I’m SO sorry it’s so late, but as promised, THIS is why Cyber Dragon is a staple in almost any Aggro/Control deck. Here we go…


If you’re part of the camp that thinks Cyber Dragon is over-rated, it’s probably because you’ve never before considered some of the following before. They aren’t difficult things to understand. They just require you to look at things from a weird point of view.


:-:-:-: Attack Points :-:-:-:

1900 seems to be the attack power threshold for a non-tribute monster. Any more and there will be a negative effect tacked on. This one has 2100. That’s 200 points above the threshold, therefore, looking strictly at the numbers, this card will be superior to the majority of the field. Of course, we can’t just look at the numbers, we have to weigh in the disadvantage you put yourself at for those numbers…” If there is a monster on your opponent’s side of the field and there are no monsters on your side of the field…” Uh…is that it?!?! Do we all realize how common this situation is in this game? “But my deck always has a monster on the field!” you say. First of all, you’re a liar. There is no deck in this game that can consistently make that claim. Some can under ideal circumstances, but those decks require a careful setup, which can never be achieved over and over. Cyber Dragon will still be useful, even in those deck.


:-:-:-: Special Summon :-:-:-:

Good attack points is all well and good, but THIS is what makes this card so amazing. When you Special Summon this card, you put your opponent in a very awkward position. They have to decide whether or not to use any traps they may have set whose trigger is a summon, while at the same time knowing that you still have your normal summon for the turn. For example, should they flip Torrential Tribute knowing you could still follow-up with a Reaper? But what if that Torrential Tribute is their only way to destroy Cyber Dragon at the moment? Dilemma…

Let’s say you summoned a regular monster, and attacked. They had Sakuretsu Armor set. Oh well, say bye-bye to your monster. Looks like your opponent now gets to attack your open field. But wait! What if that monster was a Cyber Dragon?! The option to set a monster to defend your lifepoints would still be available. This allows you do several things. The dilemma continues…

First, you can take a lot more risks. There is nothing wrong with sending Cyber Dragon into their monster despite their two face-down magic/trap cards. If the attack goes through, +1, if it doesn’t, 1 for 1, then set your monster. Flip effects are a lot more effective when you don’t have to totally interrupt your offensive flow just to get one off.

Second, maybe you aren’t summoning Cyber Dragon to go after a monster. Maybe you’re purposely sending it into battle as a sacrifice. Let’s face it, most of the time your opponent is going to be running more magic/traps that stop your attacks than you will have magic/trap removal. This means that some of your attacks being prevented is an inevitability. Once you accept that fact, you realize that some of your monsters are going to die. Since you have to attack to do damage, you can’t just run and hide from their Mirror Force and expect to win. It won’t work. You have to just keep pushing. Cyber Dragon is the PERFECT card for this situation. Attack with him, let him die, and again, immediately begin rebuilding your field.

Thirdly, he can be sacrificed. Cyber Dragon is not the best card to use to summon a tribute monster. He is, however, one of the fastest. Most of the time you’ll want to sacrifice a floater, however, most of the time, that requires an extra turn. Sometimes you can’t afford to wait a turn. You need that tribute monster on the field NOW. Drop Cyber Dragon, drop Monarch…GG. This is why Monarch decks are so successful right now. Cyber Dragon gives them the ability to swing the tempo of the game in an instant.


:-:-:-: Tribute Monster :-:-:-:

Up until now, we discussed Cyber Dragon as if he were a level four monster, because when used to his full potential, in essence, he is. However, when it benefits you, you can still tribute a monster to summon him. This makes cards like Brain Control, Enemy Controller, and Last Will (just to name a few) even better. This isn’t the most common way to use this card, but it still adds another dimension to its uses.

The whole “five star, yet no tribute” has one other use as well…Metamorphosis. It’s a shame TER hogged all the meta-spotlight, causing its restriction, because this could have been a very solid deck. As it is now, because of Cyber Dragon’s uniqueness, Metamorphosis still has a practical use.


