Brain Control : Discussion

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Their are times when having 1 unprotected monster is almost unavoidable' date=' like in the early game. If you summon a monster turn one only to have your opponent take it and use it against you, you are unfairly being punished for doing something that is next to unavoidable.

 

Bad reason to keep a card around. Also Mind Control and Enemy Controller still exist.

[/quote']

 

You could set a solemn or Bribe. If you only have one monster that has no protection it's your own fault if this gets used against you.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

Their are times when having 1 unprotected monster is almost unavoidable' date=' like in the early game. If you summon a monster turn one only to have your opponent take it and use it against you, you are unfairly being punished for doing something that is next to unavoidable.

 

Bad reason to keep a card around. Also Mind Control and Enemy Controller still exist.

[/quote']

 

You could set a solemn or Bribe. If you only have one monster that has no protection it's your own fault if this gets used against you.

 

Just because a card can be negated doesn't make it any more legal, etc etc. <_<

[GenzoTheHarpist]

No, that's not my argument at all. Lets say i'm playing Gigaplant and I have in my hand a Blazewing Butterfly and a Botanical Lion. Which one should I play on opening turn? Well, it's good to have Blazewing in your grave. He can be brought back by Birthright and SoM, and is Dragons mirror food. But what if your opponent brain/mind controls and steals him for some uber synchro? That's not good. That's why I would play Botanical instead. He's going to be a safer, smarter move, and that's skilled play that would be lost without Brain Control. Brain Control makes players think.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

No' date=' that's not my argument at all. Lets say i'm playing Gigaplant and I have in my hand a Blazewing Butterfly and a Botanical Lion. Which one should I play on opening turn? Well, it's good to have Blazewing in your grave. He can be brought back by Birthright and SoM, and is Dragons mirror food. But what if your opponent brain/mind controls and steals him for some uber synchro? That's not good. That's why I would play Botanical instead. He's going to be a safer, smarter move, and that's skilled play that would be lost without Brain Control. Brain Control makes players think.

[/quote']

 

So wait... As a player, I wouldn't be allowed to make a good move, because one card my opponent may have can completely turn the whole game around? And you're trying to convince me Brain Control ISN'T broken? <_<

[CrabHelmet]

Stays at one. It is broken but encourages good play.

 

Assuming that "good play" involves "never summoning anything ever"' date=' you are absolutely right.

 

It encourages good play by punishing players who rely on single unprotected monster cards,

 

Players should not be forced to have Counter Traps ready to handle anything whenever they have absolutely any monsters on their field. If a player wants to swarm, then protection against mass removal is certainly an optimal strategy, but requiring all players to fully protect all of their monsters all the time? It is simply not feasible.

 

Monsters that would not normally be worth defending against cards like Smashing Ground need to be protected simply on the off-chance that the opponent has Brain Control handy. A player can certainly afford to lose monsters here and there, but giving them to the opponent is infinitely worse than a loss.

 

Forcing an infeasible standard of "good play", requiring elaborate defenses in order to use even a single monster without having the entire duel reversed, actually has the opposite effect: since the required level of "good" is too high for any player to reach, the game instead degrades into a topdeck contest of who happens to draw Brain or who gets their Magic Drains.

 

and makes cards like Botanical Lion more playable' date=' justifying their existence.

[/quote']

 

Raigeki makes cards like Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV6 more playable, justifying their existence. In fact, Raigeki also makes cards like Anti Raigeki more playable, justifying their existence. That's still no reason to unban Raigeki.

 

Mind Control and Enemy Controller are two prominent, splashable, balanced cards capable of swapping control, so incentive to use unswappable cards still exists.

 

Furthermore, keeping a card legal simply for the purpose of making cards that counter it more playable is a bad idea under all circumstances. If the card is a problem for the game, it should be removed from the game. That's what the banlist is for.

 

Their are times when having 1 unprotected monster is almost unavoidable' date=' like in the early game. If you summon a monster turn one only to have your opponent take it and use it against you, you are unfairly being punished for doing something that is next to unavoidable.

 

Bad reason to keep a card around. Also Mind Control and Enemy Controller still exist.

[/quote']

 

You could set a solemn or Bribe. If you only have one monster that has no protection it's your own fault if this gets used against you.

