Double double draw

[zepheris]

Double double draw

spell

Draw 2 cards; Draw 2 cards. Your opponent can choose to pay the cost for this card's activation.

 

Similar to my previous post, I'm selling the concept, not the card itself.

 

The card's really funny to me for several reasons.

 

1) The cost and the effect are identical.

2) If this gets refpaneled, your opponent just drew 4 off of your card. If this card gets ashed, a similar interaction occurs, but they only draw 2.

3) Have you ever kinda felt sleepy while playing on ygopro, and just kinda summoned red gadget, but chose not to get the search, just because you weren't paying enough attention? This just really punishes the people unfamiliar with the card who choose not to read it, or those who are really sleepy or something. You can draw 4 when facing those opponents. Really punishes the people not paying enough attention to the game. Please don't use this against me. I'l lose instantly.

 

Overall, this card is kinda outclassed by desires, because you don't want your opponent drawing 2 cards, especially if you don't also, and the only ones who'd use this are ftk decks that really need that draw power, but I like the concept behind it. I might add a clause like "If you activate this card, you cannot win this turn" or something. That'd make the card even weirder... In the end, it's a -1 with a huge activation risk, while desires is a +1 with an arguably smaller risk, but desires does have HOPT, so who knows.

 

Now, there are those who might argue that things like diamond dude or other such ways to avoid card costs might make the card OP, but barring the HOPT, desires can be used for all these things anyway.

 

I might add an HOPT clause though.

[Guest BGMCANN0N]

Joke material right? Well here is what I see.

• While I get the draw 2 before the semi-colon is suppose to be a "cost", draws aren't naturally expressed as a cost so right off the bat it doesn't have that authentic Yugioh wording feel.
• PSCT doesn't acknowledge the use of "cost" directly in the card effects wording. While universally in Yugioh cost is a well-known term, it is rather expressed indirectly in the form of a semi-colon rather than the word itself. Only 1 card that still uses the word "cost" directly, but it is significantly outdated in today's standard in terms of wording and has yet to receive an errata. (http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Dark_Elf)

While I get the idea is to confuse player's who are barely conscious, dumb, accident prone, or new to the game, I can't personally encourage the idea as any knowledgeable or aware player would just give you the -1. There is nothing rewarding about a card or concept that doesn't do anything for you simply because your opponent was paying attention.

 

I'll admit though. You have a sense of humor.

[zepheris]

Joke material right? Well here is what I see.

• While I get the draw 2 before the semi-colon is suppose to be a "cost", draws aren't naturally expressed as a cost so right off the bat it doesn't have that authentic Yugioh wording feel.
• PSCT doesn't acknowledge the use of "cost" directly in the card effects wording. While universally in Yugioh cost is a well-known term, it is rather expressed indirectly in the form of a semi-colon rather than the word itself. Only 1 card that still uses the word "cost" directly, but it is significantly outdated in today's standard in terms of wording and has yet to receive an errata. (http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Dark_Elf)

While I get the idea is to confuse player's who are barely conscious, dumb, accident prone, or new to the game, I can't personally encourage the idea as any knowledgeable or aware player would just give you the -1. There is nothing rewarding about a card or concept that doesn't do anything for you simply because your opponent was paying attention.

 

I'll admit though. You have a sense of humor.

Now here's the thing. It is a -1, but it is worth the -1. Think of spellbook inside the pot. Would you want a card like that to ever be legal? I'd even wager that if desires ever got banned, and ash didn't exist for some reason, this would be a staple card to an extent. People will go as far as to play light of sekka for a draw 2. I, myself, would rather play this any day than light of sekka (Although some might disagree).

 

One day of peace is limited as well, that's a -1. True it also gives a pseudo waboku effect, but fundamentally, the waboku effect is not what got it limited, we have many, many cards that give waboku effects, and also help further your plays, like menko or b fader, and those have never seen the banlist. It's for the fact that it can stall a turn, then net you another card that might then stall yet another turn.

 

I was only trying to push the point that it's not overpowered, not the fact that its a worthless card. FTK decks, chain burn, and final countdown would have 13 field days with this thing. Putting aside the fact that the opponent draws, it doesn't impact you negatively in any way, going as far to be a pot of greed when you don't care what your opponent draws.

 

Also, if you have any suggestions for the wording, please do say so. I didn't think that deeply into the "Cost" wording, but that was the closest I could get. The thing I based the wording off is possibly the only card that allows the opponent to pay costs for your cards, golden castle of stromberg, which, I'll admit, isn't the most reliable source of card grammar.

 

How about "Your opponent can draw cards instead for the activation of this card."? It's a bit iffy and vague, but I based it off ariande, which is a much more reliable source for card grammar.

 

If I meant this purely as a joke, I'd post this in the Joke section. 

 

That being said, as for your first point, I admit it doesn't give an authentic feel, but the reason I opted for this instead of something like "Draw 2 cards, then a player of your opponent's choice draws 2 cards" is because costs cannot be negated, which acts as sort of another balancing layer for this card in the case it's negated, which I pointed out in my second bullet.

 

I wasn't really worried this card would be terrible as much as I was worried it'd be too good, especially without HOPT, there's that explanation.

[Guest BGMCANN0N]

Wait so... For the "cost" your opponent draws 2 in exchange for you to draw 2? Is that what you are going for? I was reading it as your opponent can decide to allow you to draw 2 cards in exchange to allow you to draw 2 more cards. That is why I was weighing it to be useless.

[zepheris]

Basically, the effect is draw 2 cards, and the cost for activating that effect is drawing 2 more cards, which is why I mentioned 4 cards multiple times on the original post. If the opponent chooses to pay the cost, both players draw 2 cards, but if he doesn't then you draw 4. If this is negated, then the opponent still has to "pay the cost", if he so chooses, but the effect won't activate, which is my main argument on why this is worse than desires. If this gets negated with you going first, the opponent starts with 7 cards, and you start with 4, which is a pretty huge loss in terms of card advantage. Even if the effect does go off, it's still a -1, because while you got a +1, the opponent got +2, so that's a -1 in general.

 

The wording is a bit odd on this, but essentially, the cost, drawing 2 cards, is mandatory, it's just that the opponent decides who does the drawing. The effect can be negated, but if it isn't, you draw 2. Normally, the opponent will choose to pay the cost, for obvious reasons, so most of the time, the effect is just "Both players draw 2 cards."