Content

Garoozis | Deck and Rulings

This page notes details of Garoozis (FIRE) : decks, tips, effect and rulings. Learn and enjoy playing Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Links!
Duel Links Breaking News
New minibox is coming?
update 17/10/2016

Garoozis

Garoozis
AttributeFIRE
Monster TypeBeast-Warrior
Card typeNormal
Level★5
Passcode14977074
ATK1800
DEF1500

text

An axe-swinging beast-warrior with the head of a dragon.

How to Get

Pack--
Level-up reward--
Victory against--
Card trader--
OtherTag Duel Event [R]

Evaluation

Rating-/10

Pros

Cons

Tips

Rulings

Decks

Classifications

Comments

wow
nostalgic. I had this card IRL a decade ago.
Badger
Btw, the only valid reason for this card to be a Beast-Warrior is to fit in Joey's Warrior/Beast-Warrior focused deck.
<< Anonymous(Badger)
Anonymous Reply
Which is why he had multiple Beast, Rock and Dragon-Types in his deck, right? Also worth noting that Garoozis and Panther Warrior are the only Beast-Warriors he used beyond Duelist Kingdom. (Though that reminds me: Why exactly are Alligator's Sword and Hayabusa Knight not Beast-Warrior? They're animals wielding swords.)
<< Anonymous
Badger Reply
The Rock monsters were mostly used during the 1st season. His deck even included Fiend(Claw Reacher), Spellcaster(Copycat, Flame Manipulator) and Aqua(The Furious Sea King) types, which make your arguments even more contradicting.
Aligator's sword is another example, but they even put it in the Beast type which even worse since it wields a sword. Hayabusha has only an avian head, not bothering me
Badger
1. What the heck "Garoozis" means?

2. The fact that konami places reptilian monsters as Beasts or Beast-Warriors pisses me off.
<< Anonymous(Badger)
Anonymous Reply
The words are mostly synonymous. It did indeed used to refer to "created beings", but that usage is virtually extinct. Indeed, most current definitions of the word "creature" are along the lines of "a living creature, either an animal or a human". I'll point to Wikipedia's page on legendary creatures's definition as a practical example: "a fictitious, imaginary and often supernatural animal"
<< Anonymous
Badger Reply
Wiki articles/pages are widely known to get altered quite often, so don't get surprised when the word "animal" gets replaced by the word "creature".

Besides your argument is just another reason to limit the whole typing concept since you are distinctly claim that all the dragons should be considered beasts so you are contradicting with your self.
<< Anonymous(Badger)
Anonymous Reply
Except that article's referred to animals (through several rewrites and revisions, might I add) for the last five years.

And you're right. You could technically consider basically any monster that's a living being and not a plant to come under the Beast type. But they chose not to do that. The way you're arguing is like saying "a frog's an amphibian, not an animal", which is just wrong.
<< Anonymous
Badger Reply
Frogs are contained in the Aqua type which is the most properly correct for them.
My arguments are based in pure logic.
The 80% of the monsters that they put in the Beast type depict mammals. Then, they randomly put without giving much of a thought less than 5 monsters that have apparent reptilian and dragonic visual characteristics.
It's a sign of lazyness to me.

Commens and feedback

Recommend

Menu

Ranking

Comments (updated every hour)

it doesnt matter aslong as you have the card trader,
Nope, the lack of field hit them
it's a fur hire, the only deck that you know how to play with
I find it funny that they will limit semi limit cards because they are too powerful...come on giv...
> Go to the latest comments

Popular Decks

Popular Cards

QA

Another Game Site