My Dear Alpaca

[Rayfield Lumina]

My Dear Alpaca

Continuous Spell

Once per turn: You can target 1 Beast monster you control; until the end of your opponent's turn, if that Beast Monster would be targeted or destroyed by your opponent's card effect, you can banish 1 card in your GY instead with the same type of card as that opponent's card. If a Beast monster you control is attacked: You can send this card to the GY instead, and if you do, banish the attacking monster, and if you do that, that Beast monster cannot be targeted for an attack for the rest of this turn.

 

***Protect your Alpaca at all costs ^_^

What do you guys think? I believe I could use some help in the card grammar, I'm not sure I made correctly the first part, with the opponent's card. Any comment about the card is appreciated, though.

[Horu]

Some much needed beast support. This will go nicely with my Rescue Kitten. All jokes and the fact that I actually own a Rescue Kitten aside, this is actually a handy little card to have to protect your smaller beasts and could make a nice stand-in for something like Level Limit Area or Gravity Bind since it pretty much serves as a continuous Waboku for Beast monsters.

[Rayfield Lumina]

16 minutes ago, Horu Ishayuki said:

Some much needed beast support. This will go nicely with my Rescue Kitten. All jokes and the fact that I actually own a Rescue Kitten aside, this is actually a handy little card to have to protect your smaller beasts and could make a nice stand-in for something like Level Limit Area or Gravity Bind since it pretty much serves as a continuous Waboku for Beast monsters.

Thanks for the comment, Horu! I'm not 100% sure how good this card would be, as I feel Beasts are a little unused. I'm thinking of Crystal Beasts, Performapals, ZW and some Gladiators. In these Decks, AFAIK there are some non-Beasts to apply the second effect, fortunately. My worry is that the opponent might find a way around this effect by purposely attacking with a monster they want to be destroyed (in that case, maybe I should have made the effect a banishing one). You said that it's good protection for little critters, but I'm inclined towards banishing resources for protection for stronger mobs which you value more, but depending on the situation, you may be right.

[Rayfield Lumina]

Bump. Edited the effect a little so now it banishes the attacking monster instead of only destroying it, so the cost for the second effect is a bit more balanced.

[Horu]

My only gripe with this card is also the other thing that balances it. It can't be run in a pure Beast deck. But as mentioned before, it does work great in decks that run small monsters because you can run things like Spell Canceller and Jinzo to lock out your opponent's backrow and Gravity Bind to lock out the bigger monsters.

 

Sorry I ran a burn deck that used small monsters and the scary thing is that it was slow but unstoppable. It was actually the only success I ever had with cards like Gravity Bind or Satellite Cannon.

[Rayfield Lumina]

9 minutes ago, Horu Ishayuki said:

My only gripe with this card is also the other thing that balances it. It can't be run in a pure Beast deck. But as mentioned before, it does work great in decks that run small monsters because you can run things like Spell Canceller and Jinzo to lock out your opponent's backrow and Gravity Bind to lock out the bigger monsters.

 

Sorry I ran a burn deck that used small monsters and the scary thing is that it was slow but unstoppable. It was actually the only success I ever had with cards like Gravity Bind or Satellite Cannon.

Yep, definitely that's one part I'm not too fond of, but decided to keep because of the card's flavour.

And you're a terrible person for making Burn Decks with Gravity Bind-like stuff xD

[Horu]

Imagine having Jinzo, Amplifier, Wall of Revealing Light (after paying 7000 LP) and Gravity Bind on the field at the same time.

[Sleepy]

Hmm with the updates I'd say it isn't a bad card.

Even if the resources for the effect protection come from the GY, it might be enough of an incentive to try their hand at it. With monster effects being the most common and consistent kind, you shouldn't have much of a problem. I very much like how this gives a sort of edge to using S/T to get to the card as it is gonna be less common to fuel against them at least a little bit.

The second effect I think still is a bit on the underpowered side for a number of things:
-You have to Tribute so even if you get rid of the opponent monster, it'd be a "break even" scenario if it was just this. What's more, it has to be a non-Beast so its usage in decks that aren't pure on beasts like the Obedience Schooled and "Number 64" builds. Makes it look more like an anime-like effect.
-This Alpaca spell itself is lost in the process. Even if you are applying a localized "Waboku"-like protection on your beast, it's a bit much when it is also tied to requiring a Tribute that's just as prone to be attacked but not as prone to be protected by this. To its merit, neither the Tribute nor this being sent to the GY this way are part of the cost so getting removal will not be as huge of a loss as it could have been.... but still.
-The other thing is that this being a Continuous Spell, you are telegraphing the opponent that this thing is around. Without the surprise factor, your opponent won't be trying to attack and will just wait for removal to come, so upgrading the removal to non-targeting banish, although technically a better incentive to push them into not attacking, is still not gonna go off very often exactly because they won't be attacking xD

...also, it makes it look like the girl is running towards the enemy and sacrificing herself and the long-term protection she's been providing for the alpaca, in order to save her one more time.... that's kinda sad.

- - - - -

For now as a change I'd really only suggest removing the "non-beast" part of the clause. 
Though to be honest I'd personally eliminate the Tribute altogether. Then without the tribute needed, for getting rid of this spell I'd think "fair enough" and try to crash something anyways if I really lacked removal xD

- - - -

One last note just to point out how incredibly adorable that image is.

 

[Rayfield Lumina]

This is really helpful, thank you @Sleepy. I believe the underneath reason for you wanting to eliminate the Tribute thingy is to save the little girl from doom xD. But in all seriousness, you're probably quite right. If I want this card to theoretically have some use in the game, I should take out that part, so hell yeah, I'll do it right away!