Attribute Backrow~

[Sleepy]

Just like the name implies. What do you people think about the idea of Spell/Trap Cards with Attributes?

I mean, look at monsters. In order to support monsters in separate ways we've got 6 different Attributes to go for, 24 Types (and counting), and different incompatible measuring systems like 12 Levels, 12 Ranks, 14 Scales, and 8 Link Ratings. We have ATK and DEF stats if that's not enough, different mechanics to go by (Ritual, Fusion, Normal, Token, Synchro, Xyz, Link, Pendulum), and different subtypes to boot (Flip, Toon, Union, Gemini, Tuner, Spirit, OCG has Special Summon, and we'll probably get more). All of these can even mix up to create even greater divisions to control how things are affected, even before resorting to archetypes.

 

Yet, Spells/Traps only have icons and other than that resort to archetypes.

Traps: Normal, Continuous, Counter.

Spells: Normal, Continuous, Quick-Play, Ritual, Equip, Field

 

I've always been an advocate for archetype support to be more of a last resort kind of deal. It can exist, but I'd much rather have other factors that keep it generic enough for new/future card creation to always give people the thought of "Look! It works with A and B! I need to try this out!". Archetype name slapping is like the easier way out.

 

The game has a ton of potential to spread out like a knitted net in fun ways. To be honest, I'd personally see if I could give them some sort of Level system as well, but I'm gonna forget about that in this thread and just focus on attributes.

 

There were 2 periods in Yugioh that had some issues that would have been sorted out had this been a thing.

-The GX era AKA archetype hell in its second half. People at some point mostly dropped buying packs altogether because if they didn't run the 2 or so archetypes of the moment supported there, they just couldn't even so much as use the pulls (and I mean all 9 pulls, not 1 or 2 out of the pack). Couple that with the filler cards that not even their archetypes wanted to use, but that's just a bonus layer.

-The Goat Control days had a tiny bit of issue, in the form of most cards that were "the best of their kind". You had no reason to run something other than Magician of Faith unless it plainly outclassed or got something like archetype restrictions going, rather than making more room for incompatible stats to keep on spreading.

 

Just another concept option to think of.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

This topic is a bit too theoretical for Custom Cards, but too Custom-like for Theories, and I thought it ultimately could only be here... So what do you people think of the idea/concept?

 

Sample: 

Spirit Bonfire

[Normal Spell] FIRE

Banish any number of FIRE Spell Cards from your GY to target FIRE monsters in your GY whose total Level is equal to the number of Spells banished this way; Special Summon them.

[Darj]

Despite the idea adding yet another layer of complexity to the game, I actually like it. Spell/Traps can be elemental, after all: FIRE spells, some Trap Holes could be EARTH based, and how about healing WATER Spells?

Then, if you make support that grabs, let's say, FIRE cards, you will be able to pick either monsters or Spell/Traps, allowing different plays and strategies.

There could be some fun with floodgates, too. For instance, a Naturia Beast that only locks Spells of specific Attributes. That definitely would be less oppressive than locking out all Spells.

[Eshai]

... why don't we have this? They have the attribute slot, all cards that mention FIRE also mention monster so this wouldn't make anything broken. This also gives the idea of making Spells that could actually be supported without having it broken, since the entire problem is that there isn't much diversity between Spell/Traps other than there Sub-type and the Archetype they belong in.

[Darj]

Heck, you could even push it further and give them their own subtypes, like monsters have. For example, LP recovery Spells could have a "Heal" subtype, while Spells that destroy or remove cards from the board could be "Offense" or whatever. Protection spells could be "Defense". Spell/Traps that Summon from hand, GY, ED, etc. would be "Summon" Spell/Traps. Not quite sure where Counter Traps would fit in... perhaps as Offense if they destroy the negated card, but if they just negate, then Defense should be fitting.

Then, this can lead to interesting card creation because just for adding, let's say, an LP-gaining effect the card can be classified as a Heal Spell, but it could still do other stuff, while benefiting from any Heal Spell support.

[Sleepy]

Despite the idea adding yet another layer of complexity to the game, I actually like it. Spell/Traps can be elemental, after all: FIRE spells, some Trap Holes could be EARTH based, and how about healing WATER Spells?

Then, if you make support that grabs, let's say, FIRE cards, you will be able to pick either monsters or Spell/Traps, allowing different plays and strategies.

There could be some fun with floodgates, too. For instance, a Naturia Beast that only locks Spells of specific Attributes. That definitely would be less oppressive than locking out all Spells.

