Printable View
It doesn't. However, the point is moot since you typically win the turn Bargain lands, not even getting an upkeep afterwards, because you can just flat out combo out. It typically reads: "draw a bunch of cards, play free mana, drain some life, rinse and repeat if not lethal".Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I don't want to veer into Bargain vs Griselbrand because I think, despite the similar abilities, they serve very different functions and fit into fairly different deck strategies.
I'd unban
Mana Crypt
Chaos Orb
Shahrazad
and Jeweled Bird
/contest for funniest unbans
I wish Shaharazad was an instant so it could be imprinted on Isochron Scepter.
Whoever thinks Balance should be unbanned... LOL. That card is beyond retarded.
Worldgorger? Combo seems tame compared to what's already out there.
The biggest difference is 6 vs 8 mana. Decks like ANT/TES can hit 6 mana MUCH easier than hitting 8 mana. It then becomes 1 mana more than Ad Nausem except you no longer need to build your entire deck around cheap spells, and can start to run Tendrils main, 4 copies of Bargain, (instead of the 1 copy of AdN), etc. Bargain would basically remove the low converted mana cost restriction in storm deck, while also allowing storm to "mini ad nausem" and still have the bargain around to use it again later.Quote:
Originally Posted by FTW
This is all just throwing it in an already top tier Legacy deck, much less if people wanted to run some janky Tin Fins-esqu crap with Entomb + Replenish, Academy Rector + Therapy, or something else thats actually good! Bargain is absolutely a banned card!
I actually want Balance to be unbanned. Just so we can show how retarded and ignorant people are on the Source.
I think that is about the most logical reason to un-ban it. People look at it and think "oh, it's fine, it's not THAT broken, it's just a cheap Cataclysm". Never having played it... God I love playing it back in the day with Vintage Stax.Quote:
Originally Posted by (nameless one)
LOL. Who was comparing it to Terminus? It's so much more than that. It punishes people for Playing Magic while rewarding people for playing control decks that lock people out of playing Magic.
Example 1: Balance-Stax
Let's say I have a Trinisphere, Mox Diamond, Chimeric Idol, Zuran Orb and one or more lands out. Opponent has some stuff out and has dealt me some damage. I cast Balance, the last card in my hand, sacrificing my lands to ZOrb. Opponent sacrifices all creatures, loses all lands and discards his hand. I gain some life, still have a mana source and attack for 3. Not only is that a ridiculous blowout, but opponent probably cannot cast spells before Idol kills him. Game over.
Example 2: R/W MUD
I've got a single Plateau and Grim Monolith + Key in play (sacrificed City of Traitors earlier). Opponent just killed my Metalworker, discarded my Wurmcoil Engine and played a bunch of dudes, so I've fallen behind. I cast Balance for 1W. Opponent loses all creatures and goes down to 1 land, possibly has to discard cards. We're both back to starting from scratch. With 2 mana, I just reset all his development and disruption gave myself a chance to get back in the game... a rather huge one, since I have 6 mana to his 1!
Example 3: CounterTop-HelmRiPper vs RUG
I've got CB and Top out, but had to use a FoW to defend the lock and am now behind on cards in hand. Meanwhile, opponent snuck through a Delver and Mongoose and is beating my face in. I just got Wastelanded and am down a land. I cast Balance for 1W. Opponent tries to Spell Snare/Spell Pierce so I just spin the top. Balance resolves. Opponent sacrifices both creatures, 1 land and discards 1 or more cards. Balance punished the tempo deck for getting ahead in the game and doing its job. Even without the CB/Top lock out after, that's still a beating for a threat-lite deck that relies on 1-for-1 efficient spells.
Example 4:
I have a Jace and cast Balance. Yeah, life is rough.
Example 5: LandTax
Tax-Rack online with Mox Diamond in play. Opponent plays duders to develop board position and deal me damage while I have durdled playing around with some silly card engine and trying to keep my land count below opponent"s. I cast Balance. Even if I have to discard a couple cards, board is reset and opponent loses land. Game is reset for a bit, but I'm +1 mana up on opponent thanks to Mox Diamond and I have card quality control via Scroll Rack, so I'm probably topdecking better. And he basically can't play a land for the rest of the game, despite being behind on mana, because if he does I draw a million cards.
