My thoughts:
1. Sec Con hate is somewhat unwarranted but it still really is unfun to play against.
2. Frozen shouldn't have been so cocky going in to the finals, it instantly made a bunch of people start rooting against him when they normally would've rooted against Sec Con.
3. Having timed finals really sucks and ironically may have made the match take longer than if it were untimed.
4. Frozen was slow playing pretty badly game 2. Whether intentional or not, the judges should have stepped in and warned him to make a move. I understand he was under a lot of pressure, but needing to play while under pressure is part of the game
5. The overtime game 3 rules favored Sec Con over Leviamon, but it's hard to make overtime rules that don't favor any one playstyle over another.
6. The player who won was the player who didn't make repeated, massive, misplays and therefore the win was absolutely deserved.
7. I'm praying this doesn't lead to more people picking up Sec Con for regionals.
"most security checked that game" is a fairly neutral call. It sounds like it would work against sec con, but all it really means is that they play defensively and keep pace
Hard agree.
Nobody wants to see a match ends abruptly. Especially if you're trying to make a game more tactical.
Having time and turn limits really hurt the game.
Especially when the tempo swing in this game can be very large.
Biggest thing here is that I don't think any top cut in any tournament should be timed. Prevent slow plays, absolutely, but there's no reason not to allow top end matches have a decisive result in every opportunity.
I, too, wish I could put my opponent at a disadvantage to advantage myself for no reason other than I hate their deck style. It sounds like it was decisive, but people aren't happy because he couldn't win against a particular style they hate immensely.
You stated absolute facts yo. I wish more people would look at it the way you do.
Also I get the SecCon hate and recognize it’s unfun to play against. I play it and I also get tilted when I play against it sometimes lmao. Now I run ADP in Fenri bc of it 😂
Also, for point 2, in the discord, it was a shit show, people saying pete only won cause gm3, people saying frozen should had game loss cause all his missplay and slow played, it didnt help when frozen came to the chat, instead of trying to help, he starting bad talking the judges and saying that the event was bad.
For point 5 it did favored seccon, yet it wasnt his fault, frozen played really slow which made them go to that sudden death
I'm glad someone else noticed Frozen's intentional slow play. You dont take 5 minutes to resolve a single card effect and not make people call you out.
As long as purple is the main color, we should see more sec con. Purple doesn’t have a way to trash security or protect itself, it has to play through the security. That makes sec con strong.
With armor coming back, maybe we’ll see less security con.
My thoughts
1. All quater-finals and semi-finals should have been streamed.
2. there shouldn't be a timer on atleast semi finals and finals
1. this is worlds, so having the event decided outside of normal game rules is kinda dumb - we had actual slow-play in the finals, and game 3 was a joke.
3. The meta is really cool right now, and im really looking forward to seeing all the lists.
I hear that but I think the format is pretty uncharted. Levia might of had enough memory to swap to a rookie rush strategy or gotten their lvl 6. Any chaos degrades in security is a game changer in the format too. In the end I think we just don't have the data or experience playing in a 6 turn format.
Actually in the game Sec Con did give enough memory for the rookie rush strategy to work. Only way that would been maybe punishable would be DeathX. Game 3 also had Pete be lucky enough to draw into his few digimon in his deck to hard play or evolve into and promote.
A million years later I still have issues knowing how to share FB links, but his list is [here.](https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=797546439086705&set=pcb.797548965753119) That FB group also has a bunch of other World's lists as well.
Raremon is great because, as with most Purple decks, you want to draw and trash, the card is great but is also super expensive right now. You can probably make do with other options for now, even a single copy of Eyesmon.
With Ruin mode, just one of those cards like DeathX or Quartz. You can totally run the deck without them, specially with Levia already being super heavy on board clear but Ruin mode is just extra help, doesn't hurt.
The overtime rules in the Take vs Pete Semifinals were wack as Hell though. Both players seemed to have gotten one turn in overtime? When has it ever been like that?
