Maeriberii Haan Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 YCM and Leaderboard Rules apply. First to 3 votes, wins. Loser gives a Like to the winner. Use this site's Card Maker, submit card via PM. Card due date: 10/15/13 Deadline: 10/20/13 Requirements: Create a Continuous Spell Card with the following text "When this face-up card on the field is destroyed by your opponent card effect, ", or any variations of it. [spoiler="Card A] [/spoiler] [spoiler="Card B] [/spoiler] go go go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warden Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 I'll dance with ya, just hope you can keep up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maeriberii Haan Posted October 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Bring it on brah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maeriberii Haan Posted October 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 Cards up! Vote guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mugendramon Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 Uh, no they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sander Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 You dun goofed, the cards aren't up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maeriberii Haan Posted October 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 Fix'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mugendramon Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 Okay, fixed that for you. Â [hr] Â So card B makes Gold Sarcophagus look like a pile of smelly shit. That's not good, to outclass a card that's good already like that. Even with all the "restrictions" you placed on it, it's laughably easy to abuse with pretty much ANYTHING. Â Card A's first effect is iffy and specific, like a middle finger to certain decks. Now the second effect is nice enough. It makes your opponent commit to either preventing you from destroying the useless first incarnation of the card, or quickly destroying it a second time. It's ridiculously mean with Scrap Dragon though; surviving destruction, popping a card, and becoming Emptiness is pretty ridiculous. Â ...But nobody plays Scrap Dragon anymore. Â I'll take outdated abusability over super-sloppy abusability any day. So Card A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maeriberii Haan Posted October 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 1-0 for card a. Keep them coming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sander Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 It's hard to say. Both cards are broken and badly designed. Card A promoting decks like Bujin / Blackwings or Card B, which promotes free setup for decks / or if you wait for its effect to actually trigger, free 2 Level 4 or lower monsters for Synchro / Xyz plays (think decks like Infernities, where Card B is like a second Launcher to them).  Card A's first effect is iffy and specific, like a middle finger to certain decks. Now the second effect is nice enough. It makes your opponent commit to either preventing you from destroying the useless first incarnation of the card, or quickly destroying it a second time. It's ridiculously mean with Scrap Dragon though; surviving destruction, popping a card, and becoming Emptiness is pretty ridiculous.  ...middle finger to "certain" decks? It's a big black dick up the ass for pretty much all decks, cept for a few decks like Bujin's / Blackwings / pretty much decks that can easily search out cards that allow you to grind your opponent until they run out of resources.  The useless first incarnation of the card  The "useless first incarnation of the card"? Are you kidding me, the 1st part of Card A is what makes it broken and badly designed on a unholy level. You just run it in a deck that is not hurt by it, and slowly grind away your opponents resources. And if they happen to get rid of it? NO PROBLEM, it'll turn into Vanity's Emptiness.  I'm not going to vote, because it's just sad that both of the cards are so badly designed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mugendramon Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 The useless first incarnation of the card  The "useless first incarnation of the card"? Are you kidding me, the 1st part of Card A is what makes it broken and badly designed on a unholy level. You just run it in a deck that is not hurt by it, and slowly grind away your opponents resources. And if they happen to get rid of it? NO PROBLEM, it'll turn into Vanity's Emptiness.  I'm not going to vote, because it's just sad that both of the cards are so badly designed.  Wait, the first incarnation of the card is the one that says you can only Normal Summon or Set once per turn. You know, that thing which can be only done once anyway under normal circumstances.  It only hurts Decks which rely on doing so more than once per turn. Such as Hunders for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sander Posted October 13, 2013 Report Share Posted October 13, 2013 Wait, the first incarnation of the card is the one that says you can only Normal Summon or Set once per turn. You know, that thing which can be only done once anyway under normal circumstances. Â You clearly need to get glasses. Card A's first incarnation clearly says "EACH player can only Summon or Set once per turn". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mugendramon Posted October 13, 2013 Report Share Posted October 13, 2013 You clearly need to get glasses. Card A's first incarnation clearly says "EACH player can only Summon or Set once per turn".  So? That wording doesn't actually MEAN a player can summon during the opponent's turn, unlike what you seem to think. If it didn't say "only" it would be a different story. As it is, it's provides a limit, it doesn't grant any extra ones. If anything, that each restricts the use of Ultimate Offering. Woah look the fuck out, that's broken.  I see what you meant now. Yeah take my vote away from that thing. However I thought it read Normal Summon is a complete mystery to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warden Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 Yeah Ain, I dare say we borked our cards up. I say we call this a null Vs and then we compete with a different requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maeriberii Haan Posted October 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 Yes, I agree. I messed up 3 important things because of being in a hurry. So, who'll host the rematch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warden Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 You can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanael D. Striker Posted October 14, 2013 Report Share Posted October 14, 2013 You two have my blessing on your redo without penalty given the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.