:-:-:-: Risk vs. Reward :-:-:-:

I’ve discussed this a lot in my articles. A lot of this game is about examining how difficult a card is to use as well as how much it can benefit you. If the good is gooder than the bad is badder, it might be a card you should run. Cyber Dragon takes this concept and throws it out the window. His reward is greater than most cards, while at the same time, the risk is less. He is an above-average sized monster that doesn’t require you to risk your “one summon per turn”.


:-:-:-: Conclusion :-:-:-:

If you look at Cyber Dragon merely as a big beatstick, it’s no wonder you think he’s overrated. However, Cyber Dragon actually defines “versatile”. He’s a beatstick, and Smashing Ground, and an MST all rolled into one. If timed correctly, he can get rid of almost any card on the field, and you can still set that crucial Magician of Faith during your second Main Phase.

:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:

If you still don’t want to run Cyber Dragon, fine with me. I’m just here to prove a point. CC decks are not always the product of netdecking, but rather the result of many logical people coming to the correct conclusion.

Comments?

Great article as always. I especially loved how you ended it.


That's so true. I can't wait to read the next one.

I've never really used cyber dragon and now I don't know why. Now if you'll excuse me i'm going to work on my deck

Let's back up here a moment. In those decks those situations DO happen. That's a correct assumption. However they are rare. You are jumping to the faulty conclusion that you will draw that cyber dragon EVERY time that rare situation happens. Not gonna happen. Maybe one in 20. If you are lucky ...

Now you're gonna reply : "well, then run 2 or 3 Cydra's"

As you yourself said however, decks that achieve an almost constant presence require a careful setup. Good consistency. The right support at the right time. Taking out multiple cards just to side in a card that will then be useful 1 in 10 instead of 1 in 20 is just bad deckbuilding.

No argument. This is what makes cyber dragon the number one choice for majority of tournament decks. However, referring to the last point, not all decks are CC, and rely on a tactic that doesn't benefit from cyber dragon, giving you less chance to special summon it. Giving you two options. Keep running multiples at the expense of better suited cards, or run better suited cards and bank on your deck and not just cyber dragon. A single cyber dragon is in that case a lost cause because then you are banking on drawing him at the right time.

That's a reverse argument. Metamorphosis isn't played as much anymore because its restricted. Its not solid strategy. Your argument would hold up if you said that a deck using a lot of fusion strategies could use a cyber dragon, or that a deck that has cyber dragon should possibly consider if metamorphosis fits into their deck. However the argument that it works with metamorphosis as a way to sway people to use cydra is absurd as you are now suggesting they waste 3 or 4 card slots instead of 1 or 2 on a card that doesn't fit their strategy.

An astute observation, and a very true one at that. Cyber dragon is deadly. he is one of the best cards out there. In a deck that can use him he is outright deadly. I believe in a deck of his own even fairly broken. But I doubt anybody will argue with that. We all know Cydra is a kickass card. In the current meta that relies on floaters, fast monarch tribs nd a lot of agression he is one of the top cards to consider.

He is however not, nor will he ever be, a staple.


Usually just a handful coming to the logical conclusion and the rest copying it after losing to it. But that aside, of course all good cards' potential was once discovered by someone, and justly so, or cydra wouldn't consistently be a part of most top 8 decks if he wasn't good. However, that doesn't mean that the other players who don't take the easy way out, and do take the time to create a consistent, original, themed deck should just opt to splash CC's best cards ...

I'm not sure, but I think you misunderstood (correct me if I'm wrong). I said those deck rarely achieve that constant field presense. There will be tons of opportunities to play Cyber Dragon. If your field does happen to be full, you're winning anyway, and in the common situation that it isn't, Cyber Dragon will help you rebuild much more quickly.

The point is, there AREN'T any better suited cards. That's the whole point of the article. Yes, you could say that theme staples are better, for example, Survivor in a Macro deck, but those aren't numerous enough in ANY theme to warrant cutting Cyber Dragon. He's the #1 card to support the core of the deck.

This was more of an "oh by the way" point. I was just reminding everyone that in addition to not requiring a tributing, he still gains all the attributes of a Level 5 monster, which can come in handy once in a while.

