Is this new archetype I'm making broken?

[Mastery682]

Recently, I've been working on the "Polypend" archetype, and am planning to expand it. The point of the archetype is that it consists of Pendulum Monsters who send themselves to the GY, then let you banish monsters from your graveyard along with other places, allowing you to use the card as both a fusion spell and a material for that fusion.
I want to know if the first two cards I made are broken, but the most important question is: Is the archetype ITSELF broken?

https://www.duelingbook.com/card?id=3022000
https://www.duelingbook.com/card?id=3032849

Thundergician is meant to be useful in both the TCG and OCG. In the TCG, where Thunder Dragon Colossus is banned, it can be used to summon Red-Eyes Dragoon in a Thunder Dragon deck, while in the OCG, where Dragoon is banned, it can be used to summon Colossus.

Cyber Dragon Buster is meant to be able to easily bring out Cyber Dragon fusions in a CD deck, and easily bring out ABC-Dragon Buster in an ABC deck. It's very important in an ABC deck, as it is your method of Fusion Summoning without getting the monsters on the field.

[greg503]

I think you're trying to tie too many archtypes together

[Lil Oldman]

These have next to nothing to do anything to do with each other as more of "generic" fusion helpers that just share the name. I don't see the purpose of them being inside a deck only to become 3-ofs in their respective decks, or in case of Cyber Buster, just a really good kaiju-like card that can evade most protection.

Thundergician is eh, a small ATK boost isn't anything to cry about, but it becoming DM in the GY while also getting the ability to fusion Dragoon feels forced. There's no reason for that to be there. The decks aren't even thematically the same to say that they would be a good fit.
Cyber Dragon Buster as well has a kind of average effect but it's removal ability is simply insane. Having the ability to non-target banish your opponents monsters is incredibly good, even if you have to control no monsters.

These are basically just mashing together archetypes that have no rhyme or reason working together, (Maybe Cyber Dragon and ABC can be an exception) with a third party archetype that up to now, doesn't seem to do something to stand up on it's own. Reminds me to the World Legacy cards, however those had a reason to be extremely generic/tie in so many different archetypes together.

[Mastery682]

These have next to nothing to do anything to do with each other as more of "generic" fusion helpers that just share the name.

That's the point. This isn't meant to be its own deck, this is meant to be a legacy support archetype, with the cards usually getting used only in the decks that they were made for.

Thundergician is eh, a small ATK boost isn't anything to cry about, but it becoming DM in the GY while also getting the ability to fusion Dragoon feels forced. There's no reason for that to be there. The decks aren't even thematically the same to say that they would be a good fit.

I just made that to be a way for Thunder Dragons to bring out Dragoon without having to run a Garnet Dark Magician. However, paying more attention shows me that it doesn't even work, because thunder dragons aren't Dragon type, they're Thunder type, so they cant summon Dragoon in the first place. I'm gonna delete the card soon.

[Lil Oldman]

These have next to nothing to do anything to do with each other as more of "generic" fusion helpers that just share the name.

That's the point. This isn't meant to be its own deck, this is meant to be a legacy support archetype, with the cards usually getting used only in the decks that they were made for.

Then are they just supposed to be random patchwork for decks? I mean, ABC and Cyber dragon kind of work together, but DM and TD dont work together, even if TD's were dragons to begin with, their gimmicks are, in my opinion, extremely different to work.

Thundergician is eh, a small ATK boost isn't anything to cry about, but it becoming DM in the GY while also getting the ability to fusion Dragoon feels forced. There's no reason for that to be there. The decks aren't even thematically the same to say that they would be a good fit.

I just made that to be a way for Thunder Dragons to bring out Dragoon without having to run a Garnet Dark Magician. However, paying more attention shows me that it doesn't even work, because thunder dragons aren't Dragon type, they're Thunder type, so they cant summon Dragoon in the first place. I'm gonna delete the card soon.

So you are basically removing the one thing that keeps Dragoon kinda (not really) in check? Not to mention, a TD DM deck, would be running DM support, so there's no point in removing the brick disadvantage, and in a pure TD deck (if they were dragons), allows them to play dragoon with no drawbacks (Although running a brick isn't that big of a drawback.)

Again, the cards didn't look extremely broken (except for Cyber's removal), but I feel that the decks for Thundergician werent chosen because of the similarities or synergies, but rather because they just happened to (not) work with a single card in the archetype.