Balance's Slot in 4cc

[Kowal]

Note:  This thread god super off topic, so I split it in to two.  Now they're both on topic.   Alas, one belongs in the tourney forum, and the other is getting shipped to newbie.[/color]

<inserted>  Kerz's tourney report features a Keeper list with no Balance!  What are your thoughts on the card?  (Preferably not thoughts on Kerz, just on the scenerio of not having Balance)</inserted>

My most frequent use of Balance is using it to beat Control.

I can understand if a newbie looks at a list and wants to cut it because it's never better than a bad wrath effect, but in actuality it's a very skill intensive broken slot and I can't fathom any reason to cut it when you actually know what you're doing.

[Kerz]

I was weary of posting my list, knowing I would be questioned and probably chastised for the card choices. I know Zherbus is probably going to demote me to basik usar for doing it, and I'll surely be the black sheep of the 4cC player family, but I didn't miss balance all day.

Here was my thoughts on it, although this subject has been beaten to fucking death:

1. Balance will absolutely win you games where nothing else could. I acknowlege this, but realize that this "Balance or no" game will be one in ten, if that. I'd prefer not to have the dead card in the other nine, even with brainstorm and fetch.

2. Balance is only truely broken when you are in an unfavorable position.

3. Balance is strongest against Aggro, the matchup Four Color Control is best in.  I realize its merits versus control, allowing broken plays when you have expended your hand or been a victim of waste-induced mana screw, but in order for it to be useful.. you must first be in these (unfavorable) situations. (see #2.)

I havn't been a fan of Balance for years. I belive that most 4cC players are too attched to this card, and if they played one tournament without it, they would never go back.

oh yeah, and here's the balance I had to leave in my box yestarday

[KSesler]

Regarding Balance, I am sure Kerz will come around eventually.

In 1995, I suggested to Brian Weismann in an e-mail to add Balance to "The Deck".
He disagreed, mainly because of the insane card advantage 4 Tomes gave players of "The Deck" over the other archetypes of the time, crappy as they were.
He felt that using Balance would give up some of that advantage (cards in hand, lands in play).

Eventually, Brian added it to his build, and it has been a staple for 8-9 years.

Personally, I could never conceive of NOT running Balance in 4cc Control, but, to each his own I guess.

[skecreatoR]

I think Kerz is trying to actually proove that just because Zherbus or some other wizkid posts one list, doesn't mean we have to follow it like a bunch of brainless morons.

I, as well, has lately been wondering alot of where all the METAGAMING went. Kerz made a right choice, as well as cutting Decree as it is obviously useless unless you face excessive aggro, especially fish.

It is funny as people went from innovating to returning to one supreme deck list when considering k3eper. Nobody remembers Zherbus article about METAGAMING k3eper?

--Jacob

[Zherbus]

I was weary of posting my list, knowing I would be questioned and probably chastised for the card choices. I know Zherbus is probably going to demote me to basik usar for doing it, and I'll surely be the black sheep of the 4cC player family, but I didn't miss balance all day.

Balance is your 'Oh shit! Ok, now I win' card. If you were never in an 'Oh shit!' moment, then of course you wouldn't miss it.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

I can't get over the balance thing.  It's just so insane.  Why would you not a run a card that broken?  Sometimes it's effect is akin to yawgmoth's will. It has so much synergy with the artifact mana and low creature count.  It can dig you out of a losing situation or solidify a winning position (by dropping alot of stuff and then annhilating opponent's hand/land).

@The Atog Lord: h4h4h4h4h owned by the white-boardered island gone monkey.

@Kerz: h4h4h4h4 you proxied a gorilla shamen on a white boardered island.  (proxying the shamen is pathetic enough as it is, but you could have at least used a nice oldschool BB/foil island)  Great report, though and congrats.  (Oh and when I saw you board out stps and in FTKs vs fish it was funny)

[Samite Healer]

I was weary of posting my list, knowing I would be questioned and probably chastised for the card choices. I know Zherbus is probably going to demote me to basik usar for doing it, and I'll surely be the black sheep of the 4cC player family, but I didn't miss balance all day.

