"Eve of Destruction": Attack! Attack! Attack!

[Stan Alda]

For some reason, I've been on a Cold War kick for the past week or so. This is the polar opposite of "Swords of Revealing Light": instead of preventing your opponent from attacking, it forces both players to attack constantly, causing mutually assured destruction. It's a highly dangerous card for both players, but Trap-oriented players will love their opponent's reckless--and sometimes pointless--attacks.

[b][i]Eve of Destruction[/i][/b]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/e8DPE.jpg[/img]
TRAP
You can only activate this card when your opponent destroys a monster by battle. Flip all monsters on the field into face-up Attack Position. This card remains on the field for 3 of your opponent's turns. While this card is face-up on the field, both players must declare at least 1 attack during their respective turns, if possible. If they cannot, they must discard 1 Monster from their hand. While this card is face-up on the field, neither player can set Monsters, and Monsters' Battle Positions cannot be changed.

[Strider Tigerwolf]

[size=3][color=#000000]I wonder how this is not a Quick Play spell because then the design on it is just as useless as Soul Rope (which can't be activated during damage calculations...fml). And even as a quickplay, the ability to activate Trap Cards from the hand is too much of a huge advantage. It's one of the reasons why [background=rgb(255, 139, 83)]MAKYURA THE DESTRUCTO[/background] was banned in the first place. The forced attack per turn makes the card kind of...unattractive to play. So what were you trying to accomplish with the card?[/color][/size]

[Stan Alda]

[quote name='Chance Furlong' timestamp='1346956752' post='6020291']
[size=3][color=#000000]I wonder how this is not a Quick Play spell because then the design on it is just as useless as Soul Rope (which can't be activated during damage calculations...fml). And even as a quickplay, the ability to activate Trap Cards from the hand is too much of a huge advantage. It's one of the reasons why [background=rgb(255, 139, 83)]MAKYURA THE DESTRUCTO[/background] was banned in the first place. The forced attack per turn makes the card kind of...unattractive to play. So what were you trying to accomplish with the card?[/color][/size]
[/quote]
As I said, it's essentially the opposite of Swords; it's designed to cause chaos and--ideally--force your opponent to make bad moves. I considered making it only affect the opponent and make it a Quick-Play, but I thought that was OP'd.

[Strider Tigerwolf]

Well the way the card is set up it can't activate during the indicated timing.,,,making it useless.

[Leviathin Dragon]

dude this is sick....the way i see this is a double edge sword ..your either gonna benifit from this alot or your going to screwed really hard....but then again just as easy as it would be for me to play a trap from my hand due to this cards effect i was already capable of doing with an MST or god forbid a de spell

[Stan Alda]

[quote name='Leviathin Dragon' timestamp='1346964473' post='6020355']
dude this is sick....the way i see this is a double edge sword ..your either gonna benifit from this alot or your going to screwed really hard....but then again just as easy as it would be for me to play a trap from my hand due to this cards effect i was already capable of doing with an MST or god forbid a de spell
[/quote]
That's basically it. As for the trap thing, it's designed to use cards like Mirror Force, Blast Sphere, Adhesive Explosive, or other attack punishers to screw your opponent over...ideally. I changed it to a Quick Spell so it's actually possible to use.

[Leviathin Dragon]

ya but you gotta remember that means its also easier to counter those traps as well.....for exampple what if i throw down trap stun...??

[Stan Alda]

[quote name='Leviathin Dragon' timestamp='1346969772' post='6020421']
ya but you gotta remember that means its also easier to counter those traps as well.....for exampple what if i throw down trap stun...??
[/quote]
Assuming they have it. At the very least, it's meant to cause a little chaos and irritate people that wait for the "perfect" moment. I thought about it a bit longer and realized that it's a subtle protest against war in general; it's stupid and causes chaos that can upset an otherwise peaceful game. Damn, I'm deep.

[Leviathin Dragon]

ya but at the same time this could really hurt you ...i would advise changing this up a bit...for example you should say they attack each turnn if able ..

that would open up some things for younlike you could double tht with swords to make it to where only your guys are attacking however it would be alot smarter to play swords by itself on that

you could try playing down a wall creature meaning its got heavy defense or heavy offense for example xx-saber gottoms or even leviathan dragon and spell bind it or god forbid ring of magnetism so on top of having to attack they must attack gottoms or leviathan and you dont have to attack at all..or rather you cant because of spell bind or similiar spell or trap

[Strider Tigerwolf]

It won't hurt. It's called Exodia and being able to activate Reckless Greed, Jar of Greed, Appropriate, Hope for Escape, Legacy of Yata-Garasu and The Gift of Greed, you know something is wrong. Making cards that ativate traps from the hand is just bad design unless extremely restricted like Jetroid. There's only a certain time and gap where you can activate Trap from the hand with this and the reason people don't use it is because of 1 thing: "IT SUCKS".

