I like consistency hits best when there are alternative starters or extenders that aren't currently being played because they are weaker or more vulnerable, so the consistency can stay the same at a cost

This is less a hit to consistency than it is to the grind game. Less copies of Wanted means Witch's discard is an ACTUAL discard more often, and that extra draw coming up less often means less chances of drawing extenders or hand traps(and with how late into your turn you can draw with Wanted, to the point where you can save it for NEXT turn, you can REALLY increase your chances of seeing either non-engine or a more important Engine piece you're currently missing). Snake-Eye is going to have to build around making heavier use of Oak, which is both brickier and a LOT more vulnerable to Ghost Belle just for having an effect that CAN manipulate the GY(the ACTIVATION of its effects can ALL get negated even if you only ever pick up from Banishment with it, which is an annoying ruling).

Now lullaby of obedience and calling snake eye ash is actually a reasonable option.

Kinda disagree for specific decks like Snake Eyes and to an extend, Spright, since their hyper consistency is half their appeal. Bonus when said consistency hits also hits other aspects like grind game or follow us like the Wanted to one since that means they only get to recycle OSS once, Ash to one also means they can't search itself in your turn for free follow ups anymore. Obviously power hits are good/better when a deck has a glaring problem like Block Dragon but for decks like Kash where every single one of their cards are problematic consistency hits are decent to at least deter the cards from splashed, unless you advocate to completely delete all their cards from existence Dragon Ruler style

Consistency hits are still needed because you can't always hit ban something to change the playstyle without completely neutering the deck, something Konami is trying to avoid in MD. 1 wanted 1 ash means you don't have to worry about how many they have in hand. once you see the ash, you know they don't have any other one, and can interrupt accordingly. They should ban Poplar though. That card is outrageous with a level similar to Kitkallos and Elf, deck lives and dies with that card.

I think your opinion on consistency, especially concerning Snake-Eye, is narrow-minded. Snake-Eye is good because most of its one-card starters are also extenders. It is incredibly difficult to stop them with just one hand trap because they just need any other second starter to extend past. But instead of just talking out my ass on this, let’s talk actual numbers: Assuming typical TCG ratios, pure Snake-Eye has a 90% chance to open at least one starter. With the new banlist, this is now a 78.34% chance. With the TCG banlist, you have a 58.2% chance of opening 2 or more starters (slightly less likely to actually extend in the case of duplicate cards, but alas) With the new Master Duel banlist, that’s just a 36.69% chance. This means Snake-eye can lose to a single handtrap about 11% more often. It goes deeper than that though. If Snake-Eye opens Diabellestar, Wanted, or Ash, they can play around Droll cleanly, but opening other starters lose to the card. Opening such a starter has a 74.18% chance of happening in the TCG. However, this only happens in 50% of games in Master Duel. Now, they can alleviate the raw consistency issue by playing supplemental engines, such as Parallel Exceed (safest option) or Superheavy, but these introduce the potential for more dead, unplayable hands, as well as playing into droll more often.

The biggest proof that consistency hits matter is purely, that deck was tier one and now i see it maybe once every 50 games

Nah, I have to disagree. You talk as if every single deck is a one-card combo deck with 4 other cards in hand being hand traps. Consistent hits do not always mean my opponent is going to play the game or not whenever they have a starter card in hand. A deck with consistent hits also means that they often open with fewer combo pieces in hand, making them more vulnerable to the opponent's hand traps. They are also forced to play a weaker combo line with weaker starter card and form a weaker board whenever their best combo starter is not in hand, no?

9:09 See, this is a pretty important statement. Do you include in how a combo plays out how resilient the resulting board is, not just how strong it is on turn two of the game but also what plays could follow up, so that you don't immediately lose if that board is broken? About a minute later in your chat, mistilteinn calls this the longevity of a combo (if I'm not mistaken). When you express how consistency hits lead to frustration, you seem to focus very much on the duel that is currently played leaving out the context of the game at large. You'll most likely not play just a single game with a deck, so this variance due to the less harsh restrictions is certainly noticable for both the one playing the deck in question as well as their opponents. (Though, if you were to only play a single game total with a deck, you'll not get any impression whatsoever of the deck's consistency as you literally care about nothing but the opener you actually drew.) Besides, if a consistency hit really has the result you describe, whoever plays that deck has a choice: either bet on opening what they need regardless which means they'll have to accept the games where they can't do anything because they didn't draw those engine pieces, or change the build of the deck, i. e. play differently. If they choose the former, the times where they can't do anything are their losses, it's a risk they took. If they choose the latter, that mere consistency hit did actually change how that deck is played. I'm not against banning Snake-Eye cards per se but bans are not the only way to change how a combo plays out. (Technically, having to accept a higher number of losses due to bricking is also a change in how a deck is played, but that's besides the point.) Furthermore, how much people enjoy playing the game is not just a matter of consistency, i. e. decks doing the same thing every time reliably, but also the ceiling, i. e. what the deck can possibly do. Is there really not some room, even within competitively enjoying the game, for having a bit more possibilities with a deck that just aren't _all_ possible to realise at the same time due to consistency issues?

