Mind burrower discussion

It is usually possible to find a solution that is balanced in both the most favorable situation, and the common play situation. In this case, the solution would be one that prevents the undizzying of Mind Burrowers.

That is what I meant to say. I did not imply to not base balancing arguments on combo possibilities.

And frankly, I don\'t think of Khrima and Cannabalize as game-shifting cards. If someone spends 15D on a creature you control to destroy it and gain life, that\'s a lot of mana. If you come to a point where either one player can spare these points and doesn\'t have anything else to play, that player\'s deck is flawed.
Same for Khrima, only a tad less towards the \'deck is flawed\' situation. I mean, Khrima can actually win you a game.

I\'m against any huge changes, and wouldn\'t mind a small change. It\'s ability is unique, which makes it hard to balance - so I can\'t say myself at what point it crosses the \"not worth putting in my deck line\" as I could with abilityless beatsticks.

But MooNFisH is right, in that if its comboability is reduced then its cost should be reduced (the power behind this card is for the most part in its ability to be undizzy combo\'d. While it could still be \"combo\'d around\" [by dizziers?] this is still a lot harder/more awkward to pull off).

And the rebalance actually includes that Mind Burrower dizzies on use. I couldn\'t remember if this point was at all under siscussion.

MooNFisH Wrote:It is usually possible to find a solution that is balanced in both the most favorable situation, and the common play situation. In this case, the solution would be one that prevents the undizzying of Mind Burrowers.

That is what I meant to say. I did not imply to not base balancing arguments on combo possibilities.

Oh, okay. That makes much more sense.

MooNFisH Wrote:And frankly, I don\'t think of Khrima and Cannabalize as game-shifting cards. If someone spends 15D on a creature you control to destroy it and gain life, that\'s a lot of mana. If you come to a point where either one player can spare these points and doesn\'t have anything else to play, that player\'s deck is flawed.
Same for Khrima, only a tad less towards the \'deck is flawed\' situation. I mean, Khrima can actually win you a game.

Interesting. I think using Canny on, say, a Legend Hawk--to pick a recent example--is a pretty game-changing moment. You just lost a 10 mana creature and I gained enough life to soak up a few more turns of damage from, say, a Spirit Bird. Sure it cost me 15D, but it was well worth it because it saved me from getting pounded by a big bird AND gained me a few turns of life. And of course if I can get lucky and Canny a DLK, well, I think my 15D bought me a LOT more than yours did. On the other hand Khrima can take down 2 Spirit Birds and live to be sacced. That can also certainly change the momentum of a game. I realize the current metagame favors beatstick rush, but still...

masamunemaniac Wrote:But MooNFisH is right, in that if its comboability is reduced then its cost should be reduced (the power behind this card is for the most part in its ability to be undizzy combo\'d. While it could still be \"combo\'d around\" [by dizziers?] this is still a lot harder/more awkward to pull off).

Sure! Let\'s make the Burrower cost 5D and be non-undizziable! Then I can play my Burrower/FMV deck and go head to head with Golem Rush! Why spend 5g on a golem when I can spend 5D/2L on YOUR golem! For just an FMV more, I can prevent your attack, kill your golem, and play a golem of my own! And even if you DO have a tmancy, I still make a profit! I dunno. I mean there\'s something to be said for countering Golem Rush, but this seems like insanity. Which suggests in turn that one of us is very wrong. I\'m willing to accept the possibility that it\'s me, but I\'d need some convincing...

I agree with Dav1000 on considering Burrower as a game-changer. I also believe we should consider the combos when balancing burrower. On the other hand, I don\'t believe its cost would need to be reduced in this case.

Why? We\'ve mentioned already that a larval-stage change will only add a turn delay, and make you shift from using undizziers to using dizziers. Since there are cheap dizziers available, your costs to play it were not increased by this change, you just got a slower spell. I don\'t believe this warrants a cost decrease. Ceratinly not to 5D, as you can steal a 6L creature, and beat up a second 6L creature for 5D+2L (for dizzier).

I\'ve mentioned before that making burrower ridiculously expensive (15D?) would be ok by me, as the big game-changing aspect would not be then considered a cheap abuse. But on the other hand, it probably isn\'t going to be approved, and it seems too much when you consider that it needs to be comboed to be game-changing. OTOH, changing the mana cost slightly (8-10D) will by itself just make the combo more or less common, but it\'s arguable whether it can be considered balanced.

According to sqweek, burrower was 6D when clash came out and then was increased. It stands to reason that the least it can cost after the larval change should be 6D, as it was in prime. Likewise, I\'d argue that the reasoning for taking it up to 7D still holds, as there are still cheap spells that can make it survive long enough to be used (only old dizzier spell was t-mancy for 6 or 7G).