 

Exactly, because floodgating S/T usually shuts down their entire mechanic, or a specific icon could be done in theory, but icons are typically bound to strategies that use them abundantly or not at all, making things situational if done that way.

 

I also personally like how it is a good kind of complexity. People don't need to read any extra rules or train to understand the concept. If something says they support WATER Traps, then one can't miss a Trap with a big fat Attribute Tag in the corner. All cards in the game would have one. No need for Duel Academy there xD

 

 

... why don't we have this? They have the attribute slot, all cards that mention FIRE also mention monster so this wouldn't make anything broken. This also gives the idea of making Spells that could actually be supported without having it broken, since the entire problem is that there isn't much diversity between Spell/Traps other than there Sub-type and the Archetype they belong in.

 

 

Yes, support for Attributes usually involves saying "monsters" so it'd be uncharted territory with no real existing support at the moment. =)

I always wondered why they bothered with that attribute slot because other than the card's color, it already says the kind of card between brackets above the image box. 

In fact at some point I thought maybe the attribute is where the icon should be if they weren't using it for anything else, heh, but actual Attributes sound better.

Spells/Traps could have actually gotten all traits of monsters except for ATK and DEF as the extreme, but they went with nothing but icons for some reason.

 

 

Heck, you could even push it further and give them their own subtypes, like monsters have. For example, LP recovery Spells could have a "Heal" subtype, while Spells that destroy or remove cards from the board could be "Offense" or whatever. Protection spells could be "Defense". Spell/Traps that Summon from hand, GY, ED, etc. would be "Summon" Spell/Traps. Not quite sure where Counter Traps would fit in... perhaps as Offense if they destroy the negated card, but if they just negate, then Defense should be fitting.

Then, this can lead to interesting card creation because just for adding, let's say, an LP-gaining effect the card can be classified as a Heal Spell, but it could still do other stuff, while benefiting from any Heal Spell support.

 

This doesn't sound like a bad idea actually. It'd legitimize some of the dialogues that would appear in the manga. Burn could be unified, and so would destruction and Special Summoning.

For my custom self drawn cards, I actually tested giving S/T Levels, Types, and Attributes, but only Attributes fit the bill. Levels because it'd imply a lot of convoluted design to make them worthwhile, and Types because the S/T's flavor doesn't align with monster Types a ton of the time. I think you just solved that issue xD

I wonder how many different ones could exist though.

Destruction, Heal, Burn, Boost, Revive?, Weaken, Flip (probably would need a different word to not mix up with Flip monsters, or then again, Counter Traps and counters exist in the same game soooo). Hmm the idea is very raw at the moment. It is worth looking into it but it doesn't necessarily mean it'll be successful once refined. I like it though.

[Darj]

Was thinking that "Levels" could work, too. But I would call them "Power" or some other different keyword. Could be handy for limiting the search for the stronger Spell/Traps. For instance, Raigeki, Torrential, Heavy Storm, etc. could be assigned the highest power/level, and searching effects could focus on lower power/levels.

As for subtypes/classifications, I would go for:

Heal

Burn

Offense: removal effects, be it destruction, banishment, send to GY, etc.

Defense: protection from targeting, effects, destruction, attacks, etc.

Summon: anything that Summons, from anywhere. This includes Poly, Fusion Spells, E-Tele, Reborn, etc.

Recruit: Adding cards from anywhere to the hand.

Curse: other "statuses" like flipping face-down, changing positions, changing control, Level, Attribute and stat changes, effect negation, etc. I would put ATK/DEF increases here, for the sake of simplicity.

[Eshai]

Was thinking that "Levels" could work, too. But I would call them "Power" or some other different keyword. Could be handy for limiting the search for the stronger Spell/Traps. For instance, Raigeki, Torrential, Heavy Storm, etc. could be assigned the highest power/level, and searching effects could focus on lower power/levels.

As for subtypes/classifications, I would go for:

Heal

Burn

Offense: removal effects, be it destruction, banishment, send to GY, etc.

Defense: protection from targeting, effects, destruction, attacks, etc.

Summon: anything that Summons, from anywhere. This includes Poly, Fusion Spells, E-Tele, Reborn, etc.

Recruit: Adding cards from anywhere to the hand.

Curse: other "statuses" like flipping face-down, changing positions, changing control, Level, Attribute and stat changes, effect negation, etc. I would put ATK/DEF increases here, for the sake of simplicity.

