Le due versioni del mazzo messe a confronto argomento per argomento — Law + Yasopp (Impact) contro Mihawk 6c + Perona 5c (samsansOP). Le 50 righe del documento sono raggruppate per tema: per ognuna la posizione di Sam, quella di Impact e cosa significa in pratica.
Il documento confronta le liste di fine agosto. Nel Q&A del 17/09 Impact indica tre build: la tempo/Perona (la più vicina a HawkRona, 1ª al regionale, «best in the mirror»), la rest-spell build con 4 «Faces of Trash» e 4 Coffin Boat (2ª al regionale, la sua scelta per il weekend) e l'ibrida 3 Law / 2 Hawk. La LawSopp di questa pagina è quindi la base da cui è partita la sua build attuale, non la build attuale. Le tre build nel Q&A →
Aggressive midrange tuned for consistency, clean resource conversion, and mirror performance
Aggressive midrange tuned for board development, tempo, and rapid Shanks finishing
Both are proactive decks. Neither teacher believes OP17 Mihawk should primarily play as a slow control deck.
Reduce failed hands and reach the Shanks pivot with the right cards, board state, life total, and counter resources
Build a board quickly, use extra DON to attack efficiently, and force the opponent into Shanks kill range
Sam favors a higher floor; Impact emphasizes a higher tempo ceiling.
Card quality, clean sequencing, filtering, freeze timing, and mirror disruption
Card volume, repeated searches, double development, resilient Yasopp pressure, and free-DON attacks
Sam improves quality of resources; Impact increases quantity and tempo of resource conversion.
Potentially gives up some direct board-control edge, especially into Sabo, by not fully exploiting Yasopp
Can draw the wrong mix of setup cards/bricks, lose Law targets, or face awkward Samurai/Law sequencing
Pick Sam's list if you hate inconsistency; pick Impact's list if you hate losing the board early.
Life mapping, counter thresholds, identifying when to skip lower-value development, and navigating the mirror bomb race
Sequencing searches before Law, Law target management, board protection, identifying damage breakpoints, and planning multistep lethal turns
Both are difficult decks, but their difficult decisions occur at different points in the game.
Player who wants consistency, anticipates many Mihawk mirrors, and prefers a disciplined, calculated bomb-turn plan
Player who enjoys active board combat, technical sequencing, repeated Perona loops, and applying pressure every turn
The "better" list may be less about raw power than about your local field and decision-making strengths.
Mihawk-heavy, open, uncertain, or interaction-heavy field where clean execution is paramount
Sabo-heavy, small-body-heavy, board-centric field where Yasopp can repeatedly produce tempo
Sam's build hedges against expected mirrors; Impact's build attacks established boards.
Do not confuse drawing more cards with improving hand quality; life/counter math determines whether Shanks actually wins
Do not play Mihawk passively; build the board, convert free DON into 7K pressure, and map the opponent into Shanks range
Combining these lessons produces the strongest overall Mihawk fundamentals.
6-cost Mihawk and Perona
Trafalgar Law and Yasopp, with Perona searcher as a reusable engine
This is the main structural difference between the lists.
It works independently, filters a card, can replace bricks, and produces a more stable development turn
Not the preferred centerpiece; Impact favors Law's ability to double-develop and recycle utility bodies
Sam sees filtering as a major form of card advantage in a deck with several non-counter, high-cost cards.
Law can be strong but is viewed as dependent on a good opener and surviving small bodies
Law is a core engine: pick up Perona/searchers, develop another major body, and keep chaining value
The disagreement is whether Law's setup cost is a meaningful liability or an intended, manageable part of the deck's engine.
Strong card, especially against Sabo, but not enough payoff by itself to justify Law over Mihawk in a mirror-focused field
One of the deck's most important cards: early board control, resilient attacker, Law target, and Shanks support
If you value early board interaction highly, Impact's evaluation of Yasopp becomes much more compelling.
Helpful, but not viewed as decisive in the mirror
Central to the build: Yasopp can be developed rested through Law yet restand, making the Law turn less vulnerable
Impact's LawSopp construction specifically solves the "Law leaves a body sideways" problem by making Yasopp the preferred deployment.
Freeze, disruption, and a way to make meaningful turns when Shanks is unavailable or delayed
Extremely important searcher that should often be bounced by Law to find continuation pieces
Both highly value Perona. Sam emphasizes her independent freeze/filter utility; Impact emphasizes repeated access through Law.
Recognized as good card flow, but Sam believes it does not outweigh Mihawk's independent filtering and board quality
A signature line: bounce Perona with Law and play a 5c, replay her, and look for Shanks, Luna, events, or follow-up plays
LawSopp gains ceiling and deeper digging when it can repeatedly convert Perona.
