[DISC] Arcana Force XVIII - THE MOON

[Valkyrie Lupia Blitzer]

http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Arcana_Force_XVIII_-_The_Moon

 

It's an interesting card. I would use it in my Athena Burn Deck.

[CrabHelmet]

It's awful.

[JesusofChaos™]

I would burn my Deck.

 

fixd

[Skuldur]

it's just terrible.

[Mr. Judgment Dragon]

It's awful.

 

I would burn my Deck.

 

fixd

 

it's just terrible.

 

These 3 posts pretty much summed up what I think about this terrible card.

[Tabris]

It's awful.

 

I would burn my Deck.

 

fixd

 

it's just terrible.

 

These 3 posts pretty much summed up what I think about this terrible card.

 

Viva la piramida!

[Corporal]

It's okay in a control deck. That's about it.

[CrabHelmet]

It's okay in a control deck. That's about it.

 

Go on, tell the class how this card is "okay" in a control deck. We're dying to hear.

[Skuldur]

It's okay in a control deck. That's about it.

 

Go on' date=' tell the class how this card is "okay" in a control deck. We're dying to hear.

[/quote']

 

no bad Crab, don't humiliate him infront of the class.

Or you won't get no dessert.

[Lazer Yoshi]

The Good Side of this Card is Bad :mrgreen:

Coin-Luck is not really something to trust.

[Flame Dragon]

It's awful.

 

I would burn my Deck.

 

fixd

 

it's just terrible.

 

These 3 posts pretty much summed up what I think about this terrible card.

 

Viva la piramida!

 

Viva la piramida.

[Corporal]

It's okay in a control deck. That's about it.

 

Go on' date=' tell the class how this card is "okay" in a control deck. We're dying to hear.

[/quote']

 

Is control the right term?

 

I was talking about decks that switch Griggle/Ameba, the such to the opponent to burn or heal themselves. It's good for that because either way you're getting a token or switching a card over to your opponent to screw them up. It's bad because the deck idea itself is pretty bad and it needs a tribute, and the token is pretty much useless, unless you switch it using monster control.

[CrabHelmet]

It's okay in a control deck. That's about it.

 

Go on' date=' tell the class how this card is "okay" in a control deck. We're dying to hear.

[/quote']

 

Is control the right term?

 

I was talking about decks that switch Griggle/Ameba, the such to the opponent to burn or heal themselves. It's good for that because either way you're getting a token or switching a card over to your opponent to screw them up. It's bad because the deck idea itself is pretty bad and it needs a tribute, and the token is pretty much useless, unless you switch it using monster control.

 

Control Decks are based around limiting the opponent's options and thus taking control of the duel, not around switching control of monsters on the field. What you describe is Ameba-Burn.

 

And The Moon is terrible in Ameba-Burn too. Why run a two-tribute monster that gives you a random choice between two dubious effects when you could simply Creature Swap?

[Corporal]

It's okay in a control deck. That's about it.

 

Go on' date=' tell the class how this card is "okay" in a control deck. We're dying to hear.

[/quote']

 

Is control the right term?

 

I was talking about decks that switch Griggle/Ameba, the such to the opponent to burn or heal themselves. It's good for that because either way you're getting a token or switching a card over to your opponent to screw them up. It's bad because the deck idea itself is pretty bad and it needs a tribute, and the token is pretty much useless, unless you switch it using monster control.

 

Control Decks are based around limiting the opponent's options and thus taking control of the duel, not around switching control of monsters on the field. What you describe is Ameba-Burn.

 

And The Moon is terrible in Ameba-Burn too. Why run a two-tribute monster that gives you a random choice between two dubious effects when you could simply Creature Swap?

Which is why I said it was okay. It can give you an effect similar to Creature Swap, but it's rather half assed. However, the tribute thing could be taken advantage of if you have monsters under your control temporarily.

[CrabHelmet]

It's okay in a control deck. That's about it.

 

Go on' date=' tell the class how this card is "okay" in a control deck. We're dying to hear.

[/quote']

 

Is control the right term?

 

I was talking about decks that switch Griggle/Ameba, the such to the opponent to burn or heal themselves. It's good for that because either way you're getting a token or switching a card over to your opponent to screw them up. It's bad because the deck idea itself is pretty bad and it needs a tribute, and the token is pretty much useless, unless you switch it using monster control.

 

Control Decks are based around limiting the opponent's options and thus taking control of the duel, not around switching control of monsters on the field. What you describe is Ameba-Burn.

 

And The Moon is terrible in Ameba-Burn too. Why run a two-tribute monster that gives you a random choice between two dubious effects when you could simply Creature Swap?

