Talk:Assault Mode Deck

Why not make "Deck" subsection for archtypes?
We have "Tips" section for individual cards so why not just create similar subsections in Archtype pages, attribute pages such? From what I understand people just don't want it in the main namespace because it is not encyclopedic.--67.177.60.120 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
I don't know whether i support the delete or not, gladiator beasts have a deck page but the difference is that Gladiator Beasts are the only archetype page to have a list of support cards like it's a deck page--Moneypony 21:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would consider the Gladiator Beast Deck to have the same problems as this and would be in favour of deleting it too. Effectively anything that's Card name Deck, Type Deck, Attribute Deck or Archetype name Deck, I think should be deleted. They're pretty much forums where people post what they think would be good ideas for a Deck revolving around that card, type, etc. It's things like "Beatdown", "Burn", "Diamond Dude Turbo", "One Turn Kill" and "Twilight" that need articles to describe what they are. (Articles that don't need the word "Deck" stuck at the end in order to exist). Whereas the description of an Assault Mode Deck is a Deck that uses "/Assault Mode" cards, which does not need an article.
 * Any valid tips/strategies that are on such card Deck pages can be posted on the card's tips page. Any that are on Type/Attribute/Archetype Deck can have a section on the corresponding Type/Attribute/Archetype page. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if the page should be deleted or not either, but I have seen some people using /Assault Mode strategies. SkyFire1249 15:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a case of whether it's playable or not. The situation isn't playable material gets an article, weak Decks don't. If there was a term that refers to a particular weak move, that is very common among the fandom it would get an article. Mainspace articles are for encyclopedic content, not Deck advise specifically issued from the editors, which would effectively make it a forum. (... although the tips mainspace does)
 * As I said on Talk:Guardian Deck, The definition of a Guardian Deck is a Deck that uses "Guardian" monsters. Nothing else on this page is mandatory for a Guardian Deck. So it's just a place to post whatever goes with Guardians. If that's allowed what's to stop someone creating an article like "Exodia Synchro Zombie Stall Deck"?
 * -- Deltaneos (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Burn" decks have a lot of options, though, and are quite varied. As with "Twilight," which was merged with Lightsworn and "Skill Drain," with Beatdown. If there are multiple deck types within that Archetype, then I support a page for it. But in the sense of Gladiator Beasts and Assault Mode, they mostly remain the same, save a few cards.--DarkSignerSpade 15:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are multiple Deck types, within an Archetype, they should each get articles. "Diamond Dude Turbo" and "Perfect Circle" are both Deck types that may be classified as Destiny Hero Decks. They are specific Deck strategies that need an article to decribe how they work. However, "Destiny Hero Deck" is by definition a Deck that uses Destiny Heroes, so all the reader would need to look up after that is Destiny Heroes, which has an article. -- Deltaneos (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have in the past used an assault mode deck, and won agianst a meta deck with it, so it's playable, but it would be a stardust assault deck, the others aren't really playable. This deck should get it's own page I think. 74.166.95.229 21:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not nominated for deletion for being a weak Deck. -- Deltaneos (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Similar pages
I propose the pages listed here all be deleted for the same reason as this page. -- Deltaneos (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree on deleting those but we will need to move some deck information to make it similar to the Gladiator Beasts page.--Moneypony 23:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree with deleting those. Apart from perhaps the 'Lightsworn Deck' page - maybe adding that to Lightsworns? --Clockwork-Artichoke 02:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed. There should be section how Archetypes are used on their pages. -- Deltaneos (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Arguments?
Are there any arguments in favour of keeping these articles? -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This website has been a source of for many Yugioh players for the reason that it is so complete. The deck section types being some of the most useful since these sections usually contain strategies and useful cards. I belive deleting some of these would take away from wikia's encyclopedic caracteristic which has made it so popular.
 * 71.179.85.7 Carlo 13:31, 6 June 2009


