Illusionist of the Ice Barrier (revisited)

[Darj]

After realizing that my definition of card design was way off, I decided to tone this card down in an attempt of making it fair. This is what I got:

 

2 Level 4 "Ice Barrier" monsters

Once per turn: You can detach 1 Xyz Material from this card to activate 1 of these effects, depending on the number of "Ice Barrier" monsters you control.

• 1 or more: Target 1 face-up card on the field; return that target to the hand, and this card's original ATK becomes 2300.

• 2 or more: Target 1 face-up card your opponent controls; destroy that target, and this card's original ATK becomes 2500.

• 3 or more: Target 1 face-up card your opponent controls; banish that target, and this card's original ATK becomes 2700.

This card cannot attack the turn you activate this effect.

 

While bouncing is certainly more powerful than the destruction effect, I decided to stick with bouncing as the first effect to reflect the hierarchy of Brionac < Gungnir < Trishula when it comes to Monster Level and stats, for a bit of flavor. In addition, it grants the monster a quite powerful effect while it is standing alone, and thus relies less on other Ice Barriers.

 

[spoiler=In case you are interested in the card's flavor:]

- It is meant to be a homage to the 3 Ice Barrier Dragons.

- There is a difference of 200 ATK and 300 DEF between the dragons, and this card follows them by having 200 ATK and 300 DEF less than Brionac.

- The dragon seen in the artwork is more of a familiar that the Illusionist turns into a way-too-real illusion of 1 of the Ice Barrier Dragons, and it is imbued with their powers; this is done through the use of "Mirror of the Ice Barrier" with the dragons sealed inside (see Void Trap Hole and the wikia trivia on Prior of the Ice Barrier).

- Just like the dragons are named after mythological weapons, this card is named after a mythological object, in this case a wand because it is a Spellcaster.[/spoiler]

 

 

I still don't know if it is actually fair  or well designed at this point, which is why I am making this thread and asking for feedback.

[Sleepy]

Love that flavor. The image fits, and I did notice the 2300 (Brionac), 2500 (Gungnir), and 2700 (Trishula), starting at 2100 original.

 

I don't think it needs the attack clause. Even with Salvage you can't really abuse this card more than you could abuse Chaos Sorcerer.

It sounds slow enough to be fair even if it ended up at 2700 ATK.

 

It also asks you for advantage beforehand, and although it counts itself for the first base, having the other effects unlocked is not THAT much more of a benefit, even though the choice is nice.

 

Overall I really like the card.

[Therrion]

When I see a card that requires Level 4 Water monsters, I feel bad for the person making the card, because I know Bahamut Shark exists and you can't make the card more broken than that without getting pitchforked and torched. However, I was satisfied with your approach to this card. Not to say I still wouldn't go into Bahamut over this in MOST scenarios, this card has a niche that Bahamut Shark doesn't.

It is essentially a Rank 4, 2300 beater w/ a OPT Bounce effect, which is a good response play to a push. Sometimes it can destroy, if destroying is more beneficial in the scenario, and hardly ever will it banish, but versatility is nice to have. You seemed to give Bahamut Shark his place and decided not to combat it but compliment it with this and did a good job doing so.

Wouldn't change a thing, especially anything that'd make the card weaker as a result.

[Darj]

Thanks to both for your feedback.

 

To be honest, I gave it the "no attack" mainly because, considering that other Xyzs with removal effects have it (e.g. Blackship and Volcasaurus), I figured it would be fair if this card had it as well.

[Toffee.]

Volca can still attack, just not directly, if you use it's effect. But that's irrelevant.
Either way, I like how upon fixing it up, you wound up getting feedback... Heh...
(Which is pretty amusing in it's own right because you, for the most part, incorporated the feedback from the Hall of Fame topic)

Regardless, though, it's well done.

[Darj]

bump because I would like to know if this card would still be fine if the "cannot attack" clause was removed.

[Daigusto Sphreez]

I think the card would be fine without the cannot attack clause, since only ice barriers can use it. Non-generic cards deserve a little extra utility to encourage running the deck after all. 

It has some nice versatile removal, but a lot of the time it is dictated by your own field, so I think it's balanced in that respect anyway.  

I also like the flavour as others have said.