Again, I suggest adding the larval stage now and playtesting it. Smaller changes to mana cost and such can be added later on.

I think my preferred solutions are, in approximate order of preference:

1) Destroy Burrower regardless of success
2) Destroy if targeted by spell, lower cost to 6
3) 10 life, lower cost to 6
4) Larval solution

Compare mind burrower+conviction to tough dragon+conviction. And mind burrower without conviction to tough dragon. Tough dragon costs 1 more but has use if no opponent\'s creature\'s are out



In the case that no creatures are out

Mindburrower -> net gain after attack phase: anti-creature effect (see below)
tough dragon -> net gain after attack phase: Opponent loses 75 life, anti-creature effect (see below)

Clearly tough dragon has a huge basic advantage when no creatures are available, so now let\'s look at when there are creatures available.

Anti Creature effect:
These to creatures can both kill creatures. Assuming creature has <60 life, tough dragon will live and thus tough dragon in some cases has equal or greater anti-creature effect than mind burrower. In fact, it is as if tough dragon were a mind burrower that was able to steal their creature and trade life for attack, but only if that creature is a lower value creature, which is important.


If creature is played and undizzied
Mind burrower has benefit of being able to steal it before it can use abilities or even attack, unless it is ability immune, like dark wasps, at that point, tough dragon has an advantage.


In the case on the opponent\'s turn a winged golem is brought out (or a mind burrower or tough dragon is played and convicted on the turn a single winged demon is out)

Mindburrower-> net gain after attack phase: 55/55 creature
tough dragon -> net gain after attack phase: 75/5 creature


In the case on the opponent\'s turn a stone golem is brought out

Mindburrower-> net gain after attack phase: 45/45 creature
tough dragon -> net gain after attack phase: 75/15 creature

Rio is brought out

Mindburrower-> net gain after attack phase: 30/25 creature
tough dragon -> net gain after attack phase: 75/30 creature

Khrima is brought out (in the case that mind burrower is already out, this will not occur, in the case mind burrower used conviction, this is unbalanced)

Mindburrower(assuming conviction) -> net gain after attack phase: gains khrima
tough dragon -> net gain after attack phase: dies, khrima within killable range of 30 life

Mind burrower is good against big creatures, pathetic against small ones, and has no external benefit against the opponent when no creatures are in play. Tough dragon is pathetic against 10+ mana costing creatures, excellent against small ones, and has a huge external benefit of being able to reduce the opponent\'s life by a fourth every turn if no other creatures are in play.

There are many benefits and costs of each that can balance out as well (spell examples: tough dragon can be mmw\'d and killed by a thundermancy + rio, mind burrower can be lasered, thundermancied, shadehawk\'d and killed by an fmv + rio)



Hopefully that wasn\'t confusing, it\'s pretty late and I may be a bit out of it. The general point is mind burrower is a lot more comparable to tough dragon than to end disk 2. He is overpowered, yes, the benefits that come from conviction when used on big creatures outweigh the benefits of using tough dragon on the player when no creatures are out. But, if we remove his ability to use it on big creatures by letting the opponent sac them he becomes weaker than tough dragon in a lot of ways.


The above was meant to be a factual and somewhat unbiased comparison (bias caused by sleepyness). Though, since everyone else seems to be reiterating their opinion a lot for some reason, I will as well, so as not to be lost in the sea of posts.

I still have problems with the delay-use a turn thing, I am still worried about opponent\'s saccing creatures, which seems in flavor to me for holy beacon but not mind burrower, and I\'d still rather he be

Code:

(spell immune) >lose spell immunity, gain ability \"destroy self, dizzy and steal target creature\"(e speed)

, which is basically the same exact thing as what zaen is proposing except that I can use knell dorn on him. I wouldn\'t even be opposed to it costing 3D to activate to fix his cost descrepency with big creatures.

kaddar, your analysis of the burrower-as-a-lock situation isn\'t correct. You\'re failing to take timing into account.

Say your oponent plays a burrower, and you don\'t have any creature-killer cards. Your best case scenario is to play a small creature, have it stolen and then play a big creature. Say you have rio and a bird:
My turn: Play rio.
oponent: Do nothing. (or play a creature)
My turn: Attack burrower with rio (can\'t play bird or it\'ll be stolen). Burrower steals.
Oponent: Attack with rio, and whatever else. optionally play something.
My turn: Play bird, whatever else I can do with the extra mana I\'ve acumulated
Oponent: Attack with rio, and whatever else. optionally play something.
My turn: Kill rio with bird.

