[Leaderboard] Therrion vs. Mugendramon [Finished]

[Therrion]

YCM and Leaderboard Rules Apply

First to 3 votes wins. Loser gives a Like to the Winner.

Written Cards not allowed. Use this site's Card Maker. Send card via PM.

Cards due 10/5/13, Deadline for voting 10/10/13.

 

Requirements: Create a card that interacts with columns and/or card zones on the field.

 

Card A:

 

Cannot be Normal Summoned/Set. Must first be Special Summoned (from your hand) by destroying 4 cards in a column. This card cannot attack directly the turn it is Summoned. This card gains 100 ATK for each unused Monster Card Zone on your opponent's side of the field. Other cards in this card's column have their effects negated. When this card destroys an opponent's monster by battle: Target the Monster Card Zone that monster occupied; that zone cannot be used while this card is face-up on the field.

 

Card B:

 

Activate only when both players control a monster. When this card is activated: Both players destroy any number of monsters they control so both control the same number of monsters (min 1). Any unoccupied Monster Card Zone on the field cannot be used. Monsters on the field cannot be destroyed by battle and inflict Piercing Damage. If the number of monsters on the field changes after this card's activation, destroy it.

[Mugendramon]

I'm up for it then. I'm curious as to why you won't accept written cards though.

[Therrion]

Accepted.

Just personal preference. I plan to make a card with an image, and I think it's an eye sore to have one with an image and one written.

 

EDIT: Cards are up, go ahead and vote.

Good luck to you as well

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Card A may be a pain to bring out initially; since it's dependent on your opponent having 2 cards (both monster and Spell/Trap card) in same column as yours (unless you use other monsters that can move them to other Monster Card Zones). This card's last effect of rendering the monster zone useless ensures that this card gains some points out of its ATK gaining effect [though its effect of negating all cards in its column is a potent double-edged sword, depending on if you have a S/T over there that could be useful at that time (though it's more likely to hurt your opponent more than yourself]

 

Card B, from what I see, is a mix of Kaiser Colosseum (in terms of limiting the number of monsters both players can play) and Ojamas (rendering the empty monster zones un-usable); though unlike the former, it will destroy itself if the monster count changes afterwards [whether monsters are destroyed by battle/card effects; used as Material monsters or Tributes, bounced back to hand/Deck, etc]. Effect-wise, it can be useful for controlling swarm decks for a turn [depending on how many monsters you have at activation] and the Piercing damage effect makes sure that Battle Damage will be dealt in most cases, regardless of battle position (also useful for keeping a weak monster on the field and scoring damage on that).

 

--

With that all said and done, my vote goes to Card A for being a bit more balanced IMO (both cards are equally impressive however)

Good luck to the both of you.

[Northern Sage]

Alright, Card A has a big issue in the form of its Summoning condition, which is impractical and heavily impacts the utility of the card, making it very gimmicky.

Card B is interesting in some ways, and at least more applicable.

Vote for Card B.

[Therrion]

1-1 Tie

Thanks for the time to vote, you two.

[Darj]

Card A is interesting. It has a balanced Summoning condition for a big monster and 2 decent, and original, control effects. Altough it also destroys/negates the effects of cards in your side of the column, you probably could take advantage of it with the right cards, so this monster would require a bit of deck dedication. Then, as if that was not enough, the summoning condition is inherent so the opponent shouldn't be able to respond to the destruction of the column.

 

Card B is easier to use, and shouldn't require any sort of deck dedication to make it work, but the first effect is way too powerful, if not outright broken: If you control a single monster while your opponent controls 3 or more, you will me generating pluses from this card. Yes, it has a more entertaining effect after its activation and can even destroy itself for further balance, but in my opinion that has less importance when the first effect can be used as a pseudo-Dark Hole; after destroying half or more of the opponent's monsters, I don't think any player would care about losing this card.

 

My vote goes for Card A for its balance and creativity on the interaction with columns.

[Therrion]

2-1 in Card A's favor.

Thanks for taking the time to vote!

[Sora1499]

Showdown gives too much control for the using player for my liking, and potentially freezes the game-state in its tracks.

 

Archangel is neat and innovative, albeit a tad impractical, but overall beneficent.

 

Vote to the Archangel.

[Mugendramon]

Well, that decides it.

 

Therrion gets the win.

