[RATE] Twelve Beasts

[byak]

the worst case is you open rabbina or ram and you end with a 1600 or 2000 that can pop a card during your opponent's turn

 

the best case is thoroughblade and you get up to 2800

 

another "best case" is rat because rat essentially lets you create a 2 material xyz after you've cycled through your twelve beasts, but then your original twelve beast has like no stats or materials (maybe a viper)

 

the deck also has non targeting non destruction removal in the form of viper, even though it is a bit slow due to requiring battle

 

also, targeting destruction is funking absurd if its a quick effect, because you can pick off combo pieces and spell/trap cards during your opponent's turn that do not have this kind of immunity

 

keep in mind we're getting two spells and a trap as well, which judging from rat (and the new foolish) probably have some banish effect to make your xyzs even bigger

[The Highlander]

the worst case is you open rabbina or ram and you end with a 1600 or 2000 that can pop a card during your opponent's turn

 

the best case is thoroughblade and you get up to 2800

Which requires 3 ED slots each time you do it.

[Blake]

Which requires 3 ED slots each time you do it.

thats not really a point???

 

The deck can't do a funk ton generically, anyway, so there's no point in stating such.

[byak]

and what else are you going to be xyz summoning? 

 

the only other cards you would need to include are like... utopia -> lightning, dweller and emeral

 

3 drancia

3 bull

3 tigris

2 wildbow

1 emeral

1 utopia

1 lightning

1 dweller

 

like.. when your xyz monsters are essentially 1 material xyz monsters and you're devoting most of your plays to normal summoning a guy and going into them, why would you want to play anything else?

 

the only time you make other xyz monsters is with rat, and you should cover most of your bases with the small rank 4 pool right there

[The Highlander]

Which is rather slow, compared to other decks, the times when this would have been broken are long gone.

[Blake]

Which is rather slow, compared to other decks, the times when this would have been broken are long gone.

itt 1-card 2800 quick play removal is slow

 

Nevermind that this is about the MECHANIC being absurd, not necessarily the deck, you're not actually supplying any sort of proof, only "you're wrong" with focus on a single word.

[The Highlander]

itt 1-card 2800 quick play removal is slow

 

Nevermind that this is about the MECHANIC being absurd, not necessarily the deck, you're not actually supplying any sort of proof, only "you're wrong" with focus on a single word.

Well I stated it is slow if reducing your strategy to it, of course it itself is a ridiculous concept. However I was talking about the archtype and a strategy only relying on it and while quickplay removal is amazing, I stated a 2.8k monster, which can do that, on its own is not enough. As for not supplying any arguments, it is propably my fault for not seeing the argument in your post or the one that can basicly be reduced to "this is broken".

thats not really a point???

 

The deck can't do a f*** ton generically, anyway, so there's no point in stating such.

Except that all I stated was that one runs out of ammo quite fast if continuously doing that.

[Blake]

Well I stated it is slow if reducing your strategy to it, of course it itself is a ridiculous concept. However I was talking about the archtype and a strategy only relying on it and while quickplay removal is amazing, I stated a 2.8k monster, which can do that, on its own is not enough. As for not supplying any arguments, it is propably my fault for not seeing the argument in your post or the one that can basicly be reduced to "this is broken".

 

Except that all I stated was that one runs out of ammo quite fast if continuously doing that.

Thats not what being slow is. Even devoting to it, it isn't slow at all. That's fast.

 

Furthermore, you're the one tackling someone else. Burden of proof is on you, yet you only gave half-added opinions, in place of points. There's no arguing against it being an absurd mechanic, and this has nothing to do actual impact, which can't be fully gauged yet, so really, what your point? Don't be sassy when your lack of anything non-anecdotal is pointed out.

 

And no, you didn't. It's a given that the deck runs out of ammo fast, and the implication you gave was more so space.

[The Highlander]

Thats not what being slow is. Even devoting to it, it isn't slow at all. That's fast.

Yea, I was not stating that card to be slow, however a strategy that solely relies on a play like that.