 

I wouldn't actually separate them into different subcategories based on the mechanics they have, unless they're actually sub categories you want to support. 

 

If you make too many, you'll end up putting 3, 4, even 5 subtypes on some cards, and since Konami would try to avoid that in the future, it would decrease the ability to design cards that have several effects.

 

I think the sub-types we have now (normal, continuous, equip, field, quick and such) are more what you want, since it tells you more how the card works rather than how the effect works. In that sense, sub-types on Spell/Traps are the same as Extra Deck monsters. 

 

 

Personally, I think the change should be the typings/sub-typings for Spells should be put in the same place the monsters have them, where they would list "Spell/Normal" for a Normal Spell, or rather have types not involving mechanics like Warrior, Spellcaster, Beast, etc. since having "Spell" as the typing would be the same as having "Monster" as a typing. Then if you want to make sub-types, they should be more mechanical and in-depth like Union or Flip rather than simply stating "Heal" or "Burn". If anything those should just be keywords in card text.

[Darj]

I wouldn't actually separate them into different subcategories based on the mechanics they have, unless they're actually sub categories you want to support. 

 

If you make too many, you'll end up putting 3, 4, even 5 subtypes on some cards, and since Konami would try to avoid that in the future, it would decrease the ability to design cards that have several effects.

 

I think the sub-types we have now (normal, continuous, equip, field, quick and such) are more what you want, since it tells you more how the card works rather than how the effect works. In that sense, sub-types on Spell/Traps are the same as Extra Deck monsters. 

 

 

Personally, I think the change should be the typings/sub-typings for Spells should be put in the same place the monsters have them, where they would list "Spell/Normal" for a Normal Spell, or rather have types not involving mechanics like Warrior, Spellcaster, Beast, etc. since having "Spell" as the typing would be the same as having "Monster" as a typing. Then if you want to make sub-types, they should be more mechanical and in-depth like Union or Flip rather than simply stating "Heal" or "Burn". If anything those should just be keywords in card text.

 

These would be more like the equivalents of monster's types (Beast, Warrior, Dragon, etc.) and heck, if the game already has 20+ monster Types, surely it can handle these 7 for Spell/Traps.

Spell/Traps would have these subtypes in addition to the existing types Normal, Continuous, etc. and yes, the idea is to make support for these subtypes. For instance, under these conditions "Spellbook of Life" would be, let's say, a Spell|LIGHT|Equip|Summon card, and maybe a power of 2 if going that far. That shouldn't be difficult to grasp when monsters have as many traits that in some cases stack, like when a monster is a Flip|Tuner.

Besides, how would you classify Spell/Traps in a similar way to Union, Geminis, Flips, etc.? Not to mention that those subtypes are based precisely on the kind of effects/mechanics the monsters have, which is analogous to the idea I'm dropping here. I mean, if a monster is a Flip subtype because it has a Flip effect, then a Spell can have a Heal subtype if it has a healing effect. Does that make sense?

[Sleepy]

Was thinking that "Levels" could work, too. But I would call them "Power" or some other different keyword. Could be handy for limiting the search for the stronger Spell/Traps. For instance, Raigeki, Torrential, Heavy Storm, etc. could be assigned the highest power/level, and searching effects could focus on lower power/levels.

As for subtypes/classifications, I would go for:

Heal

Burn

Offense: removal effects, be it destruction, banishment, send to GY, etc.

Defense: protection from targeting, effects, destruction, attacks, etc.

Summon: anything that Summons, from anywhere. This includes Poly, Fusion Spells, E-Tele, Reborn, etc.

Recruit: Adding cards from anywhere to the hand.

Curse: other "statuses" like flipping face-down, changing positions, changing control, Level, Attribute and stat changes, effect negation, etc. I would put ATK/DEF increases here, for the sake of simplicity.

 

I'm not totally on board with S/T having their own Levels as is. As I said, I did try to design with the concept in mind and I bumped into some rough things that need to be ironed up to be viable. 

 

Though even if it were to ultimately become solid enough as a concept, I'm personally against the idea of giving them a different name. Much like how it is with Attributes, Levels usually also specifically refer to monsters, making this uncharted territory in terms of providing support. S/T Level and monster Level don't need to collide outside of the future support that'd come for them, and there wouldn't be a problem with calling them Levels just the same.

 

On both notes regarding Levels, I need to find out how Levels matter outside of consistency support such as searchers.

