What if we kept shrieker but made a new card for graboid to evolve to?
Burrowing Beast | Elite Burrowing Beast (lolname)
10/3, 1
: Burrow. Cost: 7
(when rewound).
Then all our problems are solved! Graboid and Shrieker can no longer be used in conjunction to have 12 shriekers!
You're completely missing the point here. Decks are not OP, you cant balance decks. You can balance cards. And all cards are limited with rule of 6 per deck. Except Shrieker. How can I write this to be more clear? You keep arguing that there are better decks than 12 Shriekers. I dont even care if thats true or not.
Um, I really don't follow the reasoning here.
A card isn't OP if you can't make an OP deck with it.
What makes up decks? Cards.
"Deck a uses Cards a, b, and c. Cards a, b, and c are OP. Deck a isn't OP." That makes absolutely no sense.
If you're arguing that graboids and shriekers because you can have more than six, you're arguing that any deck that uses more than six is overpowered.
Saying a card is OP but no decks using it are is like saying "this card is OP, but... I can't think of a way to use it effectively. But it's OP, don't you worry."
Oh, I definitely didnt figure out you're equating cockatrices with frogs. Thats just... I mean, why would you do that?
6 frogs + 6 cockatrice =/= 12 frogs, and 6 mummy + 6 skeleton =/= 12 mummies.
I mean, every creature is the same but simply costs more or less, and have different stats.
If you can't accept that 6 elite cockatrices are essentially the same as 6 giant frogs, then you can't accept that 6 graboids are the same as 6 shriekers. In fact, you could argue that 6 elite cockatrices and 6 giant frogs are much more alike than 6 graboids and 6 shriekers.
Let's explore that.
6 Shriekers:
Cost: 48
Damage: 48
Ability: Burrow
6 Graboids:
Cost: 18
Damage: 12
Ability: Evolve
, Burrowed
Now let's look at cockatrices versus giant frogs.
6 Cockatrices:
Cost: 18
Damage: 30
Ability: None
6 Giant Frogs:
Cost: 12
Damage: 30
Ability: None
Now which seems more alike to YOU? I dunno, those life creatures seem to have an awful lot in common...
And if you want to look at one creature at a time:
| Creature | Total Damage Turn 1 | Total Damage Turn 2 | Total Damage Turn 3 |
| Elite Cockatrice | 5 | 10 | 15 |
| Giant Frog | 5 | 10 | 15 |
| Graboid | 2 | 12 | 22 |
| Shrieker | 10 | 20 | 30 |
Would Shrieker be OP if its stats are 11|4? What about 13? 15? 26? Is there a line? I mean, counter to it EXISTS AND IS EXACTLY THE SAME - thus not OP in your opinion.
I will repeat: having a counter does not mean balance.
At 11, no, but shrieker rush *would* be more powerful which is unneeded. At 13? Yes, I do. At 13 attack for 8
you're getting something that's better than a ruby dragon. You would start to see solely shrieker rushes, more of them than any other decks. An existing single counter doesn't mean it isn't OP; having only one counter would make it OP. But having 10+ counters means it usually isn't. There IS a point, however, that even killing them the turn they go out won't help you. One example of this is something with 20 attack, since it would only take 5 to win.
There's a difference between being over-powered and powerful. Currently, the card is powerful. Powerful enough to build decks around. However, though the decks using them and based on them are powerful, yes, they are on the edge.
Making a shrieker more powerful would be like a charity organization giving a millionaire five more million instead of giving it to the poor laborers. Sure, it doesn't make him a billionaire, but the extra money was unneeded. He already has enough. (In this analogy, billionaire = OP, money = attack power, laborers = cards in need of buffs)
And what you're saying here is not really consistent with what you said before. Here you say taking more than 6 of a creature is a strenght of graboid deck, and makes it viable, up there you said taking 6 of those is a bad thing, and thus not a problem.
Re-read what I said closer. Taking six of both graboids and shriekers is generally a bad thing, but taking over six shriekers in all (if you count graboids as a shrieker), something like 7, 8, or even 9 can be optimal.
Let me take more than 6 of some other card, and you'll possibly have a viable deck around that card. Would that make it OK for that card to not have 6 card limit? I mean, "its the strength of that deck, does not make it OP" - in your words.
Well honestly it depends on the card. Having more than six of a fire lance is OP. But having more than six of a phase recluse or giant frog isn't necessarily that scary.
And on yet another tangent...
Using graboids to simulate more than six shriekers is akin to using TU to simulate more than six phase recluses. Graboids aren't the same as shriekers in the deck, right? When you look at the deck screen, are the graboids and shriekers identical? No. TU isn't the same as six phase recluses, correct? When you look at the deck screen, are the phase recluses and TUs identical? No. Do both result in 12 shriekers or 12 phase recluses when everything is said and done? Yes.
Based on your logic, TU shouldn't be allowed to be used on your own creatures because you can then have more than 6 of a creature in your deck. Oh and fractal should be completely eliminated for the same reason.