Example 6: random game
Opponent is ahead by 8 life and 3 creatures. We have the same number of cards in hand and lands in play. He's just beating me at magic. I cast Balance for 1W. He loses 3 creatures and discards a card. Sorry bro.
Example 7: vs Reanimator
Opponent just stuck turn 2 Griselbrand, go. You play a second land and cast Balance. Opponent pays 14 life to draw 14 cards. Force of Will. You Force back. He Forces again. You return a Tundra to Daze. Balance resolves. Opponent loses Griselbees, discards 10ish cards, sacrifices a land and is now 14 life down. G2SB?
In all the scenarios, well-timed Balance punishes the opponent for trying to be good at Magic. The more ahead they are, the more it hurts. It also rewards you for durdling.
I hope this time someone actually reads this point, because I said that on the last page and I am sure no one read it. In fact, then someone said Miracles would run Balance. I sometimes wonder if these people actually play Magic, or if they are really just Pokemon players trolling us.Quote:
Originally Posted by FTW
It's actually fine, consider it a slightly better Austere Command.
Arma-Wrath of- mind twist
First off, thanks for actually engaging in discussion instead of rejecting the proposal out of hand. I've played both with and against Balance in Vintage, so I'm familiar with the swinginess it can bring to games. That being said, even in Vintage, which has seen an increase in the number of creatures played (and I think we can agree that Balance is best against creature-heavy strategies), Balance is on the decline with only various 5 color control strategies playing it, and those decks are among the least played in the format. So it's not at all clear to me that Balance is overpowered based on the only recent empirical evidence that we have. I will, however, grant that that is one format with infrequent tournaments, and that a card that is ok as a 1-of may be too good as a 4-of. The counterargument I would make to that point is that I have yet to see a Legacy deck making progress with Balancing Act. Granted, Balancing Act costs twice what Balance does (and requires WW), and gives the opponent more choices, but it is the only other proxy we have for what to expect from Balance's (hypothetical) unbanning in Legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by FTW
I agree with your assessment of example 4, and example 6 really doesn't give enough information to say whether that is the result of good play and deckbuilding or just a random swingy topdeck so I'll refrain from commenting.
In examples 1 and 2, both decks with Balance are doing what they're supposed to do, and its worth mentioning that both Balance decks are marginal (at best) at the moment. In example 1 in particular, the deck is designed to run and abuse Balance as evidenced by the presence of Zorb and Idol. So unless this deck becomes truly and totally dominant because of Balance, it seems unlikely that anything bad will happen as a result of the unbanning aside from giving Stax and MUD the last piece of the puzzle needed to make them tier 1. But both decks are also so easily hated out by nonbasic land hate and artifact removal that I don't see them becoming overwhelming.
Example 3 is probably the thing closest to what I would call Balance's natural habitat, a slow durdly control deck. The Balance play as described above is precisely how that matchup should be playing out. The key reason I don't see it as unfair is that here the RUG player wasn't caught unaware by Balance. The circumstance that you describe is pretty specific, especially with RUG being ahead of U/W on both cards in hand and land. As a practical matter, if you're sitting at 3 mana and hiding behind top, Balance will, at best, buy you a few turns because now you're tapped out and easy prey for Tarmogoyf. If you have more than 3 mana and the RUG player still sacced a land, then they're either flooding (and would likely lose anyway to, say, Terminus), it's very late in the game (and you're already in control, which is not the case based on the description), or their hand was full of protection and gas and as before, you're vulnerable to them using their remaining cards to come back at you with Goyf again, and backing it up with Stifle for the CB trigger. The Balance player absolutely has the upper hand here.
In example 5, this is a deck that isn't even viable without Balance so rather than wrapping the format in it's crushing grasp, Balance is enabling the revival of an old archetype. The hypothetical deck in question is probably bad against combo and even sort-of fast aggro or aggro-control (e.g., RUG) so this scenario is both implausible and inoffensive.
