Spell Breaker | Spell Breaker

[Pineapple]

NAME: Spell Breaker ELEMENT: Time COST: 3 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 1 | 1 TEXT: For the first spell each turn: Negate, refund, and shuffle it into the deck; both players draw 1 card.	NAME: Spell Breaker ELEMENT: Time COST: 2 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 1 | 1 TEXT: For the first spell each turn: Negate, refund, and shuffle it into the deck; both players draw 1 card.

ART: patchx94, Stock Photo: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1224442 IDEA: patchx94 NOTES: V2: negate spell, refund cost, shuffle spell into deck V1: negate spell (spell destroyed) The ability activates during the first spell each turn (opponent's included). The player still has to pay the quanta for a spell that is negated.The player will now be refunded the quanta for the spell that is negated. A copy of the spell card is now shuffled back into its caster's deck. If either player's hand is full, they will be unable to draw a card, but the spell will still be negated. The effect stacks. This means not only that all Spell Breakers on the field will activate their ability at once, forcing each player to draw cards equal to the total number (as their hand space allows) of Spell Breakers, but also that only 1 spell can be negated, per turn, by Spell Breakers, regardless of the amount. Even with multiple Spell Breakers on the field, only 1 copy of the spell will be shuffled into the deck of the player who casted the spell. SERIES:

[artimies7]

Being a creature seems a bit odd thematically, but I suppose it works. I'd suggest Permanent.

[Pineapple]

Being a creature seems a bit odd thematically, but I suppose it works. I'd suggest Permanent.

Too little creature/permanent abilities that can destroy permanents.

[desu_santiago]

I suppose making it's attack 0 and upping it's defense maybe to around 15 ( survivability ), this could work in getting your opponent to deck out.

[Pineapple]

I suppose making it's attack 0 and upping it's defense maybe to around 15 ( survivability ), this could work in getting your opponent to deck out.

Yup, and that's why it has 1 health.

[Pineapple]

Edited Notes.

[artimies7]

Being a creature seems a bit odd thematically, but I suppose it works. I'd suggest Permanent.

Too little creature/permanent abilities that can destroy permanents.

Who said anything about destroying permanents? I think it should be a permanent.

I mean, a creature named 'Spell Breaker' just seems a bit odd to me.

[Pineapple]

Being a creature seems a bit odd thematically, but I suppose it works. I'd suggest Permanent.

Too little creature/permanent abilities that can destroy permanents.

Who said anything about destroying permanents? I think it should be a permanent.

I mean, a creature named 'Spell Breaker' just seems a bit odd to me.

A permanent that negates spells would be completely overpowered because there would be no way to destroy it without Pulverizer. (Timed permanents are stupid and overdone.)

Geometry Teacher is one who teaches geometry. Marble Sculptor is one who sculpts marble. Tower Builder is one who builds towers.
Spell Breaker is one who breaks spells.

[Naesala]

Being a creature seems a bit odd thematically, but I suppose it works. I'd suggest Permanent.

Too little creature/permanent abilities that can destroy permanents.

Who said anything about destroying permanents? I think it should be a permanent.

I mean, a creature named 'Spell Breaker' just seems a bit odd to me.

A permanent that negates spells would be completely overpowered because there would be no way to destroy it without Pulverizer. (Timed permanents are stupid and overdone.)

Geometry Teacher is one who teaches geometry. Marble Sculptor is one who sculpts marble. Tower Builder is one who builds towers.
Spell Breaker is one who breaks spells.

Thematically I think its fine. Though as a permanent, it would just take 2 of a deflag or steal to destroy it, as is written now.

[OdinVanguard]

I like the idea, but it may be tricky to implement since a player cant take any actions on anothers turn due to the current turn mechanics. It could still be doable though.
If it is an auto-trigger, i.e. goes off as soon as the opponent casts a spell, it might work out. This would essentially force the opponent throw away a spell before they can cast useful ones.

[Pineapple]

I like the idea, but it may be tricky to implement since a player cant take any actions on anothers turn due to the current turn mechanics. It could still be doable though.
If it is an auto-trigger, i.e. goes off as soon as the opponent casts a spell, it might work out. This would essentially force the opponent throw away a spell before they can cast useful ones.

"The ability activates on the first spell of each turn", so yes, it is an auto-trigger.

[OldTrees]

Being a creature seems a bit odd thematically, but I suppose it works. I'd suggest Permanent.

Too little creature/permanent abilities that can destroy permanents.

Who said anything about destroying permanents? I think it should be a permanent.

I mean, a creature named 'Spell Breaker' just seems a bit odd to me.

Q: What is the term for a being that mines
A: A Miner
Q: What is the term for a being that breaks spells?
A: A Spell Breaker