Duel Masters: Individual Card Discussion

why should I edit? People get the jist of what I'm saying. It's not like I'm writing an essay for the school paper or something where professional typing counts. :\
 
Well, since me and Mullet are sharing responsibility, i get to pick this week. I choose Jack Viper, Shadow of Doom. He is a ghost evolution from Rampage of the super warriors. He's three taps fro 4000. As long as he's on the feild, any of your dark monsters that are killed are returned to your hand instead of being sent to the graveyard. A good recycler I would love to have. I give him a 10/10
 
That's pretty cool, but he's obviously one of the weaker ones due to the lack of decent ghosts and the fact that you can just use amber piercer (rare, thanks to mullet for telling me my error) for the most part kinda made him lose his large edge. Still an excellent card.
8/10
 
Last edited:
But amber peircer has to attack to get teh mosnter back. And it can be esily killed with an attack strength of 2000. Whil jack Viper, all he has to do is jsut sit there, and you get all your monsters back when they die otehr than him. You don't even have to attack with him. And if you want good ghosts to evolve him from, Grey Balloon, Shadow of Greed would be an excellent card to evolve from.
 
Ugh. Lack of good ghosts to run off (IMO!!!). See the difference is that there's a CHEAPER way of doing what he's doing. You don't need to have monsters die to gain CA with others whereas with this guy you HAVE to kill your own monsters to gain CA.

See, Piercer and Horrid Wurm both run off tempo whereas our ghostly friend runs off passivity and is more control oriented. Not that a control-base is bad, but generally in Duel Masters (And YGO), passivity tends to lose out to aggro, tempo-based decks.

*note: I do understand where you're coming from. And I know that you can usually gain more CA with this guy in the long run (you need to bring back 2 before it's CA tho, whereas a single attack from piercer or wurm is already CA). So yeah, it's good in its own way, but I'd prefer the tempo.
 
Interesting idea you have. I'm not sure whether it'll work incredibly or not, and further testing would be required. I dont know, I'm still all for them both in seperate decks as theybelong in different archtypes.
 
Well, I own Jack Viper...I think he is ok, but he has an effect I wouldn't normally use he could work nice put into a Dark/Nature deck, using the dead creatures to become mana. Or a card that gets atk/shield/shield breaker bonus for the amount of cards in your hand. (there ma not be any or a few of those, but they'll probebly pump out some cards like that in the furutre.
 
Ooooo...you brought up an interesting point!

Both Jack and the guys who die and goes to the mana zone are essentially "replacement" effects. According to priorities and crap like that, YOU pick the order they "stack" (basically you pick which effect you want).
 
Jack is awesome, becasue you can reuse teh cards. you don't ahve to resummon them, you can do that, or you can play them as mana, or other things like that. And it would honestly work better in a pure darkness deck, so taht all your monsters will return to you instead of jsut 50%. darkness runs incredibly well on it's own. I speak from experience.
 
3 for 4000, Jack Viper. I have to say this guy works on a cemetery. A monster reborn DM style, you wouldn't turn on it!

But a con is that there aren't any decent Ghosts out there (Ghosts are either useless or overrated). This one wouldn't work without 'em. Use this is you really like, but your mana zone will run short.

Casual Play: 4/5 you can spare this one.
Tourney Play: 2/5 I'd rather use Slayers than this, at least Slayers are worth wasting mana for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top