SephirothKirby Posted January 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 sacred crane for +1 and the possibility of summoning any chaos monster that you draw after. That was the most random comment ever. Really, what the hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindupRabbitFan14 Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Pitch-Black Power Stone? I'm gonna leaveit to that, but if it survives through the turns you have a +2, if im right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 sacred crane for +1 and the possibility of summoning any chaos monster that you draw after. 10/10 argument. lets see here' date=' should I run this level 5 d-hero[/quote'] You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azuh Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Why not keep it at one? It's not searchable. Although Breaker will not gain his effect unless he is given Spell Counters But this card sort of = Heavy Storm is ban worthiness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 But this card sort of = Heavy Storm is ban worthiness Heavy Storm has the redeeming quality of allowing the concept of s/t overextension to exist. Aside from his elegant fashion sense, Breaker has no redeeming qualities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 should I run this level 5 d-hero Knowledge is power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 there is only 1 playable priest it's dark and lets you win the game if you have 2 spellssummon priest ya i forgot witch and scientist Why on earth would you want to ban him? Just kill Airbellum. Meh. Ban nothin'. Why make a fuss about this mode of Synchro Summoning anyway' date=' unless somethin' is wrong with Synchros themselves?[/quote']It's the quantity, not the quality. For instance if there was a normal spell that said "special summon up to five zombies from your graveyard" it would be banworthy even if the zombies themselves aren't anything too overpowered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
system lord of fortune Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 i dont think he should get banned, mostly because hes in my deck but also because one you use its effect, its not realy very strong atall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 i dont think he should get banned' date=' mostly because hes in my deck[/quote'] *facepalm* but also because one you use its effect' date=' its not realy very strong atall[/quote'] Nor is Pot of Greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werewolfjedi Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 should I run this level 5 d-hero Knowledge is power. ah, crap, you know I meant 6. sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tickle Me Emo Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Normally Id say 1-for-1 removal aint banworthy but when you can 1-for-1 then slam for 1/5 lp damage... its banable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Normally Id say 1-for-1 removal aint banworthy but when you can 1-for-1 then slam for 1/5 lp damage... its banable. ...it's not 1-for-1 at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Normally Id say 1-for-1 removal aint banworthy but when you can 1-for-1 then slam for 1/5 lp damage... its banable. ...it's not 1-for-1 at all. More specifically its 1-for-1 + 1/5 LP damage or 2-for-1. In any case, Breaker is banworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Normally Id say 1-for-1 removal aint banworthy but when you can 1-for-1 then slam for 1/5 lp damage... its banable. ...it's not 1-for-1 at all. More specifically its 1-for-1 + 1/5 LP damage or 2-for-1. *facepalm* Can someone tell the class what it means for a card to be an "X-for-Y"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Shocker Android Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 "X for Y" means using X cards to remove/take care of/eliminate Y -2 for 1, vortexing GB Andal -1 for 1, breaker falls into a BTH -1 for 2, breaking a trap + killing a monster -1 for 3, breaking a trap + killing ocean + taking a shrink since wildheart can't trample him by himself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 "X for Y" means using X cars to remove Y -2 for 1' date=' vortexing GB Andal -1 for 1, breaker falls into a BTH -1 for 2, breaking a trap + killing a monster -1 for 3, breaking a trap + killing ocean + taking a shrink since wildheart can trample him by himself[/quote'] Your definition was wrong, three of your examples were wrong, and one of your examples would still have been wrong even if you hadn't screwed up the definition. You go to the back of the class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Shocker Android Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Typos damn me it's too late for school. Cars should be cards in the definition and can should be can't for the last example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Typos damn me it's too late for school. Cars should be cards in the definition and can should be can't for the last example. I mentally fixed all of your typos to what you meant to say while reading. Everything I said still applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Shocker Android Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Then I'm clueless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Then I'm clueless Your definition is backward; usually, at least in my experience, X-for-Y refers to spending Y cards to gain X advantage. However, this isn't terribly obvious, since that notation is usually only used for equivalent exchanges like 1-for-1 and 2-for-2, with phrases like +1 or -2 covering other situations, and it isn't terribly important, since the context makes the meaning obvious anyhow. The real problem is that, even with everything reversed, one of your examples is still wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Shocker Android Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 breaking a trap and killing a monster, I probably should have said and suiciding into a 1600 atk monster like equeste right? since breaker still needs to get off the field after this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 breaking a trap and killing a monster' date=' I probably should have said and suiciding into a 1600 atk monster like equeste right? since breaker still needs to get off the field after this.[/quote'] Correct. Breaking a card gives you a card of advantage without spending anything. To say that Breaker's effect is a 1-for-1 is to say that Stratos is a 1-for-1, and that Exiled Force is actually a -1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.