Stan Alda Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 I'm really beginning to run out of ideas. Who uses Normal Defense-Position strategies anyway? Oh well. [b][i]Eisbrecher[/i][/b] [img]http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/9381/190391vy.jpg[/img] WATER Level 7 Machine/Effect When this monster declares an attack on a monster in face-down Defense Position, flip the card (effects are not activated). If the monster is a Normal Monster, destroy the card and inflict damage to your opponent's Life Points equal to the difference between "Icebreaker"'s ATK and the destroyed monster's DEF. If not, destroy the monster (damage is not calculated). 2700/2300 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Darkness Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 [b]OCG Fix:[/b] When a monster attacks a face-down Defense Position: Destroy that monster without applying damage calculation. If that monster was a Normal Monster: Inflict damage to your opponent equal to the difference between that monster's original DEF and this card's ATK. Overall, it will be mainly used as an anti-'Worm' monster, and I do like the WATER Machine match-up (something you don't see very often). Overall, not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Alda Posted October 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 [i][b]When a monster attacks a face-down Defense Position: Destroy that monster without applying damage calculation. If that monster was a Normal Monster: Inflict damage to your opponent equal to the difference between that monster's original DEF and this card's ATK.[/b][/i] When it says "a monster", does it mean Icebreaker specifically, or any monster? And shouldn't it be "face-down Defense Position [i]monster[/i]"? Beyond that, I appreciate the help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Darkness Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 [quote name='En Almhjbat Wahd' timestamp='1317765747' post='5560716'] [i][b]When a monster attacks a face-down Defense Position: Destroy that monster without applying damage calculation. If that monster was a Normal Monster: Inflict damage to your opponent equal to the difference between that monster's original DEF and this card's ATK.[/b][/i] When it says "a monster", does it mean Icebreaker specifically, or any monster? And shouldn't it be "face-down Defense Position [i]monster[/i]"? Beyond that, I appreciate the help. [/quote] I misread your original effect. Fixed: [i][b]When this card attacks a face-down Defense Position monster: Destroy that monster without applying damage calculation. If that monster was a Normal Monster: Inflict damage to your opponent equal to the difference between that monster's original DEF and this card's ATK.[/b][/i] However, I think it would be much better if it gave Defense-destruction to all monsters on the field instead of just itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Alda Posted October 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 I disagree. I intended this to pave the way through face-down monsters so others could deliver the real killing blow, like a real icebreaker. I'm a bit of a stickler for realism. Would it work better if I increased its ATK or improved its existing effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Darkness Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 [quote name='En Almhjbat Wahd' timestamp='1317766405' post='5560748'] I disagree. I intended this to pave the way through face-down monsters so others could deliver the real killing blow, like a real icebreaker. I'm a bit of a stickler for realism. Would it work better if I increased its ATK or improved its existing effect? [/quote] The problem with that is that it then can't stand as a good trump, especially considering how fast some the 'Worms' are. I don't think raising the ATK or improving the effect would add anything, since it would still only be a once-per-turn strike-through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Alda Posted October 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Attack multiple cards, maybe? I don't know. I didn't have the Worms in mind to begin with; this was mostly to remedy writer's block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted October 5, 2011 Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 well this will destroy any face down card this way Don't really think attacking multiple cards is a good idea though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Alda Posted October 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 To be honest, I'm satisfied with it as it is. Maybe I'll think of another single today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Alda Posted October 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 Very slight change--now it's Eisbrecher. You should probably get the reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.