Balance's Slot in 4cc

[Klep]

The key to your question though, is that you are not wrong at all. Your thought-process, your experience, and your theory is correct.

Well if he's right, then there's no argument. Balance stays.  The fact is that you have demonstrated an apalling lack of knowledge of how to play Balance.  Balance is not just a panic-button, defensive card.   It is also a very potent aggressive tool.  A savvy player can lure his opponent into overextending, only to be destroyed by Balance.  Your Crucible comment, for example, is completely wrong.  A 4CC player with crucible on the table and Balance in hand will not use the crucible to play lands precisely because the crucible will make the Balance that much better.  Stop substituting "playstyle" for "playskill" and learn to use your cards.

[Zherbus]

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.

Ok, good. We both agree why cutting Yawgmoth's Will is bad. Now take that same reason and take out "It wins games if you are winning" because that's irrelevant. If you're winning, then you're winning right?

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.

Where did I say it doesn't exist? I merely said it's on of the over-used catch phrase that people hide behind. I was also dispelling any assumptions you have of my 'playstyle' by illustrating that I'm all for consistancy where it matters.

You ask for examples, but aside from swinging you’re fist in the air screaming “But it wins games�, it is really no difference from me doing much the same thing shouting back “But it’s dead a hell of a lot�. It is a great safety net more often than it is a “cool trick� card that does a lot of damage. 4cControl 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.

Dromar's Charm is a shitty card. It doesn't help when you're in need of mana recovery. Zuran Orb was too narrow in effect to be kept. Balance works in a variety of ways.

Also, I *have* given examples and evidence:

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

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.

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.

Regrowth was green, the manabase couldn't reliably handle it as well as, say... a manabase that supports Exalted Angel as it's win condition.

Balance does have some alternative effects, but in current 4cControl, which runs quite possibly one of the best draw engines in the game, the likelihood of Balance being effective in any situation where 4cControl is winning just isn’t good.

I think that's what you're not seeing, or are just ignoring it. We don't need Balance as a tool to use while we are winning. We need it to recover from desperate situations for the most part. We aren't running cards just to support us when we're in control, we're running cards to establish control. If you have it in hand while you are winning, then what's the problem - you're winning! Balance is powerful enough in that effect that it's very safe to run, especially considering you have 4 Brainstorms to trade it in. Of course that's no excuse to run crap like Dromar's Charm, but there's a difference in card quality there that must be assessed.

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.

I'm very happy to defend my choices here, as I think I have a few games under my belt having played the deck a time or two.

GaT cycles through enough of its deck that it never has a hard time landing one of it's 6 beaters. Not only that, but without Gush it has to build a solid manabase up as much as any other deck. While landing an Angel is gold against GaT, racing a 5/5+ Dryad that has already brought you down to a low life total by virtue of being 2cc instead of 4, is not uncommon.

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 off� 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.

Tog doesn't much go for the throat unless it can against the control mirror. It often slows down to a controlling game where card quantity takes the lead over speed. The dynamics of this matchup are such that the two absolute BEST card for either side to resolve early on are Ancestral and Mind Twist. Both sides have Will for late game, but only 4cC has Balance to offset the Ancestral/Mind Twist element.

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'd really like some elaboration here. While I would tend to agree that Stax (which I omitted by accident) is really questionable for Balance's case. I won't hesitate to add that to the batch of not-so-good, along the same level as Dragon, Draw 7, and UG Madness.

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.

TPS is really the same as Draw7 for our purposes. If either were more distictive and combined showed up in remotely decent numbers, then we would have something more to examine here. The fact of the matter is that both decks are very close and are very minor in terms of metagame players.

With Artifact decks popularity on the rise

They've been 'on the rise' for the last 2 years, man. I really think we've seen them as high as we ever will. Only time will tell, but I really think I'm right on this.

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.

Is there really any better follow up to an early Titan than Balance?

I do agree that Balance does little to stop CoW, but honestly FoW is really the best answer here and you can only run 4.

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.

