Pippola is Caught Infraganti!

[Pommelo]

Pippola is Caught Infraganti!

Continuous Trap

Each time your opponent adds a card(s) from their Deck to their hand or sends a card from their Deck to the GY by their card effect: You can place a number of counters on this card (max. 5) equal to the number of cards they moved. During your Main Phase: You can destroy this card, then either draw a number of cards equal to the number of counters this card had on the field -1, OR make your opponent discard a number of cards equal to the number of counters this card had on the field -1 (or their entire hand, if less than that number). If this face-up card you control is sent to the GY by your opponent's card effect, your opponent cannot add cards from their Deck to their hand (except their Normal Draw) or send cards from the Deck to the GY until the end of the next turn. You can only control 1 "Pippola is Caught Infraganti!"

 

Alrighty so, 4th entry of the Pippola series! It would seem that Pippola was prohibited from eating any more cookies, but she had to go and try to get more. Spotted by her parents, she was punished by having the jar tied to her wrist until she learns her lesson, and this card will serve to punish your opponent for exaggeratedly drawing cards when they shouldn't. Right now, my overall feeling is that the card is strong, but not OP. Gauging a card's strength is not exactly my forte (do I have any forte at all? lol), but that's why I set into place those -2, while the max. amount of counters the card can hold caps at 5, so you can only draw/make the opponent discard 3 cards. I know that's pretty damn nasty, but consider that such a thing will only happen if your opponent is stubborn enough to keep at it once the card is revealed, and regardless, if they can get rid of it before your Main Phase, they won't have to worry about the first effect. The problem comes when they MST it. I mean, did you try when you were small to disobey your parents and try to skip a punishment? That will happen to the opponent as well, though again, there's a way around it, and it's not that hard to pull.

Compared to the last Pippola card which was 99% for the funzies and lacking sense lol, I'm interested in balancing this card if it's balance is off rn, so help is welcome :)

[HQCardmaker]

Brilliant.

[Pommelo]

7 minutes ago, HQCardmaker said:

Brilliant.

Ty HQ!

Is there something else you'd like to mention? What part of it you liked?

[Tinkerer]

This design makes me wonder how good Maxx C would be if it summoned itself to activate its effect and only worked while on the field..  Simply put, that's what this feels like: it's a punishment card, but one that your opponent can actually choose to deal with.  Being a cont. trap means it also has a small window where it operates effectively (turn 1).

Given all that, the second effect is the thing that actually worries me.  It's very easy for an opponent to trigger it accidentally when going second (lightning storm, harpie's feather duster, twin twister) and it's pretty annoying for an opponent to choose to remove it even when it is face-up.  Even though it has a self-banishing effect, tying a floodgate to a self-removal condition usually is not enough to balance it.

Sorry, too tired right now to come up with suggestions~

 

[Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan]

I know why its only a Draw 3/ Discard 3 otherwise rip 3 Contentious to make it balanced.

[drowsyCoffee]

Honestly? This card feels like a hella better Waking the Dragon, getting to Droll and Lock your opponent by chaining this card to the activation of a Lighting Storm is a good plan B for a backrow heavy deck on the doomsday scenario where they setted five, their opponent drew the out, and they didnt have a card that could stop them. The rest of the eff is pretty good, but the delayed nature of it, since you'll never be able to use this card as an interruption (By either drawing HTs out of it or discarding cards off their hand mid combo) as the payout eff must be used on your own MP does wonders to balance out the card. Plus, unlike what it looks, this card aint Maxx C, its Shared Ride, and as we all know, that card aint nowhere near as oppressive as Maxx C, decks are plenty good at setting up boards without having to add cards (See 2 Monsters into Verte into Dragoon/Phoenix) if they wanted to play through this card without giving them advantage, and this card is even lenient enough to give em 2 freebies before starting to earn ya advantage. Honestly, taking Shared Ride and it's effectiveness as a precedent to compare this card to, the card's eff on field could probably be able to activate during your opponent's turn, and the draw eff could straight up draw you as many cards as you have tokens instead of tokens -2, and i wouldnt even bat an eye at it. Excellent side deck choice for dealing with Striker. And before anyone says anything about the destruction Droll-like effect, have into consideration that while Droll is plenty annoying as a handtrap, modern decks still are fully capable of playing through it, and its only a few select decks that straight up die against Droll (See Drytron) thus why its a side deck HT like Lancea or Nib and not a main deck one. Same applies to this card, while Droll and Lock-ing your opponent is good, decks can totally play through it, and on an already bad scenario were a Control deck had to let their opponent pop their backrow, Droll and Lock probably wont be enough to save ya from getting Accesscoded. Its a good card, and it gives you kind of a plan B for emergency scenarios, but it is by no means a turn ender card like Maxx C has been

[Loleo]

15 hours ago, Rayfield Lumina said:

Pippola is Caught Infraganti!