Finally in example 7, you give an example of a control deck holding removal and double counter backup against a single (large) threat. The U/W player could've just as easily played Swords in that situation and had substantively the same interaction. Also I (and I'll bet many others) would rather have the Balance deck in the format than a deck that consistently reanimates Griselbrand on turn 2. Which brings me to this:
The difference in our opinions here seems to stem from a normative disagreement about what decks we want to be good. I think slow durdly control decks ought to exist and thrive if a meta is to be considered healthy, and right now those strategies are badly under-tooled due to creature power creep. I also take issue with your characterization of "good at magic" especially when paired with the idea of punishing someone "the more ahead they are". Good strategy would tell you not to over-commit to a board position against a deck running sweepers, and yet the players in your examples do this repeatedly, especially with regard to land positions. A card like Zorb or Claws of Gix is necessary to sac lands, opening up pretty obvious and easy avenues for disrupting the "nuke all your lands with Balance" line or at least lets the other players know what's coming. It's not like the only players in our hypothetical metagame who know Balance is out there are the ones running it.Quote:
In all the scenarios, well-timed Balance punishes the opponent for trying to be good at Magic. The more ahead they are, the more it hurts. It also rewards you for durdling.
tl;dr: Balance isn't widely run in the format where it's legal, and Balancing Act isn't run anywhere. None of the above situations are particularly offensive to me as they all involve giving players the chance to outplay one another or involve very specific situations where the Balance player was able to extract non-general advantage due to Balance.
I've tested it, the cards isn't especially broken in this format, while it can lead to some sick openings (but honestly, a lot of things can lead to extremely sick openings in legacy, just think of it as the control version of T1 CotV, only worse since you can just waste it). I like the fact that promote monocolor because you really want to run 4 of it, plus you'd likely play waste alongside it, making for a lot of brown mana sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by [SLAYER]chaos
The problem is the card is on the reserved list and cost a ton already, meaning no one would actually play it.
Wait, so you are advocating "not to over-commit to a board position against a deck running sweepers" as a good strategy to combat Balance? So, you keep all your cards in your hand, i.e. lands and creatures (since they might die to Balance) so they can just get discarded when the Balance player resolves it and has 0 cards in hand? I clearly see how Balance is very fair in this case, I was simply misplaying all the time versus the card.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
I think it's fair to point out that Balance and Balancing Act are totally different animals. A properly played Balance -always- zeroes out the vector you want to attack, whether that's lands or duders. Balancing Act does no such thing it leaves each player with the most rounded or relevant board they can achieve. If you're doing some Sunder-Psychotog-style trick and nuking your board going into a Balancing Act, then I'm not convinced that you're not just playing a cute/trollish version of Show and Tell or storm.
Balance also allows players to set up synergies that Balancing Act simply can't it can capitalize on artifact mana and manlands to create 1-sided effects. The only one-sided effect Balancing Act can rely on is stripping a hand, and even then, it can't do it as well as Balance. Balance has the option of forcing topdeck mode while leaving you with the only relevant cards in the game; Balancing Act simply isn't capable of that.
And let's not forget that the difference between 2 mana and 4 mana is absolutely a huge deal in Legacy. It's the difference between Tarmogoyf and Erhnam Djinn. (I know that's a slightly specious example, but it makes the point.)
I think that's where the argument should focus, actually Balance doesn't necessarily do anything broken; it's that it does so much for just 2 mana. I think the card would be a playable fringe card at 2WW, and it'd probably be archetype-defining at WWW. Anything less than that just strikes me as far too much for the cost.
Balance is so broken it even belongs in Storm Burning Wish boards for the LED+Wish->Balance reset the game blowouts. I'd hate to think about a control deck built around Balance since it doesn't nuke Planewalkers, Artifacts, or Enchantments. *shudder*
There's a big difference if the card is restricted and if it's unrestricted. You know that in Legacy there are only unrestricted cards, don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
Yeah, this was exactly my thought. Jam that card in a wishboard and nuke the [s]field[/s] game if things go bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbiteitholmes
Balance is completely busted. I played a Restore Balance deck in old Extended and even can pick up some victories with a (bad) port in Modern. The effect is that good.
