1. You are correct. I was going by what has established itself as the CC at this point in time. As the meta evolves, so must our theories.

2. "So what"??? You don't care that your deck is slower than it could be? Fine, whatever. I'm not saying don't run Spies. I'm saying run both. The Spies will be put floating trib fodder on the field when they don't have an immediate threat on the field, and the Cyber Dragon will be quick fodder for when you're desperate.

3. As it should be.

4. Ok, it's early game and they just topdecked their Nobleman on your Spy. Now you have zero. In addition, there are no monster in your Graveyard yet, so all those Rite of Spirits are dead. Have fun rebuilding your field. You're still trying to build the deck around the ideal situation, rather than the practical one.

5. Because the Dragon does it better. Let's assume we're past game 1, and that you aren't playing a noob. They just sided in extra m/t removal, therefore, it's safe to assume that Necrovalley won't be spending too much time on the field. What can Rite of Spirit do now? It can bring back 1500 atk vanillas. Wow. In addition, it must be set for a turn.

6. Yes, there are other options, but the whole point of this article was to explain WHY Cyber Dragon is the most efficient of those options.

Decklist?

Also, this isn't an issue of "needing" something. No deck "needs" any card. However, that doesn't mean it won't get better by its inclusion.

We all have different opinions. The rest of us just respect that we are all good duelists that have been in this game a while and treat an argument with respect towards the antagonist. We don't walk around like we own the place, and we don't foolishly assume that you "have to t8 to know anything". Even at the top level its luck of the draw. Plenty of duelists who t8 at SJC, fail to go better than 5 wins the next time around. With 40+ shuffled cards, that's the way the game is played ...


The difference between everyone else here, whether they argue for or against, is that they back the argument instead of saying "its a staple cause I said so and I got my invite, so it must be true."

Learn some respect, then come back.

I think we are all pretty much in agreement the way things are.

Cyber is a killer card
Cyber should be one of the first cards considered for most decks

And we differ slightly on opinion in regards to whether he is a staple or a pseudo-staple. But that won't be resolved here. For the rest I don't think we disagree much.

Only if you have one of your 3 cydra's (not searchable) in your hand in those cases that you don't have a GK on the field. As you said, in case of a nobleman, sure, but then you are assuming I only have one GK on the field. A vortex ? Hell no one plays them anymore. Snatch steal ? Banned. Brain control ? perhaps, but only on their turn when I can't use cydra.

You don't seem to get the premise of a GK deck. Its not to keep 1 monster on the field at all times, its to keep multiple monsters on the field. And sure, you have exiled, old vindictive, smashing, whatever. But in the majority of those case you have more than one GK out.

Actually, spy is used more now than it was 6 months ago. In aggro decks.

And magical dimension, and GK chief, and magician's circle, and IRS and .... the list goes on. A good GK deck never wants for special summoning.

Say I'm in that situation. He topdecked his only nobleman. He wasted a nobleman, I take a hit, I'll recover with 1 or two monsters next turn. GK decks are careful with their LP, so they can spare a hit. The benefit they have over a CC deck ...

When their was more RFP I teched a DDM in when that happened. Easy to fetch with magician's circle, and you can chain IRS to it to bring 3 monsters to the field.

Assuming you aren't a noob, you'd have sided in some dust tornado's. A spear soldier is not a vanilla monster, it'll still rip through your floaters causing damage. The massive amount of special summoning causes a shield, giving you plenty of time to recover.

This is one thing you quite possibly lack, the good player that you are otherwise, and that is experience with any deck that isn't CC ...

Sure, it takes more of an investment to make, A LOT more time before you make it remotely competitive and even more practice to make it actually pay off in tournaments. But just like with CC, once you know it, the options are limitless.

Don't get me wrong, I understand people don't want to make this investment. Winning is attractive, Why invest months of work, only to possibly see it wrecked by the next banlist. But luckily not everyone thinks like that ...

I understand what you're saying. Gravekeeper decks swarm like crazy once they get going, however, if they never get that early-game momentum, it's likely they never will. Yes, if I Exiled or Smash or floating Spear Soldier and Assailants I don't accomplish very much, because there are probably several more already on the field. That much I agree with. I'm talking about the times when your opponent controls the tempo of the game. You set a Spies. During your opponent's next turn it, and the thing it brings out both get run over. Cyber Dragon can cause those momentum swings that the Spies sometimes can't.

