Recently, upon release of The Shining Darkness (TSHD), I began to grow depressed at the thought that Yu-Gi-Oh!’s delicate balance was completely upended by the new X-Saber and Infernity archetypes. Nearly every duelist I spoke to agreed that these two new archetypes were extremely powerful and would form the next top tier. However, the YCS brought an unexpected winner to the forefront.

Now, I constantly see mocking posts in forums and on Facebook about how Gadgets(!) ended up winning the inaugural Yu-Gi-Oh! Championship Series event. Everyone “crying” at the gross overpowered nature of the new top tier (Infernities and X-Sabers) had to be wrong, right?

Unfortunately, public perception has been skewed. First of all, let’s clear up the facts. Then, let’s introduce a juicy truth that many of you are unaware of. It is undisputed that the final four of YCS Chantilly consisted of one Infernity deck, two X-Sabers, and one Gadget strategy (piloted by a well known cheater who was disqualified without prize at a previous event for lying to a judge and having marked sleeves).

What many of you don’t know is that the eventual winner actually faced off with Lazaro Bellido in the top eight match. Lazaro, playing Infernities, had control of the game with a Stardust Dragon and defense position Infernity Necromancer (presumably able to special summon either a Beetle or Archfiend the next turn) against his opponent’s topdeck. Peter Cheng then drew a Machina Force (the only card left in his deck to reverse the situation while topdecking) to special summon a Fortress. *Note: I am unclear whether Cheng had live Machina Gearframes left in the deck as well. Regardless, it was 1-3 possible cards total.* <!–more–>

If Lazaro had won, the final four would have consisted of two Infernity builds and two X-Saber builds, as predicted. Order would have likely been instated and Konami would have adjusted the list properly. The two strategies are simply the best of the format and far, far more powerful than standard tier 1 archetypes (although new threats have appeared).

The point isn’t to bemoan one duelist’s unfortunate luck. The point is to stress how one lucky draw can change Konami’s entire perception of a format. The duelists who bleat “look Gadgets won!” while ignoring the extenuating circumstances (a known cheater who played unfairly through swiss [eyewitness accounts confirm this] and then got extremely lucky in the championship rounds) are actually doing an incredible disservice to the game. Konami of USA tends to base its analysis of the format on the representation of different strategies at premier events and regionals.

Naturally, if a Gadget player wins the entire event, the sheer hegemony of InferSabers can be challenged. More players will grow convinced that the two strategies are actually balanced (when most Infernity duels are ending in less than three turns).

Time will tell if Peter Cheng’s devastating performance at YCS Chantilly will affect the future ban list and lead Konami to pull punches in curbing the two dominant archetypes.