Thoughts on running rainbow triggers in a deck?

I've been wondering for quite a while on whether to run a 7 crit 5 draw or to run rainbow triggers as when i used them, the rainbow triggers helped set up more interesting plays. thoughts?

Not really an option unless there is literally nothing else. The Triggers need to be specialized to stop the deck tripping over itself. Interesting doesn't mean squat if Rainbow doesn't fit with the strategy.

Draws don't belong in a deck unless
1. There's nothing else
2. The deck is completely unable to generate any advantage by its own merits (either by mass pressure with Stern or draw power with OTT) and needs to dedicate some of it to picking up the slack.

Stands are for when you have oodles of on-hit skills or lots of strong RGs and you want to take advantage of mass 10k forcing. Otherwise Criticals are just better.

Criticals are usually to fill up space where Heals (and if you run any, Draws) would go.

First of all, it depends on the clan you are building, some clans like Aqua Force, and Nova Grapplers can make use of them since they are built around it. However most clans benefit more off of crit, since crits promote blocking of the vanguard which can force your opponent to use more guard since they will fear an unknown trigger and can also end the game quickly to give an edge before the opponent can fully set up sometimes.

Lich_Lord_Fortissimo wrote:

Not really an option unless there is literally nothing else. The Triggers need to be specialized to stop the deck tripping over itself. Interesting doesn't mean squat if Rainbow doesn't fit with the strategy.

Draws don't belong in a deck unless
1. There's nothing else
2. The deck is completely unable to generate any advantage by its own merits (either by mass pressure with Stern or draw power with OTT) and needs to dedicate some of it to picking up the slack.

Stands are for when you have oodles of on-hit skills or lots of strong RGs and you want to take advantage of mass 10k forcing. Otherwise Criticals are just better.

Criticals are usually to fill up space where Heals (and if you run any, Draws) would go.

so would rainbow triggers fit kagero as it's the clan i'm using rainbow triggers with. also i feel that kagero has enough strong RGs to handle stands

Depends on the build. I can safely say however that not a single one of Alice's Kagero builds run rainbow.

well, i'm using Hamburger-Time lol which is pretty looked down upon due to how broken the mechanics are >.<

Hamburger time?

junri wrote:

Hamburger time?

When you type c.r.o.s.s.r.i.d.e it appears as Hamburger-Time.

Kirosnefakman wrote:

junri wrote:

Hamburger time?

When you type c.r.o.s.s.r.i.d.e it appears as Hamburger-Time.

Oh, lol.

I've never seen a single build of a single clan that benefited actively from having Rainbow triggers, much less was it the optimal case. I'm actually not even sure what it would take for that to be optimal.

raindow triggers.....i like the title skittle triggers better lol. but i like consistency in my trigger line up. skittle triggers decrease your chances of getting the kill.

4 crit
4 stand
4 heal
4 draw

makes it a 25% chance of hitting triggers you do need and a 75% chance of hitting triggers you do need. where if you do something like this

8 crit
4 draw
4 heal

makes it a better chance of hitting the desired triggers you need for said deck options.

Wrong. It makes 25% of your triggers something you need at a given moment. Cumulative probability actually makes it something closer to 32%.

math.....sometimes i hate math :(

Math...Math never changes.

[quote="Alice"Cumulative probability[/quote]

that's the math i can't do to save my life. i get close but close only counts in horse shoes

phoenix_yamato wrote:

that's the math i can't do to save my life. i get close but close only counts in horse shoes

Hey! They almost counts for hand grenades too

Aside from the Nova Grappler and Aqua Force strategies that require them, running Stand triggers is not optimal when there is the possibility of facing Hamburger-Time decks, because no RG other than Palamedes can hit for 2 stages against a 13k vanguard after a Stand (unless powered up by other cards).

