PDA

View Full Version : Wild Root Dancer: Too cost effective



kawakimi
12-09-2013, 08:30 AM
Currently, wild root dancer is pretty overpowered for its cost. Compare with Noble Citizenry.

Noble Citizenry: 4c 2dt
+2 / +2 once on another troop

Wild Root Dancer: 3c 1wt
+2 / +2 potentially every turn on another troop

The only time Noble Citizenry will be better than Wild Root Dancer is when using expensive and hard-to-pull-off combinations involving repeatedly playing the card in order to maximize its effectiveness. Any other time, Wild Root Dancer will outshine it tremendously.

This becomes even more apparent when a player has two Wild Root Dancers in play. Now, potentially every turn, a troop will gain up to +4 +4, for absolutely free. Nay, for even less than free, as the player is actively gaining resources for this boon.

You may argue that Wild Root Dancer is Rare and Noble Citizenry is Common. My philosophy is that rarer cards should have more complex effects for higher costs, not be objectively superior than other cards, since that means richer players will always have the upper hand. However, this is the subject of another thread. I just felt that Wild Root Dancer is currently very hard to counter for its cost at the moment.

Jinxies
12-09-2013, 08:46 AM
It's a strong rare for sure I disagree with it being too good. It dies to almost every removal spell in the game, it can't buff itself so you need two to protect them from things like red damage spells. Drawing resources is generally not as good as drawing action so what it does is mitigating bad draws.

Noble Citizenry should not be comparable seeing as it's in a different shard as well as being a common. Also it has a slightly more relevant body and gives the buff immediately unlike the Root Dancer (unless you have a resource in hand).

Wild Root Dancer is great but does not need a nerf. Noble Citizenry doesn't need a buff.

Coherent_Light
12-09-2013, 08:46 AM
Yeah, pretty obvious that in its current form, a cost and/or threshhold increase is badly needed. Way too easily splashable, you would be crazy not to include it in almost every deck with flier/unblockable creatures. Not only that, but it helps to mitigate variance when you keep drawing lands.

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing the buff effect be a one shot.

ossuary
12-09-2013, 08:56 AM
Wild Root Dancer is rare. Noble Citizenry is common. The power levels are in-line with expectations for a game that is balanced for drafting. Some cards will be more powerful than others. This is all as it should be.

Coherent_Light
12-09-2013, 09:03 AM
Wild Root Dancer is rare. Noble Citizenry is common. The power levels are in-line with expectations for a game that is balanced for drafting. Some cards will be more powerful than others. This is all as it should be.

So rares can't be unbalanced? Forget Noble Citizenry for a moment and just consider WRD. I think it is highly likely that there will be an adjustment to WRD prior to release. I would go 3-1 on that, but how about just a gentlemen's bet?

HyenaNipples
12-09-2013, 09:15 AM
As a 2/2 that can't buff itself, I think WRD is mostly in a good place. The main issue is that even if you have the cards to stop the WRD, you don't have an opportunity to stop it before it gives out at least one boost. That's the real problem, imo.

If any automatic ability needs a priority window for opponent interaction, it's the WRD.

havocattack
12-09-2013, 09:16 AM
What you should be doing is comparing WRD to 3 drops from the other shards...

We have:

Blood : Inquisitor - awesome and will be sick when discard gem is working (if not OP as its current description)
Ruby : Alexander / Veteran Gladiator (both good cards)
Diamond : Spearcliff Cloud Knight
Sapphire : Buccaneer

Nekrabyte
12-09-2013, 09:18 AM
So rares can't be unbalanced? Forget Noble Citizenry for a moment and just consider WRD. I think it is highly likely that there will be an adjustment to WRD prior to release. I would go 3-1 on that, but how about just a gentlemen's bet?

he didnt say that they can't be unbalanced.... i believe he was saying that they are unbalanced BECAUSE of their rarity, and its on purpose.

bofedy
12-09-2013, 09:20 AM
This thread was made because i got 2 root dancers out and then droped a resorce that turn and turn after wining me the game.