I think Spies was a typo. The original quote said Cheif. Spies are amazing, but Monarches > Cheifs.

You STILL fail to realize that you WON'T ALWAYS BE WINNING. Those cards aren't going to help you make a comeback. Also, they are too reliant on eachother. Let's see I could rebuild my field with a Spellcaster + Magician's Circle + DDM + a Magic from my hand + IRS or I can just drop a Cyber Dragon. Seriously now, if you are pulling off a combo requiring that many cards consistently, you are playing terrible players. I'm not being mean, but let's be reasonable here...

You won't recover by letting your opponent -1 you over and over again. Yes, Spear Soldier can still trample, but assuming that they have a monster with 1501 or more atk, it will just get run over = -1. Not a good thing.

I find it funny that you catogorize me like this. Don't worry, I don't take offense, because I've given you very little reason to believe otherwise. In reality though, I get yelled at all the time by my teammate for not running CC enough. Ironically, that teammate has posted on this thread a couple of times. Can you guess who it is?... I believe that the CC has a lot of things going for it, but that it is NOT the best possible deck. I spend lots of time looking for what is. The only difference between us is our definition of what is "original". I play to win, not to strictly follow themes for the fun of it, however, that doesn't mean I haven't play tons of different decks.

THen you start your swarm again. The simple fact that at any given time you can pull multiple monsters to the field, not just with spy, is the strength of the deck. It swarms, regardless of tempo.

This is a contradiction. If I'm making a comeback, I'm already assuming that I'm losing, so I never thought, said, whatever, that I would always be winning. In fact, I build my decks around the fact that for some reason I'm always coming from behind, especially against aggro and burn.

That was an example. I could summon any spellcaster, use dimension, destroy your cyber dragon and IRS whatever I bring out. Like 3 curses for 1500 burn.

I don't take it as being mean, if it was a legit remark, then so be it. But its not. The deck has more options than the ones I named. And those are only responses to the unlikely situation of an opening hand nobleman being used against an opening that includes spy. That's not gonna happen all that often. The deck has more openings, and the other guy only has one nobleman.

50%, and often more, monsters are less than 1500 ATK. Usually for sheer searchability. A 1500 trample pays off big time. If that wasn't the case DDV wouldn't be such a hot card right now.

Well, I wouldn't know, while I spend a great deal of time making decks competition worthy, I've yet to take on the daunting task of taking any of my original competition worthy ideas to the level of national playability. Maybe I will someday. Until then, it is I that has to admit to a lack of experience.

What I do know is that its not about themed decsk, CC, cookies, whatever your preference. But about experimenting with a great deal of cards, and combinations of cards, however weak or irrelevant they may look at first, and find the true value. That gives you a broad base to fall back on if ever you are in need for an idea. It shaves hours out of building a good deck.

All I know is that I'll never back out of originality just to win. I like to take it a step further as time goes by, standing still is wasting time. But I'd rather get their on my own strength, with my own ideas and stand atop the ranking exclaiming MY victory. The one I got with a deck I sweated a year over to make it work.

We're in two different worlds, so its hard to compare. I'm sure you've been playing a great deal longer than me. Our opinions differ. They are bound to. But I respect yours (and anyone else's for that matter) and look forward to seeing at what point exactly our roads will cross. I'll have to bank on you being wrong though, because I don't plan on taking on any major tournament without having a deck that is entirely innovative :) We all have our quests ...

Thats the main reason why most Gravekeeper decks run Zaborg though. So even if Spy gets run over, its replacement can most often than not be fodder for the big man. Zaborg is used as the momentum swing, not Cyber. To add to that, I find that most of the momentum swings that cc decks can unleash is a well-timed Monarch. Cyber Dragon won't help very much.


I agree


I'm not saying that I don't care that Spy is slow. Yes, I would like it to be faster than Cydra and yes, I wouldn't want a slow deck. But the facts are that Spy can often compensate its slowness as a utility recruiter that allows you to counter attack in your next turn. I also believe that Cyber Dragon is a great card and should be a consideration in all aggro decks, but it should only be in 60% of theme aggro decks.


