[Leaderboard] Yuuji Kazami vs Asdfduelist (Cards are up!)

[Yuuji Kazami]

Alright, time for a fresh start.
 Rules:

All Leaderboard rules apply.
Cards must be submitted through PM
First to 3 votes wins
If there are no votes after the deadline (3 days), next vote wins.
All voters must elaborate on their votes. Accepted votes receive a rep.
The contestants and I have the right to refuse votes, but must explain why we don't accept it.
Contestants have 12 hours after the last vote is cast to refuse any vote within reason.
Written cards are allowed. (Must be in written format, cards with blank pictures are not acceptable)
 

Requirements:

Create a Red-Eyes support card

Rewards:
The winner gets a rep from the loser.

 

Card A:

 

 

Cannot be destroyed by battle. During either player's turn, when a card or effect is activated that would inflict damage to anyone: You can Special Summon 1 Level 7 "Red-Eyes" monster from your hand, Deck, or Graveyard, and if you do, you can negate the activation. During either player's turn, when a card or effect is activated that targets this face-up card (except during the Damage Step): You can Special Summon 1 Level 7 "Red-Eyes" monster from your hand, Deck, or Graveyard. You can only use 1 "Maiden with Eyes of Red" effect per turn, and only once that turn.
 

 

Card B:

 

 

 

1 Tuner + 1 or more non-Tuner Normal Monsters

Cannot be Tributed. You can also Special Summon this card (from your Extra Deck) by Tributing a "Red-Eyes" monster(s) and/or a monster(s) that lists "Red-Eyes" in its card text whose total Level(s) equal 8 or more from your field. (This Special Summon is treated as an Synchro Summon.) You can only Special Summon "Crimson-Eyes Gold Dragon" once per turn this way. Once per turn: You can send 1 Level 7 Normal Monster from your hand or Deck to the Graveyard; inflict damage to your opponent equal to this card's original ATK. If this Synchro Summoned card is destroyed by battle or by an opponent's card effect: You can banish it; draw 2 cards.

[Bellringer Angel]

I shall enter.

[Yuuji Kazami]

I shall enter.

Sure. Just send me the card whenever you finish via PM. I've already completed mine.

[Yuuji Kazami]

Cards are up!

[Darj]

Just going to vote for Card A

 

Card A:

It is practically an opposite of Maiden with Eyes of Blue, but it looks like an effective card. Also as a DARK/Spellcaster is gets access to cute support such as "Dark Renewal" and other Dark Magician toys.

 

Card B:

It looks fine but personally I'm not a fan of it because of its nature. The summoning condition is unique, but It makes me think it is prone to finishing/stealing games by, let's say, attacking with a Red-Eyes monster, then Summoning this on MP2 and burn for game; or Summon this on MP1, burn 2000 LP and then attack, inflicting up to 4000 damage on the spot. Meanwhile, by requiring Normal monsters as Synchro material and for using its burn effect, it is not as splashable and is limited to being playable in few decks, and with that the card is missing a lot of potential IMO. I mean, I would have preferred if it could be played as a generic card to a certain degree (for instance, see Nothung who is good on its own, but has an additional boon in Blackwing decks).

In short, I don't like how it was designed as a game finisher, but limited to Red-Eyes deck.

[Yuuji Kazami]

Just going to vote for Card A

 

Card A:

It is practically an opposite of Maiden with Eyes of Blue, but it looks like an effective card. Also as a DARK/Spellcaster is gets access to cute support such as "Dark Renewal" and other Dark Magician toys.

 

Card B:

It looks fine but personally I'm not a fan of it because of its nature. The summoning condition is unique, but It makes me think it is prone to finishing/stealing games by, let's say, attacking with a Red-Eyes monster, then Summoning this on MP2 and burn for game; or Summon this on MP1, burn 2000 LP and then attack, inflicting up to 4000 damage on the spot. Meanwhile, by requiring Normal monsters as Synchro material and for using its burn effect, it is not as splashable and is limited to being playable in few decks, and with that the card is missing a lot of potential IMO. I mean, I would have preferred if it could be played as a generic card to a certain degree (for instance, see Nothung who is good on its own, but has an additional boon in Blackwing decks).

In short, I don't like how it was designed as a game finisher, but limited to Red-Eyes deck.

