Silver Phoenix

[Nmaster]

 

Winged Beast / Xyz / Effect

ATK: 3000, DEF: 2000

Attribute: WIND

Rank: 5

 

Lore:

2 Level 5 monsters

Once per turn, when this card battles an Attack Position monster: You can detach 1 Xyz Material from this card; neither monster is destroyed by battle, and inflict damage to your opponent equal to the difference in ATK between the monsters.

 

[spoiler='Alternative (stronger) version:']

 

Winged Beast / Xyz / Effect

ATK: 3000, DEF: 2000

Attribute: WIND

Rank: 5

 

2 Level 5 monsters

Once per turn, when this card battles a monster: You can detach 1 Xyz Material from this card; neither monster is destroyed by battle, and inflict damage to your opponent equal to the difference in ATK between the monsters.[/spoiler]

 

 

[spoiler=''First version"]

 

Silver Phoenix

Rank 5 Xyz-Winged Beast

Attribute: WIND

ATK: 3000, DEF: 2000

 

Lore:

2 Level 5 monsters

When this card battles a face-up Attack Position monster your opponent controls: You can detach 1 Xyz Material from this card; negate the destruction of the monster that would be destroyed and deal damage to the owner of that card equal to the difference in ATK between the monsters. If you do, that effect cannot be used again for the rest of this turn.[/spoiler]

 

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

 

I will be honest: this is my first card in ages and the first Xyz monster I ever designed. Minor OCG errors sure are possible, as are other errors I might have missed. As this card is a test to see if my skills have improved after long abscence, please do rate. I'll try to design more cards when I'm happy about this one.

 

(And I'll admit: this card is slightly based on the YGO-series antagonists ace cards, which all have 3000 ATK :P).

 

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

 

UPDATE - 25/02/14: Thanks for rating! I've tried to update the card a bit, thinking about your comments. Some OCG-errors I made were very stupid... I'm pretty stunned it has been nominated for the Hall of Fame tho, would've never expected that... and especially not as it's my first card in ages!

[Sleepy]

So essentially in is equivalent to not destroying the monster it attacks, but pretty much doubling the damage in exchange.

 

To be honest, I like this concept.

3000 is a bit above the usual Rank 5 mark, but Leo Arms I guess says otherwise so yeah.

Overall Like this card a lot.

 

If anything, I'd say let it also do it with Defense Position monsters. That way you can say "OH Sh..." when you see that Mystic Tomato flipping and decide you want it to survive, plus piercing equip fun.

 

EDIT:

 

OCG fix:

 

2 Level 5 monsters

Once per turn, when this card battles an face-up Attack Position monster your opponent controls: You can detach 1 Xyz Material from this card; negate the destruction of the monster that would be destroyed and deal inflict damage to the owner of that card your opponent equal to the difference in ATK between the monsters. If you do, that effect cannot be used again for the rest of this turn.

 

Explaining reasons for my corrections:

-Adding "Once per turn" saves you the trouble of that long sentence at the end.

-If a monster is in Attack Position, cards don't trouble themselves stating it has to be face-up. The only way face-down Attack Position is possible, is with a 15 year-old card that nobody ever uses, and official lores have decided to just cut that part off.

-You don't have to state "the controller" or "the opponent" for the first line. You can't attack your own monsters.

-"deal" is not used since forever. Even before GX times.

-Your specifying who'll get the burn, your opponent will always get it. The other monster will not go anywhere so you will really never get burned by it.

 

 

That's about all I can think of.

If those corrections are taken care of, I think I found a card interesting enough to nominate to the hall xP

[Toffee.]

Wouldn't it be easier to just note that, upon detaching, neither monster is destroyed by the battle? Current version seems like it could cause some confusion, with regards to trying to ram a monster into it with equal ATK, since in that scenario, both would be destroyed, so which one do you detach for? Obviously you would detach to save your monster, but still.

Also, this card would be really damn funny with something like Shrink, because you would, effectively, deal damage to the opponent equal to that monster's ATK. And because you hit the opponent's monster with Shrink, your other monsters can now run it over. Or something like that. So it's nice that a card like this can lead into some silly combos here and there with an output that leads to a good amount of damage.