I agree completely with your last two sentences, aside from the "too much" part. As the power of other decks grows, the power of control's answers should grow in proportion, IMO. The difference between Balance, and say, Counterspell is that Balance has to be played after the position has been developed whereas Counterspell is inherently reactive. It may do a ton for 1W, but that's the standard being set by opposing strategies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mewens
I'd love to think about that deck, as I'd think it would be both fun to play and good for the format. More to the point, I simply don't see the empirical evidence for your claim that it's so broken as to merit a continued ban without evidence. Again, it's a pretty rare card to see run in Vintage, even in decks capable of producing W reliably. I completely understand the theoretical argument against unbanning it, I just find it unpersuasive.Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbiteitholmes
Yes. I also acknowledge it in my post. In the too long to read part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer
You think a 2 mana Mind-Wrathaggedon is good for the format? Yeah I don't think people understand Balance ITT.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
It's great for the format, I mean have you seen the art, that is, bar none, the most fearsome judge ever, won't take shit off no one, this format would be improved from increased sightings of itQuote:
Originally Posted by dontbiteitholmes
It would eliminate all pretenses of creatures and what not , we'd get man magic where it's two guys slugging it out with artifacts
I would rather play in a format with moxen as 4-of's before a format with Balance.
I'm just not sure which unbanning would be the most stupid: Balance, Y.Will or Mind's Desire (leave out Necropotence for a reason).
Edit: you can't unban Mana Vault/Crypt as it would boost combo/MUD to unhealthy levels. The only card I would CONSIDER is Frantic Search to push High Tide and Reanimator
Clearly, this isn't a popular proposal. I would, however, like to see the evidence that the consensus "Balance is broken on a par with Yawgmoth's Will" position is correct. I'd be happy to post a Stax-Balance list and a U/W-Balance list for public scrutiny and comment and once there's reasonable contentment with the lists (i.e., that they're as strong as they can be), I'd be happy to play matches over Cockatrice/MWS/Apprentice (I don't have MTGO) against reasonably representative decks chosen by the community. I'd even be happy to play the other decks and let the other people play the Balance decks to ensure that everyone wants the deck they're playing to win. If I'm wrong, it should be clear very quickly.
The burden of proof is reversed dood. As the card is banned, the testing should instead prove that the card is SAFE instead of the other way round. FTW did bring up several examples how Balance could create insane gamechanging effects. Your testing should try to deliver counter-arguments to thatQuote:
Originally Posted by btm10
You are mostly speaking about theory. My playgroup messed around with "Legacy casual" variants where we rotated cards on and off the banlist to see how they would perform. I used to play a white casual enchantment-based prison/control deck with 4 Balance and it drove people mad. Has anyone actually played a deck with 4 Balances before on a regular basis? Has anyone witnessed the huge headache resolving MULTIPLE of that 2-mana card does to people over a game? And my deck was poorly-designed completely durdly garbage, too. It had no business winning games. Everyone agreed Balance was pretty much the only reason it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
Vintage is one point of comparison, but since Balance is restricted, you can't build around seeing it regularly. So people could only play it as a lucky topdeck or a tutor-target hail mary. Decks cannot rely on it, and a lot opted to cut it for better synergies or whatever. Also, in a format with fewer creatures and more artifacts, one where people aim to dump their hands on turn 1, Balance simply does less. In a slower, underpowered format with more creatures and fewer artifacts, Balance already gets more powerful. When you can run it as a 4-of and actually design your deck to synergize with it, then it gets even better. That's not to say there aren't drawbacks to Zorbing your own lands away; just that there are many reasons why performance in Vintage would not reflect performance in Legacy, especially due to restriction.
