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.
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.
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.
Personally, I would cast Balance then make my land drop because setting all my opponents back on their land is more important that getting that extra mana rock out that turn.
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 actually disagree that balance is anything like worldfire, as what happens over the course of the game directly impacts what balance does. It avoids artifacts, enchantments, and Planeswalker, so it's best state involves the caster having enough of those out to get a significant advantage. It also requires a player to have fewer creatures, a player to have fewer lands, and a player to have fewer cards in hand. In situations where the difference is a couple cards and a couple lands, it's not going to reset the game that much.
Let's look for a moment at the ban criteria and see how balance fits:
Interacts poorly with the format: I'd say balance is a moderate offender. This is a card that interacts poorly with multiplayer formats. Multiplayer not only increases the CA value gained by casting it, it also makes it easier to turn all it's modes in your favor (maybe you don't have a discard outlet but you want everyone to discard their hand, it's easier if someone is already hell-bent because the dropped a bunch of Mana dorks). It also interacts poorly with the existence of a commander, as you can float Mana to cast it after balance resolves, making situations where you clear the board of creatures, hands of cards, and set everyone's Mana back to the opening turns while leaving yourself with a threat easier to accomplish. Still, it's only moderately problematic here.
Problematic game states: it hits this one heavily. Balance played fairly is a self contained stax package. It's very powerful and would have a legitimate place in decks, yet it is also one of the easiest and most disruptive spite plays to pull off. Even ignoring the spite play potential, there are plenty of ways that balance, when played "fairly" (no combo, little support to maximize it) is both the correct play in terms of increasing your chances to win and a play that's likely to drag out the game and turn it into an unfun slog. That's because what balance does is very powerful and easy for the caster to take advantage of, but unless it is used as a combo or with a moderate to heavy amount of support it doesn't actually lock in a win. It is as disruptive as stax but less reliable, and there is a wide grey area where, due to not knowing future draws or what your opponents have in hand, casting balance will likely give you the advantage you need to win but there is still a large possibility that your opponents can stop you. The problem comes not from you winning off if balance (well, that kind of play is problematic in itself, but not banworthy) but from what comes after you fail to win off of balance: a miserable table of gimped decks that limp along for several turns until someone finally gets enough threats down without being answered. Lots of cards can do this with help, or for a ton of Mana, but balance can do it on its own, cheaply, and it is rare in that it can do so even when casting it is the correct (if not cautious) play. It's this danger, and I'd argue likelihood, of accidentally ruining games that is it's most toxic aspect. That it's best uses are unpleasant for many people doesn't help it's case, not because that is a reason for banning but because they fail to provide a contrast, something that generally adds to the game for most people to be held up as a reason to tolerate it's propensity to ruin games.
Problematic casual omnipresence: it's a $2 card that is readily available, incredibly powerful (one of the strongest spells ever printed in white), easy to cast, makes nearly any deck with white in it better, flexible, and with a reputation as one of the godly cards of early magic. We don't have any actual data as it's never been legal in commander, but all signs point to it seeing heavy play if unbanned. The only thing holding it back is complexity. No, the magus isn't a good example, it sucks, it's 7 Mana overall, five of which have to be hit in one go, a vulnerable creature and thus easier to answer, and most importantly it's telegraphed, giving opponents and entire turn not only to answer it but to do things to mitigate it's effects on them. Much of balance's power actually comes from hitting opponents unprepared. It's also why restore balance isn't good unless you cheat cast it off of something like Cascade. So balance hits this strong, its a card that is so powerful and broadly useful that it would be an auto include or close too it, and it would tend to have a strongly negative impact when it shows up.
Too much Mana: n/a
PBTE: It's $2. Maybe when edh was born, but reprints have killed it's rating here.
So what we have is a card that would hit problematic casual omnipresence and creates undesired game states about as hard as any card can, while throwing in some moderately negative interaction with the format for good measure. It makes sense, then, that the RC has said balance is one of the last cards they would ever unban. Remember, while the power of the card influences most of these criteria, power alone is not the key concern here, but what it does to games it shows up in. If it where merely a combo card it would probably get unbanned.
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Noice clickbait title! That's good marketing, and I can definitely respect that.
