Mind burrower discussion

If a burrower \"misses\" its target, how does that validate its destruction? A miss is a miss. Already people are supporting a larval stage, more than enough to force the user to work around/with it. Granted other changes, like increasing life or lowering cost, must also be implemented.

I can sorta see spell immunity. It does give the player on the defensive the likey needed turn to react.

I also wouldn\'t mind the \"dizzy targeted monster\" if the ability was successful.

I am still a firm believer that the burrower should not be changed.

Larva Form:

Workaround: Switch to dizziers from undizziers. Nothing changes.
A.K.A. Swimsuit.

Miss validates Destruction:

If we lucky save our creatures, burrower can retarget. Nothing we can do to stop you from stealing one creature if the burrower is alive and undizzied.

No lucky saves, no landings, no clever self destructs. Burrower cannot be stopped on my side. It must be targeted offensively.

Spell Immunity:

Workaround: Switch to dizziers from undizziers. Nothing changes.

Defender (Burrower) gets and edge that now lasers, and the like won\'t touch it any more.

Amped08:

Sure. There are counters to burrower. There are also counters to Winged Golem.

1) Would employing such a counter inevitably bring me down on cards and mana count?

I can\'t answer this.

2) If not, how much would I lose if I didn\'t counter the combination?

How much would I lose.. I\'d be down a card. He\'d be up a card. I\'d be down whatever mana the creature has. He\'d be at the same mana level minus 7D. So, total losses: 1 card advantage. My biggest creature on the field. Whatever mana cost to make that creature minus 7D.

Compare to say.. MMW, where the total loss is just a mana difference.

3) If the loss is preety game breaking, is it due to some fundamental weakness in my deck that 95% of all decks can do?

I can\'t answer this.

4) If not, why is one combination so strong, and thus entails the weakening of solid decks in order to take care of?

I can\'t answer this.

5) If it entails a change, what other justifications become possible?

I can\'t answer this.

Xypherous-Oxide Wrote: Larva Form:

Workaround: Switch to dizziers from undizziers. Nothing changes.
A.K.A. Swimsuit.

Very little changes, true, but it gives you a turn to gather mana and sac creatures.

Xypherous-Oxide Wrote: Miss validates Destruction:

If we lucky save our creatures, burrower can retarget. Nothing we can do to stop you from stealing one creature if the burrower is alive and undizzied.

No lucky saves, no landings, no clever self destructs. Burrower cannot be stopped on my side. It must be targeted offensively.

True, I do like this change, but I\'m wary of changing too much at a time. I think disabling insta-steal is more important than destroy-on-fail, so if only one change is to be implemented, I\'d say insta-steal first.

Xypherous-Oxide Wrote: Spell Immunity:

Workaround: Switch to dizziers from undizziers. Nothing changes.

Defender (Burrower) gets and edge that now lasers, and the like won\'t touch it any more.

Note that nobody is proposing full-blown spell inmunity for burrower. Rather, spell inmune until you can activate him, at which point a big red target is drawn on him.
The current proposal buys you a turn, unless there is a chantress on their side, at which point you go back to the insta-steal situation.

I think that allowing for saccing and gaining mana to take down the burrower with a laser, mancy or other direct damage (shotgun) is enough of a nerf for the fella.
Hence my supporting of the larval thingie.

I think Mind Burrower is balanced as is.

It\'s easily taken down, unless of course you have board control or an undizzier.

If you have an undizzier, the opponent can play pretty much any of the common destruction cards besides Firebolt/MMW, and put you down 1 card advantage for neglible card loss.

Or you can pack FMVs, and simply counter the undizzier, in which case you get to take down the burrower very cheaply.

Now, you may ask, \'Why should I need to pack counters against a specific card?\' But these cards also work against the similar functions Life Eater, AN-52 + undizzier, ect.

Thus, it is in my mind about the same thing as the neccessity for effect destruction to stave off the Swords/Diplomacy/Ect.

AN-52? Give me a break. Any time he uses an ability he loses a card as well. Life Eater? He takes 50 damage whenever he uses an ability. I don\'t need to counter those cards. Yet they\'re considered powerful ability cards.

Yet these cards are considered balanced with the penalties on their ability. (AN-52\'s card cost, life eater\'s life cost.) Yet Mind Burrower has no penalty on it\'s ability going off.

Pack FMV\'s? Great. Now everything else will kill you except the burrower. Is the threat of burrowers so great that you need to fill your deck with delayers?

I can understand a set of cards demanding me to carry a counter. There are a whole plethora of effects and giant creatures out there to make me wish I had effect D and creature D.

Why should I pack FMV\'s, lasers and T-mancies for one specific combo? I don\'t need FMV\'s and Lasers and T-mancies for AN-52 or life eater. Their ability cost and effect neatly balance themselves out even if they do go off.

Mind Burrower kills you on that turn. You must have your counter that turn or it goes off. Compare this to diplomacy, golden idol or anything. They give you time. They don\'t start eating up the entire damn field within a second.

Okay, wait, so every deck now needs.. Effect D.. Large Creature D.. Burrower Counters.. and we might as well have FoH counterspells and basic locations.

It\'ll just make CmC a whole entire game of \"Damn. He played Card X, but I haven\'t drawn counter Y yet. I lose.\" instead of \"how can I use the cards at hand to steadily tilt the game to my advantage\"

Xypherous Oxide Wrote:It\'ll just make CmC a whole entire game of \"Damn. He played Card X, but I haven\'t drawn counter Y yet. I lose.\" instead of \"how can I use the cards at hand to steadily tilt the game to my advantage\"

Just wanted to say that was nicely put, and pretty much what I\'d have said if it would\'ve crossed my mind.