Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Sep-22 6:52 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-May-06 3:25 am 

Joined: 2009-Jan-29 8:32 am
Age: Drake
Location: Belgium
There is always Restore Balance...


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-May-06 6:21 am 

Joined: 2009-May-05 9:45 pm
Age: Dragon
Location: Acworth, GA
W1 means you can put it on a stick and cast it every turn. Enough said, since that is easily pulled up quick with UW in your deck, and we all know how often that shows up. :lol:


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-May-06 6:24 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Aug-23 10:03 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: The Netherlands - Hoorn
Sorcery?

Personally I wouldn't have any problems with Balance being played, it gives white more power and that's a good thing. Besides that, I really want to play my Beta copy of it in EDH :P


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-May-06 8:00 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Nov-08 5:27 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Canberra
Buthrakaur wrote:
W1 means you can put it on a stick and cast it every turn.

No you can't.

_________________
BAN WILLOW SATYR

DCI Level 1 Judge.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-May-06 8:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Mar-13 2:01 pm
Age: Drake
Location: Texas
Poesjuh wrote:
Sorcery?

Personally I wouldn't have any problems with Balance being played, it gives white more power and that's a good thing. Besides that, I really want to play my Beta copy of it in EDH :P


Since when has White needed MORE power... Wizards has been doing NOTHING but upping the power level of white these past few sets... I don't see the argument of White needing more than it already has.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-May-06 3:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Aug-15 9:31 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Not one person here has stated a reason why they believe Balance to be ok in 1v1 but bad in multiplayer, or vice versa. Pretty much everyone who's said one or the other has simply stated their opinion as a matter of fact. Say what you want about hypothetical scenarios. Stating your opinion about where a card is/isn't overpowered with no reasoning whatsoever afterwards makes even less sense and deserves even less credibility.

Balance is meant to kill lots of your opponents cards, while having a symetrical effect on yourself. The goal when using it is to limit the amount it does to your while killing as many cards of your opponents' as possible. Therefore Balance increases in power in multiplayer since it's going to destroy more total cards from opponents, just like all the other mass removal effects. My point is, with the overabundance of mass removal played in multiplayer due to scaling with more players, I don't see how anyone could think this card wouldn't be more powerful in multiplayer than 1v1.

Furthermore, in defense of it staying banned, as long as you're behind, this card is always the way to nuke the world and people's hands for the least possible investment. There are already more expensive cards that nuke the world and are banned. Why is this card being targeted for unbanning by the masses when a 6 and a 10 mana sorcery aren't?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-May-06 5:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Nov-08 5:27 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Canberra
Balance would be one of the first cards on the ban list I'd be fine with unbanning. I have faced balance being abused and everyone just kills that player because they got ahead. Important part here, they got ahead, but try and guess by how much. I've faced balance and it's never enough to win, then only problem I see with balance then is the mass land destruction and it not being very fun to discard cards for four turns.

_________________
BAN WILLOW SATYR

DCI Level 1 Judge.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-May-06 7:47 pm 

Joined: 2008-Jun-20 7:38 am
Age: Elder Dragon
The one thing I think that Balance would do that could be good for the format is make white aggro more viable in a multiplayer setting. It would make certain generals like Isamara and Rafiq significantly better, but not in a particularly fun way. I'd have to playtest it a lot to be sure it wouldn't utterly break something else before I could say one way or the other.

_________________
Current Generals:
Rafiq, Sharuum, Nekusar, Kresh, Mayael, Kaalia, Maelstrom Wanderer, Ghave, Ruhan, Mimeoplasm, Genju of the Realm, Phelddagrif, Derevi, Oloro, Jenara, Karrthus, Marath, Tariel, Riku, Karador, Numot, Damia, Sliver Overlord, Karn, Silver Golem


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-May-07 12:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Aug-15 9:31 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
I think I failed to clarify something in my last post, so I'll just do it here. It is possible that in a 1v1 match a player could sacrifice all of his creatures and lands and discard all of his hand, float mana, cast Balance, and then with the floating mana bring out his general. It would be hard to set up since, in 1v1, you're taking all of your opponent's disruption instead of just some of it. You also can't use any other player's low hand size/low land count/low creature count to help you set a huge "Balance bomb" on the guy you're going after. There's only you and your opponent, so Balance can only check you and him. Therefore this card can actually becomes a less ideal card to cast in 1v1, since you're the only one eating the drawback for an opponent having, for instance, a small hand size.

