[ Aix's Singles ] Special Hunter *Reps for Reviews*

[Aix]

Another powerful Rank 4 Xyz. As usual: [b]Reps for reviews.[/b]

Ax 

[drcrisis]

Perfectly balanced, until the last line

 

The fact that it draws a card makes it so much better than any other XYZ monsters.

 

No matter WHAT you do with this card, you will always draw a card in the end. It can absolutely obliterate some decks and become unstoppable with the right backrow, and when they actually get over it, you go +1. That's unfair.

[Aix]

Ah, I wanted to fill space cuz it looks better that way. Okay, changing it.

[Sora1499]

Eh, it's not horrible. However, you could technically mini-lock your opponent with 2 of these, so what I'd do is nix the first clause and add "This card must be face-up on the field to activate and resolve this effect." What I like about it is that it also somewhat restricts you while it's on the field instead of just weighing down your opponent. The one change I'd make is nix the card trooper clause: you're already plussing from getting his effect off, no need for more pluses.

[Zazubat]

I'm confused on your design choices here. You are having it be a not SS? When does that happen, that doesn't happen why? Then I see that it's a mandatory effect. Then I think, why? That's not very useful, especially for yourself, considering it doens't say "your opponent's monster" or something like that, so it's pretty impractical. The defence change is just bad for the card, and considering you're making it's other effect mandatory as well, you're may discard something you don't really want, and while you gain a new card, it's for a cost so DW won't have fun with it (I'm starting to say that a lot, but really it's important to know that it's different). I don't like it, if you simply changed it to be optional, and got rid of that weird "not actually a SS" clause, I would be fine with it, but I wouldn't use it.

[Sora1499]

I honestly think you should just remove that last clause entirely, Axi. It's irrelevant to the rest of the card.

[Aix]

I'm confused on your design choices here. You are having it be a not SS? When does that happen, that doesn't happen why? Then I see that it's a mandatory effect. Then I think, why? That's not very useful, especially for yourself, considering it doens't say "your opponent's monster" or something like that, so it's pretty impractical. The defence change is just bad for the card, and considering you're making it's other effect mandatory as well, you're may discard something you don't really want, and while you gain a new card, it's for a cost so DW won't have fun with it (I'm starting to say that a lot, but really it's important to know that it's different). I don't like it, if you simply changed it to be optional, and got rid of that weird "not actually a SS" clause, I would be fine with it, but I wouldn't use it.

It's not a SS because I don't want him killing himself... not sure how that works. If it doesn't work like that, well, then, I'd still like to keep it because it'd be (insert word here) to still be able to SS with Dyna or Krystia around... though that might be cheap...?

[PrimeAceJohn]

I honestly think you should just remove that last clause entirely, Axi. It's irrelevant to the rest of the card.

 

Agreed with Sora. The card is called "Special Hunter" so it hunts for SS monsters, the drawing clause has nothing to do with that.

 

I like the card in general since there are a lot of SS in the meta so making this would be awesome. 

 

The forcing it in defense position is also great since it will be easily thrown out after using its effect.

[Zazubat]

It's not a SS because I don't want him killing himself... not sure how that works. If it doesn't work like that, well, then, I'd still like to keep it because it'd be (insert word here) to still be able to SS with Dyna or Krystia around... though that might be cheap...?

It would kill itself off by doing that, which is why I'm confused as to why you are not just making the destroy opional, unless you arhaving that effect for chain control, as Mandatory effects always go first, though it, as I said, makes this very inpractical to use.

As for it's balance, yes it would. Avoiding that will make any trigger or Continuous worthless, and making a monster thats SS only like that is to a non-SS breaks games. But your card is pretty tame, so it doesnt matter here too much.

[Sora1499]

It would kill itself off by doing that, which is why I'm confused as to why you are not just making the destroy opional, unless you arhaving that effect for chain control, as Mandatory effects always go first, though it, as I said, makes this very inpractical to use.
It would kill itself off by doing that, which is why I'm confused as to why you are not just making the destroy opional, unless you arhaving that effect for chain control, as Mandatory effects always go first, though it, as I said, makes this very inpractical to use.

He's making the destruction mandatory so that you can't SS this, spam field, and claim GG. It's an interesting turn on the anti-SS design, and it's fine as-is.

[Zazubat]

[quote name="Sora-kun" post="6138310" timestamp="1360188332"]He's making the destruction optional so that you can't SS this, spam field, and claim GG. It's an interesting turn on the anti-SS design, and it's fine as-is.[/quote] But that just makes this pretty useless imo.

[Aix]

(ಥ⌣ಥ) People be liking ma cardz.