I think you bring up some interesting points in regards to Balance that I've come to appreciate. Notably, I think the strongest argument that you have is that it would require a pretty strict buildaround in order to payoff effectively. The fact that it is symmetrical will certainly give a player who's contemplating including Balance in their deck a lot to think about. It doesn't hit enchantments, artifacts, or planeswalkers, so it would make sense to build a deck that would warp around those types of permanents in order to maximize the effectiveness of Balance.
This means that your deck would probably want to play upwards of 15+ artifact sources maindeck along with some really cheap, powerful card draw so that when you discard cards you can recover more quickly than your opponents. Necropotence and Rhystic Study come to mind. Some tutor effects in order to maximize the chances of being able to cast Balance in a game, so cards like Mystical Tutor and Demonic Tutor. Bonus points if you can find some effective and CMC-cheap Planeswalkers that you can cast on T2 or T3 with a reasonable starting hand (Jace, the Mind Sculptor comes to mind here). That sounds like a really solid Esper deck to me, perhaps helmed by Aminatou or Zur so that you can consistently get Necropotence into play after your opponents have been Balance'd.
I think that the most damaging aspect of the card, and the reason that I think it should stay banned, is the fact that it can and often will cause a significant amount of Discard in conjunction with depriving players of mana sources. In essence, Balance takes away the ability for a player to actually play the game of Magic effectively. And this is why I think it should stay banned.
EDH is a format that is dependent on the social contract that you form with your playgroup. I personally prefer a cEDH mindset, so I'm coming from a pretty open-minded mindset I believe. I'm comfortable in playing against my wife's Kaalia deck (found in my signature) that has a pretty significant presence of opponent-limiting interactions i.e. Thalia, Guardian of Thraben, Stranglehold, Linvala, Keeper of Silence, and Cursed Totem. I recently lost to a Shuffle Hulk deck on T2 before I even made my second land drop, and conceded the win to the player in a gracious fashion (I think). So I'm ok with less desirable cards that negatively affect my ability to play the game or even play the game. But none of the effects that I play against attack both my mana sources AND cards in hand. So I personally believed that I COULD have interacted if I had drawn the right cards or that I COULD have won if I had simply had one more turn. This belief, which is substantiated by the cards in my hand and the mana sources I have in play, is what drives me to keep playing MTG as a game. Cataclysm is probably the closest relevant EDH analog to Balance that I can think of, and it notably doesn't hit the cards that I'm holding when it resolves. This allows me the chance to rebuild, or at least think that I CAN rebuild, after being hit with such a devastating effect. And I think that's my biggest point. Balance not only strips my ability to actually cast spells (by generating mana) but it also negatively impacts my ability to actually cast spells (via having actual spells in hand TO cast). And I find this particular combination to be antithesis to the nature of EDH as a format.
My observation about EDH is that people sit down with individual and unique 99 card amalgamations in order to actually sling cardboard and feel important. Very often, their deck and the way they've constructed it is a reflection of who they are and how they approach the game, and they want to express that to others as quickly as possible. EDH is a way that they can do this, with a genius high-fantasy slant that invigorates and captures the imagination. I believe that Balance inhibits this most egregiously of any Magic card, in the context of EDH. In order to most effectively convey this personalized approach to EDH, a player needs to follow the rules of MTG as a game and cast spells that allow this type of self-expression. They can only do this by drawing cards and having mana sources to cast those cards. When Balance occurs, I think that it hits too many different cards in too many zones that would normally facilitate this kind of self-expression and therefore would lead to very emotionally damaging experience. A player can easily feel like they have nothing to do BUT lose when they've just lost 2 lands, 3 creatures, AND 3 cards from their hand via Balance resolving. This will inevitably have negative political repercussions, both within the game itself as well as outside of the game, because a player will remember who made them feel so much pain and either refuse to play with that person or vindicate their pain by exclusively targeting that individual in-game. While there is a growing opportunity present in this kind of pain, most people DON'T want to experience that type of pain. EDH is meant to be an avenue of self-expression in a creative way supported by visually distinctive pieces of cardboard that spark the imagination in a formalized and structured way. In general, Stax effects (like Balance and Cataclysm) are unwelcome in most groups for this particular reason. Stax effects actively hinder or slow down a player from actualizing this kind of self-expression.