 * The Deck type section is not encyclopedic. It is for the most part fan-composed ideas made-up by the people who post them here. Encyclopedias document information, not offer suggestions. Anything that's X Deck is pretty much suggestions on what to include in a Deck based on X. It's whatever is at X is the important part that needs documenting. In this case "Assault Mode", which has an article. How "/Assault Mode" Decks are typically run can be covered there.
 * As a rule of thumb, if you need to stick the word "Deck" at the end of something to create an article, it's unnecessary or should be posted elsewhere. -- Deltaneos (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the Assault Mode deck page should stay. It's very helpful to anyone wanting to build a deck entirely around all these cards and they have plenty of support cards, enough to make a solid deck out of them. - Trygon 22:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Very repeating myself but I said this in the chat room - Assault Mode Activate + The Assault Monsters and other Assault Mode monster related traps and spells offer up a good reason for the page to be here. - Trygon 22:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There can be decks that use Assault Mode Activate and Monsters related to it along with a deck that is entirely based on the card and all cards that go with it. A couple weeks ago I was looking at the page/deck list and I said to myself. I'm surprised someone took the time to do a deck like this.  I didn't judge the deck even looking at it for a while.  It's still nice to know a deck like that is possible. And it should be here in case anyone else would like to try making a deck like it. - Trygon 22:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read the above comments? It is not nominated for deletion for being a bad Deck. "/Assault Mode" is the Deck theme, which already has an article. Any worthwhile info on how people use "/Assault Mode" Decks can be covered on the "/Assault Mode" article. It's not like Twilight and Dark Magician of Chaos OTK have a seperate articles Twilight Deck and Dark Magician of Chaos OTK Deck. Giving it a seperate article with the work "Deck" at the end is only encouraging people to post original ideas and their own Decklists. And allows people to make potentially anything provided they stick the word "Deck" at the end. -- Deltaneos (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixing Assault Mode
I have currently made changes to the Assault Mode Deck page with some good strategy and tip on how to play it. I am currently using an assault mode deck and I know the pros and cons of this deck. If anyone wants to message me concerning this page, please do so. TheGuruofGaming 06:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No one mentioned the Stardust Dragon/Assault Mode version which is the most famous one and the only one who made top 16 in a Shonen Jump tournament.

Assault Mode General Guide
I've made changes to the Assault Mode Deck page with some strategy. I included not only a starting list of cards, but reasons for why they should be used. If you would like to message me, you can do so. .glarg

A Template for Decks?
Most of the deck pages, aside from the list of recommended cards, are rather haphazard in organization. Maybe if they had a template, say "Overview", "Strategy", "Pros and Cons", and then the list of cards, it'd be less confusing?

No references at all
None of these decks has been played in a sanctioned tournament yet. In my opinion, this Wikia only should keep pages referring to actually played decks, i.e. decks which have ranked in any one sanctioned tournament in the organized play circuit, or decks which have become famous via netdecking. Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia isn't a place for netdecking, there are plenty of forums and sites for this. Besides, there are some interesting tips which should be included in the "Tips" page of each card mentioned.

Answer on my User page. Gilbert Gosseyn III 19:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean we should stick with documenting existing content on notable Decks, rather than let people post their own original ideas? If so, I absolutely agree with that.
 * P.S. I'm replying here, so people can see the full discussion. I'll leave a note on your talk page, to let you know I've replied. -- Deltaneos (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And thanks for your message! Gilbert Gosseyn III 21:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, someone just did quite well with a Stardust Dragon/Assault Mode in Anaheim. Look: http://www.yugioh-card.com/en/events/sjc/Fmatch_R9.html
 * Admittedly, he missed the top 16, but he still managed to go to 7 wins, 3 losses, which is pretty good. I vote keep it, now that it's seen use in a tournament. Runer5h 21:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Runer5h


