Desperate Contract with the Beast [Written]

[VCR_CAT]

Desperate Contract with the Beast

Normal Spell

Banish this card, and if you do, draw 2 cards. You can only activate 1 "Desperate Contract with the Beast" per turn. If this card would be added to your hand, except by drawing it, banish it instead. Once per turn, during each Standby Phase, while this card is banished: Roll a six-sided die and apply the result.

1: Return this banished card to the Graveyard.

2: Your opponent gains 700 LP.

3: You lose 700 LP.

4: For the rest of this turn, face-up monsters in your possession lose 700 ATK and DEF.

5: For the rest of this turn, face-up monsters in your opponent's possession gain 700 ATK and DEF.

6: Your opponent banishes 2 cards from your Graveyard.

If you roll a 6 with this card's effect 3 times while this card is banished, you lose the duel.

 

I had this crazy idea regarding risk vs. reward, and knowing how good draw cards can be, well I had to go with it. The key with this card in how it works is that it needs to banish itself as cost; you cannot activate this card if you cannot banish it. Also of note, the 3 and 4 results will apply to any monsters summoned during that turn as well (at least, as intended. The face-up wording is meant to give it a distinction that only a monster on the field can have, so the blanket nerf won't apply to the hand, deck, grave, extra-deck, etc.)

[Tesability Black]

I would actually suggest that the '6' effect is the one that gets you out of the contract (similar effect, but sends the card back to the grave instead of auto-losing you the duel) instead...because this is actually too much risk for the reward as is. Now, if you did that and made the '1' effect became the current '6' effect instead and move the effect from '1' to the '5' slot, that might be more interesting to play. Because not only do you have the chance to auto-lose, it also gives you a way out of the contract, even if by a small chance.

[VCR_CAT]

I would actually suggest that the '6' effect is the one that gets you out of the contract (similar effect, but sends the card back to the grave instead of auto-losing you the duel) instead...because this is actually too much risk for the reward as is. Now, if you did that and made the '1' effect became the current '6' effect instead and move the effect from '1' to the '5' slot, that might be more interesting to play. Because not only do you have the chance to auto-lose, it also gives you a way out of the contract, even if by a small chance.

 

A little surprised to hear that it was too harsh. Alright. So I like the idea of having one effect being a get-out-of-jail-free effect, so I made that the "1" effect and kept "6" as-is, moving the rest up as you suggested. There are certain flavor reasons the 6 effect should stay as-is. I also updated the wording on the initial draw effect to make it easier to understand.

 

Now, the two main things I'm mulling over is if the stat modifiers/LP modifiers should be a little lower to help balance out how much of an impact one of them makes while having two or three makes it bigger. Right now it is a little extreme, but having it too low makes it too easy to play in multiples. The other thing being the wording on the 6 effect, because it's supposed to carry over between turns and with other copies of itself. Can't really do counters on banished cards, so there goes that easy identifier...

[Tesability Black]

In regards to the tracking, that I can't help on.

 

In regards to the stat/LP modifiers, I've seen "700" appear as the 'magic' number for this kind of thing.

 

Also, when I suggested moving the '6' effect to '1', my brain was still high on D&D. Everyone whom plays a d20 knows that when you roll a natural '1', thou have flubbed.

[Darj]

It should be easier to understand the card if the 6 result was another negative effect, and instead the card had the "if you roll six 3 times, you lose the duel" as an additional effect. Otherwise, rolling a 6 and getting an "intangible effect", so to speak, in the first 2 instances is kind of awkward. Plus, this take on the effect should solve the issue of the card "remembering" the dice results.

[VCR_CAT]

It should be easier to understand the card if the 6 result was another negative effect, and instead the card had the "if you roll six 3 times, you lose the duel" as an additional effect. Otherwise, rolling a 6 and getting an "intangible effect", so to speak, in the first 2 instances is kind of awkward. Plus, this take on the effect should solve the issue of the card "remembering" the dice results.

 

I like this idea a lot. It makes having this card remained banished longer a bigger risk, while realistically a 6 being rolled 3 times total is still going to give enough breathing room to get it back in the grave or deck before it's too late.

 

 

In regards to the tracking, that I can't help on.

 

In regards to the stat/LP modifiers, I've seen "700" appear as the 'magic' number for this kind of thing.

 

Also, when I suggested moving the '6' effect to '1', my brain was still high on D&D. Everyone whom plays a d20 knows that when you roll a natural '1', thou have flubbed.

 

I'll do 700 now tentatively, although I feel like 800 might be a better number? Granted, 100 isn't really that big of a difference. 700 is enough of a stat difference that some cards might have some trouble dealing with threats they might normally handle, while having more copies proc the stat effects just means bad news for the turn.

[MUDKIPISAWESOME!!!]

How about make 6 "Your opponent Banishes two cards from your Graveyard" instead? I know if I used this while playing Gusto and rolled a 6 after using say Jar of Avarice and Ghost Ogre I would just banish those two, but my opponent would make sure to get rid of the Sphreez and Pilica I had to sacrifice earlier, making it a more negative effect as opposed to an effect that usually just is meh, I don't like it but it's not bad.

[VCR_CAT]

How about make 6 "Your opponent Banishes two cards from your Graveyard" instead? I know if I used this while playing Gusto and rolled a 6 after using say Jar of Avarice and Ghost Ogre I would just banish those two, but my opponent would make sure to get rid of the Sphreez and Pilica I had to sacrifice earlier, making it a more negative effect as opposed to an effect that usually just is meh, I don't like it but it's not bad.

 

Also like this idea. Did that small change, as well as a minor name change to help suit the card a bit more. Might even make it a Zorc reference considering the dice mechanic.