However, this "Balance bomb" situation could be done, especially given Balance's low mana cost. And in a 1v1 match, a play like that would probably win the game, where as in multiplayer it would probably only be enough to take out 1-2 players before people started to recover. And at that point, you've just painted a bullseye on your forehead.

This is not, however, why I believe the card is banned in EDH. The card is banned in EDH because of how dangerous it is to the format for situations that are not only more likely than the above listed one, but also require little set up on the part of the caster. I'm going to list a few things that usually happen in an average multiplayer game:

1) The players at the table are hitting their land drops on most of the turns.
2) At least one player has no creatures on the board.
3) At least one player has fewer cards than all other players, and possibly no cards in hand at all.

I don't feel like the above listed scenario is in any way unreasonable or some "insane hypothetical scenario that would never happen". Given a situation like this, Balance would play out something like this: Prior to casting the spell the player dumps artifacts and/or enchantments onto the board, ideally ones that are going to help reestablish hand size (Sylvan Library, Phyrexian Arena, Mind's Eye, Journeyer's Kite, etc) and/or board position (Chimeric Idol, Debtor's Knell, etc). Then he casts Balance. He may end up losing some cards from hand and might lose some lands. The board will also be Wrathed. All in all, the result will be a similar situation to other "blow up everything" cards, only hands will also be decreased in size, and the mana investment for doing all this isn't even close by comparison.

Who knows how many cards that this 2 mana sorcery will then ace of your opponents', but t's probably not going to be a small number, and only increases with more players playing. This effect tied to the low mana cost is why I believe this card is banned in EDH, and not because of some general combo with it.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-May-07 3:10 pm 

Joined: 2008-Jun-20 7:38 am
Age: Elder Dragon
trevor wrote:
I think I failed to clarify something in my last post, so I'll just do it here. It is possible that in a 1v1 match a player could sacrifice all of his creatures and lands and discard all of his hand, float mana, cast Balance, and then with the floating mana bring out his general. It would be hard to set up since, in 1v1, you're taking all of your opponent's disruption instead of just some of it. You also can't use any other player's low hand size/low land count/low creature count to help you set a huge "Balance bomb" on the guy you're going after. There's only you and your opponent, so Balance can only check you and him. Therefore this card can actually becomes a less ideal card to cast in 1v1, since you're the only one eating the drawback for an opponent having, for instance, a small hand size.

However, this "Balance bomb" situation could be done, especially given Balance's low mana cost. And in a 1v1 match, a play like that would probably win the game, where as in multiplayer it would probably only be enough to take out 1-2 players before people started to recover. And at that point, you've just painted a bullseye on your forehead.

This is not, however, why I believe the card is banned in EDH. The card is banned in EDH because of how dangerous it is to the format for situations that are not only more likely than the above listed one, but also require little set up on the part of the caster. I'm going to list a few things that usually happen in an average multiplayer game:

1) The players at the table are hitting their land drops on most of the turns.
2) At least one player has no creatures on the board.
3) At least one player has fewer cards than all other players, and possibly no cards in hand at all.

I don't feel like the above listed scenario is in any way unreasonable or some "insane hypothetical scenario that would never happen". Given a situation like this, Balance would play out something like this: Prior to casting the spell the player dumps artifacts and/or enchantments onto the board, ideally ones that are going to help reestablish hand size (Sylvan Library, Phyrexian Arena, Mind's Eye, Journeyer's Kite, etc) and/or board position (Chimeric Idol, Debtor's Knell, etc). Then he casts Balance. He may end up losing some cards from hand and might lose some lands. The board will also be Wrathed. All in all, the result will be a similar situation to other "blow up everything" cards, only hands will also be decreased in size, and the mana investment for doing all this isn't even close by comparison.

Who knows how many cards that this 2 mana sorcery will then ace of your opponents', but t's probably not going to be a small number, and only increases with more players playing. This effect tied to the low mana cost is why I believe this card is banned in EDH, and not because of some general combo with it.


I agree with everything you said here, and it was well written too.

