Good reads all, and good points (especially onering and benjameenbear who both wrong Dostoevsky-length novels :P). I think I generally agree that the discard + board wipe is dangerous and annoying enough to be at least undesirable in the format, albeit that it's a bit tougher to pull off reliably without a build-around.
I'm still not 100% on board for the land wipe being a major problem, though - while I think some artifact-heavy decks would enjoy that aspect of it, I think it's basically a tolerable part of the card in most normal circumstances, with especially egregious circumstances being primarily because of strict build-arounds or unusual luck, none of which would be much better than a simple armageddon most of the time (which I'd also be fine with seeing banned, btw). Honestly I think if wotc printed a balance-but-only-for-lands, I think it'd be a nice card to have around to reign in ramp players without setting back the entire table.
He wouldnt be able to cast both the ignot and Balance if he didnt play the land first...
Anyways, I agree with Pokken. Everyone has already given you plenty of scenarios where casting balance is good (coming out ahead, pulling people back, or just wrecking the game), the extremes of any of its modes are undercosted compared to alternatives (wrath of god, mind slicer, armageddon) and the comperable cards all cost at least 4 mana (Cataclysm, Cataclysmic Gearhulk, Razias Purification, Balancing Act). It can also be compared to other banned cards such as Worldfire and Sway of the Stars as it sort of resets the game while largely ignoring the preceeding plays... and those cost over 7 mana to cast.
At this point you’re just arguing that not everyone runs artifacts, enchantments, or PW... and that's a pretty silly stance to have, because even then its good to pull back people to your playing field and people would likely run it in such decks... and it would probably be the most annoying way to use it.
You know what's funny is that I figured out the land thing and then forgot right afterward. Oops. My bad.
Anyway I still don't think it's fair to talk about its extremes as though they are automatic. You don't get to just decide when it's a mindslicer or an armageddon unless you build your deck in a pretty specific way. Granted, eventually if you have a normal deck you can probably empty your hand and get your creatures killed, but that really diminishes the importance of the cost since that'll probably take a while. Anything before turn 5 would be almost impossible outside of cEDH, and for a "normal" deck probably not before like turn 8 at the earliest if you want a full hand wipe. At that point mindslicer or black myojin start to look a lot more reasonable.
And while merely good scenarios do make an argument for why it should be included in decks (and that could potentially be problematic since then the possibility of the extreme examples are increased), most of the realistic ones don't seem that broken to me, personally, at least in comparison to stuff like MLD or black myojin.
I don't think it's really comparable to worldfire et al for a lot of the same reasons. Lands in particular are really unlikely to be wiped unless you've built for it. Set back, maybe, but not wiped. A closer comparison might be something like...well I guess mindslicer into ***, there isn't really a direct comparison. Still really strong for sure, but I think most likely increasing the cost in that scenario wouldn't have a huge impact since it'd most likely be somewhat late game, and we've already got an increased cost version in magus, which sees nil play. Granted, it also has the weaknesses of being a creature.
I literally did not say anything about no one agreeing making you wrong; I said that perhaps you should re-examine your ideas when everyone is arguing against them. It's not a vote thing, it's that everyone is arguing hard against you and that should be a clue that your position is perhaps extreme and worthy of reconsideration.
I think you're getting too crabby for me to continue taking part, peace
You've attempted to back away from that argument which is fine (although rather annoyingly by claiming you didn't make it in the first place), but then you shot yourself immediately in the foot by doing it again only more obviously. Just own that you made a small mistake and I won't dwell on it.
You said: "I think your initial post has been roundly smushed since you seem to think Balance is primarily a combo/synergy card which basically no one agrees with."
"your initial post has been roundly smushed" translation "you are wrong"
"since" translation "because"
"you seem to think [things] which basically no one agrees with" translation "people don't agree with you"
Maybe I need a new translator?
The most I've said is that balance deserves some consideration for unbanning which, for the record, I still do, and I think is also true of basically all cards except manual dexterity and shahrazad. I've made some arguments for why I think it's less bad than the common conception, and I don't back away from those - I still think it's not *that* bad in a "normal" circumstance, although that doesn't necessarily mean it should be unbanned. If you want to engage in a lively debate about how likely it is to get played, where it's good, how often it's problematic, and what constitutes problematic - then I'm happy to do so, it's what I came here for. But this post in particular:
Whenever you find yourself replying to 5+ people who are all telling you you're wrong and no one is agreeing with you at all it's time to revisit your argument and think about whether it's perhaps just misguided.
I have been in your shoes a few times and I do think this forum is somewhat reactionary sometimes -- there's a whole huge crowd who will just argue for the status quo to argue for it often without really listening or engaging.
But you're never going to convince me a control deck doesn't want balance in EDH. You're reaching hard in my opinion.
It's not that we're not engaging it's that your arguments are not the best I don't think. Sorry, not much more to say about it.
is not debating. It has no counterpoints and makes no effort to touch on anything specific I've said. Some of your other posts have been fine and even had some fair points, but when you argue like this it's not going to do much to persuade me.
too many arguments, too fast, too unfocused for me
argumentum ad populum
You're making a lot of half-points very quickly without focusing and it's hard for me to engage fully with. You lose me when you start trotting out formal fallacy stuff. I made no such argument, simply suggested that sometimes when everyone is arguing against you it's worth taking another look at your position. Not that it was wrong because people are arguing against you. (And there have been several very important counter arguments).
To try to break down some of your points:
* We have already poked all the holes in your argument. Literally everyone is telling you that there is a huge variety of decks that can play balance to great effect.
* "If I'm playing a control deck usually I am relying on having lots of cards in hand"
Well, bully for you? There are many control decks that will go down a couple cards for the sake of sweeping the board and equalizing mana (often putting themselves ahead).
The most common scenario in a deck that doesn't ramp hard will be to deploy a bunch of your counter magic and removal (often on things not affected by balance, if it's in your hand), drop balance when your hand is "Balance + Card advantage spell" and then cast your card advantage spell.