Continuous Trap

Each time your opponent adds a card(s) from their Deck to their hand by their card effect: You can place a number of counters on this card (max. 5) equal to the number of cards they added. During your Main Phase: You can destroy this card, then either draw a number of cards equal to the number of counters this card had on the field -2, OR make your opponent discard a number of cards equal to the number of counters this card had on the field -2 (or their entire hand, if less than that number). If this face-up card you control is sent to the GY by your opponent's card effect, your opponent cannot add cards from their Deck to their hand (except their Normal Draw) while this card is on the GY, but banish this card if you control no monsters.

 

Alrighty so, 4th entry of the Pippola series! It would seem that Pippola was prohibited from eating any more cookies, but she had to go and try to get more. Spotted by her parents, she was punished by having the jar tied to her wrist until she learns her lesson, and this card will serve to punish your opponent for exaggeratedly drawing cards when they shouldn't. Right now, my overall feeling is that the card is strong, but not OP. Gauging a card's strength is not exactly my forte (do I have any forte at all? lol), but that's why I set into place those -2, while the max. amount of counters the card can hold caps at 5, so you can only draw/make the opponent discard 3 cards. I know that's pretty damn nasty, but consider that such a thing will only happen if your opponent is stubborn enough to keep at it once the card is revealed, and regardless, if they can get rid of it before your Main Phase, they won't have to worry about the first effect. The problem comes when they MST it. I mean, did you try when you were small to disobey your parents and try to skip a punishment? That will happen to the opponent as well, though again, there's a way around it, and it's not that hard to pull.

Compared to the last Pippola card which was 99% for the funzies and lacking sense lol, I'm interested in balancing this card if it's balance is off rn, so help is welcome :)

This actually seems really balanced already! Just because it's a trap it's hard to get some play and it needs to be powerful. It seems like you'll almost allways get those 5 counters by the turn after you play it. I like it I think it just needs some testing.

 

11 hours ago, Lazarus IV said:

 

Given all that, the second effect is the thing that actually worries me.  It's very easy for an opponent to trigger it accidentally when going second (lightning storm, harpie's feather duster, twin twister) and it's pretty annoying for an opponent to choose to remove it even when it is face-up.  Even though it has a self-banishing effect, tying a floodgate to a self-removal condition usually is not enough to balance it.

 

Well the second effect being that way discourages board wipes! It  can't be triggered on accident as Ray did specify "face-up" This does make me wonder if you can give a card to your opponent and force them to destroy it, but again this card is slow enough that it's powerful effect isn't doing too much... I say until I remembered chains. I almost wish this card had to be activated in response to an effect that would add cards from your opponent's deck to the hand.

[Loleo]

3 hours ago, drowsyCoffee said:

 Honestly, taking Shared Ride and it's effectiveness as a precedent to compare this card to, the card's eff on field could probably be able to activate during your opponent's turn, and the draw eff could straight up draw you as many cards as you have tokens instead of tokens -2, and i wouldn't even bat an eye at it.

Instead of this I think it would be better to up the maximum to 7. Drawing 5 is still a lot.

Excellent side deck choice for dealing with Striker. And before anyone says anything about the destruction Droll-like effect, have into consideration that while Droll is plenty annoying as a handtrap, modern decks still are fully capable of playing through it

Yes but it doesn't last only a turn. It is POWERFUL.

, and its only a few select decks that straight up die against Droll (See Drytron) thus why its a side deck HT like Lancea or Nib and not a main deck one. Same applies to this card, while Droll and Lock-ing your opponent is good, decks can totally play through it, and on an already bad scenario were a Control deck had to let their opponent pop their backrow, Droll and Lock probably wont be enough to save ya from getting Accesscoded. Its a good card, and it gives you kind of a plan B for emergency scenarios, but it is by no means a turn ender card like Maxx C has been

Maxx C is busted and I don't get how it's unbanned.

