Again you are using the only example I’ve heard thus far for really using Balance, and that is from a stand point of you losing.   My argument is that the times you are in this particular situation are so rare, that it does not warrant the inclusion of the card.



My mentioning of Regrowth, is due to people mentioning situations that Balance is good in.   I.e.  Balance is really useful when you are in a losing situation, well so is Decree of Annihilation, but we aren’t packing that one either.   The point I am trying to make is for people to get away from the specific situational use of Balance, and view its playability vs. all decks, not just an occasional situation that may or may not occur.



If he has a dryad out, and you go to STP it, even if he misdirects it, it is still more than likely going to hit one of his creatures.   Chances are if you have a angel out, then the Dryad beats are not all that bad, unless you were at very low life when it came into play, and again, that’s purely situational.   More often than not I think it would be more advantageous to have an STP vs. the Dryad than it would a Balance, due to GAT being a deck that comes outta the gate quicker, and usually runs fewer mana sources.  

I.e.  You throw a balance to kill one of his creatures, and you probably lose cards from your hand, as well as lands from the board in order to kill on creature, where a single STP thrown on the end of his turn would most likely have sufficed.




Key word…  (close).   Yes in this exact situation Balance is just as good as refill, or is it?   You have chosen to balance away his hand, which if you could have cast Balance, means he obviously didn’t have much control in his hand.   You are thus choosing to enter a war of who can top deck best, rather than simply refueling your own hand, and perhaps achieving control of the game, without the need for l33t top decking skillz.   In this case I would think just about anything besides balance would be better, Wish / 4th Scry / Draw of some sort, anything…  




Assuming of course that Titan didn’t kill all your land, and you are thus able to have a white source to resolve a sorcery on your turn, thus tapping out for his following turn, where he will no doubt have plenty of mana to do more broken stuff and you are still unable to counter due to having thrown a sorcery on your turn.   If you had a mana drain, you certainly coulnd’t play it.

Where as…  if you had an STP, you tap one of your mana when titan removes your land, you then smoke the titan and begin anew without the fear of titan re-appearing via welder.



I didn’t suggest a welder would be out, I suggested that if you didn’t have the permission to stop a Titan, then more than likely you wouldn’t have the permission to stop a welder.   He may very well have a welder out, or he may very well play one in the next few rounds, either way having the titan removed from game via STP is a heck of a lot better in my book than having it sit in the graveyard waiting on a welder to bring it back into action once again.




I don’t recall saying anywhere that Crucible was coming in to serve the purpose of balance.   I said I found that crucible had a broader array of uses than Balance did, and that I thought crucible helped me better avoid being in a desperate “oh crap I need a balanceâ€? situation.  

Crucible certainly is not comparible to balance when deciding which card operates best from a losing position, which is precisely the point I have been trying to stress.  The “losing situationâ€? that balance excels in, is not frequent enough to warrant its inclusion, thus I have personally chosen Crucible as the replacement card, being as though its usefulness shines through in the situations that I am most in, i.e.  Even footing and/or winning.   Crucible alone, much like balance can immediately turn the tide of the game in your favor, albeit not by destroying their hand or creatures, but by immediately assaulting their development, which is the whole reason we play Gorilla/Strips/Wastes anyways.

The entire premise of Keeper and magic as a whole for that matter is about controlling the tempo of the game, and I think Crucible influences that tempo more so than Balance does.   Balance is a 1 shot (potentially HUGE swing) in tempo, which may be occasionally useful, where as Crucible is usually always a big swing in tempo even if it is resolved late; and it is doubly good if resoled early, in fact an early Crucible vs. a lot of decks is a must counter or lose scenario, where as Balance is not.

- Grendal

I would think there would be something more powerful than Ith to bring in.   As it stands now it is common practice for keeper players to side in CoW against fish, I would think the worst sideboarding option a fish player could make would be to side in a vulnerable land vs. Angels.   The reason being is that the Keeper play really doesn't even have to swing with Angel to gain the effectiveness of it.   Unless you have a resolved lavamancer that can plink your opponent, the keeper player need only sit with the angel because its presence alone will thwart most attacks.

