Flareburst Phoenix [Single Challenge 84/100]

[Ren✧]

Neither player takes Battle Damage from battles involving this card. During your Standby Phase: You can destroy 1 face-up monster you control; Special Summon this card from your Graveyard. If this card is destroyed by an opponent's monster by battle, your opponent selects and activates 1 of the following effects:

●: Destroy the monster that this card battles with.

●: Inflict damage to the controller of the monster that this card battled with equal to the ATK of the monster.

[hr]

Known to rise from the ashes of its defeat, the phoenix plans to make a new name for itself by reducing its opponent's to nothing but smoldering remains.

[Syncopation]

When the card says "Inflict damage to your opponent equal to the ATK of the monster this card battled with", does that mean to the controller of "Flareburst Phoenix" or to the opponent that destroyed "Flareburst Phoenix" with his/her monster? Sorry, but the card text confuses me. 

[MaliceACard]

So I can destroy 1 of my monsters to special summon it from the graveyard? If it is destroyed by my opponent they get to chose rather to lose a monster or take life point damage? I really don't see what the point of these effects are. As I would not want to destroy 1 of my monsters to summon it, and I really think it should only do 1 of those and the whole thing about your opponent choosing shouldn't be there. As well as the banishing it after it is special summoned as it isn't all that powerful. May I suggest 1 of these as the only effects.

 

"If this card is destroyed by an opponent's monster by battle, destroy the monster that battled with this card"

or

"If this card is destroyed by an opponent's monster by battle, inflict direct damage to your opponent equal to the ATK of the monster that destroyed this card"

[Ren✧]

When the card says "Inflict damage to your opponent equal to the ATK of the monster this card battled with", does that mean to the controller of "Flareburst Phoenix" or to the opponent that destroyed "Flareburst Phoenix" with his/her monster? Sorry, but the card text confuses me. 

 

The damage is inflicted to your opponent, not you, that would just be terrible design.

 

 

So I can destroy 1 of my monsters to special summon it from the graveyard? If it is destroyed by my opponent they get to chose rather to lose a monster or take life point damage? I really don't see what the point of these effects are. As I would not want to destroy 1 of my monsters to summon it, and I really think it should only do 1 of those and the whole thing about your opponent choosing shouldn't be there. As well as the banishing it after it is special summoned as it isn't all that powerful. May I suggest 1 of these as the only effects.

 

"If this card is destroyed by an opponent's monster by battle, destroy the monster that battled with this card"

or

"If this card is destroyed by an opponent's monster by battle, inflict direct damage to your opponent equal to the ATK of the monster that destroyed this card"

 

 

The destruction of the monster is supposed to support Fire Kings, and if I didn't add the banishing then the card would be op'ed, at least in my opinion. The reason there is a choice is to further player interaction, forcing your opponent to actually think about the duel.

[Syncopation]

The damage is inflicted to your opponent, not you, that would just be terrible design

 

and if I didn't add the banishing then the card would be op'ed, 

1. If that was the case, then the effect would be something like: * Inflict damage equal to the ATK of the monster that destroyed this card to your lifepoints. Because the thing is, your opponent is choosing the card effect as if it is his/her own card(in other words, they will be reading it as your opponent). Your wording will cause it to be ticket to your own destruction. It's like if your opponent activated "Changing Destiny" and the card effect allowed your opponent to choose the effect instead of you or if you activated "Half or Nothing" and it's your choice.

2. It's not really op'ed to begin with. In fact, it will be practically useless in a actual duel. I mean, why do I want to waste a monster to summon another monster which your opponent probably will not attack(if they do, it might attack this thing with a Kuriboh) and possibly would take serious damage due to it's incredibly low stats, when I can use "Magical Cylinder" and/or "Sakuretsu Armor" and get similar but better results. That's another thing: it is so replaceable. There are so many cards that has similar effects(and not to mention nearly all of them either protects your monsters, yourself, and in most cases both). And, in this day of age, there are many cards that can revive banished monsters(D.D. Master, D.D. Reincarnation, Levaith Dragon, the list can go on...)

[Ren✧]

1. If that was the case, then the effect would be something like: * Inflict damage equal to the ATK of the monster that destroyed this card to your lifepoints. Because the thing is, your opponent is choosing the card effect as if it is his/her own card(in other words, they will be reading it as your opponent). Your wording will cause it to be ticket to your own destruction. It's like if your opponent activated "Changing Destiny" and the card effect allowed your opponent to choose the effect instead of you or if you activated "Half or Nothing" and it's your choice.

2. It's not really op'ed to begin with. In fact, it will be practically useless in a actual duel. I mean, why do I want to waste a monster to summon another monster which your opponent probably will not attack(if they do, it might attack this thing with a Kuriboh) and possibly would take serious damage due to it's incredibly low stats, when I can use "Magical Cylinder" and/or "Sakuretsu Armor" and get similar but better results. That's another thing: it is so replaceable. There are so many cards that has similar effects(and not to mention nearly all of them either protects your monsters, yourself, and in most cases both). And, in this day of age, there are many cards that can revive banished monsters(D.D. Master, D.D. Reincarnation, Levaith Dragon, the list can go on...)