 * I agree about the Stardust Dragon/Assault Mode deck, I also knew about the version used in Anaheim as well as a dozen of version in the current netdecking, so a page about this deck would be useful - but only about Stardust, since no other Assault Mode monster is currently used. So I vote to delete this page and maybe start one about Stardust Dragon/Assault Mode decks. Gilbert Gosseyn III 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still unsure about creating pages that're Card name Deck. Is that not like having seperate pages for Perfect Circle and Perfect Circle Deck? Since the Deck revolves around "Stardust Dragon/Assault Mode", the Deck theme is "Stardust Dragon/Assault Mode", which already has its own article. Similarly things like "Burn", "Beatdown" and "Mill" should have articles under those titles and not need seperate "Burn Deck", "Beatdown Deck" and "Mill Deck" articles.
 * Someone succeeding in using it shouldn't mean it gets a seperate article with "Deck" at the end. That way people could point and say "Hey his Deck makes great use of "Brain Control", we should have a Brain Control Deck article". And it is also going down the line of only-good-Decks-get-articles.
 * However if there was some named strategy associated with how people are using "Stardust Dragon/Assault Mode", similar to "Kuraz Explosion" or "Diamond Dude Turbo", we would need an article for that title. -- Deltaneos (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

please don't delete the new six samurai deck list just revise look over then make a just decision thank you


 * Users aren't supposed to post exact Deck lists they came up with in the mainspace. We're supposed to document official material or notable parts of the fandom. If individual users come up with it themselves, it's not considered notable. -- Deltaneos (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Archetype and Specific Strategy
Only archetypes and specific strategies should have decks. All variations of decks that fall under the appropriate archetype should be found there. Ex. "Twilight" should fall under the "Lightsworn" archetype. "Volcanics" should be found under "burn" decklists. Some existing "decks" shouldn't have decklists at all, such as those that belong to a type, like a Dragon deck. They are not specific, and can be included in many other deck types. As such, I can't find any place for /Assault Modes. They are supplemental cards, that have no distinct strategy. Others with a strategy, like the so called "Synchro Cat", also should not have a page, as it is a supplemental strategy, for Synchro decks and the like. Messengerofthedark 06:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Messengerofthedark


 * Well that's overly simplistic. 204.140.189.253 17:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why "Twilight" shouldn't have its own article. It's "Twilight Deck", which shouldn't have an article. Similarly "Lightsworn" and "Lightsworn Deck" don't need seperate articles. "Twilight" being a sub-class of "Lightsworns" shouldn't mean it should share an article. For example, "Elemental Heroes" should have their own page seperate from "Heroes". The place to put "/Assault Mode", would be on the "/Assault Mode" article. The goal here isn't to minimize the amount of Deck articles, but to remove the unnecessary/repeated ones. -- Deltaneos (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, What has this Wikia come to
No offense, but who the *beep* cares if they haven't "seen" Tournament play where you LIVE, cause i mean who the heck knows IF some of these Decks ACTUALLY Do see Tournament Action, ARE you saying that ONLY the decks that make, what the TOP 5 should be posted, i mean come on. I come to this SITE for Help, Suggestions, To look at Decks that i might one day give my own twist to, BUT if THIS Site is only going to post the TOP *beep*ING TIER Decks that make the TOP Fricken 5 at the Tournaments then this SITE seriously NEEDS to take a deep knee bend, cause Just presenting the Top 5 DOESN'T Represent what this GAME was founded and BUILT on.~MEOW~ Might of the BIRD Empire 21:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How many times must I say it is not nominated for deletion for being a bad Deck? It's the whole idea of giving "Assault Mode Deck", a seperate article than "Assault Mode". We don't have two articles for Perfect Circle, "Perfect Circle" and "Perfect Circle Deck". We don't have two articles for Burn, "Burn" and "Burn Deck". "Assault Mode", like them, is a Deck theme, why does it need two articles? One which describes what it is and how it works and then there's this one, which is editors telling people what they think the reader (an encyclopedic article actually addressing the reader) should include in a Deck built on this theme. Mainspace articles document info on existing content. They should not be a place for editors to post their own suggestions or recommendations. The Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's article does not say things like "you should watch the Dark Signers arc, it's good" or "don't watch episode 68, it's filler" If there is typical notable material on how people are using the Decks, it can be noted on the /Assault Mode Deck page. It's the same case with Decks, you believe are the ones being allowed. Top tier Decks such as "Gladiator Beast" don't need two seperate articles; "Gladiator Beast" and "Gladiator Beast Deck". -- Deltaneos (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, then here is a question about the above logic, Why do we then have 2 separate pages for Evil Hero Deck and Evil Heroes?~MEOW~ Might of the BIRD Empire 23:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I don't think we should. Same with many others. -- Deltaneos (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, fair point, though i am sure that there is a compromise that could be found on some of these~MEOW~ Might of the BIRD Empire 23:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why Delete Good Info?
The main issue I see with deleting all the deck type lists is that you are effectively removing information on what goes with those deck types. Sure, you could tell people about Stardust Dragon/Assault Mode decks in the /Assault Mode page, but you are completely ignoring the sizable group of people that come to the Wikia page that may be looking for cards that others use in those deck types.

