OMGAJELLYFISH

[Gospel.]

[center][img]http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/7376/331207e.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]This card cannot be destroyed by the effects of Spell or Trap Cards. As long as this card remains face up on your field, your opponent cannot select another level 4 or lower Aqua-Type Monster you control other than "The Fortuitous Jelly" as an attack target. If this card is destroyed by battle, increase the ATK and DEF of all Aqua-Type Monsters you control by 400 until the End Phase of your next turn. [/center]

[seattleite]

Ok I love this card. Helps WATER out soo much. Only 1 thing which worrys me, in this sentence:

"As long as this card remains face up on your field, your opponent cannot select level 4 or lower Aqua-Type Monsters you control as attack targets."

...that doesn't include the jellyfish itself does it? If not then it's good.

[Gospel.]

[quote name='seattleite' timestamp='1292831748' post='4866958']
Ok I love this card. Helps WATER out soo much. Only 1 thing which worrys me, in this sentence:

"As long as this card remains face up on your field, your opponent cannot select level 4 or lower Aqua-Type Monsters you control as attack targets."

...that doesn't include the jellyfish itself does it? If not then it's good.
[/quote]

how would I word it to exclude itself? I didnt think about that . Well, I could make it a Level 5 and buff its ATK by several hundred.

[seattleite]

[quote name='WhatYouTalkinBoutWillis?' timestamp='1292831951' post='4866963']
how would I word it to exclude itself? I didnt think about that
[/quote]


you'd just add "except this card" to the end

[MystirMeme]

[quote name='WhatYouTalkinBoutWillis?' timestamp='1292831951' post='4866963']
how would I word it to exclude itself? I didnt think about that . Well, I could make it a Level 5 and buff its ATK by several hundred.
[/quote]

"As long as this card remains face up on your field, your opponent cannot select another level 4 or lower Aqua-Type Monster you control other than "The Fortuitous Jellyfish" as an attack target."

Just an idea about how you should word it.

[Azphreal]

Mostly just what everyone else said. Otherwise it [i]can't[/i] be destroyed by battle
Nice.

[Gospel.]

fixed!

[judedudemude]

pretty good card not alot of people do the water and aqua type
so cheers for doing something different

[Gospel.]

anyone else?

[The Sleeping Dude]

good enough great with Frogs as all frogs are aqua!

8.5/10

[Gospel.]

I like frogs. They ribbit and they doesnt afraid of anything.

[War Chess]

I loved it, but 1 question :
If it cannot be destroyed by battle, why it has an effect that activates when its destroyed by battle ?
Great image, balance and perfect OCG !
10/10

[Gospel.]

It cant be destroyed by spells or traps. It CAN be destroyed by battle

[War Chess]

Ah !
Sorry. I think I read it wrong.
I thing you should switch this. make is undestructible by battle is better than by spells and traps.

[Gospel.]

too lazy. xD

[War Chess]

yeah, its because I love stall effects.

[Ieyasu Tokugawa]

[quote name='War Chess' timestamp='1292857385' post='4867485']
yeah, its because I love stall effects.
[/quote]
You pull off an attack lock with this thing, I don't think you'll be worried about it being destroyed by battle.

Good thing you can't pull an attack lock with 2 of these. Can you say nearly indestructible shield?

[Gospel.]

anymore? I feel a song coming on.

[Smesh]

You do realize that if you have two of them, there is NO way to destroy them?

It'd be banned.

EDIT: I guess you could use Skill Drain, but still. It'd be banned.

[Gospel.]

not sure Im seeing the flaw.

[Smesh]

Well, if you have 2 of them, you can't attack either. And they can't be destroyed by S/T's. They're invincible unless you indirectly destroy them, ex: take their effect away with Skill Drain.

So Konami would ban this because it's lock is just too powerful.

[Gospel.]

but "other than 'The Fortuitous Jelly" means that you cant target other Aqua types. Only "Fortuitous Jelly" can be targeted for an attack. And with moderate ATK and DEF I dont think it would be difficult to destroy it by battle.

And if it isnt, just only allow one per deck.

[Smesh]

Aw f*** no.

Misread again.

It's fine.

[Gospel.]

Its cool. I was just baffled because I knew you could easily destroy this in battle.