Zone Eater REMAKE

[RedRaptor10]

 

Once per turn, you can select 2 Monster Card Zones that occupy the same column. Monster Cards occupying the selected zones are destroyed. The selected zones cannot be used as long as this card remains face-up on the field.

 

This is my first remake of a card. Whatever it does to your opponent also backfires at you so make sure you place your monsters in the right card zones. If you don't agree with the ocg, look at the Ground Collapse text, although I think I might have a few errors. And before you say "Why not just use Ground Collapse?", well this remake can destroy monsters while Ground Collapse can't select zones occupied by monsters. Tell me what you think. :D

[ragnarok1945]

so it's a lot like Ojama King's effect

 

looks fine in terms of OCG, I see no imbalance on it

 

so I'll give this 9.4/10

[-Griffin]

It's a floater which gives field presence and has no downside? Could be OP'd in a decently made build. Might just be balanced & usable, though.

[RedRaptor10]

i thought its low attack power was a downside

[Master White]

I think it should be for an effect fix as this,

 

Once per turn, you can select 1 Monster Card Zone on the field. If the selected Zone has a monster in it, destroy it. The selected zone cannot be used as long as this card remains face-up on the field.

 

To me, its up'd because of one clue, you know what that is, it effects any Monster zone, even yours. Then again, you don't have to select yours, it says you can select 1 Monster card Zone. So, why didn't you bother to make it just your opponents side of the field? Oh well, I give it a 8.5/10, because I like remakes.

[PenguinZ]

I think it should be for an effect fix as this' date='

 

Once per turn, you can select 1 Monster Card Zone on the field. If the selected Zone has a monster in it, destroy it. The selected zone cannot be used as long as this card remains face-up on the field.

 

To me, its up'd because of one clue, you know what that is, it effects any Monster zone, even yours. Then again, you don't have to select yours, it says you can select 1 Monster card Zone. So, why didn't you bother to make it just your opponents side of the field? Oh well, I give it a 8.5/10, because I like remakes.

[/quote']

 

 

^this^

[Donquixote Doflamingo]

One problem. When the card is removed from the field all the Zones will be allowed to use again. Its so weak that it'll be remove afetr the turn you activate it's effect.

[RedRaptor10]

To me, its up'd because of one clue, you know what that is, it effects any Monster zone, even yours. Then again, you don't have to select yours, it says you can select 1 Monster card Zone. So, why didn't you bother to make it just your opponents side of the field? Oh well, I give it a 8.5/10, because I like remakes.

 

i didn't want to make it overpowered. its effect applies to both you and your opponent's card zones (i think). i do see your point though, so i might change it to just the opponent's side of the field.

 

One problem. When the card is removed from the field all the Zones will be allowed to use again. Its so weak that it'll be remove afetr the turn you activate it's effect.

 

protect it with traps? and plus, it can destroy your opponent's monsters too.

[Master White]

Thats what I figured. Use three of them in your deck.

 

I think I have you figured out. You made it so weak you could have three of them just so you could destroy your opponents monsters that much easier, and if you have gravity bind, it can be boosted up with attack power and so on. So it can only be killed by lv 3 and lower monster if thats your intent, and if so, in a combination, it could be deadly, and that why I gave you an 8.5/10. Good job.

 

P.S

Also, a card can be way to up'd and that means you need another effect. If you make it to op'd, it might be limited/forbidden if it came real. So it kind of applies of being balanced with other cards together if that helps.

[Lord Smeagle]

Low ATK is a downside, except Mist Body. Soooo...yeah. I'd make it so it takes out one on both sides of the field.

[jayjack]

You get to destroy a monster for free plus eat up a monster card zone.. I'd say it's pretty OP..

8/10 oPnEss

[Master White]

Explain how its op'd jayjack. At the end phase, your opponent could just kill it by attacking and nothing happens except monster byebye. If you think that is op'd, then again, it could be op'd, but I really don't think so.

[jayjack]

Explain how its op'd jayjack. At the end phase' date=' your opponent could just kill it by attacking and nothing happens except monster byebye. If you think that is op'd, then again, it could be op'd, but I really don't think so.

[/quote']

 

because it gets a costless destruction. The monster is easily swarmable, and if you get 2 or 3 on the field, you can block all monsters from being summoned on your opponent's side of the field.

[StevenBray]

I'm not a huge fan to remakes - especially remakes of Effect Monsters. Plus I agree its OP because it easily swarmable, costless and easily protectable.

 

Rating: 2/10 - OPness kills the rating, and remaking an already existing monster - and an Effect Monster too boot - seems pointless to me. Sorry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the card is balanced, now that you suffer as much as the opponent does.

 

Rating: 6/10 - Still don't like that its a remake, but its much much than it was before.