The final nail in the coffin, in my mind, is that it only costs 2 CMC. That means that it is easily castable on a general basis and can be taken advantage of by the player deploying BAlance fairly early within a game. How I interpret this is that a savvy deck builder can and WILL build their deck to take advantage of Balance, and other attendant Stax effects (do note I use the term Stax pretty liberally), better than their opponents; that's just good deckbuilding. What inevitably happens in execution is that this player was able to develop an advantageous board presence that takes advantage Balance but punishes the rest of the table for NOT building around Balance. And that's probably exactly how it comes across, on an emotional level: punishment. This allows only a single player to actualize their self-expression and achieve that feeling of self-importance that we all crave as human beings at the cost of the other players' ability to self-express. And the social contract that surrounds EDH finds this type of behavior to be MASSIVELY undesirable because, in short, it just isn't fair/just. I don't think that it would be unreasonable to see this kind of effect occur on T3 or T4 of a cEDH game by a Zur player where they can easily AND consistently get Necropotence into play and overcome the massive loss of cards that occurs when Balance resolves, as a brief thought experiment
Tl;dr: Balance too effectively attacks the ability of a player to self-express by destroying too many resources in too many zones at a VERY low CMC. For this reason (which I hope is stated coherently enough, haha), I think it should stay on the ban list.
EDIT: I just saw your post, Onering, and I think your argument is compelling based on the criteria you identified.
The whole idea of a card being balanced is ridiculous. I'm not even talking about Balance, just cards in general. From a design standpoint, it's pretty binary. A card either affects everyone equally or it doesn't. Balance hits you just as much as your opponents. Cyclonic Rift doesn't. But if you're talking about a card's effect, then regardless of how balanced a card design is, you're going to build a deck and play a card in a manner that doesn't try to lessen the negative impact or positive impact on yourself as compared to your opponents. I'm not going to cast Blasphemous Act after vomiting 20 creatures out with Animar, and I'm not going to cast Balance when I'm ahead or won't otherwise profit.
Getting back to Balance, pretty much from day one people were dropping Mox and Sol Rings while sandbagging lands to run Nalance. The only thing that would change now is that the social contract might keep this card in check. It's not a card that I would go "heck yeah, balance got unbanned" and slot into every white deck, but you can bet that it would make the cut as removal in a few decks.
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?
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.
The card is not limited resources. It's not completely beyond the pale to even consider.
What's wrong with Limited Resources?
If there are 10 or more total lands on the battlefield, nobody can play lands. In 1v1 where LR was designed, that means each player could have 5 lands. In multiplayer, that's no longer the case for a LR dropped early, and the more players there are the worse it is.
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 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
Personally, I would cast Balance then make my land drop because setting all my opponents back on their land is more important that getting that extra mana rock out that turn.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
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
Let's look for a moment at the ban criteria and see how balance fits:
Interacts poorly with the format: I'd say balance is a moderate offender. This is a card that interacts poorly with multiplayer formats. Multiplayer not only increases the CA value gained by casting it, it also makes it easier to turn all it's modes in your favor (maybe you don't have a discard outlet but you want everyone to discard their hand, it's easier if someone is already hell-bent because the dropped a bunch of Mana dorks). It also interacts poorly with the existence of a commander, as you can float Mana to cast it after balance resolves, making situations where you clear the board of creatures, hands of cards, and set everyone's Mana back to the opening turns while leaving yourself with a threat easier to accomplish. Still, it's only moderately problematic here.
Problematic game states: it hits this one heavily. Balance played fairly is a self contained stax package. It's very powerful and would have a legitimate place in decks, yet it is also one of the easiest and most disruptive spite plays to pull off. Even ignoring the spite play potential, there are plenty of ways that balance, when played "fairly" (no combo, little support to maximize it) is both the correct play in terms of increasing your chances to win and a play that's likely to drag out the game and turn it into an unfun slog. That's because what balance does is very powerful and easy for the caster to take advantage of, but unless it is used as a combo or with a moderate to heavy amount of support it doesn't actually lock in a win. It is as disruptive as stax but less reliable, and there is a wide grey area where, due to not knowing future draws or what your opponents have in hand, casting balance will likely give you the advantage you need to win but there is still a large possibility that your opponents can stop you. The problem comes not from you winning off if balance (well, that kind of play is problematic in itself, but not banworthy) but from what comes after you fail to win off of balance: a miserable table of gimped decks that limp along for several turns until someone finally gets enough threats down without being answered. Lots of cards can do this with help, or for a ton of Mana, but balance can do it on its own, cheaply, and it is rare in that it can do so even when casting it is the correct (if not cautious) play. It's this danger, and I'd argue likelihood, of accidentally ruining games that is it's most toxic aspect. That it's best uses are unpleasant for many people doesn't help it's case, not because that is a reason for banning but because they fail to provide a contrast, something that generally adds to the game for most people to be held up as a reason to tolerate it's propensity to ruin games.