Yes, there are forums and other sites for this kind of information, but there are forums and other sites for basic information describing what "TeleDAD" or "Little City" is as well. I thought the idea of having a Wikia page is to have as comprehensive a database as possible? If I was not previously acquainted with the deck, how am I supposed to know that D-Hero Malicious is a staple card if all anyone tells me about "TeleDAD" is that it uses Emergency Teleport to get Krebons on the field for Dark Armed Dragon? If I didn't know about the cards, how would I know that D-Draw and Allure of Darkness are great cards to use in that deck type?

I can understand deleting a page if it's entirely redundant, or if it's misleading, or if no one likes the pages, but I know a number of people that like reading about the deck lists on the Yugioh Wikia, and it's much easier to come here and browse than to go to a forum, especially since all the cards used in the deck are linked and anyone who wants to learn more about the deck can click on the cards to learn what each of them does.

Now granted, the purpose of this Wikia is not for netdecking, but--at least according to Wikipedia itself--the purpose of all Wiki pages is freedom of information, where people can come and learn about a comprehensive range of topics without needing to wander all over the internet to scour for the information. So unless the pages are misleading, inaccurate, or completely useless, I don't see the need to delete them. In fact, I think the Deck Lists pages are more useful than a number of pages on here, and as long as people find use for quick and accurate information, isn't that the point of having a Wiki page for them? -- Egnever (talk)


 * It can be and is mentioned on the Teleport Dark Armed page that "Destiny Hero Malicious" is a staple in that type of Deck. It's relevenace should and is also mentioned there. "Destiny Draw" and "Allure of Darkness" are also mentioned. Though the textual part of that article should mention them. I think you knew that and were saying that's why its important. But the Teleport Dark Armed page is not in danger of being deleted or stripped down to just a definition. You are right it is important.
 * Any cards that are a staple in an "/Assault Mode" Deck can be mentioned on the "/Assault Mode" page in the same fashion. Why does "/Assault Mode" need a seperate page, "Assault Mode Deck" to document that info? "Teleport Dark Armed" does not need a seperate page "Teleport Dark Armed Deck". -- Deltaneos (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't it deserve it's own page? The "Teleport Dark Armed" page will introduce some of the staple cards, but it says very little about the optional support cards that many people choose to use.  It also wouldn't be a great place to post information about current or past builds, for example, national championship-winning builds of the TeleDAD variety, whereas a page for "TeleDAD decks" would.
 * Is wikia starved for space? Is the Yu-Gi-Oh wikia short on pages?  I guarantee you that for pretty much every "Deck" page, I can find information that isn't listed within the pages explaining the archetype itself.  In fact, for many of the archetype pages, the information is lacking even more than the "Deck" pages.  As mentioned, the "Lightsworn" page introduces the Lightsworn archetype, its strengths and weaknesses, and playstyle.  The "Lightsworn deck" type introduces a bunch of cards that people run with Lightsworns, including their ratios and combos.  For example, the Lightsworn deck page would be a great place to mention that Lightsworns don't typically need a staple card like mirror force, and explain why.  -- Egnever (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, you'll find info on the "Deck" pages that aren't on the actual Deck page. That's because people are creating the seperate pages for the Deck instead of posting it on the existing page. All that information you mentioned about Lightsworns can be posted on the actual "Lightsworn" article.
 * You're suggesting that we do allow for pages like "Tele-DAD Deck" as well as the main Tele-DAD article. Then what exactly constites what gets a "Deck" article? Anything can be created by putting the word Deck at the end. e.g. "Rare Fish Deck", "Exodia Burn Deck", "Beast Union Synchro Swarm Deck". -- Deltaneos (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why top 5 decks only?
I completely quote Egnever. Seriously, the current Metagame is characterized by a huge lack of inventive. What if a new player wants to look for a deck that would be good for him/her? Why would you need to oblige new player to choose another site for information about decks? YGO Wikia is the best YGO guide for me: if I need to look for something, sure I'll look it up in this wikia, because I'm sure to find it here. Imagine what would the YGO Meta be if EVERYONE uses the same friggin' Monarch Deck or the "Sameoldtopdeck"? Still now it's hard to find new decks, with fresh ideas and good strategy, because the 90% of YGO top players tends to COPY the #1 deck in the country/continent/world. Believe me, Yu*gi*oh Wikia is one of the best sources of information about YGOTCG:, and deleting new deck articles would make it lose what people like me look for: fresh, new ideas to stop the towering topdecks. (Ed)(93.148.121.69 09:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC))