Please don't tell me we're all going to argue over the definition of "staple" again...

You and I both know he goes in 95% of all Aggro/Control decks, therefore, according to my definition of staple, he meets the criteria.

Obviously you are correct. It just annoys me how everytime some people see a deck with Cyber Dragon in it, they immediately assume its a netdeck. I run Cyber Dragon in almost of every I make. Did I copy someone? Obviously not. I just demonstated my logic for running him. My logic. My thought process. Most other good players are well aware of all of these things as well. Give them the credit they deserve.

Assuming those players want to make their deck as good as possible, yes, it does mean that.

[quote=ZaQ777]I'm not sure, but I think you misunderstood (correct me if I'm wrong). I said those deck rarely achieve that constant field presense. There will be tons of opportunities to play Cyber Dragon. If your field does happen to be full, you're winning anyway, and in the common situation that it isn't, Cyber Dragon will help you rebuild much more quickly.[quote]

Well, playing a dedicated gravekeeper build, barring a lightning vortex, you will always have a monster on the field, usually 2 or more. Not only does that render the cyber dragon (virtually) useless, the chance of ruining your gravekeeeper's field presence by taking out two or three theme cards for a cyber dragon is great. So you are increasing your chance of losing field presence to get to use a card that you might otherwise not need, and still have ample field presence to make sure that 2 out of 3 of your cyber dragons will be useless. The two pull each other down.

This is just an example, there are other decks that suffer similarly.

If you don't play a dedicated build, chances are your cyber dragon will pay off, with a themed, dedicated build, chances are you are ruining the consistency of your deck to make a card pay off, that should be working for you. You shouldn't be working for it.

I have a plethora of decks that are hard enough to keep under 44 cards WITHOUT cyber dragon. I'll state the dedicated GK as an example again.



Granted, once in a thousand decks. But when you write an article stating three points why you should be using cyber dragon, and I take one away, suddenly there are only two reasons left to play cyber dragon to the other 999 duelists. Do you catch my drift ? Its a great and versatile card, but depending on deck and player it loses a lot of its appeal ...



I daresay he is THAT good he fits in 99.9% of decks. But "fits" does not equal being the best choice. Then that number drastically drops.

This is actually the problem with cyber dragon and the reason he sees so much play (aside from being one of the top 50 cards in the game) : people understand cyber dragon and rely on him. The same goes for most cards being used today. That's why he continues to pay off. No one is trying to use the better support, take a chance of having a more dominant deck, because they are afraid that the first few tournaments will be a poor showing. The inevitable lapse of time between something new and the time you can use it like you should. That's why cyber dragon, much like dekoichi, stein, etc continues to embody the essence of the lazy CC.

Someone's logic discovered how good cydra was, everyone elses laziness is what keeps cydra and most other CC cards in play instead of possible better choices.

That's a double-edged sword. I agree with you. But now look at it from the other perspective. Do you have ANY idea how many original themed decks are posted everyday (some good, some bad) that have 3 or more replies in them saying "drop this for cydra" ?

I'll go even further, its the fact that every netdecker comes by a thread to recommend dropping something for cydra, that gives everyone else the idea that cyber dragon is a netdecker's card ... If people stopped recommending cydra where he didn't fit, people who used him the right way would get more credit and respect.

And that sort of thinking, my friend, is the reason we will never have an original and diverse meta ...

I'd go as far as saying its fear of the unknown.

I don't buy this for a second...of course I'm also taking for granted that you're playing in a competitive meta. In a game with a near infinate amount of monster removal in is impossible to keep a monster on the field at all times.

You don't have to work to make Cyber Dragon useful. His strengths automatically take advantage of the way the game is played.

Yes, but are all 44 of those cards better suited for the deck than Cyber Dragon? Prove me wrong with a decklist.

Who took a point away? Granted, Metamorphosis is not the best card in the game, but the point that Cyber Dragon still has all the strengths of a Level 5 monster still stands, regardless of how valuable you think that is.

He might not be the absolute hands down BEST choice (again, like DDS in Macro), however, all of his strengths (which you agreed, he has) definately put him high enough on the list to warrant inclusion in nearly every deck.