I wouldn't worry about your status.....I hate Balance as well.  99% of the time I draw it I wish it was another card, usually either an StP or a Fire/Ice or something else.

Yes, I understand sometimes it acts as Mind Twist #2.
Yes, I understand sometimes it wins you games you should've lost.

However, Kerz knows that I agree with him, because I cut Balance over a year ago for the same reasons.  Balance is way too situational to be extremely effective, and I prefer consistency.  I usually run another removal spell in its slot because I hate having to lose half of my hand and/or lands to remove a creature.  I hate not being able to kill my opponent's Exalted or Welder because I have a Gorilla Shaman in play.

[monSt4r]

Uf I get the same fealing with balance all the time...but I'm still playin' it.
Maybe I will try to cut once to see how it feels. It is strong, it is powerfull but that high percentage of usefullnes is kinda depresing. Maybe engineered explosives instead who knows...

[Kerz]

I was weary of posting my list, knowing I would be questioned and probably chastised for the card choices. I know Zherbus is probably going to demote me to basik usar for doing it, and I'll surely be the black sheep of the 4cC player family, but I didn't miss balance all day.

Balance is your 'Oh shit! Ok, now I win' card. If you were never in an 'Oh shit!' moment, then of course you wouldn't miss it.

The fact that I could go a 5 round tournament + a top 8 match without having such a moment would be grounds enough for cutting it, no?

[Nefarias]

While one the topic of white removal, I was wondering what you thought about Swords in the maindeck.

In every, single game you boarded them out, despite having to deal with troublesome creatures (welders, Angels, Sundering Titans, Fishy things), for more "detailed" spot removal (Fire/Ice, REB, BEB, R&R)

In the end, you played more games with REB in your deck than StP. Seriously, what are they in there for if Fire/Ice does so much more in so many matchups? The only thing I can think of that Swords can do that no card in your SB can do is get rid of big green things, which shouldn't really be that big of an issue.

Is it just the fact that it is a guaranteed answer to any creature, whereas Fire/Ice only kills, say, 80% of them?

Of course, I am no expert on 4CC, far from it. In fact, I'm pretty terrible at Magic in general, and I can totally see myself being entirely wrong. I was just wondering what you thought about a card you wanted in your main 0% of games two and three.

[Zherbus]

The fact that I could go a 5 round tournament + a top 8 match without having such a moment would be grounds enough for cutting it, no?

You had a good run, good for you. Players who don't want to ride on fortune alone pack broken cards that win in an unwinnable situation.

[Kerz]

Does the unwinnable situation come up enough to warrent playing this card, no matter how many broken things it can do when put into said situation?

[Zherbus]

I'm not trying to belittle your win here, but the rounds colored in blue show extraordinary luck.

Round 1  

Game 1: He mulls to 6. I get a first turn Ancestral and second turn Shaman, Drain a Tinker and a Force into a big Scrying, and win.
Game 2: He mulls to 6, but draws 7. He tells me to call the judge, and he is forced to mulligan to 5.

Round 2

Game 1: You wouldn't have lost had you had a Balance.
Game 2: Looks like you just lost anyhow.

Round 3

Game 1: I play first. I play City, Ancestral, Jet, Lotus, go.
Game 2: I force his turn 1 tri-sphere, then play a turn 1 Shaman, Mox, and eat his mox. He lays a land, says go. I waste, eat the remaining artifact mana, and he is already pretty much out of the game.

Round 4

Game 1: This is a battle of wastes. He gets 3, I get 4
Game 2: Looks like you just won anyhow... but how does one FTK a manland?

Round 5

ID

Summary to Top8: Had the br0k3n in two rounds, lost 1, ID'd 1, and won one through superiority.