 

I'd see this used most at the end of your turn, really, and you just put it there so your opponent can't SS on their turn... but the problem is that it IS rather hard to get over a 2100 ATK beater so I'm sort of on the fence on whether the original Defense Position clause is needed. It would balance it as in: Your opponent wastes resources to SS and it turns this card to defense, so when they want to SS afterwards, they have to take this thing out, the Defense Position thing gives them a chance to take this thing out. You are still good and safe because your opponent has just sorta wasted their BP.

 

First turn, this card could be lethal, ya kno. Dis plus Safe Zone... :o

 

Oh yeah, I should make this thing usable during Damage Step.

[Sora1499]

[quote name="Zaziuma" post="6138317" timestamp="1360188723"]But that just makes this pretty useless imo.[/quote] No, it makes it balanced. It's a great stand-alone and, with prior set-up, it can be lethal. So Axi approached the problem of stacking a shitload of monsters by making the effect mandatory. This discourages thoughtless spamming and then throwing this in to deal the deal.

[Zazubat]

[quote name="Sora-kun" post="6138319" timestamp="1360188953"]No, it makes it balanced. It's a great stand-alone and, with prior set-up, it can be lethal. So Axi approached the problem of stacking a shitload of monsters by making the effect mandatory. This discourages thoughtless spamming and then throwing this in to deal the deal.[/quote] I be talking usability not balance, yeah it's balanced good but aint good since you lock yourself up when you need that SS but cant since your opponent be stalling, you know what I'm saying?

[Aix]

I be talking usability not balance, yeah it's balanced good but aint good since you lock yourself up when you need that SS but cant since your opponent be stalling, you know what I'm saying?

Play it after your gigantic Wind-Up Swarm.

[Zazubat]

Play it after your gigantic Wind-Up Swarm.

Leave Wind-ups out of any discussion regarding CC, Konami I just... you!! OP: Make a PoD like clause so this wont happen and In fine with it

[Sora1499]

[quote name="Zaziuma" post="6138363" timestamp="1360191421"] Leave Wind-ups out of any discussion regarding CC, Konami I just... you!! OP: Make a PoD like clause so this wont happen and In fine with it[/quote] PoD clause makes it literally unplayable, lol. I repeat, it's fine as-is.

[Cute Rotten Yoshika]

i do like the card but there are two small issues i have with it: any deck that gets lots of extra normal summons (hunders, constellars, fire fists somewhat, any deck that mains ultimate offering) will easily be able to get multiples out because they dont destroy other copies of Special Hunter which can be a slippery slope and easily lock out your opponent. bearing that in mind i would add a "You can only control 1 face-up "Special Hunter"" clause. i would also possibly lower the attack slightly as 2100 is difficult to get over with no special summons (and likely a lot of backrow to protect Special Hunter). maybe 2000 or 1900.

[Aix]

i do like the card but there are two small issues i have with it: any deck that gets lots of extra normal summons (hunders, constellars, fire fists somewhat, any deck that mains ultimate offering) will easily be able to get multiples out because they dont destroy other copies of Special Hunter which can be a slippery slope and easily lock out your opponent. bearing that in mind i would add a "You can only control 1 face-up "Special Hunter"" clause. i would also possibly lower the attack slightly as 2100 is difficult to get over with no special summons (and likely a lot of backrow to protect Special Hunter). maybe 2000 or 1900.

Backrow to protect Special would require dedi-- oh wait, Compulsory, BTH and Forbidden Lance could easily protect it. Yeah, I've been thinking about that. I originally had a clause that turned it to Defense Position after negating something (it could still negate in Defense Position), do you think that would be better?

[Sora1499]

As I've said before, all you need is the "This card must be face-up on the field to activate and resolve this effect" clause, and them it will trigger on multiples. I also wouldn't go below 2k with his ATK, or else he'll become another Roach.

[Cute Rotten Yoshika]

it would be better than how it is currently but the issue with that is that switching to def isnt a big loss. it makes it easier to kill but 1) youre not losing much of anything except special hunter itself and any unused materials (which if you really need to use you could pop your own monsters if that helps any. like a weird fire king tech.) and 2) it doesnt solve the issue of bringing multiple out or the issue of "Special Hunter x2-3 set 5 gg". An only one face-up clause would really solve the issues with this card. i would even accept it at 2100 with no switch to def clause if you could only have one out at a time.

[Sora1499]

@Claire [quote name="Sora-kun" post="6138506" timestamp="1360201019"]As I've said before, all you need is the "This card must be face-up on the field to activate and resolve this effect" clause, and them it will trigger on multiples but also won't trigger on itself.[/quote]

[Aix]

Change made.

[Cute Rotten Yoshika]

i hadnt seen that specific point sora. yeah that works and with that implemented im happy with where it is.

[Sora1499]

Wait, no changing to defense position anymore? You can leave out the defense mode changing, but if you do I highly recommend that you give it a Once per turn restriction.