[Initial Thoughts] Feldkings Mechanic

[Delibirb]

So I got to thinking of this new mechanic that is still in its early stages. It involves summoning monsters with powerful effects, and in some cases, ATK, but not to the monster zone. These guys must be placed in the owner's Field Spell Zone (They are treated as monsters, not spells, but you cannot activate field spells. Your opponent's field spell is not destroyed, and he can activate new ones without disturbing your Feldking) by having 3 of a specific monster (Ideally their archetype).

 

So far, this is the base Feldking:

 

 

[Archetype] Feldking

ATTRIBUTE - Type

Level 12

ATK - X / DEF - X

This card cannot be Normal Summoned or Set. This card cannot be Special Summoned. If you control 3 "[Archetype]" monsters, you can place this card face-up in your Field Spell Zone (If your opponent controls a Field Spell, it is not destroyed) as a monster. [Some effect based on the archetype].

 

 

So, lets go line at a time. 

• The name is self explanatory, its just going to somehow incorporate the archetype name, if there is one, as well as "Feldking".
• Feldkings will have an Attribute and Type relating to their respective archetypes.
• All Feldkings will be Level 12.
• ATK and DEF weighted to the effect strength, below
• This is where the new mechanic comes in. These monsters cannot be Summoned or Set in any way whatsoever. They are simply "placed" in the Field Spell Zone. This will destroy the Field Spell IF and only if it was yours. Otherwise, your opponent can activate Field Spells at will. Anyway, this placement on the field requires 3 of their specified monster. Most typically this will just be whatever their archetype is, to discourage Feldking swapping, such as the Mermail Feldking in a Fire Kings deck (Not that anyone would try that to begin with, probably).
• Finally is an effect that relates to their archetype. Dark Worlds might have a discard power, Heroics might double ATK of some monster or itself.
• Which actually brings up another point. The Feldkings, despite being in the Field Spell zone, can attack, and be attacked, unless otherwise specified. However, they cannot be flipped face-down or have their battle positions changed. Any other effect that would affect them is fair game.

Your thoughts? It definitely probably needs fine-tuning, and is quite raw as of now, so any assistance will be greatly appreciated and credited. :)

[Sleepy]

A couple things that I have to mention.

 

I don't really like how restrictive they are. You HAVE to use them with a certain archetype.

No full-fledged mechanic as big as Synchros or Xyzs restricts you to archetypes from it's very core. There are archetype-specific Xyzs and Synchros like Number 8 and R-Genex Locomotive, but the extra restriction doesn't come from the mechanic itself. 

It takes away a lot of potential freedom, which in turn, decreases the fun.

Besides, it'd mean you have to have a swarm-centered strategy to bring it out with the 3 members. Something that many archetypes won't do. Bujins, Dark Scorpions, etc. Not to mention that non-archetype specific decks will just miss out on the mechanic altogether, as if Konami wasn't controlling what the players use hard enough as is.

 

I also don't really buy how you cannot activate Field Spell Cards yourself.

I mean, I understand the player not wanting to do so, and some decks not running Field Spells anyways, but the option should still exist. Why would you not be able to get rid of your own card?

 

There's also that they just appear for free once the requirements are met. So some decks will have their own Extra Deck Field Spell Card with some advantageous effect for their Archetype-specific build, just for playing the deck from turn 1. Depending on the specific effects you choose to have there, you'll be able to break this fairly easily.

[Delibirb]

What changes would you suggest? The point of the topic is not only to point out flaws but to repair them together.

[Sleepy]

Making suggestions for such big issues is like making the mechanic for you.

I thought about thinking of suggestions, but I also have been keeping that in mind.

Besides, a couple of those are pretty straight-forward suggestions.

 

You can't destroy it just because you don't want the player to do so? Either make it able to be destroyed by the owner wanting to use a Field Spell Card, or just don't use the Field Spell Zone (because you know, that's a single-space issue).

 

Is it bad that the whole mechanic depends on archetypes? Figure out something else if you agree with my point there, or explain why you'd disagree.

 

If you are thinking big and making a new mechanic altogether, and it isn't supposed to interact with Spell/Trap/Field Spell/Monsters at all, you could just cut down explanations by making it not be either of those kinds of cards. Not a monster/spell/trap, but something new. So it doesn't need Levels/ATK/DEF/Type/Attribute/Icon whatsoever. Then, either make a new zone for them, or just make them universal on where they can be placed. I think the latter would be good so it could adjust to Monster-heavy decks or S/T-heavy decks, and have it occupy a zone that wouldn't be too much of a bother for the rest of the deck.