Which is why I said it was okay. It can give you an effect similar to Creature Swap, but it's rather half assed. However, the tribute thing could be taken advantage of if you have monsters under your control temporarily.

 

Except it *wouldn't* be okay. It's hideously situational to even summon, requiring you to control three monsters before you've used your Normal Summon that turn (two to tribute, and one to swap) if you want to have a chance of being able to use its tails effect to your advantage, and even then it requires you to get the correct result from a coin toss, and even then it still doesn't give you anything in return for your trouble other than Ameba's effect. Congratulations, you just -4'd yourself to inflict 2000 damage - you tributed two monsters, gave up another monster, and your opponent gained that monster. And because you needed to start with so many monsters on the field in the first place, there's a decent chance that you spent another card or two on Special Summons, so it might have been more like a -5 or a -6. You might as well have played 3 Ookazi. Then you would only need to -3 yourself, and you still would have inflicted an extra 400 damage.

 

Compare that to plopping down Creature Swap whenever you happen to control Ameba, allowing you to give up Ameba for an opponent's monster, inflicting damage, and then being able to attack the opponent's Ameba with the stolen monster that turn for even more damage.

[Corporal]

It's okay in a control deck. That's about it.

 

Go on' date=' tell the class how this card is "okay" in a control deck. We're dying to hear.

[/quote']

 

Is control the right term?

 

I was talking about decks that switch Griggle/Ameba, the such to the opponent to burn or heal themselves. It's good for that because either way you're getting a token or switching a card over to your opponent to screw them up. It's bad because the deck idea itself is pretty bad and it needs a tribute, and the token is pretty much useless, unless you switch it using monster control.

 

Control Decks are based around limiting the opponent's options and thus taking control of the duel, not around switching control of monsters on the field. What you describe is Ameba-Burn.

 

And The Moon is terrible in Ameba-Burn too. Why run a two-tribute monster that gives you a random choice between two dubious effects when you could simply Creature Swap?

Which is why I said it was okay. It can give you an effect similar to Creature Swap, but it's rather half assed. However, the tribute thing could be taken advantage of if you have monsters under your control temporarily.

 

Except it *wouldn't* be okay. It's hideously situational to even summon, requiring you to control three monsters before you've used your Normal Summon that turn (two to tribute, and one to swap) if you want to have a chance of being able to use its tails effect to your advantage, and even then it requires you to get the correct result from a coin toss, and even then it still doesn't give you anything in return for your trouble other than Ameba's effect. Congratulations, you just -4'd yourself to inflict 2000 damage - you tributed two monsters, gave up another monster, and your opponent gained that monster. And because you needed to start with so many monsters on the field in the first place, there's a decent chance that you spent another card or two on Special Summons, so it might have been more like a -5 or a -6. You might as well have played 3 Ookazi. Then you would only need to -3 yourself, and you still would have inflicted an extra 400 damage.

 

Compare that to plopping down Creature Swap whenever you happen to control Ameba, allowing you to give up Ameba for an opponent's monster, inflicting damage, and then being able to attack the opponent's Ameba with the stolen monster that turn for even more damage.

 

It's not going to be a temporary thing like a monster gained from creature swap(the opponent will easily take it down). Moon's decent attack will keep him on the field for awhile, so you can constantly use the control switching effect. It uses more cards, but for a long lasting effect.

[CrabHelmet]

It's okay in a control deck. That's about it.

 

Go on' date=' tell the class how this card is "okay" in a control deck. We're dying to hear.

[/quote']

 

Is control the right term?

 

I was talking about decks that switch Griggle/Ameba, the such to the opponent to burn or heal themselves. It's good for that because either way you're getting a token or switching a card over to your opponent to screw them up. It's bad because the deck idea itself is pretty bad and it needs a tribute, and the token is pretty much useless, unless you switch it using monster control.

 

Control Decks are based around limiting the opponent's options and thus taking control of the duel, not around switching control of monsters on the field. What you describe is Ameba-Burn.

 

And The Moon is terrible in Ameba-Burn too. Why run a two-tribute monster that gives you a random choice between two dubious effects when you could simply Creature Swap?

Which is why I said it was okay. It can give you an effect similar to Creature Swap, but it's rather half assed. However, the tribute thing could be taken advantage of if you have monsters under your control temporarily.