Now before you had this as a Normal Spell card which was completely useless because it wouldn't be able to activate in it's correct timing. Now that it's a Quick-Play it's broken. Why?

Here's the Exodia Scenario:

Opponent has a monster with 400+ ATK on the field, I have this and Card Trooper in hand + several other traps in hand.

Normal Card Trooper, ram into the opponent, then activate this card. Draw 1 from Card Trooper. Activate Reckless, draw 2, Activate Appropriate, activate Dark World Dealings, draw 1 - discard, then draw 2 for appropriate, draw 1 from One Day Peace then draw another 2 from Appropriate, activate another appropriate, activate Cup of Ace, either draw 2 from the effect, or draw 4 from both Appropriates, etc, etc.

It's too abusable....

[Stan Alda]

[quote name='Chance Furlong' timestamp='1347027346' post='6020734']
It won't hurt. It's called Exodia and being able to activate Reckless Greed, Jar of Greed, Appropriate, Hope for Escape, Legacy of Yata-Garasu and The Gift of Greed, you know something is wrong. Making cards that ativate traps from the hand is just bad design unless extremely restricted like Jetroid. There's only a certain time and gap where you can activate Trap from the hand with this and the reason people don't use it is because of 1 thing: "IT SUCKS".

Now before you had this as a Normal Spell card which was completely useless because it wouldn't be able to activate in it's correct timing. Now that it's a Quick-Play it's broken. Why?

Here's the Exodia Scenario:

Opponent has a monster with 400+ ATK on the field, I have this and Card Trooper in hand + several other traps in hand.

Normal Card Trooper, ram into the opponent, then activate this card. Draw 1 from Card Trooper. Activate Reckless, draw 2, Activate Appropriate, activate Dark World Dealings, draw 1 - discard, then draw 2 for appropriate, draw 1 from One Day Peace then draw another 2 from Appropriate, activate another appropriate, activate Cup of Ace, either draw 2 from the effect, or draw 4 from both Appropriates, etc, etc.

It's too abusable....
[/quote]
I didn't realize how much could be done with that clause. I dropped the "Trap from the hand" clause and changed it to a Trap card, allowing your opponent to counter it with MST/Storm before you use it.

[Mehmani]

Written Cards go in Written Cards, I'm afraid.

[Strider Tigerwolf]

[color=#000000][size=4]I just realized it hasn't been done so:[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=4]"A[background=rgb(251, 253, 254)]ctivate only when your opponent destroys a monster by battle. Flip all monsters on the field into face-up Attack Position. This card remains on the field for 3 of your opponent's turns. While this card is face-up on the field, both players must declare at least 1 attack during their respective Battle Phases. "[/background][/size][/color]

[background=rgb(251, 253, 254)][font="comic sans ms, cursive"][color="#000000"]Now it's a shennanigans card that sees interestingly trollish yet clever plays. Something tells me this will combo well with "Staunch Defender".[/color][/font][/background]

[Stan Alda]

[quote name='Mihails Tāls' timestamp='1347030072' post='6020757']
Written Cards go in Written Cards, I'm afraid.
[/quote]
I made the card image again; I guess it didn't post correctly. Please move it back.

[Strider Tigerwolf]

[quote name='Mihails Tāls' timestamp='1347030072' post='6020757']
Written Cards go in Written Cards, I'm afraid.
[/quote]

It wasn't a written card. It was an image card, and I think he's re-making the card as we speak....

[Stan Alda]

[quote name='Chance Furlong' timestamp='1347030487' post='6020764']
It wasn't a written card. It was an image card, and I think he's re-making the card as we speak....
[/quote]
Just did.

[Strider Tigerwolf]

I'd recommend pming him, but I'll assume you already did.

OT - It honestly looks okay. Because it's now a Trap Card itself it will prove useful since it can activate in the right timing and force weak monsters to battle, whether they like it or not which can cripple decks that run boss monsters like Dark Worlds, Chaos Dragons, Spellbooks, but even so there are still better options out there. It's a great card for casual play though.

[Wyvernstorm]

I don't know if someone has asked this already or this is just a stupid question...but i've been wondering, if a player doesn't declare an attack because it can't, such as when he/she control no monster, what will happen then? (is there any negative effect or such?)
Take a look at this part..."While this card is face-up on the field, [b][color=#ff0000]both players must declare at least 1 attack during their respective Battle Phases.[/color][/b]"
Can't people just skip their battle phase and proceed to the End Phase, especially when they control no monster?

Maybe you can add "if they control monster(s)" after the redbolded part.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

[Stan Alda]

[quote name='Wyvernstorm' timestamp='1347032924' post='6020774']
I don't know if someone has asked this already or this is just a stupid question...but i've been wondering, if a player doesn't declare an attack because it can't, such as when he/she control no monster, what will happen then? (is there any negative effect or such?)
Take a look at this part..."While this card is face-up on the field, [b][color=#ff0000]both players must declare at least 1 attack during their respective Battle Phases.[/color][/b]"
Can't people just skip their battle phase and proceed to the End Phase, especially when they control no monster?

