Aix Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 2 Level 8 monsters While this card has Xyz Material, it can attack your opponent directly. When this card inflicts battle damage to your opponent: You can target 1 face-up monster your opponent controls; destroy that target. Once per turn, during either player's turn, when a Spell/Trap Card or another monster effect is activated: Detach 1 Xyz Material from this card; negate the activation. Went on DN today and saw this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffee. Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 I'm curious: What Decks in question were playing this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 That's pretty good. Double Divine Punishment + destruction effect. Is it better than Felgrand though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilfusion Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 I'm curious: What Decks in question were playing this? I think he just saw it when filtering "by newest". It's...not terrible. But Rank 8 has a lot of really good stuff, like Felgrand, Giant Killer, etc. This has 2000 ATK and can attack directly while it has Materials, which is GOOD, but Heartlandraco and Nightmare Shark already do the "2000 ATK direct attacker", admittedly at a cost of a Material. But this card doesn't have any self-protection from attacks, so the investment of 2 Level 8 monsters is...way too much. On the bright side, it can negate a Spell, Trap, or Monster Effect for a detach. Except it doesn't kill that card, so monsters with over 2000 ATK are still going to just run over this, effect or not. I would just keep running the other Rank 8s than really rely on this. Giant Killer, Alsei, No.107, No.62, Felgrand...did I mention how amazing Felgrand is yet? Because Felgrand owns this thing. So this card isn't terrible, it's just outclassed by Felgrand. And the other amazing Rank 8s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slinky Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 I think he just saw it when filtering "by newest". It's...not terrible. But Rank 8 has a lot of really good stuff, like Felgrand, Giant Killer, etc. This has 2000 ATK and can attack directly while it has Materials, which is GOOD, but Heartlandraco and Nightmare Shark already do the "2000 ATK direct attacker", admittedly at a cost of a Material. But this card doesn't have any self-protection from attacks, so the investment of 2 Level 8 monsters is...way too much. On the bright side, it can negate a Spell, Trap, or Monster Effect for a detach. Except it doesn't kill that card, so monsters with over 2000 ATK are still going to just run over this, effect or not. I would just keep running the other Rank 8s than really rely on this. Giant Killer, Alsei, No.107, No.62, Felgrand...did I mention how amazing Felgrand is yet? Because Felgrand owns this thing. So this card isn't terrible, it's just outclassed by Felgrand. And the other amazing Rank 8s. Nah, it is terrible. It'd actually be good if you could apply pressure by choosing when to negate. Being mandatory killed any chance this card had at being good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aix Posted August 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 Nah, it is terrible. It'd actually be good if you could apply pressure by choosing when to negate. Being mandatory killed any chance this card had at being good. I actually didn't notice that it was mandatory. Well, nevermind then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracoswag Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 If it had slightly better stats then maybe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 I don't think it's that bad. Or rather - I'd actually run this thing in a rank 8 deck. Why? Rank 8 decks have a tendancy to be on the aggressive side. Then they are given this - A 2k direct attacker who can negate effects that tries to stop him doing so. Suddenly, they have a quick and easy way to close out games. And even if they bait out his effect to allow them to stop the direct attack The rest of the card doesn't matter - It's just going to be used as a rank 8 Cowboy and guarantee victories. And thus it is definitely worth space. Likewise it's not as if the rank 8 extra deck is that crowded atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mugendramon Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 hello shittier LaDD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slinky Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 I don't think it's that bad. Or rather - I'd actually run this thing in a rank 8 deck. Why? Rank 8 decks have a tendancy to be on the aggressive side. Then they are given this - A 2k direct attacker who can negate effects that tries to stop him doing so. Suddenly, they have a quick and easy way to close out games. And even if they bait out his effect to allow them to stop the direct attack The rest of the card doesn't matter - It's just going to be used as a rank 8 Cowboy and guarantee victories. And thus it is definitely worth space. Likewise it's not as if the rank 8 extra deck is that crowded atm. Every deck I've seen that incorporates Rank 8s also use Rank 4s. Why would you choose to add a Number 23 over a second (or third) Felgrant? Especially when if you want a 2k direct attacker, you can just run 82. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miror B Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 Every deck I've seen that incorporates Rank 8s also use Rank 4s. Why would you choose to add a Number 23 over a second (or third) Felgrant? Especially when if you want a 2k direct attacker, you can just run 82. Remind me, does Heartland Draco destroy something upon damage? Oh no, it does not. I'm sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted August 11, 2014 Report Share Posted August 11, 2014 Every deck I've seen that incorporates Rank 8s also use Rank 4s. Why would you choose to add a Number 23 over a second (or third) Felgrant? Especially when if you want a 2k direct attacker, you can just run 82. I'm fairly sure current Galaxy decks don't run 4's anymore because well they only run Wizard to make them with. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that Black). Soooooo that's one sample. Remind me why running this thing means you can't have multiple Felgrand? The pool of must use rank 8's is incredible slim. It's simply multiple Felgrand at this point. Everything else is format and deck dependant. And remind me why, as just a card by itself, a 2k direct attacker that can destroy something, and also protects itself (Or at the very least burns out one card of the opponents for free) is inferior to a 2k direct attacker with an inferior protection effect arguably? If your deck can make 4's and 8's consitently, I definately wouldn't run Heartland over this - Heartland is inferior at the job because it doesn't have as good inbuilt protection. Seriously, the comparasons to Felgrand and LaDD on here are just kinda silly, because that's not what the cards best utility feature is. It should instead be viewed as a 2k Win-Button with in-built protection in an already aggressive rank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blake Posted August 11, 2014 Report Share Posted August 11, 2014 I'm fairly sure current Galaxy decks don't run 4's anymore because well they only run Wizard to make them with. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that Black). Soooooo that's one sample. Remind me why running this thing means you can't have multiple Felgrand? The pool of must use rank 8's is incredible slim. It's simply multiple Felgrand at this point. Everything else is format and deck dependant. And remind me why, as just a card by itself, a 2k direct attacker that can destroy something, and also protects itself (Or at the very least burns out one card of the opponents for free) is inferior to a 2k direct attacker with an inferior protection effect arguably? If your deck can make 4's and 8's consitently, I definately wouldn't run Heartland over this - Heartland is inferior at the job because it doesn't have as good inbuilt protection. Seriously, the comparasons to Felgrand and LaDD on here are just kinda silly, because that's not what the cards best utility feature is. It should instead be viewed as a 2k Win-Button with in-built protection in an already aggressive rank. Nyet. They do run R5, but that's not relevant to Heartandraco. What's ALSO not relevant to Heartlandraco is you don't run it as a generic R4, you run it as a closer in R4.deks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greiga Posted August 11, 2014 Report Share Posted August 11, 2014 In earlier times Heliopolis and Giant Killer still existed so this still might not have had time on the field. The thing is that it was just them so this guy might have had a chance. Since it's a worse LaDD you can overlay 2 used LaDD to make this if you were that bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heraldry_lord Posted August 11, 2014 Report Share Posted August 11, 2014 In earlier times Heliopolis and Giant Killer still existed so this still might not have had time on the field. The thing is that it was just them so this guy might have had a chance. Since it's a worse LaDD you can overlay 2 used LaDD to make this if you were that bored. No offense, but I think it's unfair that this guy is being compared to Light and Darkness Dragon or Heartlandraco. He may have elements of the two, but he's still his own thing, and from my perspective, he has his potential uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greiga Posted August 11, 2014 Report Share Posted August 11, 2014 No offense, but I think it's unfair that this guy is being compared to Light and Darkness Dragon or Heartlanddraco. He may have elements of the two, but he's still his own thing, and from my perspective, he has his potential uses. Like attacking for game directly as a finishing move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heraldry_lord Posted August 11, 2014 Report Share Posted August 11, 2014 Like attacking for game directly as a finishing move? Yes. That is one, but if for some reason it doesn't finish them off, it gets to do some spot removal, and if they try to stop him, it has a shot at countering their efforts. All this being said, I would have liked its negation to not be mandatory myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miror B Posted August 11, 2014 Report Share Posted August 11, 2014 Like attacking for game directly as a finishing move? Or straight up attacking for 2k, ignoring that Mirror Force/Dimensional Prison and killing one of their monsters while he's at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-kyo- Posted August 11, 2014 Report Share Posted August 11, 2014 I'm curious: What Decks in question were playing this? gimmicks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azuh Posted August 11, 2014 Report Share Posted August 11, 2014 Is this card technically a Laundsallyn monster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.