Card #41 - Deathstalker Scorpion

Aarikku · Card #41 - Deathstalker Scorpion

(Level Three) Deathstalker Scorpion (Earth/Dark)
Category: Desert - Scorpion
Effect: While [Barren Desert] is in play, when this card attacks a monster, destroy the attacked monster.
ATK: 3000
DEF: 3600
Creator: Eric

(The Scorpion category will be added to the card later.)

Naardaas

What a coincidence that the Day I complete Camel Spider Deathstalker gets COTW.

Deathstalker is a great card is a Desert deck, and once I finish the Archetype a Scorpion deck. Three Mana is a lot for 3000 ATK, but usually it will be 3300+ ATK thanks to Barren Desert and/or Horned Viper. If it can't beat something, it can just invenomate it and kill it before battle. I'm not sure it can actually normal atack, but if it can it's even better.

For Desert, it gets 4.5/5 for sure. For art, 4/5. I like the art Aarikku, don't get me wrong, but the legs are off to me.

Aarikku

Yeah, the legs aren't great. It took me bloody forever to draw this thing and I was getting tired of it.

Deathstalker Scorpion's effect is one that won't often be used. It can destroy Spectre Tadpole in one shot, Bomb Dragon without dying, and stronger monsters at the cost of itself and a Life. So, not the most godly of effects. But the Desert Category has a lot of support, and more is on the way once I find my Pyramid Shrine sketch.

3000/3600 is about average for a Level Three, surprisingly. Boss cards of themes generally have 3400 or higher and more restrictions. And then there are the two Level Threes with 3500; Chimera of Fate and Noble Dragon. In Defence, it'll hold out against any Level Three.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that it's a beatstick. It's not a ridiculously powerful card, but it will help a dedicated Desert deck. And if/when I make Pyramid Shrine, it'll become an amazing card. So 3.5/5 for now.

Naardaas

It'll also get better once I introduce some support Scorpions that intertwine classic Desert and pure Scorpions.

Aarikku

That's true.

On that note... well, I'll just put it bluntly: I really don't like Camel Spider's art. And upon research, it's not even a Scorpion. It's part of the order Solifugae, which makes it no more a Scorpion than a tarantula is.

Naardaas

Aarikku, I'm a bug enthusiast. I know that Camel Spiders are Solifugids. While I'm here, Whip Scorpions and their Tail-Less Counter parts aren't true scorpions either. Whips are Urpoygids, and Tail-Less are Amblypygids. I did that because all three are known as Scorpions bby most people (Camel Spiders are also called Wind Scorpions). And I believe in Chapter 3 of my series Darwin mentioned it was a Solifugid.

Why don't you like the art?

Aarikku

But it doesn't look anything like a Scorpion! Personally, when I think scorpions, I think death-tail and pincers. Just the naming isn't good enough.

And I don't like the art because well, it doesn't look like a scorpion. It looks like a spider.

Naardaas

That's fine. If you don't like it as a Scorpion, it can be a non-Scorpion Scorpion Support. Kinda like Substitoad for Frogs.

Are you gonna stop be from making Tail-Less and Whip?

Aarikku

That's fine. I've made a few cards that support categories they themselves don't fall under (Tanishi - Snail Seer, for one).

Make whatever Scorpion support you want, but if they're gonna have the Scorpion category, make them look like Scorpions.

Naardaas

How does a Tail-Less Whip Scorpion look to you? Enough like a scorpion?

And to fix Camel Spider, make it... Desert - Spider. That works. Kinda.

Aarikku

I don't have any plans for Spiders; I dunno about you. Seems unnecessary. Desert'll work just fine.

And we'll have to see on Whip Scorpion. They look kinda like lobsters on Wikipedia. I wouldn't call 'em Scorpions.

Naardaas

Wikipedia isn't exactly known for is authenticity. They're very close relatives of Scorpions.

In fact, Scorpion ancestors like Pterygotus and Brontoscorpio looked more like lobsters or Uropygids than true Scorpions. By scientific stand-point, I'd say they fit the bill.

Aarikku

But what scorpions looked like eighty billion years ago is completely irrelevant. And Wikipedia is, actually, very accurate. It only isn't when someone edits it to be inaccurate, in which case it's changed in about an hour.

Anywho, the relevant point is; what is a scorpion?

My online dictionary describes it as "any of numerous arachnids of the order Scorpionida, widely distributed in warmer parts of the world, having a long, narrow, segmented tail that terminates in a venomous sting."

That there's the important part. In my opinion, if it's not part of order Scorpionida, it's not a scorpion.

Naardaas

Now that's the kind of answer I like to hear. I site science (specifically entomology) as a source, and you site a dictionary definition as a counterpoint. I like it when someone uses outside sources to prove a point.

Eighty Billion years ago? I'm pretty sure that's before the Big Bang. Those scorpions I mentioned are from the Silurian, about 400 or so Million years ago. Just for reference, Scorpions started to look like themselves in the Carboniferous, some 350 Million years ago.

All in all, I like how you defended your point, but I still have to incist in Whip and Tailless becoming Scorpions. Evin if they're not Scorpionids, again they are from very closely related species, and they also look very much like Scorpions. I can touch them up to look more scorpion-esque (Think Solifugids look exactly like Camel Spider?) as part of creative license.

Aarikku

'Eighty billion' was a hyperbole. Obviously.

Tailless Scorpion looks a lot more like a spider, and Whip Scorpion looks a lot more like a lobster. You really can't argue that they should be scorpions because they look like scorpions if they don't.

Creative license will only get you so far; I don't think it's possible to make a scorpion without a tail look more like a scorpion than anything else. Best you'll get is a hermit crab. Whip Scorpion should be easier; just replace the tail with an actual whip or something.