T8

Game 1: Looks like you just won anyhow.
Game 2: Probably wouldn't have mattered unless you set yourself up for Balance.
Game 3: You pretty much had it with land-land-land-lotus-angel (3 turns of him doing nothing but hoping to waste your lands) with FoW backup.

In the mirror, Balance is an element of strategy beyond playing what I call, 'The Tog Mirror' which is draw-draw-draw-play angel or cast will. It's not always needed in the mirror or most other matchups, so of course you wont 'miss' it.

Does the unwinnable situation come up enough to warrent playing this card, no matter how many broken things it can do when put into said situation?

It's not just unwinnable situations, Kerz. Let's stop oversimplifying it because it's misleading the children. Balance get's used as a trap quite often in that you can often coax your opponent into slight to major situations of overextention and then use Balance to ruin their superiority. There are many more uses to Balance beyond a 2 mana Wrath of God, but what would I know.

[Kerz]

Well, you would probably think more of what went down at this tourney had you been there. I brutally simplified many matches due to personal hatred of uninteresting logs and bad memory, but I digress. Against Fish, I FTK'ed a Fairie.

Balance is quite potent in the mirror, I agree. Against Control Slaver, I still say its not great. Aggro is completely irrelevant- this deck plays 2 Swords, 3 Angel, and 3 Wish. It is probably too slow most of the time versus combo, and if it isn't too slow, they have already dropped the majority of their hand anyway (the land destruction element is also moot agaist combo).

So, I think we can agree that Balance's effect is most potent in the Control match, unless you randomly get swarmed and can't find an Angel versus Aggro.

The "trap" tactics you were speaking of can be very deadly, but you have to be in a losing position for Balance to be broken. If you don't let your opponent get to superiority, Balance is no good.

Frankly, I think we could go on for days about this. I'm willing to agree to disagree (and by disagree, I mean disagree with all of the balance-loving 4cc players of the world), and I hope that I am not looked at in a worse light due only to this controversial card choice.

[Zherbus]

Balance is quite potent in the mirror, I agree. Against Control Slaver, I still say its not great. Aggro is completely irrelevant- this deck plays 2 Swords, 3 Angel, and 3 Wish. It is probably too slow most of the time versus combo, and if it isn't too slow, they have already dropped the majority of their hand anyway (the land destruction element is also moot agaist combo).

Again, you're oversimplifying... Control Slaver may not be the best place to use Balance, but it's certainly not poor. Aggro may relatively be irrelevant, but I still say cutting Balance against something like FCG, TMS, or even random shit is just begging to be 'JP Meyer'd' out. Putting too much reliance on Exalted Angel is a mistake as it can only carry you so far.

What about the decks that don't simply fall into the three catagories of Aggro, Control, and combo? What about GAT? What about Titan.dec? If you agree that Balance is quite potent in the mirror, a now common deck, why aren't you playing it? As far as combo goes, sure it's not much good there, but since when has combo been a force in New England?

If you don't let your opponent get to superiority, Balance is no good.

The problem, as your broken hands in some games proved, is that you can't always help that. Balance is not only a broken tool, much like Will, Demonic Tutor, and Walk - but it's also a way to not lose to such brokenness.

Frankly, I think we could go on for days about this. I'm willing to agree to disagree (and by disagree, I mean disagree with all of the balance-loving 4cc players of the world), and I hope that I am not looked at in a worse light due only to this controversial card choice.

I don't think anyone looks down on you, and if they do - so what? You had a great result in a competitive environment. I certainly don't but I've yet to see anything remotely resembling a good arguement for cutting Balance. I've seen plenty of half-assed attempts, but nothing with any substance. I'm not going to try to convert you since whether or not you win is none of my concern. That is, of course, short of us playing each other and I hope you'd realize which side of the fence I'd be on.

[Kerz]

It's settled then. BALANCE vs NON BALANCE grudge match!

Honestly, I'll do more testing with and without it. I know that all the 4c Conrol players I talk to are always like "omfgskullfuck@balance", so I think personal bias may be a factor. I may write a small essay on Balance's usefullness, and try to get some solid arguments.

