An Experiment in Lockdown (Information Regulator)

[Trebuchet MS]

[spoiler Lore]When your opponent activates a Spell Card for the 2nd time this turn: You can Special Summon this card from your hand. Neither player can activate more than 2 Spell Cards per turn.[/spoiler]

 

We know the issues about lockdown cards. They receive flak for preventing someone from conduct their normal plays. Even if the effect is symmetrical, the effects it has on its user is drastically lessened since they do all their necessary plays before laying on the lockdown. Even if the effect is slightly loosened (Midrash) they still receive flak.

 

So with this card, I seek to discover the fine line that distinguishes between "broken" and "pointless" - how much of the game can be limited before excessive hate starts getting garnered.

 

This card was initially designed without the Special Summon effect, but I decided to give it that little edge against RML draw loops and Spellbooks by having it pop out of the hand once your opponent has played 1 too many Spells for comfort. You still need some serious luck to have this card in your opening hand and avert the FTK, but outside of that I think it checks the tempo just enough to prevent explosive plays without being too imposing on the usual pace of the game.

 

Is 2 Spells per turn too loose or too tight a restriction? What if its limit were higher but affected both Spell/Trap Cards?

[Excalibur the Divine]

I think that 3 is loose from some decks but tight for others. For example, the main exodia deck (everyone Hates exodia, I know) uses lots and lots of spell cards and noble knights use lots of spells. There are more, but these are 2 of them. But then, other decks don't use spells so much that they get affected by the restriction.
I suggest making it no more than 3 spell AND traps per turn so that it's strict enough but not too much for all decks.

[Trebuchet MS]

I'll gather a few more opinions before applying any changes.

[Darj]

I would go for 2 Spells. I believe players using 4+ Spells in a single turn rarely happens (except for certain decks like the abovemention Exodia, or Prophecies), so limiting them to only 3 Spells would barely affect them.

[Forest Fire]

Right let me try this again, since every messenger in existence is hating me right now. I see Rtyui's point, but I completely disagree. For those decks this is already affect, adding a trap restriction would be to much. But, for those decks this doesn't really hinder, the trap restriction would add a nice element to the card. As to making it 2 spells, as Voltex suggested, again we run into the hazy line of well then it would be to much against certain decks, and just the right amount against other decks. All in all, I would leave it as is

[Trebuchet MS]

Restriction tightened to 2 Spells.

 

Card now Special Summons itself on the 2nd Spell activation.

[Excalibur the Divine]

Restriction tightened to 2 Spells.

Card now Special Summons itself on the 2nd Spell activation.

Why 2 spells?

[Trebuchet MS]

Ignoring the usual Spell spam Decks, experience says the average midgame Spell rate is 1-3 Spells per turn. The cap of 3 means it has little average game impact after the early stages.

[Excalibur the Divine]

I know, but why not 3 Spell AND Traps?

(If you don't want to, it's ok, it's your card, but I'm just asking.)

[Forest Fire]

I know, but why not 3 Spell AND Traps?

Let me attempt to explain by quoting myself.

 

 For those decks this is already affect[ing], adding a trap restriction would be to much. 

You see, it's just that by adding traps in (maybe if he increased the limit or limited the restriction to restrict only a certain amount of traps (not like after 3 traps, your opponent is done, but more like this can negate (i know i'm not using ocg, just bare with me) 3 traps your opponent activates, then it might be ok, but the way your suggesting he do it (just adding a blatant after this many traps your opponent is done), would just add to much to it) 

[Trebuchet MS]

Bumping for opinions.