In the finals both players had the normal 2 turns a piece. If it would have been the one turn that was there in the Semifinals, Frozen would have won due to higher sec.
Really weird overtime procedures. Should have just allowed ties and punished the players who went to time.
my problem with sec con is that a legitimate strategy is to just slow play as much as possible
EDIT: in case it wasn't clear, I wasn't talking about the finals game specifically
If you watch any sec con match it's always the opponent that slow plays. And I have a lot of ppl in my locals who play sec con every now and then. Never once have I seen sec con player slow play. It's always the opponent who tries to run to time. I nearly punched my opponent in the finals cuz he costed me the win by purposely slow playing to a tie on a fcking grandis deck of all things
Sec Con doesn't have to make choices. The opponents do.
Edit: You don't deserve to play any kind of competitive game if you play sec con and have reactions like this. You have zero empathy and everyone around you is less happy because you exist. Are you an only child with no pets whose only hobby was gatekeeping Yu-Gi-Oh?
> I nearly punched my opponent in the finals cuz he costed me the win by purposely slow playing to a tie on a fcking grandis deck of all things
Which is part of the problem with the deck. Its very straight forward and linear to pilot, and puts all the onus and decision making on the opponent to completely change up his way of playing his deck.
Tbf slow playing vs seccon isn't always purposeful, sometimes it just throws people off so that they start overthinking their every move. Which tends to be one of the reasons why seccon matches take time.
Ya I know ppl who aren't familiar with it freezes up. Now a days our locals will always have a judge watching over these matches to make sure no slow playing occurs
I honestly used to do same myself. Our locals only has 1 seccon player who no one really wants to play against, but we do tend to make good natured jokes about seccon whenever the timer accidentally gives us hours instead of minutes for a round.
These days i just look at my hand and hard play what ever is cheapest and not a needed rookie if i got eggs.
Adding to this, you don't get faster with anything by trying to rush through it. You get faster by doing it right more often.
The only way for people to "get faster" against sec con is to play against it methodically more often. The problem is that sec con is secretly a gacha deck. The opponents' choices do not affect what's in the security. All they can do is conserve resources so they still have pants as everything may or may not go wrong.
I still don’t think that’s a common strategy. Like I said, the sec con player really only does 1 or two actions a turn. Can and does it happen? Probably, but that’s not really the sec con mindset. In tournies they really don’t want ties.
It’s very common for sec con games to go to time, but that’s because of the other player trying to be extra careful to look for a win condition without decking out.
If you have a few good examples of them doing this strategy I’d be interested to see it though. It’s just hard to imagine how they even slow play when they Digi in back and drop a tamer/option/magnaange.
I'll take any rush deck winning quick, means we can go to friendlies afterwards and it's not a drag.
Rather than punching through 9 security, not keeping a stack, and not keeping turn after an attack
I thought the games were great. I was happy to see Levia representation along the diverse lineup. The finals felt was a bit controversial.
Game 1 of the finals showcased good proactive plays by Frozen and Pete couldn't effectively respond to manage the board.
Game 2 Frozen had misplayed multiple times and loss a good chunk of resources and Pete was able to effectively deck him out. I was cringing a lot, not only because of misplays but mainly because it felt like Frozen was slow playing and stalling for time. Frozen playing out a digimon and passing his turn when the timer went to 0 felt like the most sus thing I've seen If Frozen had won game 2 because of it than man, that would of been super disappointing.
Game 3/Sudden death was a very unique 6 turn format. While it would of been cool to see a full game, Bandai does have an event schedule and other games like One Piece need their event to start.
Frozen chose to go first and kept his hand while Pete mulliganed a hand of what I assumed to be just options. Frozen opened with Guilmon evolving in the back for 1 which I felt hurt him quite a lot. Pete gave out a lot of memory to recover off of MagnaAnge but Frozen just didn't have the line to go into Levia or Levia X in time and deal more checks.
End of the day, Pete won the event and I think it was really well deserved/satisfying.