There are plenty of tourneys from now untill GenCon. If I run into a situation where I would want Balance one time, then I'll include it in the list I run there. (I'll definitely run 4cc at at least one event). Do you think playstyle contributes to Balance's effectiveness?

What are your thoughts on Swords? I already presented a small argument earlier in the thread.

[Kowal]

It's not just unwinnable situations, Kerz. Let's stop oversimplifying it because it's misleading the children. Balance get's used as a trap quite often in that you can often coax your opponent into slight to major situations of overextention and then use Balance to ruin their superiority.

That exactly fits my playstyle, and in fact I end up doing this in at least 60% of my games.

Whether or not the first comment has anything to do with it, for certain Balance is must include, especially in the northeast.

[Zherbus]

There are plenty of tourneys from now untill GenCon. If I run into a situation where I would want Balance one time, then I'll include it in the list I run there. (I'll definitely run 4cc at at least one event). Do you think playstyle contributes to Balance's effectiveness?

What are your thoughts on Swords? I already presented a small argument earlier in the thread.

Playstyle? Yeah you could say that. I think it's more a case of auto-piloting 4cC (that is, playing it like Tog - draw cards, counter things, play beat stick and perhaps remove obstacle somewhere if necessary) and not using it to it's fullest potential personally.

What do you mean regarding my thoughts on Swords? How many should one run? I think I'm missing something here.

[Kerz]

I had actually been playing a 4c Control list with zero Swords for awhile before this tournament (2 Fire/Ice main), but with the appearent rise of artifact aggro, I wanted to keep them in. I think the thing you want to look at is what I took the swords out for (Fire/Ice, Reb, Rack and Ruin, etc). Basically, I switched them out for infinitely superior removal in each match.

REB: Can counter a spell or act as a STP against Fish.

Rack and Ruin: 2 Swords in one against Artifact Aggro, while also letting me smash Stax.

Fire/Ice: Against fish and Slaver, this is strictly superior to Swords. Killing two guys, pitching to FoW, or tapping down their land > killing one guy for W. The problem with other welder decks like 7/10 is that you might want to keep the plows in to kill the big dude, but it sucks becuase you really want to board like you would versus Workshop Slaver.

FTK: Kills a guy and provides a big body for blocking.

I think STP may be nessecary in the Maindeck for flexible all around removal in game 1, but the sideboard has enough tricks that you can bring in the strictly better removal versus the particular deck you are playing against. Being able to customize your deck post-sb to have the most flexible and card advantageous answers is amazing, but not one of these can be run maindeck over STP.

Fire/Ice is very close to Swords right now in power level: I literally did not Swords a creature I couldn't have Fired all day. If I was to cut the swords from the main, I think I would have to sideboard 2-3, so I could at least have 1 main 1 side versus aggro. With 3 Wish main, a 0 STP maindeck might be able to be pulled off. I'm definitely going to get testing on it.

Steve: How good has STP been for you? Would you ever consider decreasing the number to increase the number of Fire/Ice? Do you have problems with siding them out extremely often?

[Toad]

I almost never sideboard the STP out when playing 4cControl. Against Workshop Aggro, Rack and Ruin can't hit Goblin Welder. Against Fish, REB can't hit a Curious Lavamancer. Against decks like RG Madness, the more the removal, the easier the post sideboard games. I just cut the STP for Control mirrors.

[Grendal]

There are plenty of tourneys from now untill GenCon. If I run into a situation where I would want Balance one time, then I'll include it in the list I run there. (I'll definitely run 4cc at at least one event). Do you think playstyle contributes to Balance's effectiveness?

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.

Steve: How good has STP been for you? Would you ever consider decreasing the number to increase the number of Fire/Ice? Do you have problems with siding them out extremely often?

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

[Zherbus]

Kerz: Cutting STP means you'd likely get bent over by UG Madness, GAT, and Titan just to name a few. Playing against Slaver, the Mirror, and Fish all day will certainly delude someone into thinking STP is unneeded.