A burrower on the field buys you 3, maybe 4 turns. The best timing-related counter is two same-sized creatures:
My turn: Play 2x stone golems
oponent: Do nothing. (or play a creature)
My turn: Attack burrower with golems. Burrower steals and blocks. Both die.
You only lose 2 turns, 2 cards and a lot of mana.

(I used to play a burrower/ooze deck towards the end of prime, to try to point out just how evil burrower is. On a good draw I could have a burrower and an ooze on the board second turn, so I\'ve seen the above lockage from both sides of the board. Burrower decks are nice against almost everything but manaless rush, hence the oozes)

Of course, nowadays there are a couple ability-inmune creatures that might get you out of trouble. I don\'t have enough experience iwth them to figure out how the timing works.

I\'d have to think about it some more to compare it to tough dragon, which at first sight seems fair enough, if you up burrowers cost rather than reducing it.
I still think that forcing an oponent to sac his big creatures on the off-chance you might have a dizzier, and then losing a turn or two casting a new big creature should be enough of an attack, but let me come up with a number-based argument.

Strategic Lock Value

If the opponent sacs his big creatures without the burrower dying, hasn\'t the burrower already accomplished his goals of wiping the big creature from the field?

You have to sac, not one, but all your big creatures if you don\'t want the burrower to destroy it. That just jacks the hell out of your move.

Saying the burrower has no external use when the opponent has no creatures out, is like saying K-Sword and M-Sword have no external use when the opponent has no creatures out.

Plus, his continued presence on the field is a warning that no big creatures can be played without the burrower being removed first, giving you time.

Therefore, consider the following case:

I play a Rio, a Drecker, and a Dragon.

In the burrower case, who would die? Dragon first. Drecker last.
In the Tough Dragon case, who would die? Drecker first. Dragon last.

However, I\'m preety much barred from making moves like this:

I play a Rio, a Drecker, and a Winged.

In the burrower case, who would die? Winged First. Then Rio/Drecker to follow with me up a Winged at the end.
In the tough dragon case, who would die? Drecker first. Winged Second. Rio lives.

Perhaps what can be remarked upon here on these poor hypothetical situations is that the Burrower severly limits what you can do to counterplay against it, whereas the Tough Dragon, you can preety much do whatever you want if you have both high cost and low cost creatures. If the creatures you play are the same cost, then Tough Dragon and Burrower are fairly even for 2:2 swappage. If the creatures you play are dramatically different costs, say 3/6, Burrower wins in almost all cases.

Targeting

A Tough Dragon can be slammed to death by two 3 mana\'ers. I get to choose one of them, as I\'m going to attack back after he kills one of mine. I get to choose one of the people who are going to die.

For the burrower, when he steals and kills one of mine, I don\'t get to choose either target. He steals whomever he wants because of his ability status, he often triggers on defend phase. Then it\'s his attack phase and he gets to attack whoever he wants.

If the Tough Dragon was a spell, he\'d read \"Destroy one creature. Then his opponent choose one creature to destroy.\"

While the burrower would read \"Destroy two creatures.\"

Subtle, but important.

Speed

Preety minor, but oftentimes, the burrower is triggered on Defend phase. This means that normally, when the attacker has the advantage, the burrower player negates it entirely by using it on defend. He can choose who to kill on defend phase, rather than on attack phase.

Speed can seem minor, but in game, it suddenly doesn\'t seem so, does it?

Minor Note: Rio, by the way, is a 25/20\'er. He can\'t kill a Burrower.

From what I\'ve seem, unlike Holy Beacon, the burrower doesn\'t tend to say on the field very long, because mid-low life creatures are much easier to remove than effects. Therefore, it doesn\'t serve as a great long-term deterrant unless you have board control. (I can\'t think of any reason why if you have good board control then you couldn\'t have the burrower out as a standing threat, I\'ve just never seen it.)

I do know that the beacon, which superficially most resembles the burrower, makes an excellent standing threat, although is less of an actual threat since there is no good way to undizzy effects, and the average deck has multiple effect hate, but many lack a spell capable of doing 30 damage.

When Beacon hits the table, you pretty much have two options if you don\'t have effect hate - you can either bite the bullet and let the guy take one of your effects, or you can sacrifice any of your good effects. Depending on the situation, the latter can be preferable, but then the Beacon remains as a standing threat; got a cane in your hand? It\'d be foolish to drop it; it\'s almost dead weight. If you do draw some effect D, then the cane can still take one of your generators with it. I don\'t know how much of this is analogous to the burrower, but I think that it\'s important to consider.

