Duel Academy
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Duel Academy Log in

Get your game on!


descriptionBattlin' Boxer Deck. EmptyBattlin' Boxer Deck.

more_horiz
Battlin' Boxer Deck. At1f0NN
Hey,Battlin' Boxer Deck. At1f0NN I copied this deck from a guy on Youtube.Its a battlin boxer deck.I have been having some fun  and I havent lost a single match out of the 20 i had so far have lost only once,against a hero deck.I even won a mermail deck, a deck the creator said was hard to beat with this one.I do have a problem thought.I rarely win with the boxers.I usually win with the other XYZs.I am not a very big fan of that.Should I fix something?Or should I go with"if its not broken dont fix it" philosophy?Any opinions are welcome.
Credits for recipe to HUfan666999.Battlin' Boxer Deck. At1f0NNBattlin' Boxer Deck. At1f0NN

descriptionBattlin' Boxer Deck. EmptyRe: Battlin' Boxer Deck.

more_horiz
You're not supposed to win with the effect mosnter boxers.  :I  Try going for Lead Yoke, and you'll be fine.  It's almost as good as Blue-Eyed Maiden.  And remove the dragon XYZ that can attack twice.
Add in Utopia Ray V or Victory.  Remove Goblinbergh, as it doesn't really allow you to go for Lead Yoke.  Also, most Battlin' Boxers can stall out until you get an instant XYZ, like Headgeared.  I'd side the double veiler against the meta instead. :/  Strongest shield seems fun.  And that's about all I can say.  Sorry if I was chunky.

descriptionBattlin' Boxer Deck. EmptyRe: Battlin' Boxer Deck.

more_horiz
Sorry for taking so long to answer but I was out of home.
So to your sayings (thanks for all the advices):
Keeping good old goblin because even he does actually get some nice combos in with the general xyz.
Keeping koichi(the dragon) because a lot of the fight were won thanks to him being able to double attack.Thinking of removing the wolf,as I have NEVER summoned him.
Removing veiler was a GREAT idea.I get more monsters and spells I need so thanks for that.But I feel uncertain with only 18 monsters.Should I add more boxers?

descriptionBattlin' Boxer Deck. EmptyRe: Battlin' Boxer Deck.

more_horiz
http://www.duelacademy.net/t28100-battlin-boxer-by-n-aka-lovetaker

descriptionBattlin' Boxer Deck. EmptyRe: Battlin' Boxer Deck.

more_horiz
Follow the pro-deck list. ;o  And 18 monsters is okay.  You're mainly using your graveyard for the XYZs.  Switch-Hitter and Glassjaw are your friends.

descriptionBattlin' Boxer Deck. EmptyRe: Battlin' Boxer Deck.

more_horiz
triple magnum sheild always help i run double thrasher in my deck helps for 105 with switch hitter combo also try the c105 version with rank-ups number c105 is a number 61 hiped up on caffine lol

descriptionBattlin' Boxer Deck. EmptyRe: Battlin' Boxer Deck.

more_horiz
Is no one going to suggest Blaster or Burner? The deck is literally made up of almost exclusively Fire monsters, so I'm pretty sure that you'd never dead draw them. They also allow for Big Eye to be a thing you can use for Eradicator if you want to try and side it. Also, not knocking the pros or whatever, but Maestroke should pretty much be in every Rank 4 heavy deck.

descriptionBattlin' Boxer Deck. EmptyRe: Battlin' Boxer Deck.

more_horiz
Blaster is good at 2 to destroy the opponent's field + sending Battlin' Boxers to the Graveyard but I don't know how you can use Big Eye because only 1 Blaster can be summoned in a turn so EEV sounds fail.

descriptionBattlin' Boxer Deck. EmptyRe: Battlin' Boxer Deck.

more_horiz
Centrik wrote:
Blaster is good at 2 to destroy the opponent's field + sending Battlin' Boxers to the Graveyard but I don't know how you can use Big Eye because only 1 Blaster can be summoned in a turn so EEV sounds fail.


 ... Good point. Any more than two is kind of cloggy and hard to summon. Listen to this man, he has a point and can apparently think more than I can.

descriptionBattlin' Boxer Deck. EmptyRe: Battlin' Boxer Deck.

more_horiz
privacy_tip Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
power_settings_newLogin to reply