Wild Root Dancer
Warlock Inquisitor
spearcliff cloud knight

These 3 cards due seem to be to good for 3 cost but as long as ruby, saph and artifact gets a 3 drop as good as these the game will be balanced as if every deck has an OP 3 drop then there not OP there just strong cards that cost 3

Coherent_Light
12-09-2013, 09:22 AM
Inquisitor is already pretty amazing with +1/+1 or the burn on drop gems. It is also a 2 thresh. Spearcliff is also a 2 thresh and is very likely to be adjusted prior to release I would think. Alex should be a 2 thresh.

Coherent_Light
12-09-2013, 09:27 AM
he didnt say that they can't be unbalanced.... i believe he was saying that they are unbalanced BECAUSE of their rarity, and its on purpose.

I'm not saying a rare shouldn't be powerful, what I'm saying is that I think it is likely that this, rare, a low cost easily splashable unlimited action buffer, is likely to be altered prior to release. There are 'OP' cards in this set, that is only to be expected. Does anyone really think we are playing with the final versions of the cards in alpha, that Cypt isn't going to be making ongoing balances changes?

ossuary
12-09-2013, 09:36 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if Wild Root Dancer and Lord Alexander both eventually end up being 2 threshold instead of 1... but even if they're not changed, I don't think either of them is overpowered... just very good.

I think it's important to remember that WRD is particularly vulnerable to removal, and while it's true you can potentially use them the same turn they are cast, it's situational (you have to have enough resources in play before casting him, with another resource in hand to drop). And early game, there will probably only be 1 other creature in play, so you can still at least kill the target while the WRD itself is on the stack... and if someone is casting a 2nd WRD and hasn't played a resource yet, a savvy player will be doing everything possible to kill off the first one before the 2nd hits the table, to avoid them both buffing each other out of range. It definitely demands a response, but all powerful cards do. The fact that he is powerful does not necessarily mean he is TOO powerful. :)

Storm_Fireblade
12-09-2013, 09:58 AM
Wild Root Dancer ist absolutely not overpowered. Its strong, yes. But thats about it. I do agree though, that 2 treshold might be something to consider, because he might be to easily splashable.

rjselzler
12-09-2013, 10:07 AM
I'm not saying a rare shouldn't be powerful, what I'm saying is that I think it is likely that this, rare, a low cost easily splashable unlimited action buffer, is likely to be altered prior to release.

I honestly don't think that this is that degenerate. For a card to be truly OP, it needs to break constructed (see MTG's Batterskull + Stoneforge Mystic (https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/td/148)). If that were the case, we would see WRD in every third or fourth "standard" deck; that hasn't been my experience, and I play Mono-green Fist a lot. Even is this were upped to two (or even three, hell four!) wild threshold this wouldn't hurt its place in Mono-wild Fist, which is where it shines the most. What it would hurt is its status as a "bomb" in limited.


There are 'OP' cards in this set, that is only to be expected. Does anyone really think we are playing with the final versions of the cards in alpha, that Cypt isn't going to be making ongoing balances changes?

If this were a limited-only game, then we could think that, but you are absolutely correct, since constructed is the format until beta (ish). They've demonstrated the desire to change truly broken constructed mechanics *cough* escalation *cough*. Escalation was the truly format-breaking mechanic until they fixed it, which is now really good, but fair.

TLDR; great card, but hardly worthy of the nerf-hammer.

ossuary
12-09-2013, 11:04 AM
Wasn't Batterskull / Stoneforge Mystic kind of overhyped as well? I mean, people screamed that a turn 3 Batterskull shut down aggro, but aggro is the exact deck that's going to be holding a fistful of burn, which leaves you with a crispy Mystic and a dead-drawn Batterskull, right?

Yeah, Mystic is a really nice card, but I never thought it was THAT good. A couple of tournaments just got stacked with the new shiny, and people overreacted (and Wizards brought the ban hammer) before the meta had a chance to adjust. It's not like a disproportionate percentage of white Legacy decks run Mystic... unlike Tarmagoyf in green, to name one :p.

Edit: I grammar good...

jtatta
12-09-2013, 11:08 AM
While I do agree that WRD needs to be slightly nerfed, comparing it to Noble Citizenry is pretty silly and doesn't help your argument.

The card is entirely too splashable. Any deck that has Wild shards in it should just start off with 4x WRD. I think that it needs to be a little more restrictive in cost. My proposed change is simply making it cost WW threshold instead of the W it is now. What this would do is not allow just any deck to play him and instead make you be base Wild, which is fine since the card has a very Wild-esque feel to it. I'd argue that mono-Wild ramp certainly isn't the best deck for this card; however, he's very good in that deck.

