Phantom Roxas Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 Fissure obviously. Why is a card that destroys a face-up monster with the lowest ATK be better than a card that can destroy any face-up monster? Because it doesn't help your opponent. You're right. This one time' date=' I was dueling this guy, and he played Dian Keto the Cure Master, and I was like, I'm going to lose because my opponent gained 1000 Life Points. I was so nervous.[/quote'] Last time I checked, Dian Keto the Cure Master is a -1 for the player that activates it. Soul Taker is a +0. Wait, -1 is more than 0 now? You could have just named this topic: Fissure vs. Soul Taker. And ruin the fun in the first post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 Fissure obviously. Why is a card that destroys a face-up monster with the lowest ATK be better than a card that can destroy any face-up monster? Because it doesn't help your opponent. You're right. This one time' date=' I was dueling this guy, and he played Dian Keto the Cure Master, and I was like, I'm going to lose because my opponent gained 1000 Life Points. I was so nervous.[/quote'] Last time I checked, Dian Keto the Cure Master is a -1 for the player that activates it. Soul Taker is a +0. Wait, -1 is more than 0 now? When did I say that, precisely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Fissure obviously. Why is a card that destroys a face-up monster with the lowest ATK be better than a card that can destroy any face-up monster? Because it doesn't help your opponent. You're right. This one time' date=' I was dueling this guy, and he played Dian Keto the Cure Master, and I was like, I'm going to lose because my opponent gained 1000 Life Points. I was so nervous.[/quote'] Last time I checked, Dian Keto the Cure Master is a -1 for the player that activates it. Soul Taker is a +0. -1 is more than 0 now? When did I say that, precisely? Wait, now that I think about it....nevermind. I guess the way it was worded and what you responded to confused me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 The only time most duelists ever even have more then one monster is when they're about to win the game, and that almost never happens on your MP1. Fissure is better. Hammer Shot is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Let's look at this from a purely logical standpoint. Would you rather simply drain the soul of an enemy footsoldier, or would you rather create an earth-shattering tremor that opens a giant abyss below the enemy troops, plunging them down into the darkness of despair and doom and other words that start with a "d"? The answer is obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiff! Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 and that's why Crab wants yugioh to be like duelist kingdom. my opinion,Soul Taker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Fissure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skuldur Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Fissure. plz state why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 wowz I iz posting here <_<"... But. Anyway.. Soul Taker. It is simply better because, more often than not the lowest ATK monster is your least worry. And 1000lp isnt much to make up for, a single attack can justify that. Also cureburn is optional, so yeah. Ooh yeah, and the free target? lolz, ace. Fissure is limited, and yeah... ew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakura Vessal Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Fissure obviously. Why is a card that destroys a face-up monster with the lowest ATK be better than a card that can destroy any face-up monster? Because you first kill the weaker one and then Fisser the remaining one. And do you really want your opponant to gain 1000 LP? Add Smashing Grounds if your using that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakura Vessal Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Fissure obviously. Why is a card that destroys a face-up monster with the lowest ATK be better than a card that can destroy any face-up monster? Because you first kill the weaker one and then Fisser the remaining one. And do you really want your opponant to gain 1000 LP? Add Smashing Grounds if your using that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakura Vessal Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Fissure obviously. Why is a card that destroys a face-up monster with the lowest ATK be better than a card that can destroy any face-up monster? Because you first kill the weaker one and then Fisser the remaining one. And do you really want your opponant to gain 1000 LP? Add Smashing Grounds if your using that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakura Vessal Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Fissure obviously. Why is a card that destroys a face-up monster with the lowest ATK be better than a card that can destroy any face-up monster? Because you first kill the weaker one and then Fisser the remaining one. And do you really want your opponant to gain 1000 LP? Add Smashing Grounds if your using that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakura Vessal Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Fissure obviously. Why is a card that destroys a face-up monster with the lowest ATK be better than a card that can destroy any face-up monster? Because you first kill the weaker one and then Fisser the remaining one. And do you really want your opponant to gain 1000 LP? Add Smashing Grounds if your using that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakura Vessal Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Fissure obviously. Why is a card that destroys a face-up monster with the lowest ATK be better than a card that can destroy any face-up monster? Because you first kill the weaker one and then Fisser the remaining one. And do you really want your opponant to gain 1000 LP? Add Smashing Grounds if your using that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakura Vessal Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Fissure obviously. Why is a card that destroys a face-up monster with the lowest ATK be better than a card that can destroy any face-up monster? Because you first kill the weaker one and then Fisser the remaining one. And do you really want your opponant to gain 1000 LP? Add Smashing Grounds if your using that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakura Vessal Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Fissure obviously. Why is a card that destroys a face-up monster with the lowest ATK be better than a card that can destroy any face-up monster? Because you first kill the weaker one and then Fisser the remaining one. And do you really want your opponant to gain 1000 LP? Add Smashing Grounds if your using that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakura Vessal Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Fissure obviously. Why is a card that destroys a face-up monster with the lowest ATK be better than a card that can destroy any face-up monster? Because you first kill the weaker one and then Fisser the remaining one. And do you really want your opponant to gain 1000 LP? Add Smashing Grounds if your using that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.