 

Now, as the butthurt loser I am, I propose a gratuitous analysis on my opponent's card. Which, while hands-down better than my own in terms of design, is still a bit of a stretch:

 

Mainly the unavoidable cost destruction. It was mentioned by Frex, but... the way he said it, it looked like a positive point for the card. Unavoidable destruction is a terrible idea and it punishes the opponent for doing nothing, while taking away their capability to respond in any way.

 

The other two effects the thing has are cooler though. The last effect in particular is what I believe gives this card its biggest potential. Then there's the second effect, the negation effect. It can give the opponent a startle, but then it loses all effectiveness because the opponent just puts their cards elsewhere.

 

 

So yeah, congrats. Though as a suggestion for future contests, you might wanna avoid using Senet rules as conditions. Design regarding columns and whatnot is extremely limiting and as creative as you might think either of our cards were, the truth is there is only so much  that can be done with it.

 

tl;dr

[Therrion]

I know there is only so much that can be done, but with two people here, it isn't so bad with having only 10 options or so. I wouldn't ever re use the requirements for this one, though.

The Summoning is why the rest of the card is just "meh", actually. I thought it'd have OP screamed at it if I even gave it 100 more ATK or anything, but people didn't seem to mind it since you both lose 2 cards.

gg Mugen.

[Mugendramon]

The Summoning is why the rest of the card is just "meh", actually. I thought it'd have OP screamed at it if I even gave it 100 more ATK or anything, but people didn't seem to mind it since you both lose 2 cards.

 

I would say that's fair enough, but here's the thing...

 

You see, the problem isn't in the numbers. The summoning condition is what makes it, not broken, but a badly designed card. Destroying as a cost before anything can respond is incredibly unfair.

 

It doesn't help the card's case in question that there is a card that does the same thing, except it can be responded to and doesn't lock your opponent's resources by simply existing.

[Therrion]

The same could be said for many created cards (that there is a current card with the effect that is less powerful), but take into consideration that the card in question isn't played, and that argument is dismantled.

I knew the numbers didn't matter with the unfair requirements of Summon. I meant with such a Summoning requirement, it wouldn't take too much to push it overboard, hence again why the other aspects are simply decent. Trust me, I noticed the power/design of the card I engineered, but I also noticed yours, so I don't really have much issue with the result since both our designs were questionable.

Regardless, it was fun designing the card for this requirement and seeing your approach on it.

[Darj]

Mainly the unavoidable cost destruction. It was mentioned by Frex, but... the way he said it, it looked like a positive point for the card. Unavoidable destruction is a terrible idea and it punishes the opponent for doing nothing, while taking away their capability to respond in any way.

 

I considered it a positive point only because it prevented the opponent from chaining the same card you are attempting to destroy with the Summon of the monster, allowing you to ensure a +1 from the destruction of that S/T. For instance, the opponent wouldn't be able to chain a MST, Compulsory, etc. to "save" it and turn that potential -1 into a -0.

 

I agree with unavoidable destruction being a powerful thing, but this card destroying your own cards should, in theory, discourage players from teching this monster in their decks, and thus the card would most likely remain underused. Probably only decks that run mostly Continuous S/Ts and/or monsters who replace themselves (such as T.G.s) would consider this card.

[Mugendramon]

I considered it a positive point only because it prevented the opponent from chaining the same card you are attempting to destroy with the Summon of the monster, allowing you to ensure a +1 from the destruction of that S/T. For instance, the opponent wouldn't be able to chain a MST, Compulsory, etc. to "save" it and turn that potential -1 into a -0.

Pardon me but that is neither a +1 nor is it a good thing.

 

I mean it's a good thing for the one playing the card but it's a terrible mechanic. It's unfair as I've said before.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

And I'm going to stop things here. Care to take this to PM?

[Mugendramon]

And I'm going to stop things here. Care to take this to PM?

 

While we could and your reasoning for asking that is understandable, I feel others reading this may perhaps benefit from its conclusion.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

While we could and your reasoning for asking that is understandable, I feel others reading this may perhaps benefit from its conclusion.

Understandable, but don't keep this open longer than necessary. It doesn't look good when active 1v1s are being pushed down by a finished one, or when a finished one is the only one getting posts in a certain time frame.

[Darj]

Pardon me but that is neither a +1 nor is it a good thing.

 

I mean it's a good thing for the one playing the card but it's a terrible mechanic. It's unfair as I've said before.

 

I get your points, and I agree with unavoidable destruction being a terrible mechaninc. In retrospect, I shouldn't have considered the summoning conditions of the card as a positive trait.