6c Mihawk is preferred because it can actively filter a brick out of hand
Use Samurai, Coffin Boat, Kinemon, leader-generated DON, and Law/Perona loops to avoid getting clogged
Both acknowledge green Mihawk has bricks. Sam relies more on built-in filtering; Impact relies more on active card cycling and sequencing.
Drawing an extra card is not always better if the original brick remains in your hand
High draw density lets the deck find otherwise unsearchable pieces and maintain follow-up
Sam differentiates "more cards" from "better cards"; Impact values the volume of looks generated by the deck's engines.
Low-to-moderate: Mihawk still functions if the opponent clears early characters
Higher: Law is best when there is a worthwhile body to pick up and convert
Sam's version is more resilient when early searchers die or when the opening hand is uneven.
Less reliant on small bodies remaining alive before the 5/6-cost turn
Needs early bodies to maximize Law, although the deck can develop many of them and convert them into value
Against decks that efficiently remove 1-costs, Sam's structural argument gets stronger.
Samurai remains an important source of advantage; Sam dislikes that Law can make Samurai lines awkward
Samurai remains central, but Impact's guide emphasizes using excess DON to convert Samurai and avoid bricking
Sam sees potential anti-synergy: Law wants a body to bounce, while Samurai can expose/remove the bodies Law needs.
Sam is lower on high event/Boat density than older builds because newer bomb turns frequently consume DON and some events matter less
Impact explicitly includes and uses Coffin Boat as part of the deck's card-flow and brick-management infrastructure
This is a secondary but meaningful deck-construction difference. (Nota della guida: sul motivo di Sam vedi la ⚠️ Coffin Boat in Deck → Scelte di lista — nel video il ragionamento è diverso.)
Strongly values ordinary 2K counter density because many mirror attacks are one-card hits
Emphasizes managing the deck's brick count and using counter events/resources without becoming clogged
Sam's version leans toward reliable middle-game defense; Impact focuses more on actively converting awkward cards.
Be highly intentional about leaving DON up, especially because full Shanks/Luna turns consume most available DON
Generally spend around one DON per turn for events when appropriate, but calculate actual incoming swings and weave events out before they clog
Both agree event management is a real skill test in the deck.
Establish draw/search, preserve resources, and prepare the correct curve into the mirror/Shanks pivot
Draw cards, search for curve pieces, take early life when appropriate, and set up future development
Both prioritize card access early; Impact is more explicit about taking life to acquire combo pieces.
Develop enough pressure while preserving the correct hand, counter thresholds, and board state for Shanks
Establish 6K attackers, convert them into 7K swings with free DON, and pressure life every turn
Sam is more cautious about resource structure; Impact is more explicit about relentless tempo conversion.
Spend it where it advances life mapping or allows important defensive/event management; avoid wasting it on low-value development
Use it aggressively to push damage, play searchers/Samurai, cycle bricks, and maintain board pressure
Both recognize free DON as Mihawk's defining resource advantage. Impact pushes harder toward immediate damage.
In the mirror, attack sizing and life preservation must be designed around the Shanks race
Attack aggressively, especially with 7K lines, to force the opponent into Shanks kill range
Sam's attacks are more mirror-clock-focused; Impact's attacks are more universally pressure-focused.
Stable, active bodies and a hand that can execute a Shanks turn without collapsing to counter pressure
Wide board of sticky 6K bodies that can repeatedly swing for 7K and force life/cards
Sam prefers robustness; Impact wants density of attackers.
Important, but Sam's analysis values whether the board actually survives the opponent's Shanks/Luna pivot
A major priority: midgame 6K bodies are how the deck converts wins, and Billionfold should often protect them
Impact places particular weight on preserving 6K attackers because they become the bridge to Shanks lethal.
Freeze effects are central to interrupting an opposing Shanks turn or reducing a board's conversion
Freezes are for tempo, not prolonged control; use them to buy the turn needed to kill
This is mostly agreement. Neither wants to freeze merely to extend a game indefinitely.
Avoid them when possible; the build is designed to win the critical bomb turns efficiently
Explicitly rejects OP14-style long Law & Bepo control loops as the deck's main plan
Strong agreement: OP17 Mihawk should finish, not endlessly stall.
The defining bomb of the mirror: the 12K rush swing changes life thresholds and forces careful countering
"Does everything": finisher, removal, setup for removal, setup for Luna, and a fast closing mechanism
Both see Shanks as the reason OP17 Mihawk's endgame is dramatically stronger than earlier versions.
Do not delay the relevant Shanks turn in the mirror; if you wait, the opponent can resolve theirs first
Deploy Shanks in the late game and often aim to finish by the second 10-DON turn
Both want timely Shanks; Sam stresses race math, while Impact stresses converting the midgame into a fast close.