Hmm... I was still setting up.

 

Confused by this part: "limited to Red-Eyes deck." The requirements was to make a Red-Eyes support card, not a generic support. This is like saying Black Metal Dragon is bad because it's limited to a Red-Eyes Deck. I don't believe this is valid reasoning.

 

Also, the scenerio you've described only occurs if you somehow happen to clear your opponent's field (which is astoundingly rare for Red-Eyes Decks.), and it doesn't go higher than 4000. The topic of being used in fewer decks is valid, but the rest of the reasoning needs a lot more expansion on if the vote is to be accepted. For the topic of burning for the game: the whole theme of Red-Eyes is to win by that aspect. Look at Black Metal Flare Dragon, Inferno Fire Blast, and Black Flare Dragon within the set. 

 

Also, the card's burn usage is limited to Red-Eyes Black Dragon ONLY. By the time that this card actually comes up, requiring atleast 2 Red-Eyes monsters.

 

Not sure where the "missing potential" is either. Making this card more easier to Summon would only make it more borderline in becoming broken. If you dislike that it has a potential as a game finisher, why would you say that you would prefer it if it was more generic?

 

Not only that, your explanation for Card A is so brief that it's very hard to take it seriously. This 1V1 has the theme of supporting "Red-Eyes", not how it can receive Dark Magicians and whatever support Spellcasters get. You did't elaborate on the usage, effectiveness, etc., that makes a good card or that supports "Red-Eyes". On that note, I have now bolded and enlarged the requirements.

 

On another note, the flavour for card B is the opposite of Azure-Eyes, while Card A is the opposite of Maiden. Atleast you managed to somehow point that out for Card A, but it's not enough to be considered as a valid vote.

[Darj]

Confused by this part: "limited to Red-Eyes deck." The requirements was to make a Red-Eyes support card, not a generic support. This is like saying Black Metal Dragon is bad because it's limited to a Red-Eyes Deck. I don't believe this is valid reasoning.

 

With this I meant that as a Synchro Monster, card type that can be run without compromising the structure and stability of the Main Deck, the creator could have been more lax on the Synchro material requirements and allow it to be Summoned with, let's say, Dragon-type materials instead of Normals, so one could splash/tech it in in a wider array of decks to at the very least take advantage of its floating effect.

Again, see Nothung: it is a generic Synchro6 and its own it has a quite good effect that can be handy sometimes; then is has a second effect that further supports Blackwings, but its generic requirements and first effect make it splashable and good enough. Meanwhile, this Red-Eyes Synchro is limited to decks that can Synchro summon with Normal monsters. This is where I see the missed potential: Card B could have been better on regards of splashability.

 

Then, there is the effect:

Also, the scenerio you've described only occurs if you somehow happen to clear your opponent's field (which is astoundingly rare for Red-Eyes Decks.), and it doesn't go higher than 4000. The topic of being used in fewer decks is valid, but the rest of the reasoning needs a lot more expansion on if the vote is to be accepted. For the topic of burning for the game: the whole theme of Red-Eyes is to win by that aspect. Look at Black Metal Flare Dragon, Inferno Fire Blast, and Black Flare Dragon within the set.

 

Yes, Red-Eyes focus on burning for game; then this only strengthens their burning potential. Maybe it's just me, but isn't this an overkill at that point, if not outright unfair? This is another of the reasons I'm not a big fan of this card.

 

Not sure where the "missing potential" is either. Making this card more easier to Summon would only make it more borderline in becoming broken. If you dislike that it has a potential as a game finisher, why would you say that you would prefer it if it was more generic?

 

Basically, and to sum it up, I dislike how the card is a combination of being both:

- A game finisher.

and

- Restricted to Red-Eyes deck, who already has plenty of burning effects.

 

In other words, the way I see it, the card can be defined as an overkill: It has an strong burn effect, but is practically restricted to an archetype that already burns enough; and personally, I'm not a fan of this kind of design. I would rather take something like Nothung instead, which is not as potentially damaging as Card B, but is more splashable in exchange, basically trading power for flexibility.