Correct me if i'm wrong.
[/quote]
Good question. I assumed that the clause "if possible" was assumed in attack-forcing effects, like how "Once per turn, during your Main Phase" is evidently an assumed phrase. I'll correct the "Battle Phase" part to "turn", but I'm not sure about a penalty. I'll fix it on Monday; I'll be busy over the weekend.

[Strider Tigerwolf]

If a monster is in face-up Attack Position and has no other "effects" or "conditions that must be met" for it to attack, then it "MUST" attack. If monsters are switched to Defense Position and cannot declare an attack while in Defense Position (Unless otherwise), then they cannot conduct battle and the effect "fizzles" or does not take play.

[Wyvernstorm]

[quote name='Stan Alda' timestamp='1347033249' post='6020777']
Good question. I assumed that the clause "if possible" was assumed in attack-forcing effects, like how "Once per turn, during your Main Phase" is evidently an assumed phrase. I'll correct the "Battle Phase" part to "turn", but I'm not sure about a penalty. I'll fix it on Monday; I'll be busy over the weekend.
[/quote]

Yeah i found some cards with "if possible" on its eff, i think it's written like that to avoid this typical confusion, especially when it said "[b]must[/b]".

Negative/punishment eff will be nice of course.

[quote name='Chance Furlong' timestamp='1347033466' post='6020778']
If a monster is in face-up Attack Position and has no other "effects" or "conditions that must be met" for it to attack, then it "MUST" attack. [b]If monsters are switched to Defense Position and cannot declare an attack while in Defense Position (Unless otherwise), then they cannot conduct battle and the effect "fizzles" or does not take play.[/b]
[/quote]

It's a different story if i understand it correctly.
Since it said "both players [b]must[/b]", it sounds like both players must met the condition.
Besides, if it's truly like you said, about 'switched to Defense Position' and all, the player can avoid its condition EASILY by switching their monster's battle position into Defense Position...this card will become useless..

I prefer by adding some "if possible" and some punishment eff.
But u know, i'm just saying...don't be angry

[Strider Tigerwolf]

[quote name='Wyvernstorm' timestamp='1347034192' post='6020783']
Yeah i found some cards with "if possible" on its eff, i think it's written like that to avoid this typical confusion, especially when it said "[b]must[/b]".

Negative/punishment eff will be nice of course.



It's a different story if i understand it correctly.
Since it said "both players [b]must[/b]", it sounds like both players must met the condition.
Besides, if it's truly like you said, about 'switched to Defense Position' and all, the player can avoid its condition EASILY by switching their monster's battle position into Defense Position...this card will become useless..

I prefer by adding some "if possible" and some punishment eff.
But u know, i'm just saying...don't be angry
[/quote]

The way it's worded makes it play off like that. And yeah that's where I was getting at the fact that this card would be more of a "Casual.dek" play then a competitive one. The "If possible" would do very minor changes, but not really....unless I'm incorrect then please state why so I may learn

[Wyvernstorm]

If we add "If possible" on its eff while the players can always make it impossible, what's the point?
Instead of making it like that, maybe we can make the eff not just flipping all face-down monsters into face-up Attack Position, we actually can make the eff also force the currently face-up monsters to Attack Position, like this


"Activate only during the start of your opponent's Battle Phase.[b] Flip all face-down monsters on the field face-up. The Battle position of all face-up monsters on the field become Attack Position. Both players cannot Set monster.[/b] This card remains face-up on the field for 3 turns (started from this turn). During each player's Battle Phase; the player must declare at least 1 attack, if not, that player must send 1 card from the top of his/her Deck to the Graveyard."

There, i've added "positioning force" effect on it, and also the activation seems easier to pull.
Last but not least, i've added a punishment, too.


Cmiiw, don't be angry OK

[Stan Alda]

[quote name='Wyvernstorm' timestamp='1347037696' post='6020810']
If we add "If possible" on its eff while the players can always make it impossible, what's the point?
Instead of making it like that, maybe we can make the eff not just flipping all face-down monsters into face-up Attack Position, we actually can make the eff also force the currently face-up monsters to Attack Position, like this


"Activate only during the start of your opponent's Battle Phase.[b] Flip all face-down monsters on the field face-up. The Battle position of all face-up monsters on the field become Attack Position. Both players cannot Set monster.[/b] This card remains face-up on the field for 3 turns (started from this turn). During each player's Battle Phase; the player must declare at least 1 attack, if not, that player must send 1 card from the top of his/her Deck to the Graveyard."

There, i've added "positioning force" effect on it, and also the activation seems easier to pull.
Last but not least, i've added a punishment, too.


Cmiiw, don't be angry OK
[/quote]
Relax, kid; I don't get angry over stuff like this. I think your card grammar is off, but I get your point. I'll fix it ASAP.

I think it's fixed now. This is the most attention I've gotten in a while, so I'm quite pleased.