Sorry for the double post I thought I was editing

[drowsyCoffee]

23 minutes ago, Loleo said:

This actually seems really balanced already! Just because it's a trap it's hard to get some play and it needs to be powerful. It seems like you'll almost allways get those 5 counters by the turn after you play it. I like it I think it just needs some testing.

 

Well the second effect being that way discourages board wipes! It  can't be triggered on accident as Ray did specify "face-up" This does make me wonder if you can give a card to your opponent and force them to destroy it, but again this card is slow enough that it's powerful effect isn't doing too much... I say until I remembered chains. I almost wish this card had to be activated in response to an effect that would add cards from your opponent's deck to the hand.

Yeah, second eff helps discourages boardwipes, as ya can just chain this to a Feather Duster or the like so its face-up at the moment of ya getting wiped. Still, though, the main problem still is the fact that ya really need to pray to god that your opponent's hand/deck cannot do an Accesscode line through  Droll and Lock, which sadly is kinda unlikely, as things like 2 monsters into Halq into SS Veiler from deck into Selene into Accesscode dont really need any searches whatsoever. Its. Tough. If ya get it out of something like a DPE pop, it's quite a nice eff to trigger, but otherwise in most other scenarios you are faced with the problem that while the effect is good, its not good enough to compensate how bad it is to find yourself being boardwiped as a backrow strategy. Even then, now that i think, most of the time  DPE gets on board at the end of your combo, so that scenario is a tad unlikely. Maybe out of something like a Bardiche pop mid combo in PK Fire, or a Cosmic Cyclone if the card was written in a way that would be triggered by it, and a control strat with GY effs were to be prevalent at the moment? Honestly, given how limiting the scenarios were it might stop your opponent are, the card would probably be fine even if ya could activate the destruction eff on your own, after all, even if that could be archieved by DPE set ups, DPE already has a way better target for those kinds of shenanigans on popping an Artifact Scythe set on board through a Dagda. Feels like there are enough alternatives that it would be less of a problematic card then and more of a match up post side decking choice

 

As for the first eff, its heavily match up dependant, and even then, i feel like its overbalanced a tad. Something like Lyrilusc will trigger this card a thousand times with their multiple Recital Starling set ups, but on the other hand, a lot of decks like PK Fire can just choose to end up on a DPE line going through 1~2 searches only, making so the card is kinda dead on board (Or god forbid, a DPE + Dagda line, since a lot of what's happening there is PK bringing stuff from grave and deck and not that much searching, i think ya end on like, 3 seaches by the end of the line??). I still think that the first eff being a draw number of counters -2 is far too lenient on the opponent, at that point, its just worse Shared Ride and even then that card hasnt seen any play since Full Power Striker. The second option is a whole lot more powerful, but i still think the card probably needs to be able to use the discards during your opponent turn to be a proper floodgate, as otherwise ya arent really that punished by it (And even then, i think that with the discard being Counters -2, there is a sizable enough pool of decks that just Do Not Care about it. At the same time, though, like most situational floodgates, it is meant to be played as a post siding tool, so it being only useful on a select number of match ups isnt even bad so long as those match ups are relatively common). Keep in mind, too, that DPE is one of the most common cards to end boards with as of now, so even if decks were to be somehow reaching counters, so long as the card isnt able of being used during your opponents turn, they could just pop the card with the DPE at the end of their combo when the Droll and Lock floodgate eff is no longer relevant and completely nullify the impact of this card

 

In summary, my opinions are:

*Card is probably fine even if ya can trigger the destruction eff on your own, as other than that scenario, there arent a whole lot of scenarios were the destruction eff archieves that much

*A fix for the weakness of the destruction eff would be to make so it not only floodgates, but also reduces how much damage you take, so ya dont get immediatly OTKd through the lock after being boardwiped. Even then, again, if a control/backrow deck gets boardwiped, things are looking grim, and there arent that many other scenarios than that were the lock would be actually relevant

*Card NEEDS to be able to trigger the payout for your counters during your opponent's turn, otherwise your opponent is fully capable of ignoring this card and popping it at the end of their combo, thus completely nullifying it

*Given how bad similar cards like Shared Ride are, the draw eff is probably fine being just draw=counters instead of counters -2, its not like those cards see that much play anyways

*Discard might need to be discard=counters or discard=counters-1 to act as a proper floodgate instead of being just counters -2

*Maybe the card could trigger out of other interactions too, like dumping cards from deck and/or ssing from deck? That might make the card overall harder to play through, as its way harder to combo without dumping to gy/summoning from deck than it is to combo without searching

 

[Pommelo]

12 hours ago, Zefra Zamazenta said:

I know why its only a Draw 3/ Discard 3 otherwise rip 3 Contentious to make it balanced.

