|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jevan R. H. Divinitive Crew
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:56 pm
I was wonderig bout the Side deck. It would make it much easier for people to cheat if their side deck wasn't 0 or 15.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:51 am
Awshum.
Still wish tribute would be called release and Tribute summoning would be advanced summoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:59 am
I kind of like the limit, there is this kid at my locals who has like a 120 card deck, and he's really annoying, and now he has to cut it down, haha~
He also has a friend who doesen't compete in the tournament, so he thinks he can deck 9 copies of a single card....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:13 pm
why are they shortening the fusion deck, it used to be like 60 cards.
60 down to 15 does not go well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:54 am
That's getto! But I like some of the new game play. I think it'll be interesting, you know thinking of new stratigies and stuff. But learning the new terminoligy may be a problem for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:21 am
Sieg Selwyn Ryuto Asamiya It needs to be the exact level. Basically the Tuners, need to "tune" the monsters to be in perfect "sync". Oh, now it makes sense. Nice explanation. i honestly never noticed that. "tune to sync".... aren't they clever with the naming..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:58 am
Dracomancer Barrelex Sieg Selwyn Ryuto Asamiya It needs to be the exact level. Basically the Tuners, need to "tune" the monsters to be in perfect "sync". Oh, now it makes sense. Nice explanation. i honestly never noticed that. "tune to sync".... aren't they clever with the naming.. They are aren't they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:51 pm
Oh yeah, I saw these rules on Yugioh-card.com. It was for the preview of the new 5ds starter deck. But seeing as my best deck is based mainly on Neos and E-Heros, a 15 card limit should hamper my chances of victory.
Now that I think about it, using Synchro monsters is hardly different from Contact Fusion; making sure certain monsters are on the field, keeping them there for the perfect fusion, it's fairly simple for me. Using these Synchro monsters should be fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:16 pm
Kenshin Yuki Oh yeah, I saw these rules on Yugioh-card.com. It was for the preview of the new 5ds starter deck. But seeing as my best deck is based mainly on Neos and E-Heros, a 15 card limit should hamper my chances of victory. Now that I think about it, using Synchro monsters is hardly different from Contact Fusion; making sure certain monsters are on the field, keeping them there for the perfect fusion, it's fairly simple for me. Using these Synchro monsters should be fun. Then change it up and focus on only one E-hero's fusions. I think the E-heroes are the reason they put a cap on the limit in the first place. And the Syncros are a blast. I'm building a all new deck based on the Syncro Monsters I have (all 6 of them) and a few of my favorite cards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:32 pm
interesting change, My deck is only 52 cards, so its fine. I think they changed the words around so everybody new to the game isn't confused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:43 am
I'm glad that they put a limit. It's annoying seeing how many people think just because they have more cards, that they're automatically going to win. It puts them at a disadvantage because it'll take longer to draw the necessary card.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:26 am
I can't see the reasoning behind the deck maximum... exactly what exploit is it designed to prevent? I've never known of a deck of 60 cards or more that could pull off being competitive (not saying the don't exist, but if they do, I say they'd do much better if they cut them down to 45 tops) That said, if you want to have more than 60 cards in your deck, why shouldn't you be allowed to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:15 pm
DragosV2 I can't see the reasoning behind the deck maximum... exactly what exploit is it designed to prevent? I've never known of a deck of 60 cards or more that could pull off being competitive (not saying the don't exist, but if they do, I say they'd do much better if they cut them down to 45 tops) That said, if you want to have more than 60 cards in your deck, why shouldn't you be allowed to? The 60 card limit was placed to prevent problems such as lost cards, because if you lose a card out of a 40-60 card deck, its easy to figure out what you may have lost and replace it before a deck check causes you a game loss or disqualification. 120 card deck are also a major inconvenience to shuffle and can take longer than the 3 minutes allowed to side deck and shuffle. it could also be to prevent minor thefts. it would be almost no problem to snag a card off the table, slip it into your 100 card deck then when asked about it, say you must have missed it when making your list. those are some basic reasons. Due to this thread being so old, i will now lock it to prevent anymore questions about old information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
