Forum:Fortune Ladies Update?

I'd be happy to make the changes (and clean up some of the typos as well), but I wanted to run this by someone before I did anything. After digging around the web, I realized that some of the information on the Fortune Ladies page seems out-dated. For instance, it lists Cyber Valley as a card to include in a deck build, but one of the recent rulings on Cyber Valley states:

• For the effect "● You can remove from play this card and 1 face-up monster you control, and draw 2 cards." of "Cyber Valley", you draw the cards after removing from play the monsters; the two do not occur simultaneously. Thus, if "Fortune Lady Light" is removed from play by the effect of "Cyber Valley", then afterwards you draw cards, so you miss the timing and cannot activate the effect of "Fortune Lady Light".[7]

Given this, I don't think this card is one you wish to include anymore. A possible substitute to consider in its place might be Magical Exemplar.

Night's End Sorcerer also seems to be missing from this page too, and probably should be listed as a Tuner to be considered. (BTW, isn't Mist Valley Shaman a bit odd here, since she's a winged-beast and not a spellcaster?).

Let me know your thoughts. Like I said, I can make the changes if everyone agrees - I just wanted other opinions before I did.

Kungfu-mama 10:16, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Cyber Valley

Cyber Valley is still an excellent card for Fortune Ladies, since it provides excellenct fuel for Fortune Future. Remove itself and another Lady to draw 2, then play Fortune Future and draw two more cards. --Black Rose 12:42, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's kinda tough to beat Cyber Valley - I was just wondering how critical it was to the deck, given the ruling. I've also seen comments in other forums where people said not to go that way - which is why I decided to ask.

Kungfu-mama 14:34, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

What about?

Yes that does seem a bit odd, I would totally pick Night's End Sorcerer over the shaman, what about Jester Confit? I use it in conjunction with Magical Dimension or even with Earthy/Darky for a tribute. Oh yeah is anyone else getting tired of the damn 're-colorings'? Now instead of semi scantily clad spell casters... we have women who look like rejects from a 80's workout video. *grumbles* Sometimes I get it, because say for the Harpie's, because that was all they wore but Fortune Ladies were wearing clothing and still looked decent, damn parent's are too f'ing touchy. Sandy Sagebrush 20:22, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.... In any case, Cyber Valley is excellent in Fortune Ladies. If you run One for One it can be searched just as easily as Light, and you can use its effect to set up for Fortune's Future. Runer5h 20:52, November 19, 2009 (UTC)Runer5h

Still...

You've got to admit, Magical Exemplar really wouldn't be bad in this deck. I mean, when it's summoned, you get two counters right away which you can tribute to bring either Light or Fire back from your graveyard or hand...

Maybe the thing to do is to list both Magical Exemplar and Night's End Sorcerer as possible alternate cards, AND also note the ruling on Cyber Valley in the text somewhere. That would certainly prove helpful for anyone considering a Fortune Lady build. Oh, and also Jester Confit and Kinka-byo should be noted too, again as "optional" cards (if we're to stay true to the way this page has been built).

What do you think?

Kungfu-mama 22:04, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. (Come to think of it, I might have been the one to float around the idea of Kinka-Byo in Fortune Ladies in the first place...) Runer5h 22:49, November 19, 2009 (UTC)Runer5h

Yeah, you probably did. But then ... you're GOOD! ;-) Oh, BTW - nix the above comment on Fire. She's better off being summoned by another Fortune Lady (DUH!).

Kungfu-mama 23:00, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

About "Cyber Valley", someone should probably add a note that it doesn't work with "Fortune Lady Light", and explaining the thing with "Fortune's Future". "Mist Valley Shaman" does not work with "Fortune Lady Light" either, since returning the monster is a cost. --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 03:11, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so it sounds like "Mist Valley Shaman" should be totally removed AND we should add another note about "Cyber Valley" regarding issues with "Fortune's Future". Is that about right? Kungfu-mama 11:58, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes yes. Runer5h 20:40, November 20, 2009 (UTC)Runer5h

First Pass..

I've completed my first pass at updating the Fortune Ladies page. I'd appreciate any critiques.

I'm also declaring myself an official moron. I didn't quite get what the issue was with "Cyber Valley" vs "Fortune's Future" - nor did I see it listed in the rulings anywhere (at least not in a straight forward fashion). Can someone please explain it to me in plain, easy to understand, english?

Thanks much.

Kungfu-mama 20:54, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't an issue with Cyber Valley vs. Fortune's Future, but rather vs. Fortune Lady Light. You cannot use Cyber Valley's 2-card drawing effect to activate Light's effect. However, Cyber Valley does work with Fortune's Future because it can remove a Fortune Lady from play, thus fulfilling the requirement of Future. Runer5h 21:14, November 20, 2009 (UTC)Runer5h

• Oh! Guess I totally misunderstood Deus Ex Machina's comment. My bad! Thanks.

Kungfu-mama 21:48, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

BTW...

Can someone please update the 'archetype' flag on the Night's End Sorcerer page to read "Fortune Ladies" - and do what ever else that needs to be done to get it to show up as a support card on the "Fortune Ladies" page? I think I can make a pretty strong case that it should - just take a look at the "wings" sprouting from the kid's hair in the gallery image!.

Thanks.

---

Kungfu-mama 16:21, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Night's End Sorcerer is not related to the Fortune Ladies. First of all, it's a male - second, the "wings" aren't remotely similar. Third of all, there's another 2 packs between it and the release of the 1st Fortune Ladies. Runer5h 19:17, November 21, 2009 (UTC)Runer5h

So the boys can't play with the girls, hmmm? Harsh! Well, I guess that's just the way it has to be. Kungfu-mama 13:04, November 22, 2009 (UTC)