Jump to content

Breaker the Magical Warrior : Discussion


Recommended Posts

banned

monster + free S/T removal' date=' no just no, also if you dont need the S/T removal a 1900 point beatstick >.< (lol ATK)

[/quote']

 

Shouldnt matter too much if you use things called "Chainable Cards".

That doesn't take away that it is a monster + free s/t removal.

 

Lyla > This

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

banned

monster + free S/T removal' date=' no just no, also if you dont need the S/T removal a 1900 point beatstick >.< (lol ATK)

[/quote']

 

Shouldnt matter too much if you use things called "Chainable Cards".

That doesn't take away that it is a monster + free s/t removal.

 

Lyla > This

No.

 

Are you trying to say Breaker should stay banned? It is a great card but does it really deserve banning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

banned

monster + free S/T removal' date=' no just no, also if you dont need the S/T removal a 1900 point beatstick >.< (lol ATK)

[/quote']

 

Shouldnt matter too much if you use things called "Chainable Cards".

That doesn't take away that it is a monster + free s/t removal.

 

Are you trying to say Breaker should stay banned? It is a great card but does it really deserve banning?

 

It will almost always get rid of 2 of the opponent's cards by itself (1 s/t and one monster) and thus generate advantage.

 

If the s/t targeted by Breaker is chainable, then it is still forced to activate. This means the he still got rid of it. If that card is does not prevent Breaker from also destroying a monster that turn, Breaker still generates that advantage.

 

If you want to avoid a loss of advantage because of Breaker and you don't have an answer to it, you must not set a s/t or play a monster, or both.

 

In other words, Breaker punishes players for setting up a strong field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

banned

monster + free S/T removal' date=' no just no, also if you dont need the S/T removal a 1900 point beatstick >.< (lol ATK)

[/quote']

 

Shouldnt matter too much if you use things called "Chainable Cards".

That doesn't take away that it is a monster + free s/t removal.

 

Are you trying to say Breaker should stay banned? It is a great card but does it really deserve banning?

 

It will almost always get rid of 2 of the opponent's cards by itself (1 s/t and one monster) and thus generate advantage.

 

If the s/t targeted by Breaker is chainable, then it is still forced to activate. This means the he still got rid of it. If that card is does not prevent Breaker from also destroying a monster that turn, Breaker still generates that advantage.

 

If you want to avoid a loss of advantage because of Breaker and you don't have an answer to it, you must not set a s/t or play a monster, or both.

 

In other words, Breaker punishes players for setting up a strong field.

 

Threatening Roar or Waboku can stop Breaker from destroying a Monster. Bottomless can stop Breaker upon summoning which would almost always happen. Breaker would still generate some sort of advantage even if he cant get rid of a monster right? Even if it is an MST with legs I dont see why it cant be Limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Supreme Gamesmaster

Lyla < this.

 

Lyla will almost certainly only get around to destroying 1 card, thanks to its 200 loldef*.

Breaker will almost certainly get rid of 2 cards on the first turn he's out with a more agreeable 1600-1900 lolatk.

 

True, Lyla mills the cards, but Breaker is about as splashable as DMoC. (Okay, not that splashable. But it's pretty damn splashable.) He's not quite banworthy, but I see no reason not to max him in every deck...

 

Limit, MST with a kickass cape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...