[Nmaster]

So essentially in is equivalent to not destroying the monster it attacks, but pretty much doubling the damage in exchange.

 

To be honest, I like this concept.

3000 is a bit above the usual Rank 5 mark, but Leo Arms I guess says otherwise so yeah.

Overall Like this card a lot.

 

If anything, I'd say let it also do it with Defense Position monsters. That way you can say "OH Sh..." when you see that Mystic Tomato flipping and decide you want it to survive, plus piercing equip fun.

 

EDIT:

 

OCG fix:

 

2 Level 5 monsters

Once per turn, when this card battles an face-up Attack Position monster your opponent controls: You can detach 1 Xyz Material from this card; negate the destruction of the monster that would be destroyed and deal inflict damage to the owner of that card your opponent equal to the difference in ATK between the monsters. If you do, that effect cannot be used again for the rest of this turn.

 

Explaining reasons for my corrections:

-Adding "Once per turn" saves you the trouble of that long sentence at the end.

-If a monster is in Attack Position, cards don't trouble themselves stating it has to be face-up. The only way face-down Attack Position is possible, is with a 15 year-old card that nobody ever uses, and official lores have decided to just cut that part off.

-You don't have to state "the controller" or "the opponent" for the first line. You can't attack your own monsters.

-"deal" is not used since forever. Even before GX times.

-Your specifying who'll get the burn, your opponent will always get it. The other monster will not go anywhere so you will really never get burned by it.

 

 

That's about all I can think of.

If those corrections are taken care of, I think I found a card interesting enough to nominate to the hall xP

 

 

Thank you for the OCG fix. As I said, it was my first design in ages and as such, I made some obvious mistakes. I can't believe I used "deal" instead of "inflict" tho...

 

Personally, I like my original version where it's effect only applies when it battles an Attack Position monster only, but I sure understand when you say the effect would be very useful for Defense Position monsters too. That's why I made two versions this time. I placed the stronger one in the first spoiler.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to just note that, upon detaching, neither monster is destroyed by the battle? Current version seems like it could cause some confusion, with regards to trying to ram a monster into it with equal ATK, since in that scenario, both would be destroyed, so which one do you detach for? Obviously you would detach to save your monster, but still.

Also, this card would be really damn funny with something like Shrink, because you would, effectively, deal damage to the opponent equal to that monster's ATK. And because you hit the opponent's monster with Shrink, your other monsters can now run it over. Or something like that. So it's nice that a card like this can lead into some silly combos here and there with an output that leads to a good amount of damage.

 

 

After I finished the original design, it was something I had in mind also. The effect would've been unclear if it's applied for monsters with equal ATK. Your suggestion has solved that problem, thank you  :)

 

And I must thank both of you for the Hall of Fame nomination. I could never have hoped to be nominated for it... and especially not with my first card in ages (and first Xyz in general). I'm a happy man.

 

 

Obviously, I can't say no to more ratings. Please do rate.

[Sleepy]

"When this card declares an attack or is attacked" would look better as "When this card battles a monster".

The way it currently is, it also sounds a bit funny since "declare an attack", "target a monster for an attack", and "attack" are slightly different things. The difference is very small, but it does sound weird having 2 different of these depending on if your monster is the one attacking or not. Not impossible, but, yeah.

 

As for both cards, after you write "destroyed by battle" I think a comma needs to be there. Other than that I see nothing else to point out.

 

I like how it's turning out. Though I like it from the beginning so yeah xD

[Nmaster]

"When this card declares an attack or is attacked" would look better as "When this card battles a monster".

The way it currently is, it also sounds a bit funny since "declare an attack", "target a monster for an attack", and "attack" are slightly different things. The difference is very small, but it does sound weird having 2 different of these depending on if your monster is the one attacking or not. Not impossible, but, yeah.

 

As for both cards, after you write "destroyed by battle" I think a comma needs to be there. Other than that I see nothing else to point out.

 

I like how it's turning out. Though I like it from the beginning so yeah xD

 

 

Corrected cards are up :) Thanks again for the help.