 

Again, why on earth should players be forced to go to such lengths simply for the purposes of protecting a single monster whose destruction would not normally be a major setback?

 

All of your arguments for keeping cards legal seem to relate to them enforcing some standard of play. Brain Control supposedly needs to stay so that people will be forced to defend all of their monsters, and Monster Reborn supposedly needs to stay to discourage use of the graveyard. The problem is that all of these game-reversing cards, along with the "good play" restrictions that they carry, ensure that the game has no good plays - everything is a horrible mistake. When standards are set high enough that it is impossible to play "well" without stacking, the game simply degenerates into a rock-paper-scissors game of whose "mistakes" can be countered by the topdeck card the opponent drew.

 

No' date=' that's not my argument at all. Lets say i'm playing Gigaplant and I have in my hand a Blazewing Butterfly and a Botanical Lion. Which one should I play on opening turn? Well, it's good to have Blazewing in your grave. He can be brought back by Birthright and SoM, and is Dragons mirror food. But what if your opponent brain/mind controls and steals him for some uber synchro? That's not good. That's why I would play Botanical instead. He's going to be a safer, smarter move, and that's skilled play that would be lost without Brain Control. Brain Control makes players think.

[/quote']

 

As Pika said, in this case you are forced to not make a sensible strategic move that supports your goal on the grounds that your opponent's hand might contain one card that can single-handedly reverse the flow of the entire game. This does nothing but discourage proper play - the sensible move can be countered by Brain Control, so the sucky move needs to be used instead.

 

Furthermore, this scenario doesn't even make sense. What about next turn, when your Botanical Lion is gone? You've got Blazewing Butterfly in your hand. Do you summon it - thus allowing your opponent to pop a Brain Control on you and steal it anyhow, defeating the purpose of your so-called "good" play the previous turn? Do you just keep it in your hand and let the opponent walk all over you, on the grounds that the opponent might have Brain Control in their hand? Are you planning on ever summoning it? Are you planning on ever summoning anything that Brain Control could steal? Are you even running Blazewing at all, or have you rebuilt your entire deck to counter Brain Control, basing it around cards like Botanical Lion, Mataza the Zapper, and Freed the Matchless General?

 

If the opponent has that one card that can completely turn the game around, be it Monster Reborn or Brain Control, then they will be able to take advantage of it regardless of how "good" your moves are. Either you play conservatively in a desperate attempt to evade said card, in which case your opponent will simply be able to run over you, or you take risks, in which case the opponent plops Brain Control on the field and declares victory. In both scenarios, holding Brain Control gives one player an incredible advantage over the other, and even the most skilled of plays won't save the opponent.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Yeah if you back up your cards with solemns/bribes or use anti-control cards like Botanical Lion (or both) then you need not have fear of brain control.

[CrabHelmet]

Yeah if you back up your cards with solemns/bribes or use anti-control cards like Botanical Lion (or both) then you need not have fear of brain control.

 

In this topic, we don't read anyone else's posts and just repeat our already-countered arguments.

 

K.

[Von Csent]

Change of Heart was banned' date=' the only difference between that and Brain Control is that you have to pay 800 Life Points.

 

Oh noez, I haz to pae ate-honderd leif poyntz! Dis crad sux!

 

Honestly, just ban it.

[/quote']

 

WRONG change could control facedowns, and potentialy prevent harmul flip effects, and even turn them on your opponent

WRONG, you can't change the monster battle position when you take control of it.

 

Also lol flip effect.

 

WHAT?! Are you aware how many Magician of Faiths' effects have been stolen over the years?

[「tea.leaf」]

Change of Heart was banned' date=' the only difference between that and Brain Control is that you have to pay 800 Life Points.

 

Oh noez, I haz to pae ate-honderd leif poyntz! Dis crad sux!

 

Honestly, just ban it.

[/quote']

 

WRONG change could control facedowns, and potentialy prevent harmul flip effects, and even turn them on your opponent

WRONG, you can't change the monster battle position when you take control of it.

 

Also lol flip effect.

 

WHAT?! Are you aware how many Magician of Faiths' effects have been stolen over the years?

 

Stop thinking in an obsolete format.