Again, there is no better support than Cyber Dragon. I'm not going to defend Deko, Stein, etc, but Cyber Dragon does deserve his current status for all the reasons previously stated.

There is plenty of room for originality, and I agree that many people are afraid of the transition time, but that still doesn't prove that Cyber Dragon shouldn't be included in those decks too (refer to my last article).


Again...this is true in many cases, however, this isn't one of them.


The problem is that they and you are under the false impression that it doesn't fit. The fact that Cyber Dragon fits in any deck doesn't make it a netdecker's card. I can see your point how it got that reputation, but that reputation is wrong, and that's what I'm trying to show.

Let's not go there...


The only parts of my article that you've disputed were the general conclusions of Cyber Dragon's value, saying that there are better options that people just don't consider. You never touched most of the reason WHY Cyber Dragon is as good as he is, because you know that they are all true. What other card(s) give you that much reward at such a low risk?


Whew. :)

[quote=ZaQ777]I don't buy this for a second...of course I'm also taking for granted that you're playing in a competitive meta. In a game with a near infinate amount of monster removal in is impossible to keep a monster on the field at all times.[quote/]

Magical Marionette
Gravekeeper's Assailant x3
Gravekeeper's cannonholder x2
Gravekeeper's Chief x2
Gravekeeper's curse x3
Gravekeeper's Spear soldier x3
Gravekeeper's spy x3
Magician of Faith
Mysterious guard or Old vindictive x2

Giant Trunade x2
Gravekeeper's Servant x2
IRS x3
Magical Dimension x2
Mystical space typhoon
Necrovalley x3
Terraforming x2

Divine wrath
Magician's circle x2
Rite of spîrit x3

Tell me how this deck needs cydra ?

If you treat it as a vanilla level 5 ? Then I'd prefer one with a higher attack. There are a gazillion more useful LV5 and LV6 monsters. If you play metamorphosis I get the point. Cydra can give you that LV5 when you need it, when you draw that single copy of meta. If you don't play metamorphosis I fail to see what this has to contribut to any deck at all. There are better single tribute monsters than a 2100 ATK.

That's an opinion, and I respect it. Truth however is that NO card warrants inclusion in (almost) every deck. Its advantages make it an option to be considered for (almost) every deck. Nothing about warrants inclusion.

No one is making a conclusion that cyber dragon shouldn't be included in any given deck. If the person who uses the deck tested it and found cydra to be the best choice, who am I, or anyone, to argue with that ? Especially if the deck wins. The same goes for dekoichi and all the rest by the way. You on the other hand are making the opposite point, that it SHOULD be included in every deck. I take exception to that.


If you are trying to prove its a good card, fine. Its a great card. We all know that. I get the impression however, more and more, that you are trying to say it should be in every deck. So how does that not make it netdecker's card if people use it because you told them they should use it ?

This is a good article, to point out cydra's good points. You cut down the bad points which makes it a tad biased, but that aside. However, if you are just doing it to tell people they should use it, then you are doing a lot to stop originality and experimenting and actually adding fuel to the fire in regards to making it a netdecker's card.


Very few. I grant you that. Its also not my place to argue AGAINST the merit of a card. That would be pointless. originality starts with seeing the good in every card. I'm not going to touch on that either, because cydra is almost as good as you make him out to be. I only take exception to the blanket statement that he should be in every deck. That's not the case.

The second I saw Gravekeeper's Servant I realized that the point of this deck is to strictly follow a theme at the expense of its competitiveness. If that's your goal fine, but it doesn't make the deck better as a result. Cyber Dragon would fit in here if you were trying to make it as playable as possible.

No one said to treat it like a vanilla. The point was to show its versatileness. It has the strengths of a Level 4 and Level 5 monster.

It is now that I realize we don't disagree as much as I previously thought. It really all comes down to semantics. When I say auto inclusion, I mean include it first, then consider it later. I don't not think before running it, I just save time by using the logic I've discussed in this thread to include it in the first place.

I have no problem with your statement. It's good enough for me.