 

 

On your first point, I think you are incorrect. Because the card is still under your control, therefore it should still work properly, but I don't know for sure. The use of your in your suggestion I think is most definitely wrong. I will try to rework it though so that it is more easily understandable.

 

On your second point, do you know how Fire Kings work? As I said, this was made to support their playstyle. They want to be destroyed, allowing them to activate their effects, which could lead to a possible 2700 major beater onto your field. Just btw, Sakuretsu armor isn't used. You don't need to lecture me about 'this day and age' I am fairly aware of the current meta game. This card was created to further player interaction, something that the current meta game doesn't do.

[Syncopation]

On your first point, I think you are incorrect. Because the card is still under your control, therefore it should still work properly, but I don't know for sure. The use of your in your suggestion I think is most definitely wrong. I will try to rework it though so that it is more easily understandable.

 

On your second point, do you know how Fire Kings work? As I said, this was made to support their playstyle. They want to be destroyed, allowing them to activate their effects, which could lead to a possible 2700 major beater onto your field. Just btw, Sakuretsu armor isn't used. You don't need to lecture me about 'this day and age' I am fairly aware of the current meta game. This card was created to further player interaction, something that the current meta game doesn't do.

1. The wording is the only thing that make this card seems...off... when dealing with how much since it makes.

2. I know fully well what Fire Kings do. And since you mention the Kings, I understand what your going for. But, I can't see this card standing among the Fire Kings. In fact, the Fire Kings don't really need an abundance of support. They're not delicate monsters, they're the type of cards that only needs searchers and a good boss monster(s)(and cards of mass destruction). 

3. And what do you mean by "player interaction"? If you mean card wise, there are at least 20 cards that can do just that. If you mean social wise, there is hella lot of that(espeically online :p)

[Ren✧]

1. The wording is the only thing that make this card seems...off... when dealing with how much since it makes.

2. I know fully well what Fire Kings do. And since you mention the Kings, I understand what your going for. But, I can't see this card standing among the Fire Kings. In fact, the Fire Kings don't really need an abundance of support. They're not delicate monsters, they're the type of cards that only needs searchers and a good boss monster(s)(and cards of mass destruction). 

3. And what do you mean by "player interaction"? If you mean card wise, there are at least 20 cards that can do just that. If you mean social wise, there is hella lot of that(espeically online :P)

 

I mean actually having to think about their moves instead of 'draw, play, special summon, xyz summon, win'. The longer you are around here, you will understand that cards that open up a way to mass summoning, destructive loops, draw loops, OTKs, etc are not as appreciated as though that utilize creativity and those that actually take someone with a brain to use and counter. I'm aware they aren't delicate monsters, seeing as I use them, but I just thought it would be fun to make a card that could open up some gimicky strategies. 

[Syncopation]

I respect you for make a card that opens a wider range of possibilities of new strategies for your favorite monster(s). That is why this site was created(don't quote me on that). But, the card is just off in the eyes; but of course, I'm just one person speaking out his/her thoughts. If I pissed you off, which I probably did judging on the previous comments, then I apologize.

[Ren✧]

I respect you for make a card that opens a wider range of possibilities of new strategies for your favorite monster(s). That is why this site was created(don't quote me on that). But, the card is just off in the eyes; but of course, I'm just one person speaking out his/her thoughts. If I pissed you off, which I probably did judging on the previous comments, then I apologize.

 

Nah, not mad. It seems that posts can be taken that way over the internet. I just wasn't sure if you knew how Fire Kings were played. It seems as if I was being overly cautious with the card. Fixed it up a bit, if you want to take a look at it. 

[Therrion]

I don't feel that Fire Kings need more support, but, that being said, this card would work great with them. I am usually against seeing every FIRE Archetype supporting card having 200 DEF, as I feel like it's rather uncreative design, I have to shrug it off. I don't really see much a point in having your opponent choose, as it's not OP enough of an effect to have to have your opponent choose. Other then that, the Summoning/Destroying on SP is fine for the Deck. It would definitely make me not want to fight them even more.

[Ren✧]

I don't feel that Fire Kings need more support, but, that being said, this card would work great with them. I am usually against seeing every FIRE Archetype supporting card having 200 DEF, as I feel like it's rather uncreative design, I have to shrug it off. I don't really see much a point in having your opponent choose, as it's not OP enough of an effect to have to have your opponent choose. Other then that, the Summoning/Destroying on SP is fine for the Deck. It would definitely make me not want to fight them even more.

 

I am getting that having your opponent choose is a bad idea. I'll think about changing it. And yeah, FIRE monsters don't really need more support, especially Fire Kings, but they make for easy cards to make, and when competing in a contest, sometimes you have to resort to that. Anyway, thanks for the review!