 

Besides, Level 12s inside the field will make fairly easy Xyz combos with Galaxy Queen's Light and several Level-downgrading effects bumped into any deck. You don't want any deck to be able to suddenly pop-up a Galaxy Destroyer with what could have just been a Stardust, right?

And if current Level-downgrading effects aren't enough, you'd still be restricting future ones.

 

EDIT:
Oh also, give them a cost for playing them if you haven't already.

Truth is, the condition is not very clear to begin with. You must have 3 of an archetype. In the Graveyard/field/hand? Are they going to the Graveyard or attaching to the new card of yours? or are they just there and keep chilling while the Extra Deck card just materializes into existence?

Since I'm guessing it's the last option, it sounds pretty no-no as is. As puny as Xyz costs are, it's still something.

 

This is currently more like a very small idea, because I can't really imagine long-lasting creativity being incorporated into it in the same way new Xyzs, Synchros, Fusions, or even Rituals could be made.

Give a few examples and prove me wrong.

[Delibirb]

Making suggestions for such big issues is like making the mechanic for you.

I thought about thinking of suggestions, but I also have been keeping that in mind.

Besides, a couple of those are pretty straight-forward suggestions.

If you dont want to help make this or give viable suggestions, and only want to say what is wrong without helping, you arent adding anything to the thread. I apologize if you feel that "suggesting" is doing all the work, but this is meant to be a community project sort of thing.

 

You can't destroy it just because you don't want the player to do so? Either make it able to be destroyed by the owner wanting to use a Field Spell Card, or just don't use the Field Spell Zone (because you know, that's a single-space issue).

The cost for summoning them, which you suggested should be added below, is the lack of Field Card usage.

 

Is it bad that the whole mechanic depends on archetypes? Figure out something else if you agree with my point there, or explain why you'd disagree.

I only mentioned Archetypes here, other specific requirement monsters could be used. For example, I have one idea that requires 3 Ritual Monsters, as opposed to 3 "Gishkis". Main reason for the archetype thing, however, is so people dont splash Fedlkings that dont fit their deck and are just powerful.
 

If you are thinking big and making a new mechanic altogether, and it isn't supposed to interact with Spell/Trap/Field Spell/Monsters at all, you could just cut down explanations by making it not be either of those kinds of cards. Not a monster/spell/trap, but something new. So it doesn't need Levels/ATK/DEF/Type/Attribute/Icon whatsoever. Then, either make a new zone for them, or just make them universal on where they can be placed. I think the latter would be good so it could adjust to Monster-heavy decks or S/T-heavy decks, and have it occupy a zone that wouldn't be too much of a bother for the rest of the deck.

Doesnt require a response. I want it to be like it is, being monsters with levels and such.

 

Besides, Level 12s inside the field will make fairly easy Xyz combos with Galaxy Queen's Light and several Level-downgrading effects bumped into any deck. You don't want any deck to be able to suddenly pop-up a Galaxy Destroyer with what could have just been a Stardust, right?

And if current Level-downgrading effects aren't enough, you'd still be restricting future ones.

Given it requires 3 other similar monsters on the field to get on the field in the first place, they probably could have already made a Galaxy Destroyer or what have you without their Feldking. Besides, they are meant to be a save-me top-deck game-changing card, not just support.

 

EDIT:
Oh also, give them a cost for playing them if you haven't already.

Truth is, the condition is not very clear to begin with. You must have 3 of an archetype. In the Graveyard/field/hand? Are they going to the Graveyard or attaching to the new card of yours? or are they just there and keep chilling while the Extra Deck card just materializes into existence?

Since I'm guessing it's the last option, it sounds pretty no-no as is. As puny as Xyz costs are, it's still something.

Does it not say "If you control 3 "[Archetype]" monsters"? Meaning on the field. They dont go anywhere, you just need to control them. I am ware you can then use them for the Extra Deck, and frankly that doesnt appear to be a problem.

 

This is currently more like a very small idea, because I can't really imagine long-lasting creativity being incorporated into it in the same way new Xyzs, Synchros, Fusions, or even Rituals could be made.

Give a few examples and prove me wrong.

Thank you for your humble opinion. I will continue to develop and expand the idea until it reaches your standards.

EDIT: I may have forgotten to mention, because I thought it was sort of obvious: Feldkings dont go in the Extra Deck. They are Main Deck monsters, so you need to draw them first, in addition to meeting the requirement.

[Sleepy]

Making suggestions for such big issues is like making the mechanic for you.

