tarnar wrote:
I have a Zuran Orb in play and no creatures. I float 1W, sacrifice all my lands and play the last card in my hand: Balance.
On point 1, the effect considers all players. I'm not exempt from Balance, I'm just not actually going to have to do anything during resolution. So we can say this point is satisfied.
Correct - though you've taken it too far. More than one player is affected by Balance, that's all we need to fill this condition.
Quote:
On point 2 the conditions of the effect are being applied equally to all players, though again I won't actually do anything. So we can say this point is satisfied.
Correct also, though I might debate it. But it's point 3 where Balance stops being symmetrical, because it doesn't always apply equally. At least one player is always exempted from all or part of the penalty regardless of the game position.
Example: Players A, B, and C all have cards in hand, A has the least. When Balance is cast, B and C have to discard cards. A does not,
even though he has cards to discard. That is the asymmetry - an effect that applies to all players is not penalising them all.
The difficulty people are having with this concept is that they keep coming back to Wrath versus Balance with no guys, which despite the similarity of results is comparing apples and oranges. The main logic failure is thinking that losing 0 guys to my 3 means that Wrath has affected you differently. It hasn't; everyone has still lost all their guys, you just picked a time when you lost least.
Instead, compare Balance to Barter in Blood. If I have no guys and you have two, then when I cast BiB or Balance you lose two guys and I lose none. The difference is that when I cast BiB I still have to lose two guys - I just don't have them to lose. If I had two guys to your four, we both lose two guys when I cast BiB. When I Balance in that situation, you still lose two guys to my none.