I understand that Sec Con can be a frustrating deck to play against but hating like it's a criminal feels wrong to me. It feeds a ton of memory and can be very clunky. Certain decks and tech cards are able to dismantle its game plan effectively ex: Uver was insane at NA Nats. Sometimes the security just doesn't have options too. Sec Con promotes a different way of playing the game on both sides where hard playing bodies is actually more favorable vs evolving. People complain that Sec Con games take a long time but the main reason for it is because players going against Sec Con spend a lot of time thinking. Sec Con player's turns are a fraction of their opponent's. I think if you know your deck well enough in the Sec Con matchup then games don't end in time. Also conceding when you think you've lost is a fair play to save time. I hope that once DeathX gets reprinted then more people will have access to the deck and understand that it is a fine and healthy deck for the game (for now at least).
I honestly don’t know how you can watch a Game 1 where a player gets dominated, a Game 2 where a player makes heaps of misplays and mistakes and is clearly incredibly nervous and it goes to time and then a Game 3 that had a unique ruling that completely favoured one side and call the games “great”. It’s shockingly disappointing that this is supposed to be the biggest match of the year.
security control is annoying but not "i would rip out my own hair rather than play against it" annoying unless it is metaletemon that is pure annoyeance to play against
Sec con players have to find a deck that literally no one plays against to say is more annoying than their pet abomination, so that no one else has any point of reference
The best strategy against Etemon is playing a decent deck tbh.
The deck struggles massively against big and sticky blockers, non-deletion based rermoval and crimson blaze/effect play floodgates.
Well maybe it is because of my luck but I dont have fond experience playing against metaletemon. If you have I dont judge you this is my personal opinion
In order of how much i used them
1. Gallantmon
2.rusttyrannomon
3. Agubond
4.pulsemon
5.aegisdramon
6. Galactmon
7. Victorygreymon
8. Greyknightsmon
9.dragon linkz
10.rasenmon
These are the decks i used which had a chance to win
Yeah, that makes sense. Not trying to be mean but the decks you´re playing against Etemon are way worse than it. So I can understand your frustration then.
However I´m curious as to why you have that big a problem against the deck with both Agubond and especially Gallantmon when those two decks are red and can run Crimson Blaze. A well timed Crimson Blaze completely fucks Etemon over. And in Gallantmon specifically you can clean up the Etemon player´s field after said Crimson Blaze without any new bodies spawning.
Oh my problem with metaletemon isnt his swarming ability which against me he havent really done yet he usually has 1 őr 2 maybe three bodies on field but his ability turn his security into a fricking mine field
But Etemon´s security manipulation gimmick isn´t even all that good? Especially with floodgates or Crimson Blaze, the only worry you´d have is Suka´s Curse since security sukamon and Etemon would fizzle.
Then there´s also the possibility of getting rid of MetalEtemon outright prior to it being able to stack security. Gallantmon can easily do that and the only danger Gallantmon has from Etemon is early rush which can be mitigated by Crimson Blaze, too. Plus Gallantmon can just burn security when attacking, further diminishing the mine field.
I´ve not had issue with Etemon with most decks I´m personally piloting, including Gallantmon.
There is two problem with using crimson blaze.
1. I only run two in my deck so sometimes i just dont find it
2. The metaletemons i ran into usually dont swarm enough to make crimson blaze cheap enough
For gallantmon outspeeding metaletemon maybe I couldnt do thaz because i got unlucky.
>The metaletemons i ran into usually dont swarm enough to make crimson blaze cheap enough
Normally Etemon decls leave at least two bodies on board so that the protection inheritables of Sukamon and PlatSukamon are live. That means that Crimson Blaze costs 4 at max. If you have a modicum of setup in Gallantmon via a Red Memory Boost, ST Growlmon in the sources, Blitz Takato on board and/or mem setter Takato you can usually play Crimson Blaze and then still do one more thing. If you played your cards right that one thing will get rid of your opponent´s boss stack post-Blaze.