Levels in monsters, even ignoring Ritual, Synchro, Xyz, and Pendulum, have the inherent factor of Tributes, but S/T using Tributes of other S/T would be like a very specific kind of cost that doesn't fully convince me. We also cannot have cards stay high Level and not have it inherently mean anything besides search/recycle. It'd be a stronger sacky pull that could be used just the same once drawn.

 

- - - - - -

 

 

I wouldn't actually separate them into different subcategories based on the mechanics they have, unless they're actually sub categories you want to support. 

 

If you make too many, you'll end up putting 3, 4, even 5 subtypes on some cards, and since Konami would try to avoid that in the future, it would decrease the ability to design cards that have several effects.

 

I think the sub-types we have now (normal, continuous, equip, field, quick and such) are more what you want, since it tells you more how the card works rather than how the effect works. In that sense, sub-types on Spell/Traps are the same as Extra Deck monsters. 

 

 

Personally, I think the change should be the typings/sub-typings for Spells should be put in the same place the monsters have them, where they would list "Spell/Normal" for a Normal Spell, or rather have types not involving mechanics like Warrior, Spellcaster, Beast, etc. since having "Spell" as the typing would be the same as having "Monster" as a typing. Then if you want to make sub-types, they should be more mechanical and in-depth like Union or Flip rather than simply stating "Heal" or "Burn". If anything those should just be keywords in card text.

 

Hmmm.... That's a valid point.

Flip tells the card needs to be flipped, not that the Flip monster destroys/bounces/etc.

Gemini tells you to re-summon it, not about which unlocked effect it gains.

Tuner tells you it is a key to Synchros, nothing else about the effect or anything.

etc.

 

Also, effects won't necessarily abide to one or even three of the suggested types.

 

- - - - - - - - -

 

 

Hmmm 

Clearly there's fine print to work on for these concepts xD

I gotta see if I can come up with something.

[Darj]

The thing is, IMO it's better to take Spell/Traps with a different approach. Not sure how to explain myself better at the moment but, let's say, you both want to treat Spell/Traps as if they were monsters but... they simply aren't. Seems to me that you have some kind of "tunnel vision", so to speak, where you want Spell/Traps have the same, or similar, traits as monsters, while personally I think it's more effective to see them in a different way. Hence my suggestions of using different keywords (e.g. power instead of Levels/Ranks/Ratings/etc.), and subtypes based on their effects, rather than mechanics. Besides, their "type by mechanics" is already covered by Normal, Quick-Play, Counter, etc. and I believe the idea here is to add another classification category to sort them out.

[Sleepy]

The thing is, IMO it's better to take Spell/Traps with a different approach. Not sure how to explain myself better at the moment but, let's say, you both want to treat Spell/Traps as if they were monsters but... they simply aren't. Seems to me that you have some kind of "tunnel vision", so to speak, where you want Spell/Traps have the same, or similar, traits as monsters, while personally I think it's more effective to see them in a different way. Hence my suggestions of using different keywords (e.g. power instead of Levels/Ranks/Ratings/etc.), and subtypes based on their effects, rather than mechanics. Besides, their "type by mechanics" is already covered by Normal, Quick-Play, Counter, etc. and I believe the idea here is to add another classification category to sort them out.

 

I just don't see why Spell/Trap Cards would need to coin their own different word for something that already doesn't clash with anything else. The other measures in the game needed to be separated from Levels because of mechanical reasons.

Xyzs didn't want to use Levels because they didn't want to generically ladder off each other or make use of the already abundant Level modifying effects the Synchro era left.

Links don't call their Rating/Pointers "Levels" because they are completely different things that care about positioning, and Level-support would be a nightmare if you could add pointers to cards.

Scales much in the same fashion as Links, needed something unmodifyable and different from the Level system, because it'd be pretty bad if people needed to run Level 1s and 12s to widen scales.

S/T's hypothetical "not-Levels" just want to be named differently because you want people to remember they are not monsters? Literally no currently existing Level support would be able to affect Spells and Traps trying to use them, so there's no compatibility issues to account for.

I'm willing to take advice and try to be convinced by other points of view that'd help the concept. I think so far the thread has a very successful feed, but "tunnel vision" for a differing POV starting point being expressed? come on xD

 

I think that rather than trying to see them as similar to monsters, the argument is that new words would need some sort of justification.