RE Lord Alexander: He's pretty balanced in my opinion. You can "splash" him in any deck playing Ruby but his effect is restrictive enough to not matter all that much. Your opponent has time to react to him where as WRD you can't do anything to stop the first activation at all.

RE Xentoth's Inqusitor: Another balanced card. Requires two Blood threshold and any additional threshold needed for it's gem.

People get up in arms about the power level of cards too quickly before really thinking about other card interactions or what answers there are for them. If you want my opinion on some card changes, I'll provide them here:

Life Siphon - Needs to have at the very least BBB threshold. I'd argue that it needs even more than that (up to BBBBB) but BBB is a solid start. The card is just played in very thing from aggro to control and needs to be far more restrictive as it's 99% of the time game altering when played or drawn.

Wild Root Dancer - Needs to cost WW threshold. The 3-cost nature of it is perfectly fine but with the way that the new trigger rules work, it's effect is too powerful. Making it more restrictive and harder to cast will go a long way to balance it.

There are a few others but those two are by far and away the biggest culprits.

SomeoneRandom
12-09-2013, 11:45 AM
Wasn't Batterskull / Stoneforge Mystic kind of overhyped as well? I mean, people screamed that a turn 3 Batterskull shut down aggro, but aggro is the exact deck that's going to be holding a fistful of burn, which leaves you with a crispy Mystic and a dead-drawn Batterskull, right?

Yeah, Mystic is a really nice card, but I never thought it was THAT good. A couple of tournaments just got stacked with the new shiny, and people overreacted (and Wizards brought the ban hammer) before the meta had a chance to adjust. It's not like a disproportionate percentage of white Legacy decks run Mystic... unlike Tarmagoyf in green, to name one :p.

Edit: I grammar good...

It was mostly Jace + 20 shuffle mechanics which Stoneforge was a part of. Also although you could burn out mystic Batterskull was only 5 and fairly easy to live to in that format with easy access to removal and blockers (hawk) and cards that needed to be answered like Jace. The format was just degenerate as it tends to get with such strong enablers. I agree that they banned them somewhat quickly, but I think it was a good idea. They wanted to salvage the last 3 months of standard, but by the time they banned it the format had been Jace/Mystic dominated for 6 months already. They were so powerful there really wasn't "adjusting" to it, it was join or lose.

On the note of Root Dancer, he isn't OP at all and I would be surprised to see any change past 2 threshold. It is never the cards like Root Dancer, but the enablers that make them too powerful. Things like the old Chloryphillia (which obviously they recognized)

ossuary
12-09-2013, 11:52 AM
Thanks for the clarification. I can kinda see that, I guess (I wasn't actually playing tournament Magic at the time those cards were in standard, I just always kept up to date with interesting articles about it). :)

I've been wondering for awhile if they're planning to adjust the charge cost of the Squirrel Titan champion down 1 or 2 to account for Chlorophyllia no longer producing and playing resources but just adding to your totals. It kinda feels like 8 was balanced around having access to extra resource production.

Maphalux
12-09-2013, 12:05 PM
I mostly agree with Mr. Tatta regarding WRD. It should see a change in threshold. But I think I would also up the cost by 1.

WRD has always been a pretty powerful card, but the change to triggered abilities not going on the stack just made it so good it is pretty much an auto include in just about any deck. Root Dancer needs to be adjusted or they need to revert the change to triggered abilities.

SomeoneRandom
12-09-2013, 12:07 PM
I don't really think the cost needs to go up, currently you need to wait until turn 4 anyways if you want to play it + trigger it before your opponent gets a chance to blow it up. Making it go up to 4 cost means on turn 5 in a aggressive or mid-range deck you are now spending your turn playing a 2/2 that gives +2/+2 to something. Not to mention you now have used you average 5 resources, so often you won't get more than 1-2 more triggers.

I think it is perfectly tuned right now IMO. The only reason I could see it being 2 threshold is rein it back from being splashed and put it in line with the rest of the cycle. (Minus Alexander which I think needs to stay at 1 threshold since Inspire is more of a 2-3 shard deck anyways)

ossuary
12-09-2013, 12:33 PM
That's a good point about Alexander... Inspire CAN work in just ruby, but it works better with ruby / diamond or with another 2nd shard to help survivability (a wild / ruby deck with ramp / inspire is lots of fun). But like I already said earlier, I don't personally think he needs to be adjusted up in threshold... I just wouldn't be particularly surprised if they decided to.

