El Majishan Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 So back in the early days of yugimon fissure was one of the better cards, but how well does it stack up to todays standards? Is it still worth running? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewolf01 Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 in my little city deck i ran fissure, it threw this guy i was playing in a turny off guard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Majishan Posted May 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 in my little city deck i ran fissure' date=' it threw this guy i was playing in a turny off guard.[/quote'] happens all the time when i see someone play it, its like "ppl still run that?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esplin 9466 Primary Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I haven't seen that card in like a year. And i play old card's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rook Bishop Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I got three of them. two in english and one in Spainish. It throws most people off because they have to think how the rules will affect it. Thus it one of the oldest cards to throw someone off their game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smeg Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Smashing outclassed it, although, I prefer fissure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azuh Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I prefer Smashing Ground, or even Soul Taker But Fissure still is a good card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleeordie Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage, like oppresion. However it should not be limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 A gadget duelist just used this on me... about the only deck I can see using it. Smashing is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 So back in the early days of yugimon fissure was one of the better cards' date=' but how well does it stack up to todays standards? Is it still worth running?[/quote'] It doesnt hurt to run it if you have the room for it. You would however be a bit stupid running this before Smashing Ground though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Majishan Posted May 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage' date=' like oppresion. However it should not be limited.[/quote'] I think it should, free monster kills should always be limitedSo back in the early days of yugimon fissure was one of the better cards' date=' but how well does it stack up to todays standards? Is it still worth running?[/quote'] It doesnt hurt to run it if you have the room for it. You would however be a bit stupid running this before Smashing Ground though. I say run them both if you have the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage' date=' like oppresion. However it should not be limited.[/quote'] I think it should, free monster kills should always be limited Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage' date=' like oppresion. However it should not be limited.[/quote'] I think it should, free monster kills should always be limited It is one-for-one with a reasonable condition. It deserves to be at 3. If the conditions were unreasonable or the effect was too powerful then I wouldnt like a free monster kill at 3. Take Raigeki for example. Totally unreasonable effect. Or even Lightning Vortex. Lightning Vortex would be banworthy if there was no discard cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Majishan Posted May 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage' date=' like oppresion. However it should not be limited.[/quote'] I think it should, free monster kills should always be limited It is one-for-one with a reasonable condition. It deserves to be at 3. If the conditions were unreasonable or the effect was too powerful then I wouldnt like a free monster kill at 3. Take Raigeki for example. Totally unreasonable effect. Or even Lightning Vortex. Lightning Vortex would be banworthy if there was no discard cost. I agree on vortex, but even with fissure, chances are you're killing something good even with lolatk, take lumina for example, it has lolatk, but its still a very good monster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage' date=' like oppresion. However it should not be limited.[/quote'] I think it should, free monster kills should always be limited It is one-for-one with a reasonable condition. It deserves to be at 3. If the conditions were unreasonable or the effect was too powerful then I wouldnt like a free monster kill at 3. Take Raigeki for example. Totally unreasonable effect. Or even Lightning Vortex. Lightning Vortex would be banworthy if there was no discard cost. I agree on vortex, but even with fissure, chances are you're killing something good even with lolatk, take lumina for example, it has lolatk, but its still a very good monster. But still. The fact you don't get to choose the target is a reasonable cost for what Fissure and Smashing Ground both do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage' date=' like oppresion. However it should not be limited.[/quote'] I think it should, free monster kills should always be limited It is one-for-one with a reasonable condition. It deserves to be at 3. If the conditions were unreasonable or the effect was too powerful then I wouldnt like a free monster kill at 3. Take Raigeki for example. Totally unreasonable effect. Or even Lightning Vortex. Lightning Vortex would be banworthy if there was no discard cost. I agree on vortex, but even with fissure, chances are you're killing something good even with lolatk, take lumina for example, it has lolatk, but its still a very good monster. So you use one card to kill one card (that you don't choose). So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Majishan Posted May 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage' date=' like oppresion. However it should not be limited.