Kaleidoscope

[OdinVanguard]

--Optional--

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

Kaeleidoscope
Cost: 4 / 3
Stats (if creature or weapon): -NA-
Ability(ies):

• unupgraded: "An enemy skill that affects a single target affects all viable targets. Unready. Rereadies at start of next turn."
• upgraded: "An enemy skill that affects a single target affects all viable targets. Unready. Rereadies at start of next turn."

A cousin to ricochet.
Unlike ricochet, this card only affects skills of creatures or permanents owned by your enemy. It also causes every possible target to get targeted.

Example1:
Your opponent has a field full of druids and you have a 5|1 lava golem and 3 voodoo dolls and a mirror shield.
Your oponent uses a druid's shockwave ability on your golem.
All of their elves get hit for 4 damage and die. Your Golem gets hit for 4 damage and dies and your 4 voodoo dolls get hit for 4 damage, inflicting 12 damage on your opponent at the same time. Since shockwave can target players, both you and your opponent get targeted. Your mirror shield reflects it so your opponent takes an additional 8 damage.

Example2:
Your opponent has a pulverizer and 3 lockets and 2 inertias.
They use pulverize to destroy your Kaleidiscope.
Your kaleidiscope is destroyed along with your opponent's pulverizer and all of their lockets and inertias.

Example3:
You have a georesonator that has produced one of each pillar for you.
Your opponent has a water nymph and uses their ability on one of their water towers.
They get a water nymph and you get one nymph of each element.

[timpa]

Wouldn't the pulverizer example destroy all unprotected permanents in game? (like all of your pillars and pends)

What would happen if they used the locket ability instead of the pulverizer?

[Zaranir]

Wouldn't the pulverizer example destroy all unprotected permanents in game? (like all of your pillars and pends)

What would happen if they used the locket ability instead of the pulverizer?

I think because they stack, only the "top" of it would be destroyed, so 1 pillar/pend

[OdinVanguard]

Wouldn't the pulverizer example destroy all unprotected permanents in game? (like all of your pillars and pends)

What would happen if they used the locket ability instead of the pulverizer?

I think because they stack, only the "top" of it would be destroyed, so 1 pillar/pend

^Exactly. So every stack would lose 1 stack.

If a permanent is protected it would no longer be a "viable" target.

Its like ricochet, except it hits everything that ricochet could exactly 1 time (ricochet can double up).

[serprex]

This seems to be an idea which in very specific cases will completely counter something, but otherwise will do nothing most of the time

[OdinVanguard]

This seems to be an idea which in very specific cases will completely counter something, but otherwise will do nothing most of the time

^
It should have a very large range of uses I think. Its purpose is more of a deterent than anything else.

-Otyughs / scarabs: could end up devouring all of owners creatuers
-B.E., pulvy: cause mass destruction on both sides
--SoFo will likely auto black hole itself
-Wardens: delay and possibly kill everything that doesn't fly
-Arctic squids (can you say gotterdamerung?)
-Elves / Druids: end up shooting own creatures including selves... lol
-Fallen Elves: Mass mutation...
-Byt: Ends up buffing all of opponents creatures as well as your own
-Parasite, toadfish, shtriga, grey nymph: poison everything
--Grey nymphs would poison both players too.
-Orochi: ends up eating everything including self
-Mind Flayer and Lobotomizers: Lobo entire field

Also, the give combo could be very interesting. (arctic squids + this + flown gladius...)
Probably many situations where it is quite good with voodoo and / or sadism.

I remember the point of situational cards coming up repeated in old boards. The test is whether or not there are at least X situations where the card is useful. Usually X is somewhere around 4 or 5. This card has more than twice that many situations where it has utility in at least some form.

[serprex]

Those situations are all contrived. Your opponent won't do an action which isn't to their benefit, so it sort of acts as a way to stop them from using abilities. But if you're playing a creature deck, they'll use it when it suits them to clear your field. & if you're creatureless, they don't need CC anyways. The only real combos are with Psyche Metal & Rico

[timpa]

Comboing it with give allows some offensive uses for this, but the quanta base will likely be a trio/quad.

Maxwell would be annoying in this situation, as well as Otys (though it could get out of hand quickly).

[OdinVanguard]

Those situations are all contrived. Your opponent won't do an action which isn't to their benefit, so it sort of acts as a way to stop them from using abilities. But if you're playing a creature deck, they'll use it when it suits them to clear your field. & if you're creatureless, they don't need CC anyways. The only real combos are with Psyche Metal & Rico

Psyche metal could be pretty ugly with the give combo... It would force them to play every card in their hand.

Defensively though, this is meant as a deterrent.
When combo'd with Rico, they effectively are forced to deal with all of their spells and creature skills being mass target effects. They lose all ability to pinpoint.

Many of those aren't as contrived as they seem.
For example, if you are playing against a deck that is using BB and / or Freeze as a lockdown the opposing player will end up locking down their own offense every time they need to stop a card you own. Yes, they can clear your field at will, but they will clear their own field at the same time.

If this seems UP still, it can be made stronger easily. I.e. have it only trigger if the opponent targets something you own and limit the mass effect to the opponent's side.... That seemed a little too strong to me though, but maybe I am over valuing the double edge deterrent effect.

[serprex]

I didn't pick up on using give on Kaleidoscope itself. Whoops. Tough to evaluate