Aside from that there are as we've described repeatedly multiple styles of tapout control decks that seek to deploy resources to the board that would not be affected by balance. Artifacts, enchantments, planeswalkers, for instance.
--
I do see that you've agreed it "might be too annoying to unban" but what position then do you want us to discuss? Is your position that it's "not even in the top 10 or even 20 most important cards to ban" what you want to discuss?
Without qualifiers that statement is difficult to assess -- I think that Balance is probably top 10 when it comes to cards that are broken mechanically as opposed to for feel reasons (e.g. the power 9, library, etc.).
If you include the power 8 + library then obviously anything is implicitly not in the top 10 since it's just a "top 1" which probably has to be...limited resources? I don't even know.
Maybe you can restate what you're trying to achieve. I think your initial post has been roundly smushed since you seem to think Balance is primarily a combo/synergy card which basically no one agrees with.
You know, I really considered I should leave out the latin because you'd fixate on that tiny quibble rather than interact with my broader points. Sorry to see I was right. And you're still doing it - "your initial post has been roundly smushed since [...] basically no one agrees with." Not "because people have put forward sound arguments that refute your claim" - which, to be fair, I think you could reasonably argue. But no, it's because no one agrees with me that makes me wrong. A+.
A lot of kind of ideas for situations where it's good have been run out, and for decks where it would be good, but so far nearly all those ideas require being heavy in artifacts (or planeswalkers - while enchantments could theoretically be a problem, most enchantments and enchantment synergies don't play as nicely with the effect, from what I can see). Which, true, that is the place where balance is generally run and has the best effect, but that's still a relatively narrow subset of decks. Perhaps enough to keep it banned, but pretty far from a card that would belong in every deck.
I brought up the card because I thought it was worth discussing. That's it. I don't - and didn't - expect to achieve anything other than maybe learn things, teach things, and waste time. If you think you're going to achieve something broader then I don't think you're in the right place. My initial statement was that it's had an undeservedly low amount of discussion for potential unbanning. So if that's my "goal" then I guess goal accomplished?
For the record, my most-necessary-to-ban would probably be something like:
chaos orb - dexterity and card placement have no place in magic
channel - waaay too powerful stand(mostly)alone
falling star - see orb
karakas - interacts too badly with commanders
limited resources - interacts too badly with multiplayer
shahrazad - not doing that nonsense
time walk - of the power 8, this is the only one I see being really problematic
trade secrets - interacts too badly with multiplayer
tolarian academy and yawgmoth's bargain...or griselbrand...idk it's close, they're all awful.
Because obliderate costs 8 and balance costs 2. A player that's way behind is going to be able to actually cast balance, but very likely may not have enough Mana to cast obliderate. And balance's conditional nature means it has broader applications, making it more likely to see play as it does more than just reset the board. Seeing more play means that it will be more likely to actually be in someone's hand when they need a reset, and being cheaper means it's much more likely to actually be castable. This may not be an issue in paper without proxies, but online balance is like a dollar.
Did you really need to quote that whole post to respond to 5% of it?
I'm not sure I agree that it has more applications. Being conditional makes it harder to build around than jokulhaups (which is a better comparison than oblit, really). You can't necessarily rely on it doing something specific. Instead of having a consistent effect that will sometimes be what you want (so you're basically waiting for your desires to line up with that effect) you have a variable effect that will sometimes be what you want (so you're basically waiting for either your desires to line up to what the card is going to do, or what the card is going to do to line up to your desires...I feel like I could draw a graph but I'll resist the urge, hopefully you get the point). Does that make it better? Well, I'm not sure. The low cost obviously helps. But I know at least I would have a hard time building around it outside of "cram a bunch of artifacts/planeswalkers in there and it'll probably be good".
Player 1: 3 lands, a mana dork and a 4-drop. 5 cards in hand.
Player 2: 5 lands, no creatures in play, farseek and cultivate in the graveyard. 6 cards in hand.
Player 3: 2 lands, skullclamp and lightning greaves in play. 6 cards in hand.
You: untap on turn 3 with 2 lands, signet. Play land, Darksteel Ingot, balance. 4 cards in hand.
In a 4 player game, on turn 3, I think it is very likely that there be at least one person with no creatures, one person who missed a land drop, and one person who played out their cards faster. And you know what, in the above scenario, you have 4 mana, and everyone else is at 2.
I would not play balance in my elfball deck or my land-ramping deck. But most decks have artifact ramp and it is so easy to come up miles ahead of your opponents with minimal effort.
When you throw in better mana rocks than Darksteel Ingot, and mulligans, and bouncelands/Strip Mines... it becomes so easy to make Balance better.
It seems like a somewhat self-defeating argument if you're arguing that "most decks have artifact ramp" and thus it's easy to come out ahead. Wouldn't your opponents then ALSO usually have artifact ramp? Also, minor nitpick but wouldn't you play the land post-balance?
While this scenario is certainly strong it doesn't strike me as being brokenly so. You're ahead on mana and everyone is out to get you - you've accomplished the same as a T1 sol ring, congrats. And certainly less disrupting than geddon could be in similar circumstances.
I mostly play control and i can guarantee you I’d cast balance 90% of the time as soon as I drew it even if i lost a few cards in my hand. Controlling people is a lot easier after you’ve neutered their fields and hands even if you end up with less cards.
Also something like end step overloaded cRift into Balance should be pretty hilarious... for the caster.
Not sure if I can agree with the first part. In some metas, sure, but I often find myself having the most cards and little on-board while playing control. Sacrificing my hand in this circumstance would be suicide. Not that certain versions of control decks couldn't pull it off. But again, the discard has to be a feature and I think I'd be much more likely to want a regular wrath.
The crift angle is interesting and a good point, that could be quite strong although most likely they wouldn't have to discard too too many cards if you're playing a CA-intense control deck, depending on how balanced the board is. And of course you'd have to sacrifice your creatures. Arguably better to just cast, say, timetwister or, since crift is an instant, you could always play black myojin after an eot crift.
I think the idea time to cast balance is on Turn 3 or 4. You should be able to get 1-2 lands from each opponent, wrath the board, and if your deck is low cmc, have each opponent discard at least 3 cards.