As I asked in my previous post: If say, Raigeki was a not-Level 12, compared to a Sparks not-Level 1 Spell, other than what can get them in the form of support, does the measurement mean something inherently or would both be able to get dropped off pretty much the same if drawn? I legit want to know what your opinion is on if something would be inherently different with those numbers (even if they don't really end up mimicking monsters being different if Level 1 or Level 8 in terms of how to Normal Summon them) or if you think it shouldn't matter outside of the support one would create for them?

 

If it's just support, then does it justify such a measuring system existing?

 

That's what I am asking, but I'm not completely sure if I am transmitting what I mean well enough.

[Darj]

Well, the way I would approach "Levels" for Spell/Traps is that they would only matter when it comes to support (and anti-support too). There is no need to add extra costs or conditions to "high not-Level" Spell/Traps. E.g. giving Raigeki a high not-Level doesn't mean it would have extra costs to be played. And this is where I say the "tunnel vision" comes in: because one associates a "high Level" with Tribute Summon costs, it can be misleading when the same keyword is used for Spell/Traps, and this is why I suggest a different keyword, and possibly scale to set them further apart. For instance, IMO 3, or perhaps 4, should be the highest not-Level for Spell/Traps.

 

EDIT:
Going back to the not-Types, if you are not convinced of going with "types by effect",, then another option I see is by nature, so to speak, of the Spell/Trap, which in a way would be more on parallel with current monster types like Warrior, Beast, etc. For instance, Spellbooks could be "Book" Type, most equips would be "Weapon", and maybe we can use "Curse" for some debuff Spell/Traps, and so on. Or perhaps go for "Artifact" when an object is involved. Stuff like Poly and Rituals could be "Chants"; locations like most Field Spells and buildings like "Tower of Babel" could be "Landmarks"; Spell/Traps based on attacks or formations (e.g. Reinforcements, Rush Recklessly, "Fire Formations") could be "Tactic" Spell/Traps, and so on.

 

This way there would be little issue with assigning a type to Spell/Traps with multiple kind of effects (e.g. Magic Cylinder that both defends and burns).

[Sleepy]

Well, the way I would approach "Levels" for Spell/Traps is that they would only matter when it comes to support (and anti-support too). There is no need to add extra costs or conditions to "high not-Level" Spell/Traps. E.g. giving Raigeki a high not-Level doesn't mean it would have extra costs to be played. And this is where I say the "tunnel vision" comes in: because one associates a "high Level" with Tribute Summon costs, it can be misleading when the same keyword is used for Spell/Traps, and this is why I suggest a different keyword, and possibly scale to set them further apart. For instance, IMO 3, or perhaps 4, should be the highest not-Level for Spell/Traps.

 

EDIT:

Going back to the not-Types, if you are not convinced of going with "types by effect",, then another option I see is by nature, so to speak, of the Spell/Trap, which in a way would be more on parallel with current monster types like Warrior, Beast, etc. For instance, Spellbooks could be "Book" Type, most equips would be "Weapon", and maybe we can use "Curse" for some debuff Spell/Traps, and so on. Or perhaps go for "Artifact" when an object is involved. Stuff like Poly and Rituals could be "Chants"; locations like most Field Spells and buildings like "Tower of Babel" could be "Landmarks"; Spell/Traps based on attacks or formations (e.g. Reinforcements, Rush Recklessly, "Fire Formations") could be "Tactic" Spell/Traps, and so on.

 

This way there would be little issue with assigning a type to Spell/Traps with multiple kind of effects (e.g. Magic Cylinder that both defends and burns).

 

The "tunnel vision" comment is unnecessary commenting towards the arguer rather than the argument, and implies the opposition is stubbornly set in an unchanging position. I don't care what your explanation for using it is, I think it was out of line. The amount arguments in this thread is about enough for each of the three people posting to state our views entering the topic, and about 1 post arguing our doubts on the other posts for the sake of clearing up our own doubts about it to actually figure out if it is a better approach or not than our own initial ones. How is that "tunnel vision"? Wait for anybody to reach page 2 of repeating the same for that. The commentary also reeks of "you just don't see it guys, but I do". We don't need condescending content please.

 

With that out of the way, it seems you finally explained what you didn't know how to explain.