- Grendal

Yes…  but…

Yawg also wins in a losing situation, and it can also win in a situation where you are on relatively equal footing.   In fact, let me rephrase that, yawg if it resolves almost always will win in both of those situations, assuming you are not still on the first few turns.    Balance does not have that same luxury.    With balance you can be losing, yet Balance may very well not serve you any purpose whatsoever, and heaven forbid that if you do need balance to kill some creatures, that it is highly probably that you might have a Gorilla Shaman out, making the balance that much more weaker, in that you are now unable to kill all their creatures.



By referring to me saying that play style was a corny catch phrase, I assumed that you did not think it existed.   If I was wrong about that, then I stand corrected.



Regrowth was cut long before double white was ever required in the mana base.   Regrowth is also a very broken card if not seen within the first few hands, but Keeper managed to cut this card, as well as Green in its entirety from the deck.



I agree 100%, but again I am not arguing as to the strength of Balance in those desperate situations, I am arguing that the frequency of those desperate situations is not high enough to warrant Balance.   In fact I am suggesting that perhaps if Balance were to be replaced by another option, then perhaps the frequency of those “Oh crap I need a balanceâ€? situations would be rarer than it already is.

I am also not suggesting it isn’t a safe, or even a good card to run, quite the contrary I can see its inclusion in any deck.   However…  I am arguing that the frequency that Balance gets played, is not high enough to warrant its place, when perhaps other options would be more viable.


I would still say though, wouldn’t STP or Wish or something else have been just as good?   In fact the mere chance that you could be playing balance, rather you are or not, may very well be enough for the GAT player to not over extend themselves.   I mean think about it, it is very plausible that a GAT player may hold back just a little so as to not walk into a balance.   Yet…   you don’t even need to play Balance to get that effect, because it stands to reason there is a chance you merely “couldâ€? be playing it.   Talk about a great effect.

 

True…  but if you were able to squeak a balance through having just been mind twisted and/or Ancestral thrown against you, wouldn’t it be safe to assume that since they let you balance, that they would let you do something else?  (Scrye / Wish / etc…) to refill your own hand, since in this example they didn’t counter the balance, I can only assume that they would not have a counter for a refill of your own.


I’m not disagreeing  that they are on the rise, and have been for quite some time.   But I would say that today has a higher frequency of artifact players than last year, and last year I would have felt confident making the very same statement that artifact decks are on the rise.   Perhaps I should restate that, they are not on the rise, they are at an all time high, and are still climbing in popularity as new decks find new and unique ways of abusing workshops (Slaver / Animal Farm / Man Show / etc…).


Balance is gold here…  but again, this is one situation…

Regrowth is gold following an ancestral or a time walk…

But again, that’s just a situation that “mightâ€? occur, its hardly the norm.   An early Titan dies to an STP.   In fact if they were able to get a early titan out it is probably safe to assume they have just as much chance of getting out a welder because you probably don’t have counters.   I think I would rather have a 1 mana answer that removes it from the game at instant speed, rather than a 2 mana sorcery that merely puts it to the graveyard only to come out the following round and wreck more havoc.


I personally choose “Crucible of Worldsâ€? as the better all around card than balance.   It adds a “must counterâ€? in any control match up, as well as the fish match up.   It is very nice at being able to protect your own mana, and its surprisingly easy to resolve very early on, making a potential land lock happen extremely early and fast vs. a number of decks.

Where as Balance…   “mightâ€? get played, if the situation is right.   Now granted there are decks like the artifact decks that more easily get around CoW/Waste recursion, but they are still vulnerable to it.




I won’t argue that how one plays the card very much is a “right / wrongâ€? scenario, in fact that is probably one of my loves of Keeper, in that the pilot of the deck very much influences the outcome of the match, probably more so than other decks.   Keeper is very unforgiving in terms of play errors, and that is what I love so much about it.



I personally am not advocating cutting Balance out of every Keeper deck.   I advocate that Balance is one of those flexible cards that can go to and from Keeper, rather than it being hard fast set in stone like many would like to think.   I view balance as more of a STP / Gorilla / Gush / Vampiric type card.   A card that certainly at any given time would never really be a bad choice, but might given a certain meta game, not be the greatest choice.

