CROSS-RIDE

The aim of the Crossride movement is to ultimately appeal to Bushiroad and humbly request that Crossride cards from BT05 Awakening of the Twin Blades be reconsidered for the English release. In doing so, our secondary aim is, therefore, to appeal to the Cardfight Vanguard player base as a whole, and ask them to follow suit.

Prerequisite Reading
Required reading for all who post in here. Don't waste your time and ours by doing any of these.

First Thesis
Crossride cards violate the fundamental core mechanics of the game's Power balancing system, causing an inherent imbalance for all other decks.

Super Premise: Vanguard's Power mechanics are strongly suited to the adherence of a 10,000 and 11,000 power defense. Henceforth known as "11k core"


    Premise 1: If a defense power is greater than 11k core, then it has violated the core mechanics
    Premise 2: Crossrides have a defense power greater than 11k core
    Conclusion: Crossride mechanics violate the innate core mechanics. (Modus Ponens)

We can see that, given the assumption that the Super Premise is true, the following two premises and conclusion must also be true by the Law of Detachment. To show that the Super Premise is true, evidence should be presented, as that Premise is yet unfounded.

Evidence for the "11k core" Super Premise:


    BT01 was released with Grade 3 units that have defenses of 9000, 10000, and 11000
    The maximum defensible unit has been 11000 through the sets BT02, BT03, and BT04
    Barring very heavy cost units, even during BT06 and BT07, no non-crossride unit is defensible above 11000 naturally
    This game is structured to be guarded in 5k stage intervals
    During battle, one must strive for the maximum amount of stages to attack with possible, without losing advantage
    The logical configurations for Grade 3 defenses are scaling a field to 14k, 15k, and 16k to hit those maximums
    Because 11k defenders exist, there exists a Prisoner's Dilemma that causes 16k to be the norm
    The Nash Equilibrium from this Prisoner's Dilemma necessitates that the best response of both players is to not deviate unilaterally from the 16k vs 11k strategy
    The number of possible booster and attacker combinations most favors the concluded Nash Equilibrium 11k core. There are significantly less that favor 18k or greater columns (Citation: Set lists)

By Abductive Reasoning, the Super Premise sufficiently follows from the evidence. By Deductive Reasoning the premises and conclusion necessarily follow from the Super Premise.





Second Thesis
There are exceptions that arise to the First Thesis but they are not strong exceptions and only high costs allow for non-violation exceptions to the first thesis; Crossrides do not meet the high cost requirements to be considered an exception.


Super Premise: Highly costed cards or cards with low probability may circumvent the violation of "11k core"


    Premise 1a: If established cost for 13k defense is greater than 0, cards that have less are uncosted
    Premise 2a: Crossrides have a cost of 0
    Conclusion A: Crossrides do not have a cost ( 0 < X, where X > 0; Modus Ponens)



    Premise 1b: If low probability is agreed to be 50% or less, anything greater is not "low probability"
    Premise 2b: Crossrides have 68% probability of occurring
    Conclusion B: Crossrides do not have a low probability (68% > 50%; Modus Ponens)

Take Conclusion A and Conclusion B, and formulate the Super Premise: Crossrides are neither high costed nor low probability; therefore they do not create an exception and do violate the 11k core. The premises 1a and 1b are unsubstantiated, thus far. Let's substantiate them.
Reasoning for Premises 1a and 1b:


    1a: As of BT06, there is an established cost for this mechanic.The Megablast (Counterblast 5; Soulblast 8) of Knight of Fury Agravain allows him to get anywhere from 11k to 15k as possible defenses. Since he also includes a Critical 1 and a full 2k above crossride defenses, it can be reasonably said that Megablast is not the cost for 13k defense
    Whatever the cost is, it must not be 0
    Agravain's Megablast also requires him to be used on the very last turn of Late Game, and also forgo any other moderately usable gambit for the entirety of the game.
    1b: It should be established, some level of agreement between opponents and proponents that if Crossrides do not (or should not) have a cost, that they also must be low in probability.
    Reducing the probability of an outcome also reduces its expected payoff. Taking the probability of the incident occurring, and multiplying it by the net payoff, gives the expected payoff (that is, what you expect to happen on average). A 2k defender * 0.68 = 1360 power. This "rounds up" because Vanguard is gaurded in stages, and would count as another stage that must be hit. So it would remain at 2k regardless of 68%
    The evidence for 68% comes from the probability that you are able to draw, mulligan, and wait for the Turn 3 natural ride of the previous "form" of the Crossride.
    The proposed probability of less than 50% comes from the calculation of expected payoff. The expected payoff of 50% with no cost is 1k. It's still unilaterally better than using an 11k vanguard, but as the proponent of the argument, I choose not to push the issue that far. I would settle for a probability that is less than 1/2, certainly less than the current 2/3.
    That is to say, I would accept a solution that involves restricting copies of Crossride materials if Crossrides are in the deck with them. Restricting the Crossrides themselves only prolong the inevitable 68%, not eradicate it. Restricting the components only if the Crossride is also present would allow Persona Blast usage to stay fair while reducing the chance below half that their payoff is 2k defense


Colloquial summary: Crossride effects must either be properly costed (to be further discussed), have their probabilities lowered to lower the expected payoff, edited to not be defenders but instead attackers, or removed from the game in some way. In short, my arguments rest on the facts that the game has been designed and balanced in a particular way that Crossrides break. I'm open to debating the fact that games can change, however I would appreciate a concession of these facts in some way if you do concede.