Dark_Armed_Zombie Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Ok, so I've been seeing this teched more now, but I assume part of that is it being reprinted. Insta-removal is good since it gets around Stardust. Discuss! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie17 Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Good defensive trap. Nothing bad to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Nice tech card. I use it in various builds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Cakey Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Sakuretsu Armor but better. Infuriating when it's used on you. Satisfying when you use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonk Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 I like it because it is a broken card:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Unclean One: VK Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 I like it because it is a broken card:D It's not broken, it's near broken, wait no, it's not even near. It's a wonderful defensive card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b0b3rt Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Will see more use both with starlight road and against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rose Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Amazing card, with it reprinted it's easy to get also.Another reason why the machiners structure deck owns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 The perfect sheild, if you need to fill your deck, I don't know why you'd not want 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie17 Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 I'm thinking this is going to become Limited, because up until now it was a Promo card (fewer quantity) so no need to limit it, now with reprints its far more accessible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rose Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 I'm thinking this is going to become Limited' date=' because up until now it was a Promo card (fewer quantity) so no need to limit it, now with reprints its far more accessible.[/quote'] This would never be limited. Even Konami isn't that stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b0b3rt Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 I'm thinking this is going to become Limited' date=' because up until now it was a Promo card (fewer quantity) so no need to limit it, now with reprints its far more accessible.[/quote'] That's like saying JD should be at 3 because it's a secret rare, so not everybody can get one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie17 Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 3 of these gets rid of any 3 monsters for no cost. You don't think having 3 of these in your Deck is a bit overpowering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Granted, it's useful where its played, but it's pretty overrated. Those chainable theme-support traps like Lair Wire and Icarus Attack grind it to a pulp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rose Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 3 of these gets rid of any 3 monsters for no cost. You don't think having 3 of these in your Deck is a bit overpowering? Not really. It's just an enhanced version of Sakuretsu Armor, but even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie17 Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Maybe then Semi-Limited might be more appropriate. Mirror Force is limited / it can get rid of 5 potentially / face-up only / destroyed not removed / no cost This at semi-limited / it can get rid of 1 only / face-up only / removed from play / no cost Mirror destroys more, but this removes 1, everything is about the same beside those, so I'm thinking it should be semi-limited atleast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b0b3rt Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Soo.... fissure should be semi-limited? Smashing ground? Any and all other +0s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rose Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Maybe then Semi-Limited might be more appropriate. Mirror Force is limited / it can get rid of 5 potentially / face-up only / destroyed not removed / no cost This at semi-limited / it can get rid of 1 only / face-up only / removed from play / no cost Mirror destroys more' date=' but this removes 1, everything is about the same beside those, so I'm thinking it should be semi-limited atleast.[/quote'] Semi-limiting this card is pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie17 Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Soo.... fissure should be semi-limited? Smashing ground? Any and all other +0s? Fissure destroys it does not remove. It comes down to do you think removing a card is far more damaging than destroying. Also Fissure was made Limited at one point.Maybe then Semi-Limited might be more appropriate. Mirror Force is limited / it can get rid of 5 potentially / face-up only / destroyed not removed / no cost This at semi-limited / it can get rid of 1 only / face-up only / removed from play / no cost Mirror destroys more' date=' but this removes 1, everything is about the same beside those, so I'm thinking it should be semi-limited atleast.[/quote'] Semi-limiting this card is pointless. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Soo.... fissure should be semi-limited? Smashing ground? Any and all other +0s? No, they should be banned. Fissure and Smashing Ground anyway. +0s aren't necessarily criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rose Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Soo.... fissure should be semi-limited? Smashing ground? Any and all other +0s? Fissure destroys it does not remove. It comes down to do you think removing a card is far more damaging than destroying.Maybe then Semi-Limited might be more appropriate. Mirror Force is limited / it can get rid of 5 potentially / face-up only / destroyed not removed / no cost This at semi-limited / it can get rid of 1 only / face-up only / removed from play / no cost Mirror destroys more' date=' but this removes 1, everything is about the same beside those, so I'm thinking it should be semi-limited atleast.[/quote'] Semi-limiting this card is pointless. Why? Bobs post explains it all. Also it only gives a slight more advantage because it can get past stardust/prime material ect easy. It's because most +0s are pretty balanced and aren't anything game breaking. Just because it removes from play doesn't mean it should just have a semi-limit which there are always better cards to put on the banlist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b0b3rt Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Because if it's broken it should be banned. The only reason to semi-limit cards is if they interact with other copies of themselves (Malicious, Mezuki). Also, this isn't guaranteed to remove a monster. You have to set it, wait a turn, get your opponent to attack, and hope that he hasn't destroyed it in the meanwhile because it's not even chainable.Soo.... fissure should be semi-limited? Smashing ground? Any and all other +0s? No' date=' they should be banned. Fissure and Smashing Ground anyway. +0s aren't necessarily criminal.[/quote'] No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie17 Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Soo.... fissure should be semi-limited? Smashing ground? Any and all other +0s? No' date=' they should be banned. Fissure and Smashing Ground anyway. +0s aren't necessarily criminal.[/quote'] I wouldn't go that far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rose Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Soo.... fissure should be semi-limited? Smashing ground? Any and all other +0s? No' date=' they should be banned. Fissure and Smashing Ground anyway. +0s aren't necessarily criminal.[/quote'] Explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Soo.... fissure should be semi-limited? Smashing ground? Any and all other +0s? No' date=' they should be banned. Fissure and Smashing Ground anyway. +0s aren't necessarily criminal.[/quote'] No. Oh yes. A spell's easier to Summon than a monster, MUCH easier to Summon than certain monsters, so why is it that they should be able to 1-for-1 these monsters? By having your opponent waste resources on Summoning conditions, it gives huge advantage at little cost and promotes cards without extravagant Summoning Conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.