Phantom Roxas Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kira the Savior Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 haha wow.......anyways this card is epic. One time in my first hand I drew three, set them all. Then my opponet played heavy and I chained all three. It was hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Only useful if ran in 3s. And even then for the best effect you need to use more then 1 of the 3 for the best effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Bannable card in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kira the Savior Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Bannable card in my opinion. elaborate please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 It's Pot of Greed, except activates one turn later. When activated in multiples, it puts you in a place where the advantage you'd gained is far and away more then enough to bring the game to an end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kira the Savior Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 But its the drawack of the two turns phases. Your chances of getting them together are low enough that thats balanced out. So is Konamis logic anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 The "draw back" of the two skipped draw phases is meaningless if you've already drawn into the cards that win you the game. Furthermore, simply by getting cards that draw more or thin out the deck you're ability to draw into them is increased, and that's not including stacking into the equation. (I can't remember how many times I've set Morphing Jar and 2 or more Reckless Greeds.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kira the Savior Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 well Koami will never listen to you so yell about it all you want... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 What's with the snarky remark? I only gave my opinion on the matter because you asked me to elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnpsy Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 They should add a ruling or something that adds the skipped draw phases instead of stacking. Either that or limit it. This card is cheap. At 1, it's meh, at 2, it's amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Judgment Dragon Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Must be run at 3 or not run at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiro Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 The "draw back" of the two skipped draw phases is meaningless if you've already drawn into the cards that win you the game. Furthermore' date=' simply by getting cards that draw more or thin out the deck you're ability to draw into them is increased, and that's not including stacking into the equation. (I can't remember how many times I've set Morphing Jar and 2 or more Reckless Greeds.)[/quote'] Since when have you switched to 'lolcurrentmeta' logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 The "draw back" of the two skipped draw phases is meaningless if you've already drawn into the cards that win you the game. Furthermore' date=' simply by getting cards that draw more or thin out the deck you're ability to draw into them is increased, and that's not including stacking into the equation. (I can't remember how many times I've set Morphing Jar and 2 or more Reckless Greeds.)[/quote'] Since when have you switched to 'lolcurrentmeta' logic? What the devil do you mean? I've been preaching against this card since TeleDAD came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted June 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 The "draw back" of the two skipped draw phases is meaningless if you've already drawn into the cards that win you the game. Furthermore' date=' simply by getting cards that draw more or thin out the deck you're ability to draw into them is increased, and that's not including stacking into the equation. (I can't remember how many times I've set Morphing Jar and 2 or more Reckless Greeds.)[/quote'] Since when have you switched to 'lolcurrentmeta' logic? What the devil do you mean? I've been preaching against this card since TeleDAD came out. Like hell you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Like hell you have. I really don't care what some random off YCM thinks' date=' but since I have to be absolutely perfect: http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/thread-75173.html http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/thread-92597.html Most of the topics degenerated into a stupid "lol, 0 or 3 card" meme-fest which any idiot would know just by looking at the god damn card, and me being too much of a lazy whore and not caring to return to the actual topic in hand. But I'll be happy to troll in this one for now. You'd have to be mentally thick to disagree with the consensus that this is a 3 or 0 card, in terms of main decking, you either main 3, or you main 0, just like Malicious. However forgetting for a moment that pretty much every card (with only a handful of acceptions) is a 3 or 0 card, on a good list, where would you place this card? (And the term "good list" is used mostly for you to decide.) And I'd hate to see this topic devolve into a "[Card A'] is much more broken then Reckless Greed.", so let's try to steer clear of those types of arguments, for now at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted June 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Most of the topics degenerated into a stupid "lol' date=' 0 or 3 card" meme-fest which any idiot would know just by looking at the god damn card, and me being too much of a lazy whore and not caring to return to the actual topic in hand.[/quote']Which leads me to my next point. Which do you think this card should be at? Three or zero? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 This should be 0 if we're considering its position on a 3-0 list, as should Black Whirlwind, which is similar in concept, and dangerous in stacks. The problem with Reckless doesn't only lie in the current meta, but any Deck that has a win condition. The temporary advantage gain is all you really need to get an unfair edge, like Pot of Greed. When stacked, especially in threes, it's just a +3 (until later on, but it's still a +1 even then). Combined with any other draw card, it's also deadly, because it gets you even CLOSER to your deck's win condition, as well as other copies of Reckless. Even as a single copy, it's still a POt of Greed and gives enough instant gain to get more gain from other draw cards until you reach your win condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Most of the topics degenerated into a stupid "lol' date=' 0 or 3 card" meme-fest which any idiot would know just by looking at the god damn card, and me being too much of a lazy whore and not caring to return to the actual topic in hand.[/quote']Which leads me to my next point. Which do you think this card should be at? Three or zero? Lol if you think that's me actually trying to lead a conversation and not halfasss-edly phoning it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.