Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Using Blaster as the example, works for all of them If this card is in your hand or Graveyard: You can banish a total of 2 FIRE and/or Dragon-Type monsters from your hand and/or Graveyard, except this card; Special Summon this card. During your opponent's End Phase, if this card was Special Summoned: Return it to the hand. You can discard this card and 1 FIRE monster to the Graveyard, then target 1 card on the field; destroy that target. If this card is banished: You can add 1 FIRE Dragon-Type monster from your Deck to your hand. You can only use 1 "Blaster, Dragon Ruler of Infernos" effect per turn, and only once that turn. Two points of discussion, could the Dragon Rulers, Blaster being the most famous, be unbanned as is? If not, what about this errata If this card is in your hand or Graveyard: You can banish a total of 2 FIRE and/or Dragon-Type monsters from your hand and/or Graveyard, except this card; Special Summon this card. During your opponent's End Phase, if this card was Special Summoned: Return it to the hand. You can discard this card and 1 FIRE monster to the Graveyard, then target 1 card on the field; destroy that target. If this card is banished: You can add 1 FIRE Dragon-Type monster from your Deck to your hand. You can only use 1 "Blaster, Dragon Ruler of Infernos" effect per turn, and only once that turn. No more Rank 7s, the Chibis can remain at three. ETC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebuchet MS Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Just cutting out "Dragon-Type" from the first effect breaks apart the whole Druler in-synergy within the archetype and kicks them down to being the Attribute support they were meant to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warden Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 You wouldn't really need that second errata, as the Dragon Rulers would no longer be synergetic if they were Attribute specific. You'd be hard-pressed to find a deck that would use more than 1 type of Ruler as they would cease being Dragon support and instead would remain completely as Attribute support. I'd be fine with that, they should have been purely Attribute support from the beginning. And Gadgiltron beat me to the point. Also, as I said in the Moja thread, I'd be fine with only Redox coming off the list unchanged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilfusion Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Yeah, the D-Rulers were broken because on their own, they were cute little techs for Attribute-heavy Decks, since one of their effects needs their Attribute (Blaster's nuke). But with the ability to Summon them using Dragons AND/OR their Attributes made them have a ton of synergy with each other. You banish them for the Summon of another, and get the banished ones' search effect. It was stupidly synergetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 You wouldn't really need that second errata, as the Dragon Rulers would no longer be synergetic if they were Attribute specific. You'd be hard-pressed to find a deck that would use more than 1 type of Ruler as they would cease being Dragon support and instead would remain completely as Attribute support. I'd be fine with that, they should have been purely Attribute support from the beginning. And Gadgiltron beat me to the point. Also, as I said in the Moja thread, I'd be fine with only Redox coming off the list unchanged. We might have problems with the Chibis tooling them out of the deck then using the effect of the dragon ruler in question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warden Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Granted, but, if they stayed @1 with the new errata, drawing a Ruler would render every copy of their Chibi useless. Also, you couldn't SS the Ruler from the grave except by banishing their Attribute. So, more copies of themselves and/or their Chibis. I mean, Super Rejuv is also gone as well, so the deck wouldn't be as functional since the important part is their ability to banish each other, which then triggers more searches. Killing the ability to banish each other is what's important here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Wouldn't adding the second clause allow for the rulers to hit 3? I mean isn't the point to make them completely fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warden Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 It's called making baby steps. You put them to 1 first to see how the new errata goes, and if there's not much impact they drop down lower. It's the way it's gone for many cards that escaped the banlist, like Magician of Faith. You don't rush these things as you end up creating a bigger mess than what you started with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Sorry, I'm used to OCG taking a much faster transit. (DSF 0->3) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 It's called making baby steps. You put them to 1 first to see how the new errata goes, and if there's not much impact they drop down lower. It's the way it's gone for many cards that escaped the banlist, like Magician of Faith. You don't rush these things as you end up creating a bigger mess than what you started with. Stream in Mermails could easily = 2 Rank 7. With the second clause its at best 1 Rank 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maeriberii Haan Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Please don't double post. Tbh I agree that it needs to be at 1 first assuming this errata takes place before moving it up later. Man, though the thought of triple Tempest in Ritual Beast sounds cute. And Dragunity can maybe be a thing again yay. Either way, better be safe than sorry and take baby steps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Please don't double post. Tbh I agree that it needs to be at 1 first assuming this errata takes place before moving it up later. Man, though the thought of triple Tempest in Ritual Beast sounds cute. And Dragunity can maybe be a thing again yay. Either way, better be safe than sorry and take baby steps. Sorry sorry, feel free to delete the first one. I thought the posts would merge. I just think after the monster that Chaos Emperor Dragon is, it might be better for us to play this one close to the chest and "over" hit the card. When did tooling out a beater from your deck become bad mfw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 A massive floater for any deck with a bit of extra versatility is not really something I want back anyway. Look at Tidal in Mermail, it was clearly the best and most broken card, even though it only ever banished WATERs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 A massive floater for any deck with a bit of extra versatility is not really something I want back anyway. Look at Tidal in Mermail, it was clearly the best and most broken card, even though it only ever banished WATERs. Which is why I'm suggesting adding an extra level of restriction so it's one floater not 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutrality Man Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Alternative option: Fuck da police and add that rumored Special Condition to the list from the months leading up to LTGY The Main Deck can only contain at most 6 "Dragon Ruler" cards. Or this alternative: The Main Deck can only contain "Dragon Ruler" cards of 1 Attribute. The first would keep DRuler.dek's full power from seeing the light of day, but enable its use in a reduced capacity. The second prevents them from synergizing without the erratas. That said, I've always believed the problem with these 4 cards is the "Dragon-Type" in their Summon condition. Without it, they're perfectly fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 If this card is in your hand or Graveyard: You can banish a total of 2 FIRE and/or Dragon-Type monsters from your hand and/or Graveyard, except this card; Special Summon this card. During your opponent's End Phase, if this card was Special Summoned: Return it to the hand. You can discard this card and 1 FIRE monster to the Graveyard, then target 1 card on the field; destroy that target. If this card is banished: You can add 1 FIRE Dragon-Type monster from your Deck to your hand. You can only use 1 "Blaster, Dragon Ruler of Infernos" effect per turn, and only once that turn. 1) 2 FIRE and/or Dragon-Type monsters => 3 Fire Type 2) You can only use 1 "Blaster, Dragon Ruler of Infernos" effect per turn, and only once that turn. =>You can only use 1 "Dragon Ruler" effect per turn, and only once that turn. Move them to three please They should be sufficiently hit to move to 3 I'd think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBeartic Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 I don't see the problem with TCs errata. They weren't even supposed to be a deck on their own, they were SUPPOSED to be elemental support. TCs errata from my eyes seems to make them for elemental support like they were SUPPOSED to be. Not any of that cancerous shit they pulled a few years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 They weren't even supposed to be a deck on their own, they were SUPPOSED to be elemental support. Bullshit. Konami knew EXACTLY what they were doing with these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 Bullshit. Konami knew EXACTLY what they were doing with these. KoJ literally SOLD DMD Rulers to the players....this shit was all planned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 The intended synergy is made apparent by the on-banish clauses of each Ruler, for use in accelerating field presence with the chibis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilfusion Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 It didn't help the "we're totally doing this for money" theory that the TCG had the year's tins be the Rulers. Yet, ironically, TCG version of Tachyon Galaxy had them printed as Rares, with the OCG printing them as Supers. But the tins still were desirable because of the pretty Secret foil Rulers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.