Fake types. Why are they seen as bad?

[jbizzle2pt0]

The subject asks it all.

[JadenxAtemYAOI]

The subject asks it all.

 

they may be creative but there aren't rulings on them I guess. Unless they go by something to the Blue Eyes rule

[jbizzle2pt0]

The subject asks it all.

 

they may be creative but there aren't rulings on them I guess. Unless they go by something to the Blue Eyes rule

 

What's the blue eyes rule?

[LarvaeMothKaiba]

Going by the Yu Gi Oh guide line of real types tends to show more creativity, due to having to work with the smaller amount of types being offered. That said, it should not matter so long as you keep them out of all realistic card threads.

[Dark]

I don't really care about Fake Types so long as they are not posted in Realistic Cards.

[jbizzle2pt0]

Going by the Yu Gi Oh guide line of real types tends to show more creativity' date=' due to having to work with the smaller amount of types being offered. That said, it should not matter so long as you keep them out of all realistic card threads.

[/quote']

 

Your logic is so beautiful. I am not being sarcastic. You have shown so much more logic in your one comment than I have seen in total on this site.

[RAEGING D0GKING]

Because they are stupid [/topic]

[jbizzle2pt0]

Because they are stupid [/topic]

 

Here is the one who has no addition to the discussion.

[Brushfire]

I don't see a problem with them if they aren't posted in Realistic Cards. The main reason they are seen as bad is simply because of YCM's top member's status quo. Aside from that, it's because there are already types that cover everything so fake types aren't needed.

[Alexis Rhodes]

Because there fake

[jbizzle2pt0]

I don't see a problem with them if they aren't posted in Realistic Cards. The main reason they are seen as bad is simply because of YCM's top member's status quo. Aside from that' date=' it's because there are already types that cover everything so fake types aren't needed.

[/quote']

 

It still doesnt change the fact that people may like to make up types.

---

Apparently the Tin Trooper is stalking me.

[RAEGING D0GKING]

Because they are stupid [/topic]

 

Here is the one who has no addition to the discussion.

 

Fake types are just stupid and shouldn't used.

But I still like fake sub-types, only if they are created.

[JadenxAtemYAOI]

the Blue Eyes rule is that no vanilla go above 3000 atk

[Twig]

A lot of people hate fake types because a lot of noobs make unoriginal and useless fake types. For example, a noob makes a card with a type called Knight. It could have been Warrior.

 

But sometimes, someone makes a completely original set with a completely original effect. So that person thinks it's good enough to have it's own fake sub-type. You don't have to make a fake type, but you can. You can just write out the effect on the card and give it the Effect type or put the fake subtype.

 

All in all, fake types are bad. Fake subtypes are okay.

[The Tin Trooper]

I abhor fake types that are not given support. Fake types that are only created because they do not fit the real types.

I do appreciate, however, fake types that are met with support. I also like Fake Subtypes.

[jbizzle2pt0]

A lot of people hate fake types because a lot of noobs make unoriginal and useless fake types. For example' date=' a noob makes a card with a type called Knight. It could have been Warrior.

 

But sometimes, someone makes a completely original set with a completely original effect. So that person thinks it's good enough to have it's own fake sub-type. You don't have to make a fake type, but you can. You can just write out the effect on the card and give it the Effect type or put the fake subtype.

 

All in all, fake types are bad. Fake subtypes are okay.

[/quote']

 

I see no difference between types and sub types in my opinion

---

I abhor fake types that are not given support. Fake types that are only created because they do not fit the real types.

I do appreciate' date=' however, fake types that are met with support. I also like Fake Subtypes.

[/quote']

 

what about divine types hmmm

[The Tin Trooper]

A lot of people hate fake types because a lot of noobs make unoriginal and useless fake types. For example' date=' a noob makes a card with a type called Knight. It could have been Warrior.

 

But sometimes, someone makes a completely original set with a completely original effect. So that person thinks it's good enough to have it's own fake sub-type. You don't have to make a fake type, but you can. You can just write out the effect on the card and give it the Effect type or put the fake subtype.

 

All in all, fake types are bad. Fake subtypes are okay.

[/quote']

 

I see no difference between types and sub types in my opinion

---

I abhor fake types that are not given support. Fake types that are only created because they do not fit the real types.

I do appreciate' date=' however, fake types that are met with support. I also like Fake Subtypes.

[/quote']

 

what about divine types hmmm

A subtype is Toon, Union, Spirit, etc.

 

Divine-Beast, you mean? I'm indifferent to them. Only if they're used to make a card that is Divine, Divine-Beast and has a stupid description like "IF THIS CARD IS IN THE DECK YOU WIN THE DUEL AND YOU GET THE SOUL OF YOUR OPPONENT'S FIRST BORN SON HURR DURR I AM LEET CARD MAYKAR", complete with Infinite ATK and DEF.

[Flame Dragon]

Fake types are looked down on because they aren't that creative and over all don't serve a point. Most cards can be covered with the types we have now. Sure some can't be, but those a few. However if some one can think of a creative and useful fake type (psychic would have been a great example) thats a great thing.

 

I abhor fake types that are not given support. Fake types that are only created because they do not fit the real types.

I do appreciate' date=' however, fake types that are met with support. I also like Fake Subtypes.

[/quote']

 

what about divine types hmmm

Divine exists only for the god cards and really shouldn't be used.