 

 

As for Card A, I assumed I didn't need to elaborate any further, but I will do so now:

 

The card is great for walling and protecting your LP while summoning B. Dragon, a 2400-ATK beater, in the process. Heck, I dare to say its even better than Blue-Eyes Maiden at walling, since this won't be destroyed by battle and thus cannot be overrun as easily, whereas Blue-Eyes Maiden can be dealt with by attacking it twice, or triggering its effect first then attacking. Then, regarding its DARK/Spellcaster typing: granted, DARK & LIGHT Spellcasters have different support cards going for them, but AFAIK DARK still has the longest end of the stick, considering they have cards such as Allure of Darkness, Dark Renewal and other toys.

[Yuuji Kazami]

With this I meant that as a Synchro Monster, card type that can be run without compromising the structure and stability of the Main Deck, the creator could have been more lax on the Synchro material requirements and allow it to be Summoned with, let's say, Dragon-type materials instead of Normals, so one could splash/tech it in in a wider array of decks to at the very least take advantage of its floating effect.

Again, see Nothung: it is a generic Synchro6 and its own it has a quite good effect that can be handy sometimes; then is has a second effect that further supports Blackwings, but its generic requirements and first effect make it splashable and good enough. Meanwhile, this Red-Eyes Synchro is limited to decks that can Synchro summon with Normal monsters. This is where I see the missed potential: Card B could have been better on regards of splashability.

 

Then, there is the effect:

 

Yes, Red-Eyes focus on burning for game; then this only strengthens their burning potential. Maybe it's just me, but isn't this an overkill at that point, if not outright unfair? This is another of the reasons I'm not a big fan of this card.

 

 

Basically, and to sum it up, I dislike how the card is a combination of being both:

- A game finisher.

and

- Restricted to Red-Eyes deck, who already has plenty of burning effects.

 

In other words, the way I see it, the card can be defined as an overkill: It has an strong burn effect, but is practically restricted to an archetype that already burns enough; and personally, I'm not a fan of this kind of design. I would rather take something like Nothung instead, which is not as potentially damaging as Card B, but is more splashable in exchange, basically trading power for flexibility.

 

 

As for Card A, I assumed I didn't need to elaborate any further, but I will do so now:

 

The card is great for walling and protecting your LP while summoning B. Dragon, a 2400-ATK beater, in the process. Heck, I dare to say its even better than Blue-Eyes Maiden at walling, since this won't be destroyed by battle and thus cannot be overrun as easily, whereas Blue-Eyes Maiden can be dealt with by attacking it twice, or triggering its effect first then attacking. Then, regarding its DARK/Spellcaster typing: granted, DARK & LIGHT Spellcasters have different support cards going for them, but AFAIK DARK still has the longest end of the stick, considering they have cards such as Allure of Darkness, Dark Renewal and other toys.

"Strengthens burning potential" 

 

I still can't see why you are so against Red-Eyes having more firepower. The only cards that can burn are Black Flare (Which is a Gemini that you must NS again in order to gain its effects), Inferno Fire Blast (Which is limited to Red-Eyes B. Dragon only) and Flare Metal (Rank 7 Xyz whose burn effect isn't even that good). There's literally nothing unfair about the Red-Eyes archetype, considering the amount of support Blue Eyes has at this point in the meta.

 

Another thing you fail to mention is the fact that this card is still limited to Red Eyes B. Dragon being the only monster available to trigger the 2000 damage (So a maximum potential of 3 shots unelss a card/effect returns a copy to the hand or Deck). It limits the possibility of Inferno Fire Blast with Red-Eyes before making this card, which could possibly inflict 4800 damage in a single turn, which would then make it borderline broken. However, there hasn't been any cases of Red-Eyes actually doing well with their new burn support in the meta at all, because the rest of the other decks in Tier 1 or greater would overpower it.

 

"Plenty of burn effects and already burns enough" You mean only about 3 cards that has burn in the set. I don't believe I'm forgetting any other monsters, but I only can think of 3 specifically for the set. That's not exactly what we would consider as plenty, since the burn effects all have their restrictions in the set.

 

For overkill, there's not really a strong case for you when you say overkill, but fail to mention any circumstance that would cause an unfair OTK. Any deck has the possibility of dishing out about 4000 damage in a single turn if their opponent's field is empty. Not only that, the set has very low stats for the monster. Only Red Eyes Darkness is the beater within the deck if you manage to pull him out, but even then, susceptible to any removal. 

