Kingdom Xathers Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Cannot be Normal Summoned/Set. Must be Special Summoned (from your hand) by having 4 or more "Lightsworn" monsters with different names in your Graveyard, and cannot be Special Summoned by other ways. You can only control 1 "Judgment Dragon". You can pay 1000 Life Points; destroy all other cards on the field. This effect of "Judgment Dragon" can only be used once per turn, also, "Judgment Dragon" cannot declare an attack during the turn this effect is used. During each of your End Phases: Send the top 4 cards of your Deck to the Graveyard. [spoiler=Originally, I had the errata like so:] Cannot be Normal Summoned/Set. Must be Special Summoned (from your hand) by having 4 or more "Lightsworn" monsters with different names in your Graveyard, and cannot be Special Summoned by other ways. You can only control 1 "Judgment Dragon". You can pay 1000 Life Points; destroy all other cards on the field. This effect of "Judgment Dragon" can only be used once per turn, also, other monsters you control cannot declare an attack during the turn this effect is used. During each of your End Phases: Send the top 4 cards of your Deck to the Graveyard.[/spoiler] ... eh, just thought I'd give it a try. Basically, the first bonded clause I added is the most important as it prevents swarming the field with 3 JD for game. Any thoughts, ideas or points to add? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanael D. Striker Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Um, still a lucksack given this card can still attack... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
玄魔の王 Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Damn, I've started something real. The fact you can still swing for 3k is kinda nuts. Maybe if it skipped your BP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffee. Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 See, heres the issue....Let's compare JD to other infamous nukes. K?JD nukes all other cards for 1K, hits for 3K, and can be played whenever you have that 4th Sworn in the Graveyard.Demise nukes all other cards for 2K, hits for 2.4K, and is tied to a Ritual that needs tributes to exactly equal 8.Garlandolf has no cost, only goes off when Ritual Summoned, and nukes other face-up monsters.Black Rose Dragon nukes everything, even itself, and has to be Synchro Summoned.Junk Destroyer, the "other" JD, can blow up cards up to the number of non-Tuners you used to make it......I guess what I'm getting at, is the fact Judgment Dragon has no strings/gimmicks/etc tied to it, and hits far more then it's cost warrants.And don't you dare say "having 4 Sworns" is a gimmick; The Archetype it's tied to makes that point completely moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingdom Xathers Posted March 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 See, heres the issue....Let's compare JD to other infamous nukes. K?JD nukes all other cards for 1K, hits for 3K, and can be played whenever you have that 4th Sworn in the Graveyard.Demise nukes all other cards for 2K, hits for 2.4K, and is tied to a Ritual that needs tributes to exactly equal 8.Garlandolf has no cost, only goes off when Ritual Summoned, and nukes other face-up monsters.Black Rose Dragon nukes everything, even itself, and has to be Synchro Summoned.Junk Destroyer, the "other" JD, can blow up cards up to the number of non-Tuners you used to make it......I guess what I'm getting at, is the fact Judgment Dragon has no strings/gimmicks/etc tied to it, and hits far more then it's cost warrants.And don't you dare say "having 4 Sworns" is a gimmick; The Archetype it's tied to makes that point completely moot. Believe me, Armz, as a part-time Lightsworn player myself, I know the "cost" of Summoning a JD is truly laughable (I could also go on about how I've been playing a non-JD Lightsworn Deck as a self-imposed challenge, but that's a tale for another time). Point is, I don't like JD all that much just for how abusable it is, especially when we factor in the Dragon Rulers and Eclipse Wyvern, and if I had my way, I would much rather do away with JD outright. But that's not the objective of this topic, so I digress. I will make a personal addendum in the meantime, though I will keep my first attempt as a "rough draft" to be viewed so as to not make prior comments moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Expelsword Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Much as I hate losing to JD, giving it an errata would kind of be saddening. Giving cards an errata to make them less powerful is not in the style of YGO, and I don't like it. What they've always done is print cards with a similar name or inspiration with the nerfed effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Much as I hate losing to JD, giving it an errata would kind of be saddening. Giving cards an errata to make them less powerful is not in the style of YGO, and I don't like it. What they've always done is print cards with a similar name or inspiration with the nerfed effect. Have you seen what they have done with CED-EOTE, Crush Card Virus, and others? This is completely within the style of yugioh. Of course, this is not a banned card, but the point still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maeriberii Haan Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 No point in this errata, to be honest. While others have their nostalgia factor (and the fact that they're on a full ban), this has none of those going for it. And it's at 3 anyway. Then again, I'm not a fan of erratas in general, since it can lead to other unpleasant things, and if invoked as deliberately as this, it's simply defeating the purpose of the banlist aside from a way to direct sales if it's not controlled. Errata would make it balanced yes, but it's not like there's any immediate need to fix this. Lightsworn's ain't doing shit atm, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffee. Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Believe me, Armz, as a part-time Lightsworn player myself, I know the "cost" of Summoning a JD is truly laughable (I could also go on about how I've been playing a non-JD Lightsworn Deck as a self-imposed challenge, but that's a tale for another time). Point is, I don't like JD all that much just for how abusable it is, especially when we factor in the Dragon Rulers and Eclipse Wyvern, and if I had my way, I would much rather do away with JD outright. But that's not the objective of this topic, so I digress.I will make a personal addendum in the meantime, though I will keep my first attempt as a "rough draft" to be viewed so as to not make prior comments moot.It's fine however you make it in the OP, I'm just giving my opinion for these sorts of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Expelsword Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Have you seen what they have done with CED-EOTE, Crush Card Virus, and others? This is completely within the style of yugioh. No, no it's really not. I have no idea why they just decided to start making banned cards terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- Minimania - Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 I'd rather have this in the game than the other one. Nice errata, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heraldry_lord Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 No, no it's really not. I have no idea why they just decided to start making banned cards terrible. Maybe they gradually want to do away with the banlist? Maybe they want Crush Card legal for Critias? Things change, for better or for worse. This is a thing now, and will likely remain a thing, whether you accept it or not. Also, Ring of Destruction is still good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBeartic Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 This is the errata that should've been given when JD was printed all those years ago. Shame they still haven't changed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.