Coherent_Light
12-09-2013, 12:38 PM
I don't really think the cost needs to go up, currently you need to wait until turn 4 anyways if you want to play it + trigger it before your opponent gets a chance to blow it up. Making it go up to 4 cost means on turn 5 in a aggressive or mid-range deck you are now spending your turn playing a 2/2 that gives +2/+2 to something. Not to mention you now have used you average 5 resources, so often you won't get more than 1-2 more triggers.
Wouldn't howling brave or crimson clarity allow a turn 3 + shard drop buff? Perhaps some budding actuary can tell us the probability of a turn 3 drop with a resource to buff given 1 card draw per turn and 4 braves/WRD :) Sorry to nitpick.

SomeoneRandom
12-09-2013, 12:45 PM
Wouldn't howling brave or crimson clarity allow a turn 3 + shard drop buff? Perhaps some budding actuary can tell us the probability of a turn 3 drop with a resource to buff given 1 card draw per turn and 4 braves/WRD :) Sorry to nitpick.

Sure you can ramp him in, but you are now spending additional cards to do that so you are no longer looking at the card in a vacuum. Even then, it doesn't feel too degenerate when comparing it to other 3 drops in the set.

The only thing that I thought might put him over the top is the removal of responding to triggered effects. However, that really only comes into play in really niche scenarios where your opponent has very few cards left, and has another troop you want to kill and you can no longer waste a WRD trigger by saving the removal until the resource hits.

jtatta
12-09-2013, 12:48 PM
Wouldn't howling brave or crimson clarity allow a turn 3 + shard drop buff? Perhaps some budding actuary can tell us the probability of a turn 3 drop with a resource to buff given 1 card draw per turn and 4 braves/WRD :) Sorry to nitpick.

I don't know the percentages but yes, you're right. Playing WRD off of a Crimson Clarity isn't all that exciting/scary but off of a Howling Brave is terrifying. That said, it becomes more of a two to three card "combo" to do that as you require WRD, Howling Brave, a troop to play on turn two (ideally Sensei, Sprite, or a Rhino), and three resources.

Coherent_Light
12-09-2013, 12:55 PM
Sure you can ramp him in, but you are now spending additional cards to do that so you are no longer looking at the card in a vacuum. Even then, it doesn't feel too degenerate when comparing it to other 3 drops in the set.

Crimson Clarity is more of a nit example, but the Brave can have utility before and beyond three if he lives. Its not a one shot used only for an earlier WRD drop + buff. When this scenario does occur it can certainly have some impact.

edit: guess jtatta covered that better then this post did.

ossuary
12-09-2013, 01:32 PM
I've done t1 Brave, t2 Crash of Beasts, t3 WRD + Resource for a 5/5 Rhino to the face a couple of times... it's certainly very nasty, but it's no different than any other combo, really. Yeah, if you have the exact 6 cards you need, it's awesome... but you still need to draw those 6 cards (do the resources count towards the card "count" when you're talking about a combo? :p).

It definitely puts your opponent on a clock, and if they don't answer fast, you will totally win... but isn't that what every deck is trying to do, really? I still say a t3 Fist is WAY scarier, since you can't remove him as easily as whatever WRD buffed... should we nerf him again as well? (ok maybe, but that's a different discussion.)

jtatta
12-09-2013, 02:04 PM
Dandelion Sprite is arguably much more scary than a pumped Rhino token but either way, because it takes so many cards to pull off, it's supposed to be powerful.

rjselzler
12-09-2013, 02:51 PM
Dandelion Sprite is arguably much more scary than a pumped Rhino token but either way, because it takes so many cards to pull off, it's supposed to be powerful.

...which is the essence of combo over, say, tempo or mid-range; you give up some consistency for game-ending power. All of the examples (that I can think of) where WRD is degenerate are mono-wild, so the threshold increase really wouldn't even be a nerf in this meta (immature as it is).

To echo Jtatta's thoughts: Life Siphon needs some lookin' at; there's a reason that similar MTG effects are color-specific. Not really format-shattering, but a bit overbalanced, as he so eloquently detailed.