Again, balance isn’t a bad card, and I may very well play Balance come Gen Con, I haven’t decided yet.   I when play testing when I have “indecisive cardsâ€? will proxy up a card called “Test Cardâ€? and when I pull that card I will decide what I would rather it be.   Usually in testing this, I find that more often than not it is one way or another, despite what my “on paperâ€? results predict it to be.    

Much like my deck last year at Origins, I probably was one of the few Keeper players not running a main deck Mystical Tutor.   Because in testing it just didn’t stack up to the power of “The Abyssâ€? which eventually boiled down to the card I ultimately chose to run main deck.  

Suprisingly a lot of the times I predict something on paper, and then turn around and actually play test it out vs. a number of different decks and find that my prediction was quite the opposite.   I usually go with my actual testing results over my on paper results, because they carry more weight in my book.

- Grendal

Not at all hiding behind anything, I was not insulted, nor am I afraid of your conversation style, quite the contrary in fact, you have the very same conversation style I do.   Again, using Yawg is a bad example, yawg perhaps in the first few turns is a dead card, but after that Yawg just wins games.   It wins games if you are winning, it wins games if you are losing, it wins games if you are evenly matched.   Balance does not do that, it wins games (sometimes) if you are losing, depending how you are losing, and occasionally you can bolster its usefulness in winning and even situations as well, but that is never a given.   It is a far more dead card than yawg will ever be.





I would very much argue that something in the 1-2 range is a inconsistent card, where as something in the 3-4 range most likely is.   Rather it be 4 or 3, at that point consistency has been achieved, you playing 4 scrys are just ensuring that there are more of an already consistent card, as opposed to someone in the 3 range.   Thus far I realize we are still debating over phrases, and that comes from both of us.   Myself saying the phrase does exist, you saying it doesn’t and then sighting an example which dictates otherwise.



I agree 100%, but you forgot to put the word (sometimes) after that.    I’m not about to say there haven’t been times when I have looked at my deck and thought that only a select few cards can save me, and that is only because they all lead to me getting and/or casting balance.   But the question currently isn’t really rather Balance is effective in this situation; more so is this situation frequent enough to warrant the inclusion of Balance.

You ask for examples, but aside from swinging you’re fist in the air screaming “But it wins gamesâ€?, it is really no difference from me doing much the same thing shouting back “But it’s dead a hell of a lotâ€?.   It is a great safety net more often than it is a “cool trickâ€? card that does a lot of damage.   Keeper has seen many safety nets, from the inclusion of Zuran Orb, to Dromar’s Charm, to random other heal spells in the side board by many a player as an instant life gainer.





It is good, its just as good as following up an Ancestral or a Time Walk with a regrowth, but we cut that card to.   I can certainly quote you many an individual and unique situation just as you are, that shows the un-usefulness of balance, but random situations really carry no weight, its balance as a whole.

Balance does have some alternative effects, but in current Keeper, which runs quite possibly one of the best draw engines in the game, the likelihood of Balance being effective in any situation where Keeper is winning just isn’t good.   I think it is very safe to assume that if you are in a winning situation you more than likely have a good number of cards more than your opponent.   It is also probably safe to say that you have more lands than your opponent to if you are in a winning situation, especially considering that after sideboarding quite a few Keeper players bring in CoW, making the likelihood of them having more land even that much more greater, again diluting the possible performance of balance to nothing more than a sub-par creature removal spell that will likely hurt yourself more than it will your opponent.





I agree with a good portion of your list, but disagree with quite a lot of it as well.

Mirror / Fish / FCG / UG, you have no argument from me of the usefulness of Balance, however I still would ask, would something else be better, so rather than having to deal with a losing situation, that perhaps you can prevent that situation from happening.   I was tempted to put GAT on the list above, but GAT’s usual low amount of creatures, and the fact that a resolved Angel is still VERY potent vs. this deck, make Balance not so good.   Now I am not saying it makes Balance an “Assâ€? card, because it most certainly does not, but at this point it makes me question its usefulness vs. GAT, when you could have other things.

