Neo Gate Guardian

[Sasuke Samurai 6]

Neo Gate Guardian

3750 ATK / 3400 DEF

Warrior / DARK

 

Effect:

-Cannot be Normal Summoned/Set. Must be Special Summoned (From your Hand) by tributing "Sanga of the Thunder", "Suijin" and "Kazejin", and cannot be Special Summoned by other ways. This card's Special Summon cannot be negated.  If this card is Special Summoned this way, it gains the following effect: If this card leaves the field: You can Special Summon up to 3 LIGHT, WATER and/or WIND monsters from your Deck, hand or Graveyard. They are unaffected by card effects until the End Phase. Cards and effects cannot be activated in response to this effect's activation.

-Cannot be targeted, or be destroyed by, your opponent's card effects.

-If this card attacks or is attacked, your opponent cannot activate cards or effects until the end of the Damage Step.

-During either's player turn: You can return this card to the hand.

-This card effect's cannot be negated.

-You can only Special Summon 1 "Neo Gate Guardian" per turn.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

I'm going to assume this card is also Level 11 like OG Gate Guardian, but yeah, even taking into account that Gate Guardian's parts aren't easy to summon even now, this card does a bit too much.

 

For one thing, it's basically impossible to get rid of except if you can somehow overpower it in battle or use non-targeting bounce removal (I mean, there ARE some things you can do, but none of those options are used nowadays, if at all), but then it'll float into ANY monster of the listed Attributes if it leaves and opponent can't even chain something like Solemn Strike to it. Then again, it can just bounce itself to get its pieces out (or really anything you want, assuming consistency isn't shot in your Deck when doing so). Though, looking it over, you already need to devote 6 Tributes to it in most cases (unless you Pendulum Summon them off a Scale 8, then the effort is moot and there you have a monster that's near impossible to remove for minimal effort).

 

I guess the Star Eater clause on it is fine though, as it would be a waste if this gets Bottomless'd or negated via common backrow.