Look at my metagame chart (add Stax) and determine a card that would be statistically better. Honestly, Madness, Draw7, and Dragon (which is already a good matchup) are minor and the more major decks are what we realistically have to look towards beating. Against Fish, a maindeck CoW would be better, but how well would that do against 7/10 when they get their boost from artifact mana much faster than 4cC can whittle away at their lands? A Fire/Ice could also be good against Fish, but pretty damned pointless against GaT.

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.

I'll bite on the 'metagame choice phrase', that makes perfect sense and I've never argued otherwise. However, there IS a right choice between STP and Fire/Ice. Do you plow the Welder and hold on to the Fire/Ice against Workshop aggro or 7/10? No. Do you plow the factory and save the Fire/Ice against Fish? Yes. Do you favor Fire/Ice in a meta FULL of Fish? Sure.

Your 4cControl 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 4cControl 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 4cControl 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 4cControl, removing one of them was a very big step.

The thing is that the thought process is under-representated for the 'cut Balance' team. It really hasn't been well-articulated or represented at all. Not only that, and I don't mean this as an insult, but with the exception of a few, the people who were all for cutting Balance the last time this was a hot issue were really just bad all around (i.e. having a historical notoriety for posting some serious crap while not playing (at all/anyone but 8 year olds with draft decks). It didn't suprise me to see Kerz, who usually knows what he's talking about, cut Balance since it was a fair metagame call (though I still disagree with it) but to advocate cutting it as common practice.

[Grendal]

Ok, good. We both agree why cutting Yawgmoth's Will is bad. Now take that same reason and take out "It wins games if you are winning" because that's irrelevant. If you're winning, then you're winning right?

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.

Where did I say it doesn't exist? I merely said it's on of the over-used catch phrase that people hide behind. I was also dispelling any assumptions you have of my 'playstyle' by illustrating that I'm all for consistancy where it matters.

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 green, the mana base couldn't reliably handle it as well as, say... a manabase that supports Exalted Angel as it's win condition.

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 think that's what you're not seeing, or are just ignoring it. We don't need Balance as a tool to use while we are winning. We need it to recover from desperate situations for the most part. We aren't running cards just to support us when we're in control, we're running cards to establish control. If you have it in hand while you are winning, then what's the problem - you're winning! Balance is powerful enough in that effect that it's very safe to run, especially considering you have 4 Brainstorms to trade it in. Of course that's no excuse to run crap like Dromar's Charm, but there's a difference in card quality there that must be assessed.

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'm very happy to defend my choices here, as I think I have a few games under my belt having played the deck a time or two.

GaT cycles through enough of its deck that it never has a hard time landing one of it's 6 beaters. Not only that, but without Gush it has to build a solid manabase up as much as any other deck. While landing an Angel is gold against GaT, racing a 5/5+ Dryad that has already brought you down to a low life total by virtue of being 2cc instead of 4, is not uncommon.

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.

 

Tog doesn't much go for the throat unless it can against the control mirror. It often slows down to a controlling game where card quantity takes the lead over speed. The dynamics of this matchup are such that the two absolute BEST card for either side to resolve early on are Ancestral and Mind Twist. Both sides have Will for late game, but only 4cC has Balance to offset the Ancestral/Mind Twist element.

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.

They've been 'on the rise' for the last 2 years, man. I really think we've seen them as high as we ever will. Only time will tell, but I really think I'm right on this.

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…).

Is there really any better follow up to an early Titan than Balance?

I do agree that Balance does little to stop CoW, but honestly FoW is really the best answer here and you can only run 4.

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.

Look at my meta-game chart (add Stax) and determine a card that would be statistically better. Honestly, Madness, Draw7, and Dragon (which is already a good matchup) are minor and the more major decks are what we realistically have to look towards beating. Against Fish, a meta-game CoW would be better, but how well would that do against 7/10 when they get their boost from artifact mana much faster than 4cC can whittle away at their lands? A Fire/Ice could also be good against Fish, but pretty damned pointless against GaT.