Monster Levels are actually divided in 3, maybe 4 parts, depending on the Tributes required. Though future mechanics to the initial rulebook increased the importance of each individual star. I have to say that is a repeating pattern for the weight of cards in games. In Pokemon you get stages 0 to 3 (3 being Mega). In Vanguard, your main card ascends from Grade 0 to 4 (4 being an Extra Deck mechanic). In MTG when I tried it out as a filthy casual with a starter deck, anything costing 4 mana or less was lightweight to drop, anything with over 4 mana was to be ran in small amounts because I'd often draw them without being able to play them, and anything past 8 to 10 mana in cost pretty much can dedicate a deck around them (though MTG is another horse and the standards were probably because it was a starter set). So you got it pretty spot on.

 

3 Sounds like the magic number, for weak, medium, strong. I could get behind that. That said, the reason "Levels" wouldn't fit anymore would be because of their inability to exist past 3. Even part of me still thinks not limiting to 3 (like monster Levels do) would on the long run allow for the in-betweens to fill up in some way, much like how Level 7 monsters are different from Level 8 monsters besides the small power gap..... but both are probably valid routes to take (referring to having only the stages [3] matter, OR having more, like Levels, for the long-term]. Now I guess the idea is short term

 

The typing idea I have mixed views on. It kind of sounds like "weapons" would almost always be equips, and "books" would almost always be spellbook cards, so if it took into account the already existing pool, it sounds redundant, but it wouldn't have a negative impact, and it'd free up the space for names, so it'd be a small plus. I'm not sure on it though.

[Darj]

The "tunnel vision" comment is unnecessary commenting towards the arguer rather than the argument, and implies the opposition is stubbornly set in an unchanging position. I don't care what your explanation for using it is, I think it was out of line. The amount arguments in this thread is about enough for each of the three people posting to state our views entering the topic, and about 1 post arguing our doubts on the other posts for the sake of clearing up our own doubts about it to actually figure out if it is a better approach or not than our own initial ones. How is that "tunnel vision"? Wait for anybody to reach page 2 of repeating the same for that. The commentary also reeks of "you just don't see it guys, but I do". We don't need condescending content please.

 

With that out of the way, it seems you finally explained what you didn't know how to explain.

Monster Levels are actually divided in 3, maybe 4 parts, depending on the Tributes required. Though future mechanics to the initial rulebook increased the importance of each individual star. I have to say that is a repeating pattern for the weight of cards in games. In Pokemon you get stages 0 to 3 (3 being Mega). In Vanguard, your main card ascends from Grade 0 to 4 (4 being an Extra Deck mechanic). In MTG when I tried it out as a filthy casual with a starter deck, anything costing 4 mana or less was lightweight to drop, anything with over 4 mana was to be ran in small amounts because I'd often draw them without being able to play them, and anything past 8 to 10 mana in cost pretty much can dedicate a deck around them (though MTG is another horse and the standards were probably because it was a starter set). So you got it pretty spot on.

 

3 Sounds like the magic number, for weak, medium, strong. I could get behind that. That said, the reason "Levels" wouldn't fit anymore would be because of their inability to exist past 3. Even part of me still thinks not limiting to 3 (like monster Levels do) would on the long run allow for the in-betweens to fill up in some way, much like how Level 7 monsters are different from Level 8 monsters besides the small power gap..... but both are probably valid routes to take (referring to having only the stages [3] matter, OR having more, like Levels, for the long-term]. Now I guess the idea is short term

 

The typing idea I have mixed views on. It kind of sounds like "weapons" would almost always be equips, and "books" would almost always be spellbook cards, so if it took into account the already existing pool, it sounds redundant, but it wouldn't have a negative impact, and it'd free up the space for names, so it'd be a small plus. I'm not sure on it though.

 

I apologize for that. In retrospect "tunnel vision" is not the accurate term for what I wanted to express, and I realize now that I failed to understand what you tried to convey. I just felt you were shooting my ideas down and were fixated in following the same template that monsters have (Levels, types not based on effects but mechanics or appearance), when in reality you were throwing ideas just as I was. So, my apologies again.

 

With that aside, and to contradict myself, now I actually think this "more weight on higher Spell/Trap power" approach could be implemented. For instance, it occurs to me the implementation of limitations like, let's say, players can only activate 1 Spell/Trap with a power level of 3 per turn. This could work as a balancing factor because if Raigeki and, let's say, Soul Charge are both power 3, then you can only activate 1 of those per turn. Spell/Traps of power 1 would have no such limitation.

 

And I would stick with "Artifact" type to cover all object-based Spell/Traps. While it would include most Equips and Spellbooks, it would also apply to Spell/Traps like the "Forbidden" Quick-Plays.