Celtic Sacred Guard

[Neutrality Man]

Why not? I'm missing something here

 

 

You can hardly call Obnoxious a support, it's a ghetto retrain if anything that is now superceded by this.

 

Apparently being a separate name and part of the Celtic Guard archetype doesn't count as support.

[玄魔の王]

Apparently being a separate name and part of the Celtic Guard archetype doesn't count as support.

"Support" means it boosts it in some way. Being a member is not the same as support.

[King K. Azo]

Well, since this exists, Agnostic Celtic Guardian better be next.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Ties of the brethren can make a neat little fun deck with this

 

 

Meta? No. Fun? Maybe

[Tinkerer]

Ties of the brethren can make a neat little fun deck with this

 

 

Meta? No. Fun? Maybe

Er... Doesn't Sacred treat itself as OG Celtic Guardian?

[玄魔の王]

Er... Doesn't Sacred treat itself as OG Celtic Guardian?

No, just as a Celtic Guard monster.

[Tinkerer]

No, just as a Celtic Guard monster.

Ah, ok. The OP needs an update then.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Ah, ok. The OP needs an update then.

(This card is always treated as “Celtic Guardian” card) OP has cleaned up!

 

The combo with Moon Mirror Shield to always be able to deal damage is really pretty neat. The deck kinda maintains its own advantage engine in a neat sorta way

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Double Necro aside, recent development on this card is that it's also a noble knights card as it's name roughly is "Celtic Guard of the Noble Arms"

[Maeriberii Haan]

Not Noble Knight, Noble Arms.

 

Big difference.

 

Yeah, it's pretty weird. But I guess Link is pretty enough for the knights to equip.

 

if you know what I mean.

 

wink wink

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Not Noble Knight, Noble Arms.

 

Big difference.

 

Yeah, it's pretty weird. But I guess Link is pretty enough for the knights to equip.

 

if you know what I mean.

 

wink wink

 

 

;)

 

Link has embraced the order of Noble Armz, but yeah, sorry my error on that.

 

Ignoble Knight of Black Laundsallyn can search him I guess, but unlike Eatos where you could use Avalon to get Eatos to extraordinary high levels of attack 4game, I see little to no senergy with this card however poor

[Sleepy]

I suppose you could go Unexpected Dai + This card summoning Obnoxious from hand, and either Obnoxious or OG Celtic being Inferno Reckless Summoned. That'd give you 5 of them in one go and still leave 2 cards in hand.

 

Needs more than this, and I would have preferred something that could work with a retrain of Mystical Elf, because Elves seemed like a theme back in the era of vanillas and they seemed like homage to Zelda and Link in Yugi's deck.

 

but give them an archetype (as said above) and it could go somewhere..... maybe..... the "no hand" makes it very fragile..

 

EDIT:
Here's new art for future Celtic Guardian versions and whatnot :v
(image is link to the original artist's)
 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I suppose you could go Unexpected Dai + This card summoning Obnoxious from hand, and either Obnoxious or OG Celtic being Inferno Reckless Summoned. That'd give you 5 of them in one go and still leave 2 cards in hand.

 

Needs more than this, and I would have preferred something that could work with a retrain of Mystical Elf, because Elves seemed like a theme back in the era of vanillas and they seemed like homage to Zelda and Link in Yugi's deck.

 

but give them an archetype (as said above) and it could go somewhere..... maybe..... the "no hand" makes it very fragile..

It could also work a rudimentary (and kinda terrible) draw engine for NK since he can special himself

 

He just doesn't bring enough to the table IMHO

[evilfusion]

I'm guessing "Celtic Guard" is an archetype now, and it just occurred to me (many years too late) why Obnoxious Celtic Guard was called "Celtic Guard" rather than Guardian: Because "Guardian" is an archetype and Arsenal Summoner is already bogged down with "Except card X" clauses.

[Toffee.]

聖剣(せいけん) -> Noble Arms/Holy Sword
エルフの剣士(けんし) -> Celtic Guard/Elf Swordsman

エルフの剣士(けんし) -> Celtic Guardian
聖剣(せいけん)ガラティーン -> Noble Arms - Gallatin
エルフの聖剣(せいけん)士(けんし) -> Celtic Sacred Guard

Basically what happened here, is that part of Celtic Guard's Kana becomes 'Noble Arms' if you add 1 character to it.
Guess they wanted to include it in the Noble Arms' set just for gits and shiggles.
 
And I assume the IRL name will be something like "Celtic Guard of Noble Arms".

[Azuh]

That dual wielding skill

 

Kirito of Yugioh

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

聖剣(せいけん) -> Noble Arms/Holy Sword

エルフの剣士(けんし) -> Celtic Guard/Elf Swordsman

 

エルフの剣士(けんし) -> Celtic Guardian

聖剣(せいけん)ガラティーン -> Noble Arms - Gallatin

エルフの聖剣(せいけん)士(けんし) -> Celtic Sacred Guard

 

Basically what happened here, is that part of Celtic Guard's Kana becomes 'Noble Arms' if you add 1 character to it.

Guess they wanted to include it in the Noble Arms' set just for gits and shiggles.

 

And I assume the IRL name will be something like "Celtic Guard of Noble Arms".

It infuriates me they can pull this cute sheet, but can't be troubled to make things like Red Eyes Black Chick a red eyes monster >_______________>

[Toffee.]