I thought about thinking of suggestions, but I also have been keeping that in mind.

Besides, a couple of those are pretty straight-forward suggestions.

If you dont want to help make this or give viable suggestions, and only want to say what is wrong without helping, you arent adding anything to the thread. I apologize if you feel that "suggesting" is doing all the work, but this is meant to be a community project sort of thing.

No it's not. It's your personal idea, and explaining the flaws I think it has is more than many are willing to do here. You shouldn't get more exigent if you just can't get bothered in thinking how to make use of the feedback.

 

You can't destroy it just because you don't want the player to do so? Either make it able to be destroyed by the owner wanting to use a Field Spell Card, or just don't use the Field Spell Zone (because you know, that's a single-space issue).

The cost for summoning them, which you suggested should be added below, is the lack of Field Card usage.

That is not a valid cost. You have an extra effect active in play for the cost of nothing. Also, the amount of Field Spell Cards that are commonly seen and used in the game can be counted with my fingers, further proving the absence of a real cost.

 

Is it bad that the whole mechanic depends on archetypes? Figure out something else if you agree with my point there, or explain why you'd disagree.

I only mentioned Archetypes here, other specific requirement monsters could be used. For example, I have one idea that requires 3 Ritual Monsters, as opposed to 3 "Gishkis". Main reason for the archetype thing, however, is so people dont splash Fedlkings that dont fit their deck and are just powerful.
 

If it's gonna have variety like that, that's a bit better.

Though, the OP makes it sound like 

a] It's always gonna have "Feldking" in the name for some reason.

b] It's exclusively being used with archetypes in mind for it's activation conditions.

 

If you are thinking big and making a new mechanic altogether, and it isn't supposed to interact with Spell/Trap/Field Spell/Monsters at all, you could just cut down explanations by making it not be either of those kinds of cards. Not a monster/spell/trap, but something new. So it doesn't need Levels/ATK/DEF/Type/Attribute/Icon whatsoever. Then, either make a new zone for them, or just make them universal on where they can be placed. I think the latter would be good so it could adjust to Monster-heavy decks or S/T-heavy decks, and have it occupy a zone that wouldn't be too much of a bother for the rest of the deck.

Doesnt require a response. I want it to be like it is, being monsters with levels and such.

What I'm saying is that flavor-wise, if you want them to be monsters/creatures/beings/entities, as opposed to places, like Field Spells usually are, they still don't need to officially be monster cards for the idea to be so. It's just my two-cents there.

 

 

Besides, Level 12s inside the field will make fairly easy Xyz combos with Galaxy Queen's Light and several Level-downgrading effects bumped into any deck. You don't want any deck to be able to suddenly pop-up a Galaxy Destroyer with what could have just been a Stardust, right?

And if current Level-downgrading effects aren't enough, you'd still be restricting future ones.

Given it requires 3 other similar monsters on the field to get on the field in the first place, they probably could have already made a Galaxy Destroyer or what have you without their Feldking. Besides, they are meant to be a save-me top-deck game-changing card, not just support.

I don't think you understood what I meant there. You could have 3 Level 3 or lower Mermails, and have them all go 12 with that combo all of a sudden, but not on their own.

The fact that your mechanic also doesn't need more deck dedication helps there.

 

EDIT:
Oh also, give them a cost for playing them if you haven't already.

Truth is, the condition is not very clear to begin with. You must have 3 of an archetype. In the Graveyard/field/hand? Are they going to the Graveyard or attaching to the new card of yours? or are they just there and keep chilling while the Extra Deck card just materializes into existence?

Since I'm guessing it's the last option, it sounds pretty no-no as is. As puny as Xyz costs are, it's still something.

Does it not say "If you control 3 "[Archetype]" monsters"? Meaning on the field. They dont go anywhere, you just need to control them. I am ware you can then use them for the Extra Deck, and frankly that doesnt appear to be a problem.

I had the doubt because having to pay nothing for the card to appear just sounded too silly to be true, and there was a chance that you just had missed writing something. I repeat myself. Field Spell from the Extra Deck at no cost.

 

This is currently more like a very small idea, because I can't really imagine long-lasting creativity being incorporated into it in the same way new Xyzs, Synchros, Fusions, or even Rituals could be made.

Give a few examples and prove me wrong.

Thank you for your humble opinion. I will continue to develop and expand the idea until it reaches your standards.

Sooo if I got it right. You won't give any samples.

I'm not asking you to aknowledge what I'm saying here, but it should go without saying that an example card would help viewers see what you want to do with it in a more concrete way. It could be anything, some deck that you personally want to use. Whatever caused the spark of you wanting to go along with this idea.