[/quote'] I think it should, free monster kills should always be limited It is one-for-one with a reasonable condition. It deserves to be at 3. If the conditions were unreasonable or the effect was too powerful then I wouldnt like a free monster kill at 3. Take Raigeki for example. Totally unreasonable effect. Or even Lightning Vortex. Lightning Vortex would be banworthy if there was no discard cost. I agree on vortex, but even with fissure, chances are you're killing something good even with lolatk, take lumina for example, it has lolatk, but its still a very good monster. But still. The fact you don't get to choose the target is a reasonable cost for what Fissure and Smashing Ground both do. maybe semi-limited seeing as most decks tend to swarm this format Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage' date=' like oppresion. However it should not be limited.[/quote'] I think it should, free monster kills should always be limited It is one-for-one with a reasonable condition. It deserves to be at 3. If the conditions were unreasonable or the effect was too powerful then I wouldnt like a free monster kill at 3. Take Raigeki for example. Totally unreasonable effect. Or even Lightning Vortex. Lightning Vortex would be banworthy if there was no discard cost. I agree on vortex, but even with fissure, chances are you're killing something good even with lolatk, take lumina for example, it has lolatk, but its still a very good monster. But still. The fact you don't get to choose the target is a reasonable cost for what Fissure and Smashing Ground both do. maybe semi-limited seeing as most decks tend to swarm this format Stop it, you're killing me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Majishan Posted May 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage' date=' like oppresion. However it should not be limited.[/quote'] I think it should, free monster kills should always be limited It is one-for-one with a reasonable condition. It deserves to be at 3. If the conditions were unreasonable or the effect was too powerful then I wouldnt like a free monster kill at 3. Take Raigeki for example. Totally unreasonable effect. Or even Lightning Vortex. Lightning Vortex would be banworthy if there was no discard cost. I agree on vortex, but even with fissure, chances are you're killing something good even with lolatk, take lumina for example, it has lolatk, but its still a very good monster. So you use one card to kill one card (that you don't choose). So what? it offers field advantage in such a simple form, you dont really have to work for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage' date=' like oppresion. However it should not be limited.[/quote'] I think it should, free monster kills should always be limited It is one-for-one with a reasonable condition. It deserves to be at 3. If the conditions were unreasonable or the effect was too powerful then I wouldnt like a free monster kill at 3. Take Raigeki for example. Totally unreasonable effect. Or even Lightning Vortex. Lightning Vortex would be banworthy if there was no discard cost. I agree on vortex, but even with fissure, chances are you're killing something good even with lolatk, take lumina for example, it has lolatk, but its still a very good monster. So you use one card to kill one card (that you don't choose). So what? it offers field advantage in such a simple form, you dont really have to work for it. So? You don't have to work to normal summon mammoth graveyard, and that gives you a +1 on the field. This is feeble logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Majishan Posted May 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage' date=' like oppresion. However it should not be limited.[/quote'] I think it should, free monster kills should always be limited It is one-for-one with a reasonable condition. It deserves to be at 3. If the conditions were unreasonable or the effect was too powerful then I wouldnt like a free monster kill at 3. Take Raigeki for example. Totally unreasonable effect. Or even Lightning Vortex. Lightning Vortex would be banworthy if there was no discard cost. I agree on vortex, but even with fissure, chances are you're killing something good even with lolatk, take lumina for example, it has lolatk, but its still a very good monster. So you use one card to kill one card (that you don't choose). So what? it offers field advantage in such a simple form, you dont really have to work for it. So? You don't have to work to normal summon mammoth graveyard, and that gives you a +1 on the field. This is feeble logic. You have a good monster on the field that you worked to get out, I dont have squat, I draw fissure/smashing, advantage goes to me and I still have 2 more in my deck...I don't like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage' date=' like oppresion. However it should not be limited.[/quote'] I think it should, free monster kills should always be limited It is one-for-one with a reasonable condition. It deserves to be at 3. If the conditions were unreasonable or the effect was too powerful then I wouldnt like a free monster kill at 3. Take Raigeki for example. Totally unreasonable effect. Or even Lightning Vortex. Lightning Vortex would be banworthy if there was no discard cost. I agree on vortex, but even with fissure, chances are you're killing something good even with lolatk, take lumina for example, it has lolatk, but its still a very good monster. So you use one card to kill one card (that you don't choose). So what? it offers field advantage in such a simple form, you dont really have to work for it. So? You don't have to work to normal summon mammoth graveyard, and that gives you a +1 on the field. This is feeble logic. You have a good monster on the field that you worked to get out, I dont have squat, I draw fissure/smashing, advantage goes to me and I still have 2 more in my deck...I don't like that. I have beaver warrior on the field. You summon Ryu-Kishin Powered and kill my Beaver Warrior. Advantage goes to you, and you still have two left in the deck. Semi-Limit Ryu-Kishin Powered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Majishan Posted May 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage' date=' like oppresion. However it should not be limited.