 

Also, to decide on a card's worth based majorly on being generic isn't valid either, especially on the term power for splashability. Again, it's like saying Synchros restricted to specific archetypes aren't good enough unless they reduce their power so they can become more generic. So Obsidian Hawk Joe and Armor Master cannot be good unless they become more generic? 

 

Atleast card A has valid reasoning now, considering you did talk about how it's effective and how it works. It could also be used in terms of in a Deck without Red Eyes as a defensive card by simply being in DEF Position. However, the requirement is that you must have a Red-Eyes to prevent card effects from targeting it, as well as prevent the damage.

 

Unless you can provide an explanation for your reasoning(s) on how the card is "unfair" and "overkill", and that they're valid,  just saying that the card should trade power for splashability is not enough to be accepted. 

[Bellringer Angel]

I find it funny that the synergy between Maiden with Eyes of Red and Crimson-Eyes are mind-blowing.

[Yuuji Kazami]

I find it funny that the synergy between Maiden with Eyes of Red and Crimson-Eyes are mind-blowing.

To be honest, I was also really surprised once I saw it.

 

Both of them together = Tier 1 meta set? Lol.

[Darj]

How about this then?

1. Summon Archfiend Black Skull Dragon.

2. Attack and use its effect to burn for 2400 damage.

3. MP2 Tribute it to Summon Card B (since it has "Red-Eyes" in its text, as a fusion material requirement).

4. Use Card's B effect to inflict 2000 damage.

 

In that scenario, you are practically inflicting 2000 extra damage out of nowhere. Do you find that fair? That play alone is enough for me to favor Card A over B. Unless... it is not intended to not be able to Tribute Fusion monsters that list "Red-Eyes" monster as fusion material; in that case, the above wouldn't be possible at all and I would have to re-evaluate the whole card.

 

And I admit the point on preferring it was more generic is more of a personal thing/bias and it is not a solid point for voting. I understand a card doesn't necessarily have to be fully generic to be considered good.

[Yuuji Kazami]

How about this then?

1. Summon Archfiend Black Skull Dragon.

2. Attack and use its effect to burn for 2400 damage.

3. MP2 Tribute it to Summon Card B (since it has "Red-Eyes" in its text, as a fusion material requirement).

4. Use Card's B effect to inflict 2000 damage.

 

In that scenario, you are practically inflicting 2000 extra damage out of nowhere. Do you find that fair? That play alone is enough for me to favor Card A over B. Unless... it is not intended to not be able to Tribute Fusion monsters that list "Red-Eyes" monster as fusion material; in that case, the above wouldn't be possible at all and I would have to re-evaluate the whole card.

 

And I admit the point on preferring it was more generic is more of a personal thing/bias and it is not a solid point for voting. I understand a card doesn't necessarily have to be fully generic to be considered good.

Um... even if you did use Red-Eyes Fusion for the card, wouldn't your Summons be locked for the rest of the turn?

 

If the Deck creator chooses to splash in more Normal Monsters and lower consistency, as well as add Polymeriztion (Fusing this card normally would require 3 cards), then I guess it is a valid combo. Looks like there was a Red-Eyes card I had missed naming on my previous post.

 

Then again, Archfiend Black Skull Dragon does not have protection effects upon it's Summon, so generic removal still gets rid of it. It's risk for reward.

[Darj]

I have been thinking about this, and noticed I wasn't clear enough with my thoughts at the moment of typing them and quickly derailed into a "power vs. flexibility" argument that, as it was pointed out, is irrelevant for determining the effectiveness of a card (a card doesn't have to be generic/splashable to be good); that was more my design preferences getting in the way.

So to be more clear, I want to re-state my reasoning towards Card B:

 

Putting it simply, I find it dangerous because of its design as an Extra Deck game-finishing card that, unlike other finishers such as Cowboy who inflict 800 effect damage or Heartlandraco/Nightmare Shark who inflict 2000 damage through an attack, it threats with an outstanding 2000 LP burn AND is still able to attack afterwards for potentially inflicting additional damage. Maybe it would have been fine if it couldn't attack the turn it activates its effect and vice-versa, but that's not the case; and even then, it can combo with Black Skull Dragon as it was mentioned above, although it would take more than 1 turn to be executed because of the summon restriction on "Red-Eyes Fusion", but the potential for Black Skull Dragon of surviving the turn is always there, as you have to consider the opponent won't always have an out for Black Skull readily available, nor for all of your cards for that matter. Not to mention that it can also float into a "Draw 2 cards" effect if destroyed, which gives it a layer of safety.