Problematic casual omnipresence: it's a $2 card that is readily available, incredibly powerful (one of the strongest spells ever printed in white), easy to cast, makes nearly any deck with white in it better, flexible, and with a reputation as one of the godly cards of early magic. We don't have any actual data as it's never been legal in commander, but all signs point to it seeing heavy play if unbanned. The only thing holding it back is complexity. No, the magus isn't a good example, it sucks, it's 7 Mana overall, five of which have to be hit in one go, a vulnerable creature and thus easier to answer, and most importantly it's telegraphed, giving opponents and entire turn not only to answer it but to do things to mitigate it's effects on them. Much of balance's power actually comes from hitting opponents unprepared. It's also why restore balance isn't good unless you cheat cast it off of something like Cascade. So balance hits this strong, its a card that is so powerful and broadly useful that it would be an auto include or close too it, and it would tend to have a strongly negative impact when it shows up.
Too much Mana: n/a
PBTE: It's $2. Maybe when edh was born, but reprints have killed it's rating here.
So what we have is a card that would hit problematic casual omnipresence and creates undesired game states about as hard as any card can, while throwing in some moderately negative interaction with the format for good measure. It makes sense, then, that the RC has said balance is one of the last cards they would ever unban. Remember, while the power of the card influences most of these criteria, power alone is not the key concern here, but what it does to games it shows up in. If it where merely a combo card it would probably get unbanned.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I think you bring up some interesting points in regards to Balance that I've come to appreciate. Notably, I think the strongest argument that you have is that it would require a pretty strict buildaround in order to payoff effectively. The fact that it is symmetrical will certainly give a player who's contemplating including Balance in their deck a lot to think about. It doesn't hit enchantments, artifacts, or planeswalkers, so it would make sense to build a deck that would warp around those types of permanents in order to maximize the effectiveness of Balance.
This means that your deck would probably want to play upwards of 15+ artifact sources maindeck along with some really cheap, powerful card draw so that when you discard cards you can recover more quickly than your opponents. Necropotence and Rhystic Study come to mind. Some tutor effects in order to maximize the chances of being able to cast Balance in a game, so cards like Mystical Tutor and Demonic Tutor. Bonus points if you can find some effective and CMC-cheap Planeswalkers that you can cast on T2 or T3 with a reasonable starting hand (Jace, the Mind Sculptor comes to mind here). That sounds like a really solid Esper deck to me, perhaps helmed by Aminatou or Zur so that you can consistently get Necropotence into play after your opponents have been Balance'd.
I think that the most damaging aspect of the card, and the reason that I think it should stay banned, is the fact that it can and often will cause a significant amount of Discard in conjunction with depriving players of mana sources. In essence, Balance takes away the ability for a player to actually play the game of Magic effectively. And this is why I think it should stay banned.
EDH is a format that is dependent on the social contract that you form with your playgroup. I personally prefer a cEDH mindset, so I'm coming from a pretty open-minded mindset I believe. I'm comfortable in playing against my wife's Kaalia deck (found in my signature) that has a pretty significant presence of opponent-limiting interactions i.e. Thalia, Guardian of Thraben, Stranglehold, Linvala, Keeper of Silence, and Cursed Totem. I recently lost to a Shuffle Hulk deck on T2 before I even made my second land drop, and conceded the win to the player in a gracious fashion (I think). So I'm ok with less desirable cards that negatively affect my ability to play the game or even play the game. But none of the effects that I play against attack both my mana sources AND cards in hand. So I personally believed that I COULD have interacted if I had drawn the right cards or that I COULD have won if I had simply had one more turn. This belief, which is substantiated by the cards in my hand and the mana sources I have in play, is what drives me to keep playing MTG as a game. Cataclysm is probably the closest relevant EDH analog to Balance that I can think of, and it notably doesn't hit the cards that I'm holding when it resolves. This allows me the chance to rebuild, or at least think that I CAN rebuild, after being hit with such a devastating effect. And I think that's my biggest point. Balance not only strips my ability to actually cast spells (by generating mana) but it also negatively impacts my ability to actually cast spells (via having actual spells in hand TO cast). And I find this particular combination to be antithesis to the nature of EDH as a format.