 

Except it *wouldn't* be okay. It's hideously situational to even summon, requiring you to control three monsters before you've used your Normal Summon that turn (two to tribute, and one to swap) if you want to have a chance of being able to use its tails effect to your advantage, and even then it requires you to get the correct result from a coin toss, and even then it still doesn't give you anything in return for your trouble other than Ameba's effect. Congratulations, you just -4'd yourself to inflict 2000 damage - you tributed two monsters, gave up another monster, and your opponent gained that monster. And because you needed to start with so many monsters on the field in the first place, there's a decent chance that you spent another card or two on Special Summons, so it might have been more like a -5 or a -6. You might as well have played 3 Ookazi. Then you would only need to -3 yourself, and you still would have inflicted an extra 400 damage.

 

Compare that to plopping down Creature Swap whenever you happen to control Ameba, allowing you to give up Ameba for an opponent's monster, inflicting damage, and then being able to attack the opponent's Ameba with the stolen monster that turn for even more damage.

 

It's not going to be a temporary thing like a monster gained from creature swap(the opponent will easily take it down). Moon's decent attack will keep him on the field for awhile, so you can constantly use the control switching effect. It uses more cards, but for a long lasting effect.

 

Are you joking? ATK means nothing; removal is so common that Moon will be easily destroyed. Not to mention that every deck now has a monster with 3000 ATK at their disposal. The Moon would be destroyed quickly.

 

And even if you were able to keep it on the field, you'd still be forced to give up a monster every End Phase, and you have no guarantee of always having a Griggle or Ameba available. And even with one available, you're still -2'ing yourself and giving up a Normal Summon every single turn just to fiddle with Life Points a little.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

What if you used Reasoning to summon it? Then it wouldn't be such a high loss of advantage.

[CrabHelmet]

What if you used Reasoning to summon it? Then it wouldn't be such a high loss of advantage.

 

It's inconsistent enough without relying on you having a Limited card in your hand and, unknown to you, this monster in your deck with no monsters between it and the top of your deck...and then STILL getting a coin flip right...and then STILL -2'ing yourself.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Yeah, this card sucks.

[Corporal]

It's okay in a control deck. That's about it.

 

Go on' date=' tell the class how this card is "okay" in a control deck. We're dying to hear.

[/quote']

 

Is control the right term?

 

I was talking about decks that switch Griggle/Ameba, the such to the opponent to burn or heal themselves. It's good for that because either way you're getting a token or switching a card over to your opponent to screw them up. It's bad because the deck idea itself is pretty bad and it needs a tribute, and the token is pretty much useless, unless you switch it using monster control.

 

Control Decks are based around limiting the opponent's options and thus taking control of the duel, not around switching control of monsters on the field. What you describe is Ameba-Burn.

 

And The Moon is terrible in Ameba-Burn too. Why run a two-tribute monster that gives you a random choice between two dubious effects when you could simply Creature Swap?

Which is why I said it was okay. It can give you an effect similar to Creature Swap, but it's rather half assed. However, the tribute thing could be taken advantage of if you have monsters under your control temporarily.

 

Except it *wouldn't* be okay. It's hideously situational to even summon, requiring you to control three monsters before you've used your Normal Summon that turn (two to tribute, and one to swap) if you want to have a chance of being able to use its tails effect to your advantage, and even then it requires you to get the correct result from a coin toss, and even then it still doesn't give you anything in return for your trouble other than Ameba's effect. Congratulations, you just -4'd yourself to inflict 2000 damage - you tributed two monsters, gave up another monster, and your opponent gained that monster. And because you needed to start with so many monsters on the field in the first place, there's a decent chance that you spent another card or two on Special Summons, so it might have been more like a -5 or a -6. You might as well have played 3 Ookazi. Then you would only need to -3 yourself, and you still would have inflicted an extra 400 damage.

 

Compare that to plopping down Creature Swap whenever you happen to control Ameba, allowing you to give up Ameba for an opponent's monster, inflicting damage, and then being able to attack the opponent's Ameba with the stolen monster that turn for even more damage.

 

It's not going to be a temporary thing like a monster gained from creature swap(the opponent will easily take it down). Moon's decent attack will keep him on the field for awhile, so you can constantly use the control switching effect. It uses more cards, but for a long lasting effect.

 

Are you joking? ATK means nothing; removal is so common that Moon will be easily destroyed. Not to mention that every deck now has a monster with 3000 ATK at their disposal. The Moon would be destroyed quickly.

 

And even if you were able to keep it on the field, you'd still be forced to give up a monster every End Phase, and you have no guarantee of always having a Griggle or Ameba available. And even with one available, you're still -2'ing yourself and giving up a Normal Summon every single turn just to fiddle with Life Points a little.

Ugh, you're right. I think I toss around the word okay too easily...