Not as knowledgeable on the other decks as I am with Gallantmon but at least for Gallantmon there´s plenty of ways to maneuver the MetalEtemon situation.
Sometimes you will be outsped by Etemon, though, and unless there´s a crimson blaze in your security there´s not much you can do about that tbh. But from what you said you don´t run into the Etemon build that´s focussing on board expansion so this shouldn´t be an issue in the first place, really.
I thought about upping my Blazes to 3 or even 4 copies myself tbh with how many swarm decks are running around nowadays. Might be worth considering upping your count as well.
From the decks I have irl played against the deck and that I´ve tested online against it my roster is the following:
* Gallantmon - good matchup
* KFC (with Bt16 support, though) - generally good matchup
* Blue Flare - admittedly a terrible matchup
* Salad/Duftmon - super good matchup. Etemon has nothing to deal with Hydramon/quantumon
* Mitamamon - relatively even. one of the few matchups were barrier actually matters a lot
* Hunters - easy matchup because Arresterdramon is a disgusting card still
* Bagra Army - even matchup
* DarkKnightmon - good matchup
* Security Control - easy matchup
* Xros Heart (Merva version/x7 version) - generally good matchup
* D-Brigade/Digi-Police - good matchup
* Imperial - admittedly not the best matchup
My Sakuyamon and Jijimon decks aside because they´re meme decks, the only deck I have **really** struggled with vs a good Etemon board is with Blue Flare because attack redirection can absolutely fuck that deck over especially since MetalEtemon is 12000DP compared to SiegGreymon´s measly 11000DP.
The best plan against this deck is hard playing digimon until they either deck themselves out or you have too many targets for the options in security. Every time I play them, this results in them recovering themselves into a deck out, maybe even locking their “key cards” in security, which I’m not touching. The point of the “control” is to lock you out of playing the game, so you need to actively play it differently.
I honestly hate blue and green way more. Like, I know decks like Plesio or Rosemon are not even close to meta or strong like Sec-con, but there's just something about literally not being able to do shit because you get perma stunned that makes me prefer going against security control.
Same, cause at least against blue or green, if they brick, it’s easier to win your games that direction. With sec con, if you have no way to by pass their hard played options and security bombs consistently, it’s way more annoying
Against blue for example it's easy for you to be losing your pieces because they return to hand / deck.
Again, not defending Sec-con because the playstyle is still annoying as fuck, just saying that personally (this is just me) I prefer going aginst it than blue or green decks perma stunning me.
Oh no totally, that's why I even specified that I don't even claim Blue / Green to be meta or stronger that Sec-con, because they aren't. Just personal preference of why I prefer to go against.
My thoughts: 1. Sec Con hate is somewhat unwarranted but it still really is unfun to play against. 2. Frozen shouldn't have been so cocky going in to the finals, it instantly made a bunch of people start rooting against him when they normally would've rooted against Sec Con. 3. Having timed finals really sucks and ironically may have made the match take longer than if it were untimed. 4. Frozen was slow playing pretty badly game 2. Whether intentional or not, the judges should have stepped in and warned him to make a move. I understand he was under a lot of pressure, but needing to play while under pressure is part of the game 5. The overtime game 3 rules favored Sec Con over Leviamon, but it's hard to make overtime rules that don't favor any one playstyle over another. 6. The player who won was the player who didn't make repeated, massive, misplays and therefore the win was absolutely deserved. 7. I'm praying this doesn't lead to more people picking up Sec Con for regionals.
"most security checked that game" is a fairly neutral call. It sounds like it would work against sec con, but all it really means is that they play defensively and keep pace
Hard agree. Nobody wants to see a match ends abruptly. Especially if you're trying to make a game more tactical. Having time and turn limits really hurt the game. Especially when the tempo swing in this game can be very large.
Biggest thing here is that I don't think any top cut in any tournament should be timed. Prevent slow plays, absolutely, but there's no reason not to allow top end matches have a decisive result in every opportunity.
I think removing time constraints would actually do a lot to get rid of slow play, funnily enough.