... I ... didn't understand this LOL. Contentious wut?

12 hours ago, Lazarus IV said:

This design makes me wonder how good Maxx C would be if it summoned itself to activate its effect and only worked while on the field..  Simply put, that's what this feels like: it's a punishment card, but one that your opponent can actually choose to deal with.  Being a cont. trap means it also has a small window where it operates effectively (turn 1).

Given all that, the second effect is the thing that actually worries me.  It's very easy for an opponent to trigger it accidentally when going second (lightning storm, harpie's feather duster, twin twister) and it's pretty annoying for an opponent to choose to remove it even when it is face-up.  Even though it has a self-banishing effect, tying a floodgate to a self-removal condition usually is not enough to balance it.

Sorry, too tired right now to come up with suggestions~

 

lol that ant-sized text xD. Thanks for your comment and take your time, dw. Yes, the second effect was changed a couple of times during the creation process, and honestly I didn't consider for reference a card such as VE, which is banned for a reason. Yesterday I was thinking of how to deal with this, then drowzy's comment arrived:

4 hours ago, drowsyCoffee said:

Honestly? This card feels like a hella better Waking the Dragon, getting to Droll and Lock your opponent by chaining this card to the activation of a Lighting Storm is a good plan B for a backrow heavy deck on the doomsday scenario where they setted five, their opponent drew the out, and they didnt have a card that could stop them. The rest of the eff is pretty good, but the delayed nature of it, since you'll never be able to use this card as an interruption (By either drawing HTs out of it or discarding cards off their hand mid combo) as the payout eff must be used on your own MP does wonders to balance out the card. Plus, unlike what it looks, this card aint Maxx C, its Shared Ride, and as we all know, that card aint nowhere near as oppressive as Maxx C, decks are plenty good at setting up boards without having to add cards (See 2 Monsters into Verte into Dragoon/Phoenix) if they wanted to play through this card without giving them advantage, and this card is even lenient enough to give em 2 freebies before starting to earn ya advantage. Honestly, taking Shared Ride and it's effectiveness as a precedent to compare this card to, the card's eff on field could probably be able to activate during your opponent's turn, and the draw eff could straight up draw you as many cards as you have tokens instead of tokens -2, and i wouldnt even bat an eye at it. Excellent side deck choice for dealing with Striker. And before anyone says anything about the destruction Droll-like effect, have into consideration that while Droll is plenty annoying as a handtrap, modern decks still are fully capable of playing through it, and its only a few select decks that straight up die against Droll (See Drytron) thus why its a side deck HT like Lancea or Nib and not a main deck one. Same applies to this card, while Droll and Lock-ing your opponent is good, decks can totally play through it, and on an already bad scenario were a Control deck had to let their opponent pop their backrow, Droll and Lock probably wont be enough to save ya from getting Accesscoded. Its a good card, and it gives you kind of a plan B for emergency scenarios, but it is by no means a turn ender card like Maxx C has been

What I make from this amazingly detailed reply is that the first effect is relatively slow and balanced enough thanks to the MP limitation, and that effect 2, while being pretty dangerous, can go through as there are methods to play around it. Then again, the " tying a floodgate to a self-removal condition usually is not enough to balance it." is kinda undeniable, so I'm like this rn:

What I'm thinking right now is to change the continuous effect for a lingering one that is a relatively short lived but harder to avoid. The problem would be, how long it should last, and if such measure is a good idea. Something like this:

If this face-up card you control is sent to the GY by your opponent's card effect, your opponent cannot add cards from their Deck to their hand (except their Normal Draw) until the end of the next turn.

So the opponent triggers it, their fault and this becomes impossible to shake, but they'd only have to wait for a max. of two turns to forget about it. Now, I'm well aware that in modern game that short time is enough to screw you royally, so I need your help in determining the best amount of time. I definitely didn't want to go for the shortest "until the end of this turn", it's just too little, and "until the end of your opponent's next turn" can be either 2 or 3 turns, but that again seems hella strong, and I don't want to go greedy with it.

