|
|
Post by Ursiel on May 16, 2014 11:07:45 GMT -6
I've actually never had an issue with keeping back row, and yes it is situational, just seems really funny. Besides people playing Soul Charge just really makes that seem like a good plan. Or at least easier to kill them then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drillwarrior on May 16, 2014 12:00:59 GMT -6
True.
Worth testing I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ursiel on May 16, 2014 17:10:45 GMT -6
That's the idea. If nothing else it makes the Traptrix girls harder to take down in battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by bystander on May 17, 2014 9:23:22 GMT -6
That's the idea. If nothing else it makes the Traptrix girls harder to take down in battle. try it out. |
|
|
|
Post by Ursiel on May 18, 2014 8:36:25 GMT -6
Took the last posted build to locals yesterday. Beat out Madolches (with 3 Anjelly) 2-0 in round 1, lost to LS 1-2 in round 2, then beat HEROs 2-0 in round 3, and squeaked out a win against Chain Burn 2-1 in round 3.
Plus side of this is while I didn't place, my Infernity deck took 2nd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drillwarrior on May 18, 2014 8:43:32 GMT -6
Wait, going 3-1 doesn't place?
How the heck does that work out? You swept two matches, and didn't get swept. Seems like you should have placed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ursiel on May 19, 2014 18:11:31 GMT -6
Konami's system doesn't care about sweeps, just winners and then its all off tie breakers. There were 3 of us that had 3-1 records and the other 2 only lost to the guy who went 4-0.
Also decks similar in concept, and most monsters, to mine were raping face all weekend at YCS Philly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drillwarrior on May 19, 2014 18:39:15 GMT -6
Konami's system doesn't care about sweeps, just winners and then its all off tie breakers. There were 3 of us that had 3-1 records and the other 2 only lost to the guy who went 4-0. Also decks similar in concept, and most monsters, to mine were raping face all weekend at YCS Philly. If you had that many people, it seems like you should have had a top 8 then. |
|
|
|
Post by Ursiel on May 20, 2014 15:52:44 GMT -6
Nope, only enough for 4 rounds, was like 16 iirc.
edit- made some changes last night, need to get the new list up.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragda on May 21, 2014 21:54:42 GMT -6
This kind of deck idea is apparently the meta now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ursiel on May 22, 2014 13:44:55 GMT -6
Yeah, I was rather surprised and more than a little pissed off. Now since this is what I was going to take to my regional on the 31st, everyone will be expecting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drillwarrior on May 22, 2014 14:42:41 GMT -6
On the other hand, you get to say "Hey, I had this idea for a meta deck that I didn't see somewhere else/isn't an archtype"
Which is pretty sweet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ursiel on May 22, 2014 18:01:00 GMT -6
And most people wouldn't believe me anyway. Its not a really big deal, especially since I'm enjoying it and know that I didn't just jump on the bandwagon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drillwarrior on May 22, 2014 18:51:59 GMT -6
I had a guy accusing me of netdecking once, I responded by showing him the deck list (Which had some amusing tech IIRC) and he still didn't admit it wasn't a netdeck. People will be idiots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ursiel on May 22, 2014 20:32:08 GMT -6
So those changes I made, some of them got changed again. Some of the stuff from Philly gave me some good ideas.  Edited the OP with some of the reasons for changes made. Also just realized this is a rather pricey deck I've put together. |
|