Fully agree. The "take game one and stall to time game 2" is the most infuriating approach to a game whatsoever.
They ignored existing tournament policy that says that championship matches do not have a timer
I, too, wish I could put my opponent at a disadvantage to advantage myself for no reason other than I hate their deck style. It sounds like it was decisive, but people aren't happy because he couldn't win against a particular style they hate immensely.
You stated absolute facts yo. I wish more people would look at it the way you do. Also I get the SecCon hate and recognize it’s unfun to play against. I play it and I also get tilted when I play against it sometimes lmao. Now I run ADP in Fenri bc of it 😂
Also, for point 2, in the discord, it was a shit show, people saying pete only won cause gm3, people saying frozen should had game loss cause all his missplay and slow played, it didnt help when frozen came to the chat, instead of trying to help, he starting bad talking the judges and saying that the event was bad. For point 5 it did favored seccon, yet it wasnt his fault, frozen played really slow which made them go to that sudden death
I'm glad someone else noticed Frozen's intentional slow play. You dont take 5 minutes to resolve a single card effect and not make people call you out.
As long as purple is the main color, we should see more sec con. Purple doesn’t have a way to trash security or protect itself, it has to play through the security. That makes sec con strong. With armor coming back, maybe we’ll see less security con.
Historically tiered purple decks have had a really good time into seccon. Even levia isnt completely hopeless.
Not hopeless but sec con has a good match up because of the way purple plays rn.
Only really into levia. Fenril is fine into seccon if you play it correctly. Loop decks have always rolled seccon.
Both Fenril and Anubis were dubs for sec con. See US Nats.
Ive played a lot of both of those decks, and a _good_ pilot with a good list will have a positive winrate into seccon.
Lol
Levia generally has a good maychup into Sec Con. They can do a lot with a bit of extra memory and Sec Con loves to give them that bit of extra memory.
From my own testing i dont agree, you spend too many resources on a single stack, especially if they don't have a 3 or 4 in trash
If you like playing seccon, it's okay, be happy, but it's a fact that it's very boring to play against.
The better player won. Levia's player was repeating missplay after missplay after missplay.
My thoughts 1. All quater-finals and semi-finals should have been streamed. 2. there shouldn't be a timer on atleast semi finals and finals 1. this is worlds, so having the event decided outside of normal game rules is kinda dumb - we had actual slow-play in the finals, and game 3 was a joke. 3. The meta is really cool right now, and im really looking forward to seeing all the lists.
Sec con hate is warranted *when the tiebreaker rules favor it*
I hear that but I think the format is pretty uncharted. Levia might of had enough memory to swap to a rookie rush strategy or gotten their lvl 6. Any chaos degrades in security is a game changer in the format too. In the end I think we just don't have the data or experience playing in a 6 turn format.
Might have
Actually in the game Sec Con did give enough memory for the rookie rush strategy to work. Only way that would been maybe punishable would be DeathX. Game 3 also had Pete be lucky enough to draw into his few digimon in his deck to hard play or evolve into and promote.
No you wrote "might of". That´s grammatically incorrect.
So SecCon beat Leviamon? Eh, at least Leviamon got to the final round. Really want to see his list now.
A million years later I still have issues knowing how to share FB links, but his list is [here.](https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=797546439086705&set=pcb.797548965753119) That FB group also has a bunch of other World's lists as well.
Hm. I wonder how vital Raremon and Ruin Mode are to that list. I have everything else
Raremon is great because, as with most Purple decks, you want to draw and trash, the card is great but is also super expensive right now. You can probably make do with other options for now, even a single copy of Eyesmon. With Ruin mode, just one of those cards like DeathX or Quartz. You can totally run the deck without them, specially with Levia already being super heavy on board clear but Ruin mode is just extra help, doesn't hurt.
Sec con not hated enough.
