[Written] Pip's Potion Launcher

[Icy]

Pip's Potion Launcher

Quick-Play Spell Card

When you draw this card: reveal it, and if you do, deal 400 damage to your opponent for each monster they control, then shuffle this card back into your deck. If this or other card(s) named "Pip's Potion Launcher" are the last card(s) in your Deck and you draw one, you lose the Duel.

[ÆƵ–]

It's Paladins, therefore I must post. 

 

The deck isn't public knowledge, so i don't believe there's any real way to confirm the altloss. Maybe have it be placed on the bottom of the deck, and if it's activated, say, 2 or 3 times in a row you lose? I dunno. 

The effect on draw is neat, and the potential for burn to be up to 2400 (with links) is a thing, so this could be a neat splash for chain burn, maybe trickstars if they felt like it. 

[Mysty]

 

Pip's Potion Launcher

Quick-Play Spell Card

When you draw this card: reveal it, and if you do, deal 400 damage to your opponent for each monster they control, then shuffle this card back into your deck, then if there are 3 or fewer cards in your deck (including this one), reveal your Deck, and if all the cards in your deck are named "Pip's Potion Launcher", you lose the Duel.

 

That's how I would do it the alt loss clause.

 

I'm not sure why you have the "when you draw this card" activation condition on it. I'd probably get rid of it. I'm not sure if the damage is too high, considering the EMZ allows a player to control 6 monsters now.

[Icy]

Okay seriously, why was this moved from Advanced? More than slightly ticked. I wasn't trying to be casual at all. I talked with a friend on great lengths about this card and any potential rulings and how it'd be done from a judge perspective. I don't know, maybe I should have explained it but there is in fact preexisting rulings/precedence on how to handle a card like this. If there wasn't, I'd have put it in Casual myself.

 

Apparently for cards like: http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Harpie%27s_Feather_Storm , you do not need to actually show your deck to confirm that it does not exist in your deck. You merely have to prove that it exists elsewhere in play. Graveyard, Banished, Field, etc. The deck is not public knowledge no, but there are again rulings precedence for making sure this card goes off as intended without having to reveal your deck at all times. If someone has to call Evilfusion or something I swear to Zamorak...

 

It's Paladins, therefore I must post. 

 

The deck isn't public knowledge, so i don't believe there's any real way to confirm the altloss. Maybe have it be placed on the bottom of the deck, and if it's activated, say, 2 or 3 times in a row you lose? I dunno. 

 

As explained above. 

 

I would agree immediately with having to place it on the bottom of the deck, but the card does not draw an additional for its immediate activation (which fuzzes if there isnt a space in play for it... not that it'd matter much if ever) and is effectively a dead add otherwise. So... I'm hesitant.

[Darj]

In the case of Harpie's Feather Storm, note how the last effect is optional, so in case you don't have Feather Duster in the Deck, you can choose not to activate/use the effect to avoid revealing your entire Deck. In your card's case, however, it isn't optional, so you still have to show and prove to the opponent that this card and any copies of it are the remaining cards in your Deck to apply the loss effect.

 

As for comments on balance and stuff, I guess it's ok. I mean, it's yet another burn card, that will most likely see play in burn decks. Not sure if I would consider better than Just Dessert though, because unlike Desserts, this activates compulsorily upon drawing it, and thus may be difficult to arrange chains with it, plus by getting back into the deck is has the drawback of "fattening" it, making it less likely for you to draw into your key and/or stronger cards. Still, most likely I wouldn't bother with more than 1 copy since it would make the lose condition more likely to happen, and it recycles itself into the deck anyway.

On the other hand, with a lack of hard OPT, I wouldn't be surprised if players found a way to repeatedly draw and topdeck this card to drop an FTK/OTK. Still, I guess it wouldn't be difficult to an Exodia deck, except that you win by drawing this card multiple times instead of the 5 pieces. And surely you know by now how FTK/OTKs of this nature are frowned upon for their lack of interaction with the opponent.

[ÆƵ–]

I'm not sure what you mean about this card having a precedence. I'm not that knowledgeable on rulings, but feather storm of all cards seems like the worst card to take precedence from, especially since I don't know what part you're talking about. I'm assuming you mean the duster adding. The thing about that is that its an optional effect, and it can add from a place with public knowledge, also the fact that duster is limited ocg side means that of course if you prove its elsewhere besides your deck you don't have to reveal the deck, because only 1 is legal, even in a traditional format.

[Icy]

Unfortunately I was unaware of a rule change and while I can supply it, it'd go against my own preconceived notions so... maybe when I have a specific competitive intent I'll post the requirements next time. Meh.

 

At most I can see this card giving Exodia a 4th win condition, or really any deck that draws +2 cards in each go. There's that inherent problem with the fact that it doesn't let you redraw but doing so I'd feel would imbalance the daylights out of this thing.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about this card having a precedence. I'm not that knowledgeable on rulings, but feather storm of all cards seems like the worst card to take precedence from, especially since I don't know what part you're talking about. I'm assuming you mean the duster adding. The thing about that is that its an optional effect, and it can add from a place with public knowledge, also the fact that duster is limited ocg side means that of course if you prove its elsewhere besides your deck you don't have to reveal the deck, because only 1 is legal, even in a traditional format.

 

It's somewhere though. I fail to see how having two or three more would change that optional or not.