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'll bite on the 'metagame choice phrase', that makes perfect sense and I've never argued otherwise. However, there IS a right choice between STP and Fire/Ice. Do you plow the Welder and hold on to the Fire/Ice against Workshop aggro or 7/10? No. Do you plow the factory and save the Fire/Ice against Fish? Yes. Do you favor Fire/Ice in a meta FULL of Fish? Sure.

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.

The thing is that the thought process is under-representated for the 'cut Balance' team. It really hasn't been well-articulated or represented at all. Not only that, and I don't mean this as an insult, but with the exception of a few, the people who were all for cutting Balance the last time this was a hot issue were really just bad all around (i.e. having a historical notoriety for posting some serious crap while not playing (at all/anyone but 8 year olds with draft decks). It didn't suprise me to see Kerz, who usually knows what he's talking about, cut Balance since it was a fair metagame call (though I still disagree with it) but to advocate cutting it as common practice.

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

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

If they have multiple "creatures" out, balance will be effective despite a gorilla shamen.  The point is, if you are "losing," ie need to establish control, being able to wipe out the opponent's creature, land, and hand, to an extent, is quite effective is achieving that goal.

Why do you keep mentioning regrowth?  It is a recursion card that was cut along time ago mainly because it is GREEN, and thus not one of the deck's necessary colours.  It was also not useful unless you had expended a bomb to recur.  I see no similarity with balance except that they are both 2cc sorceries(as are alot of other cards in magic).

In the dryad situation, no stp would not necessarily be as good as it is misdirectable.  Cunning wishing for an answer is mana intensive.  That doesn't matter, though.  The point is that balance was able to do the job in this particular situation.

So what if a refill would do the same job as a balance in the mind twist situation?  Balance accomplished this as well, and we are already running close to the maximum number of refills that suit the deck.

I don't see why you keep mentioning regrowth.  The point is that balance is versatile enough to be useful in a variety of situations, as well as being exeedingly poweful.

In your titan example: 1: balance has killed their land as well as the titan
2: I assume you mean they have a welder left due to you having a gorilla shamen on the table.  If that is the case then they should have difficulty welding their titan back in.  If this is the case I would think they would sac the welder and not the titan.  Usually, balance takes out all of their creatures anways, and thus welders arn't as much of an issue.

Cruicble vs balance:  How does cruicible act in all of the situations balance was good in?  It doesn't save you from a hoard of creatures, or mind twist their hand.  The only "balance" funtion it serves is killing your opponent's land and getting you more.

[Grendal]

If they have multiple "creatures" out, balance will be effective despite a gorilla shamen. The point is, if you are "losing," ie need to establish control, being able to wipe out the opponent's creature, land, and hand, to an extent, is quite effective is achieving that goal.

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.

Why do you keep mentioning regrowth? It is a recursion card that was cut along time ago mainly because it is GREEN, and thus not one of the deck's necessary colours. It was also not useful unless you had expended a bomb to recur. I see no similarity with balance except that they are both 2cc sorceries(as are alot of other cards in magic).

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.

In the dryad situation, no stp would not necessarily be as good as it is misdirectable. Cunning wishing for an answer is mana intensive. That doesn't matter, though. The point is that balance was able to do the job in this particular situation.

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.

So what if a refill would do the same job as a balance in the mind twist situation? Balance accomplished this as well, and we are already running close to the maximum number of refills that suit the deck.

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…  

In your titan example: 1: balance has killed their land as well as the titan

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.

2: I assume you mean they have a welder left due to you having a gorilla shamen on the table. If that is the case then they should have difficulty welding their titan back in. If this is the case I would think they would sac the welder and not the titan. Usually, balance takes out all of their creatures anways, and thus welders arn't as much of an issue.

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.

Cruicble vs balance: How does crucible act in all of the situations balance was good in? It doesn't save you from a hoard of creatures, or mind twist their hand. The only "balance" funtion it serves is killing your opponent's land and getting you more.

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

[Zherbus]

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 balance� situations would be rarer than it already is.

Again, you'd need to come up with something as potent and flexible as Balance to even start to consider it. Also, you speak as though merely packing a Wish for removal or draw is good enough. Balance offsets broken type 1 starts. If this were type 2 or block where the broken starts don't happen and you generally don't lose to bad luck, then maybe you'd have a point. As it is though, Balance can neutralize a sick type 1 start like no other card can.