Grendal: 'Streamlining' is yet another half-assed reason I see alot. While we're 'Streamlining', let's just cut Ancestral in 3 Scrying 4cControl lists to make it more redundant. Also, please read what I said about playstyle, as it's another word to hide behind (like streamlining). I want facts and evidence people, not corny catch phrases that people think pass as reasoning.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

@ Balance: I was thinking about cutting it lately, too, as the main reason for me to run it actually was that I always needed that 2 mana Wrath. Since the deck is running Angels, I find myself less and less in a position where that is necessary and I often draw Balance as a dead draw BECAUSE I AM ALREADY WINNING ANYWAY.
That being said, I personally won't cut Balance because of three things:
1.) Due to the high amount of 4CC, people learn to deal with Angel. And against those well metagamed decks, you again need the panic button.
2.) Whenever I want to cut Balance, it wins me a game I couldn't have won otherwise.
3.) Balance is so damn important POST SB. I always SB out all my removal vs Control and usually do so vs (non-Dragon)Combo (F/I stays there, though). You still need enough removal for Angels/possible SB-Fatties, so you have to leave one in (as I don't believe Wishes are enough, because they're damn slow Tutor-targets). And only Balance is removal as well as actually being good when the opponent doesn't play any creatures. To make this simple, drawing removal is dead in Control vs Control matchups, usually, so they allow you're opponent to capitalize. Balance is the only removal that can also be used to kill the gained advantage not only critters.
Still, cutting Balance can be a good choice, imo, even though I'd definitly run it SBed vs the random matchup vs good aggro
(I can't wait till some Americans start to play the Italian Control-Madness. That deck is damn good and should put some respect for creatures back into the 4CC players who have lost it thx to Angel.)  

As for cutting StP: People still play Dragon, Reanimator, GAT, Madness and other stuff where I'd much rather have StPs instead of any other removal. Costing only W is so good.

[Grendal]

Grendal: 'Streamlining' is yet another half-assed reason I see alot. While we're 'Streamlining', let's just cut Ancestral in 3 Scrying 4cControl lists to make it more redundant. Also, please read what I said about playstyle, as it's another word to hide behind (like streamlining). I want facts and evidence people, not corny catch phrases that people think pass as reasoning.

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

[Zherbus]

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.

That wasn't a flame and there was no attempt to flame. That was a challenge to come out and give some reasoning beyond over-used catch phrases which you still have not provided. I'm deeply sorry if that was far too convoluted. My example was meant to be absurd to illustrate the ridiculousness in 'cutting Balance to streamline'. Perhaps cutting Yawgmoth's Will would have been a better example? Stop hiding behind being insulted by my harsh, yet to the point style of conversation and confront the arguement like someone who's familiar with articulation.

Nor are we attempting to “hide� 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 “consistent� as someone with less variance in cards.

How many times have we played? Playstyle has yet to actually prove itself as evidence, only in speculation. Running 1 more '1-of' does not make any sort of indication that I am anti-streamlining. I run 4 Scryings, which is 1-2 more than everyone else, does that make everyone else less of a streamliner?

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 “tricks� off, that redundancy, or consistency, or stream lining, or whatever your word of choice is, is just more important in this current meta game.

I can read, therefore I saw where Kerz commented on it's usefulness in the mirror. Also, Balance does more than simple cute tricks - it wins games on it's own.

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 4cControl. 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, you take the 'but but but Balance doesn't have hordes of creatures to kill anymore' arguement. Last I read, Balance stated it dealt with handsize and lands too. How is Balancing away 3 cards in someone's hand or bringing them from 4 lands to 1 any less potent than Balancing away 2 Juggernauts and a Su-Chi? How is following up an opponents Sundering Titan with a Balance not good anymore?

I'm telling you right now that if I see the metagame breakdown of Gencon, the next Waterbury, or the next TMDI consist of just Slaver and 4cC, then I owe you a power card. Look at it with a logical approach and do a deck breakdown. I'll make it easy with only 2 fields: Deck name and Balances potency. The scale is useless, somewhat useful, useful, potent, very potent. Hey, I'm a nice guy so I'll color code it too.