A good point I want to highlight is that its alternate summoning condition enables you to send a Red-Eyes Wyvern, Black Stone or Black Metal Dragon from the field to the grave faster without relying as much on combos or other tactics to get them in the grave, and that sure ought to be welcomed by the deck. But then you add the dangerous applications above into consideration, and the card further feels like a slippery slope.

[Yuuji Kazami]

I have been thinking about this, and noticed I wasn't clear enough with my thoughts at the moment of typing them and quickly derailed into a "power vs. flexibility" argument that, as it was pointed out, is irrelevant for determining the effectiveness of a card (a card doesn't have to be generic/splashable to be good); that was more my design preferences getting in the way.

So to be more clear, I want to re-state my reasoning towards Card B:

 

Putting it simply, I find it dangerous because of its design as an Extra Deck game-finishing card that, unlike other finishers such as Cowboy who inflict 800 effect damage or Heartlandraco/Nightmare Shark who inflict 2000 damage through an attack, it threats with an outstanding 2000 LP burn AND is still able to attack afterwards for potentially inflicting additional damage. Maybe it would have been fine if it couldn't attack the turn it activates its effect and vice-versa, but that's not the case; and even then, it can combo with Black Skull Dragon as it was mentioned above, although it would take more than 1 turn to be executed because of the summon restriction on "Red-Eyes Fusion", but the potential for Black Skull Dragon of surviving the turn is always there, as you have to consider the opponent won't always have an out for Black Skull readily available, nor for all of your cards for that matter. Not to mention that it can also float into a "Draw 2 cards" effect if destroyed, which gives it a layer of safety.

A good point I want to highlight is that its alternate summoning condition enables you to send a Red-Eyes Wyvern, Black Stone or Black Metal Dragon from the field to the grave faster without relying as much on combos or other tactics to get them in the grave, and that sure ought to be welcomed by the deck. But then you add the dangerous applications above into consideration, and the card further feels like a slippery slope.

Well, I thought the point of the Card B was to get those cards into the Graveyard faster. A Red-Eyes Deck can only focus on mainly Red-Eyes Fusion and Black Stone for speed. Other than that, there's really no other fast mechanic to utilize in order to establish field advantage. The monsters have to physically on the field for the Tribute, not when they're equipped to a Red-Eyes.

 

I'm not sure if Red-Eyes Wyvern was even worth mentioning. After all, it takes away your NS, and there's not really any good targets that you could get into your Graveyard except for Flare Metal, which would only be a 2800 beatstick at most, and this only happens during the End Phase.  

 

Valid point about not always having outs for Archfiend Skull, but keep in mind that the secondary burn effect can only be applied as long as a Red-Eyes B. is in the Graveyard, so the 2400 burn could only occur once unless you go into this card for the mill burn, in which 4800 damage at most if the conditions were completely open. 

 

For Card B being able to attack before or after using the burn effect... Is 2000 ATK is really that much of a threat? Red-Eyes cards has no capability to go into any of those finishers, unless you're somehow lucky enough to drop 2 Red-Eyes Wyverns for an Heartlanddraco or Cowboy Xyz.

 

However, if we're talking about the current meta, is it really hard to get rid of such a card? Think about all of the Blue Eyes stuff going around at the moment. Shouldn't your previous argument of Black Skull also apply for Card A? Attack first with Card A, negate self damage with own effect, SS Red Eyes B. for another attack as well as Black Skull, burn for 2400, then go into Red Dragon Archfiend Scarlight or something similar with the Red Eyes B. and Card A as well as burn for more damage?

 

If you still think it's too much after re-consideration, I'll accept the vote due to the fact that you did hit atleast touch on all areas on both cards. 

[Darj]

I'm not sure if Red-Eyes Wyvern was even worth mentioning. After all, it takes away your NS, and there's not really any good targets that you could get into your Graveyard except for Flare Metal, which would only be a 2800 beatstick at most, and this only happens during the End Phase.