[snake101]

If i had to choose 0 or 3 i would say 0 becuase if you top deck it could win you the game like at locals today i seen a kid lose just cuz his opponent top decked a brain control which is kinda retarded

[Tabris]

I'd like this to be back at 3, and for a single reason: it takes control of face-up monsters ONLY, which then go back to your opponent's arms at the end of the turn. If you're using Brain Control to take potshots at your opponent's Life Points, you're using it improperly (unless you're using a Burn variant). If you're using it for Tribute or Synchro fodder - well, is there anything wrong with that?

 

Comparing it with Change of Heart is puerile, for the abovementioned reason.

 

Snatch Steal? Not even; you aren't taking control of that face-up monster forevermore - it'll just go back to your opponent at the End Phase.

[Von Csent]

Stop thinking in an obsolete format.

 

I was just giving a famous past example. My point was that a monster's position could be changed when stolen.

[Skuldur]

I'd like this to be back at 3' date=' and for a single reason: [b']it takes control of face-up monsters ONLY[/b], which then go back to your opponent's arms at the end of the turn. If you're using Brain Control to take potshots at your opponent's Life Points, you're using it improperly (unless you're using a Burn variant). If you're using it for Tribute or Synchro fodder - well, is there anything wrong with that?

 

Comparing it with Change of Heart is puerile, for the abovementioned reason.

 

Snatch Steal? Not even; you aren't taking control of that face-up monster forevermore - it'll just go back to your opponent at the End Phase.

 

1. Yeah because no one summons DAD/JD and such in face-up. And everyone sets every other monster

 

2.by your logic it's improper use of Brain Control to take control of a monster and attack for the win.

[The Dark One]

In this format, Brain Control is practically a combination of Monster Reborn AND Smashing Ground. You're putting another beatstick/tribute fodder on your side of the field, and removing an obstacle on your opponent's side of the field. Yeah, it would theoretically go back to your opponent at the end of the turn, but that's assuming that A. You don't win this turn (very very easy in this format) and B. You don't have a single tribute monster/tuner in hand to dump your opponent's monster and elevate your own game position in the process. If neither A or B applies, you probably shouldn't have activated Brain Control. Even then, however, it's still one-for one removal if you simply attack over an opponent's monster.

[Tabris]

In this format' date=' Brain Control is practically a combination of Monster Reborn AND Smashing Ground. You're putting another beatstick/tribute fodder on your side of the field, and removing an obstacle on your opponent's side of the field. Yeah, it would theoretically go back to your opponent at the end of the turn, but that's assuming that A. You don't win this turn (very very easy in this format) and B. You don't have a single tribute monster/tuner in hand to dump your opponent's monster and elevate your own game position in the process. If neither A or B applies, you probably shouldn't have activated Brain Control. [b']Even then, however, it's still one-for one removal if you simply attack over an opponent's monster.[/b]

 

Every monster in the game does that - they attack over something else, destroying it and sending it to the Graveyard/DD/whatever.

 

Only that that "1-for-1 removal" goes back to your opponent's arms at the End Phase, opening you to retaliation, battle-oriented or otherwise, from your opponent's vengeful hands.

[.:pyramid:.]

0 its change of heart by another name, and change of heart is a game winning card

[Tsuki ni Mau Majin]

In this format' date=' Brain Control is practically a combination of Monster Reborn AND Smashing Ground. You're putting another beatstick/tribute fodder on your side of the field, and removing an obstacle on your opponent's side of the field. Yeah, it would theoretically go back to your opponent at the end of the turn, but that's assuming that A. You don't win this turn (very very easy in this format) and B. You don't have a single tribute monster/tuner in hand to dump your opponent's monster and elevate your own game position in the process. If neither A or B applies, you probably shouldn't have activated Brain Control. [b']Even then, however, it's still one-for one removal if you simply attack over an opponent's monster.[/b]

 

Every monster in the game does that - they attack over something else, destroying it and sending it to the Graveyard/DD/whatever.

 

Only that that "1-for-1 removal" goes back to your opponent's arms at the End Phase, opening you to retaliation, battle-oriented or otherwise, from your opponent's vengeful hands.

 

 

I lol'd.

[werewolfjedi]

creature swap is fair, you give a monster to get a monster, even if your monster is something you want to end in the grave, you still had to give it up.