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 “could� be playing it. Talk about a great effect.

A plow and a Balance are two different aspects outside of the ' I need to kill a dude NOW' aspect. What if you got mana-janked? What if you fell victim to a viscious Ancestral, Walk, Dryad, Whisper lead ins? You need more than just a plow to even that score up. I agree though - Balance puts fear into players sometime, but playing against the best know when to weigh 'he could have that 1 restricted card' versus 'I can win right now if I just...'

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.

2 Mana for a Balance is easier to get off than a Scrying for 3(4 Mana) or Cunning Wish (3 Mana) AND Wish Target. Casting cost is VERY crucial here.

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

Regrowth is gold following an ancestral or a time walk…

You brought up 7/10, so that's the situation I worked with.

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.

Read Sundering Titan, look at your manabase, then look at Balance again. I would Balance that badboy away, along with his lands over plowing ANYDAY. That sort of reversal in the game will just win it, merely plowing the Titan and letting them play the game uninterrupted will not.

I personally choose “Crucible of Worlds� as the better all around card than balance. It adds a “must counter� 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… “might� 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.

Ok, good. Let's work with that. I like this because CoW (like Wish and STP) can be good for the maindeck.

1) What makes you think that Balance is the card to remove for CoW? Isn't there anything weaker/more deserving? I would say yes, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

2) How does CoW stop broken starts? How does CoW stop a heavy lead? Is CoW even filling the role of Balance? I understand an early CoW is a great start, but costing 3 versus 2 is a whole turn. Also, in order for CoW to have a lock you must 1) control the acceleration and 2) start it before an opponent propels himself too far.

3) Assuming you are holding a Force of Will, would you counter a CoW when you already have your Angel swinging? How about if you were playing GaT/Tog and you had Tog on the table?

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.

I disagree. I don't know where you play, but where I play I often have to answer to the broken hands of my opponent.

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.

...but Balance costs two mana of a color you run heavy on. Decree of Annihilation is just ridiculously unusable.

[BreathWeapon]

Balance is probably one of the only cards in 4cc that can answer Decree of Justice in a timely fashion, which is highly relevant in the mirror match if your opponent is using a 2/1 or 2/2 configuration instead of the A-Typical 3 Angel list, or boards Decrees as additional bombs.

[monSt4r]

Balance this balance that...I C u will never get the same opinion...unless U play in same meta and in couple of more "restrictions".
Balance is good, but limited good. That can be bad sometimes and annoying and mostly because of annoying part people stuff it elswhere than their deck...U can't make 'em use it  

Use PM moderators would say if they weren't U

p.s. if u balance titan, first u destroy lands...then creatures...then he destroys rest of your lands ?

GOOD GOD! Speak clearly! Language difference aside, you can do better than that. If you're too lazy to write it, then don't bother. Consider this a verbal warning. -Zherbus

[Zherbus]

p.s. if u balance titan, first u destroy lands...then creatures...then he destroys rest of your lands ?

He likely killed off all of your duals in the first place, so you'd be running off City of Brass, Moxen, fetchlands, or Wastelands. If you had to use a fetch for a Tundra, then sacrificing it is still a small price to pay.

[wuaffiliate]

The key to your question though, is that you are not wrong at all. Your thought-process, your experience, and your theory is correct.

Well if he's right, then there's no argument. Balance stays.  The fact is that you have demonstrated an apalling lack of knowledge of how to play Balance.  Balance is not just a panic-button, defensive card.   It is also a very potent aggressive tool.  A savvy player can lure his opponent into overextending, only to be destroyed by Balance.  Your Crucible comment, for example, is completely wrong.  A 4CC player with crucible on the table and Balance in hand will not use the crucible to play lands precisely because the crucible will make the Balance that much better.  Stop substituting "playstyle" for "playskill" and learn to use your cards.

Quoted to be answered, since it was obviously ignored by Grendal. There are some very valid points in this post.