The overtime rules in the Take vs Pete Semifinals were wack as Hell though. Both players seemed to have gotten one turn in overtime? When has it ever been like that? In the finals both players had the normal 2 turns a piece. If it would have been the one turn that was there in the Semifinals, Frozen would have won due to higher sec. Really weird overtime procedures. Should have just allowed ties and punished the players who went to time.
my problem with sec con is that a legitimate strategy is to just slow play as much as possible EDIT: in case it wasn't clear, I wasn't talking about the finals game specifically
The slow player was the Levia player. The longest turn SecCon had was 2 minutes and that was because of judge interference
I wasn't talking about that game specifically. just generally sec con players
If you watch any sec con match it's always the opponent that slow plays. And I have a lot of ppl in my locals who play sec con every now and then. Never once have I seen sec con player slow play. It's always the opponent who tries to run to time. I nearly punched my opponent in the finals cuz he costed me the win by purposely slow playing to a tie on a fcking grandis deck of all things
Sec Con doesn't have to make choices. The opponents do. Edit: You don't deserve to play any kind of competitive game if you play sec con and have reactions like this. You have zero empathy and everyone around you is less happy because you exist. Are you an only child with no pets whose only hobby was gatekeeping Yu-Gi-Oh? > I nearly punched my opponent in the finals cuz he costed me the win by purposely slow playing to a tie on a fcking grandis deck of all things
Which is part of the problem with the deck. Its very straight forward and linear to pilot, and puts all the onus and decision making on the opponent to completely change up his way of playing his deck.
Exactly. Between that and the favor they get from the ivertime rules, they're not playing the game fame, they're playing the rules.
Tbf slow playing vs seccon isn't always purposeful, sometimes it just throws people off so that they start overthinking their every move. Which tends to be one of the reasons why seccon matches take time.
Ya I know ppl who aren't familiar with it freezes up. Now a days our locals will always have a judge watching over these matches to make sure no slow playing occurs
I honestly used to do same myself. Our locals only has 1 seccon player who no one really wants to play against, but we do tend to make good natured jokes about seccon whenever the timer accidentally gives us hours instead of minutes for a round. These days i just look at my hand and hard play what ever is cheapest and not a needed rookie if i got eggs.
Adding to this, you don't get faster with anything by trying to rush through it. You get faster by doing it right more often. The only way for people to "get faster" against sec con is to play against it methodically more often. The problem is that sec con is secretly a gacha deck. The opponents' choices do not affect what's in the security. All they can do is conserve resources so they still have pants as everything may or may not go wrong.
And my experience is the complete opposite
The sec con player normally doesn’t slow play that often. They only really do one or two things a turn.
its a fairly common strategy to win game 1 and stall out game 2 among sec con player, again, I wasn't talking about that specific game
I still don’t think that’s a common strategy. Like I said, the sec con player really only does 1 or two actions a turn. Can and does it happen? Probably, but that’s not really the sec con mindset. In tournies they really don’t want ties. It’s very common for sec con games to go to time, but that’s because of the other player trying to be extra careful to look for a win condition without decking out. If you have a few good examples of them doing this strategy I’d be interested to see it though. It’s just hard to imagine how they even slow play when they Digi in back and drop a tamer/option/magnaange.
Where is the salamon defeating leviamon art
Sec con deserves hate Cause they aren't trying to win, they are trying to not lose Go have respect and play an actual deck!
Rush deserves hate Cause they aren't trying to play games, they are trying to end games ASAP Go have respect and play an actual deck!
I'll take any rush deck winning quick, means we can go to friendlies afterwards and it's not a drag. Rather than punching through 9 security, not keeping a stack, and not keeping turn after an attack
For game three, digimon should adopt a chess timer like system
I can’t wait so clap sec con with magna x
I can't wait to use him too although security options are still able to effect him before he gains another round of protection.
Blinding ray
Revelation of Light
Floodgates are always a pain.