[Adogadog8]

I'm not sure how useful these cards would be in battle and im not too sure that you would get 3 on the field all at the same time (Your Irish). I think it's balanced, because of it's ATK power its gonna last a turn and most likely your gonna end up losing more than your opponent. 8/10 (It's a remake)

[RedRaptor10]

I'm not a huge fan to remakes - especially remakes of Effect Monsters. Plus I agree its OP because it easily swarmable' date=' costless and easily protectable.

 

Rating: 2/10 - OPness kills the rating, and remaking an already existing monster - and an Effect Monster too boot - seems pointless to me. Sorry.

[/quote']

 

You might as well rate all the other remakes then. I don't think it's costless, since the effect is supposed to apply to your side of the field too. Notice how I didn't say "opponent's side of the field". So getting 3 of these on your field would mean only blocking 2 of your opponent's monster zones.

[StevenBray]

I think it's balanced' date=' because of it's ATK power its gonna last a turn and most likely your gonna end up losing more than your opponent. 8/10 (It's a remake)

[/quote']

 

This card + Mist Body + Spirit Barrier = Indestructable. OP.

 

I'm not a huge fan to remakes - especially remakes of Effect Monsters. Plus I agree its OP because it easily swarmable' date=' costless and easily protectable.

 

Rating: 2/10 - OPness kills the rating, and remaking an already existing monster - and an Effect Monster too boot - seems pointless to me. Sorry.

[/quote']

 

You might as well rate all the other remakes then. I don't think it's costless, since the effect is supposed to apply to your side of the field too. Notice how I didn't say "opponent's side of the field". So getting 3 of these on your field would mean only blocking 2 of your opponent's monster zones.

 

Unless your opponent has 3 monsters to destroys, like through the effect is "Ojama Trio". Then with 3 "Mist Body"ies (if its possible, not sure) and 1 Spirit Barrier, you are killing are opponent's Attack ability.

[jayjack]

I don't think it's costless, since the effect is supposed to apply to your side of the field too. Notice how I didn't say "opponent's side of the field". So getting 3 of these on your field would mean only blocking 2 of your opponent's monster zones.

 

What? That doesn't make sense O.o Why would it only block 2? O.o

Cost = Something you pay (e.g. discard 1 card/pay 800 LP)

It activates before card's effect takes place.

This card has no cost.

[Master White]

Well, you did tell me, it is easily swarmable with effect cards, thanks JayJack, didn't notice that. I wasn't being myself, oh well. Its op'd, make a drawback or something, please. 7/10.

[RedRaptor10]

I don't think it's costless' date=' since the effect is supposed to apply to your side of the field too. Notice how I didn't say "opponent's side of the field". So getting 3 of these on your field would mean only blocking 2 of your opponent's monster zones.

[/quote']

 

What? That doesn't make sense O.o Why would it only block 2? O.o

Cost = Something you pay (e.g. discard 1 card/pay 800 LP)

It activates before card's effect takes place.

This card has no cost.

 

its effect applies to both players. say you bring out 3 of these. if you block 3 of your opponent's card zones, your card zones will be affected too. So that would mean you'd have to get rid of 1 of your Zone Eaters. and i might add a cost like discarding 1 card from the hand to activate the effect

 

EDT: sorry, in the card in effect i originally meant to say it affects both player's zones (directly across). I didn't know that a zone was only meant for 1 player's side of the field.

[StevenBray]

I don't think it's costless' date=' since the effect is supposed to apply to your side of the field too. Notice how I didn't say "opponent's side of the field". So getting 3 of these on your field would mean only blocking 2 of your opponent's monster zones.

[/quote']

 

What? That doesn't make sense O.o Why would it only block 2? O.o

Cost = Something you pay (e.g. discard 1 card/pay 800 LP)

It activates before card's effect takes place.

This card has no cost.

 

its effect applies to both players. say you bring out 3 of these. if you block 3 of your opponent's card zones, your card zones will be affected too. So that would mean you'd have to get rid of 1 of your Zone Eaters. and i might add a cost like discarding 1 card from the hand to activate the effect

 

But you select 1 "monster card zone", when you select 1 on your opponent's field (or yours), it doesn't mean you select 1 anywhere on your field the way you've written it; not to me anyway. But I do agree that maybe adding a discard cost would help it be more fair.

[RedRaptor10]

I changed the card. I didn't know "column" was a yugioh term cuz I stopped collecting yugioh cards back in 2005. Anyways, I'm not sure if the ocg is correct. If it's wrong, please tell me.

[jayjack]

Oh that makes a difference. Now i see what you mean. change rating to 8.8/10

[psychicplayer]

you know this is already a pic of of another card, and the name is the same with the picture??!

 

you get a 1/10 becuase it isn't origianl

[έκλειψη]

You know this is a REMAKE?

 

I dun mind it, though I don't really feel like rating it. Nice job.