Obviously meant "attack for 2 stages" instead of "hit", but apparently I can't edit my posts.

yeah, no edits in the newbie forum.

while I agree that your point about the power limitations of stood rearguards, I don't see it as THAT much of a deterrent.

yeah, you only hit 1 stage if you apply both effects of the trigger to a rearguard, but you've also already attacked for 2 stages with that rearguard. another attack, even a smaller one, forces your opponent to minus more or take a hit. everything adds up, in my opinion.

that said, there's also the relative benefits of having crit bonuses to pass around. a rearguard with an extra crit and swinging for 3 stages (assuming 18K+both trigger effects) is scarier and MUST be blocked in certain situations. two 1crit attacks at 3 stages might involve sloppier blocking, if your opponent is obliged to block both of them at all, but your opponent also has the option to let one of them through if need be.

this is really obvious stuff, probably, but I feel as though both stands and crits have their relative benefits and weaknesses, and that each individual player should decide how those fit into their strategy and fully commit to making it work for them as much as possible. in that sense, I probably would suggest against running rainbow triggers because it would mean that your deck isn't particularly specialized in creating one form of pressure over another.

Here’s why you shouldn’t use stands if you can’t attack for 2 stages with the standed RG.

If you have two stage 2 RG columns (A and B) and you are using stands, then either of them will attack before the vanguard (let´s assume A). After that attack, you attack with your Vanguard and let us consider 4 scenarios:

1- Your opponent guards the Vanguard for 2 stages (or perfect guard) and you check a Critical.
In that case you give RG column B the crit and boost and you have a column attacking for 3 stages and 2 crit.

2- Your opponent doesn’t guard the Vanguard and you check a Critical.
In that case you give RG column B the boost and you have a column attacking for 3 stages, besides 1 bonus damage.

3- Your opponent guards the Vanguard for 2 stages (or perfect guard) and you check a Stand.
In that case you give RG column A the stand and boost and you have column B attacking for 2 stages and column A attacking for 1 stage.

4- Your opponent doesn’t guard the Vanguard and you check a Stand.
In that case you give RG column A the stand and boost and you have column B attacking for 2 stages and column A attacking for 1 stage.

If the opponent is willing to take 2 damage from the RG attacks or if he can’t take any damage, then scenarios 1 and 3 are the same, but if the opponent can only take 1 damage, in scenario 1 he’s forced to use 15k shields, and in scenario 3 only 5k, so scenario 1 (crit) is much better.

In scenario 2 your opponent has 1 guaranteed extra damage and must spend 15k shield to prevent the 2nd point of damage. In scenario 4 has a potential point of damage that can be denied by just 5k shield, and if he spends a total of 15k shield he prevents both points of damage. So scenario 2 (crit) is much better.

To be fair, there is 1 situation where your RG can only hit for 1 stage after Stand and it's still better than a Crit. All six of these conditions must be met simultaneously:

- Your opponent is at exactly 5 damage
AND
- Your opponent guarded your Vanguard attack for 2 stages or perfect guard
AND
- Your opponent has less than 15k in shields / intercepts
AND
- Your opponent has a perfect guard in hand for your second/third RG attack
AND
- Your opponent did not damage check a trigger earlier in your first attack this turn
AND
- The top card of your opponent's deck is not a heal

AegisCrow wrote:

yeah, you only hit 1 stage if you apply both effects of the trigger to a rearguard, but you've also already attacked for 2 stages with that rearguard. another attack, even a smaller one, forces your opponent to minus more or take a hit. everything adds up, in my opinion.

Since you didn't explicitly and clearly state the counter to this flawed statement, I'll rephrase for others. Attack 2 stages, then 1 stage because stand OR Attack 3 stages because Crit. Same? That's wrong because the Critical extra means that failing to guard the whole thing is pain. Otherwise they can pick and choose what they want to guard.

Also because a crit does this all at once, it gives no chance for them to shut out the 1-stage pussy stand attack by damaging a trigger.

(trying to respond to all of the responses at once)

my post ended with the opinion that one should focus either on stands, or on crits. to be fair, focusing on standing mechanics would create a different attack lineup altogether.

the opponent damaging out a trigger and suddenly becoming out of reach for a stood rearguard is a fair point. you can still swing at a rearguard, though.

even though stand triggers give the opponent the option to let one of the attacks through, if need be, you're still dealing damage. creating a high number of attacks will still create pressure for your opponent to block, because they can still lose when they hit 6 damage. The issue, in my opinion, is to create as many attacks as possible, ideally with as many stages of power as possible. rainbow trigger lineups don't commit fully to creating as many quality attacks as possible.

my opinion:
decks should either focus on critical triggers to apply as much pressure to block as possible, or focus on standing mechanics to create so many attacks that your opponent HAS to try to block most of them and eventually loses the ability block any of them. rainbow triggers doesn't focus on either of them, and therefore excels at neither of them.