As long as the burrower can be undizzied, people are going to use it that way. It\'s not like it isn\'t a rather obvious combo. Because of this, I feel like it\'s actually rather unimportant to consider how well the burrower works without the aid of undizziers (or slightly less useful, dizziers).

\'Joyd Wrote:From what I\'ve seem, unlike Holy Beacon, the burrower doesn\'t tend to say on the field very long, because mid-low life creatures are much easier to remove than effects. Therefore, it doesn\'t serve as a great long-term deterrant unless you have board control. (I can\'t think of any reason why if you have good board control then you couldn\'t have the burrower out as a standing threat, I\'ve just never seen it.)

Part of the nice thing about burrowers as locks is that if you have them out, you get enough time to play creatures for board control. Currently, that doesn\'t work so well because of the prevalence of rio/drecker/dragon, but if you know you\'re going up against a winged golem or dragoon deck, you can use a deck that does skull/dark rit/burrower to get one on second turn.

\'Joyd Wrote:As long as the burrower can be undizzied, people are going to use it that way. It\'s not like it isn\'t a rather obvious combo. Because of this, I feel like it\'s actually rather unimportant to consider how well the burrower works without the aid of undizziers (or slightly less useful, dizziers).

Well, the question came up because there is discussion about removing the aid of undizziers. And also because of kaddar\'s comparison. Some of us think that burrower is still a formidable card without any undizzying.

How about either \"Can only use this ability on your draw phase\" or \"Can only use this ability on your turn\"? The former seems less convoluted than a larval stage, and both mean it\'s less able to lockdown an opponent since he can speed summon (or undizzy) something and kill it without losing a creature.

Let me see if I can summarize this up a bit.

Aspects of the Mind Burrower:

MANA COST - 7D: Relatively low cost in comparison to other removal spells. Somewhat splashable. With hand of Magic Ritual and Magic Skull, can be played on turn 2. More likely to be played at about turn 4-6 in a dark deck.

SAC COST - 7D: Break even from mana cost.

TYPE - Horror: Little bonuses. Can be undizzied via Melrak Chantress, which leads to the next aspect...

ABILITY - Destroy Mind Burrower: Gain control of target creature. : A hot topic. Powerful removal. Obliteration, as well as increasing the Burrower-player\'s graveyard. Able to turn the tables in a game. Effective against large creatures, less so against medium creatures, and very cost-inefficent against small creatures. Flavorful. E speed, so the lowest speed.

SUBSECTION: Used in conjunction with undizziers to steal creatures before the opponent can respond with an attack against it.

It also is a deterrent for most players against playing their stronger creatures while it is out.

Can be used as a decoy.

Controller chooses the target, giving him/her the advantage in most situations. When there is nothing out, it does less.

EFFECT OF PHASES - Controller\'s Draw, Sac, Play, Attack phases: Overrides opponent\'s E-speed abilities. In Sac phase, the burrower is \"safe\" from removal because it can be sacced at S-speed. Can steal an untapped opponent\'s monster and attack in the same turn. Can remove potential blockers. Nullifies Draw Phase abilities like mana bird or kelar scholar, and prevents stolen creature from untapping

Opponent\'s Defend Phase: Very little chance of activation. If successfully activated, can steal a blocker.

Opponent\'s Resolution Phase: Nullifies Draw Phase abilities like mana bird or kelar scholar, and prevents stolen creature from untapping. Hard to activate.

Opponent\'s Draw, Sacrifice, Attack Phase: Steals a potential attacker. Usually stolen creature is untapped, allowing for a potential block. Hard to activate.

Opponent\'s Play Phase: Can steal a newly played creature. Same effects as Draw phase.

Controller\'s Defend Phase: Easy to activate. Allows the Burrower to steal an attacker and block another attacker.

Controller\'s Attack Resolution: Can steal an creature which then untaps one phase later. However, rarely is used at this point.

ATTACK - 0: Deals no damage to opposing creatures. Makes the downside of Zipgrappler obsolete. Prevents a kill from MMW.

LIFE - 30: Destroyed by one Laser, T-mancy, Smite, 3 Firebolts/Fooms, Destroyed by 2D and 3D creatures (ex. Mite, KRYLGRD, Pikeman), and some 3G creatures (ex. Fencer, Dragon). The cheapest white creature able to destroy it is Spybot at 2L, followed by Podderhead at 3L, then by Reka at 4L.

ALTERNATIVES: look at Zaen\'s post in the middle of page two, if you want.

-Larva solution: Heavily favored by posters, forces the Burrower to wait a turn before use. Disliked by alphamai for flavor reasons. I don\'t care. It has been suggested that people will end up using dizziers to get around this.

