Jump to content



Member Since 12 Aug 2017
Member ID: 878,005
Currently Not online
Offline Last Active Jun 18 2019 11:01 PM

In Topic: [Written] Sacred Swords of Revealing Light

17 February 2019 - 08:06 AM

So even the original Swords doesn't flip your own monsters. Is this intended as a limitation? Because I don't see why this card should if you're playing it in a stall deck (i.e. a deck that might run some Flip monsters).

Also, I wonder which card text is more modern: Swords or Ceasefire



... If your opponent controls a face-down monster, flip all monsters they control face-up ...



... Change all face-down Defense Position monsters on the field to face-up Defense Position ...

In Topic: [Older Deck Support] - Gravekeeper's

13 February 2019 - 03:08 PM

@The Old Charlelot Okay I made some changes based on what you said. Although I wanted to see if incorporating burn damage could be a thing, Gravekeeper's need more card advantage to stay afloat, so I think this is a good compromise

In Topic: Support for Ritual Beasts

12 February 2019 - 04:52 AM

I don't know much about Ritual Beasts, but I'll do what I can to help.

First things first, read up on Problem-Solving Card Text, because this is messy.


Scouter - I do like the restriction that you can only search Spiritual Beasts instead of just all Ritual Beasts. That's an example of a smart restriction on a card, in my mind.


Chamorett - Take a look at the wording on a card like Ultimate Offering. I think it has the phrasing you want to go for here (i.e. one that doesn't conflict with "You can Normal Summon/Set 1 [monster / TYPE monster] in addition to your Normal Summon/Set. (You can only gain this effect once per turn.)"


Calling - Make this card either:

  • strictly a Draw card, possibly with some restriction on what you can Summon that turn (i.e. ", also you cannot Special Summon monsters for the rest of this turn, except TYPE monsters."
  • some other utility effect and keep the 2nd effect to banish it for an additional Normal Summon/Set


Overall, I feel like you're too focused on drawing mechanics to help Ritual Beasts instead of maybe just more flexible effects to stall until you do get the card you need. Drawing is premium in YGO and I feel like you just handed this deck 3 copies of Pot of Greed. Remember that drawing cards effects everything in the game, not just your Archetype. You don't want Ritual Beasts to just become a draw engine, because that will have the exact opposite effect of what you want: people to play Ritual Beasts as their own Deck.

Hope this helps some

In Topic: [Older Deck Support] - Gravekeeper's

11 February 2019 - 08:42 PM

Hey thanks for taking the time to reply.

So let's start with the burn damage one, since that's an effect I knew would garner some criticism. I wanted to try this out because there are 2 Gravekeeper's monster that are NOT currently played that I'd be curious to see if anything good could come from them. Those 2 are Cannonholder and Curse. In that capacity, Pendulum Summoning is perfect for both and this effect, I think, actually makes them viable. If not this alone, then certainly when combined with Dark Room of Nightmares. But I will reconsider if I think it's actually worth.


The concept behind Khopesh's effect is the frustration I felt of not being able to include many other archetypal engines in Gravekeeper's to help them because Necrovalley actually would hurt those cards also. Maybe that's a design flaw on my part, and I will think about that, but I really wanted my Shaddoll-Gravekeeper's deck to work better than it did :( (although I know that's not an excuse for bad design)

Vizier may be too generic. Not sure yet. It's just the number 1 problem I've found in Gravekeeper's is that they lack the ability to generate advantage like new decks can. They just get outvalued every single time. That's also why I thought Pendulum summoning would help. They have Throne now, but you can only use 1 of those per turn and you normally don't play a deck with that many Gravekeeper's monsters in it (much like Altergeist and its limited monster lineup)

Thanks again for the feedback. I'll ponder some changes for a bit.

In Topic: Is Yu-Gi-Oh a Circus? [Written] (15/15)

11 February 2019 - 04:50 PM

I have always had the opinion that it is very difficult to fully analyze an entirely new archetype within the scope of the modern meta game. Simply because you have to think about the individual card, the deck, AND its place in the existing game all at the same time. So I'm just going to limit my comments to the main deck monsters for now and maybe we'll go from there.

Acrobat - I don't think that it should add ANY monster with 0/0 simply due to cards like Timelords and Harmonizing Magician (among others). Instead, I'd opt for maybe something like Spellcasters with 0/0. That even gives you access to Effect Veiler and the somewhat forgotten about Fog King (stopping all Tributes can be super lethal against certain strategies, especially now that Monarchs Stormforth is back at 3).

Magician - There needs to be a bigger restriction on the draw effect. It's a quick effect that you can use once per turn, which means you're effectively getting +1 every single turn. Drawing is one of the most powerful mechanics in the game, after all.

Fire Dancer - Also needs some restriction on activating ANY Trap Card from the hand. You could either make it just the Jester cards or give a meaningful cost. Either way, this is approaching Makyura levels (although you can't loop with it). My suggestion? Make it so that you have to return a Jester monster from your field to your hand. Then you can activate the Trap from your hand.


Ventriloquist - This card does too much for me (I almost feel the same way about Fire Dancer but I think it's fine). Take the negate effect, place that on a boss monster, and give this card a more defined identity as the Jester that copies other Jesters.

Hope that helps some