TheVaron Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Just made it. COmments? OCG fixes? I know his effect is a little OPD but i put A LOT of lifepoint loss to cover it. How is it? "Gravekeeper's High Priest" + "Gravekeeper's Chief"This monster cannot be Special Summoned from your Extra Deck except by returning the above cards from your Graveyard to your Deck (you do not use "Polymerization") This card gains 400 ATK for every monster card in your Graveyard. When this card is sent from the field to the Graveyard as a result of battle take damage equal to this card's ATK, then Special Summon as many "Gravekeeper" monsters as possible from your Graveyard (excluding this card). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolta Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 10/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcander Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 text on the picture!, few OCG errors like: as a result of battle instead of by battle. 9/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVaron Posted October 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Excuse me if i am wrong but I am pretty sure the correct OCG for the situation of the monster getting attacked and killed rather than suicide ram is "as a result of" But i might be wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcander Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Excuse me if i am wrong but I am pretty sure the correct OCG for the situation of the monster getting attacked and killed rather than suicide ram is "as a result of" But i might be wrong I guess the correct sentece is When this card is destroyed by battle' date=' the controler of this card take damage equal to it's original ATK.[/b'] I might be wrong too... see what else people say. (don't take it wrong, it is a good card). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVaron Posted October 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Im sorry what? When were we talking about his burn effect. I guess your When this card is destroyed by battle is right but how come you changed it to Original ATK I intended it to be ATK as in its new ATK with the power up added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcander Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Im sorry what? When were we talking about his burn effect. I guess your When this card is destroyed by battle is right but how come you changed it to Original ATK I intended it to be ATK as in its new ATK with the power up added. well... just take out that part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVaron Posted October 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 But then he has no drawback the reason he has that effect is to balance him out. Taking it out makes him way OPD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcander Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 But then he has no drawback the reason he has that effect is to balance him out. Taking it out makes him way OPD I mean THIS: When this card is destroyed by battle' date=' the controler of this card take damage equal to it's [b']original[/b] ATK.(take out the bold word). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVaron Posted October 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Ohhh ohhh ohhhh Cool. Yeah. sorry I guess i read wrong. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcander Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Ohhh ohhh ohhhh Cool. Yeah. sorry I guess i read wrong. Thanks xD no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVaron Posted November 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark One Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Taking out the "original" won't change the amount of damage you take. The effect is applied when the monster is already in the graveyard, and has thus already lost any attack bonuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
destron Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Yeah, the wording is off with the attack bonuses and such. I use "as a result of battle" and not "by battle", but I'm not 100% sure that's correct. Anyway, it's interesting and I don't think it's OP'd with such a strong drawback. Perhaps say removed from the field because then it's not limited to the graveyard, and it's effect can be activated wherever it goes (hand, out of play or deck). 9/10 disregarding OCG. Good job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☨Genocide ☨ Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Its still OPD. Because the burn only applys if it is destroyed by battle. Which would be very hard to do with all the ATK. 8/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVaron Posted November 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 yeah but if it was "destroyed" when the burn was applied it would be too easy to absolutely punish your opponent for playing this. activate bottomless they take atleast 2500 which makes him utterly too easy to give your opponent a thrashing for thinking they can fusion summon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Darkness Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Excuse me if i am wrong but I am pretty sure the correct OCG for the situation of the monster getting attacked and killed rather than suicide ram is "as a result of" But i might be wrong It was correct 2 years ago before they re-did OCG. It is now 'by battle'; Alcander is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolta Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Oh yes, took me a while to detect, there's words on the pic, remove the words or get another pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVaron Posted November 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 I dont think Im going to do edits because im a little busy with a contest as well as working on another set Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marv_ Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 this is cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVaron Posted November 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Thank you mimi but if you wouldnt mind rating? Even if it is a 10/10 i need to know and if you give it a 8/10 or something what i can fix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanderley Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 bad image choise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metal Skull Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 10/10Nothing more say it's just awsome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adogadog8 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 its got a couple errors, but as a result of battle is correct and there's text on the pic and its kinda realistsic. Like you said its a little OP but good. 8.56983982/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenMetal Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 10/10wat he said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.