The thing about Snake-Eyes is there’s only 3 kinds of hits to the deck: - Consistency hits - Hits that do nothing - Hits that murder the deck Because every card used in Snake-Eyes either searches a card to potentially start the combo OR is run at 1. The only thing that defies this is Snake-Eye Flamberge Dragon which is commonly run at 2. Though I don’t really know if putting it to 1 does enough also.

I don’t think “changing a deck” will always be a good idea. He goes on to say that banning original sinful or flamberge would completely change how the deck plays, and yes that is true. However, Snake eyes is an archetype without a good boss monster, without a good payoff and without any sort of comeback potential when you play ONLY snake eye or related cards. Banning one of the core pieces of a relatively powerful but seemingly unfinished archetype will do nothing but hurt the deck to the point where they need more playable cards in archetype. Maybe we need a boss link 4 monster, or maybe a link 2 that sends a continuous spell to add/special summon a snake eye card - only if you were to ban flamberge. Sinful means they would probably lose all consistency because you have to throw out all the diabellestar cards. Changing how a deck is played may turn over its meta status, but it won’t always be good.

I tried naturia horus for 3 games and it was absurd how easy it was to calamity lock that I never wanted to touch that deck again. I tried a couple just going for the cosmic blazar for more balance but its just not as good, calamity really needed to go.

ENCHANTRESS TO 3!

I prefer consistency hits over the TCG philosophy of banning decks into unplayability. Being able to do something less consistently is still better than consistently being able to do nothing. Thunder Dragon was completely unplayable in the TCG until the most recent banlist because their boss monster was banned. Mathmech, SPYRAL, Pendulum, Prank-Kids, and Zoodiac are all at some level of unplayable since they have key cards banned, some long past when they were fine to come back.

I do think consistency hits matters. Not with Snake-eyes or Tearlament for sure; cause they have 12 starters or can set up a guarantee rebound if they do get disrupted. Tearlament cause, all the names could be 1 of's and mill 8 alone can be enough otherwise they have mill 5 options/ field spell searchers from the Graveyard While other decks, have 6? If its lucky, and/or use funky engines/ extra deck stuff. And at the mercy of a good top deck

Where can we draw the line though with combo? 1 card combos are lame solitare. Decks that are too consistent tend to not care as much about interuption/play around them. In turn, lame cards like droll have to be made. Combo decks are only cool when the payoff isnt just guaranteed. Thats why consistency hits are good.

Consistency hits are needed this format due to most of the decks having one card combos and its a major issue now is the deck building cause now they just run a absurd amount of hand traps snd a small engine and their goid to go. Other decks suffer cause they have to run the same amount of hts just to even have a turn thus hindering deck building in the process.

Consistency hits are bad, but killing decks outright is worse. While the banlist is mostly a marketing tool, used to make people get the newest cards, it should be used also to balance the game and not just to make feel people bad about their previous investments.

I prefer consistency hits than bans, a lot of the time banning just makes decks straight up unplayable or barely playable so everyone that spent money on them just loses. Consistency hits can still make you lose to the same combo but it's pretty much the same as getting a barely playable hand, it's just bad luck and it happens.

I like the master duel way, some times consistency hits and power creep is all a deck needs to go out of meta. Which means that later on they can slowly release those limits and find the sweet spot where the deck is fine but not busted. Currently outside of a single copy of destiny fusion and celestial adventure prank kids are full power. Meanwhile meow mu is banned in TCG and Gryphon is banned in OCG.

As someone who plays kash in both TCG and Masterduel, I enjoy the deck SO much more in TCG because it's still a consistent deck, and it's still good and competitive while not being absurd because they directly attacked the problem aka Ariseheart. In Masterduel? Feels like I'm just playing a slot machine not knowing if I get to play or not. And if I DO get to play, then my opponent feels extra miserable because I get to use Ariseheart. So no matter what, one of us is probably going to be miserable.