 

 

On another note, since I know why this thread was made, Normal monsters have the same problem as fake type, if not more so. normal monsters, IMO, are really uncreative. Most of the fun of making cards for me has always been trying to think up fitting and fun effects for them and when it's made normal all of that is lost. If your making a set around the cards being normal that is one thing, but just adding Normal cards to a set really shouldn't be done.

[Pikachu]

*expects old FTK members to rant all day*

 

I never completely disliked Fake Types, but they're not fit for making in the Realistic section nor in pretty much any section. Look at all them noobs and them fake types, NONE of them are worth the time to be considered 'satisfactory'. In fact, they make it worse.

 

People of the FTK have made some very interesting fake type suggestions in the past, and I did enjoy a few ('inventor' was quite a smart one). But just ban it from all sections except 'Any Other Cards'.

[Guest JoshIcy]

*scratches head* No one here understands the 1 underlying factor?

 

Fake-Types aren't bad AT ALL. The thing that is bad, is that in order for them to make sense, they have to have extensive Support (maybe like 30 cards in the set?). For them to be viable. And without using an Archetype either, because that would cover the Type.

[jbizzle2pt0]

A lot of people hate fake types because a lot of noobs make unoriginal and useless fake types. For example' date=' a noob makes a card with a type called Knight. It could have been Warrior.

 

But sometimes, someone makes a completely original set with a completely original effect. So that person thinks it's good enough to have it's own fake sub-type. You don't have to make a fake type, but you can. You can just write out the effect on the card and give it the Effect type or put the fake subtype.

 

All in all, fake types are bad. Fake subtypes are okay.

[/quote']

 

I see no difference between types and sub types in my opinion

---

I abhor fake types that are not given support. Fake types that are only created because they do not fit the real types.

I do appreciate' date=' however, fake types that are met with support. I also like Fake Subtypes.

[/quote']

 

what about divine types hmmm

A subtype is Toon, Union, Spirit, etc.

 

Divine-Beast, you mean? I'm indifferent to them. Only if they're used to make a card that is Divine, Divine-Beast and has a stupid description like "IF THIS CARD IS IN THE DECK YOU WIN THE DUEL AND YOU GET THE SOUL OF YOUR OPPONENT'S FIRST BORN SON HURR DURR I AM LEET CARD MAYKAR", complete with Infinite ATK and DEF.

 

well I've never done that

[Umbra]

*scratches head* No one here understands the 1 underlying factor?

 

Fake-Types aren't bad AT ALL. The thing that is bad' date=' is that in order for them to make sense, they have to have extensive Support (maybe like 30 cards in the set?). For them to be viable. And without using an Archetype either, because that would cover the Type.

[/quote']

 

For them to make sense, they would have to fill a niche that isn't filled by an existing Type and would make sense to have on a field of war.

 

I don't see why people even say things like "I don't like fake Types, but I like fake Sub-types". It's the "but" that I don't comprehend. A Type is a categorization, while a Sub-type is above all a game mechanic.

 

Also, DIVINE and Divine-Beast are Types just like any other. Stop living in the past.

[Guest JoshIcy]

*scratches head* No one here understands the 1 underlying factor?

 

Fake-Types aren't bad AT ALL. The thing that is bad' date=' is that in order for them to make sense, they have to have extensive Support (maybe like 30 cards in the set?). For them to be viable. And without using an Archetype either, because that would cover the Type.

[/quote']

 

For them to make sense, they would have to fill a niche that isn't filled by an existing Type and would make sense to have on a field of war.

 

Its a start though, for created cards.

[Flame Dragon]

*scratches head* No one here understands the 1 underlying factor?

 

Fake-Types aren't bad AT ALL. The thing that is bad' date=' is that in order for them to make sense, they have to have extensive Support (maybe like 30 cards in the set?). For them to be viable. And without using an Archetype either, because that would cover the Type.

[/quote']

IMO most Fake types should be Archetype since most work better that way any way.

 

Also' date=' DIVINE and Divine-Beast are Types just like any other. Stop living in the past.

[/quote']

Yea, they are real, but they are VERY special since they were only made for the 3 gods.

[Spirit of DMG]

Let's see...should I rant? No. But I should point out that, according to IcyBlue, back in the days of the Fake Kingdom, and you can search for this post, if you think I'm lying, posting Fake Type Cards in the Realistic Section is not, in fact, against the rules. Thus, it's legal, thus, cry me a river, build a bridge, and get the frackin He|| over it.

 

Now, I am going to say this. Knight=Warrior, Cat=Beast. That much is true. Ninja is an existing Archetype, thus, Ninja=/=original type. However, "Fake Types are bad because their fake"? Did you even graduate Pre-School? So is every single card on this site, regardless of type. So, if you hate fake stuff that much, then become a mute, don't learn Sign Language, and leave this site. (Hint: All language is made up. It's series of sounds used for communication. Except Sign...that's non-verbal. But, the words had to be completely imaginary at some point.)

 

Here's my favorite type. My type. Loli.

Human. That eliminates Rock, Fish, Thunder, Sea Serpent, Insect, Beast, and Beast Warrior.

Clearly not trained for combat, and do not have weapons. Generally. This eliminates Warrior.

Don't use magic. This eliminates Spellcaster and Fairy.

 

They generally have low ATK and DEF. In fact, I've only made two Loli-Type with more than 1100 ATK, and one was a Synchro, the other was a Fusion.

 

So, how are they practical on the Battle Field? Simple, the effects. They all have very useful effects.