I'd be interested to see if we can get any tournament wins reporting to see just what decks are putting up reliable top twos. I know it isn't super likely at this stage in alpha, but if cards are truly broken, as escalation ones were, then you would expect the larger samples to bear that out.

ossuary
12-09-2013, 04:20 PM
What if Life Siphon was changed so the maximum you can spend on X is your Blood threshold number? That would make it effectively un-splashable, like Drain Life, while not harming mono-Blood or Blood-centric decks at all.

rjselzler
12-09-2013, 04:32 PM
What if Life Siphon was changed so the maximum you can spend on X is your Blood threshold number? That would make it effectively un-splashable, like Drain Life, while not harming mono-Blood or Blood-centric decks at all.

Interesting idea. I'd like to see the community's reaction to this. Since I don't play much blood currently, I would defer to someone with more experience with, say, Blood/Diamond control.

Leingod
12-09-2013, 06:28 PM
Think that would be too limiting and at that point simply making it be a champion targeted version of Terrible Transfer would likely be better. Perhaps Making it 1x or 2x like the Burn to the Ground change would be better.

DackFayden
12-09-2013, 06:35 PM
Changing the threshold on wildroot and life siphon seems like a good way to balance the cards by limiting the decks they can be played in.

But as always #ThisIsntMagic. Should we actually be trying to balance cards, by saying it gives archetypes certain advantages? This is HEX different archetypes can develop based on whatever CZE decides their mechanics to be. Initially I'd say the onus falls on players to choose archetypes and CZE to design balanced sets.

As for threshold from what I've seen there's a cost/threshold balance for the power a card has. So very strong low costed cards like fist or Tarasque require heavy commitment. Wildroot dancer is pretty strong for 3 cost so I'm down for 3/WW. Going 4/W doesn't seem on the Rare power level.

A card like life siphon is actually not that strong, it only targets champs. I'd say at most it cost should be X or 1X with a threshold of BB MAX

poizonous
12-09-2013, 06:55 PM
What if Life Siphon was changed so the maximum you can spend on X is your Blood threshold number? That would make it effectively un-splashable, like Drain Life, while not harming mono-Blood or Blood-centric decks at all.

I have mentioned this idea in streams several times. Although I do think it would ruin its playablity in many 2 shard decks and make it essentially a mono blood card

jtatta
12-09-2013, 07:25 PM
I have mentioned this idea in streams several times. Although I do think it would ruin its playablity in many 2 shard decks and make it essentially a mono blood card

As it should be, in my opinion.

Lawlschool
12-09-2013, 10:30 PM
Could just make Life Siphon have 4 or 5 threshold. Makes it essentially unsplashable while still letting you use resource acceleration.

jtatta
12-09-2013, 11:09 PM
Could just make Life Siphon have 4 or 5 threshold. Makes it essentially unsplashable while still letting you use resource acceleration.

I think this is the point many of us are trying to make in this thread. Many of the shards have their own "bomb." Wild has Fist, Ruby has Rampaging Tarasque, there are several three threshold game breaking cards in other shards as well. I don't see any reason why blood can't have Life Siphon as 4+ Threshold. Sure, Uruunaz costs three threshold but having another card with high threshold isn't so bad, is it?

DackFayden
12-09-2013, 11:45 PM
I think this is the point many of us are trying to make in this thread. Many of the shards have their own "bomb." Wild has Fist, Ruby has Rampaging Tarasque, there are several three threshold game breaking cards in other shards as well. I don't see any reason why blood can't have Life Siphon as 4+ Threshold. Sure, Uruunaz costs three threshold but having another card with high threshold isn't so bad, is it?

Good point. Only I don't see life siphon on the same power level as Fist or Tarasque. A life siphone for 4/5 usually isnt that scary. Its in those ramp siphon decks that it truly shines. I'm in favor of uping the threshold cost, but BBBB or more might be overdoing it. Its effect isnt amazing, just good

Jugan
12-10-2013, 12:12 AM
The thing that makes this card insane is that its trigger doesn't use the stack; a change that desperately needs to be reverted.