Joshua finally remembers there's something called power level and hitting a starter isn't always a consistency hit. I'm sure sometime ago he would say that back in toss format hitting engage or gazelle was a consistency hit

"it just change the statistic" well tbh it is good enuf, meta deck that too consistent is troublesome. This will also weaken their grind game. lower rate of starting optimal hand and weaker grind game is a good hit imo.

"Of course they open ash and wanted" -Joshua on stream

I kinda love the approach they’re taking in MD

The big reason for these consistency hits is largely due to md being bo1 format. Komoney will always want to have some sort of sacky nature in the game. It’s what keeps this gacha machine turning

11:02 reminds me how, Maxx "C" used to be legal in the TCG but it was at 1 for a while. Which felt terrible because it just meant when you had Maxx "C" activated on you it *felt worse*.

Not enough consistency. That’s the issue. We need 17 more decks with a poplar and more level 10 synchros and more hand traps and more ways to special summon level 4 or lower monsters that special summon more monsters that XYZ into more monsters that being back other monsters. That’s what this game needs. Pure chaos.

I come to yugioh for the consistency, just nerf what is consistently made or done and make them end on less or end on something more manageable. Also there needs to be an errata or retrain of Block Dragon that is a Hard Once Per Turn.

Unfortunately for the non-consistency hits, that usually gets other decks whacked in the process. Say they wanted to weaken Snake-Eye and Fire King SE by hitting Sunlight Wolf. That hits Salamangreat too. This is why I really like the Duel Links banlist. It functionally has 7 tiers of restriction, not just 4. It has Forbidden, Limited, Semi-Limited and Unlimited, plus limit 1, limit 2 and limit 3. (The duel links banlist never explicitly mentions the Limited and Semi-limited cards, as these are cards available in bundles or level up rewards, such as Monster Gate or Linkuriboh being limited to one copy by being only available as a single level up reward (both at lvl 35 oddly enough), or Altergeist Multifaker being semi-limited) With Limit 1, Limit 2 and Limit 3, you can have a total of 1, 2, 3 cards in your deck from that pool. So you cannot have 2 Orcust Harp Horror, 2 Scrap Recycler for instance, since that would be 4 limit 3 cards. What this does is it functionally bans cards from overperforming decks, while letting underperforming decks keep powerful cards, or even restrict access to staple cards. Imagine Salamangreat Sunlight Wolf being hit to 3, alongside Snake-Eye Ash, Poplar and Promethian Princess. It would effectively limit all 3 of Ash Poplar and Princess and ban Wolf from Snake-Eye, while leaving Salamangreat running at worst 2 Wolf 1 Princess.

in a world where it's all about gameplay, and competitive aspect, where if a deck get murdered by banlist everyone can just smile and move to another deck, I wholly agree that 'just consistency hit' is not ideal for reason Josh mentioned, it feels even more sacky losing to that 1-of starter. On the other hand straight up murdering a deck/playstyle will still make significant amount of players unhappy, like for example when plant pile get hit, and or imagine if somehow they decide to ban Empen, I think the deck would crumbles and might as well doesn't exists. And finding a fine line of needing to weaken the deck, but not killing it is it's own hardship. Hence at least I still very appreciate this 'consistency hit but there's more' as Josh explained the nuance of SE Ash impact, that it is a consistency hit but it has further implication.

I pretty much agree with you on consistency hits, and also agree that Ash's consistency hit is more than a normal consistency hit, but also without a major change to Yu-Gi-Oh's design philosophy, more consistency hits are going to feel like this, cuz of the 1 card combo problem you've talked about. Its hard to make changes that aren't ultimately just consistency hits when you have 1 card combos everywhere because banning the 1 card that is full combo tends to kill the deck, if that makes sense. I feel like it'd take a serious design overhaul at this point to start making decks where banning a card to try and affect a deck's playstyle doesn't just break the combo it was designed to do to the point where its unplayable while also having that deck be playable in the first place.

now that i think about it when rite goes to 3. how did no one ever build based but replace prank kids with snake eyes and diabelstar. diabelstar is a 7 for 10 synchro and when you sin for ash/bonfire for polar do you not need to activate normal summoned monsters effects for rite

Now time to unban plushfire to bring back full power Pepe 😂

Nah it’s case by case but in general consistency hits are good. SP little knight to 2 was dumb. SE Ash to 1 is good. Can’t explain it properly sorry

My naturia horus deck in shambles rn, now I can't calamity lock to victory 😔

But with ash at 1, couldnt you summon oak and poplar off flamberge, and add back ash with oak?

