ITT: destroyed by battle --> destroyed by your opponent

[Darj]

I thought about this after the rule change Konami applied to turn "until the End Phase" into "until the end of the turn".

 

Let's say Konami suddenly announces a rule stating that

"When this card is destroyed by battle"

 

is now treated as:

 

"When this card is destroyed by your opponent (either by battle or by card effect)"

as an attempt of making cards with that condition relevant.

 

Which cards would become good? which ones would become too good to deserve a place in the banlist?

 

The first that comes to mind are the Attribute floaters (Giant Rat, Shining Angel, etc.), who would become much more reliable. Special mention to Mother Grizzly, who is searchable by Tenki and could be used as an engine along it.

 

 

Thoughts?

[Delibirb]

While we're at it lets make House Duston not have to be face-up when it was destroyed.

 

OT: King of the Skull Servants becomes a bit more viable.

 

Stygian Security which my Dustons would be excited for.

 

Helios Duo and Trice would be less bad.

 

Machina Fortress, Mathematician, Colossal Fighter OP

[Marco Polo]

Melodious Aria is now melodious elegy aswell.

Marshmallon suddenly sees play and everybody is flipping mad.

[Althemia]

[Darj]

@Polo: Ah, I forgot to include the "when this card is destroyed by battle" in the OP, so the change wouldn't apply to Marshallon, Spirit Reaper, etc. Will fix it right away.

 

@Koko: Excellent example of a card that abuses the change. But does it actually become broken? The opponent won't, or shouldn't, be destroying this with effects so granting Garunix the ability of triggering both effects is moot. If anything, it further discourages the opponent from destroying Garunix with effects.

[Neutrality Man]

Why are you destroying Garunix period? There's a reason I made a Banish Deck back when Macro Cosmos was a deck shaped like a card.