~Faytl~ Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 Level 7, Synchro, Water Summoning conditions unknown 2700/??? When this card declares an attack, if your opponent activates a Spell/Trap Card: You can negate the activation, and if you do, destroy it (this is a Quick Effect). Once per turn, if a player(s) takes effect damage: Inflict the same amount of damage to your opponent. Thats... a very high ATK for a level 7 Synchro. AND a rather powerful effect. Who bets the summoning conditions are rubbish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Flyer - Sakura Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 Probably Nomi and requires a full WATER investment or something. Either that, or it requires Arctic Beasts, which only 2 exist right now. But yeah, it has S/T negation and burn on a 2700 body. --- Scrap Archfiend has 2700 ATK, but that's a Vanilla. This has negation over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blake Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykwqXuMPsoc Anyways, it's not even that great as-is, so I don't see what it would need restrictions for. 2700 ATK; Decent. It's not "a lot", it's slightly above par. True, a lot of level 7s are 2400, but Scrap Archfiend is 2700, and there is argument that this wouldn't totally outclass it (D/D/D, mainly). In addition, the effects are just okay. The first effect is a worse Ancient Gear effect 9/10, and that's an inferior Armades effect. The burn effect would likely be Opponent only if this saw IRL release, so that's fine, not even good. It's not the best design to 'outclass' Archfiend, but it's hardly a broken card or anything in need of a nerf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slinky Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 Being a WATER Synchro makes me love this so much. Was this used by that Nordic girl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cute Rotten Yoshika Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 the first effect is neat and limiting it to attack declaration specifically is a cool way to balance it. the second one is fucked up because your opponent is still a player, meaning it can double a burn which is grody. i imagine the second effect would either specify controller or become the continuous more generic "both players take any effect damage inflicted to a player". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warden Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 I think the second effect was just a needless staple-on to put Yuzu in a bad spot because reasons. It seems way too peculiar that it would have an effect that relies on something else inflicting burn to cause more burn if that were not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slinky Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 OCG, combine this with ring of Destruction. Both players take damage, then you take the combined damage (since it says player(s)), and fling it at your opponent again. Totally sounds fair. Also makes cards like Just Desserts, Ceasfire, Prepared Explosives, and Secret Barrel hit twice. That second effect may have to go if it ever gets released irl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heraldry_lord Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Also makes cards like Just Desserts, Ceasfire, Prepared Explosives, and Secret Barrel hit twice. So, are you saying you'd run this in the same deck as those cards? I'm not a huge fan of that second effect, but I'm not sure you should be using these as examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slinky Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Oh, I'm just stating things, I wouldn't exactly call it practical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.