You do not have to build around it. Next time you play, on turn 4, take a look at the board state and ask everyone the number of cards they have in hand. I think, on average, it will stop at least one person from playing the game.
I don't see how that's going to be true unless you're playing a heavy artifact/enchantment deck, and realistically probably only artifact since low-cmc enchantment-focused decks are pretty rare, let alone superfriends.
I'm not saying it can't be strong in a very specific deck. But the same is true for many unbanned cards.
But for curiosity's sake I'll take a look next time I play.
building around balance isn't that hard. Heavy focus on enchantments and artefacts and planeswalkers means that you're going to be on the winning end of the deal.
I kinda recall hearing about a god-hand start at the dawn of EDH, which was like mox pearl, mox jet, limited resources, mana crypt, some other artefacts, and balance turn 1, so everyone discarded to 0, sacked everything they had. At that point, the power 9 got banned, along with balance.
I don't disagree that balance isn't SUCH a unbalanced card to be honest. But I'm not sure i'd give the vast majority of EDH players to be able to play with it responsibly (i.e. not scare away new players from the format).
That's kind of what I would guess is the impetus for it being on the banlist so rigidly from Sheldon. Same logic that had koko on there for years. One bad game at home and suddenly it's too OP.
I think your position is pretty reasonable and (as I've said a half-dozen times by now) I think it may well be too powerful/annoying to unban. But I don't think it's in the top 10, or even top 20 of most-important-to-ban cards, imo.
Whenever you find yourself replying to 5+ people who are all telling you you're wrong and no one is agreeing with you at all it's time to revisit your argument and think about whether it's perhaps just misguided.
I have been in your shoes a few times and I do think this forum is somewhat reactionary sometimes -- there's a whole huge crowd who will just argue for the status quo to argue for it often without really listening or engaging.
But you're never going to convince me a control deck doesn't want balance in EDH. You're reaching hard in my opinion.
It's not that we're not engaging it's that your arguments are not the best I don't think. Sorry, not much more to say about it.
You literally didn't say anything about my counterpoint whatsoever, so I'm not sure in what sense that's "engaging". Some people have made solid arguments and I've capitulated on some points (which you also totally ignore), but you don't get to just say "your arguments suck" without poking any holes and pretend like you won.
If I'm playing a control deck, usually I'm relying on having lots of cards in hand so I can reliably have the answer for whatever my opponents are doing, which is going to make balance a pretty poor card in most circumstances since I'll almost always be discarding most of my cards. Paying a few extra mana to negate this downside with wrath of god is going to be a far superior option in most cases.
Not to say it couldn't be good in an artifact-heavy staxy control deck, but you didn't say that, you said "any control shell that doesn't play many creatures" would want it, which is flatly wrong. If I'm relying on having card advantage over my opponents and don't particularly worry about ramping, then what motivation do I have to discount a wrath by 2 at the cost of discarding most of my hand that I've worked hard to get? If I'm a ramp-heavy control deck, why would I sacrifice my mana for a discount that I don't even need? If you want to revise your statement into a more watertight argument then maybe we can make some headway and hey, maybe you'll change my mind a little. But not if you're just going to ignore the points I'm making in favor of argumentum ad populum.
So you think it's fair for a rock deck to play 4 rocks and 5 lands, then on turn, say, 5, cast balance, and:
1) reduce everyone's hand size from whatever it is down to 2 (since we have all seen 12 cards, I've cast 4 rocks and balance and played 5 lands, I have 2 cards left)
2) punish every ramp player who has ramped lands or creatures by killing all of those cards
3) do this for 2 mana with likely 10 mana to spare for whatever cards are left in my hand or my commander
There are *tons* of decks that are going to be overjoyed to play this effect asymmetrically, even as a 2 mana sweeper by just not playing many creatures.
Doesn't need to be superfriends. The types of decks I can see offhand using it casually:
* artifacts
* enchantments
* superfriends
* any control shell that doesn't play many creatures
Card is just too efficient in too many builds.
If there was a card that read: 1W: everyone sacrifices all their creatures
I would consider *that* borderline bannable in EDH. And that is the worst mode of balance and we would see it constantly.
Remember that the universal edict mode of balance (assuming you have an empty board which is easy) is already an immensely powerful effect. WAY more powerful than "destroy all creatures."
4 rocks? Out of 12 cards? What exactly does this deck look like? Is it really 80%+ mana generation? It kind of sounds like you're building around balance. You know, like a combo deck. And anyway at 10 mana they could easy cast black myojin and destroy enemy hands entirely instead, so the low cost is not super important.
Looking at the card honestly, I don't think I'd play it in many, if any, control decks. Someone is going to have a small hand in a multiplayer game most of the time. If I'm playing control, I'd much rather pay a few more mana for my wrath than discard most of my hand to it. You really need to have a lot of enchants/arts/pws to justify it imo. And you have to be proactive. The discard has to be a feature, not a problem. Imo that makes it fairly narrow.
And yet in testing my Lavinia deck, T1-2 dump your hand wheel is fairly normal (10 artifacts that produce mana equal or greater than what they cost, not to mention half the rest of the deck being cmc 1 or 2). I would totally put Balance in that deck if it were legal, and it would be the poster child of why Balance shouldn't be legal.
Are you running knowledge pool in your lavinia deck? If so, I don't think you're the banlist's target market. And if not, then...why are you playing lavinia?
Anyway, maybe I'm missing something and I don't actually care enough to comb through a decklist, but without a godhand I find that scenario very unlikely. 10 is only, well, 10% of your deck, and even 1-2 cmc adds up pretty quickly when you're trying to get rid of 8-9 cards with only 1-2 lands to do it with, not to mention "half of your deck being cmc 1-2" is like...not actually all that unusual, and still leaves much of your deck as being virtually uncastable in turns 1-2. So while I'm sure it's POSSIBLE to empty your hand on turn 1-2 I call major BS on it being "fairly normal".
I think OP is missing the fact that balance looks at everyone to determine what the lowest is, not just you.
SOMEONE will have less lands.
SOMEONE will have less creatures.
SOMEONE will have less cards in hand.
The fact is more often than not Balance will be a pseudo-wrath of god and a mass discard, with some to plenty of MLD thrown in... for two mana.
That's potentially true, although if someone does have less of something than you then that be motivation not to cast balance since it might screw you over by killing your creatures when you wanted to wipe hands, or removing some of your lands when you wanted to kill creatures, etc. I still would say that, in order for the card to be reliably good, you'd need to be fairly committed to one of the non-checked types. And I definitely disagree with it being "plenty of MLD", in normal circumstances it will be pretty middling imo. Someone has 8, someone has 6, someone has 9...ok so we're all on 6 now...doesn't seem like a big deal. Actual armageddon is much, much worse.
Balance being bonkers when build around isn't a problem. Balance doing too much for too little when not built around. It's just a universally useful card when used "fairly", that is as a reset button for decks that are behind, to the point that it should be in every deck. And what it does when played fairly is pretty obnoxious. It's a card that tends to accidentally ruin games and just generally plays badly. It's quite powerful and capable of being reliably broken, but the bigger issue is when someone just casts it turn 5 and makes the game into a slog. As a desperation play, its both correct and game ruining. A person who is way behind gets a lot of value out of casting balance and screwing the table, but it sets the game back dramatically. It's a card that synergizes with most of the best things in white and colorless, and more broadly useful than other cards that can similarly ruin games like obliterate, and thus more likely to get fired off in desperation or overused.
If I was way behind I think I'd rather cast obliterate, in terms of improving my chances to win the game. Why conditionally reduce lands/creatures/hands when you could unconditionally destroy all lands and creatures and render hands irrelevant? But obliterate hasn't historically been a major problem, afaik. I'm sure it could be annoying but actually great to include, I'm a lot less sure. I think you'd really need to have a plan to use it somewhat proactively to justify, and that's kind of the same boat MLD is already in, which is quite legal. Or balancing act, which also seems nearly zero play.
I can't believe you can see Balance being a problem in superfriends, but not in artifacts, enchantments, or(as was noted by one of our comrades) a (mostly/all) creatureless control decks. It's too efficient, too cheap, for what it does and does not do, end point. And if it's not errata'd to include those three card types, that's a problem for considering an unbanning of any sort, IMO. Again, it's not so much building around what it DOES, it's building around what it DOESN'T, which is ridiculously easy to do.
I would like to add that Magus of the Balance is a horrible comparison...not quite apples to oranges, more like Granny Smith apples to Crab Apples. Magus is a creature and it has to survive a full round(outside of additional support) to be near the same level of threat...and as you noted, even with those nerfs making it more 'fair', it's barely played. At WW, its predecessor doesn't have that problem...most everyone will want to play it, for gameplan or to yank the table down. That it looks at everybody is something that would hold it in check, but not well enough.
I'm sorry, but your petition to convince us that Balance is balanced is...well, very imbalanced.
Ok, first of all, I said in the very first sentence that it isn't actually balanced and it was just for a catchy title, so trying to throw it back in my face is like...rhetoric level 0. Anyway.
I think superfriends has a much better chance to win off balance than artifacts or enchantments. Looking through the most played artifacts and enchantments on edhrec, very few of them actually do something on their own. Draw cards, buff creatures, generate mana, etc. Which gives you a better ability to recover but it's not actually winning you the game on its own. Planewalkers can actually start being proactive immediately. The other key difference is that planeswalkers main weakness is that they kinda need your opponents to leave them alone, especially with creatures that are probably just already out chilling on the battlefield. Artifacts and enchantments you can just play out there, and then cast devastation or whatever on the next turn. The reason it's so much better with planeswalkers is that balance's low mana cost matters a lot more. You can't just play your planeswalkers, wait for a trip around the table, and then play devastation because they could easily all be dead by then. Balance costing 2 lets you play a juicy, vulnerable planeswalker and then wipe the board the same turn, negating the window for people to easily kill your walker. Whereas for artifacts or enchantments they'll probably still be alive by your next turn, so you can empty your hand, then cast devastation on the next turn and be in a good recovery spot.
"even with those nerfs making it more 'fair', it's barely played."
This sentence makes no sense. It's not EVEN with those nerfs, it's BECAUSE of those nerfs. Yes, magus is much weaker, but the point is that the effect isn't that effective. Compare to something like ur-golem's eye, a much worse version of sol ring - still sees plenty of play, because the effect is good enough that even at a more reasonable cost, it's still good. Whatever the reasonable cost of balance is, 7 mana and the vulnerabilities of a creature is clearly too much, because nobody wants to play that card. See also Magus of the Will, which has quite a few decks running it despite costing twice as much and having the same vulnerabilities are magus of the balance. Sure, balance has the cost jacked up more, but I think the magus example proves that whatever the fair cost for balance is, it's not THAT high. I don't think will is a problematic card in commander at all and people are happy to play twice as much for it. So if people aren't willing to play +5 for balance, then it can't be all that great. Imo. Plus balance gets more value out of being instant speed, which magus does do. Anyway, some food for thought.
As I've said before, it's very possible balance still deserves it's banning, and tbh the more I think about it the less I actually want to see it out and about because I don't think it would go into hardly any of my decks. But I think it deserves at least some discussion about unbanning, which thus far it's gotten next to nothing. The card is not limited resources. It's not completely beyond the pale to even consider.
Balance is a casualty of Sol Ring and friends. Dumping a bunch of broken rocks into play then resetting everyone else is just absurd. And since we know Ring et al. aren't going anywhere, neither is Balance.
I think that's why it's so powerful in vintage. Commander we have 1 sol ring, 1 mana crypt, and 1 mana vault (which is only arguably on the same level) in a deck that's almost twice as big. After that it drops off pretty quick. The likelihood of a T1-2 dump your hand cast balance instawin is pretty much nil.
Balance hits the box for 'creates undesirable game state' by being an early play that can cause people to sacrifice lands and discard spells, rendering them unable to actually play the game.
If it weren't such an early play, I could see it being okay. If it only affected lands or hands, it could be okay.
I think Cataclysm and Smallpox are similar cards that are not in the ban discussion, and you can see why.
I can't think of many early play patterns that would actually make it look broken. T1 land mana crypt balance...ok everyone else discards 2 cards. Big deal. There are later-game setups where it can be very strong but those require a lot more setup. It's kind of like dragonmaster outcast...sure, it's incredibly efficient for what you get, but the fact that it can only work effectively in the late game nullifies most of the importance of the low mana cost (more on this below).
Well it just got a creature version and apparently WotC thinks it should cost 5 (or maybe 6 if you think waiting around to tap it is worth a mana). So the low mana cost to effect ratio should be taken into consideration. But aside from the bit that Chaz brought up, the biggest reason I don't want to see Balance in the format (and I'm guilty of this in the past with similar cards like Balancing Act) is running it as a "well **** it, I'm behind so I may as well pull the table down a peg" effect. Which isn't to say that there is anything inherently wrong with that - as long as you have a follow up to then pull ahead. But if your goal is just to drag the game out a bit longer then I'm not a fan.
Incidentally, someone cast Balance in my cube Saturday night, pretty late game. Net effect was one person had to sac one land (going down to 13), I think I lost two creatures, and I had to discard 4 cards. It barely had any impact on the game. But it definitely wasn't cast to exploit it.
I mean, that's possible, but it's just as possible with stuff like mindslicer and geddon. It'd be pretty hard for someone to be way behind on lands AND have few/no cards in hand. If you're way behind maybe everyone else discards most of their cards, sacs some lands, and wipes their creatures, which is definitely very powerful, but is losing horribly first and hoping you find balance and it resolves part of your plan?
I think you're too focused on what it DOES, as opposed to what it DOESN'T. Three things I notice missing in it's punishing text is planeswalkers, enchantments, and artifacts. Let's go over them one by one...
Planeswalkers - Now, I admit, planeswalkers aren't the best of cards to include in a deck, but superfriends is, and will likely always be, a thing. Balance plays into a lot of planeswalker abilities(a number of the Liliana's for the sacced creatures in GYs, a few Jaces for spells, perhaps more). Even Tibby works into it, as his discard ability helps you go into hand discard on your opponents. Superfriends can be egregious enough without a one-sided game reset...we've got Karn for that, thankyewverahmuch.
Artifacts - Okay, this can be a serious problem. Run the rocks, and no lands is a non-issue. I'm sure people would love to be mana-less, while the Balance player is running his Sol Ring through allthesignetsorkeyrunes. Add in that more than a few can animate themselves(as with the keyrunes)and/or prevent anything threatening from entering the board in time to stop said Balance player, and again...things get very 'undesirable game state' pretty fast.
Enchantments - This is another heavy hitter. Discarding an answer to a troublesome enchantment because of Balance, or lacking the mana to cast even a Krosan Grip in time is not a fun place to be. Gift of Immortality alone makes saccing creatures a non-issue, assuming it's put on the right one. False Demise gives you the biggest threat on the table. I would go on, but I think even my very basic point has been made without treading over the same ground as before.
I believe it is, as I said earlier, the combination of what Balance does PLUS what it doesn't that keeps it banned. If it were errata'd to include artifacts, enchantments AND planeswalkers, I imagine it would be treated as 'geddon...legal, but socially stigmatized. As is, while it does need to be built around, it's got enough flexibility FOR building that I am inclined to agree with the RC that it's better off banned.
Well we've got the magus which, afaik, sees very little play. Admittedly he's much weaker but still, 159 decks on EDHrec is pretty much zero. The situation I can see arising where balance becomes potentially problematic is that you can potentially run it in, say, a superfriends deck where you can pretty easily play land, planeswalkers, and balance going hellbent, wiping all creatures and all hands. Which is much harder with magus, or some modified version of balance that's more expensive. That situation does give me pause, because plenty of people do run superfriends and it could be pretty dangerous there, even if the deck is far from competitive. Even if that issue does keep it on the banlist, though, I think it's a far cry from where Sheldon seems to think it is - in jail forever without parole. See http://www.starcitygames.com/article/33887_What-Would-A-Ten-Card-Banlist-Look-Like.html for example - he puts it in the same camp with limited resources and channel (although admittedly he says LR would be his first pick to ban) and worse than academy, tinker, etc, even karakas. Balance might be too powerful in pretty specific decks like superfriends, but it takes way more setup to make broken than karakas, which basically says no one gets to play legends except you, at the cost of playing 1 land with no real downside except that it's nonbasic.
That said, I think the issue with Balance is twofold:
1) it's very cheap manawise
2) it has a ton of different angles (mana rocks, enchantments, walkers, as noted above)
So I suspect that unlike some of the more narrowly powerful cards, Balance would see a ton of play.
The resource denial aspects of it are kind of a third item.
My vote is a resounding no personally. Mostly due to the ubiquitous nature.
As mentioned above, I don't see the low cost as a HUGE deal since it's really only effective, most of the time, at the point well past when you only have 2 mana. A deck simply playing mana rocks and having something like 5 lands and 4 mana rocks and screwing over a green ramp deck with 10 lands out seems pretty fair to me, that's just natural balance which is nowhere near broken. The mana denial only really matters if you're playing zuran orb etc. I think the land part in particular is basically meaningless since the only way to really break it is to play it as a combo deck. It's possible that the opportunity to creature + hand wipe in a superfriends deck is too strong on its own, but I still think the card is waaay overrated on the banlist. I think it at least deserves consideration for unbanning, not put in the "never getting out of jail ever" camp with limited resources and karakas.
Ok, no it's not, obviously, but it's a catchy title so bear with me a little.
Balance has had VERY little discussion (from what I can tell) about a possible unban, and I don't exactly get why. People argue "it's armageddon, mind twist, and wrath of god all in one, for TWO MANA!" But it's waaay more complicated than that.