_________________
Current Generals:
Rafiq, Sharuum, Nekusar, Kresh, Mayael, Kaalia, Maelstrom Wanderer, Ghave, Ruhan, Mimeoplasm, Genju of the Realm, Phelddagrif, Derevi, Oloro, Jenara, Karrthus, Marath, Tariel, Riku, Karador, Numot, Damia, Sliver Overlord, Karn, Silver Golem


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-May-10 11:55 am 

Joined: 2009-Mar-19 5:01 pm
Age: Wyvern
trevor wrote:
Balance is meant to kill lots of your opponents cards, while having a symetrical effect on yourself.


What? Balance is not symmetrical in the slightest. Its effect creates symmetry, but it does it in a way that is generally asymmetric.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-May-13 10:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Aug-15 9:31 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
I think I see what you're saying but it actually does have a symmetrical effect if you don't have the fewest of a particular card set (cards in hand, lands, creatures). If not not symemetrical, than certainly close. However, in 1v1, you're absolutely right. It's devastating on one side, and has no effect on the other (asymmetrical). In multiplayer, like I said in the post, usually there's one particular player who has the fewest lands/cards in hand. That doesn't have to be you for this card to be effective. Everyone could suffer the same if, for instance, everyone was hitting their land drops but one person.

The difference in multiplayer vs 1v1 is that you can acually use your opponents low card in hand count to devastate everyone else. And while you still have to sacrifice down to the lowest lands in play and/or discard down to the lowest hand size (and it basically always wraths), that can still be a very favorable situation for you, just like every other mass destruct effect (Obliterate, Cataclysm, ect.). The difference is that this card costs the least of the all of them (2) and hits hands too.

I think your point was that at LEAST one player will always have no effect on any one card set, and you're right. That's clearly not symmetry.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-May-14 11:28 am 

Joined: 2009-Mar-19 5:01 pm
Age: Wyvern
trevor wrote:
I think I see what you're saying but it actually does have a symmetrical effect if you don't have the fewest of a particular card set (cards in hand, lands, creatures). If not not symemetrical, than certainly close.


You've completely failed to understand what "symmetry" means in this context, Trevor. A symmetrical effect is one that applies identically to everyone. For example, Wrath of God is a symmetrical effect - it kills all creatures controlled by all players. Balance does not affect everyone equally. It says, "Everyone loses cards, creatures and lands - except you, you and you" - and the caster gets to choose who "you" refers to.

There is also another point to be taken into consideration that is specific to EDH: the general. Combined with a way to sacrifice all your lands, it's very possible to completely wipe out everyone's hand and board then play ... let's say, Asmira, Holy Avenger?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-May-14 4:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Mar-24 12:14 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Oakland, CA
Jedit wrote:
You've completely failed to understand what "symmetry" means in this context, Trevor. A symmetrical effect is one that applies identically to everyone. For example, Wrath of God is a symmetrical effect - it kills all creatures controlled by all players. Balance does not affect everyone equally. It says, "Everyone loses cards, creatures and lands - except you, you and you" - and the caster gets to choose who "you" refers to.

Actually, I think they both have a degree of symmetry but aren't perfectly symmetrical. Wrath doesn't affect everyone equally; that's why it's such a staple in so many formats. You choose to play it when it will benefit you more than your opponent(s). Maybe this occurs when you have no creatures, or all your creatures are indestructible, or were brought in via Corpse Dance and going to be RFGd at end of turn, etc. The point is, the symmetry of the card can be circumvented, same as Balance. The symmetry of Balance may ironically be slightly easier to unbalance than that of WoG, and its potential upside is certainly more devastating, but to say WoG is symmetrical but Balance is asymmetrical is vastly oversimplifying the matter.

One even further tangent topic: Worldpurge is probably the highest-ranking on the symmetry scale, but even that can be "broken" by aspiring Johnnies.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-May-15 12:21 am 

Joined: 2009-Mar-19 5:01 pm
Age: Wyvern
intreped wrote:
to say WoG is symmetrical but Balance is asymmetrical is vastly oversimplifying the matter


I wish people who don't know what they are talking about would refrain from speaking. This being the internet, it's a forlorn hope.

Of course it's possible to make a symmetrical card affect players differently - choosing the most advantageous moment to make a move is the definition of strategy. But that does not make the card asymmetrical. Wrath always destroys every creature belonging to every player. Another card might except a creature from being destroyed, but Wrath itself will never make an exception. That's what "symmetrical" means.

Balance, however, will always exclude someone from each of its three effects. That's what "asymmetrical" means.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: