Felt like it: I'm back, guys!///The Theory behind Plusses

Hey guys, how have you been? It's been a long time, hasn't it? Yeah, yeah, I know, I said I had no interest in the current meta, but I'm not taking back my word, I still have no interest in it. So, why am I writing? Well,  I felt like it. What's more, the Banlist is a Ray of Hope for me, it'll hopefully crush or enormously hurt ED and SB, "hopefully"... Let's just hope it is like that.
Then, then, what's moving and exciting me right now? If, let's say, ED and SB get injured so hard that they can't be played anymore, what will be left? Everything! As of now the meta is:
Tier 1: ED and SB;
Tier 2: Everything else aside 4funs.
You do realize that if the Tier 1 gets crushed, we'll have a various meta, at least for the first part of the september-march period?
If you follow the upcoming sets, you probably noticed that all (most) of the new cards form decks that aim to control. This simply means that the next meta will probably see lots of old decks reborned through the beautiful art of Heavy-Trap decks, a couple of fast decks, and brand-new decks whom, as said, aim to control, leading to a slow format.
Ahhh, this brings back memories, in a meta where if I couldn't play a deck because the idea behind it wasn't consistent enough, I could simply add those 11-12 traps and be happy.

Well, let's get to the point of the post: after having explained why I'm slowly getting back at the game, here's some little theory-oh.

Card Advantage Theory
Most of you, if not all, have used or read/heard this thing at least once and, most probably, you know what it means: the Card Advantage Theory (CAT, from now on) says that in this game, msot of the time, the player who's winning is the one with most cards on the field and viceversa. "Why's that?" you may (or may not, I don't care, lol) ask. It is as simple as that: the player with most cards is more likely the one who has more possible counters to the opponent's moves. If I have 10 cards and my opponent 8, we could balance it out saying that 8 of my card nullifies my opponent ones, and I'm in +2. This supports CAT, indeed. This means that the CAT takes into consideration your opponent's plusses and minuses, inverting them. For Example, if you both have no cards in hand and you have a One Day of Peace set and you activate it, you lose one card (-1), you draw one (+1), your opponent draws one (-1)=-1. So, yes, One Day of Peace is a -1.

CAT applied to cards
Even cards follow CAT's rules, let's use the very example of +1: Thunder Dragon
You have one card in your hand, Thunder Dragon, activating it, you lost 1 card, but you added other two. 2-1=1. Congrats, you just went +1.
But, let's talk about a +0 (well, mathematically speaking, 0 doesn't have a symbol before it, but usually you'll see it with either a + or a -, so let's keep it): Upstart Goblin.
Activating it, you lost one card, but drew one. 1-1=0.
This was a +0, nothing to be really proud of, but nothing bad, either.
Let's talk, then, of the infamous -1s: Spellbook of Power.
Activating it you lost 1 card, and just gave 1000 ATK to a monster, without other income. 0-1=-1. Damn, you went negative, that's no good, is it?

Exceptions and whatnots
What we saw in the last paragraph, mathematically speaking, is that Thunder Dragon is good, Upstart is meh, Foolish is bad, but is that right? Well, not. You mustn't forget that there are variables and that sometime card quality is what matters. Unless you have something that needs discard fodder, are you really having some use for those Thunder Dragons? I believe not, that's why Thunder Dragon is under-used, seeing use only in FTKs or similar thingies, because it thins the deck, lets you go +1 and provides discard fodder for Dark World Dealing.
What about Upstart? If what you did didn't provide you any advantage but just made the opponent gain 1000 LPs, what was its use? Again, deck thinning. Playing Upstarts basically lets you go under the 40 card limit. Playing 3 in a 40 card deck will make it like you're using 37 cards, which improves your deck. Let's just say you can bypass the 3-card limit, how would a deck made up of 35 Upstarts and 5 pieces of exodia be? Simply unarrestable, whoever goes first without the opponent reacting with a droll and lock bird wins.
And then, what about Spellbook of Power? It's an inconfutable -1, so it's bad, right? Damn no. This is one of the whatnots I was talking about, it has a "side effect". When it destroys a monster in battle, you get a Spellbook spell from your deck. This means that you lose the card you activate (-1), search one (+1) and destroy an opponent's monster (+1). All in all, it becomes a +1. You happy now, SB player?

Applications
Why is this rule so important in YGO? As said before, the player who has more cards is most likely the one winning, but why does it matter if there are cards that are -1, -2, -3 or +1, +2, +3? First of all, let's just say that we're speaking of an at least semi-competitive game-scene, where no one plays plain -1s aside from Foolish Burial, SB of Power and similar (because, in the end, they aren't really -1s or have a real purpose). Considering that you start with 6 cards, you shouldn't waste them, but use them to produce more cards. What an ED player does is a combo on first turn that usually takes him to about +6 (+6 from the original number, resulting in about 12 cards). Do you realize why EDs are so strong right now?
What about SBs, why are they so strong? That's because they have +1s of about +3/4 but that they do repeteatedly, plus eventual stuff from Power and such.
This means that Card Advantage can easily vary. If you keep on using 1 for 1 (you lose one card in exchange for another from the opponent, like MST) you'll eventually lose because the opponent will plus if you don't have a consistent plus engine. What's behind Antimeta is exactly that, it doesn't use simple 1 for 1, but uses cards (even though they are mostly one for ones in the end) that won't let the opponent plus. The example I use the most is "Veiler that Stratos". Of course locking their pluses isn't that helpful if you don't have a way to plus yourself, but what if the way to plus yourself is minusing the opponent? That is a legit way of plusing, I said before, an opponent's -1 is a +1 for you. Let's say, then, that you are playing a control deck, you have a 1200 ATK Dyna and a Garden on the field. You'll instantaneously notice that the opponent isn't able to SS big monsters while it is needed to have an AT LEAST 2400 ATK monster to ram into Dyna, as of now. You don't leave him ways to ATK you and to damage you (you're locking Garden's summons with Dyna) and when you summon you don't plus him. Given that you have a big monster, you're free to set your monsters and then flip them if you want them at full force.
Doing so, you'll either keep the opponent at your same number but with less useful cards or you'll be minusing him always.

Decks
The kind of decks that work with this mindset are mainly Control, Stun and Antimeta, Stun being the one who uses is the best. I named Chaos Stun a couple of times, my favourite Stun deck ever I'm renewing. Either in the next or the one after the next post I'll write about it and the renewed list I'm working on.
Control has the option I named up there of Garden+Pachy, for example, while Antimeta lives off that, with Pachy on the field and several backrows.


Well, well, liked getting back at writing a lil bit, hope I can fully return blogging.
Stay Tuned.