For one thing, lands. Most decks don't run zuran orb or greater gargadon or whatever to sac lands to. You could maybe sandbag lands for a few turns to make everyone else sac a couple, but then you're still kind of where you started off, plus you might just have to discard them to the other part of the card. And it's actually a pretty great tool for wrecking the guy who just boundless realmsed without wrecking the game with a geddon.
Mind twist it isn't either, unless you've got no cards in hand. Which, generally, is a really bad idea. Hellbent is not a good commander mechanic. Sure, a discard out can make it easy but there aren't many good manaless ones that see much play. Mindslicer exists and no one is too broken up about it. Sure, that costs more, but realistically most setups outside of griefing with a putrid imp are going to be just as slow if not slower.
And finally wrath of god, which is easily the easiest mode to activate, but also a totally fine card that no one minds too much, unlike geddon and twist. Is it strong? Yes, definitely, but it costs less because it does require some setup. And in most any game, by the time someone wants to play wrath of god 4 mana is totally doable anyway. Not that it wouldn't be the best creature-wipe in the format (it would be) but if sol ring - a type of effect that's MUCH better with a lower cost - is ok, but a similar discount on wrath of god isn't...well, I think that's wrongheaded.
The card is powerful in vintage partly because of its relationship with the moxen and all the other broken cheap mana rocks that exists there (and also here, hi mana crypt...but at least there's only a couple in a larger deck), and the ability to empty a hand of noncreature artifacts with few, if any, lands (possibly sacking them) and then get that coveted triple-wipe. Which is super strong, obviously, but it requires a LOOOOOT of build around. *One does not simply* run an 18 land commander deck with 60+ mana rocks in order to make balance as good as possible. Now, you could run a bunch of artifact ramp in a deck that's probably already running geddons, and throw in some zuran orb-alikes, some tutors to get them, maybe easy ways to discard your hand, and better keep a low creature count too...and what we've created is a bad combo deck. It's a hard-to-pull-off combo that doesn't even win the game. Other players with artifact ramp might still be able to recover. You might not have a wincon anytime soon. Not to mention, just playing MLD will restrict who wants to play with you.
The RC has been really clear that they do not care about powerhouse combo cards. Doomsday is unbanned. Food chain is unbanned. ad nauseam remains unbanned. Balance requires, if anything, MORE setup than any of these cards for less payoff. And as a standalone card in a normal deck, it's powerful but honestly not that bad. The land clause is just a ramp punisher. The board wipe is just a cheaper, more conditional version of an effect already available and hardly broken. The hand clause is certainly annoying, but we've got cards that do that already too. And while sure, getting all three at once might seem amazing, without a dedicated deck it's super possible for one or more of the modes to bite you in the butt. Maybe you've got no creatures so you're psyched to wipe the board for 2...but someone else is hellbent, so now it's going to make you discard your hand. Or your hand is empty, but now you're sacking your board to get your mindslicer trigger. And forget putting it into any deck with land ramp.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see it being that much of a problem. EDH lacks the ability to easily abuse it, it's way weaker than other existing combo cards, and it has totally fair, interesting, and even (dare I say) fun gameplay as a card in the 99 of a normal deck.
I'm still not 100% on board for the land wipe being a major problem, though - while I think some artifact-heavy decks would enjoy that aspect of it, I think it's basically a tolerable part of the card in most normal circumstances, with especially egregious circumstances being primarily because of strict build-arounds or unusual luck, none of which would be much better than a simple armageddon most of the time (which I'd also be fine with seeing banned, btw). Honestly I think if wotc printed a balance-but-only-for-lands, I think it'd be a nice card to have around to reign in ramp players without setting back the entire table.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Anyway I still don't think it's fair to talk about its extremes as though they are automatic. You don't get to just decide when it's a mindslicer or an armageddon unless you build your deck in a pretty specific way. Granted, eventually if you have a normal deck you can probably empty your hand and get your creatures killed, but that really diminishes the importance of the cost since that'll probably take a while. Anything before turn 5 would be almost impossible outside of cEDH, and for a "normal" deck probably not before like turn 8 at the earliest if you want a full hand wipe. At that point mindslicer or black myojin start to look a lot more reasonable.
And while merely good scenarios do make an argument for why it should be included in decks (and that could potentially be problematic since then the possibility of the extreme examples are increased), most of the realistic ones don't seem that broken to me, personally, at least in comparison to stuff like MLD or black myojin.
I don't think it's really comparable to worldfire et al for a lot of the same reasons. Lands in particular are really unlikely to be wiped unless you've built for it. Set back, maybe, but not wiped. A closer comparison might be something like...well I guess mindslicer into ***, there isn't really a direct comparison. Still really strong for sure, but I think most likely increasing the cost in that scenario wouldn't have a huge impact since it'd most likely be somewhat late game, and we've already got an increased cost version in magus, which sees nil play. Granted, it also has the weaknesses of being a creature.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
You said: "I think your initial post has been roundly smushed since you seem to think Balance is primarily a combo/synergy card which basically no one agrees with."
"your initial post has been roundly smushed" translation "you are wrong"
"since" translation "because"
"you seem to think [things] which basically no one agrees with" translation "people don't agree with you"
Maybe I need a new translator?
The most I've said is that balance deserves some consideration for unbanning which, for the record, I still do, and I think is also true of basically all cards except manual dexterity and shahrazad. I've made some arguments for why I think it's less bad than the common conception, and I don't back away from those - I still think it's not *that* bad in a "normal" circumstance, although that doesn't necessarily mean it should be unbanned. If you want to engage in a lively debate about how likely it is to get played, where it's good, how often it's problematic, and what constitutes problematic - then I'm happy to do so, it's what I came here for. But this post in particular:is not debating. It has no counterpoints and makes no effort to touch on anything specific I've said. Some of your other posts have been fine and even had some fair points, but when you argue like this it's not going to do much to persuade me.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
A lot of kind of ideas for situations where it's good have been run out, and for decks where it would be good, but so far nearly all those ideas require being heavy in artifacts (or planeswalkers - while enchantments could theoretically be a problem, most enchantments and enchantment synergies don't play as nicely with the effect, from what I can see). Which, true, that is the place where balance is generally run and has the best effect, but that's still a relatively narrow subset of decks. Perhaps enough to keep it banned, but pretty far from a card that would belong in every deck.