 * Because almost every card is getting a deck. I have recently seen a "Jinzo Deck", among many others, and thought that every card does not need it's own deck. Jinzo belongs in a "Lockdown Deck" page which would have info on all types of lockdowns. If we give only Archetypes and specific strategies deck pages, then we will reduce the number of files, but not sacrifice any info. Others, like "Dragon Deck" is far too general, because Dragons are splashable, like "Red-Eyes Darkness Metal Dragon". Others, like /Assault Mode, are support cards. Volcanics would have their own page, but also would be mentioned in a "Burn Deck" page. Messengerofthedark 17:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Assault Mode cards can work well in a team, like Red Dragon Archfiend/Assault Mode and Stardust Dragon. Stardust Dragon/Assault Mode can negate the effect of Red Dragon Archfiend/Assault Mode and destroy it, but Stardust Dragon and Red Dragon come back as their regular forms and since that was a special summon they can attack in the same battle phase and deal a lot of damage. Also, Stardust Dragon/Assault Mode comes back at the end phase.


 * Again, /Assault Mode are support, as they aren't a specific strategy. Just like any other card or 5, they can be added to many decks, but are only useful for a few select cards. Messengerofthedark 02:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not only Top 5 Decks that get pages. "/Assault Mode" isn't top 5, but it has its article at /Assault Modes. A seperate article with the word Deck at the end is not needed. "Gladiator Beast" and "Lightsworn" are top tier, but "Gladiator Beast Deck" and "Lightsworns Deck" are also being considered for deletion, because they already have pages at "Gladiator Beasts" and "Lightsworns". How the Deck works and what cards are typically included, should be mentioned on those pages.
 * It's Decks whose names are unofficial e.g. Twilight, Stall, Teleport Dark Armed that need to be notable before having an article. But none of them need a seperate page with the word Deck at the end. -- Deltaneos (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I'm allowed to post here but I'd just like to say that all of those random decks are the thing that drew me to this site. Actually, VIEWING those random decks brought me to this discussion. I first came across wikia while looking up Sanctuary in the Sky decks sand have been on this site ever since. Many people come here just to help to better their own decks and to give them ideas. Deleting this info would be counter productive and would cause a decrease in popularity of the site. Are you honestly thinking about deleting one of the main sources of interest on this site? What difference does it make about whether there are two sections for Lightsworn? One is describing the archetype and the other is describing the directions it can take as a deck. --Tantara 03:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're not a Mod...

 * I say that if you're not a mod, you shouldn't put something up for deletion that isn't on the deletion policy. As for Deltaneos, you favor Twilight and TeleDAD decks over more archetype oriented ones, and I understand how "weak" the "pure" archetype decks must be in comparison to the decks that have won Regional and National tournaments, but the rules are the rules and the delete tag is being overused by people who aren't moderators and have opinions.