My observation about EDH is that people sit down with individual and unique 99 card amalgamations in order to actually sling cardboard and feel important. Very often, their deck and the way they've constructed it is a reflection of who they are and how they approach the game, and they want to express that to others as quickly as possible. EDH is a way that they can do this, with a genius high-fantasy slant that invigorates and captures the imagination. I believe that Balance inhibits this most egregiously of any Magic card, in the context of EDH. In order to most effectively convey this personalized approach to EDH, a player needs to follow the rules of MTG as a game and cast spells that allow this type of self-expression. They can only do this by drawing cards and having mana sources to cast those cards. When Balance occurs, I think that it hits too many different cards in too many zones that would normally facilitate this kind of self-expression and therefore would lead to very emotionally damaging experience. A player can easily feel like they have nothing to do BUT lose when they've just lost 2 lands, 3 creatures, AND 3 cards from their hand via Balance resolving. This will inevitably have negative political repercussions, both within the game itself as well as outside of the game, because a player will remember who made them feel so much pain and either refuse to play with that person or vindicate their pain by exclusively targeting that individual in-game. While there is a growing opportunity present in this kind of pain, most people DON'T want to experience that type of pain. EDH is meant to be an avenue of self-expression in a creative way supported by visually distinctive pieces of cardboard that spark the imagination in a formalized and structured way. In general, Stax effects (like Balance and Cataclysm) are unwelcome in most groups for this particular reason. Stax effects actively hinder or slow down a player from actualizing this kind of self-expression.
The final nail in the coffin, in my mind, is that it only costs 2 CMC. That means that it is easily castable on a general basis and can be taken advantage of by the player deploying BAlance fairly early within a game. How I interpret this is that a savvy deck builder can and WILL build their deck to take advantage of Balance, and other attendant Stax effects (do note I use the term Stax pretty liberally), better than their opponents; that's just good deckbuilding. What inevitably happens in execution is that this player was able to develop an advantageous board presence that takes advantage Balance but punishes the rest of the table for NOT building around Balance. And that's probably exactly how it comes across, on an emotional level: punishment. This allows only a single player to actualize their self-expression and achieve that feeling of self-importance that we all crave as human beings at the cost of the other players' ability to self-express. And the social contract that surrounds EDH finds this type of behavior to be MASSIVELY undesirable because, in short, it just isn't fair/just. I don't think that it would be unreasonable to see this kind of effect occur on T3 or T4 of a cEDH game by a Zur player where they can easily AND consistently get Necropotence into play and overcome the massive loss of cards that occurs when Balance resolves, as a brief thought experiment
Tl;dr: Balance too effectively attacks the ability of a player to self-express by destroying too many resources in too many zones at a VERY low CMC. For this reason (which I hope is stated coherently enough, haha), I think it should stay on the ban list.
EDIT: I just saw your post, Onering, and I think your argument is compelling based on the criteria you identified.
UB Dralnu, Lich Lord
RBW [Primer]-Kaalia of the Vast
BUG [Primer]-Tasigur, the Golden Fang
GWU [Primer]-Arcades, the Strategist
WUB Primer-Aminatou, the Fateshifter
UBR Nicol Bolas, the Ravager
Getting back to Balance, pretty much from day one people were dropping Mox and Sol Rings while sandbagging lands to run Nalance. The only thing that would change now is that the social contract might keep this card in check. It's not a card that I would go "heck yeah, balance got unbanned" and slot into every white deck, but you can bet that it would make the cut as removal in a few decks.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
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
What's wrong with Limited Resources?
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)