 

Furthermore, you're the one tackling someone else. Burden of proof is on you, yet you only gave half-added opinions, in place of points.

I stated the archtype runs out of steam rather fast and that those plays are not as gamebreaking as byak suggested, meaning they are not creating such an impact while they last that they would decide the game on their own.

 

There's no arguing against it being an absurd mechanic, and this has nothing to do actual impact, which can't be fully gauged yet, so really, what your point? Don't be sassy when your lack of anything non-anecdotal is pointed out.

The subject was never it being an absurd mechanic, the subject was this archtype and I stated those to overreact, which directly refered to this archtype, rather than that concept as a whole.

You may be right about the impact not being quite clear right now, however I assume we can all agree that with the cards revealed right now they would not dominate the game, simply because they can summon a quick effect xyz dragon cannon each turn.

Correct me if I am wrong, however is the subject of the discussion about new cards not those exact cards ?

 

 

And no, you didn't. It's a given that the deck runs out of ammo fast, and the implication you gave was more so space.

I stated that if one solely relies on those plays even 3 copies of each run out rather fast, which about everyone saw already, however that is an argument as to why those plays cannot be continued indefinitely and even more not very long.

 

All in all I might agree I went more or less a bit over the top, considering I assumed most to be self explanatory, however the aim was to show that those statements were a bit unpolished in their magnitude, boiling down to "this is so broken" with neither an explanation, nor even a reason as to why that statement had to be made, I agree to the concept being ridiculous, however the view was clearly directed on this archtype.

[Blake]

The view was clearly based on how much the mechanic does =x

 

Context of who said it vs. what was said shows that, and even the latter half of that should illustrate that, though not as strongly.

[The Highlander]

The view was clearly based on how much the mechanic does =x

 

Context of who said it vs. what was said shows that, and even the latter half of that should illustrate that, though not as strongly.

 

isn't this deck just f***ing broken because you can stack the xyzs on top of each other with a one card investment? 

 

search a card and destroy a card for a normal summon? also rat is broken?

The reference is clearly to this archtype, mostly to drancia, bull and rat.

And while I agree with byak that that concept might get out of hand the focus in his/her statement is clearly directed at this archtype, rather than such archtypes in general.

 

[Blake]

It's about the archetype's mechanic =x

 

It doesn't matter that you're quuoting, because it also specifies "because you can stack...one card investment?" which clearly show it's about the mechanic.

[The Highlander]

It's about the archetype's mechanic =x

 

It doesn't matter that you're quuoting, because it also specifies "because you can stack...one card investment?" which clearly show it's about the mechanic.

It is clearly used as an argument to give proof to his assumption.

Afterwards he shows that argument is the basis for his assumption, adding proof from within the archtype to further fortify his base assumption.

However I have to admit I got carried away and in the end it does not matter how I did understand it, considering I stated my opinion, if any doubt would appear, in case anyone feels tackled I would like you to take my sincerest apology, that was not my intention.

Edit: Xyz Universe might be interesting, considering rat leaves out 2 xyzs without materials, so instead of f0 one could summon #38, #11 (or felgrand).

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

Casual but pretty good illustration of the deck

[Kaiji]

YgoHACK usually makes the most strikingly meme-iest builds, this is just the earliest example of someone coding them early for personal use (I have reason to believe that the way he gives the opponent free turns is so that he can showcase the the effects properly working).

[~~~~]

 

Casual but pretty good illustration of the deck

I got confused at the equip and started looking through the cards that have been revealed, looking for which one had/gave and effect to equip. But then I realised that it was Plasma.

 

I must say that this deck looks funking awesome.

[Tinkerer]

Cattle Call

[Catman25]

Yo what sheet should I pick up for this, besides Fire Formations; is Xyz Reborn worth it

[~~~~]

Yo what s*** should I pick up for this, besides Fire Formations; is Xyz Reborn worth it

Probably not since the attached Reborn won't grant any ATK or effects.

 

You may as well use CotH instead if you were going to use Xyz Reborn because you can revive the little ones and then overlay, which gets effects like rat's.