Astral Vexer|Astral Vexer

[Uppercut]

NAME: Astral Vexer ELEMENT: Aether COST: 6 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 3|3 TEXT: Target card and all cards that share a name with it lose and can't have abilities while this card is in play.	NAME: Astral Vexer ELEMENT: Aether COST: 6 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 4|4 TEXT: Target card and all cards that share a name with it lose and can't have abilities while this card is in play.

ART: IDEA: Uppercut NOTES: SERIES:

Time to see how fast the community can break this card. I went with creature because I figured being easy to control is important for balancing such a lame ability. High cost so it isn't too abusable with fractal.

[artimies7]

Ability killer. I envision a scarab or firefly deck killer.
For balance, maybe a permanent that runs on a timer. 3 turns perhaps? 4?

[MisterMello]

I like it.  If it were a permanent I'd hate it.
Maybe make it so that it can pick multiple monsters, instead of the target monster getting ate by another scarab and then the cycle of scarabs is started over.

[artimies7]

I like it.  If it were a permanent I'd hate it.
Maybe make it so that it can pick multiple monsters, instead of the target monster getting ate by another scarab and then the cycle of scarabs is started over.

Maybe you wouldn't hate it so much if it could only target a random creature on the opponent's side of the field. Remember, if it was a permanent, it would only last 3 turns, picking a random new creature each turn.

[Uppercut]

I like it.  If it were a permanent I'd hate it.
Maybe make it so that it can pick multiple monsters, instead of the target monster getting ate by another scarab and then the cycle of scarabs is started over.

Just for clarity the stipulation is attached to the vexer, not to its initial target. In fact the only reason it targets is so that it has a way of knowing what cards it should effect. In my first draft for the card it actually had "Choose a card" instead of "Target card' but then I realised that the process for choosing without targeting would have to consist of choosing from every card in the game and that would be no fun to program.

[agogo]

Uppercut I don't get it when you say
"Target card and all cards that share a name with it lose and can't have abilities while this card is in play."
what does lose mean in this context? This idea is cool, esp. with scarabs which cannot swarm.

To clarify your card, why don't you say: "Any card that shares a name..."

One more thing: I LOVE your paradox in that having too many of these will cancel your draw, unless one dies.

Nice work!

[Uppercut]

Uppercut I don't get it when you say
"Target card and all cards that share a name with it lose and can't have abilities while this card is in play."
what does lose mean in this context? This idea is cool, esp. with scarabs which cannot swarm.

To clarify your card, why don't you say: "Any card that shares a name..."

One more thing: I LOVE your paradox in that having too many of these will cancel your draw, unless one dies.

Nice work!

All/any kinda mean the same thing here. Though you're right that "lose" might not be necessary since "can't have" would imply that they would lose their abilities anyway.