 

brain just steals. i say it is a 0 card.

reasons:

takes no skill.

people don't run anti-target that much, just anti everything stuff, and you might have used it up on everything else.

[Guest Star]

No image for you. If you don't know what it is by now' date=' you aren't qualified to discuss it.

 

Let me ask you chaps something: 3 or 0?

 

Give reasoning. If you're not going to give reasoning, don't post.

[/quote']

 

Are you kidding?

 

You're kidding right? This topic is obviously not serious.

 

If Brain Control was ever put to three, this game would.....(insert word that means be destructively torn apart).

[Guest PikaPerson01]

No image for you. If you don't know what it is by now' date=' you aren't qualified to discuss it.

 

Let me ask you chaps something: 3 or 0?

 

Give reasoning. If you're not going to give reasoning, don't post.

[/quote']

 

Are you kidding?

 

You're kidding right? This topic is obviously not serious.

 

If Brain Control was ever put to three, this game would.....(insert word that means be destructively torn apart).

 

It was at three for like... a long while during the Monarch Era. <_<

[CrabHelmet]

No image for you. If you don't know what it is by now' date=' you aren't qualified to discuss it.

 

Let me ask you chaps something: 3 or 0?

 

Give reasoning. If you're not going to give reasoning, don't post.

[/quote']

 

Are you kidding?

 

You're kidding right? This topic is obviously not serious.

 

If Brain Control was ever put to three, this game would.....(insert word that means be destructively torn apart).

 

Up until the advent of Synchros, Brain Control could certainly have gone to 3.

 

Now, however, things have changed.

[Parting Shot]

Well, I may not be an expert, and I really hope I'm not making any rookie mistakes here, but it seems that of all the "take control" cards, Brain Control is the only one that could be at 3 and be fine, at least before Synchros like Crab said.

 

As I see it, Change of Heart is the best: no cost, you can get any monster they control, awesome. Mind Control was their attempt to balance Change of Heart: they kept the same effect but added a cost, that the taken monster cannot attack or be used as a tribute, sorta awesome, but still ban/limit-worthy as you probably wouldn't use it until you had enough firepower on your field to decimate their LP anyway. Brain Control and Enemy Controller were their attempts to balance Change of Heart with a different sort of cost than Mind Control, namely that of 800 LP and tributing a monster respectively. Plus, both can only target face-up monsters, which reduces their usability by a degree. Enemy Controller has a quasi-useful first effect, but has a secondary effect that could kill advantage since you have to tribute a monster. I'm guessing most people use it for the first and not the second effect. Brain Control is lolLP, and thus has the most insignificant to you cost, imo. 1/10th of your starting LP is nothing compared to what you'd probably do to them after getting a monster out of the way.

 

I could see Brain Control being at 3 before Synchros, but now it seems unlikely they'd do that.

[CrabHelmet]

Am I misreading Darth's post, or is he saying that Mind Control is ban/limit-worthy? Mind Control? Seriously? Up until Synchros, Mind Control was practically useless, since there usually wasn't a whole lot to do with a stolen monster other than attack with it or Tribute it, but even with Synchros around, Mind Control's use is relatively narrow.

[Parting Shot]

Am I misreading Darth's post' date=' or is he saying that [i']Mind Control[/i] is ban/limit-worthy? Mind Control? Seriously? Up until Synchros, Mind Control was practically useless, since there usually wasn't a whole lot to do with a stolen monster other than attack with it or Tribute it, but even with Synchros around, Mind Control's use is relatively narrow.

Yeah, you're right about that. I think I was thinking it did something slightly different when I was writing that. Though, of all the noobish things I could have said, that one isn't so bad in my book :P

[Tabris]

No image for you. If you don't know what it is by now' date=' you aren't qualified to discuss it.

 

Let me ask you chaps something: 3 or 0?

 

Give reasoning. If you're not going to give reasoning, don't post.

[/quote']

 

Are you kidding?

 

You're kidding right? This topic is obviously not serious.

 

If Brain Control was ever put to three, this game would.....(insert word that means be destructively torn apart).

 

Up until the advent of Synchros, Brain Control could certainly have gone to 3.

 

Now, however, things have changed.

 

What things have changed? Brain Control, after all these years, is still Mind Control with a little more use than being uptown Synchro fodder.