Btw, something a little something that's not been mentioned so far, but I missed giving the card a "You can only control 1 "Pippola is Caught Infraganti!". I know the probabilities of controlling two of these and starting to place counters simultaneosly on both is tiny, but the idea is scary, for good measure I think I should include it.

1 hour ago, Loleo said:

This actually seems really balanced already! Just because it's a trap it's hard to get some play and it needs to be powerful. It seems like you'll almost allways get those 5 counters by the turn after you play it. I like it I think it just needs some testing.

Yeah, testing makes everything better xD. I was also thinking that getting the counters would be rather quick in most cases, but Drowsy knows better tbh. At any rate, at some point I considered a once per turn clause for counter placing without the -2s, but THAT definitely seemed slow as heck, so I went for the current version.

 

1 hour ago, Loleo said:

Well the second effect being that way discourages board wipes! It  can't be triggered on accident as Ray did specify "face-up" This does make me wonder if you can give a card to your opponent and force them to destroy it, but again this card is slow enough that it's powerful effect isn't doing too much... I say until I remembered chains. I almost wish this card had to be activated in response to an effect that would add cards from your opponent's deck to the hand.

The idea of giving it to the opponent is really fun, but I suppose it would require more specific wording and that will make it a bit unnecessarily convoluted. As for the other idea, I'd rather keep the effect free and not reactive just in case xD.

1 hour ago, Loleo said:

Sorry for the double post I thought I was editing

lol dw, it has happened to me.

 

26 minutes ago, drowsyCoffee said:

Yeah, second eff helps discourages boardwipes, as ya can just chain this to a Feather Duster or the like so its face-up at the moment of ya getting wiped. Still, though, the main problem still is the fact that ya really need to pray to god that your opponent's hand/deck cannot do an Accesscode line through  Droll and Lock, which sadly is kinda unlikely, as things like 2 monsters into Halq into SS Veiler from deck into Selene into Accesscode dont really need any searches whatsoever. Its. Tough. If ya get it out of something like a DPE pop, it's quite a nice eff to trigger, but otherwise in most other scenarios you are faced with the problem that while the effect is good, its not good enough to compensate how bad it is to find yourself being boardwiped as a backrow strategy. Even then, now that i think, most of the time  DPE gets on board at the end of your combo, so that scenario is a tad unlikely. Maybe out of something like a Bardiche pop mid combo in PK Fire, or a Cosmic Cyclone if the card was written in a way that would be triggered by it, and a control strat with GY effs were to be prevalent at the moment? Honestly, given how limiting the scenarios were it might stop your opponent are, the card would probably be fine even if ya could activate the destruction eff on your own, after all, even if that could be archieved by DPE set ups, DPE already has a way better target for those kinds of shenanigans on popping an Artifact Scythe set on board through a Dagda. Feels like there are enough alternatives that it would be less of a problematic card then and more of a match up post side decking choice

 

As for the first eff, its heavily match up dependant, and even then, i feel like its overbalanced a tad. Something like Lyrilusc will trigger this card a thousand times with their multiple Recital Starling set ups, but on the other hand, a lot of decks like PK Fire can just choose to end up on a DPE line going through 1~2 searches only, making so the card is kinda dead on board (Or god forbid, a DPE + Dagda line, since a lot of what's happening there is PK bringing stuff from grave and deck and not that much searching, i think ya end on like, 3 seaches by the end of the line??). I still think that the first eff being a draw number of counters -2 is far too lenient on the opponent, at that point, its just worse Shared Ride and even then that card hasnt seen any play since Full Power Striker. The second option is a whole lot more powerful, but i still think the card probably needs to be able to use the discards during your opponent turn to be a proper floodgate, as otherwise ya arent really that punished by it (And even then, i think that with the discard being Counters -2, there is a sizable enough pool of decks that just Do Not Care about it. At the same time, though, like most situational floodgates, it is meant to be played as a post siding tool, so it being only useful on a select number of match ups isnt even bad so long as those match ups are relatively common). Keep in mind, too, that DPE is one of the most common cards to end boards with as of now, so even if decks were to be somehow reaching counters, so long as the card isnt able of being used during your opponents turn, they could just pop the card with the DPE at the end of their combo when the Droll and Lock floodgate eff is no longer relevant and completely nullify the impact of this card

 

In summary, my opinions are:

*Card is probably fine even if ya can trigger the destruction eff on your own, as other than that scenario, there arent a whole lot of scenarios were the destruction eff archieves that much