[Milton]

I thought I'd quickly chime in here.  First, I'm very glad this discussion is happening!   For a long time we all seemed to be subscribing to the same philosophy of 4cc deck design without asking some good questions of ourselves.  I have seven questions in my notebook about my Keeper build.  Here they are in order:

1. Is Balance necessary?  

2. Is Mindtwist necessary?

3. Is 26 mana enough in this Wasteland / Crucible heavy environment?

4. How many plows?

5. How many Scryings are necessary?

6. What about Crucible?

7. What about sideboard options?

At least we are dealing with my first question!

Zherbus did a fair job of showing how balance is good in certian match-ups, however I find that Balance is lacking against the aggro-artifact decks and against Fish.  It is not as favorable in those match-ups as Zherbus indicateed earlier.

Clearly we have all been in situations where Balance would be much better as a Shaman, Scrying or even Fire/Ice.  Personally I have been on the verge of cutting it from my 4cc deck.  Balance does save your ass 2% of the time, but 98% of the time it's dead.  Granted, you can shuffle it back into your deck with Brainstorm / Fetchlands, but that's poor logic for keeping a card.  How many games do you lose because Balance wasn't something else?  Do you win more games playing Balance than you lose because Balance wasn't a Shaman?  It seems to me that I lose more games with Balance in hand than I win after having cast Balance.

In my experience Balance can be cut, and sometimes should be cut from 4cc, but I still feel that it is a metagame call.

[Klep]

How many games do you lose because Balance wasn't something else?  Do you win more games playing Balance than you lose because Balance wasn't a Shaman?  

None and yes.

[Zherbus]

I thought I'd quickly chime in here.  First, I'm very glad this discussion is happening!   For a long time we all seemed to be subscribing to the same philosophy of 4cc deck design without asking some good questions of ourselves.  I have seven questions in my notebook about my Keeper build.  Here they are in order:

1. Is Balance necessary?  

2. Is Mindtwist necessary?

3. Is 26 mana enough in this Wasteland / Crucible heavy environment?

4. How many plows?

5. How many Scryings are necessary?

6. What about Crucible?

7. What about sideboard options?

At least we are dealing with my first question!

Oooh! Nice post Milton!

Ok, here it goes:

1) We disagree on that.

2) I'm not convinced that it's needed against many decks, I should put together a chart like I did for Balance.

3) Yes - I think the manabase is solid, but perhaps a lone Island should make an appearance.

4) Because of Titans, Artifact Fat, opposing Angels, etc - I say no fewer than 2. I think that 3 could work just fine in the right environment.

5) I run 4 because New England warrants it. I say running 2 is too few and moreso demonstrates severe misunderstandings of type 1.

6) I didn't run any maindeck because there are too many decks that win faster than you can whittle away at their lands. In Kerz's report, because of the Fish-Control Slaver-4cC metagame, 1-2 maindeck would have been so good that he would have been retarded not to carry it beyond the top4 split.

7) Yeah, you painted that one with too broad of a brush man. That's a whole other thread.

Zherbus did a fair job of showing how balance is good in certian match-ups, however I find that Balance is lacking against the aggro-artifact decks and against Fish.  It is not as favorable in those match-ups as Zherbus indicateed earlier.

Wow, really? I've had Balance be super against aggro-artifacts. Against Fish its been very useful since it fills Mind Twists role while killing off whatever dorks they landed. Balance followed by Scrying is insane against Fish in my experience.

Balance does save your ass 2% of the time, but 98% of the time it's dead.  Granted, you can shuffle it back into your deck with Brainstorm / Fetchlands, but that's poor logic for keeping a card.  

Yeah, I said that same thing a few posts back about using Brainstorm as a reason for keeping a card. Basically I said that you can't use the same arguement for something bad like Dromar's Charm since there is an obvious power level difference.

The first sentance I disagree with fundimentally, however. I can comfortable say that there are more than 2 games out of 100 that Balance gets used/saves your ass.

How many games do you lose because Balance wasn't something else?  Do you win more games playing Balance than you lose because Balance wasn't a Shaman?  It seems to me that I lose more games with Balance in hand than I win after having cast Balance.

