=CC Disc.= Fake Types?

[Icy]

I was recently contacted by a member regarding faketypes, something that has always been in some form a kind of controversy among users; whether the rules at the time for them were clarified or not, hesitation has always been present. And while I myself have my own belief on how fake-types should be oriented. However, there are times when my viewpoint regardless of how authoritative is not correct even by decree, nor is mine on a personal nature even if by opinion.

So I want to know:[list]
[*]What is it to you that makes Faketypes justifiable?
[*]Must they follow a certain criteria?
[*]Can they be made just on a whim?
[*]Should they follow the same grammar rules even when introducing new grammar rules?
[/list]
Or just in general, discuss them and how you'd believe they could or could not be applicable in Realistic Cards and/or the rest of Custom Cards.

[OmegaWave]

I believe "Fake Types" should be allowed in Realistic. As long as they're actually "Realistic". If they follow the basic gameplay rules and grammar, I see no issue.

[Dwarven King]

[quote name='OmegaWave' timestamp='1312597851' post='5418419']
I believe "Fake Types" should be allowed in Realistic. As long as they're actually "Realistic". If they follow the basic gameplay rules and grammar, I see no issue.
[/quote]

This...this...and more of this.

[Therrion]

[center][center]I believe that if they have no relation to other types the are justified.[/center][/center]
[center][center](Don't make a "Demon" Type, as for Fiend is just fine. Same for "Angel" and etc.)[/center][/center]

[Icy]

Guess it's time to post my opinion?

While FakeTypes are creative in their own right, lazy in others. They suffer from hindrances to how a person can view your card with, as well as compare it. Even if you had an idea, you pose no viewpoint when it comes to the Type aspect. One, that can either make, break, help or do nothing with a card. Lets look at the aspects that it takes to consider playability:[list]
[*]Type, Attribute, Level, Effect, ATK/DEF Stats, Subtype and Cardtype
[/list]
By adding a Faketype you are removing one of those considerations, no matter how negligible. But like every ounce of creativity, there is always a silver lining. And that is, if you expand on it at first presentation beyond just a few cards we do have something to compare that missing aspect to as you yourself have created it.

A prime example of this, albeit in a far more skewed way is a set created by none other than one of our Super Moderators before he became a Moderator, Zalpyr with his Push Spell and Force Monster Set. Located here: [url="http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/35699-push-spells-and-force-monsters/"]http://forum.yugiohc...force-monsters/[/url] . Notice how he expanded on the idea right away instead of leaving it to simply one card. Giving us that missing link, not limiting our viewpoints but expanding them.

Something that modern faketype makers appear to lack...

[PAINTAIN GOD OF DUNDA MT.]

I was never a big fan of fake types in RC because it is "Realistic Cards" after all.

But in Pop Cultures and Any other cards I don't really care.

[J-Max]

This reminds me a lot of my Field Chibi Archetype. I swear it was in AoC for quite a while until I made more support for it.

Fairy/Field.

Fake Types can be useful but not to replace a already existing Type such as Angel instead of Fairy (Believe me I was like that at one time lol)

[PAINTAIN GOD OF DUNDA MT.]

[quote name='J-Max' timestamp='1312648877' post='5419746']
This reminds me a lot of my Field Chibi Archetype. I swear it was in AoC for quite a while until I made more support for it.

Fairy/Field.

Fake Types can be useful but not to replace a already existing Type such as Angel instead of Fairy (Believe me I was like that at one time lol)
[/quote]
Honest truth.
Thats what I mean...

[Ieyasu Tokugawa]

So what if you made an Angel Type just because you wanted to start a new type? Not replace an old one?

[J-Max]

[url="http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/151154-field-chibi-token-expander/page__hl__%2Bfield+%2Bchibi__fromsearch__1"]http://forum.yugiohc...__fromsearch__1[/url]

I just remembered that I actually stuck to Fairy/Effect to keep it realistic. Although I really wanted Fairy/Field.

Then it would have to be Special. Having a Pic of a Angel and giving it a Angel Archetype is not enough. I like to think that Angels Ascend to Heaven so maybe once it reaches a certain ATK a Special Effect can activate.

[Lucario2812]

I personally believe that fake-types are pointless. The yugioh card game has numerous types and its not our place to change that. I personally don't mind fake-cards but i understand they are annoying to numerous users. We did not create yugioh and if we want to to create new cards for fun we should at least stick by the rules of the game. If people wish to create cards with fake-types that is fine but posting it on the realistic cards forum can only lead to negative outcomes.

[Synchronized]

This one's interesting; because, I'm not sure how I feel about it. On one hand, it almost takes away creativity. I can design a new "Elemental" type, and then just create a bunch of themed cards for the type that are remakes of other cards "Reinforcement of the Army, The A. Forces, Ancient Forest), etc.

On the other hand, if the type is Realistic (not like, "EGGPLANT"), and there's an actual premise behind it and a designed set, similar to Psychics, then I don't see a problem with it. I think it's completely okay.