A decisive mirror sequence because Shanks can make the opponent's board vulnerable to Luna/freeze effects
A primary tempo tool: freeze the opposing board while Shanks pushes damage and prepares lethal
Both see this pairing as powerful; Sam discusses it more as mirror interaction, Impact more as a general finishing pattern.
Key answer to high-cost bombs and an important reason Kaido has become less attractive
A major matchup tool for dealing with 7–8+ DON threats while maintaining your own pressure
Both treat Decken as a premium answer to large characters, not merely a generic removal card.
A compact "second bomb" that can replace a complicated multi-card defensive sequence and buy an extra turn
Usually a one-of extension tool; useful when one extra turn is needed but no longer the deck's main identity
Sam gives Law & Bepo more strategic weight in the mirror; Impact treats it as a powerful but secondary extension card.
Less attractive because Vander Decken interacts favorably and the newer freeze environment reduces their value
Focus remains on 10c Shanks as the major endgame bomb
Sam is more explicit that Decken has narrowed the usefulness of prior Shanks options.
Highest deck-building priority; Sam expects Mihawk to be common enough that mirror equity should shape flex slots
Important matchup, but Impact's guide focuses on executing the core pressure curve and damage map
Sam is more willing to sacrifice some non-mirror edge for mirror tools and consistency.
Very desirable because the second player can establish the more favorable double-development/Shanks sequence
Also says to go second; follow the normal curve and use early draw to secure counter and bomb access
Strong agreement: going second is preferred in the mirror.
You often need to preserve at least two life before the opponent's Shanks turn because dropping to 0 is extremely dangerous
Counter smaller swings early because Shanks attacks can become too large to defend efficiently
Sam gives more exact conceptual weight to life thresholds; Impact gives practical attack-size guidance.
Focus is on putting the opponent to 0 first while retaining enough counter to survive retaliation
Recommends 7K frequently, 8K when no DON is up, 9K when 8 rested cards are unavailable, and 10K to attack through Billionfold
Impact gives concrete breakpoints for the mirror.
Major innovation in Sam's approach; can deny the opposing Shanks turn and reverse who gets the first bomb pivot
Not a central element of Impact's published standard list or matchup plan
This is a substantial practical distinction. Sam sees Bonney as a way to fix going-first mirror weakness.
Acknowledges Yasopp meaningfully improves the matchup, but does not believe that alone outweighs HawkRona's mirror advantages
Identifies Sabo as one of the more difficult matchups and builds specifically to answer it through Yasopp, Oden, Decken, and careful countering
Sabo is Impact's strongest practical argument for LawSopp.
Attack proactively rather than attempting a full starvation strategy; selectively attack rested bodies when offered
Use Yasopp to clear small bodies, preserve Decken for Luffy/Loki, freeze high-impact units with Oden, and aim for a two-turn Shanks kill
Sam is more skeptical of trying to completely control Sabo; Impact leans more into selective board control.
Yasopp's key benefit is turning an opponent's unit sideways so you can contest it while retaining your own active body
Yasopp is the early answer that prevents Sabo's low-cost value bodies from snowballing
Both agree Yasopp is good into Sabo; they differ on how much that should determine the full list.
Shanks + Vander Decken materially improves the matchup; Decken is a major reason Kaido is less appealing into Mihawk
Also emphasizes Shanks + Decken as a huge tempo exchange; Yasopp can help restand Shanks and attack safely
Both see Decken as critical. Sam leans toward consistent access; Impact emphasizes on-board execution.
Prioritize avoiding inefficient exchanges and maintaining the bomb-turn plan
Attack with 6K characters at 7K to play around leader reduction; use leader DON differently when setting up lethal
Impact provides more specific tactical sequencing guidance.
Stun Bonney and freeze-related options can incidentally improve yellow/mom board turns
Yasopp clears 4K units; pressure early so Robin cannot freely establish two Big Mom turns; use Shanks + Decken/Luna to remove key bodies
Impact's guide gives a detailed Robin plan.
Mihawk is naturally strong; Law & Bepo can be an alternate method of invalidating their board
Use Luna heavily, account for Captain John stall, pressure with appropriate attack sizes, and respect Shiki
Both are optimistic about the matchup.
Preserve appropriate life and prepare Shanks turns; freezes can limit their board conversion
Use low-cost bodies to clear 1-costs, push life with leader, reserve Oden for large Enels, and avoid losing more than one life per turn
Impact's guide covers defense and combo timing against Enel. (Nota della guida: Sam non tratta Enel nel video — la colonna Sam qui è un'estrapolazione dell'autore del documento.)
If this sounds like you…
If this sounds like you…
✎ Trascrizione fedele del documento «LawSopp vs HawkRona.docx»: il testo delle celle è verbatim (inglese); nel sito le righe della tabella sono state solo raggruppate per tema.