Playing With Names? [Toyo Single]

[宇佐見 蓮子@C94]

During either player's turn: You can discard this card to target 1 face-up card on the field and declare a card name; This turn, that card's name becomes the declared name. When this effect is activated, if you have another card named "Witch of Seals - Mint" on your field or in your graveyard: You can banish that card; Draw 2 cards. You can only use the effect of "Witch of Seals - Mint" once per turn, and only once that turn.

[Astolfo]

So, it'd work as mostly disruption I'd guess?

Like, call it on their Fusion Materials/Ritual Materials/maybe specific Synchro or Xyz Materials if they need specific ones so that they can't summon whatever they were going to anymore?

I guess you could use it for gimmicks on your own too.

 

So like, call it against BA, call something else, and it'd make them all self-destruct.

Call it against SKs, not much would happen I guess, except maybe preventing attacking if they had used Altair?

Use it against Qlis, I dunno if anything would happen.

Same with Monarchs and then M&Ms I think?

Would probably disrupt Rituals from field w/ Nekroz I guess.

And then field mats for Shaddolls.

 

That's pretty neat.

[Timeskipper]

It'd be a nice addition to Symphonics. This way they'd really have access to ALL synchro monsters ever (well not all, some require both tuners and non-tuners of a specific archetype but still). The disruption potential is also cute.

 

Honestly, this card would be the best if it was a Symphonic Warrior. As it is, though, it's already very nice.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

First off, the Luster synergy is pretty cool, and I think that is what you intended.

 

Also, you need to use more specific card text so you can't use it to turn a card into mint, then banish it to draw 2, as this gives an unsettling amount of consistency to... everything. I am not sure if this was intended, but given your penchant for "testing" CC as a section, it may be the case. This could be fixed by clarifying that the Banish would happen before the card name is changed.

[Timeskipper]

A simpler solution could simply have that card's name be changed only as long as it's on the field, and allow the banishing for draw only from the graveyard.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

A simpler solution could simply have that card's name be changed only as long as it's on the field.

How does this solve anything..?

[Timeskipper]

How does this solve anything..?

I forgot to write the second part :P

I edited the post now.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Eh, personally I think the concept of e-teleing one out and discarding one to use the effect on a card for luster or whatever could be really cool, but I guess that is also functional.

[Timeskipper]

E-Teleing works with my limitation too. The only drawback would be not being able to abuse its effect with Luster... but why would we WANT to give players a way to play around Luster's only drawback?

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Um. It wouldn't. Because the Mint summoned by E-Tele wouldn't be in the graveyard. And considering that was probably a large part of the design intent, it would make sense to keep that intact.

[Timeskipper]

It's a tuner. Use one of the two to summon a Synchro monster. This way, the other will be able to banish it from the graveyard to draw.

[宇佐見 蓮子@C94]

First off, the Luster synergy is pretty cool, and I think that is what you intended.

 

Also, you need to use more specific card text so you can't use it to turn a card into mint, then banish it to draw 2, as this gives an unsettling amount of consistency to... everything. I am not sure if this was intended, but given your penchant for "testing" CC as a section, it may be the case. This could be fixed by clarifying that the Banish would happen before the card name is changed.

Ah, you got me. Nyoho~

 

Well, the idea is, you discard itself and banish a face-up thing you have to draw 2, which is a flat +0, essentially. Basically, it's so the card has some secondary value, aside from just pure disruption. That said, I do believe the easiest fix is simply to reduce the draw to 1. This would reduce the stupid amounts of consistency you get, while also still rewarding you for running multiple copies of it, and has some pretty cool plays, like ditching it + dead CoTH for a draw.

[Timeskipper]

Using it to ditch dead CotH/Fiendish Chains and such is admittedly pretty interesting. I hadn't considered that... this way, this card would also become a Magic Planter lite.

I maintain that letting it support Luster is a bad idea, though.

Also, with the way you worded it I don't think it would work if you ditched another copy of it or changed the name of some other card on the field to "Witch of Seals - Mint" to activate the second effect, since right now, it requires you to already have a Mint on the field or in the graveyard at card activation. That is, unless trigger effect shenanigans mean that instead of chaining itself to the activation of the first effect, it activates after the resolution of the first effect.
If you want to simplify it, you could simply have it say "during the turn/Phase when this effect was activated, you can banish [...]". This way, it turns into an ignition effect and eliminates needless complications.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

See, the issue is that a +0 is damn good. A Spell Speed 2 Magic Planter for any card that can also be a Pot of Greed if you already have one? That is indeed a problem.

And skipper, with that second effect listed afterward, if definitely works. If worded the way it was intended to, it would be an "and if" effect. (Also, the wording you suggested was incorrect, but I won't pester you about it. If you want to learn more OCG stuff, you can use Zazu's thread in this section, or PM or skype me for any clarification.)

[Timeskipper]

Derp, I noticed just now that all this time I thought that the first effect activated by discarding that card from your hand to the graveyard. All this time I had been thinking it was actually activated by discarding one card from your hand when you have her on the field. That's why things weren't adding up.