Air Torrent | Air Torrent

[Drake_XIV]

NAME: Air Torrent ELEMENT: Air COST: 3 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: Creatures cost less to play but have a chance to die when being played for one turn.	NAME: Air Torrent ELEMENT: Air COST: 2 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: Creatures cost less to play but have a chance to die when being played for one turn.

ART: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1390439 IDEA: Drake_XIV NOTES: Creature costs are decreased by 3, but may not drop lower than 0. Chance of death upon playing is 40%. Effect ends at the end of your opponent's turn. SERIES:

[Drake_XIV]

Any thoughts?  Comments? Concerns?

[Calindu]

How would this interact with SoFr?

[Drake_XIV]

It wouldn't, as this is creating a one-turn field effect as opposed to targeting creatures.

[Rutarete]

It wouldn't, as this is creating a one-turn field effect as opposed to targeting creatures.

SoFr doesn't target. I mean, it can stop more than just targeting effects, I'm pretty sure.

[Drake_XIV]

The assumption with SoFr is the interaction with targeting creatures and here, which doesn't matter since Air Torrent shouldn't be targeting.

[Rutarete]

Go test air creatures with SoFr and flooding. Then well know for sure, instead of assuming

[Drake_XIV]

Bumped...

[Hyroen]

An interesting card, however I would not have imagined so much destruction with this card.

Might I suggest that instead of destroying the creature that it have a chance of returning to your hand? This would at least to me, represent more the idea of being blown around.

I think the chance of being "blown away" is fine, however I think it would be better to cap off the cost reduction at 2.

[UndeadSpider1990]

Um, if they cost up to 3 less to play, why don't you just word it like that? Seems to me yo have space...

[Drake_XIV]

An interesting card, however I would not have imagined so much destruction with this card.

Might I suggest that instead of destroying the creature that it have a chance of returning to your hand? This would at least to me, represent more the idea of being blown around.

I think the chance of being "blown away" is fine, however I think it would be better to cap off the cost reduction at 2.

My original idea is that the creatures would be crushed by the immense change of pressure rather than being blown away, but returning them can work too.

Um, if they cost up to 3 less to play, why don't you just word it like that? Seems to me yo have space...

It was so that I could modify the Notes as needed.  I had originally intended to do a non-linear reduction, but that got changed along the way.