Eierdotter
12-10-2013, 04:02 AM
interresting idea for life siphon, making it unplayable pre turn 4/5
and still playable in the Blood+X Control decks, that aim for siphoning huge amounts
gaining the x blood threshold in 10+ turns of heavy control is usually managed each game.

Wild Root Dancer with 3 cost WW feels right

HyenaNipples
12-10-2013, 06:09 AM
Life Siphon is out of line with the color wheel, and while increasing its threshold will reduce its prominence in play, I think the card needs a bigger change.

First, Ruby is supposed to have the best ways to damage the enemy champion directly, so why does Blood have the best one? Life Siphon should be less effective than Burn to the Ground, but instead, it's vastly superior. That is a problem. Blood doesn't deserve a 1:1 damage ratio to the champion. That's not what Blood is supposed to do.

To change this, I believe Life Siphon aught to have a cap on its damage. Like perhaps 5 damage, as that is 25% of a champion's life total. This will limit it's impact on the game while still retaining respectable power.

Or to be more drastic, I think Life Siphon and Terrible Transfer need to be combined, so that Terrible Transfer reads:

X Cost: Deal X Damage to Target Troop and gain X life.

And to Open another can of worms, Burn to the Ground might need to be revisited. Between Burn, Ruby Lance, and Ragefire, I haven't seen anyone use Burn to the Ground much. Perhaps that +1 cost on the front end was too drastic of a nerf for it.

Lawlschool
12-10-2013, 08:20 AM
Burn to the Ground is uncommon, which explains the power difference between it and life siphon. I'd expect BtG to get more play in Drafts. It's not a great card compared to Siphon in constructed, but obviously superior in limited because of the rarity difference.

I'm ok with Siphon as is, since it's mainly a finisher card for control decks. Since it drains your whole resource pool to be effective, it's often the only card you can play in a turn. Great if it's the only card you want to play, not so great if you need to play other things. It's really only good if you have a bunch of resources, which is usually only possible if you're playing control. It's a very very powerful late game card, but the downside is it's only really powerful late game. It can end matches around turn 7 - 9, especially if you have two in hand, but that's when most decks seem to make their big winning plays anyway.

Also, I wouldn't argue against having cards that don't match the MtG color archetypes. Sure Hex follows the archetypes fairly closely, but it's nice to see them branch out. And Siphon definitely fits the Hex Blood archetype, since there are plenty of cards that deal damage in exchange for health. It's definitely odd to see Blood have a better direct damage spell than Ruby if you come from an MtG background, but that's Hex for you!

Finally, all the proposed mechanic changes to Siphon just seem really clunky and confusing, not only to play but to implement. If it needs a change, upping the threshold to 5 would fix any problems with splashing, while also letting it stay a powerful finisher for Blood control. Otherwise Blood control's only real finisher would be Malice Demon, which is too easily removed to be a consistent finisher.

ossuary
12-10-2013, 08:46 AM
I think the reason most people are concerned is that it's pretty much the ultimate "top deck, I win" card. A lot of decks that don't use lifegain focus on sacrificing early board position to faster decks, but stabilize after a few turns to end up on top. Even a deck that's completely locked the board down and is closing in for the kill can be arbitrarily wiped out by the opponent lucking into this single card off his deck. It feels cheap to win like that, and the fact that you can just throw this into basically any deck to alter the comparable life totals by double your current resource amount (he loses, you gain = double change) is just nasty.

If they're not going to limit it to only spending up to your Blood threshold (ala Drain Life), at the very least it needs to be 3 or 4 Blood threshold to cast. Maybe even make it 1X as well, instead of just X. I really hate the whole #ItsNotMagic thing people have been throwing around lately (we understand that, you're not being insightful by saying it)... even looking at it in a vacuum, Life Siphon is too easy to use and can have way too much of an impact in decks that have no business being able to run it.

jtatta
12-10-2013, 11:25 AM
Siphon is absolutely correctly placed in the "color wheel." That's not the point though. The problem is that playing it for 4/5 -is- a big deal when people seem to think that it isn't. It's a ten point life swing for five resources. There's no other card in the game that can do that.

Another change would be to just cut Terrible Transfer from the set all together and just make Life Siphon something like, "Deal 5 damage to target troop or champion. Gain 5 life." Those number could be adjusted but that card would be balanced and wouldn't just turn into the "Oops, I win" Life Siphon mirror matches that we currently have now.