Rethel34 said Now there is a decent number of Normal and Effect Monsters, 4 Synchro Monsters (b/c of Lightwaves and Mono-Tuning), and 8 Ignis Monsters (some ATK, some DEF to give variety) all in the first post. I'll get around to putting some of you guys' stuff in that post tomorrow. And maybe I'll get a CS done.

Man-Eating Cake called. He's feeling kinda sour that you forgot to add him and his deliciously deadly pals.
(I can go retrieve their data if you want)

Here are the new and improved (by that I mean balanced, hopefully) Demon Lords:

Noticed a slight error on Demon Lord LV 8, so I fixed that.

Good mythical morning

Ah This card is what Charak shall recieve later ...

Well, maybe it won't matter if I keep making swarmers. We've got Char to cover all the beatdowns XD

@Empire: I didn't forget about them. I've just got to do a little extra digging to get to them. I'll try to upload the other "Man-Eating" monsters before I have to go to church this morning. What did you think of all the other cards, though?

OH NOES IT'S THE DOUBLE POST GLITCH!

Just ignore this post.

So much synergy in this deck of mine Xd

nearly Finished my deck XD

Deck posted XD

Or, I guess my family's not going to church this morning. Looks like I'm sticking around here a while.

1Charak2 said Ah This card is what Charak shall recieve later ...

Let's see now...

OGG Correction said 5 Level 3 Beast-Type monsters
As long as this card has an Xyz Material, it gains 200 ATK for each face-up "Fang" monster on the field. Once per turn, you can detach one Xyz Material from this card: Special Summon 1 "Fang" monster from your Graveyard.

Please Charak, OGG isn't that hard to learn or adhere to.

@Rethel: I just sorta skimmed through looking for the Man-Eating sweets, as it was getting kinda late where I was. Planning to have a more in-depth look at things today at some point.

OGG Correction said
5 Level 3 Beast-Type monsters
As long as this card has an Xyz Material, it gains 200 ATK for each face-up "Fang" monster on the field. Once per turn, you can detach one Xyz Material from this card "to" Special Summon 1 "Fang" monster from your Graveyard.

Please Charak, OGG isn't that hard to learn or adhere to.

explain this slowly what i did wrong with this card

1Charak2 said explain this slowly what i did wrong with this card

Effect-wise, nothing really. It's just your OGG (Official Game Grammar) needing correction is all. (Yes, I'm nitpicking. It's not even noon here and I haven't had breakfast yet, so just bear with me here.)

That aside...
@Rethel:

UnendingEmpire said
Effect-wise, nothing really. It's just your OGG (Official Game Grammar) needing correction is all. (Yes, I'm nitpicking. It's not even noon here and I haven't had breakfast yet, so just bear with me here.)That aside...@Rethel:

k if i get it right its the wording So what should it be?
(also i finished charak's deck so can u check that for me)

I'll probably end up ninja'd, but here goes.

It wasn't that the card itself was bad. It's that it was improper card grammar.

Firstly, all archetypes should use proper capitalization in the card effect, or the card(s) the effect is looking for will fail to exist. Example: If an effect is looking for any form of "Elemental HERO" or "Destiny HERO", but the card text says "Hero", then instead of "Elemental HERO" and "Destiny HERO" monsters, we get "Heroic Challenger" monsters simply because of capitalization.

Secondly, saying a card gains "200 attack" is improperly saying that a monster can attack 200 times. This, of course, is irrational. That's why there is the term "ATK". Though you pronounce this term "Attack", it has a completely different meaning that the basic word "attack". This is similar to how in English, we have "they're" (they are), "their" (belonging to them), and "there" (a location). The same goes for "DEF" vs. "Defense".

Thirdly, there are terms that, no matter what, are capitalized when writing card effects. These are: "Summon" (and any distinction of Summoning form mentioned beforehand, such as "Normal", "Special", "Fusion", etc.), "Monster" ONLY when preceded by a specific monster type ("Effect Monster", "Ritual Monster", "Synchro Monster", etc.; NEVER use "Monster Card" unless speaking about a "Monster Card Zone"), "Spell/Trap Card" (and any kind of special "Spell/Trap Card"), "Zone", "Deck", "Graveyard", "Extra Deck", and any monster type ("Warrior-Type", "Beast-Type", etc.). Examples of terms that you shouldn't capitalize are "field", "hand", and "banish(ed)".

Fourthly, ALWAYS put archetypes or parts of card names in quotation marks when used in card text. If you have a card that is supposed to search for a "Dark Magician" from your Deck, but don't put "Dark Magician" in quotation marks, then it breaks the card effect.

Finally, when speaking of monster types, NEVER leave off the suffix "-Type". This is because a "Warrior" and a "Warrior-Type monster" are two completely different things. a "Warrior" is a monster with "Warrior" in its name. For example: "Junk Warrior", "Stardust Warrior", etc. A "Warrior-Type monster" could be "Dark Blade", "Buster Blader", "Gaia the Fierce Knight", etc.

Just try to stick to this. There's more, but those are some of the most important rules to stick to.

Oh, on the Man-Eaters, the reason I left "Man-Eating Black Shark" out most of the time is that he's a Fusion Monster and therefore can't be in your Deck or your hand. However, he can be in the Graveyard, which was why he was included in "Caramel's" effect. If you think I should fix it, I will, but I'm just offering my explanation.

And thanks for those grammar catches, there. Those two cards were kind of made on-the-spot yesterday. :)

Firstly I wanted to include the card Silver Fang into this archetype.

but alas I will make editations to the card.

Rethel34 said Oh, on the Man-Eaters, the reason I left "Man-Eating Black Shark" out most of the time is that he's a Fusion Monster and therefore can't be in your Deck or your hand. However, he can be in the Graveyard, which was why he was included in "Caramel's" effect. If you think I should fix it, I will, but I'm just offering my explanation.And thanks for those grammar catches, there. Those two cards were kind of made on-the-spot yesterday. :)

No problem :)

As for Black Shark, I wasn't really even aware it existed at all, and just sort of assumed it was another old-timey Normal Monster I'd never seen before. Though if that's the case, you should also add his name to Man-Eating Licorice's effect, since it affects "Man-Eating" monsters on the field.

EDIT: @Charak: ...Silver Fang IS a "Fang" monster :| so are Flyfang and Naturia Spiderfang

@Char: I'm not saying "Silver Fang" can't be included in this Archetype. I was just pointing out card grammar stuff.

@Empire: That's right. Didn't notice that. Thanks, again :)