Yes, in that situation. I can safely state that not running Cydra would kill. But how rare would it be to have that situation? 1 in a 100? Maybe higher? Its pretty safe to say that that situation is unlikely to ever occur.

I do try and build decks around a practical situation. I deck Smashing Grounds, I deck Creature Swap, I deck Bottomless, I deck Sakuretsu. The point is that there are ways to compensate for not running Cydra.

A DDV- Warrior deck

MONSTERS (20)
2|Sd3|Blowback Dragon
2|Psv|The Fiend Megacyber
2|Lon|Zombyra the Dark
1|Dbt|D.D. Assailant
1|Sd5|D.D. Warrior Lady
2|Lod|Exiled Force
1|Mfc|Breaker the Magical Warrior
1|Db2|Cyber-Stein
1|Pgd|Don Zaloog
2|Ast|Legendary Jujitsu Master
1|Mrd|Sangan
1|Sod|Mystic Swordsman LV2
1|Pgd|Spirit Reaper
1|Soi|Treeborn Frog
2|Tp4|Mystic Tomato

MAGICS (13)
1|Een|Pot of Avarice
1|Sd2|Creature Swap
2|Lod|Reinforcement of the Army
1|Sdy|Last Will
1|Sdp|Graceful Charity
1|Sd1|Heavy Storm
1|Mrl|Confiscation
1|Sd1|Nobleman of Crossout
2|Ioc|Smashing Ground
1|Sye|Mystical Space Typhoon
1|Ske|Premature Burial

TRAPS (7)
1|Pgd|Ring of Destruction
2|Fet|Deck Devastation Virus
1|Sd5|Call Of The Haunted
1|Lon|Torrential Tribute
2|Dcr|Sakuretsu Armor

Good, I was getting bored with Gravekeepers. Let's talk about this now...

I'll say it again...

Explain to me why this deck won't get better if I add Cyber Dragon. It may not "need" it to win, but it will certainly help increase its win percentage.

maining ddv is bad, as is running gk curse, but as said, spy is one of the best monsters this format. most decks should use cyber dragon, but a few should only run 2 (heavy recruiter, a few others)

I could cite a few decks that benefit greatly from maining DDV, and its a great card in this meta with recruiters and less than 1500 ATK monsters. But we would get miles adrift of the topic of this thread if we started that argument.

Yes, some decks should only run two cydra. Some only one. Some none. :rolleyes:

but what if u play vs hydrogeddon monarchs? or beast aggro? or vs reasongate? or dark world? idk, there's just a lot of matchups where it wouldn't be useful, and it's not that consistent even if it is good vs their deck. ur much better off siding ddv for the matchups where u do need it, if at all.

So you wouldn't main a card because of the .2% of players that run Beast, ReasonGate, and Dark World, despite the fact that the majority of the field runs tons of monsters with 1500 atk or less?

I don't disagree that it lacks consistency at times, but don't try to make the claim that a significant amount of people actually play decks that it wouldn't be effective against.

hydrogeddon is really popular, i listed the others as solid decks that you'd lose too, I know they're not that popular. I like the stability of knowing i beat the popular matchups g1, and if I have to I side ddv game 2. It's ok in this meta... but I dont like it too much, once again, because of the inconsistency.

It only takes 2 losses to knock you out of top 8, so I'd like to be consistent vs as many common decktypes as possible.

since you can only run two copies of DDV, and a handful of monsters to trigger it, its usually a secondary strategy that can help you set up for kill. Hydrogeddon is popular, cydra is popular, regardless, anywhere from 60 to 80% of the monsters in a given CC deck will be 1500 or less.

99% of the time by the time you draw the DDV combo, your opponent will have cycled through two, if not all three, copies of hydrogeddon.

There's always a chance it'll end up a dead card, but that goes for most cards. DDV is great stuff, especially if you already have a few high ATK dark monsters in your deck.

Even if you have the bad luck of him getting a cydra or a hydrogeddon in those three turns, think of all the stuff you killed, all the options he lost and all the pesky effects you won't have to deal with. Not because you took one out with a card, because you activated one card three turns ago and he had the bad luck of drawing that card. DDV kills 3 monsters on average before they make it to the field.