|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:39 pm
As everyone has stated, this deck can easily be countered, destroyed, and obliterated. If you want to see if you are REALLY unbeatable go on duelingnetwork like many of us had and show us.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:39 pm
Oh come now....
i know EXACTLY whats going on here...
sometimes its a hobby of mine to stir up some fuss over nothing..
but ill take the advice....
BTW can you help with my hero deck? please...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:01 pm
It's not the deck that counts, bud, it's the player. You could have a deck full of crappy cards, but at the end of the day, if you're a good player, you'll have better chances at winning then a sucky player with all good cards. What you're doing is boasting over nothing. Sorry razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:04 pm
*rolls eyes*
its all good...
i know the rules of the game..
i know the value of a player and his/her cards
when its all said and done i know the decks decent
ive faced something like it before..
like i said i was just talking to talk...
Good Job!!
my favorite Psychic is Android anyways... well and thoughtruler..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:12 pm
Trey Dorien You could have a deck full of crappy cards, but at the end of the day, if you're a good player, you'll have better chances at winning then a sucky player with all good cards. If only the R&D department were so inclined to keep that in mind. While it's true to an extent, it isn't absolute. Literally anyone can hold Legendary Six Samurai in their hands and win against this. Then again that's just another reason I want that particular deck's balls severed and bagged. EDIT: just wanted to add, no good player would go and duel with crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:22 pm
Those points are both true. I dunno any good players with crappy decks, it was just hypothetically speaking. And, you're right, those godforsaken Six Samurai's can be used by just about anyone with just as much skill...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:31 pm
Trey Dorien Those points are both true. I dunno any good players with crappy decks, it was just hypothetically speaking. And, you're right, those godforsaken Six Samurai's can be used by just about anyone with just as much skill... Hypothetically speaking, not even world champions can do s**t with a bad deck. If you honestly expect me to believe that anyone who knows what a card does can do anything, then I should be a world finalist. I don't win not because of being a bad player, but being GOD AWFUL with deck construction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:35 pm
Not trying to start an argument here, but I do believe that even if you were, you'd have a hard time winning. I, myself, am a pro at construction, but I still always lose. I create perfect balance between my cards but my skill just isn't there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:13 pm
Mustard Like Soup Trey Dorien You could have a deck full of crappy cards, but at the end of the day, if you're a good player, you'll have better chances at winning then a sucky player with all good cards. If only the R&D department were so inclined to keep that in mind. While it's true to an extent, it isn't absolute. Literally anyone can hold Legendary Six Samurai in their hands and win against this. Then again that's just another reason I want that particular deck's balls severed and bagged. EDIT: just wanted to add, no good player would go and duel with crap. maybe they're tired of winning lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:27 pm
My deck list will stomp you any day mister! I just went to a card shop today and beat like 5 people, I played a Dark Magician deck that was pretty darn awesome, then a Dragon deck that was based off a kaiba starter deck, geez I had to get passed 2 Blue eyes white dragons, other decks where Machines and 2 Gladiator beast. SO yeah chumpy, I'd like to see you beat me. :]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:29 pm
I still think my deck is awesome!! so ha!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:30 pm
tomoko655 My deck list will stomp you any day mister! I just went to a card shop today and beat like 5 people, I played a Dark Magician deck that was pretty darn awesome, then a Dragon deck that was based off a kaiba starter deck, geez I had to get passed 2 Blue eyes white dragons, other decks where Machines and 2 Gladiator beast. SO yeah chumpy, I'd like to see you beat me. :] . Dueling Network. Take your pick, and be ready to be stomped. I'll make sure my list is current TCG release in the latter, just for you. EDIT: Really, though. You're doing a terrible job of trolling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:45 pm
Mustard Like Soup tomoko655 My deck list will stomp you any day mister! I just went to a card shop today and beat like 5 people, I played a Dark Magician deck that was pretty darn awesome, then a Dragon deck that was based off a kaiba starter deck, geez I had to get passed 2 Blue eyes white dragons, other decks where Machines and 2 Gladiator beast. SO yeah chumpy, I'd like to see you beat me. :] . Dueling Network. Take your pick, and be ready to be stomped. I'll make sure my list is current TCG release in the latter, just for you. EDIT: Really, though. You're doing a terrible job of trolling. What's trolling? Dueling network I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:48 pm
:I Will we be using Hyper Librarian or no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:50 pm
Trey Dorien It's not the deck that counts, bud, it's the player. You could have a deck full of crappy cards, but at the end of the day, if you're a good player, you'll have better chances at winning then a sucky player with all good cards. What you're doing is boasting over nothing. Sorry razz true, thanks I am a good player, but my deck isn't bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