[/quote'] I think it should, free monster kills should always be limited It is one-for-one with a reasonable condition. It deserves to be at 3. If the conditions were unreasonable or the effect was too powerful then I wouldnt like a free monster kill at 3. Take Raigeki for example. Totally unreasonable effect. Or even Lightning Vortex. Lightning Vortex would be banworthy if there was no discard cost. I agree on vortex, but even with fissure, chances are you're killing something good even with lolatk, take lumina for example, it has lolatk, but its still a very good monster. So you use one card to kill one card (that you don't choose). So what? it offers field advantage in such a simple form, you dont really have to work for it. So? You don't have to work to normal summon mammoth graveyard, and that gives you a +1 on the field. This is feeble logic. You have a good monster on the field that you worked to get out, I dont have squat, I draw fissure/smashing, advantage goes to me and I still have 2 more in my deck...I don't like that. I have beaver warrior on the field. You summon Ryu-Kishin Powered and kill my Beaver Warrior. Advantage goes to you, and you still have two left in the deck. Semi-Limit Ryu-Kishin Powered. No I gave up my normal summon for the turn to play a 1600 normal monster, with fissure what did I give up other than the card itself? Nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage' date=' like oppresion. However it should not be limited.[/quote'] I think it should, free monster kills should always be limited It is one-for-one with a reasonable condition. It deserves to be at 3. If the conditions were unreasonable or the effect was too powerful then I wouldnt like a free monster kill at 3. Take Raigeki for example. Totally unreasonable effect. Or even Lightning Vortex. Lightning Vortex would be banworthy if there was no discard cost. I agree on vortex, but even with fissure, chances are you're killing something good even with lolatk, take lumina for example, it has lolatk, but its still a very good monster. So you use one card to kill one card (that you don't choose). So what? it offers field advantage in such a simple form, you dont really have to work for it. So? You don't have to work to normal summon mammoth graveyard, and that gives you a +1 on the field. This is feeble logic. You have a good monster on the field that you worked to get out, I dont have squat, I draw fissure/smashing, advantage goes to me and I still have 2 more in my deck...I don't like that. I have beaver warrior on the field. You summon Ryu-Kishin Powered and kill my Beaver Warrior. Advantage goes to you, and you still have two left in the deck. Semi-Limit Ryu-Kishin Powered. No I gave up my normal summon for the turn to play a 1600 normal monster, with fissure what did I give up other than the card itself? Nothing. I'm glad you have finally grasped the concept that this card is a one-for-one: You give up a card to destroy a monster. Let's say I summon beaver warrior. You trap hole. You used one card to destroy a monster I worked to get out. Ban Trap Hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Majishan Posted May 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Both are equally good. Useful in a deck where you are planning on winning through card advantage' date=' like oppresion. However it should not be limited.[/quote'] I think it should, free monster kills should always be limited It is one-for-one with a reasonable condition. It deserves to be at 3. If the conditions were unreasonable or the effect was too powerful then I wouldnt like a free monster kill at 3. Take Raigeki for example. Totally unreasonable effect. Or even Lightning Vortex. Lightning Vortex would be banworthy if there was no discard cost. I agree on vortex, but even with fissure, chances are you're killing something good even with lolatk, take lumina for example, it has lolatk, but its still a very good monster. So you use one card to kill one card (that you don't choose). So what? it offers field advantage in such a simple form, you dont really have to work for it. So? You don't have to work to normal summon mammoth graveyard, and that gives you a +1 on the field. This is feeble logic. You have a good monster on the field that you worked to get out, I dont have squat, I draw fissure/smashing, advantage goes to me and I still have 2 more in my deck...I don't like that. I have beaver warrior on the field. You summon Ryu-Kishin Powered and kill my Beaver Warrior. Advantage goes to you, and you still have two left in the deck. Semi-Limit Ryu-Kishin Powered. No I gave up my normal summon for the turn to play a 1600 normal monster, with fissure what did I give up other than the card itself? Nothing. I'm glad you have finally grasped the concept that this card is a one-for-one: You give up a card to destroy a monster. Let's say I summon beaver warrior. You trap hole. You used one card to destroy a monster I worked to get out. Ban Trap Hole. I always knew it was a one for one, but with trap hole I still need to set the card, wait a turn, wait for you to normal summon a monster the, then activate it. Fissure I just draw and play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.