I think his argument applies more to a Bo1 game where most of the gameplay is on ladder than a Bo3 game where tournament play is the primary focus In a tournament setting you can't afford to play an inconsistent deck, even if it wins when it goes off, but climbing ladder your consistency rate only has to be over 50% for you to eventually rank up

even in MD the most use i got out of adventure was playing them with suships and the most annoying part of was the equip spell bouncing rather than the negate ngl.

now soul release really cooks snake eyes

I'm a returner to the game, from the original release of the game, I've been playing catch up since covid hit. It took me over a year to finally get a handle on much of the changes that came to the game since I left. The short version of the story is I discovered the new (to me) Thunder Dragons added to the OG concept and like play testing it, in both games MD and LOD:LE, and the cards I bought about 6ish months before Colossus was limited to 1. I learned a bit too late about the beauty of Verte and it's power to fusion summon, and how well it works with Thunder Dragons. I recently realized how useful One for One is in the deck, and in a similar way, how Linkuriboh (only realized this after it was banned) benefits the deck. Which them banning it because of snake--eyes didn't make things better. I know my deck isn't meta competitive, but I enjoy how it works, and I have a few one of starters that work well with it, that are either banned or limited, but having multiple options makes for more interesting play, unlike when I watched two people play, one with snake-eyes, and the other player listed off what the first one would play as if he was psychic. As much as I like the idea of having 3 Pot of Greed cards in a deck built around Exodia, keeping the game balanced is more fun long term.

I will be happy to banish a one of snake eye ash with Runick decks

I never understand why it has to be either hit engine or consistany i think both can have merrits and it should be considered.

Banning Oak would have been so much better.

Calamity had a 100% win rate when it touched the field

Josh is right, as long as a card is searchable and those searchers are unhit, the card is still viable. It’s just that many people only build their decks by playing playsets of their good cards.

I like a game where I get to do my thing and the opponent gets to do there’s and we are just trying to stop each other from getting ahead. It’s why I found tear and snake eye mirror matches fun. They were very consistent and skill was the largest factor. Hitting things that are just way too much to play around or through I think are the problems like calamity. The game shouldn’t be decided by pulling off a single combo but that doesn’t mean combos should be super difficult to pull off in my opinion. I think the ceiling of the combo is the concern

EXceed is now good in snake-eyes to push through ht copium

I feel consistency hits would be an excellent balancing mechanism if not for one card combos.

Snake eyes as en engine in other decks Snake eyes Horus go BRRR

I agree Branded hits in masterdeul are so numerous that the bricks way to often to be playable.

I think consistency and power hits at the same time is the way. The skill of haveing a plan B if you don't draw starter/combo is almost missing atm.

I like the consistency hits since it keeps the identity of the deck. I’d rather have two tear names than three if we get to keep kitkalos

If you lower the top you just make the most consitent deck stronger because newsflash they can adapt to the hitwhile other decks die like we saw in the tcg that banlist workt so well at stopping snake-eyes please

@Joshua Schmidt I think something like a consistency hit towards something like snake-eyes does make snake-eyes play differently and it makes other hand traps more susceptible to stopping snake-eyes from popping off. One perfect example, is droll and locke. Prior to the banlist, droll and locke wasn't really all that impactful when you normal summon ash and add poplar to your hand. Now, reducing the consistency of ash makes bonfire more reliant on getting ash to the hand and it makes droll more impactful in stopping the snake-eyes combo.

What the fuck? A good MD banlist?

I like hits that hit the end board more yeah but I also like consistency hits even on top of that because sometimes it evens the playing field a bit especially in the case of one card starters or in decks that use other locations like resources like tear. because because some archetypes just invalidate others and will keep doing so even if the end board or combo is hit. because at the end of the day that archetype is still getting resources in a efficient enough manner to invalidate a decent amount of game. and really a consistency hit is needed to just let more of the game be playable over just watching and reacting to the end boards they choose to make.

Natura Horus makes calamities real good

With 1 Wanted 1 Ash, Droll is still hit or miss, but it's reaching a point where it might hurt the deck more often than not.

Now have to use kash engine 🚒

i agree and disagree with your arguement for me i like that ash is limited because it means your interuption on ash hurts them more esp in a longer grind game just being able to negate ash and stop that cards future impact in the game is so nice but i do agree flamberg or original sinful spoils is the better hit but this is definitely a hit im not upset about

Consistency Hits are fine if a card has multiple use cases or have other purposes besides the typical line.

