Zexsa Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 [img]http://www.yugiohcardmaker.net/ycmaker/createcard.php?name=Summoning%20Shockwave&cardtype=Spell&subtype=normal&attribute=Light&level=1&magictraptype=None&rarity=Super%20Rare&picture=http://images.yugiohcardmaker.net/579454/995970504.jpg&set1=OPED&set2=BAN12&inset=false&type=&description=This%20turn%2C%20inflict%20200%20damage%20to%20your%20opponent%20each%20time%20you%20special%20summon%20a%20monster(s).%20%20When%20you%20special%20summon%20a%20monster(s)%2C%20you%20must%20banish%20all%20other%20monsters%20you%20control.%20&circulation=sdada&atk=&def=&creator=&year=2012&serial=19262189[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~British Soul~ Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 no thumbnails please as for the card itself, it's not OP'd imo, 200 for each SS your opponent does isn't that much, though it would've made more sense as a continous Spell. I don't think this would see much play tbh because of the effect on your monsters, would you really want to risk losing them when you SS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sander Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 [quote name='evilsoul' timestamp='1335168419' post='5923192'] I don't think this would see much play tbh because of the effect on your monsters, would you really want to risk losing them when you SS? [/quote] I'm sure without that clause, there would be some stupid, loop that could make your opponents LP go down to 0. Mind you a deck that uses something like that wouldn't be that great, but loops generally are bad design. Still, the last clause is still too much, even if it does prevent stupid loops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~British Soul~ Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [quote name='Zanda Panda' timestamp='1335183239' post='5923249'] I'm sure without that clause, there would be some stupid, loop that could make your opponents LP go down to 0. Mind you a deck that uses something like that wouldn't be that great, but loops generally are bad design. Still, the last clause is still too much, even if it does prevent stupid loops. [/quote] if it didn't have that last clause, i'm sure that the loops that would reduce your opponent's LP to 0 utilizing this card would be inconsistent anyway (just like the Fenix OTK) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sander Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [quote name='evilsoul' timestamp='1335286778' post='5924066'] if it didn't have that last clause, i'm sure that the loops that would reduce your opponent's LP to 0 utilizing this card would be inconsistent anyway (just like the Fenix OTK) [/quote] True, true. Honestly, the card can go without the last clause, as it hinders it too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~British Soul~ Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [quote name='Zanda Panda' timestamp='1335287112' post='5924068'] True, true. Honestly, the card can go without the last clause, as it hinders it too much. [/quote] yup i agree with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.