I'm not going to lie, you make an excelent point, but allow me to explain. Some people put cards in their deck because other people tell them to. That's bad. Other people do just the opposite. They exclude cards, BECAUSE people tell them to run them. In my opinion, that's worse. The purpose of this article, as well as most of the other ones is not to tell people what cards to run without thinking about it. The point is EXPLAIN to people WHY certain cards should be run. I think we all agree that including OR excluding a card without knowing why you're doing so is bad. I don't want people to run Cyber Dragon without knowing why they are doing so. Instead, because I know how good a card it is, I want those running it to know why they are running it, and I want those not running it to know why they should reconsider.

Like I said, I am doing this so people will run it, but not blindly. I want to them to understand it, then include it. If that means I'm adding to what someone defined as "netdecking"...so be it, but in my opinion, I'm not.


I DO think he should be in every deck, but not blindly included.

Granted, this is a quickly thought up deck, but its a deck that revolves around field presence. The theme alone means there is no room for cydra. Now we get to the real point though. Give me an idea of what you think is playable. Let me guess : it involves a few floaters, a spirit reaper, breaker the magical warrior, a sakuretsu or two and a ring of destruction, right ?

Then cydra is useful. When you take any deck and completely cookify it, then you will fit cydra in every deck. But that doesn't make it splashable or a must or something. It means you change the deck with other so-called staples to make cyber dragon work, instead of exploring other changes to support the theme better WHILST making it more playable. Give that whirl.

No one treats cyber as a level 5 unless they have to. And when you have to, then you can say your cydra is a dead pull, a wasted slot. If it happens once in ten, then that's bad luck. If you are playing a deck where it happens 5 or more times out of ten, then cydra is a bad fit. It has no strengths as a level 5, none that couldn't be better filled by another level 5 monster. Cydra is only good as long as its a special summon.

That's how everyone should work with the cards they consider as top cards for them, because you rely and trust them, and you'll get the most out of them when you need it. But that's no different from one favourite to another. For most people the favourites will simply be a lot of CC cards, and that's not always bad.

Like I said, this is a good article. It would have been an excellent was if it was a little more nuanced and took some time to treat the bad sides as well, even if it was just in a way to touch on how to minimize them. But if you want to make a card shine, give it a spotlight, you also need to give it a context. When someone tells me a card should be in every deck, I immediately get on my horse and go on the defensive.

But you just said you wanted people to treat it with respect, and not just as a netdeck card. So give it a context, a nuance. Words like should and have to don't really help that goal along.

I understand your goal now that you've explained it, and its a noble one. One you could undertake for many cards consider netdeck cards. And maybe should. But then you just need to cover it completely, the good and the bad, and then, in the whole of reviews, you can tell that cyber dragon is great. Why ? because people will know you talk about ALL the good and ALL the bad. A,d when they see there isn't much bad to cydra, they'll understand how good it is ... My opinion.

Thanks for this :) The debate going on between you two is actually strengthening the article as well.

Playable is a deck that sticks to a goal using the most efficient cards to accomplish that goal. In a Gravekeeper deck, using every card that has "gravekeeper" in its name does not a playable deck make.

Now I feel like we're going in circles, because I've already answered this several times.

You're still missing the point. Yes, it is true that Cyber Dragon can't do anything that a different Level 5 monster couldn't do better, however something tributing for him is the correct play, not because of what comes out (Cyber Dragon), but because of what goes to the graveyard (Sangan, a Brain Controlled monster, etc). Having established that, Cyber Dragon is good, because he gives you a way to tribute monsters without relying on a card that can't be special summoned.

Fair enough.

Glad you like it. I'm also glad we've been able to keep the debate civil. To anyone else that wants to post, let's keep it that way.

Small note: Just thought this was slightly contradictory...

I could be misinterpreting it, but I thought "careful setup" was the process of building the deck and delicately choosing which cards would be best. I'm thinking you are interpreting it in terms of the actual gameplay, of setting up each turn?

Great Article, I agree for the most part. I can't think of many decks that CyDra couldn't work in, except maybe burn.

Cyber Dragon works in very few decks that aren't Aggro/Control actually.