Your workshop examples, and Tog(Hulk) in general I must disagree with.   Tog is very much a combo deck, and I would put it in the same league with dragon, because it is very highly likely that when Tog does “go offâ€? that is not only takes several turns in a row, but it Duresses you, and Yawgs as well.   Making the sorcery speed of Balance all but useless.   If Balance was an instant it would be awesome, but the fact that it is sorcery does take away a bit of its steam vs. this deck.   Again, not saying it is a horrible card, but I must question its effectiveness as opposed to possible other options.

Hulk combos you out, and it often does so on a single turn, negating any chance you ever had of balance.   With the Duress it packs, it also is highly likely to have the opportunity to pluck it from your hand prior to it ever getting into an effective situation, and don’t say you will be using Brainstorm to hide it, Brainstorm has far better cards than a Balance to hide when facing up vs. Duress.   Which again I think bumps hulk to your blue category.

As for the workshop based decks, I think they fall to your blue category.   There are times when it is useful, but far to often I think you would prefer to be holding some sort of artifact destruction and/or a wish than you ever would balance.

I would argue you also probably need one other category (gray), for absolute dead as hell.  Which I think only about Dragon and perhaps some TPS builds, rare they may be, would fall into.








I don’t think I’m saying a balance-less deck belongs in any metagame, I am saying in certain games it is perhaps a more viable option then packing Balance.   I think the better example would be what games does balance actually belong.   Then in the environments where it is not mentioned as being needed, then perhaps the usefulness of Balance can be re-evaluated.  

With Artifact decks popularity on the rise, Tog on the decline, and people being better prepared for the likes of Fish and what not, especially with the inclusion of CoW into many decks, I think Balance should be looked at for its effectiveness.   If laying a 7/10 on round 2 or 3 wasn’t as likely, or having an artifact that lets you essentially infinitely recur land destruction even under a Null Rod, well then maybe Balance would be strong in my opinion.   It still stands that if you resolve an Angel vs. FCG or Fish, you will most likely win unless you currently sit on your deathbed when it happens.

I think in this current environment there are better cards than balance.   If that means that a 4cControl deck without balance belongs, then so be it.   I do not think Balance is ever a bad card, more so like I have said many times, that perhaps there are better cards.






Then this may be where we have disagreed.   I personally would contest that play style means every bit of how you play the deck, how you the design the deck, down to the individual card choices that make up the main deck and sideboard.    I however must disagree with the right/wrong decision.   Choosing between a Fire/Ice and a STP I don’t believe is a right or wrong choice, it is a play style and metagame choice, neither being right or wrong.   Now if Juzam Djinns and Serendib Efreets where still En-Vogue, well then obviously Fire/Ice is wrong, but in the current environment where both these cards have their pro’s and con’s, I do not believe there is a correct decision, merely one based on personal preference, which again I would chalk up to “play styleâ€?.

I certainly won’t argue that way to often a person’s play style badly influences card choices’ that is just a fact of life.   People will make bad choices, and far to often it is play style that influences these choices, or just out right in-experience or being uninformed as to what they could possibly face.

Your reference of Tog is actually a perfect example.   Tog is more of a combo deck, and it is certainly more of an offensive/aggressive type deck.   My personal choice to play Keeper may be due to a lot of factors, the smallest of those being play style.   Perhaps because I have played Keeper since 97, I like many players just can’t imagine giving up the oldest deck in the format.   Perhaps I am not a big fan of the over the top aggressiveness of the tog deck, and prefer something a bit more subtle.   Quite frankly a lot of it boils down to I just don’t like the Tog deck.    Even when 4 Gush GAT was the thing, I just didn’t care for it, instead still opting to play Keeper.





Rather or not you deem my responses thoughtful will be quite up for debate.   A lot of times when two people disagree it is often because they don’t think what the other is saying has validity.   The key to your question though, is that you are not wrong at all.    Your thought-process, your experience, and your theory is correct.    But that same theory, experience, and thought process is what has gone in to other players making the opposite choice in terms of this particular card.

Your Keeper designs are often on the cutting edge, in fact they are often ahead of everyone else.   Playing 4 Scrye w. Balance, with 2 Angels and a single Decree may very well be right on target, and we just haven’t realized that yet.   God knows that I very much keep watch upon your latest designs and meta game choices, because I very much take what you say about Keeper with a huge amount of weight and respect.   My current Excel spreadsheet in fact, alongside my card choices usually has a printout of your current deck list amongst a few current winning Keeper builds I’ve net decked.

