Dismantle l Deconstruct

[Newbiecake]

I want to submit this into the Crucible soon, but I still need some art, or an idea of how the art should be designed. I'm not well versed in the area of computer artworks. Anyone, please?

[funerallaughter]

Posted a picture for you in the art wanted board, if you wanted it that is XP

[Newbiecake]

I'm still looking for some, fellow asian. I've got a really high standard for art, although I'm not much of an artist myself. I'll use it if I can't come up with one. Thanks for your help! XD

[funerallaughter]

haha np

[Newbiecake]

Okay MAJOR change:

-Name change! Inspired by Bloodshadow.
-Unupped version has the same effect as the upped version.
-Destroys deteriorable permanents (Wings, Phase Shields, Cloaks, and Sundials) as Spikes suggested

Almost ready for Crucible I'm feeling. Again, some art would be appreciated~ XD

[rohlfo]

the text on the card and in the table are not the same, you'd have to fix that before submitting.

Also: "Target non-deteriorating permanent becomes the first card of the owner's deck. Destroy if deteriorable."
I think this would also work if just "Target permanent becomes the first card of the owner's deck. Destroy if deteriorable."
not crucial, just saving some text space perhaps

[Newbiecake]

A huge thanks to Zblader of the beautiful rework of Zanz's Eternity! The fading of the Eternity symbolizes permanents being rewinded, or, Dismantled/ Deconstructed from the field.

If you have any suggestions/feedback for this card, say it now or hold your peace until it makes it into the Crucibles. Haha I've always wanted to say that.

[ZephyrPhantom]

While I don't find anything wrong with your table or card, do check your spelling.

Zanzarino for the original Eternity art, Zblader for the beautiful rework.

[Newbiecake]

While I don't find anything wrong with your table or card, do check your spelling.

Zanzarino for the original Eternity art, Zblader for the beautiful rework.

Woops my bad. Your name reminds me of my bladder that's about to burst. You didn't need to know that but oh well.

Waiting for the Curator's comment...

[TimerClock14]

quick fix needed here:

Please fix the COST section of the table:
3 should be 3 .2 should be 2 .
Please remove the text from the SERIES section of the table:
By placing the word "None" in the SERIES section of your table, the reader may be placed under the impression that this is part of the "None" series.By leaving this blank, it reduces confusion.

[ishner]

putting a card on top of opponants deck is not control. 
next turn they put it back.
with a creature it is different beacous it loses buffs.

i suggest that target permanent should go to bottom of opponants deck.

[ZephyrPhantom]

putting a card on top of opponants deck is not control. From dictionary.com:
*snip*
control
verb
1. to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.
2. to hold in check; curb: to control a horse; to control one's emotions.
* end snip*   
Sending the card back of the top of the deck can be considered restraining your opponent.
next turn they put it back.
with a creature it is different beacous it loses buffs.  Keep in mind this will destory a permanent with a lifespan like Wings, Sundial, Phase Shield, or Cloak. So it also has a little advantage of it's own.

i suggest that target permanent should go to bottom of opponants deck. No. That makes it almost identical to Explosion (with the disadvantage of giving the opponent cards if you target your own permanents). The card is balanced as it is - similar to RT, if your opponent doesn't have enough quanta, he/she can't play the card, and has it's little bonus of it's own to make up for being unable to remove buffs/debuffs.