[Delibirb]

No it's not. It's your personal idea, and explaining the flaws I think it has is more than many are willing to do here. You shouldn't get more exigent if you just can't get bothered in thinking how to make use of the feedback.

 

That is not a valid cost. You have an extra effect active in play for the cost of nothing. Also, the amount of Field Spell Cards that are commonly seen and used in the game can be counted with my fingers, further proving the absence of a real cost.

 

If it's gonna have variety like that, that's a bit better.

Though, the OP makes it sound like 

a] It's always gonna have "Feldking" in the name for some reason.

b] It's exclusively being used with archetypes in mind for it's activation conditions.

 

What I'm saying is that flavor-wise, if you want them to be monsters/creatures/beings/entities, as opposed to places, like Field Spells usually are, they still don't need to officially be monster cards for the idea to be so. It's just my two-cents there.

 

 

I don't think you understood what I meant there. You could have 3 Level 3 or lower Mermails, and have them all go 12 with that combo all of a sudden, but not on their own.

The fact that your mechanic also doesn't need more deck dedication helps there.

 

I had the doubt because having to pay nothing for the card to appear just sounded too silly to be true, and there was a chance that you just had missed writing something. I repeat myself. Field Spell from the Extra Deck at no cost.

 

Sooo if I got it right. You won't give any samples.

I'm not asking you to aknowledge what I'm saying here, but it should go without saying that an example card would help viewers see what you want to do with it in a more concrete way. It could be anything, some deck that you personally want to use. Whatever caused the spark of you wanting to go along with this idea.

OK, now I have some useful insight into what I can do to fix the issues you have. I suppose it would be good to start with a sample card, yes. Ill go ahead and do that, also taking into account some of your suggestions here.

[Sleepy]

I just noticed your edit that said it's a Main Deck mechanic.

That changes a few things in my opinion.

The condition suddenly is no longer crazy.

Though now it has that slight "win-moar" trait. If you draw it in a tight spot, like a top-decking mode, you won't be happy with it.

You need to have a lot of resourses for it to happen.

 

If it's a Main Deck card, then why does it need a condition at all?

Why can't you just play it normally?

Why doesn't it "activate" or get "Summoned"? That shortens a lot what can counter it (if anything), and lack of counter-ability is not a good thing.

Why do you even need something different than regular Field Spell Cards with a clause preventing them from destruction by Field Spell activation?

 

As a core mechanic, Field Spell Cards as they are, have issues, and this new one doesn't seem too different. Now it's more needed that you elaborate on what the benefits are supposed to be for the game.

I don't intend to be rude, I'm willing to listen. I'm just trying to be factual here.

[Delibirb]

I just noticed your edit that said it's a Main Deck mechanic.

That changes a few things in my opinion.

The condition suddenly is no longer crazy.

Though now it has that slight "win-moar" trait. If you draw it in a tight spot, like a top-decking mode, you won't be happy with it.

You need to have a lot of resourses for it to happen.

 

If it's a Main Deck card, then why does it need a condition at all?

Why can't you just play it normally?

Why doesn't it "activate" or get "Summoned"? That shortens a lot what can counter it (if anything), and lack of counter-ability is not a good thing.

Why do you even need something different than regular Field Spell Cards with a clause preventing them from destruction by Field Spell activation?

 

As a core mechanic, Field Spell Cards as they are, have issues, and this new one doesn't seem too different. Now it's more needed that you elaborate on what the benefits are supposed to be for the game.

I don't intend to be rude, I'm willing to listen. I'm just trying to be factual here.

You make some good points, and to be honest I dont have all the answers at the moment. I appreciate your trying to be honest and not rude, btw. The mechanic is still in its infancy, for sure, so a lot of things still need defining that I havent thought up entirely at this point. For now, example card (Non Archetypal)

[spoiler='Shadow Trick Feldking']

This card cannot be Normal Summoned or Set. This card cannot be Special Summoned. If you control 3 Ritual monsters, you can place this card face-up in your Field Spell Zone (If your opponent controls a Field Spell, it is not destroyed) as a monster. While there is a monster card in your Spell/Trap Zone, this card's ATK is 2000. Also, this card can attack your opponent directly.