I think consistency hits happen when changing the way the deck works ( “the way the combo plays out”)would make it unplayable or knock down quite a few tiers.. Remember, they are a company that needs to make money to pay their workers.. there will never be a banned list where all decks are even and same consistency. Think of virtual world in the tcg when they banned VFD. It changed the combo, and the deck just became dead. (I’m not saying VFD should have stayed btw) I like the ban list when there is a tasteful hit of consistency and combo changes.

My thoughts on Hot Red Dragon Archfiend King Calamity are this; it did not become toxic UNTIL Crimson Dragon got printed, and Centur-Ion Manadium made it easy to make 2 level 12 Dragon synchros, so Crimson Dragon was the one that needed to go since it similar enough to Cyber-Stein that warrants the banning of Crimson Dragon, not Hot Red Dragon Archfiend King Calamity.

consistency hits in masterduel are a little bit different, because of the sheer amount of duels. in addition to it beeing bo1

TCG players when the banlist doesn’t make a deck unplayably bad.

Every time i see SE in master duel I drop cuz I ain’t dealing with that

What if in which seems to be their philosophy, their problem is just that the deck is too good, and takes up too much room, not what it does? Then you wouldn't want to change how a deck plays, you deliberately wouldn't want to cripple it if possible. Changing how a deck plays changes its power level too, but it's a much more upsetting and intrusive change, with possible unforeseen consequences, which are something they have been avoiding in master duel as much as they could. If the deck becomes worse, diversity increases, and you didn't have to make SE players feel ripped off by deleting the deck as they know it, isn't that a win?

Consistency hits are ONLY justifiable for 1 reason. Hitting the CONSISTENCY cards (not searchers) is the only thing. For example, sky striker engage was a good semi limit and a limit for a while because that card is too strong when you open it just like a pot card. On that note also pot cards or cards like chicken game being limited is reasonable as they are generic consistency tools or VERY splashable consistency tools. Usually these cards have a "draw" attached to them.

Consistency hits lower a decks win rate but it also increases frustration as both the player and the opponent.

I just wanna point out that Jet and Blue on 2 are consistency hits...

Kashtira and tearlements cards are missing on this list

Its Joever

why calamity of all the cards... Calamity was the entire reason behind why I built a Red Dragon Archfiend deck... I have a snake eye deck, but I don't really mind those getting hit. I don't like that archetype that much. I have questions about the unlimits though. Like, Engage? Welldamn. Back when I built my sky striker deck, it was on 1. I might have to revisit that deck, and rebuild it, as now there are a ton of extra cards I could put in it. Monkeyboard? Oh no. Pendulums are gonna be more common I guess... The level reduction I couldn't really care about less, but the free search for a 2nd scale, now that part is kinda worrysome, as some pendulum strategies are very damn powerful/insane. And as I never played pendulums, only the odd 1-1 pendulum monsters that end up in speedroids (1 level 7 synchro, who also just so happens to be pendulum, and 1 level 2 main deck monster that has a search on normal summon. Not the rest. The rest of the pendulums in that archetype are pretty bad.) Rite of Aramesir is possibly a problem, as the adventure package can be splashed into a ton of stuff, and it can be a pain in the a$$. Steam is a weird card there though. I mean, it wasn't good enough to be in my blackwing deck. I don't even know why it was still not unlimited before. Sudri is better. Vata is better. Shamal is better. Simoon is better. Zephyros is better. f*cking Harmatang is better. I just can't see how or why Steam was ever limited in the first place. Oh well, I'm happy with all the hits except Calamity. Bring back Calamity :( He's the 1 big boss of the Red Dragon Archfiend archetype that my Red Dragon Archfiend deck was centered around. 12 starters for 1 part of the combo, 9 for the other. If I get 1-1 of both in my starting hand, that's a pretty damn solid line into King Calamity. On the opponent's turn. That said, I know that Synchron/Stardust was abuing it every now and than,. sometimes even other decks. What did chat say? Naturia Horus? idk how those would abuse it, but I guess it must be possible if they complained about it. As for how to handle Snake-Eye: ban f*cking poplar.

I still think spright elf needs it effect changed. It should take a lv2 and a spright to make it

I think they should have kept SE ash at two and banned oak personally

Small world: blossom - veiler - ash veiler - blossom - ash

What do you mean by back to 3? Rite is NEVER at 3, adventure and bystial got hit before they came out!!! Why can’t they do that to something else like snake eyes?