*A fix for the weakness of the destruction eff would be to make so it not only floodgates, but also reduces how much damage you take, so ya dont get immediatly OTKd through the lock after being boardwiped. Even then, again, if a control/backrow deck gets boardwiped, things are looking grim, and there arent that many other scenarios than that were the lock would be actually relevant

*Card NEEDS to be able to trigger the payout for your counters during your opponent's turn, otherwise your opponent is fully capable of ignoring this card and popping it at the end of their combo, thus completely nullifying it

*Given how bad similar cards like Shared Ride are, the draw eff is probably fine being just draw=counters instead of counters -2, its not like those cards see that much play anyways

*Discard might need to be discard=counters or discard=counters-1 to act as a proper floodgate instead of being just counters -2

*Maybe the card could trigger out of other interactions too, like dumping cards from deck and/or ssing from deck? That might make the card overall harder to play through, as its way harder to combo without dumping to gy/summoning from deck than it is to combo without searching

 

Alright... ooof. After reading this a couple of times I'm thinking of many possibilities, looking again for middle-ground. Reading the above post makes me realize this card is primarily a side deck card, but that's fine with me, I normally make generic stuff that could help in a handful of situations. Anyway, stuff I want to implement now

- Clause so you can only control 1. Kinda unneeded perhaps but eh.

- I'm digging the idea of including a new type of effect into the counter generating effect, I'm probably adding dumping cards to GY

- I'm changing the -2 to -1, or this becomes hella scary, imo

- The damage reducing effect sounds tempting as heck, but I'm probably not taking it. I'd like to, but the card is already pretty dangerous -under the right circumstances of course- and giving it an additional effect feels like making the card do too many things, I think we should go for simplicity.

- I did mention before a change in effect 2, but still unsure. I'm kinda wanting to make the aforementioned change, but adding the dumping to GY to the equation:

If this face-up card you control is sent to the GY by your opponent's card effect, your opponent cannot add cards from their Deck to their hand (except their Normal Draw) or send cards from the Deck to the GY until the end of the next turn.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Welp, thank a bunch to everyone! Right now I'm not making any changes to the card yet as I'm hoping to get your opinions on the intended changes.

[Tinkerer]

In terms of the current meta you are correct - it's not very effective. Heck, I would even go so far as to agree that the first effect could even be buffed to -1.

However, in terms of future proofing, the card is worrisome, and making the second effect more versatile doesn't help. Remember: the second effect is a permanent, one-sided lock as long as you control a monster. If you have something sticky on your field, that kind of effect can win you the game purely through gained card advantage.

Yes, it would max out as a side deck card, but that doesn't stop it from being essentially game-winning when proc'd.

 

EDIT: Oh, I like Rayfield's suggested changes. I think I like they do a good job with curbing the power on the high end while making it more valuable on the low end.

[drowsyCoffee]

Honestly. Now you're talking, that second lock could probably stop a whole lotta decks like Virtual World on their tracks, and in the end, given that ya are rebuilding from a post-boardwipe scenario in most cases, that feels just like how it should work tbh. There are still probably ways to make a board through it, but most likely, those are limited to certain specific archetypes, and even then ya are directly limiting the ceiling of most decks anyways, since it stops the Verte into DPE setups most decks are playing rn. Feels hella better with that change, now so long as ya have a way to stop the likely Halq Accesscode line coming for ya you should be able to survive until your next turn even if ya got wiped. Feels like Veiler plus this card is a pretty safe set up that you know wont get OTKd unless some major bs happens

[drowsyCoffee]

This card probably is a big silver bullet for control decks to add post sidding into VW, ya can just flip this card and dare them to do anything about it. Instantly makes any Lightning Storm in hand kinda dead, as if they use it to blow up you board, they immediatly get their turn ended on the spot. Big Lancea vs Orcust vibes, i really like it. Might even make decks like that side Galaxy Cyclone specifically for the match up against this card, creating a situation similar to what is going on with Designator and Handtraps. Feels hella nice ngl

[Pommelo]

Alrighto, after the latest replies I made up my mind and implemented the changes! I think it's looking nice!

The permanence of the effect was solved thanks to Lazarus' concern. And like Drowsy says, there are archetypes that can work round this, but that's a good thing, if a card is bullet-proof against everything, then you're doing something wrong, so it's nice it has some holes as long as the rest can shiny at times :)