-Spell immunity: Prevents getting removed, prevents undizzier spells used on it. The suggested result is that people will again use dizziers or use creature undizziers like melrak chantress and holy priests. Somewhat favoured by posters.

-Increased mana cost: takes longer to play, but doesn\'t solve the undizzier problem. Opposition states that it had a higher cost before, also. I still like this solution. Not really favored.

-When targeted by a spell, destroy it: Any targeting spell would kill the burrower here, and helpful spells would destroy the burrower. Once again, could result in creature undizziers being used instead of spells. Could make the burrower blow up more often. Question: What would happen if a landing was used on a burrower? Somewhat favored.

-Give it 10 life: Brings it into Foombolt range, but that isn\'t played too often. Makes Orders and Knell\'Dorn kill it, removing one clash dizzier and one creature dizzier. Makes Lowly slime able to kill it. Conviction and Zipgrappler are unaffected. Not really favored.

-Dizzy creature it steals, or additionally doesn\'t untap next untap: Prevents a steal-block, but might actually make it\'s 7D cost too high. Somewhat favored.

-Burrower dies if target is removed: Makes the burrower more of a one-shot card. Removing the target can be a difficult task, though. The permanency of the card is greatly reduced. Might result in more lumi-burrower combos...

-Other suggestions, but I\'m tired of thinking so much. Look at Zaen\'s post on the second page if you want.

I now place my vote on adding the dizzy the creature it steals, possibly increasing the mana cost too. I like the mechanic how it is, and don\'t want to make a larva card.

azulknight Wrote:-Spell immunity: Prevents getting removed, prevents undizzier spells used on it. The suggested result is that people will again use dizziers or use creature undizziers like melrak chantress and holy priests. Somewhat favoured by posters.

The way mine works is not that it \"prevents mind burrower from getting removed\". Correct term is \"Spell Immunity until ability can be used\", since it loses spell immunity as soon as it gains creature stealing ability. As long as mind burrower is E speed any non-e speed ability can still remove mind burrower.

azulknight Wrote:-Larva solution: Heavily favored by posters

I don\'t know that I\'d use the term \'heavily\'. There might be a slightly stronger inclination towards this solution than the other semi-popular ones, but I don\'t really see any sort of consensus developing. To me, this is an \'acceptable\', but not preferred solution.

nifboy Wrote:How about either \"Can only use this ability on your draw phase\" or \"Can only use this ability on your turn\"? The former seems less convoluted than a larval stage, and both mean it\'s less able to lockdown an opponent since he can speed summon (or undizzy) something and kill it without losing a creature.

Sounds interesting, may be even better than the larval idea, but I doubt it can be implemented without additional code. There are no phase restrictions currently. Plus, the people who like the burrower being powerful are very unlikely to agree, as it removes the steal/block combo.

It would be nice in reducing the locking potential of burrower though.

I don\'t believe mind burrower should be changed at all. Part of a card game is putting cards into your deck to deal with possible threats that you know are out there. If you find that mind burrowers are a consistant problem for you, then put cards in your deck like dizziers that solve that problem AND have uses for other things. If once in a great while somebody pulls off the combo and takes your creature, then you know to expect it next time you play that persons deck and you change your strategy accordingly. Right now there aren\'t tons of mind burrower decks out there causing problems, so I don\'t see why this is such an issue. Instead of nerfing a card that you don\'t like just find a way around it. It\'s not like the solutions don\'t exist already. Many have already been stated in this thread in fact.

..but a large part of the reason why burrower/undizzy decks don\'t rule casual play is the same reason golem rush decks don\'t--it\'s considered far too powerful and not fun, so people don\'t play them. I\'d like them to be nerfed so I can play them without feeling like I\'m abusing the system.

Amped08 Wrote:I don\'t believe mind burrower should be changed at all.

Congratulations, you\'re the third person to think so. I\'m updating the summary post with your input. Consensus seems to still be for changing it.

As has been pointed out before, even if there are theoretically ways to handle a burrower, expecting everyone to hold onto the card and keep the mana ready at all times just in case someone might happen to play that specific creature, is kind of far fetched. I\'m thinking of laser and such. Dizziers might work, if you havent used them and if you have a creature that can take it down.

It\'s not like it\'s useless if it\'s changed to dissallow insta-burrowing.

I vote for at LEAST destruction when used. I don\'t like the larva.

You know, I remember back before clash, when I was mentioning the Undizziers to people, I said \"They\'re going to change the way the game is played\" and people weren\'t convinced. A lot of people weren\'t even sure they were worth playing.

Then clash came out.