 * P.S.: If your argument comes down to "If a deck varient has the word "Deck" in the title, it needs to have its yugioh wikia page deleted" or "the /Assault Mode deck is just a list of cards", well guess what. The amount of strategy does not matter behind the deck, nor do titles of the cards within the deck, nor do the number of cards within the deck matter. As long as a deck has a proper explanation of what the deck's goal is (to use "/Assault Mode" monsters, for example, in an "/Assault Mode Deck"), and a list of possible cards to be used in the deck, it's not a candidate for deletion, straight out of the deletion policy (which says that any deck is okay unless it's an OTK that can't be used in one turn or that requires more than six cards).


 * P.S.S.: I agree that not every deck should get its own page. I think that only Archetypes, Attributes and Type decks, as well as the top decks that place 1st, 2nd or 3rd in the nationals and regionals should get their own pages.

Can someone get TwoTailedFox to change the deletion policy so that we can know for sure what is allowed and what isn't?


 * I do not favor Decks like Twilight and Tele-DAD over Archetype orientated ones. Depending on what you mean by archetype, things like Twilight and Burn are archetypes themselves. A card archetype is any group of cards that have some connection. It's just many people only consider cards connected by name to be an archetype. See the logic, Twilight is an archetype/Deck type. "/Assault Mode" is also an archetype/Deck type. Do the members being connected by name mean the Deck type is something completely different than the Archetype that it needs a seperate page? Of course strategy is important. "/Assault Mode" has strategies. It is posted on a seperate page from "/Assault Mode" itself. Twilight has strategies, yet we are able to mention them on the Twilight article, instead of creating a seperate "Twilight Deck" article. Why is the case different for archetypes connected by name that they have to have seperate articles, rather than mention the strategy on their own page?
 * You believe that only admins should be allowed to flag pages for deletion, unless they're clear violations? What is wrong with allowing regular users to flag pages? It's not like a page getting flagged means it will get deleted. It just brings it to people's attention. If they're clearly right or wrong, the page will or won't get deleted. If it's questionable there'll be a discussion and hopefully a consensus will be reached.
 * TwoTailedFox... great guy... but it wouldn't be fair for him to say; "Right, I'm an admin, I don't care what you want, we're doing it this way". While the administrators are the ones trusted to push the delete button or not, they shouldn't ignore what the rest of the community thinks. If I didn't think that, I could have deleted the page on the spot without listening to what other people had to say.
 * If this debate comes to a close, I think it would be much fairer to use its conclusion to determine whether these type pages should be considered acceptable or not on the deletion policy. Since this has had input from a large part of the community, not just one person. (And I am not saying that because I think TwoTailedFox would disagree with me on these type of pages.) -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And to some degree I agree with what you're saying about Type, Attribute, archetype and tournament winning Decks getting pages. Since this wiki should cover either official material or notable parts of the fanbase. Types, Attributes and archtypes are official material. Tele-DAD, Mill, DDT, Burn etc, are considered the notable parts of they fandom. All of them have their own articles. The articles are free to describe how Decks based on them work, but none of them need seperate "Deck" pages to describe the Deck.
 * (PS. It's not necessarily just tournament winning Deck types, which would be unofficial ones getting articles. I can't think of any right, but if there was a Deck strategy to be famous for something other than winning a tournament or being powerful, it should get an article). -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I Think You Should Delete the assualt mode deck because i think it needs too be more specific. If they said "Stardust Dragon Assualt Mode Deck then you should keep it. But the reason why i usually come too this site is because the Deck types and rulings of cards. But if you delete most then u just wanted peoples hard work. The top 5 decks dont mean anything, i mean the fricking ban list is coming out this September, everything is gunna change soo whats the point of deleting everything. For all u know the spell counter deck or the burn or anythose low tier decks could be top by the end of September. Soo i think that u should keep all the decks their, because it really helps most people out on giving them ideas and such .. So stop being sucha an a** hole and just leave the decks. their mostly the reason why u have a all these people on ur site. this is From [[Lilsrb1]