Jug of Greed [written]

[Sleepy]

Jug of Greed
[Spell]
If the number of cards in your hand and field combined is 3 or less, except this card: Draw 2 cards. You can only activate 1 "Jug of Greed" per turn.

- - - -

Pot of Greed is always used as a comeback card in the anime/manga, but the troublesome part is when you just pull further ahead when you are already in the lead. It might still come across as a bit sacky of a topdeck but now the idea is that it is dead weight until you really need to bounce back. Also, I really dislike the approach Konami has taken to make legal version of Pot, crippling the Main (Pot of Desires) and Extra (Pot of Extravagance & Pot of Disparity) Decks in the process.

What are your thoughts people? = )

[Loleo]

Love the idea, pot for what it is meant for. It makes me worried about decks that use very few cards on field or mystic mine, but this is the best pot I have seen in forever.

[Ray.]

On 5/29/2021 at 10:26 PM, Sleepy said:

Jug of Greed
[Spell]
If your hand and field have total of 2 cards or less, excluding this card: Draw 2 cards. You can only activate 1 "Jug of Greed" per turn.

- - - -

Pot of Greed is always used as a comeback card in the anime/manga, but the troublesome part is when you just pull further ahead when you are already in the lead. It might still come across as a bit sacky of a topdeck but now the idea is that it is dead weight until you really need to bounce back. Also, I really dislike the approach Konami has taken to make legal version of Pot, crippling the Main (Pot of Desires) and Extra (Pot of Extravagance & Pot of Disparity) Decks in the process.

What are your thoughts people? = )

The thing about pot of greed is great but the conditions that you put to activate your card is a bit hard the conditions you put means that the to activate this card the player must have only 1 card in his hand and field! I know you want this card to be a comeback in the duel but it will be better if you made the conditions more simple

[Sleepy]

1 hour ago, IBRAHIM THE LEGEND said:

The thing about pot of greed is great but the conditions that you put to activate your card is a bit hard the conditions you put means that the to activate this card the player must have only 1 card in his hand and field! I know you want this card to be a comeback in the duel but it will be better if you made the conditions more simple

It says up to 2 cards EXCLUDING THIS CARD. So my pot plus 2 more. Though do you think I could get away with making it up to 3 (other) instead? I really only didn't do that out of concern of getting it too easily but if told that'd  be fine that'd be great xD

[Ray.]

28 minutes ago, Sleepy said:

It says up to 2 cards EXCLUDING THIS CARD. So my pot plus 2 more. Though do you think I could get away with making it up to 3 (other) instead? I really only didn't do that out of concern of getting it too easily but if told that'd  be fine that'd be great xD

Good thinking

[Loleo]

I think limit to 2 or 3 isn't bad. 3 as the limit is more power I don't think it would be broken but much more versatile.

[Sleepy]

4 hours ago, ITSUKOSOADO said:

I think limit to 2 or 3 isn't bad. 3 as the limit is more power I don't think it would be broken but much more versatile.

Before anything else: Thanks, I don't tend to have people get back to me when I ask for alternatives to edit it, so it is much appreciated.
I agree 4+ would be a bit too easy of a condition to fulfill, and so this would be basically Pot of Greed even if it can't be used multiple times per turn....
3 is about the most risky length I'd be willing to go, and to be honest, it still worries me a bit there. Regardless, that's 2 votes saying it is fine, and I'm taking that into account. I'll edit it shortly.

[Loleo]

I also agree 4 is too much.

[Rayfield Lumina]

I believe your wording is correct but somehow it's making me a tiny bit uncomfortable:

Quote

If the number of cards in your hand and field combined is 3 or less, except this card: Draw 2 cards. You can only activate 1 "Jug of Greed" per turn.

Feel free to disregard the suggestion, but at the very least you could add an "a" between have and total.

Regarding the effect, me likes. 3 seems like the correct number. I had the fleeting idea of adding a special clause, something similar to:

OR if your opponent controls more cards than you do and the number of cards in your hand and field combined is 4 or less...

And another possibility

OR if the number of cards in your opponent's GY is higher than the cards in your GY and the number of cards in your hand and field combined is 4 or less...

But these are kinda convoluted. I'm simply looking for methods to give it more lenience given certain circumstances in the game. The card is fine as it is, though :)

[Sleepy]

On 6/2/2021 at 3:31 PM, Rayfield Lumina said:

I believe your wording is correct but somehow it's making me a tiny bit uncomfortable:

Feel free to disregard the suggestion, but at the very least you could add an "a" between have and total.

Regarding the effect, me likes. 3 seems like the correct number. I had the fleeting idea of adding a special clause, something similar to:

OR if your opponent controls more cards than you do and the number of cards in your hand and field combined is 4 or less...

And another possibility

OR if the number of cards in your opponent's GY is higher than the cards in your GY and the number of cards in your hand and field combined is 4 or less...

But these are kinda convoluted. I'm simply looking for methods to give it more lenience given certain circumstances in the game. The card is fine as it is, though :)

I, I think that "a" was in the plans when I wrote it. IDK how that ended up happening because I even remember re-reading the card to make sure this wouldn't xD
I like your wording. Gonna implement it for sure and maybe it'll be more clear when helping people see right off the bat that the card does not count itself there.

I have the same feeling, like the card needs a bit something else. The way I see it, if the requirement is:
0 other cards = Borderline unusable
1 other card = Situational
up to 2 other cards = Slightly more manageable and probably fine with no other clauses, maybe a hard OPT clause and call it a day.
up to 3 other cards = It suddenly is about half of a starting hand's size so it might be easier to manipulate cards to take advantage of this generic +1... it looks like the kind of card that looks fine in the printer but then somebody discovers something troublesome with it..... The extra clause of "if your opponent's hand and field have a total of more cards than you do" is something I consider adding to it when I upped it to 3 cards, and it is still somewhat of an attractive clause because it'd keep it generally as a "comeback" rather than a "winmore" if both sides are low on card count.

In respect to the wording, Konami used to use the word "combined" instead of "total" but from a few years back they changed it for some reason. I still think "combined" is the more intuitive/self explanatory/better wording, even if a little longer, but yeah......