TRUE RULER^(Imper.Di ) Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 EDITED: [img]http://i.imgur.com/FlxwE.jpg[/img] OR [img]http://i.imgur.com/752JU.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newhat Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 This card is obscenely powerful. You can redirect attacks from your monsters and it doesn't say you can't control face-up Spells and Traps. If you dropped its ATK and DEF to, say, 1000, it would probably be OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
宇佐見 蓮子@C94 Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 I think 1700-2000 would be enough. I agree with Newhat that it's OP'd, since you can basically SS a 2600 Beater with no cost whatsoever. Reducing the ATK to 1700 and making it a level 5 would be more than enough to balance this. Plus, being a level 5, it can be used to Synchro Summon stuff, which is always a nice touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekazu4u Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 [quote name='newhat' timestamp='1343524768' post='5991395'] This card is obscenely powerful. You can redirect attacks from your monsters and it doesn't say you can't control face-up Spells and Traps. If you dropped its ATK and DEF to, say, 1000, it would probably be OK. [/quote] Why do you say everything that is anti-meta is somehow insanely powerful or something? It isn't even that crazy. It ends up working just like a powerful version of the old Gravekeepers Servant/Cosmos lock. People won't attack any more until they draw spell/trap destruction to kill the cosmos or a 2700+ atker. Although it shouldn't work from hand, then you could use it like a Gorz/Sakuretsu in one. But if it only came from Banish, then it would be fine. Or you could balance it by nerfing the ATK, but I don't think it would achieve what you want it to. Simply making it not summonable from hand fixes it perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRUE RULER^(Imper.Di ) Posted July 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 EDITED* I didn't edit it exactly to any above expectations, but to the expectations I specifically wanted. If still Op'd ill make it work ONLY if it is in the Banished Zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekazu4u Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 [quote name='YoungPrinceDeshwitat' timestamp='1343526039' post='5991418'] EDITED* I didn't edit it exactly to any above expectations, but to the expectations I specifically wanted. If still Op'd ill make it work ONLY if it is in the Banished Zone. [/quote] Uh, you just got rid of the balanced antimeta lock but kept the broken gorzish/sakuretsu aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRUE RULER^(Imper.Di ) Posted July 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 [quote name='thekazu4u' timestamp='1343526356' post='5991419'] Uh, you just got rid of the balanced antimeta lock but kept the broken gorzish/sakuretsu aspect. [/quote] [img]http://i.imgur.com/FSnO3.jpg[/img] I can try this one. OR making it only Summonable from the hand. I'm trying to find a middle ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekazu4u Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 How is that different than the original card? Why not just take your original card and remove the gorz'ish aspect? Just [quote] [color=#5A5A5A][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]This monster Cannot be Normal Summoned or Set. When your opponent declares an attack and you have no set cards in your Spell& Trap Card Zone, you can Special Summon this Banished card and change the attack target to this card, this effect can only be used once per turn.[/quote][/size][/font][/color] [color=#5A5A5A][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]Edit: I don't think you understand the problem. Coming back from the Banished zone isn't a problem. Coming when there are face-up spell/traps isn't the problem. The problem is you can summon it from hand for no cost and then destroy their monster (because most monsters have 2600 or less ATK).[/size][/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRUE RULER^(Imper.Di ) Posted July 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 The TOP one I have must be returned to the deck the turn it is used. It has 100/1 less lvl less than gorz, can't summon a token with FHD power. Can't burn. Its not really broken. But I can always take away the banish option. Can't even be Summoned by Legendary Ocean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekazu4u Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 ... you are taking away all the balanced options and leaving the only part of the card that was broken. All you had to remove to balance was the card was "or hand" and then card was fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRUE RULER^(Imper.Di ) Posted July 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Edited, both the latest versons under my Edit, and your Edit are up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekazu4u Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Allow me to clarify. Gorz is good for the game (in my opinion) only because it is significantly obvious when it can possibly be dropped (when there are no cards on the field.) This means a good player can play around it. This card has NO restrictions other than having no back row, which happens all the time anyways. Coming back from banish has NOTHING to do with it. There they can SEE it, so a good player can play around it. Having 100 less attack than gorz has nothing to do with it. Not summoning a token means nothing; you are probably killing the ATKing monster anyways, so its still a +1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRUE RULER^(Imper.Di ) Posted July 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 I actually removed the wrong part earlier I always intended to remove the 'from the hand' option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekazu4u Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 [quote name='YoungPrinceDeshwitat' timestamp='1343527530' post='5991437'] I actually removed the wrong part earlier I always intended to remove the 'from the hand' option [/quote] Ok. It was just a bit confusing to keep on saying remove the "or hand" part and watch as every other possible other option was removed EXCEPT that part xD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.