Jacob Slottet Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 This is my first topic, I'm somewhat new here. This card cannot be Special Summoned. This card returns to the owner's hand during the End Phase of the turn that this card is Normal Summoned, Flip Summoned, or flipped face-up. When this card is successfully Normal Summoned or Flip Summoned, destroy all WATER monsters on the field if "Umi" is in play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A._Sakuyamon Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 well its okay nothing really useful about it, only say this cause most people us different decks now and this is only good to one thing sry still nice card and welcome 7.452/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
touzaikokon Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Interesting. It's fairly limited. Like, extremely so. Drop the requirement for "Umi" to be on the field, and it would be more playable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Slottet Posted August 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Haha, when you think about it, a lot of cards (not custom) are useless. I somehow found cards such as Raigeki and Pot of Greed useless. To be honest, I wouldn't use more than half of the custom cards I've made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiAM Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 I would use this, along with Decking a few Umi's. That's if I had a WATER Deck anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Slottet Posted August 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Interesting. It's fairly limited. Like, extremely so. Drop the requirement for "Umi" to be on the field, and it would be more playable. So what you're saying is that instead it should just destroy all WATER monsters without Umi being a requirment? Sounds awsome, but doesn't that seem unbalanced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
touzaikokon Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 So what you're saying is that instead it should just destroy all WATER monsters without Umi being a requirment? Sounds awsome, but doesn't that seem unbalanced?It seems unbalanced, but let's compare a real-life situation: If I run a Machina deck, and my opponent plays an anti-Machine card like System Down, then they get to screw up a lot of my setup with one card. Likewise, if someone runs a WATER deck, they run the risk of running into an anti-WATER card, like this one. It seems unbalanced, but it's a very specific risk. Besides, cards like this only see play if a particular Type dominates the Meta. If anything, it tries to keep an otherwise dominant force in check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Slottet Posted August 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 It seems unbalanced, but let's compare a real-life situation: If I run a Machina deck, and my opponent plays an anti-Machine card like System Down, then they get to screw up a lot of my setup with one card. Likewise, if someone runs a WATER deck, they run the risk of running into an anti-WATER card, like this one. It seems unbalanced, but it's a very specific risk. Besides, cards like this only see play if a particular Type dominates the Meta. If anything, it tries to keep an otherwise dominant force in check. Ah, I think I see what you're saying. Is it because there's no cost for this card's effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crossader Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Let me see... this guy is an anti-WATER deck... the only error i see in it is at the end... ...destroy all WATER monsters on the field if "Umi" is in play. write this instead: ... destroy all WATER monsters on the field if "Umi" is face-up on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Slottet Posted August 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Let me see... this guy is an anti-WATER deck... the only error i see in it is at the end... ...destroy all WATER monsters on the field if "Umi" is in play. write this instead: ... destroy all WATER monsters on the field if "Umi" is face-up on the field. Hahaha! No, I don't run an anti-WATER deck. This is just one of the cards I've made off the top of my head. Thanks for the correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRenji Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 This is a very good card for a new member. Very useful and original. 9.4/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Slottet Posted August 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 This is a very good card for a new member. Very useful and original. 9.4/10 Thanks for the input, but appearantly a few members don't seem to agree. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
touzaikokon Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Ah, I think I see what you're saying. Is it because there's no cost for this card's effect?Not exactly. The point I'm trying to make is that it's okay that this card doesn't have a cost, (besides being a Spirit Monster, which you could consider a cost), because it only harms a specific group of monsters. If anything, this would just be seen and accepted as some anti-Frog tech in the current Meta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crossader Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 That frog deck OR maybe a "Legendary Ocean" deck, wich lost some popularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacob Slottet Posted August 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Hmm, good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.