[/spoiler]

In case it isnt clear this guy is meant for Relinquished Decks. Although it only specifies "Ritual" monsters, putting him in say, Gishkis, would be silly due to the lack of monsters in the Spell/Trap Zone, And while the effect may be good for Crystal Beasts, he wasnt designed to work with them, and so getting him to the field wouldnt be an option. Now getting 3 Relinquished on the field is pretty challenging, this guy was designed in a deck that also used my pretend Relinquished Support cards, but I think he shows off the primary purpose of Feldkings, their conditions, and 1 example of what their effects could do.

 

Also, the reason Feldking is in all their names is because there will almost certainly be Feldking love and hate cards.

[Sleepy]

Umm I guess it does count as a new mechanic, technically.

Though it's more of an archetype.

I expected a Feldking Subtype. Like this for example: [ Spellcaster / Feldking / Efect ]

 

For starters, I think you could shorten the text with this:

Cannot be Summoned/Set.

 

Also, if it's indeed a new type of card and not just an archetype, and it has that consistent way of being Summoned, you could just write the requirements in 1 or 2 words like Fusion/Xyz/Synchro Materials are written.

3 Ritual Monsters.

 

Then, everything else that explains how the card works would be in the rulebook just like Synchros don't tell you how their mechanic works in the card itself.

Or since you don't have the power to print an official rulebook with them in it, write them in the OP of the thread and omit it from the cards themselves. Umm actually, thinking about it, that includes the "Cannot be Summoned/Set." part as well.

 

That'd help clean stuff a bit and for the card and prevent walls of text in every piece of your mechanic.

It'd look something like this:

 

Mechanic:

-They go in the Main Deck

-Cannot be Summoned/Set.

-Is placed on the Field Spell Card Zone
-To place it, you need to control the cards that the Materials require.

 

That said, here's the card.
Note: Of course, not orange colored like Effect Monsters have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

..... or something like that.

[Delibirb]

Umm I guess it does count as a new mechanic, technically.

Though it's more of an archetype.

I expected a Feldking Subtype. Like this for example: [ Spellcaster / Feldking / Efect ]

 

For starters, I think you could shorten the text with this:

Cannot be Summoned/Set.

 

Also, if it's indeed a new type of card and not just an archetype, and it has that consistent way of being Summoned, you could just write the requirements in 1 or 2 words like Fusion/Xyz/Synchro Materials are written.

3 Ritual Monsters.

 

Then, everything else that explains how the card works would be in the rulebook just like Synchros don't tell you how their mechanic works in the card itself.

Or since you don't have the power to print an official rulebook with them in it, write them in the OP of the thread and omit it from the cards themselves. Umm actually, thinking about it, that includes the "Cannot be Summoned/Set." part as well.

 

That'd help clean stuff a bit and for the card and prevent walls of text in every piece of your mechanic.

It'd look something like this:

 

Mechanic:

-They go in the Main Deck

-Cannot be Summoned/Set.

-Is placed on the Field Spell Card Zone
-To place it, you need to control the cards that the Materials require.

 

That said, here's the card.
Note: Of course, not orange colored like Effect Monsters have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

..... or something like that.

Makes sense. :) Don't see a reason why not.

[John Kelly]

This idea is not completely meritless, but there are too many gimmicky rules associated with this idea. Why MUST Feldkings be Level 12? Why MUST Feldkings be Level 12? Why do you 'place' them as opposed to 'summoning them (this is especially confusing)? Why MUST they remain face-up in a specific battle position at all times? Why the absurdly high costs?

In other words, this idea needs far more flexibility than you are allowing it.

[Delibirb]

This idea is not completely meritless, but there are too many gimmicky rules associated with this idea. Why MUST Feldkings be Level 12? Why MUST Feldkings be Level 12? Why do you 'place' them as opposed to 'summoning them (this is especially confusing)? Why MUST they remain face-up in a specific battle position at all times? Why the absurdly high costs?

In other words, this idea needs far more flexibility than you are allowing it.

Because they are meant to be powerful. The reason they are placed is because you can't summon something to a spell zone. To make them more vulnerable. Because they are meant to be powerful.

[John Kelly]

"They are meant to be powerful." is itself a gimmick. Monster cards that operate under special mechanics should be able to be as weak or as powerful as the game rules, gameplay balance, and creator's imagination permits. Otherwise the cards become meaningless fluff (and Yugioh already has a few hundred cards guilty of that). Think of how other monster card-types are; they do not have arbitrary limitation such as 'must be a level 12'.

Also, this is a new card-type operating under wholly original mechanics. Saying you can only "place" not "Special Summon" a monster to a Field Spell Card Zone is a moot point when no rule or card effect in the game permits a monster existing in the Field Spell Card Zone to begin with.

You need to workshop this idea some more.