Balancing Act is a TERRIBLE example. The ability itself is strictly less back-breaking and less-prone to one-sided abuse. Opponent chooses which permanents to keep, you don't get a free pass on artifacts and enchantments and Planesewalkers in your prison deck. (meanwhile, Enchantress could easily run multiple Balance to Hymn+Wrath opponent while keeping 10 enchanments on the board). Balancing Act would suck in Stax, for example, making you either sacrifice your lock pieces or not killing opponents' creatures and lands. Also, it costs twice as much mana and is less splashable. I mean, that's like evaluating the impact of Time Walk in Legacy by comparing to Time Warp. Four or more mana is a very relevant restriction in Legacy. Double-colored is also a big restriction for some decks (see how much Cataclysm gets played over Armageddon in White Stax...).
In example 7, Swords to Plowshares does not discard the opponent's hand or make them sacrifice a land. So yes, Griselbrand dies, but then they would have enough cards left to drop another fatty and win (and 7 more life to draw 7 more cards or cast Reanimate... a very relavent difference!) which is why Griselbrand is normally good. After FoW and Daze, you could be down to just that 1 land in hand, so then opponent sacrifices down to 1 card and 1 land. They can't keep both a land AND exhume and they are too low in life to cast Reanimate. So they can only get Grisel back if they topdeck lucky. Either way, losing the cards and land on TOP of the creature hurts. And that's not to say every single MU against Reanimator would play that way, just that Balance has the potential to be ridiculously good and save you from what should be an auto-lose.
In example 6, that was the point. Even in a deck that doesn't abuse Balance, Balance just lets any deck come back from behind if you're just run-of-the-mill losing. Moreso than any other card that cheap. You don't even have to build a good deck. You could have a garbage deck. You just need to topdeck or cantrip into Balance. Imagine how that would impact the early rounds of major tournaments. In a tempo format, that swinginess is very OP.
Burning Wish + LED for Balance in ANY deck actually sounds pretty brutal. Even Belcher could use it as a hail mary if your plan A was foiled, discarding their whole hand and Wrathing their board and maybe killing lands. That buys you several turns to draw into the combo again.
The Tax-Rack deck would be awful against combo? Yeah, it would be normally, but with 4 Balance you can easily dump your hand early (e.g. T1 Land, Land Tax, Mox Diamond, discard a land. Turn 2 Land, Balance) and then use Balance to make the combo deck discard like 3-5 cards so they can never keep a critical mass to go off. Storm decks on the draw would be at a huge disadvantage.
In the other examples I gave, yes, they are very specific cases, but I was not aiming to provide an exhaustive list of situations where Balance is OP. Timing balance is similar to timing Pox... a smart player plays it when the board position is set up such that resolving it creates a degenerate advantage. (but Balance is much more powerful, due to easier mana cost, not losing you life, and still taking out more cards overall...) So most examples would be specific, but there are a ton of specific examples where a smart pilot playing Balance at the right time is HUGELY swingy. I was trying to create tangible examples to show how a 2-mana card can have a ridiculously powerful and swingy effect that generates more effective card advantage (or compensation for previous card disadvantage) than any other card in the format at 2-mana (outside of a combo) in very diverse situations. The point was to show that it does not strictly require a combo with certain pieces (like the classic ZOrb one), but that in any number of situations a player timing Balance right can do a ton of damage. There are probably other abusive cases we haven't even thought of (like the Wish+LED thing).
The point is Balance's DESIGN makes it innately get better the better the opponent is doing ("better" is not just overcommitting to the board, but also just drawing more cards or playing any threats while killing your threats and giving you card disadvantage), so that as better Magic cards are printed (particularly with the swing towards better creatures and worse control) and better decks emerge, resolving Balance does more.
Opponent double Hymns you after a mull to 6. Ouch. You topdeck Balance. OUCH.
Unlike a lot of the cards on the B/R list, it's not like it would create a combo with one specific card that would create ONE degenerate unbeatable deck archetype (e.g. Flash). The argument is not "ban Balance because Stax would rape the format". It's that it provides an OP effect for any number of decks because the effect itself is OP for Legacy, particularly as a 4-of.
Anyway, as Lemnear said, you should probably test it first before claiming it's safe to unban. The burden of proof should be on showing it is now safe, not the reverse.
Why was it banned in first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Do you think that FS would push these over the top? They have pretty good hate against them and i dunno if the search would help them even emerge a little... So for me it's a OK.
- L
We are mostly talking about theory (on both sides), and I think the best way to test it is to have the sort of public testing that I've proposed. So far, you're the first person to have done any real testing with 4Balance.dec recently and that's a place to start. The reason I wouldn't want to test it privately is that this is the sort of claim that would immediately draw criticisms on the quality of the testing and deckbuilding. I do however recognize that the person calling for a change bears the burden of proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by FTW
This is a good point. I don't see this as a bad thing, especially with creatures getting more powerful and that being paired with control spells getting less powerful.Quote:
The point is Balance's DESIGN makes it innately get better the better the opponent is doing ("better" is not just overcommitting to the board, but also just drawing more cards or playing any threats while killing your threats and giving you card disadvantage), so that as better Magic cards are printed (particularly with the swing towards better creatures and worse control) and better decks emerge, resolving Balance does more.
High Tide + Merchant Scroll + Frantic Search + Meditate is quite a nasty core. Frantic is a looting effect which often generates 6 mana in high tide.dec and a free careful study in Reanimatior ... while we can doubt the impact on Reanimator, the benefits to High tide are undoubtful. As the deck however is more trimmed towards turn 4 in general, giving it another tool would not necessarily create a backlash for the formatQuote:
Originally Posted by Looooooooo
Anyway, yeah, fair points, but Balance doesn't just boost control decks. Keep us posted how the testing goes. Agreed that many should do it to avoid bias (or poor deck design), but I'd be shocked if you don't find it a blowout.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
As an aside, our group was unable to break Black Vise. It was strong, and doesn't mean it can't be broken, but we found it was generally easy for the opponent to just dump his hand and take minimal damage. On average, it was dealing less damage than a good Pox build does with The Rack. However, that's still more damage than a Lava Spike.
The last thing I will say about Balance (since those who think it is OK to urban don't acknowledge my points), is that it cannot be played around, except to be countered, or to be running a deck that doesn't need creatures, or lands and can vomit out it's hand as fast as as the deck running Balance. It doesn't punish over-extending like most wraths do, it punishes decks that are not designed to abuse the card.
Target discard is a thing, a very popular thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElricTheWhiteWolf
By that i'm not saying that balance could be unbanned beware.
- L
This. It punishes you for playing the game. If you want a format that sends creatures back to the stone age, then go play a casual format where balance is a 4 ofQuote:
Originally Posted by ElricTheWhiteWolf
Fair enough, I forgot about that, but it is a good point. Just God help you if the topdeck one of their three other copies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looooooooo
One last thing, Balance is fine in Vintage because you can only run 1, plus the majority of the meta is Blue, Shops, or Dredge. Blue can counter it, Shops could largely care less about a resolves Balance, and Dredge is happy to let you resolve it. Cross format reference on power level is silly at best.
Discard? God forbids that someone would play Balance alongside Brainstorm or SDT/Counterbalance to prevent it from being discarded ... oh wait!
Right. That is like arguing that skull clamp should be legalized in modern because it isn't broken in vintage and EDHQuote:
Originally Posted by ElricTheWhiteWolf
As a random not-terribly-relevant ancedote, Balance was unbanned in German Highlander once upon a time. Thought process was to help control vs. aggro by giving them a cheap WoG. End result was Storm decks using it as a one-size-fits-all answer to hate and a cheap Wrath against aggro decks at once. It's pretty nice when one card buys you something like three turns of time to kill Zoo.
Among those Desire is the safest I guess. One thing I'm sure is that I don't want Storm decks with 3 Yawg Win main deck, and wishable Balance and Yawg Win at the same time. That just seem plain dumb. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Probably Balance is the most stupid though as Yawgmoths requires some minimum setup to win the game Balance just destroys board states and hands out of nowhere.
A single card should not be able to solve both an unfavorable boardstate AND what his opponent might be holding back. A single card and two mana in one turn when your opponent has spent multiple turns, way more than two mana and one card to develop his boardstate. I understand that there are there should be cards that punish on a massive scale, but these cards really only affect one area (board, library, hand), not like Balance does and not so bluntly.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10