Tornado | Tornado

[Pineapple]

NAME: Tornado ELEMENT: Air COST: 2 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: 0 : Windswept Switch control with target permanent.	NAME: Tornado ELEMENT: Air COST: 1 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: 0 : Windswept Switch control with target permanent.

ART: pineapple IDEA: pineapple NOTES: Successor of Windswept | Windswept and Masquer | Masquer. When creating the mechanic, I drew mostly from Masquer, but managed to maintain the nature of Windswept, e.g. cheap permanent control for Air and Cloak synergy. Note that your opponent cannot activate Tornado's ability the turn after you activate Tornado's ability. This is because of the mechanics of off-turn summoning sickness in Elements, as referenced by off-turn production of Ash. I believe that the mechanic that would be the easiest to integrate into the current game would be the following: Windswept:  Sacrifice Tornado;  Target permanent:   Destroy target permanent;  Controller of target permanent generates a copy of Tornado;  Controller of Tornado generates a copy of target permanent; So basically both players "Steal" each other's permanent. SERIES:

[Hyroen]

Quite frankly I'm glad I'm one of the first to post on this card idea. I think it's excellent. This further increases the synergy that Air has with Fire and amplifies the synergy it has with Darkness.

I'm looking forward to the wonderful art. See my previous glorifying of this card here.

Elements the Game (and Air) needs this card now.

+rep

[Annele]

I really like this idea too. However - maybe with an initial cost decrease - I think windswept should cost 1 . You need wind for a tornado, and it means it is less likely your opponent will use it on their next turn.

[Pineapple]

I really like this idea too. However - maybe with an initial cost decrease - I think windswept should cost 1 . You need wind for a tornado, and it means it is less likely your opponent will use it on their next turn.

I disagree with your suggestion. Thematically, you need wind for a tornado, and that's exactly why the card costs 2 and not 1 random. Think of the card as a self-sustaining machine that needs a kick to start up. As for keeping the opponent form using it next turn, I made it zero-cost specifically so that it could not be deemed overpowered. Do you believe that it is currently underpowered?

[Annele]

I really like this idea too. However - maybe with an initial cost decrease - I think windswept should cost 1 . You need wind for a tornado, and it means it is less likely your opponent will use it on their next turn.

I disagree with your suggestion. Thematically, you need wind for a tornado, and that's exactly why the card costs 2 and not 1 random. Think of the card as a self-sustaining machine that needs a kick to start up. As for keeping the opponent form using it next turn, I made it zero-cost specifically so that it could not be deemed overpowered. Do you believe that it is currently underpowered?

I believe it is only useful for something like an EB which is used in your turn. Unless you wanted to bypass the weapon/shield limitations.

[Pineapple]

I really like this idea too. However - maybe with an initial cost decrease - I think windswept should cost 1 . You need wind for a tornado, and it means it is less likely your opponent will use it on their next turn.

I disagree with your suggestion. Thematically, you need wind for a tornado, and that's exactly why the card costs 2 and not 1 random. Think of the card as a self-sustaining machine that needs a kick to start up. As for keeping the opponent form using it next turn, I made it zero-cost specifically so that it could not be deemed overpowered. Do you believe that it is currently underpowered?

I believe it is only useful for something like an EB which is used in your turn. Unless you wanted to bypass the weapon/shield limitations.

Well, what permanents aren't "used in your turn" like Empathic Bond? The only other type of permanent I could think of is one with an ability, in which case Tornado is a competent lobotomizer for.
(Also, it doesn't bypass weapon/shield limitations since those still go to their respective slots.)

[Pineapple]

Bump for further voicing of opinions, concerns, and suggestions so I can make some last-minute changes before this goes into the Crucible.

[Rutarete]

Huh, pseudo-control for Air. I think it's great, cost and everything.

[Drake_XIV]

I'd personally like to see a minimal cost for Windswept.  At least for the upgraded version.

[Pineapple]

I'd personally like to see a minimal cost for Windswept.  At least for the upgraded version.

Hm...Noted. I'll see what others think first.

Personally, I'm leaning in the other direction. However, I see no problem with increasing the ability cost to 1 random; as long as the opponent will be able to use it and it costs less than Steal. This actually makes me think of an interesting (but complicated) mechanic: Windswept -- Switch control with target permanent; opponent gains .