No Monster removals?

[Ojimaru]

Just got off watching Yu Gi Oh GX 106 on Youtube and ended up cheering for Johan -- not just because he was Judai's opponent, but because he said, "My deck doesn't have any cards that destroy monsters."

Now, I know this is a topic seen on Pojo Forums before (titled something like "A Meta without removals"). But Pojo being Pojo, their opinions tend to be rather... sketchy. So instead I'm posting this here, where broad-minded people and some CSC members dwell:

a) Would you duel with a deck without ANY form of monster removal?

b) Failing that, would you be willing to give up on 1-for-1 cards like Fissure, Smashing Ground, Exiled Forces, Sakuretsu Armour, etc.?

After that episode, I decided that - barring my current Spellcaster deck, which is as weak as it can be - my future decks would only include monster removals that require something before it can be activated. For example, Meltiel's second effect is only if The Sanctuary in the Sky is on the field when you activated a Counter Trap. It's tough to activate, but it sure would make the game more interesting.

So, say No, to 1-for-1 monster removals!

 

[Dasher]

That is nice idea, but I prefer to protect my monster and if it has to be by monster removal ... so be it ...

 

[Lord Hades]

The only way I would play with a Deck without Monster Removal cards is I use a OTK Deck

 

[Peps]

Although it would be somewhat interesting to have removal based on certain restrictions, personally, I don't have any problems with 1-for-1 removal at all. Especially if I had a floater or something similar on the field, 1-for-1 removal is a dream for me for the opponent to use. Also, the removal is simple to manipulate. For example, having a face-up Gravekeeper's Spy to guide Smashing Ground and Fissure away from your monarch. Another example would be Exiled Force hitting a Sangan or Treeborn Frog.

As for running 1-for-1 removal myself, at the moment I run gadgets so the removal is part of the theme itself really. There are of course decks that can use no 1-for-1 removal at all. For example, Creature Swap could be a far better choice than Smashing Ground and Return from the Different Dimension could be better than say Sakuretsu Armor. These choices could instead win games indirectly and could also gain more advantage than the 1-for-1 alternative.

If I was forced to go along the no monster removal road or something like that, it would be no problem to me at all. I'd use more complex alternatives like Creature Swap, or Magical Dimension instead, and to replace the likes of trap monster removal... Royal Decree would work wonders. Enemy Controller as well is a nice option as well.

Overall, my opinion would be that generic monster removal is fine. It's simple to manipulate, and not usually the best option to go for either. The more complex routes can in fact be more rewarding even in a meta filled with monster removal.

 

[SS64]

Well i would run a Stat changer,if i wasnt running removers.
Strike,Don,Warroir toolbox.+Rush/Shrink

 

[Jathro]

Burn decks tend to go very lightly on monster removal, if any at all. And as Lord Hades pointed out, an OTK deck could be less likely to have a need for it.

 

[masterwoo0]

Peronally, I would much rather go into a Battle with a Tank than a hand gun, and if that means I have to be shallow and use ALL the cards I have available at my disposal, then so be it, but I am not going to try to handcuff myself just to prove that it can be cool doing something like that.

I mean, how cool would it be to spray yourself from head to toe with syrup, and lay in the path of a bunch of Red Ants?? Not much fun doing that, is there?

 

[HorusMaster]

I mean, how cool would it be to spray yourself from head to toe with syrup, and lay in the path of a bunch of Red Ants?? Not much fun doing that, is there?

Depends on what you're into these days...Heh heh...realistically, whatever cards I had to use, whether two for one or 1-1, to destroy my opponent's monsters and leave mine on the field to attack is alright with me. Along the same lines, do you shoot BBs at your opponent or drop a on their a--.....?

 

[english chef]

but I am not going to try to handcuff myself just to prove that it can be cool doing something like that.

Style over content all the way...
Anyone can win with gadgets, monarchs, chimeratech etc. Doing so with Aitsu shows that you aen't reliant on power cards.
When Ghaneian et al can win with something totally and utterly off the wall, then I will accept that they actually deserve the praise they get.

Not bitter and twisted, just mildly disappointed

 

[cuzwbd]

kinda neat really...my older son played an exodia deck for a long time that had 38 monsters , one spell and one trap - you'd be amazed at how well it worked - when the trap was banned he was really bummed and since plays very little....he never liked common/normal decks and when he got that exodia to be competetive he really enjoyed it - myself - i'm not that creative - best i can do is 2 or 3 different cards in a deck - lately been using cloak & dagger for grins

 

[ShadowBenny]

I would build a deck like that just to annoy my friends, because that's my specialty: ANNOYING DECKS. When you say MONSTER REMOVAL, does that just mean destroying or any type of removal? Because the last deck i built, i think it was last 2 months, was a BOUNCE DECK, and it focused on returning monsters from the field to the deck( mainly to eliminate searchers). Then I incorporated Conscription into it and before you knew it I was sprangin Jinzos, DMoCs, HaDes, and anything else that wandered too close.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Removal, just like any group of card effects that effectively do the same thing and can be grouped together under a single category, is just another particular strategy that can be worked into others. I remember removal was not even a term back when I first started playing, and when I came up with a mass removal deck that just incorporated all kinds of removal, people thought I was crazy. Of course, no one runs the sheer insane amount of removal I do, but today, you see far more of it then you did back then. And most of the same card existed then too, barring maybe Hammer Shot. Monster removal at that time consisted of a standard Exiled Force, a Raigeki and Dark Hole.

Granted, you probable see more of it now because it's not as easy to clear a field, but at the same time, because it's not as easy to clear a field, your going to see a lot more strategies that don't necessarily incorporate it. It doesn't always have to. If your direct attacking, then likely you wont need much of it. If your burning fast, then it's also not an issue. Heavy beatstick decks already have a form of removal. High ATK monsters that pretty much trounce anything in their path. It's really all about the strategy your using.

And 1-for-1 is one of those expressions that irks me, simply because this mathematical approach to dueling is flawed from the get go. It plays the numbers over the strategy of a thing, which is the same fatal flaw the Persians made in 300. Strategy is always the key. You can work in all the even trade cards you can find into a deck, but if you strategy is flawed, then all that economy is going to get you nowhere fast.

 

[ShadowBenny]

That's the truth bro. Strategy is key. Like in my Skill Drain, Lava Golem, Final Countdown and Direct Attack decks; they take chances for a good strategy. The latter two don't hold any monster removals.