[Written] Right Arm Offering

[Monarch King]

Normal Spell Card

 

Destroy as many Set Spell/Traps you control as possible (min. 2), and if you do, Set 1 Spell/Trap directly from your Deck. You can only activate 1 "Right Arm Offering" per turn.

[Dova]

AIGHT BOY REVIEW TIME EVEN THOUGH THIS IS CASUAL BUT I SAW THIS IN RECENT POSTS SO SURE

 

As said above, I know this is casual, so you don't really need to compare this to the current metagame/cards in the game. But let's compare this to its IRL counterpart anyway:

• Set S/T vs. Cards in hand: Of course, this card requires you to actually have Spells/Traps to set rather than simply any card that you have in your hand. However, since you are using face-down cards, which you have to choose to set, unless you draw this card late game (tbh everyone wants to open these cards), you choose what part of your hand you kill. You aren't forced to empty your hand and strategize around it. So, point to this card.
• Destroying vs. Banishing: You can still use the GY effects of the cards you banish, and they're still potentially searchable by effects. Also, effects on destruction/when they leave the field. Another point to this card.
• Effect vs. Cost: If your opponent negates this, you don't lose your set S/T. If your opponent negates Left Arm, you've still lost your hand. Point to this card.
• Spell/Trap vs. Spell: You get a Spell or a Trap from your Deck, rather than just a Spell. Yet another point to this card.

This card has clear benefits over its counterpart, meaning this would easily be run over the other one, except it an almost entirely monster Deck (but why would you be running it in that case?). It also doesn't really act as the Right to the Left, as both can grab Spells. This one handles the same area, just does it a little differently.

 

Suggestions to make it more interesting, and more balanced:

• Set forcing rather than blocking: You know how Left Arm prevents you from setting cards from your hand the turn you activate it? Why not have this card prevent you from activating Spells from your hand the turn you activate it, forcing you to set them. Not a major restriction, but it prevents you from activating Quick-Play spells, I guess. An alternative is to also prevent you from activating Spells/Traps the turn you Set them this turn, but that might get too complex, and completely locking you down would probably be too much.
• Traps only: The former deals with Spells adding to your hand. This card might as well add Spells to your hand as well, as most can activate immediately. How about just forcing it to Traps? You might be unhappy with moving away from your original design decision, but I feel this fits better with the theme.
• Destroy as a cost: Simple, but probably effective.

There are definitely other things you could do, but these are what I could come up with in this rant. Feel free to use all, or even none of them, but these were just my thoughts relating to your card's design.

 

It's a simple card, so not much else to say.

[Azuriena]

Destroy as a cost: Simple, but probably effective.

 

First of all, cards never destroy as a cost to activate an effect.

 

Also, ridiculously high costs to activate a card or effect is generally a bad thing. You risk way too much in activating the card, and it simply makes negation make the game extremely swingy. Which is bad; games shouldn't be decided from your very first action just because your opponent had a response to a card that you by all means should be running and made the correct play by activating. And no, it rarely opens a decision tree where you have to decide whether or not you should activate the card. The best course of action is almost always to activate the card and hope the opponent has no response.

 

Note that I'm speaking generally—in this case the risk is mitigated by the fact that it can't be Ashed (also there are things like Combination that it can destroy). But turning the destruction into a cost still doesn't do anything good for the card in this case.