[Written] Majespecter Snake – Hebi

[ems97]

Majespecter Snake – Hebi

 

WIND

 

Link Arrows: Bottom Left, Bottom Right

 

[spellcaster / Link / Effect]

 

2 “Majespecter” monsters

When this card is Link Summoned: You can Special Summon up to 2 “Majespecter” monsters with different names (1 from your deck and 1 face-up from your Extra Deck). You can only use this effect of “Majespecter Snake – Hebi” once per turn. You can activate “Majespecter” Quick-Play Spell or a Trap from your hand during your opponent's turn. Cannot be targeted or destroyed by your opponent's card effects.

 

ATK: 1800  LINK: 2

[Darj]

I really like the "Magical Musketeer" effect, and I dare to say that effect alone can give a big push to Majespecters, specially since as a Link monster it's really accessible.

Unsure about the "Summon 2" effect since, well, getting 2 monsters out of it is big. And since the Majespecters you use as Link Material go to the Extra Deck, it sets itself up. Not to mention it will get to trigger the effects of the Majespecters if they have not been used yet, further adding to the card-gaining. In my opinion, only 1 should suffice to sustain combos or make the Majespecter Spell/Traps live. The last effect is the trademark Majespecter effect and should be fine, considering its ATK of 1800.

 

Still thinking if you could afford to make the materials a bit more flexible (e.g. 2 Spellcasters or 2 WIND monsters) so you can reserve a Pendulum Summon after you Summon this a use its 2 markers, but I don't know. 2 Majespecters is the safer option for sure though.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Probably could make it 2 Spellcaster monsters, so you can run the Magician engine if you have to (taking into consideration that pre-Link era, this was a thing to an extent). Then again, non-Majespecter decks wouldn't really want this anyway since it's restricted to the Archetype itself.

 

At the moment, Majespecters only have the low Levels so it probably shouldn't be too bad; no Kirin, which is technically the power play for them.

 

Other than that, the hand Trap effect is really nice for them; least you can spam Sonics/Tornado/Tempest without being subject to backrow removal, which helps.

 

=====

Then again, 'specters do need ways to address bosses and stuff that share their protection effects (i.e. mirror matches, common bosses with targeting immunity, etc). IIRC they had issues with this in the past, and likely still do. But, card is fine for them.

[Darj]

Probably could make it 2 Spellcaster monsters, so you can run the Magician engine if you have to (taking into consideration that pre-Link era, this was a thing to an extent). Then again, non-Majespecter decks wouldn't really want this anyway since it's restricted to the Archetype itself.

I'm not too sure about that. You could then tech a Majespecter and a couple of Majespecter Spell/Trap as an engine in the Spellcaster deck, since this will Summon the Majespecter, and the latter will grab the backrow, which can now be used from hand.

By the way, what do you mean with "Magician engine"? Curious on that one.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

In the past, I did see a few Majespecter decks that used the Pendulum Magicians to some extent.

 

http://yugiohtopdecks.com/deck/5410 (Majespecter Magician 2016)

http://yugiohtopdecks.com/deck/4665 (2015)

 

Though looking at these, they're pre-Kirin ban so take them as you will (I didn't see anything for 2017 after that for them). I did try experimenting with Dragonpit/vein in the past [or might do it for budget IRL], but getting off-topic here since it's more of TCG talk (and trying to shift Casual to more friendly design instead of going into meta).

 

====

If we were to go with WIND Spellcasters as materials, then you'd eliminate it being Pend spam for Magicians (talking about Yuya's ones), but then it locks it to either in-archetype (which wouldn't be a problem) and/or Windwitches iirc. The latter may be of some concern because Cyclone, Tornado, Tempest are just WIND Spellcaster reliant and the Majespecter backrow generally works. 

 

It's unavoidable, but yeah, address the problems with making the requirements more generic.