It infuriates me they can pull this cute sheet, but can't be troubled to make things like Red Eyes Black Chick a red eyes monster >_______________>

レッドアイズ -> Red-Eyes

レッドアイズ・ブラックドラゴン -> Red-Eyes B. Dragon

こくりゅうのひな -> Red-Eyes B. Chick

It's hard to understand why it's called "Red-Eyes B. Chick", when it's not even actually named Red-Eyes in the first place.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

レッドアイズ -> Red-Eyes

レッドアイズ・ブラックドラゴン -> Red-Eyes B. Dragon

こくりゅうのひな -> Red-Eyes B. Chick

It's hard to understand why it's called "Red-Eyes B. Chick", when it's not even actually named Red-Eyes in the first place.

Like what god damn combo does Chick being a Red Eyes or Frog the Jam being a frog create...it's stupid and annoying. Sure TCG funked up the name, but it's red eyes support in the least...also Zaborg not being a monarch is wtf as well...

[evilfusion]

A lot of issues with archetypal confusion is PURELY because the English name and such was given prior to that word being an archetypal designation. Hence why support cards tend to say "Except 'Frog the Jam', etc". When Frog the Jam was made in English, "Frog" wasn't an archetype, so it didn't matter that the Japanese name translated slightly differently.

 

Why do you think we had that issue with certain cards being retroactively labeled as "Archfiends"? Because until DCR, "Archfiend" wasn't an archetype. And sometimes, archetypes don't focus on names, but rather on stats, so the actual mislabeled names don't matter until there's suddenly cards that say "Wait, we care about the name of certain cards now".

 

Red-Eyes B. Chick wasn't a Red-Eyes monster, but it supported Red-Eyes, which is why the English name called it a "Red-Eyes" monster. Now suddenly, Red-Eyes IS an archetype, so now the new support cards that only work with Red-Eyes monsters/cards have to specifically exclude B. Chick because it was never part of the "archetype" in the first place.

 

This issue doesn't really exist in Japan because of how their system works, where the absence of a character makes it a completely different word or whatever, so the designation is more obvious (to them), but English doesn't have a system that vast to be able to throw in a hundred puns and such that nevertheless dodge being mislabeled as part of an archetype.

 

The TCG versions designate them as not part of the archetype for the sake of rules consistency. Those cards were never intended to be compatible with Archetype Support Card Z, so they're not.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

A lot of issues with archetypal confusion is PURELY because the English name and such was given prior to that word being an archetypal designation. Hence why support cards tend to say "Except 'Frog the Jam', etc". When Frog the Jam was made in English, "Frog" wasn't an archetype, so it didn't matter that the Japanese name translated slightly differently.

 

Why do you think we had that issue with certain cards being retroactively labeled as "Archfiends"? Because until DCR, "Archfiend" wasn't an archetype. And sometimes, archetypes don't focus on names, but rather on stats, so the actual mislabeled names don't matter until there's suddenly cards that say "Wait, we care about the name of certain cards now".

 

Red-Eyes B. Chick wasn't a Red-Eyes monster, but it supported Red-Eyes, which is why the English name called it a "Red-Eyes" monster. Now suddenly, Red-Eyes IS an archetype, so now the new support cards that only work with Red-Eyes monsters/cards have to specifically exclude B. Chick because it was never part of the "archetype" in the first place.

 

This issue doesn't really exist in Japan because of how their system works, where the absence of a character makes it a completely different word or whatever, so the designation is more obvious (to them), but English doesn't have a system that vast to be able to throw in a hundred puns and such that nevertheless dodge being mislabeled as part of an archetype.

 

The TCG versions designate them as not part of the archetype for the sake of rules consistency. Those cards were never intended to be compatible with Archetype Support Card Z, so they're not.

Well my question is, now that Red Eyes is an archetype, why not simply make Black Chick a Red Eyes monster? More Invasive errata's have been done afterall?

[Toffee.]

Zaborg not being a monarch is wtf as well...

Personally, I think it's pretty cool how Monarchs have no direct name support, and a lot of there cards are generic/semi-generic/etc.

Gives them more room to work/lets you play other cards with them/etc.

It's quite nice.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Personally, I think it's pretty cool how Monarchs have no direct name support, and a lot of there cards are generic/semi-generic/etc.

Gives them more room to work/lets you play other cards with them/etc.

It's quite nice.

My Ocd largely disagrees with you on that regard. You know what all this is indicative of? Early YGO creators thought that the game had no future, they didn't plan anything. It was a short run buck making scheme. That's why 80% of the banlist is from that era, and why all these stupid logic holes are from that era. They didn't know what they were doing, and largely didn't give a f*** either

[evilfusion]

Well my question is, now that Red Eyes is an archetype, why not simply make Black Chick a Red Eyes monster? More Invasive errata's have been done afterall?

 

Probably just for the sake of consistency. I don't think I've ever seen a case of a card being errata'd to include it in an archetype that it wasn't technically a part of. I've seen the TCG fix mislabels when Term A became an archetype (Wattkid, Amazoness Archer, etc), but I can't think of a time when either OCG or TCG just up and changed a card to include it in an archetype it was never supposed to be in.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Probably just for the sake of consistency. I don't think I've ever seen a case of a card being errata'd to include it in an archetype that it wasn't technically a part of. I've seen the TCG fix mislabels when Term A became an archetype (Wattkid, Amazoness Archer, etc), but I can't think of a time when either OCG or TCG just up and changed a card to include it in an archetype it was never supposed to be in.

No, but until DSF it's not like they errata'd cards to pull em off the list. And remember the ORG had a huge list of errata's. Might have happened tbh, I'll check