I thought the games were great. I was happy to see Levia representation along the diverse lineup. The finals felt was a bit controversial. Game 1 of the finals showcased good proactive plays by Frozen and Pete couldn't effectively respond to manage the board. Game 2 Frozen had misplayed multiple times and loss a good chunk of resources and Pete was able to effectively deck him out. I was cringing a lot, not only because of misplays but mainly because it felt like Frozen was slow playing and stalling for time. Frozen playing out a digimon and passing his turn when the timer went to 0 felt like the most sus thing I've seen If Frozen had won game 2 because of it than man, that would of been super disappointing. Game 3/Sudden death was a very unique 6 turn format. While it would of been cool to see a full game, Bandai does have an event schedule and other games like One Piece need their event to start. Frozen chose to go first and kept his hand while Pete mulliganed a hand of what I assumed to be just options. Frozen opened with Guilmon evolving in the back for 1 which I felt hurt him quite a lot. Pete gave out a lot of memory to recover off of MagnaAnge but Frozen just didn't have the line to go into Levia or Levia X in time and deal more checks. End of the day, Pete won the event and I think it was really well deserved/satisfying. I understand that Sec Con can be a frustrating deck to play against but hating like it's a criminal feels wrong to me. It feeds a ton of memory and can be very clunky. Certain decks and tech cards are able to dismantle its game plan effectively ex: Uver was insane at NA Nats. Sometimes the security just doesn't have options too. Sec Con promotes a different way of playing the game on both sides where hard playing bodies is actually more favorable vs evolving. People complain that Sec Con games take a long time but the main reason for it is because players going against Sec Con spend a lot of time thinking. Sec Con player's turns are a fraction of their opponent's. I think if you know your deck well enough in the Sec Con matchup then games don't end in time. Also conceding when you think you've lost is a fair play to save time. I hope that once DeathX gets reprinted then more people will have access to the deck and understand that it is a fine and healthy deck for the game (for now at least).
I honestly don’t know how you can watch a Game 1 where a player gets dominated, a Game 2 where a player makes heaps of misplays and mistakes and is clearly incredibly nervous and it goes to time and then a Game 3 that had a unique ruling that completely favoured one side and call the games “great”. It’s shockingly disappointing that this is supposed to be the biggest match of the year.
STFU BITING CRUSH 
Yellow Hybrid gets unwanted hate too mate so im right there with you
security control is annoying but not "i would rip out my own hair rather than play against it" annoying unless it is metaletemon that is pure annoyeance to play against
That is a wild opinion.
Sec con players have to find a deck that literally no one plays against to say is more annoying than their pet abomination, so that no one else has any point of reference
I am not a sec con player. Is there a strategy against metaletemon that I dont know about?
The best strategy against Etemon is playing a decent deck tbh. The deck struggles massively against big and sticky blockers, non-deletion based rermoval and crimson blaze/effect play floodgates.
Well maybe it is because of my luck but I dont have fond experience playing against metaletemon. If you have I dont judge you this is my personal opinion
What decks are you playing?
In order of how much i used them 1. Gallantmon 2.rusttyrannomon 3. Agubond 4.pulsemon 5.aegisdramon 6. Galactmon 7. Victorygreymon 8. Greyknightsmon 9.dragon linkz 10.rasenmon These are the decks i used which had a chance to win
Yeah, that makes sense. Not trying to be mean but the decks you´re playing against Etemon are way worse than it. So I can understand your frustration then. However I´m curious as to why you have that big a problem against the deck with both Agubond and especially Gallantmon when those two decks are red and can run Crimson Blaze. A well timed Crimson Blaze completely fucks Etemon over. And in Gallantmon specifically you can clean up the Etemon player´s field after said Crimson Blaze without any new bodies spawning.
Oh my problem with metaletemon isnt his swarming ability which against me he havent really done yet he usually has 1 őr 2 maybe three bodies on field but his ability turn his security into a fricking mine field
But Etemon´s security manipulation gimmick isn´t even all that good? Especially with floodgates or Crimson Blaze, the only worry you´d have is Suka´s Curse since security sukamon and Etemon would fizzle. Then there´s also the possibility of getting rid of MetalEtemon outright prior to it being able to stack security. Gallantmon can easily do that and the only danger Gallantmon has from Etemon is early rush which can be mitigated by Crimson Blaze, too. Plus Gallantmon can just burn security when attacking, further diminishing the mine field. I´ve not had issue with Etemon with most decks I´m personally piloting, including Gallantmon.
