Tymestl Dragon [Charmer Support]

[Armoire]

Art Credit: BatMed

 

 

 

[spoiler=Lore]You can only control 1 "Tymestl Dragon". If you control a Spellcaster monster, you can Special Summon this card (from your hand). If this card is Special Summoned: You can shuffle up to 2 monsters with 1500 ATK or DEF from either player's GY into the Deck; destroy 1 card on the field.

 

 

Tymestl means storm/tempest in Welsh, according to the internet.

 

So I wanted to give Charmers a more reliable offensive and figured Wynn's familiar would fix that gap pretty nicely. Combos well with Jigabyte since he can summon this from the Deck. That way, it's kind of like a process to get this out with Nefarious -> Destroys Jigabyte -> Summons this -> Tribute this for a Familiar-Possessed Wynn.

 

It's not really what they need (changing opponent's attributes, getting Unpossessed faster), but I think it sure does help them.

Also recycles dead/tributed Charmers and familiars for more Unpossessed shenanigans. Hopefully locking the non-target destruction behind shuffling monsters with 1500ATK/DEF is enough to hinder its splashability in any generic Spellcaster Deck.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure if I like its effect all too well, so suggestions would be nice.

 

[More Charmer support coming soon, but that'll be released in bulk in multiples probably next month.]

[Kanashimi]

As i love charmers when i still play ygo, i find this card simple but good. Being wind means an easy access to chidori with possessed wynn (if chidori still strong rn like back then).

 

Well u already explained the combo, recycle etc etc so im going straight to the eff instead. Imo, instead of non target pop, i feel that it should be non target bounce/target bounce (well atleast bounce instead of pop'ing), due to its WIND attribute and associated with tempest and such, bounce as a means blowed by the wind dragon's breath, lorewise. Also a lot of floating effect in recent cards, making bounce eff more reliable on removing stuff (esp ed monsters).

 

Lastly, i think u should put minimal restriction on how many cards needed to be shuffled as a cost (like "min. 1") just to clear things up.