 

I suspect if Card B was a thing, Red-Eyes Wyvern could see more play, as it is another "Red-Eyes" name for summoning Card B. Speaking of REDMD, as a Level10 it happens to fulfill Card B's alternate Summoning condition on its own. How about performing the following play?

1. Summon REDMD.

2. Revive a Dragon, preferably a big one, with REDMD.

3. Attack

4. On MP2 Tribute REDMD for Card B.

5. Inflict 2000 damage with Card B's effect.

 

Yeah... yet again you would be inflicting 2000 damage out of nowhere.

 

For Card B being able to attack before or after using the burn effect... Is 2000 ATK is really that much of a threat? Red-Eyes cards has no capability to go into any of those finishers, unless you're somehow lucky enough to drop 2 Red-Eyes Wyverns for an Heartlanddraco or Cowboy Xyz.

 

Attacking with 2000 may not be much, but the potential for OTKing or finishing games is still there. Granted, OTK enablers and game finishers aren't exactly the most unfair things in the game, but they are certainly unpleasant to some degree (who isn't annoyed when your opponent finish you off by, let's say, overlaying Gaia Dragoons over Volcasaurus after using the latter's effect?), and, this is my opinion but the less of them we have, the better.

 

By the way, funnily enough if Card B existed you could use those 2 Wyverns to Summon Card B instead and possibly inflict more damage than what Heartlandraco or Cowboy would.

 

However, if we're talking about the current meta, is it really hard to get rid of such a card? Think about all of the Blue Eyes stuff going around at the moment. Shouldn't your previous argument of Black Skull also apply for Card A? Attack first with Card A, negate self damage with own effect, SS Red Eyes B. for another attack as well as Black Skull, burn for 2400, then go into Red Dragon Archfiend Scarlight or something similar with the Red Eyes B. and Card A as well as burn for more damage?

 

If you still think it's too much after re-consideration, I'll accept the vote due to the fact that you did hit atleast touch on all areas on both cards. 

 

Comparing it to the meta is a no-go. If we were to stick with the metagame standards, then yes, you could get away with this card and even stronger, if not outright broken, creations, but AFAIK that's not how the CC section, including 1v1, works: the goal is to focus on making balanced cards. Otherwise the section would be filled with atrocities designed to match or stand up against the powercreep Putting it simply, not because Konami does it, means you should do it too.

 

Then, the case with Card A isn't exactly the same because, first of all, from the way it's written Card A's effect negates effect damage, not battle damage, so it cannot use its effect when attacking; but assuming it did, you still need both the Fusion and Card A on board, basically being a 2-card combo. Meanwhile, Card B residing in the Extra Deck doesn't need to be searched or drawn and can come out as long as its conditions are met, which needless to say, is way more practical.

 

 

And... this is looking more like a thread on Casual/Advanced Cards section than a 1v1 so I better stop it here. Besides, I don't think I have anything else to add. I will leave the vote approval to you.

[Yuuji Kazami]

I suspect if Card B was a thing, Red-Eyes Wyvern could see more play, as it is another "Red-Eyes" name for summoning Card B. Speaking of REDMD, as a Level10 it happens to fulfill Card B's alternate Summoning condition on its own. How about performing the following play?

1. Summon REDMD.

2. Revive a Dragon, preferably a big one, with REDMD.

3. Attack

4. On MP2 Tribute REDMD for Card B.

5. Inflict 2000 damage with Card B's effect.

 

Yeah... yet again you would be inflicting 2000 damage out of nowhere.

 

 

Attacking with 2000 may not be much, but the potential for OTKing or finishing games is still there. Granted, OTK enablers and game finishers aren't exactly the most unfair things in the game, but they are certainly unpleasant to some degree (who isn't annoyed when your opponent finish you off by, let's say, overlaying Gaia Dragoons over Volcasaurus after using the latter's effect?), and, this is my opinion but the less of them we have, the better.

 

By the way, funnily enough if Card B existed you could use those 2 Wyverns to Summon Card B instead and possibly inflict more damage than what Heartlandraco or Cowboy would.

 

 

Comparing it to the meta is a no-go. If we were to stick with the metagame standards, then yes, you could get away with this card and even stronger, if not outright broken, creations, but AFAIK that's not how the CC section, including 1v1, works: the goal is to focus on making balanced cards. Otherwise the section would be filled with atrocities designed to match or stand up against the powercreep Putting it simply, not because Konami does it, means you should do it too.

