Valkyrus Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 [img]http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb278/mario1092/doctorofbane.jpg[/img] Perhaps underpowered, although it could easily deal some serious damage. And is also hilarious. for example > flip their sangan into attack > use effect to make it indestructible by battle > ram this into it 3 times = 5700 damage. (or it's gg if you flipped a Ryko ) Also works against Gachi Gachi, Zenmaines, etc. Also note the detaching effects aren't once per turn. Anyways, comment/rate/love/hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 nice, mad scientist type picture attacking up to 3 times can get OPed, this could easily turn into a OTK effect. Imagine attacking Marshmellon with this. You get 2600 atk each time, so you'd do 7800 damage. That would be utter hell it goes likewise for your effect in preventing a monster from being destroyed until the end phase personally I think you should lower the atk a bit if you're going to allow it to attack 3 times over either that or cut the battle damage WAY down. Hell, I'm unsure if even halving the battle damage would be considered enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrus Posted March 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 [quote name='ragnarok1945' timestamp='1330681373' post='5851664'] nice, mad scientist type picture attacking up to 3 times can get OPed, this could easily turn into a OTK effect. Imagine attacking Marshmellon with this. You get 2600 atk each time, so you'd do 7800 damage. That would be utter hell it goes likewise for your effect in preventing a monster from being destroyed until the end phase personally I think you should lower the atk a bit if you're going to allow it to attack 3 times over either that or cut the battle damage WAY down. Hell, I'm unsure if even halving the battle damage would be considered enough [/quote] Hoping your opponent will have a marshmallon on the field at the time you summon this is too situational to even take into account. It's also definitely not the easiest thing to summon as it's 3x level 5 monsters, and the only deck I can think of that can pull that off are Sacreds, and it wouldn't be with ease either. Because it can OTK by itself in some idealistic scenarios doesn't really make it bad. Although I might consider lowering the ATK to something more befitting of a rank 5.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 so maybe drop it to like 2500ish or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confederacy Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 The effect of this card is kinda unique i think, but what i have in mind is...you should increase the LVL of this monster, about Lvl 7 or 8, 'cause its original ATK is somehow kinda big. Anyway, cool pic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrus Posted March 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 [quote name='ragnarok1945' timestamp='1330682900' post='5851679'] so maybe drop it to like 2500ish or something? [/quote] [quote name='Confederacy' timestamp='1330683429' post='5851684'] The effect of this card is kinda unique i think, but what i have in mind is...you should increase the LVL of this monster, about Lvl 7 or 8, 'cause its original ATK is somehow kinda big. Anyway, cool pic [/quote] actually no, its ATK isn't that much compared to other rank 5's that require 3 materials...Well, there's only 1 other such monster and its ATK is 3200. But yeah, Rag, I might drop it to 2500-2600ish just so I avoid some easy OTK's, but I'll wait until I get more feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confederacy Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 [quote name='Gandorator' timestamp='1330686225' post='5851712'] actually no, its ATK isn't that much compared to other rank 5's that require 3 materials...Well, there's only 1 other such monster and its ATK is 3200. But yeah, Rag, I might drop it to 2500-2600ish just so I avoid some easy OTK's, but I'll wait until I get more feedback. [/quote] And what exactly is that "other" monster if i may ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 [quote name='Gandorator' timestamp='1330686225' post='5851712'] actually no, its ATK isn't that much compared to other rank 5's that require 3 materials...Well, there's only 1 other such monster and its ATK is 3200. But yeah, Rag, I might drop it to 2500-2600ish just so I avoid some easy OTK's, but I'll wait until I get more feedback. [/quote] all right, just don't drop it to like 2000, then it'd be too weak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confederacy Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Well well well, it's new to me that the stars above the card's image is not the card's LEVEL, it's actually the Rank of the Monster...hmmm....i'm not rlly into the new version of YGO TCG....haha sorry for my previous mistake when commenting your card dude, my bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DARKPLANT RISING Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 No, Gandorator, keep it at 2900. Don't listen to rag. Why? Because if you can get out 3 Level 5 Monsters, that means you're "worth" winning. The only deck that consistently spams Rank 5s is Stellars, and they usually go for Pleiades. Pleiades is a card that says "WIN" all over it, but sometimes even it's not enough. Or even the Volca-Dragoon combo. This would act as a valid third win condition for Stellars (and would be used in nothing else anyways). If this can't OTK, it's worthless. As it is now, it certainly [i]can[/i] OTK, and that's the good thing about it. Nice card, and it's fine as it is. I think you're getting better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrus Posted March 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 [quote name='Confederacy' timestamp='1330691415' post='5851765'] Well well well, it's new to me that the stars above the card's image is not the card's LEVEL, it's actually the Rank of the Monster...hmmm....i'm not rlly into the new version of YGO TCG....haha sorry for my previous mistake when commenting your card dude, my bad [/quote] You shoudl really learn about Xyz and how they work before commenting on Xyz monsters or else it wouldn't help much. [quote name='Darkplant - VENOM' timestamp='1330692724' post='5851775'] No, Gandorator, keep it at 2900. Don't listen to rag. Why? Because if you can get out 3 Level 5 Monsters, that means you're "worth" winning. The only deck that consistently spams Rank 5s is Stellars, and they usually go for Pleiades. Pleiades is a card that says "WIN" all over it, but sometimes even it's not enough. Or even the Volca-Dragoon combo. This would act as a valid third win condition for Stellars (and would be used in nothing else anyways). If this can't OTK, it's worthless. As it is now, it certainly [i]can[/i] OTK, and that's the good thing about it. Nice card, and it's fine as it is. I think you're getting better. [/quote] Alright, I won't change it. Thanks ^^ What are Stellars though, did you mean Sacreds, or some deck I haven't heard of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confederacy Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 haha alright alright, my bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrus Posted March 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2012 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DARKPLANT RISING Posted March 3, 2012 Report Share Posted March 3, 2012 TCG name for Sacreds. "Pleiades" should have cleared it up enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrus Posted March 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2012 [quote name='Darkplant - VENOM' timestamp='1330752406' post='5853531'] TCG name for Sacreds. "Pleiades" should have cleared it up enough. [/quote] They named them Stellars? The hell.. Sacreds sound so much better. Anyways, I guess it makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrus Posted March 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.