[Leaderboard] Striker vs -Aqua- II

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Rules

1. All Leaderboard Rules Apply

2. Cards are due 48 hours after a challenge has been accepted.

3. First to 3 votes or most after 72 hours since voting has begun.
4. Votes must have a valid reason with a minimum of 2 sentences.
5. Winner gets 1 Rep from loser.

6. Card must be PM'd to me.

 

Card Requirement

Create a FIRE monster.

 

Card A

2 Level 7 monsters
While this card has Xyz Materials, it cannot be targeted by card effects. Once per turn, during your Main Phase or your opponent's Battle Phase: You can detach 1 Xyz Material from this card to target 1 card on the field; destroy that target, and if you do, this card gains 500 ATK.

 

Card B

2 Level 5 monsters

You can detach 1 Xyz Material from this card to target 1 card your opponent controls; banish that target, and if you do, activate one of the following effects based on the type of card:

*Monster Card: Inflict damage to your opponent equal to half that target's ATK.

*Spell/Trap Card: Target 1 monster your opponent controls: Halve that target's ATK.

This card cannot attack the turn you activate this effect. You can only activate this effect of "Inferno Beast Firanga" once per turn.

[-Noel-]

I'll be your opponent, the requirement is making a FIRE monster

[Nathanael D. Striker]

I'll be your opponent, the requirement is making a FIRE monster

 

Challenge accepted. This'll give me a chance to catch up to you. :3

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Ready as I'll ever be. Show time.

[Darj]

So, coincidentally both of you decided to make the card as a Beast, and gave them almost the same original ATK/DEF.

This is a difficult choice: Both remove cards and are capable of inflicting additional damage to the opponent: Card A through attacking, Card B through burning and weakening. Basically, both have the same purpose, but support different decks because of their Ranks.

 

Card B has more restrictions than A, but it is playable in more decks than Card A because there are more Rank-5 centric Decks than Rank-7 centric, and a couple of those Rank-5 decks are relevant in the metagame (Constellars and Artifacts). However, now that I think abut it, you can bypass its "cannot attack" restriction by overlaying Gaia Dragoon over it, turning said restriction somewhat pointless.

 

On the other hand, Card A has the anti-targeting effect that gives it an edge over Card B, but in exchange it is playable in fewer decks, the only relevant being, if I am not mistaken, Hieratic Rulers.

 

My vote goes for Card B because, in the end, it seems more balanced that Card A, who is more of a powered-up Dragosack: both destroy cards with their effects and have their own version of built-in protection effect, but unlike Drago, Card A can attack after using its effect and it can destroy during the opponent's turn disrupting his/her plays, and this, in my opinion makes the card unfair.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

0-1 Card B

 

Thanks for voting.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Le BUMP.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Card A: Destroys a card on the field; in return, it gains ATK points [so a possible 3300 ATK on a Rank 7 body, assuming no Rank-Ups or addition of extra materials]

 

Card B: Detach, either burn for half damage or weaken an opponent by that much in exchange for attacking.

 

 

As Voltex already mentioned, both do similar things; only difference is their Ranks, determining what Decks can effectively use them.

In a similar vein, my vote goes to B for balancing reasons. While the amount of points slashed / burned can be a heavy amount, it balances itself out by not being able to attack that turn (though using a Rank-Up on it or something makes this pointless).

 

Card A destroys during either player's turn and gets extremely powerful because of that, which pretty much limits what your opponent can do. Factoring in that it can attack with higher power after destroying something AND has immunity to stuff like 101, Mirror Force and so on), this pushes it over the edge.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

0-2 Card B

 

Thanks for voting, JK.

[Goose]

Neither card is particularly interesting.  Both of you were too lazy to write in Kazuki Takahashi into the copyright field (which all real cards have).  You also didn't write in your own names.  I believe all cards should say either "1st edition" or "Unlimited" but neither of you bothered wit that either.  Furthermore neither picture looks like a real yugioh card picture. 

 

 

"Flamebreak" appears to either be stolen from MtG, DotA, or just a made up name to sound cool.  Also doesn't make sense with the picture.  There is flame but what does break mean in this case?  Is it referring to the fact that it "breaks" a card?  I'm still flip-flopping as to whether the effect is coherent or just two effects mashed together.  I suppose the fact that it targets and can't be targeted itself is a kind of connection.  The first effect is kinda dumb.  It's a massive fire lion.  How does it make sense that it can't be targeted?  Maybe if the picture were of a lion FULLY made of fire it would work, but the current lion clearly has non-fire parts.  Second part sorta makes more sense.  It's a big fire thing so it can probably shoot fire to destroy stuff.

 

Inferno Beast Firanga has a name that fits with the picture.  This is good.  The effect can almost be applied to the card in such a way as to make sense.  It's a monster from hell so maybe it can open portals to there and suck cards in.  Maybe it does something else.  The bigger issue here is that this effect is potentially OP.  Compare it to Adreus or whatever.  This card can BANISH ANY card on the field.  This gets passed destruction protection and works on facedowns.  That's at the cost of 300 ATK points.  On top of that, this gets a bonus effect from that.  The only cost is your attack, but with Gaia you don't have to care about that.  

 

I guess my vote has to be for Card B.  They are both pretty bad but at least card B makes sense.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

0-3 Card B (Striker).

 

And that is the end of this one. Thanks for the challenge, -Aqua-.