 

Then, the case with Card A isn't exactly the same because, first of all, from the way it's written Card A's effect negates effect damage, not battle damage, so it cannot use its effect when attacking; but assuming it did, you still need both the Fusion and Card A on board, basically being a 2-card combo. Meanwhile, Card B residing in the Extra Deck doesn't need to be searched or drawn and can come out as long as its conditions are met, which needless to say, is way more practical.

 

 

And... this is looking more like a thread on Casual/Advanced Cards section than a 1v1 so I better stop it here. Besides, I don't think I have anything else to add. I will leave the vote approval to you.

Whoops, guess I've read it wrong. For some reason, I thought of Performapal Damage Juggler, although Juggler has the built in Kuriboh effect. I could think of alternate combos, but that'll be really beside the point. 

 

Again, saying to use one of the cards with Red Eyes Darkness Metal for a power play only supports the claim to the extent, as the same could be done with the other card. The thing with Card B is that you cannot automatically pull it out easily on your first turn, while Card A can drag out a Red-Eyes fairly easily. Fairy Wind is still one of the things that is still used in some Decks. Not only that, REDMD is limited to one, so going back to your claim about the card needed to be drawn and the conditions to be met; it's the same thing.

 

I don't know if people would be really salty about Gaia Charger. After all, they're just an additional monster that aims to do what Nightmare Shark and Cowboy do. Sneaky wins. However, unlike the pre-mentioned, Card B is restricted to Red-Eyes only.

 

I think it's funny because from the first time that I've started doing 1v1's, someone actually voted against a card that would support a set becoming more meta by boosting the theme. Card A also helps making Red-Eyes meta too, but it has a more generic effect that aims to bring out Level 8 Synchros that are not in the Red-Eyes archetype. I'm pretty sure Card B does not fall into the "broken" category, even if I did mention that this helps the Red-Eyes archetype become more viable in the meta.

 

Like I said, because you atleast touched on all of the areas of both cards, I'll accept your vote even just based on personal preference of 2000 damage being too much.

 

1-0 A

[Dova]

First off with Card A, Tuner. So that's a thing. The targeting eff -> Summon is also fine, and I guess the compensation for that attack negation effect it could get is the cannot be destroyed by battle, so it makes a nice wall. However, this card has a third effect, and...is this effect OP/UP when combined with the other two? To be honest, I would say no, because even though effect damage isn't such a big thing on an opposing deck, you could easily run some burning damage card to negate with this card, and, that would be a bit powerful, but you are risking the speed of your deck, so that works. One of the things I like best about this card being a Tuner is that Level 8 Synchros are much more common than Level 9, so you don't need to add Level 8 Synchros just for this to work.

 

So, with Card B, you can Synchro Summon it without using Tuners? That's neat. You have your Summon limitation that way, so that's also neat. The Burn effect is...boring. I don't like those "Burn for this card original Attack", I prefer either just using an already set number, or doing something like Lapis Lazuli, but that's just me. Moving on, the banish to draw 2 on destruction really compensates this card, and I wish you could have both of these cards in a deck, as it would really speed up Red-Eyes and put it up a to a higher Tier. I would be really unhappy with this card if it was Level 7, then you could flare if you SS a Level 7 ontop of 2000 burn and the rest of the damage you could inflict, but I feel the archetype is too slow right now for this to be a huge threat.

 

*sigh* Guess I have to vote for one or the other. I'll vote for B because although both make it faster, I feel Card B's effect is useful in the way it was designed and it adds to my favorite part of Red-Eyes: Burn.

[Yuuji Kazami]

Thanks for elaborating on ALL areas of both cards.

 

1-1 unless Asdf has any disagreement? 

[Bellringer Angel]

No objection.

 

EDIT: Card A now has picture? Cool

[Yuuji Kazami]

No objection.

EDIT: Card A now has picture? Cool

I wonder how that happened. Weird. =?

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

I don't know when you intended for this to end, but at present, it's a 1-1 tie. Unless someone breaks it, looks like you two will have to declare draw on this one. 

[Yuuji Kazami]

Alright. Tie it is.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Very well.

I assume you know what to do at this point; report the results to Striker in the Leaderboard thread.