Jump to content

Supporting card for Uria


Recommended Posts

so then what you think...... overpower????? balance????? rate?????

 

i said i liked it, but if you asked me it might be a tad bit overpowered. but not by much. i think the ocg is fine, not the best but i couldnt write any better. =)

 

8.7/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uria is a challenge to get on the field by itself, and what's the chance of having this card in your hand/on the field when you finally get Uria out... So I think it suits, a powerful card for a powerful monster. It's a support card like Phantasmal Martyrs is for Raviel.

 

I do think it does need a down fall, as in say a cost to activate it/a constant cost per standby phase maybe... Discard a card at each standby phase/pay 1000 life points to activate it... But I like it!

 

8/10 cause of some minor OCG errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

plz point out my errors for me so i can correct it......... and what you think that made it overpower????

 

"Corrected OCG"

 

This card can only be activated while you control a face-up "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames". While this card is face-up on the field, you can activate the effect of "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" during either players turn. The activation and effect of this card cannot be negated. This card cannot be destroyed by your opponent's card effects. When "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" is removed from your side of the field, destroy this card.

 

"Spell cards that are destroyed by the effect of "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" are negated"... You don't need to state that seeing as Uria negates the activation on any spells/traps in responce to it's effect, so this is just repeating it.

 

Effect doesn't have a capital unless it's typed with Monster Effect.

 

A few "d" and "ed" missing from words, plus it only said "When "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" is removed from your side, destroy this card"... It didn't say "from your side of the field".

 

I think that's all.

 

Overpower wise... Seeing as it helps Uria greatly but cannot be destroyed, and doesn't cost a thing to activate it. So basically your opponent won't have any spells/traps on the field and you can do this all for free.

 

Personally I think it need's a cost, because the effect takes an already powerful effect, and makes it even more powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KAJN

Well I don't think it's that good. You mustn't make Overpowered cards in the realistic section and announce that you made it overpowered. You must think of a good balanced effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with most of the above. I personally believe it's underpowered because the chances of drawing this card and having Uria on the field are very low. Also because Uria is so hard to summon [my opinion], and this doesn't really do much to it [depends on how you look at it]. It is overpowered by not having a downfall, but I still believe it is underpowered. 8/10. good job nonetheless...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

plz point out my errors for me so i can correct it......... and what you think that made it overpower????

 

"Corrected OCG"

 

This card can only be activated while you control a face-up "Uria' date=' Lord of Searing Flames". While this card is face-up on the field, you can activate the effect of "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" during either players turn. The activation and effect of this card cannot be negated. This card cannot be destroyed by your opponent's card effects. When "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" is removed from your side of the field, destroy this card.

 

"Spell cards that are destroyed by the effect of "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" are negated"... You don't need to state that seeing as Uria negates the activation on any spells/traps in responce to it's effect, so this is just repeating it.

 

Effect doesn't have a capital unless it's typed with Monster Effect.

 

A few "d" and "ed" missing from words, plus it only said "When "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" is removed from your side, destroy this card"... It didn't say "from your side of the field".

 

I think that's all.

 

Overpower wise... Seeing as it helps Uria greatly but cannot be destroyed, and doesn't cost a thing to activate it. So basically your opponent won't have any spells/traps on the field and you can do this all for free.

 

Personally I think it need's a cost, because the effect takes an already powerful effect, and makes it even more powerful.

[/quote']

 

well i think that uria's effect only says that your opponent cannot activate cards in respond to uria's effect... i dont think it negates the effect.. anyways........ thank for pointing out alot of my mistakes....... appriciate it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

plz point out my errors for me so i can correct it......... and what you think that made it overpower????

 

"Corrected OCG"

 

This card can only be activated while you control a face-up "Uria' date=' Lord of Searing Flames". While this card is face-up on the field, you can activate the effect of "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" during either players turn. The activation and effect of this card cannot be negated. This card cannot be destroyed by your opponent's card effects. When "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" is removed from your side of the field, destroy this card.

 

"Spell cards that are destroyed by the effect of "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" are negated"... You don't need to state that seeing as Uria negates the activation on any spells/traps in responce to it's effect, so this is just repeating it.

 

Effect doesn't have a capital unless it's typed with Monster Effect.

 

A few "d" and "ed" missing from words, plus it only said "When "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" is removed from your side, destroy this card"... It didn't say "from your side of the field".

 

I think that's all.

 

Overpower wise... Seeing as it helps Uria greatly but cannot be destroyed, and doesn't cost a thing to activate it. So basically your opponent won't have any spells/traps on the field and you can do this all for free.

 

Personally I think it need's a cost, because the effect takes an already powerful effect, and makes it even more powerful.

[/quote']

 

well i think that uria's effect only says that your opponent cannot activate cards in respond to uria's effect... i dont think it negates the effect.. anyways........ thank for pointing out alot of my mistakes....... appriciate it..

 

I thought about that last night. It's debatable that effect because if your opponent activates a spell/trap when you activate Uria's effect, well that as far as I'm concerned is in responce to Uria's effect.

 

If you did want to put something like that in there, say "Your opponent cannot activate any Spell/Trap Cards targeted by the effect of "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames"." OR "Negate the activation of Spell/Trap Cards targeted by the effect of "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames"."... I think thats what you meant with what you said originally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really Good.. Uria is actually in my summon special deck. The problem is' date=' Considering that card is actually a continous trap, It might be tributed in the event of summoning Uria. I have summoned Uria frequently.

 

It's great, I would personally make it a continous magic anyway, 9/10

[/quote']

 

if you play sevral uria in your deck... then when this card is destroyed by the first uria... it can boost the next uria's atk... thats why i made it continous trap.... and it suits uria more anyway...

 

 

plz point out my errors for me so i can correct it......... and what you think that made it overpower????

 

"Corrected OCG"

 

This card can only be activated while you control a face-up "Uria' date=' Lord of Searing Flames". While this card is face-up on the field, you can activate the effect of "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" during either players turn. The activation and effect of this card cannot be negated. This card cannot be destroyed by your opponent's card effects. When "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" is removed from your side of the field, destroy this card.

 

"Spell cards that are destroyed by the effect of "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" are negated"... You don't need to state that seeing as Uria negates the activation on any spells/traps in responce to it's effect, so this is just repeating it.

 

Effect doesn't have a capital unless it's typed with Monster Effect.

 

A few "d" and "ed" missing from words, plus it only said "When "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames" is removed from your side, destroy this card"... It didn't say "from your side of the field".

 

I think that's all.

 

Overpower wise... Seeing as it helps Uria greatly but cannot be destroyed, and doesn't cost a thing to activate it. So basically your opponent won't have any spells/traps on the field and you can do this all for free.

 

Personally I think it need's a cost, because the effect takes an already powerful effect, and makes it even more powerful.

[/quote']

 

well i think that uria's effect only says that your opponent cannot activate cards in respond to uria's effect... i dont think it negates the effect.. anyways........ thank for pointing out alot of my mistakes....... appriciate it..

 

I thought about that last night. It's debatable that effect because if your opponent activates a spell/trap when you activate Uria's effect, well that as far as I'm concerned is in responce to Uria's effect.

 

If you did want to put something like that in there, say "Your opponent cannot activate any Spell/Trap Cards targeted by the effect of "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames"." OR "Negate the activation of Spell/Trap Cards targeted by the effect of "Uria, Lord of Searing Flames"."... I think thats what you meant with what you said originally.

 

what i ment is that when your opponent activates a spell, you can destroy with uria's effect and it negates the effect of the spell.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...