Mirror: Very Potent
Fish: Potent
Slaver (Mana Drains): Useful
Slaver (Workshops): Potent
Titan - 7/10: Very Potent
Workshop Aggro (TMS, Stacker): Very Potent
FCG: Very Potent
GAT: Very Potent
Tog: Potent
Dragon: Somewhat Useful/Useless
Draw7: Useless
U/G Madness: Somewhat Useful/Useless

There are two ways to work with this:

1) Disagree with my assessment enough to change it to another color catagory.

2) Estimate what the metagame a Balance-less 4cControl deck belongs in.

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 balance�, just like their were games where I said “I wish I had a regrowth�, 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.

Let's get this out of the way then: What does 'playstyle' mean?

It means the style of play in which one has. Not the style of deckbuilding, not the skill of play, but the actual WAY one plays a deck. I see playstyle as something that shouldn't exist. There is always a right and wrong decision. Way too often are wrong decisions forced through by someones inability to get past their own playstyle.

I fail to see how this comes in to play when deckbuilding other than 'I play the most controlling deck in the format very regimented. I draw spells, I counter things, then I win with Angel. Saving myself from an opponents broken start with cards like Balance just distract me from that very simple plan.' Because if that is your 'playstyle' why aren't you playing Tog?

WHAT is wrong with my evaluation? WHAT am I not seeing? I spent a good while typing up this response and I'm demanding thoughtful responses. I don't want someone lashing out because I didn't play nice. I don't want someone stammering out the same hallow arguements that my dog could have articulated. I want someone, anyone at all, to explain to me where my thought-process, experience, and theory is wrong.

[wuaffiliate]

I'm about to go to bed, so this will be short.

I can see no logical reason to leave balance out, there is no logical reason. Will someone please show me a logical reason for leaving balance out of 4CC? Maybe im missing something in my time playing control.

[Phele]

Over here peple started to play at least one Morphling in their 4cc builds to fight the horde of angels, which acutally works pretty well. After cutting Diabolic Edict from every 4cc sideboard Balance is the last weapon to handle Mr. Superman. Maybe this is just a metagame reason to leave Balance in, but it is definately a reason.

As Zherbus mentioned, there are too many matchups where Balance is usefull compared with the ones not that usefull. Where you can't use it it's a shuffle away target, so it hinders you just a bit. Leaving it out in matchups where you really need it hinders you much more _ it even can cost you games.

Personally I played too much against 7/10 recently where can be no better weapon against after the titan player got superiority.

[Masked_Rider]

On Balance - There have been many times when I've thought about cutting it from the deck becuase I would draw it during a game and find it useless, however the vast majority of those times I was in a winning position anyway.  However for those few times I do use it, Balance completely turned the game around, reminding me why I play with it.  As Zherbus posted earlier, the sheer number of decks Balance hurts is also what makes it such a great card.  While you may not use it the vast majority of your games (which you should be in a winning position), when you do use it you probably wouldn't have gotten out of that position without it.

On cutting STP - I'm a firm believer in 2 md STP and 3 md Fire/Ice (with 1 of each in the board).  I'm in a heavy aggro/workshop/fish enviornment and that combination just works for me.  If you cut swords you leave yourself very vulnerable to dragon (this is very much still out there), a match you will normally win will but will be less favorable by far without a 1st game stp.  STP is an invaluable tool in combatting 1st turn Goblin Lackeys (when you are playing second).  Also, in the 4cc mirror you need to deal with opposing angels (although after sb these should become redblasts).  Swords is useful in almost every matchup, just as balance is, and I wouldnt cut either though I understand why you would do so.

