the exact same argument about one of cards leading to you just feeling like you got sacked. But that also was a different time in yugioh, where engines were still pretty good but one of power cards still were extremely swingy (soul charge, raigeki, Snatch Steal).
If you were to completely redesign how the banlist functions from scratch, honestly something like Duel Links or a Canadian Highlander style points system would probably be a lot better.
I'm sure you'll state it at some point during the video, but my man Malicious really needed the space somewhere.
Also perhaps it'd be something for Telefon.
the semi limited list makes a lot of sense when you look at cards like sharvara. sharvara is a card where unchained through it's basic combo goes through all 3 copies turn 1 and it either makes the endboard stronger or it helps play through handtraps. sharv to 2 is a meaningful hit that isnt just about consistency but would make unchained easier to stop or the endboard weaker if they cant have a sharv in hand. if plants start winning eu tournaments again, jasmine could get semi limited right now and it would hurt plants in a way that isn't consistency.
the recovery argument is also actually pretty good. it's a smaller kind of hit but it does change what the deck is capable of. and it's good that there's this sort of lever for smaller hits if say a deck is tier 1 but isn't too powerful so it only needs a small hit.
That example for the first reason just kept make me thinking of maxx c being at 3 in Ocg and master Duel
Would enjoy a similar video about the Duel Links Ban List
GREAT video mr.bt
I feel zoodiac ratpier is another card that’s kinda made for the semi-limited list
My favorite tackling of a banning strong cards is a combo banlist. Where you limit the amount of copies of a card if it were in a deck with another card. Like maybe ban snake-eye ash from a deck that also includes diabellstar or smth like that. That way cards can remain available for some stuff, but can resolve the issues that arise when it is with another card
This is the style of banlist Duel Links uses. You can only run N limit N cards (N going from 1 to 3)
The semi-limited is 100% for control decks these days. I’ve already felt a MASSIVE difference with Delicious Memory at 2 it’s insane. Dropping a massive Plump in front of my opponent two turns in a row and working into either a second Ex Noir or maybe an Ex Happiness is fun. Especially with Stray on board.
I think there is 1 more reason to semi limit. Grind game
An easy example of this would be sanguine in eldlich, or maybe purrely. As both decks like to go over their resources over several interactions/turns, and at some point in a grindgame youll run out. So not only is consistency hit when semi limiting, but also that decks capacity to keep up with other decks over a long game
Was not able to watch the video. He mentioned Harry Potter tcg and I had to do a deep Reddit dive to understand this phenomenon that I had never heard of
Worth noting that there have been other cards before that were also deemed perfect at 2. Like Necroface before powercreep made the FTK too garbage to even care about. Even now, there’s a strong argument to be made for Fenrir to 2 so you can still get value off the search. Dangers are also a bit unique in that a bunch were put to 2 and then eventually to 1 instead of just hitting one of Nessie, Jackolope, or Tsuchinoko more harshly.
It makes sense on Duel Links where you can only have 2 of any cards that are semi. Same goes for whatever "3" is called.
Bushiroad games (Weiss and Vanguard) do something pretty clever when it comes to hits. They will often do an X choose Y list -- you can pretty only 1 of a given 3 cards for example. It lets them hit really degen decks without taking the cards away completely from other decks.
So I'm understanding you right, like the Duel Links banlist? Where you can play for example 2 copies of Enemy Controller, 1 copy of Enemy Controller and 1 copy of Treacherous Trap Hole, or 2 copies of Treacherous Trap Hole?
Cuz I really like the Duel Links list system
@@TheWizardMus yes, basically. No splitting the difference though, you can use one or the other at full copies
"it's not okay to get 3 link materials from 1 card"
meanwhile cyberse decks : 9+ worth of link materials from 1 card
The implementation of the Semi-Limited List in Duel Links is so much better...
But who and why would anyone play duel links now that master duel exists
@alexandergeorgiev74 duel links is great if you just want to casually play the world's most obnoxious card game. It also feels so much more catered to anime fans who want to role-play as their favorite characters
@@juksleo6257 Not true... its a whole different format... and one which is less time consuming duel-wise...
@@alexandergeorgiev74 Because its fun? And often more interesting than MD?
@Blizz3112 I'm not saying otherwise, but you can't deny that duel links is more about how the game plays like an RPG as opposed to which cards are legal at what point
It is not malicious being really strong, that puts him on the semi.
Because malicious works with himself and he is by default semi-limited.
Limiting malicious, is basically a ban. His effect wouldn’t be able to be activated and resolved.
Same with zodiac ratpier. That card is only at 1, because it is also an armageddon knight.
1:56 except konami occasionally puts cards on the semi-limited list that people already play at 2 or already play at 1 or is an extradeck card that is most likely played at 1 because of the tight extradeck spaces or combo/utility purposes. Realistically only Malicious should be in it. Everything else should just be moved to 3 or limited.
The main issue with semi-limited nowadays is that there is so much search/special from decks that its not gonna make that huge of an impact anymore, but back in the day searching for specific cards was rare to find, so a card being put on a semi-limited list worked incredibly well since the game was slow enough to make it matter. And as to why its still around? My guess, tradition