But that same thought process that has gone into you’re including Balance, has gone in to my removing it.   From my experience, and my thought-process, and my current theory I just don’t see Balance as that strong.   When I first attempted it a while back it was quite a scary step.   Balance, Demonic Tutor, Mana Drain, and a few other cards are the only cards that have stood the test of time as the foundation of Keeper, removing one of them was a very big step.

I very much imagine the same thought process that went into you including the 4th scrye; probably because you usually always wished for that card first, is much the same through process that went into me removing balance, because balance was often the card I brainstormed back into the deck, and/or side boarded out.   Also the fact that CoW is not a sideboard card to me, in fact it is a main deck card, again made me rethink the usefulness of balance, again due to the fact that I was increasing more so the chance that my opponent would have fewer lands than myself.

- Grendal

Comparing the cutting of Ancestral or Scrying, to balance is absurd, it is a cop out way of trying to put what both myself and Kerz have said down, yet it offers absolutely nothing to contribute to the thread itself other than a feeble attempt to flame us.

Nor are we attempting to “hideâ€? behind the word play style.   You’re play style obviously prefers a lot broader array of cards, however in getting that broader away of cards by playing more 1 of’s in the deck, you are not as stream lined, or if you prefer a better word since apparently stream line doesn’t float to well with you, you’re draws are not as “consistentâ€? as someone with less variance in cards.

What I think you fail to realize is, that nobody is disagreeing with the usefulness nor the tricks that balance is capable of.   I think what quite a few of us are now stating is that despite having the ability to pull a few “tricksâ€? off, that redundancy, or consistency, or stream lining, or whatever your word of choice is, is just more important in this current meta game.   Leap back to last Gen Con or Origins, where GAT, and TnT, and SUI, etc… where quite prevalent, well then of course I’ll agree that balance once again deserves a slot in keeper.   But in the current meta where the creature of choice seems to be a 1/1 welder with no other purpose to recur graveyard stuff, or a 2/2 un-morphed angel, then all of a sudden balance loses a lot of its oomph.

Again, I don’t think anyone is disputing the effectiveness of balance, we are merely saying now isn’t the right time.   I’m sure there will be games where I say “I wish I had a balanceâ€?, just like their were games where I said “I wish I had a regrowthâ€?, but the meta game changes, and decks change with it.   Unfortunately phrases like play style very much do exist, if they didn’t we would all be playing the same deck.   But since its quite obvious we do not all play the same deck, then I would think that play style be it a word you like or not, very much is a phrase that is in existence, both in deck choice, and in deck design.

- Grendal

Thus far I love your deck, as I said on AIM our builds are very similar to one another.   I to am in your camp that Balance, albeit extremely broken, in this current meta favoring quick combo and broken artifact stuff, that Balance just doesn't carry enough weight anymore.

Again, it is particularly meta-game dependant, being that at a smaller tourney, where the chances of running into more random, or more creature based decks is higher then of course balance warrants a main deck slot.   But in a high powered environment, I to agree with you that Balance is no longer needed.

I see you getting a lot of flack about the loss of balance, yet I think like you said above, that a person play style factors in a lot to what card choices make up a deck.   It is pretty obvious that Zherbus, among others rely more heavily on the power of broken cards and combos, where you yourself seem to care more for having a consistent streamlined deck.   This by no means is saying one style is better than the other, but it is a matter of personal preference.   I’ve many a friend that when they pick up Keeper can lose to just about anything with it, yet if you put Dragon or Slaver or some sort of combo deck in their hands, then you had better look out, because they are hell on wheels.




As to your playing a deck without STP's, I am not that brave.   I’m a bit surprised by your success with your side boarding choices you made.   I usually find that when I myself sideboard for a match, rather than replacing currently existing “hateâ€? with improved “hateâ€?, I find myself more often than not keeping the current hate cards, and bringing in MORE hate.

Like you, I found myself side boarding Decree out in just about every match I play, which made me finally just cut the card all together for something more useful.   Sure in the control mirror Decree is occasionally a nice card, but more often than not it’s cycled for draw, and at best only spits out a few tokens.

- Grendal