I brought up the card because I thought it was worth discussing. That's it. I don't - and didn't - expect to achieve anything other than maybe learn things, teach things, and waste time. If you think you're going to achieve something broader then I don't think you're in the right place. My initial statement was that it's had an undeservedly low amount of discussion for potential unbanning. So if that's my "goal" then I guess goal accomplished?
For the record, my most-necessary-to-ban would probably be something like:
chaos orb - dexterity and card placement have no place in magic
channel - waaay too powerful stand(mostly)alone
falling star - see orb
karakas - interacts too badly with commanders
limited resources - interacts too badly with multiplayer
shahrazad - not doing that nonsense
time walk - of the power 8, this is the only one I see being really problematic
trade secrets - interacts too badly with multiplayer
tolarian academy and yawgmoth's bargain...or griselbrand...idk it's close, they're all awful.
Did you really need to quote that whole post to respond to 5% of it?
I'm not sure I agree that it has more applications. Being conditional makes it harder to build around than jokulhaups (which is a better comparison than oblit, really). You can't necessarily rely on it doing something specific. Instead of having a consistent effect that will sometimes be what you want (so you're basically waiting for your desires to line up with that effect) you have a variable effect that will sometimes be what you want (so you're basically waiting for either your desires to line up to what the card is going to do, or what the card is going to do to line up to your desires...I feel like I could draw a graph but I'll resist the urge, hopefully you get the point). Does that make it better? Well, I'm not sure. The low cost obviously helps. But I know at least I would have a hard time building around it outside of "cram a bunch of artifacts/planeswalkers in there and it'll probably be good".It seems like a somewhat self-defeating argument if you're arguing that "most decks have artifact ramp" and thus it's easy to come out ahead. Wouldn't your opponents then ALSO usually have artifact ramp? Also, minor nitpick but wouldn't you play the land post-balance?
While this scenario is certainly strong it doesn't strike me as being brokenly so. You're ahead on mana and everyone is out to get you - you've accomplished the same as a T1 sol ring, congrats. And certainly less disrupting than geddon could be in similar circumstances.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
The crift angle is interesting and a good point, that could be quite strong although most likely they wouldn't have to discard too too many cards if you're playing a CA-intense control deck, depending on how balanced the board is. And of course you'd have to sacrifice your creatures. Arguably better to just cast, say, timetwister or, since crift is an instant, you could always play black myojin after an eot crift.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I'm not saying it can't be strong in a very specific deck. But the same is true for many unbanned cards.
But for curiosity's sake I'll take a look next time I play.That's kind of what I would guess is the impetus for it being on the banlist so rigidly from Sheldon. Same logic that had koko on there for years. One bad game at home and suddenly it's too OP.
I think your position is pretty reasonable and (as I've said a half-dozen times by now) I think it may well be too powerful/annoying to unban. But I don't think it's in the top 10, or even top 20 of most-important-to-ban cards, imo.You literally didn't say anything about my counterpoint whatsoever, so I'm not sure in what sense that's "engaging". Some people have made solid arguments and I've capitulated on some points (which you also totally ignore), but you don't get to just say "your arguments suck" without poking any holes and pretend like you won.
If I'm playing a control deck, usually I'm relying on having lots of cards in hand so I can reliably have the answer for whatever my opponents are doing, which is going to make balance a pretty poor card in most circumstances since I'll almost always be discarding most of my cards. Paying a few extra mana to negate this downside with wrath of god is going to be a far superior option in most cases.
Not to say it couldn't be good in an artifact-heavy staxy control deck, but you didn't say that, you said "any control shell that doesn't play many creatures" would want it, which is flatly wrong. If I'm relying on having card advantage over my opponents and don't particularly worry about ramping, then what motivation do I have to discount a wrath by 2 at the cost of discarding most of my hand that I've worked hard to get? If I'm a ramp-heavy control deck, why would I sacrifice my mana for a discount that I don't even need? If you want to revise your statement into a more watertight argument then maybe we can make some headway and hey, maybe you'll change my mind a little. But not if you're just going to ignore the points I'm making in favor of argumentum ad populum.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Looking at the card honestly, I don't think I'd play it in many, if any, control decks. Someone is going to have a small hand in a multiplayer game most of the time. If I'm playing control, I'd much rather pay a few more mana for my wrath than discard most of my hand to it. You really need to have a lot of enchants/arts/pws to justify it imo. And you have to be proactive. The discard has to be a feature, not a problem. Imo that makes it fairly narrow.Are you running knowledge pool in your lavinia deck? If so, I don't think you're the banlist's target market. And if not, then...why are you playing lavinia?
Anyway, maybe I'm missing something and I don't actually care enough to comb through a decklist, but without a godhand I find that scenario very unlikely. 10 is only, well, 10% of your deck, and even 1-2 cmc adds up pretty quickly when you're trying to get rid of 8-9 cards with only 1-2 lands to do it with, not to mention "half of your deck being cmc 1-2" is like...not actually all that unusual, and still leaves much of your deck as being virtually uncastable in turns 1-2. So while I'm sure it's POSSIBLE to empty your hand on turn 1-2 I call major BS on it being "fairly normal".That's potentially true, although if someone does have less of something than you then that be motivation not to cast balance since it might screw you over by killing your creatures when you wanted to wipe hands, or removing some of your lands when you wanted to kill creatures, etc. I still would say that, in order for the card to be reliably good, you'd need to be fairly committed to one of the non-checked types. And I definitely disagree with it being "plenty of MLD", in normal circumstances it will be pretty middling imo. Someone has 8, someone has 6, someone has 9...ok so we're all on 6 now...doesn't seem like a big deal. Actual armageddon is much, much worse.If I was way behind I think I'd rather cast obliterate, in terms of improving my chances to win the game. Why conditionally reduce lands/creatures/hands when you could unconditionally destroy all lands and creatures and render hands irrelevant? But obliterate hasn't historically been a major problem, afaik. I'm sure it could be annoying but actually great to include, I'm a lot less sure. I think you'd really need to have a plan to use it somewhat proactively to justify, and that's kind of the same boat MLD is already in, which is quite legal. Or balancing act, which also seems nearly zero play.Ok, first of all, I said in the very first sentence that it isn't actually balanced and it was just for a catchy title, so trying to throw it back in my face is like...rhetoric level 0. Anyway.
I think superfriends has a much better chance to win off balance than artifacts or enchantments. Looking through the most played artifacts and enchantments on edhrec, very few of them actually do something on their own. Draw cards, buff creatures, generate mana, etc. Which gives you a better ability to recover but it's not actually winning you the game on its own. Planewalkers can actually start being proactive immediately. The other key difference is that planeswalkers main weakness is that they kinda need your opponents to leave them alone, especially with creatures that are probably just already out chilling on the battlefield. Artifacts and enchantments you can just play out there, and then cast devastation or whatever on the next turn. The reason it's so much better with planeswalkers is that balance's low mana cost matters a lot more. You can't just play your planeswalkers, wait for a trip around the table, and then play devastation because they could easily all be dead by then. Balance costing 2 lets you play a juicy, vulnerable planeswalker and then wipe the board the same turn, negating the window for people to easily kill your walker. Whereas for artifacts or enchantments they'll probably still be alive by your next turn, so you can empty your hand, then cast devastation on the next turn and be in a good recovery spot.
"even with those nerfs making it more 'fair', it's barely played."
This sentence makes no sense. It's not EVEN with those nerfs, it's BECAUSE of those nerfs. Yes, magus is much weaker, but the point is that the effect isn't that effective. Compare to something like ur-golem's eye, a much worse version of sol ring - still sees plenty of play, because the effect is good enough that even at a more reasonable cost, it's still good. Whatever the reasonable cost of balance is, 7 mana and the vulnerabilities of a creature is clearly too much, because nobody wants to play that card. See also Magus of the Will, which has quite a few decks running it despite costing twice as much and having the same vulnerabilities are magus of the balance. Sure, balance has the cost jacked up more, but I think the magus example proves that whatever the fair cost for balance is, it's not THAT high. I don't think will is a problematic card in commander at all and people are happy to play twice as much for it. So if people aren't willing to play +5 for balance, then it can't be all that great. Imo. Plus balance gets more value out of being instant speed, which magus does do. Anyway, some food for thought.
As I've said before, it's very possible balance still deserves it's banning, and tbh the more I think about it the less I actually want to see it out and about because I don't think it would go into hardly any of my decks. But I think it deserves at least some discussion about unbanning, which thus far it's gotten next to nothing. The card is not limited resources. It's not completely beyond the pale to even consider.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Balance has had VERY little discussion (from what I can tell) about a possible unban, and I don't exactly get why. People argue "it's armageddon, mind twist, and wrath of god all in one, for TWO MANA!" But it's waaay more complicated than that.
For one thing, lands. Most decks don't run zuran orb or greater gargadon or whatever to sac lands to. You could maybe sandbag lands for a few turns to make everyone else sac a couple, but then you're still kind of where you started off, plus you might just have to discard them to the other part of the card. And it's actually a pretty great tool for wrecking the guy who just boundless realmsed without wrecking the game with a geddon.
Mind twist it isn't either, unless you've got no cards in hand. Which, generally, is a really bad idea. Hellbent is not a good commander mechanic. Sure, a discard out can make it easy but there aren't many good manaless ones that see much play. Mindslicer exists and no one is too broken up about it. Sure, that costs more, but realistically most setups outside of griefing with a putrid imp are going to be just as slow if not slower.
And finally wrath of god, which is easily the easiest mode to activate, but also a totally fine card that no one minds too much, unlike geddon and twist. Is it strong? Yes, definitely, but it costs less because it does require some setup. And in most any game, by the time someone wants to play wrath of god 4 mana is totally doable anyway. Not that it wouldn't be the best creature-wipe in the format (it would be) but if sol ring - a type of effect that's MUCH better with a lower cost - is ok, but a similar discount on wrath of god isn't...well, I think that's wrongheaded.
The card is powerful in vintage partly because of its relationship with the moxen and all the other broken cheap mana rocks that exists there (and also here, hi mana crypt...but at least there's only a couple in a larger deck), and the ability to empty a hand of noncreature artifacts with few, if any, lands (possibly sacking them) and then get that coveted triple-wipe. Which is super strong, obviously, but it requires a LOOOOOT of build around. *One does not simply* run an 18 land commander deck with 60+ mana rocks in order to make balance as good as possible. Now, you could run a bunch of artifact ramp in a deck that's probably already running geddons, and throw in some zuran orb-alikes, some tutors to get them, maybe easy ways to discard your hand, and better keep a low creature count too...and what we've created is a bad combo deck. It's a hard-to-pull-off combo that doesn't even win the game. Other players with artifact ramp might still be able to recover. You might not have a wincon anytime soon. Not to mention, just playing MLD will restrict who wants to play with you.
The RC has been really clear that they do not care about powerhouse combo cards. Doomsday is unbanned. Food chain is unbanned. ad nauseam remains unbanned. Balance requires, if anything, MORE setup than any of these cards for less payoff. And as a standalone card in a normal deck, it's powerful but honestly not that bad. The land clause is just a ramp punisher. The board wipe is just a cheaper, more conditional version of an effect already available and hardly broken. The hand clause is certainly annoying, but we've got cards that do that already too. And while sure, getting all three at once might seem amazing, without a dedicated deck it's super possible for one or more of the modes to bite you in the butt. Maybe you've got no creatures so you're psyched to wipe the board for 2...but someone else is hellbent, so now it's going to make you discard your hand. Or your hand is empty, but now you're sacking your board to get your mindslicer trigger. And forget putting it into any deck with land ramp.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see it being that much of a problem. EDH lacks the ability to easily abuse it, it's way weaker than other existing combo cards, and it has totally fair, interesting, and even (dare I say) fun gameplay as a card in the 99 of a normal deck.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6