[Archwing]

I think it would just be a gimmick thats abused by newbies and rarely used by people who can actually use it right but I could be wrong. Too many people will start making their cards unique by giving them a new type rather than giving them a unique effect and too many will use types that if they where real would have been on other cards (Like Ice-Type on the Ice barrier monsters comes to mind) Come to think of it, What Fake-Types are there that couldnt be achived with a combination of the Real Attributes and Types?
Aether/Void Can be the attribute of LIGHT or DARK with an effect sayings its also treated as the opposide one (or even use the "???" Like on tolkens and stuff).
Sound based monsters are Thunder-Type IMO Thunder being the sound and not electricity (Somthing that allways bugged me).
The only real use I could see for fake-types is that it allows you to create an archtype that dosnt have to all share the same title in their name like psychic monster. Mabey allow people to do it in Any other card and if it dose good after a month or so let it be used in Pop culture and Realistic?

[♥Łövëły-Ċħän♥]

Fake Subtypes, Card types, Attributes, Effects. These are the only things that I think should really be allowed place in RC. Fake types have no place. What fake type can you create that isn't already here?

Angel = Fairy
Demon = Fiend
Monster = Fiend or Beast-Warrior
Animal = Beast
Cyborg = Psychic
ect.

Anyways, they also need dedication which I highly doubt people would give to them. Most people would most likely make it an archetype or end up making it a card type rather than a monster type. Since the fake type has no real support by real cards, one would have to be dedicated to making that new type and then make tons of support and mechanics for the card. I think its enough to let Fake Types be in AOC.

[This Account is Unplayable]

Fake sub-types and card-types should be allowed perfectly fine.

But on the topic of fake types, unless a person can create significant support for said type, and a significant number of cards to not merely warrant it being an archetype with archetype specific support, they shouldn't be allowed.

This is because all basis for a monster type are already covered by the other types, it's quite literally verging impossible to find any way to justify a new type on aesthetics. Using a real type also allows for significantly better comparison in the game, with the support they already have because of which.

If the type does have a significant number of cards (both monster and support) it becomes something new in itself, and thus should be allowed. The only question really is where are the boundaries for "a significant number"?

[LiquidDJ11]

I think you should Allow it, But in the title put FT for Fake type when you post a fake type card(s) in Realistic or something, so people who are offended dont have to read it. Honestly, I dont really care myself, as long as it isnt repetitive or negative, like Angel, or Ur Mom.

[.Rai]

My personal take on it is that:

Only make a Type if it not yet covered by those that exist. Why very little good fake types appear over here is because Konami successfully covers (one of the few things they actually do right) most types of creature.

But the good fake types that do pop up, I have no problem with them. Sometimes they don't come under the above category, Psychics are a good real life example. They could easily come under any of the other types but is instead classified under Psychic.

What I don't like, however, is people creating fake types for one archetype. Expand it onto other monsters that are more generic, not just the 1 archetype.

[♥Łövëły-Ċħän♥]

If it is decided that Fake-Types are allowed in RC, I'd advise that we create a list of Types that one cannot use. I.E. Things like Demon, Angel, Cyborg, God (Divine Beast), ect.

[Icy]

But those would be allowed, as they are OCG terms.

[Cloister]

I believe that faketypes need to be expanded upon. Otherwise it's just a useless card in some way or another. And for you to want to expand and making more card cards, you want to get criticism/response, which, sadly, doesn't happen often enough today.

[♥Łövëły-Ċħän♥]

Ah, well their not faketypes then and can thus be used because they have the support. However, those that are not OCG but are covered by TCG types, they should be restricted because they basically just making more supprt for the currently existing type they are portraying.

[Master White]

I just have to wonder, do people condised sub-types as fake-types 2?

Maning as I've seen a lot of remade cards on here that look actually decent and some are decent, meaning the Gamble Summon and etc.

So, if the Fake-subtype is included on this, I wouldn't mind having them in RC, as long as they are relistic enough and base their views.....even with regular "Fake" types, I wouldn't mind....

[♥Łövëły-Ċħän♥]

Thats the ting though, there are very few people here who would be able to do that. Build a franchise out of that type without making it an Archetype or Card Type.

[Sploda]

I have been a supporter of Fake-Types for awhile now, I don't see an issue with them, as long as, and I know I'm repeating what others have said, they are expanded upon.

One card set isn't enough, make a Deck, Make 2 Decks, Make 100 cards with that type and cards that support it. Create a backstory, not just spam effects, make vanillas, make Fusions, Make Synchros, go all the way. Make it seem like it should be part of the TCG/OCG. Make cards with TCG/OCG types that support the Fake-Type, Do the same with Counters to your type. Dedicate all your cards to making that type as realistic as possible.

I've been working towards this for awhile now, I've yet to finish but I'll be posting my work soon.

[krisanderson]

[quote][/quote] I think this is a whole lot of hoopla, yeah I said hoopla (since it's not a real word, there is no correct spelling, lol) anyway, I think, just post the fake types in pop culture or something. Thats the reason why there are more than one posting areas. All posting areas are viewed relatively similar, so why worry where you post it. Honestly, I could care less where they go, but seriously people, you can be creative and not have to go and make new types. Just stick with the ones out now, there are enough, lol. That's my view on the subject, take it or leave it.