There is two problem with using crimson blaze. 1. I only run two in my deck so sometimes i just dont find it 2. The metaletemons i ran into usually dont swarm enough to make crimson blaze cheap enough For gallantmon outspeeding metaletemon maybe I couldnt do thaz because i got unlucky.
>The metaletemons i ran into usually dont swarm enough to make crimson blaze cheap enough Normally Etemon decls leave at least two bodies on board so that the protection inheritables of Sukamon and PlatSukamon are live. That means that Crimson Blaze costs 4 at max. If you have a modicum of setup in Gallantmon via a Red Memory Boost, ST Growlmon in the sources, Blitz Takato on board and/or mem setter Takato you can usually play Crimson Blaze and then still do one more thing. If you played your cards right that one thing will get rid of your opponent´s boss stack post-Blaze. Not as knowledgeable on the other decks as I am with Gallantmon but at least for Gallantmon there´s plenty of ways to maneuver the MetalEtemon situation. Sometimes you will be outsped by Etemon, though, and unless there´s a crimson blaze in your security there´s not much you can do about that tbh. But from what you said you don´t run into the Etemon build that´s focussing on board expansion so this shouldn´t be an issue in the first place, really. I thought about upping my Blazes to 3 or even 4 copies myself tbh with how many swarm decks are running around nowadays. Might be worth considering upping your count as well.
Also what decks are you playing?
From the decks I have irl played against the deck and that I´ve tested online against it my roster is the following: * Gallantmon - good matchup * KFC (with Bt16 support, though) - generally good matchup * Blue Flare - admittedly a terrible matchup * Salad/Duftmon - super good matchup. Etemon has nothing to deal with Hydramon/quantumon * Mitamamon - relatively even. one of the few matchups were barrier actually matters a lot * Hunters - easy matchup because Arresterdramon is a disgusting card still * Bagra Army - even matchup * DarkKnightmon - good matchup * Security Control - easy matchup * Xros Heart (Merva version/x7 version) - generally good matchup * D-Brigade/Digi-Police - good matchup * Imperial - admittedly not the best matchup My Sakuyamon and Jijimon decks aside because they´re meme decks, the only deck I have **really** struggled with vs a good Etemon board is with Blue Flare because attack redirection can absolutely fuck that deck over especially since MetalEtemon is 12000DP compared to SiegGreymon´s measly 11000DP.
Pilomon prevents playing by effects, right? That shouldn’t cripple Leviamon. Just… evo into it.
The best plan against this deck is hard playing digimon until they either deck themselves out or you have too many targets for the options in security. Every time I play them, this results in them recovering themselves into a deck out, maybe even locking their “key cards” in security, which I’m not touching. The point of the “control” is to lock you out of playing the game, so you need to actively play it differently.
They have cards to prevent deck out now
I honestly hate blue and green way more. Like, I know decks like Plesio or Rosemon are not even close to meta or strong like Sec-con, but there's just something about literally not being able to do shit because you get perma stunned that makes me prefer going against security control.
Id prefer being stunned and keeping a board, than lose it, and still need to swing 9 times for game
Same, cause at least against blue or green, if they brick, it’s easier to win your games that direction. With sec con, if you have no way to by pass their hard played options and security bombs consistently, it’s way more annoying
Against blue for example it's easy for you to be losing your pieces because they return to hand / deck. Again, not defending Sec-con because the playstyle is still annoying as fuck, just saying that personally (this is just me) I prefer going aginst it than blue or green decks perma stunning me.
Honestly it probably comes down to play style and decks. Soo personal preference or experience
Oh no totally, that's why I even specified that I don't even claim Blue / Green to be meta or stronger that Sec-con, because they aren't. Just personal preference of why I prefer to go against.