[Grendal]

That wasn't a flame and there was no attempt to flame. That was a challenge to come out and give some reasoning beyond over-used catch phrases which you still have not provided. I'm deeply sorry if that was far too convoluted. My example was meant to be absurd to illustrate the ridiculousness in 'cutting Balance to streamline'. Perhaps cutting Yawgmoth's Will would have been a better example? Stop hiding behind being insulted by my harsh, yet to the point style of conversation and confront the arguement like someone who's familiar with articulation.

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.

How many times have we played? Playstyle has yet to actually prove itself as evidence, only in speculation. Running 1 more '1-of' does not make any sort of indication that I am anti-streamlining. I run 4 Scryings, which is 1-2 more than everyone else, does that make everyone else less of a streamliner?

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 can read, therefore I saw where Kerz commented on it's usefulness in the mirror. Also, Balance does more than simple cute tricks - it wins games on it's own.

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.

Again, you take the 'but but but Balance doesn't have hordes of creatures to kill anymore' arguement. Last I read, Balance stated it dealt with handsize and lands too. How is Balancing away 3 cards in someone's hand or bringing them from 4 lands to 1 any less potent than Balancing away 2 Juggernauts and a Su-Chi? How is following up an opponents Sundering Titan with a Balance not good anymore?

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'm telling you right now that if I see the metagame breakdown of Gencon, the next Waterbury, or the next TMDI consist of just Slaver and 4cC, then I owe you a power card. Look at it with a logical approach and do a deck breakdown. I'll make it easy with only 2 fields: Deck name and Balances potency. The scale is useless, somewhat useful, useful, potent, very potent. Hey, I'm a nice guy so I'll color code it too.

Mirror: Very Potent
Fish: Potent
Slaver (Mana Drains): Useful
Slaver (Workshops): Potent
Titan - 7/10: Very Potent
Workshop Aggro (TMS, Stacker): Very Potent
FCG: Very Potent
GAT: Very Potent
Tog: Potent
Dragon: Somewhat Useful/Useless
Draw7: Useless
U/G Madness: Somewhat Useful/Useless


There are two ways to work with this:

1) Disagree with my assessment enough to change it to another color catagory.
 

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.

2) Estimate what the metagame a Balance-less 4cControl deck belongs in.

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.

Let's get this out of the way then: What does 'playstyle' mean?

It means the style of play in which one has. Not the style of deckbuilding, not the skill of play, but the actual WAY one plays a deck. I see playstyle as something that shouldn't exist. There is always a right and wrong decision. Way too often are wrong decisions forced through by someones inability to get past their own playstyle.

I fail to see how this comes in to play when deckbuilding other than 'I play the most controlling deck in the format very regimented. I draw spells, I counter things, then I win with Angel. Saving myself from an opponents broken start with cards like Balance just distract me from that very simple plan.' Because if that is your 'playstyle' why aren't you playing Tog?

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.

WHAT is wrong with my evaluation? WHAT am I not seeing? I spent a good while typing up this response and I'm demanding thoughtful responses. I don't want someone lashing out because I didn't play nice. I don't want someone stammering out the same hallow arguements that my dog could have articulated. I want someone, anyone at all, to explain to me where my thought-process, experience, and theory is wrong.

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

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

I think that your support your point you need to explain why balance is less useful in the particular matchups you mentioned.  The only matchups I see balance being uselss in is against combo.  

Even so, the pure power of balance in gaining tempo and card advanatage while removing threats and/or annhilating your opponent's board position certainly warrents it's inclusion as a 1 of.  Fire/ice is a 1-of and it is also practically uselss against combo, as well as having less game-breaking power than balace.

Instead of comparing balance to yawg will, etc, I will compare it to STP.  STP is also uselss in the combo matchup (excepting dragon), and it was sided out quite frequently.  Indeed, Kerz said that he had been testing a list without it.  He included it as a safety net going into an unknown meta.  The same argument can easiliy be made for balace, except that it is obviously far more powerful than STP, just as in my fire/ice argument.  Balance gets the nod over either of these cards.

I don't see why you are comparing balace with janky cards like dromar's charm and zuran orb.