Difference between revisions of "Forum:A New Type?"
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Wow. Did not know that. [[User:Fallensilence|Fallensilence]] 07:07, June 16, 2010 (UTC)Fallensilence | Wow. Did not know that. [[User:Fallensilence|Fallensilence]] 07:07, June 16, 2010 (UTC)Fallensilence | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree. They screwed up most of the types to begin with (What's the difference between a Sea Serpent and a Fish again?) (Dinosaurs and Reptiles... could've been mushed together, don't you think?), so I don't think introducing another Type would be the cause of much praise.--[[User:Akiza'sRose66|Akiza Izayoi]] 15:56, June 16, 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:56, 16 June 2010
| Forums: | Index → General Yu-Gi-Oh! Discussion → A New Type? Please sign your comments with ~~~~. See Help:Signatures and Help:Talk pages for further information. |
 | This forum thread has been unedited for 5112 days and is considered archived. Please don't add to the discussion, unless absolutely necessary. |
Anybody think there should be a new type of monster? That would be cool. Psychic didn't turn out the way I wanted but it was cool. Leave your awesome comments below. Fallensilence 06:33, June 16, 2010 (UTC)Fallensilence
I doubt it. When Psychics first came out, they were faced with quite a bit of criticism, particularly why Konami decided to break the status quo by introducing one more Type, rather than making an archetype. --Gadjiltron 07:06, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Did not know that. Fallensilence 07:07, June 16, 2010 (UTC)Fallensilence
I agree. They screwed up most of the types to begin with (What's the difference between a Sea Serpent and a Fish again?) (Dinosaurs and Reptiles... could've been mushed together, don't you think?), so I don't think introducing another Type would be the cause of much praise.--Akiza Izayoi 15:56, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
