Talk:Burn Deck
From Yu-Gi-Oh!
Contents |
[edit] Bubbleman Burn Deck
This deck is really good, too bad not many people know about it.
- Explain how it works. You have five minutes before I delete the deck for violating Wiki's code of service. -- Huajun Chen 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Play Burn cards as quickly as you can using up your hand, then you can use Bubbleman to fill it up, card advantage isn't important if you're about to take out all your opponent's LP --Deltaneos 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Deltaneos, for answering. I better change it quick. I am new to being a member of YGO Wikia, so can somebody please edit the article?
- ... @ Del
- What does being new have anything to do with your ability to edit articles? @ Thegargoylevine. -- Huajun Chen 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- ... ? --Deltaneos 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, nothing. BTW, I'm going on vacation tommorrow so I won't be active for the next seven days. You think you have the balls to handle this website on your own? -- Huajun Chen 23:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- ... ? --Deltaneos 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Small question
Does a heal burn deck count as an offspring of the archetypical burn deck? Should it deserve a small mention here? --Pizzaman 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Weaknesses Changes
Me and a friend recently added and edited a "Weaknesses" section. However, due to a difference of opinion, my friend started deleting ALL my edits (his reasoning was that "Burn isn't a slow deck-type"). Has anyone else been deleting parts of this section? I don't want to undo any legitimate edits, but because no reason was left I don't know who's doing what.
SteveyP555 23:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Article has been crippled
I don't really know who did it, I don't want to know who did it, but in my opinion, this article has been totally crippled (compare revision from 06.April 09). The burn deck is one of the most played archtypes, as it can be fast on the one hand (for experienced players), easy to play (for beginners, who usually stall and burn slow), or -which is why I'M playing burn- it is unbelievably mean towards the enemy, to win without even having to attack with monsters.
Still, burn decks are not considered cheap wins like f.e. a Ben Kei, Lightsworns etc.
This article, as it is now, has no expressiveness at all, why burn decks are played. The deck types seem random with their 5-6 cards, and surely must have been placed like that by someone, who has no idea at all, how a burn deck is played.
Where is the explanation? Which cards are generally played? I'm telling you: you can't make a decent burn deck just like that. Especially not if you try reading the deck builds as they are now
I would like to start a vote, whether or not this article should be changed back. Just post here
--Pythong 22:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Pythong
- I couldn't agree more. It's as if the article has been drained of expressiveness, and all the deck descriptions have been cut down to a few robotic lines! Deeper descriptions are really needed for each burn type in the article (in my opinion, those are better in the older version of the article compared to the new one), which tells about how the deck is played and mentions good combos and strategies to use (some listed burn types may already have an okay desciption, and I don't see a need for pointing those out at the moment).
- Else some changes were good too. F.e. adding more "recommended cards" sections to the different burn types and so. But one thing to mention. I WANT THE LIST OF ALL THOSE BURN AND STALL CARDS BACK. In my opinion it was a really useful list, where you easily could find good burn and stall cards to use in your deck. But instead of voting for or against reverting the article back to as how it was earlier(6th of April 2009?), I vote for: The article needs editing!, taking all the good stuff from the newly edited article into the good old Burn_Deck article as how we remember it. Of course reverting it back and then do the changes would be simplest.
Zheant 23:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This article gets more and more fucked up, just look at the recommended cards under the Anti-heal section. It's completely wrong. --Zheant 17:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
