Curse | Improved Curse

[Plastica]

Changed the name.

Aha, so should it just not be able to reach a negative attack? Or does a cost increase seem more appropriate?

Or both?

[Zergva]

Changed the name.

Aha, so should it just not be able to reach a negative attack? Or does a cost increase seem more appropriate?

Or both?

I think (as I said earlier) if it's doesn't kills the creature, it will be good without other changes.

[Marsu]

Changed the name.

Aha, so should it just not be able to reach a negative attack? Or does a cost increase seem more appropriate?

Or both?

Nothing. Only complicate when it's necessary. Here, it isn't.

[Plastica]

Alrighty, aha. I think this will be my first card to send to the Crucible. Seems ready to go.

[Drake_XIV]

In pokemon a curse will kill you, so that's not accurate at all

sky plz

http://www.serebii.net/attackdex-bw/curse.shtml

[Annele]

CURATOR COMMENT:

Please keep discussion on-topic. Random comments about Pokemon are not relevant in this particular thread.

[Particleman]

I had a similar idea, but I think this works better as a death card.

Also, I think that the card should bring the enemy down to 0/1, but not add antimatter or kill the creature. The idea is to weaken it into uselessness, not to outright kill it or make it heal you. There are other cards for that.

If the creature is already under antimatter, then maybe let this card add further to the negative, but beyond that, I would say no going into the negative.