User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Common misconceptions that make you rage

  1. #1
    Registered User SynjoDeonecros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    2,142
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Common misconceptions that make you rage

    What common ruling, card effect, or play misconceptions do you keep on hearing that make you want to punch a baby?

    For me, it's when people suggest Black Garden for a Wanghu deck. Both Wanghu's and Black Garden's effects are trigger effects, not continuous, so the latter's ATK-halving effect won't trigger the former's monster destruction effect. It's so simple to look this shit up, but no one seems to do so...
    "Is it so important that you win one last argument with him?"
    "No, it is not, but it is true that I will miss the arguments; they were, finally, all that we had."

  2. #2
    Registered User Thanako's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    The Netherworld
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I feel like Konami hasn't ever made an adequate enough effort in explaining missing the timing. Or maybe people just don't listen, but that's always been a big one for me.

  3. #3
    Registered User Baroque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    766
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've got a misconception for ye: Negation VS the Graveyard.

    I'm not talking things like Skill Drain shenanigans, mind you, I'm talking about when people seem to think that cards like Graydle Dragon or Onslaught of the Fire Kings -- which negate the effects of the monsters they summon -- will affect the effects of the monsters they summon which activate in the Graveyard.

    Truth is: they do not affect such effects. They are designed to help you take advantage of those effects, if anything. If Wattsquirrel proves anything, it's that there is an extra little bit of fluff needed for the cards to behave as the misconception states . . . and yet, somehow I keep running into people that think otherwise. Gaaah.
    #222937 for invisitext in the Org's dark. Try it out!

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    MST Negates and "Spiritual beast monsters aren't ritual beast monsters" and other variations of that specific misconception.

  5. #5
    Registered User SynjoDeonecros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    2,142
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I hate, hate, HATE it when people try to argue against me playing a pure build of an archetype by saying "You're playing X Card, which isn't a part of the archetype (even though it's generic enough that it doesn't matter, or it doesn't have an archetype of its own), you're a bad player for doing it and not building pure". I want to cut their tongues out with their most expensive card, whenever they pull this semantics bullshit.
    "Is it so important that you win one last argument with him?"
    "No, it is not, but it is true that I will miss the arguments; they were, finally, all that we had."

  6. #6
    Registered User Jolan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    507
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SynjoDeonecros View Post
    I hate, hate, HATE it when people try to argue against me playing a pure build of an archetype by saying "You're playing X Card, which isn't a part of the archetype (even though it's generic enough that it doesn't matter, or it doesn't have an archetype of its own), you're a bad player for doing it and not building pure". I want to cut their tongues out with their most expensive card, whenever they pull this semantics bullshit.
    I've literally never heard of that. More often than not it's people telling ''Hey you should play X even tho it's not part of the archetype because it has synergies with it!'' to me, which is how I ended up with Majesty's Fiend in Monarchs.
    I'm a bear.

  7. #7
    Registered User SynjoDeonecros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    2,142
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolan View Post
    I've literally never heard of that. More often than not it's people telling ''Hey you should play X even tho it's not part of the archetype because it has synergies with it!'' to me, which is how I ended up with Majesty's Fiend in Monarchs.
    They try that at first, but if you mention that you're trying to play pure (like with an archetype or something), they'll guilt you into playing the card they want you to play by saying "X isn't part of the archetype, so why are you playing it?" or "Technically, X is part of a different archetype, so you shouldn't have it in there". For instance, I've been told that, since I'm playing pure Yosenjus, I shouldn't be playing Tenki, since Tenki is technically part of the Fire Formation archetype, which is part of the Fire Fist archetype, completely ignoring the fact that its effect, in fact, does NOT have anything to do with Fire Fists, and has everything to do with generic Beast-Warriors.

    I just got something like that, today, being told to play Kaiju over Santa Claws, because "Santa Claws isn't a Yosenju", and saying I should take out Flying "C" from my side because "it's technically part of the "C" archetype", not getting that a) I don't care about that shit, b) the cards I have are generic and don't pertain to any specific archetype in their effects, and c) I'm playing them in the side deck, where I'll only be using them when I NEED to, and not as part of the main deck, where I'll HAVE to play them.
    "Is it so important that you win one last argument with him?"
    "No, it is not, but it is true that I will miss the arguments; they were, finally, all that we had."

  8. #8
    Registered User Hope in the Interstice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,994
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SynjoDeonecros View Post
    I just got something like that, today, being told to play Kaiju over Santa Claws, because "Santa Claws isn't a Yosenju", and saying I should take out Flying "C" from my side because "it's technically part of the "C" archetype", not getting that a) I don't care about that shit, b) the cards I have are generic and don't pertain to any specific archetype in their effects, and c) I'm playing them in the side deck, where I'll only be using them when I NEED to, and not as part of the main deck, where I'll HAVE to play them.
    Not to mention "C" isn't an archetype but a series, like the Treasure Card series.

  9. #9
    Registered User Jolan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    507
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SynjoDeonecros View Post
    They try that at first, but if you mention that you're trying to play pure (like with an archetype or something), they'll guilt you into playing the card they want you to play by saying "X isn't part of the archetype, so why are you playing it?" or "Technically, X is part of a different archetype, so you shouldn't have it in there". For instance, I've been told that, since I'm playing pure Yosenjus, I shouldn't be playing Tenki, since Tenki is technically part of the Fire Formation archetype, which is part of the Fire Fist archetype, completely ignoring the fact that its effect, in fact, does NOT have anything to do with Fire Fists, and has everything to do with generic Beast-Warriors.

    I just got something like that, today, being told to play Kaiju over Santa Claws, because "Santa Claws isn't a Yosenju", and saying I should take out Flying "C" from my side because "it's technically part of the "C" archetype", not getting that a) I don't care about that shit, b) the cards I have are generic and don't pertain to any specific archetype in their effects, and c) I'm playing them in the side deck, where I'll only be using them when I NEED to, and not as part of the main deck, where I'll HAVE to play them.
    Tbh I would probably also run a Kaiju over Santa claws bcuz it's cheaper and I dont give the opponent potential drawpower. But complaining about a tenki is like complaining that someone runs RotA . . . Like, where does the logic even begin?
    I'm a bear.

  10. #10
    Registered User Hope in the Interstice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,994
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolan View Post
    But complaining about a tenki is like complaining that someone runs RotA . . . Like, where does the logic even begin?
    Reinforcement of the Army is not an archetype card. Fire Formation - Tenki is. Not that I don't use it all the same.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •