Playing With Names? [Toyo Single]

[宇佐見 蓮子@C94]

During either player's turn: You can discard this card to target 1 face-up card on the field and declare a card name; This turn, that card's name becomes the declared name. When this effect is activated, if you have another card named "Witch of Seals - Mint" on your field or in your graveyard: You can banish that card; Draw 2 cards. You can only use the effect of "Witch of Seals - Mint" once per turn, and only once that turn.

[Astolfo]

So, it'd work as mostly disruption I'd guess?

Like, call it on their Fusion Materials/Ritual Materials/maybe specific Synchro or Xyz Materials if they need specific ones so that they can't summon whatever they were going to anymore?

I guess you could use it for gimmicks on your own too.

 

So like, call it against BA, call something else, and it'd make them all self-destruct.

Call it against SKs, not much would happen I guess, except maybe preventing attacking if they had used Altair?

Use it against Qlis, I dunno if anything would happen.

Same with Monarchs and then M&Ms I think?

Would probably disrupt Rituals from field w/ Nekroz I guess.

And then field mats for Shaddolls.

 

That's pretty neat.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

First off, the Luster synergy is pretty cool, and I think that is what you intended.

 

Also, you need to use more specific card text so you can't use it to turn a card into mint, then banish it to draw 2, as this gives an unsettling amount of consistency to... everything. I am not sure if this was intended, but given your penchant for "testing" CC as a section, it may be the case. This could be fixed by clarifying that the Banish would happen before the card name is changed.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

A simpler solution could simply have that card's name be changed only as long as it's on the field.

How does this solve anything..?

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Eh, personally I think the concept of e-teleing one out and discarding one to use the effect on a card for luster or whatever could be really cool, but I guess that is also functional.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Um. It wouldn't. Because the Mint summoned by E-Tele wouldn't be in the graveyard. And considering that was probably a large part of the design intent, it would make sense to keep that intact.

[宇佐見 蓮子@C94]

First off, the Luster synergy is pretty cool, and I think that is what you intended.

 

Also, you need to use more specific card text so you can't use it to turn a card into mint, then banish it to draw 2, as this gives an unsettling amount of consistency to... everything. I am not sure if this was intended, but given your penchant for "testing" CC as a section, it may be the case. This could be fixed by clarifying that the Banish would happen before the card name is changed.

Ah, you got me. Nyoho~

 

Well, the idea is, you discard itself and banish a face-up thing you have to draw 2, which is a flat +0, essentially. Basically, it's so the card has some secondary value, aside from just pure disruption. That said, I do believe the easiest fix is simply to reduce the draw to 1. This would reduce the stupid amounts of consistency you get, while also still rewarding you for running multiple copies of it, and has some pretty cool plays, like ditching it + dead CoTH for a draw.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

See, the issue is that a +0 is damn good. A Spell Speed 2 Magic Planter for any card that can also be a Pot of Greed if you already have one? That is indeed a problem.

And skipper, with that second effect listed afterward, if definitely works. If worded the way it was intended to, it would be an "and if" effect. (Also, the wording you suggested was incorrect, but I won't pester you about it. If you want to learn more OCG stuff, you can use Zazu's thread in this section, or PM or skype me for any clarification.)