BANZAI!!!! Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 [spoiler=lore]2 level 4 Warrior-Type monsters As long as your opponent controls 2 or more monsters, this card cannot be destroyed by battle or by card effects. Once per turn, you can detach 1 Xyz material from this card to target one monster in your opponent's graveyard. Special Summon that target to your opponent's side of the field in Defense Position. Your opponent cannot use the targeted card as Xyz, Fusion, or Synchro material. [/spoiler] Thought I'd celebrate post 400 by making a card. Comments/criticism are wanted and appreciated. EDIT: card lore has been altered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thanonyx Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Awesome artwork but your card is seriously broken. Tone it down some by either putting a restriction on it, a maintenance cost, making it a higher rank, or tweaking the effect itself a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BANZAI!!!! Posted March 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Was considering making it a generic 3 mat. Perhaps i will. Would negating the targets effects work better than the current effect? Having beaters that can be used as mats might be less broken then jamming their field with useless component monsters yes? And gosh darnit i love that artwork too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thanonyx Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Was considering making it a generic 3 mat. Perhaps i will. Would negating the targets effects work better than the current effect? Having beaters that can be used as mats might be less broken then jamming their field with useless component monsters yes? And gosh darnit i love that artwork too. That would help but I would either remove or tweak the anti-destruction effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 Personally I find the invincibility effect quite well made. It's up to your opponent to be able to kill this card by playing in a more moderate way. Ojama Trio is very trolly with it, but even so the option is there, which is more than I can say from Beelze I think the monster revival effect should do it in Defense Position. It's otherwise potentially very easy damage. The requirements might be a little bit on the easy side though. Making it a 3 Material might not help much to the cause either. I suggest making it less generic, something like choosing an Attribute or something to play it at (while maintaining x2 Materials). Nice pun in the name btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BANZAI!!!! Posted March 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 Personally I find the invincibility effect quite well made. It's up to your opponent to be able to kill this card by playing in a more moderate way. Ojama Trio is very trolly with it, but even so the option is there, which is more than I can say from Beelze I think the monster revival effect should do it in Defense Position. It's otherwise potentially very easy damage. The requirements might be a little bit on the easy side though. Making it a 3 Material might not help much to the cause either. I suggest making it less generic, something like choosing an Attribute or something to play it at (while maintaining x2 Materials). Nice pun in the name btw. I didn't even think about ojama trio. thats super trolly. attribute might not help very much because it still makes it very generic (i.e. FIRE still allows for fire fists/kings, boxers, etc) perhaps giving it a type restriction would be a better choice. As for the monster revival effect, i hadn't though about summoning dead chump monsters and killing them for damage. gonna change that for sure. considering expanding this inot an archetype because i like the idea. also im glad someone got the pun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.