The deck would do the same thing but not often as someone expect, yes it create frustration because your opponent could sack you open full combo even having low chances like tear on the OCG having multiple cards limited and still mill names. But on the other hand, this is reducing the number of players using that deck on paper. From a gameplay prospective could be unfun i agree with you but from the number prospective is not. You need to know, the developers of a videogame usually would look the numbers on the data of the game and the feedback of the players. Developers try to make the game better but doesnt mean they play the game as a regulat player you know what i mean? Its reasonable think like that for someone that barely or not even playing the game.

Ban original sin.

Honestly, the only SE hit I'd be happy with are banning flamberge and/or poplar.... Arguably flamberge because it's basically block dragon. Tho the folks saying poplar have a good point. Granted, appo and I:P would probably fall in the category of "wrong reason, right punishment" should they get banned *(I:P could be S:P but w/e)*

I would just put Original Sinful Spoils to 0 and the rest can all be at 3.

It's what they want to achieve with the consistency rather than the consistency itself. I prefer to ban the cards that create the toxic boards like Apolloussa, Baronne, Savage and alike.

OMG 😢 They've hit King calamity!! Noooo, why?? They should've hit the toxic Snake-Eyes harder instead!! But it's a solid start when SE Ash is on 1

Why did he say consistency hits are bad then described a consistency hit with extra steps

On my birthday

I think playing dd crow will help

Lets get real the only real problem that over tuned decks like Snake-Eyes are caused by cards like Apallousa and in the Dis Pater versions case Omega. They need some hits like banning Oak so their resource loop isn't as strong or as seemingly infinite but the cards that decks that have been over-tuned to the extent Snake-Eyes has take advantage of cards like Apallousa to easily is the biggest problem and if the strongest thing they can do make S:P, Princess, Dis Pater, etc. then it isn't that bad thats about what every other deck is doing now. The problem with decks like Snake-Eyes primarily comes from the easy access to monsters that simply make them to good. All Konami does by leaving these types of cards alone is ensure that over-tuned decks become op and get overused by everyone the instant they become playable. Decks need to increase in power and consistency but if they over do it and/or give cards like Apallousa a free pass then it ruins the game until they fix it. They might have left Apallousa because its a counter Nibiru and it only negates monster effects but the simple answer to Nibiru is to ban it. It makes good and strong decks like Sharks and pure White Woods bad and if it was gone the game would be better because there would be less need for Konami to make monster negates aside from spell/trap negates and it would interesting decks like White Woods to be good and for decks like Sharks that almost never if ever have taken first place in a YCS to do so at least once in their existence. Realistically for Shark if Nibiru was to get banned you could make double Bahamat and if they both get negated you just sit on hand traps and Draco Future. This would be possible in that scenario thanks to the new support Sharks have coming. Pure White Woods wouldn't be afraid to make Diabelle either if Nibiru was gone.

Flamberge to 1

Wouldn't it be better if they banned generic big boss monsters like Baronne & Savage?🤔 Both of those cards are omni-negates & makes Snake-Eyes even more powerful than it already is.

I can’t stand by consistency hits when archetypes are just killed, like elf and kit are fine with the hits in md and more fun tbh

Honestly they should just ban Flamberge

Beaver is at 1 in md?😂💀

People have to stop bitching about wanted drawing a card, it's to make up for witch needing to discard a card for its summon not to mention oss also negs a card like sure there are ways to play around it but the cards are balanced around themselves

BAN MAXX C!!!!!

Calamity didn't deserve it

Consistency Hits are so bad

Nope consistency hits are fine when said deck has stupid level of consistency. Deck needs to be normalized. Wanted to 1 and Snake Ash to 1 does more against SE then a Barrone ban.

You make video talking about deckbuilding saying consistency is everything in yugioh, yet you also say consistency hits are bad!?

I agree so far 100% with Josh on everything and this hit is just meaningless. Yes it is consistency hit and reduces some of its strength. When they 1st hit ash to 2, snake-eye to me becomes stronger as I can put in more handtraps. Now its at 1, yes you are unable to search for another ash but you can still play 2 oaks or 1 of the purple guy or 3 poplars. The basic gameplay does not change too much for snake-eye and I believe it will continue to be strong in the meta. Banning linkuriboh would just be better in that sense since you can completely change the gameplay