Your first question is excellent, but my answer is that I've never died with a Balance in my hand and the ability to cast it.

Your second question is good as well, but interestingly enough I cut a Shaman for another Scrying and haven't missed it (keep in mind I played this for matchups: Fish, Stax, TitanTubbies, 7/10, and Titan.dec - all matches where another Shaman would be good).

[cssamerican]

In my opinion this is the simplest way to look at it.

Balance is a BOMB in any competitive metagame. Why? Because in any competitive metagame you will be on the other side of a broken start 35% of the time. This fact is undeniable. So, that means 35% of your games you are losing from a development standpoint, and by your own admissions that is when Balance is awesome. In my opinion, if a card is a bomb in 35% of my games it stays in the maindeck.

Balance isn't a BOMB in any non-competitive metagame. Why? Because you will be ahead in development 99% of the time, in these cases Balance becomes a very inefficient way to remove creatures. But in a non-competitive metagame it doesn't matter that Balance is dead, you will win anyway.

When Balance isn't good it doesn't matter you will win anyway. When Balance is good it's a total BOMB. Because of this I can't see the argument for not including as a standard card in 4cControl.

[Toad]

1. Is Balance necessary?  

2. Is Mindtwist necessary?

3. Is 26 mana enough in this Wasteland / Crucible heavy environment?

4. How many plows?

5. How many Scryings are necessary?

6. What about Crucible?

7. What about sideboard options?

My two cents here...

1. This is a metagame call. If your metagame is full of Combo decks, then Balance can be cut because It's rather weak in these matchups. It is not as potent as It used to be a couple of years ago versus Aggro now we are running Exalted Angels, making the Wrath of God effect less necessary. Against Control, It's an awesome offensive weapon that doubles with a panic button if needed. I'd say "Yes, It's necessary, especially for the players that understand the fact that Balance is not a 'Oh shit I'm going to lose' card but one of the most potent offensive weapon of 4cControl. That implies strategical choices and strong playskills though.

2. Once again, metagame call. I often sideboarded it out against Aggro or Welder based decks, but Mind Twist has the potential to break Control mirrors in half, especially with Mana Drain to fuel it. If you don't maindeck it, then you should probably sideboard it for Control mirrors.

3. I'm running 27 mana sources (4 Tundras) and I'm fine with that.

4. The metagame is full of creatures. Morphling had his time, and now even Control runs creatures that can be targeted. It used to be dead against Combo, and now It can hit Xantid Swarms too. I'd say no less than 2, especially when you have Brainstorm to shuffle it back if needed. 3 is fine if your metagame is full of fatties (Madness, Workshop Aggro...).

5. Skeletal Scrying is what makes 4cC good. Running 2 shows a serious lack of understanding of the deck because It becomes incredibly unconsistant. 3 is a minimum (with the 4th one in the sideboard). 4 is perfect if you plan to see Islands and Gemstone Mines all day long.

6. That is a metagame call too. Crucible is horrible against fast Combo decks (ie. non Dragon) and many Aggro decks that run smoothly on two or three lands.

7. Metagame calls?

I took 4cControl in a tourney last week end. 6 swiss rounds and no Top8. I faced Modular, RG Hate, Slavery, UR Stacker, Titan and GAT. Against UR Stacker, he had 3 dudes on the board by turn 2, hitting me for 10. Balance wins. Against GAT, I DT a Balance to Mind Twist him for 4, losing no lands and no critters in the processus. Against Titan, Balance would have won me game 2 but he had Mana Drain and FOW backup for it. I lost no game because I drew Balance and needed something else. I found myself shuffling it away a couple of times but that is what I do with billions of other cards.

4cC's Balance is not Tog's Pernicious Deed. You can't randomly drop it and see what It does. You need to settle Balance to gain an advantage of it. Remember Finkel's using the Obliterate + Yawgmoth's Will combo in a Type One invitationals finals with Keeper? This is the same kind of set up you need with Balance.

[Mixing Mike]

1. Is Balance necessary?  

2. Is Mind Twist necessary?

3. Is 26 mana enough in this Wasteland / Crucible heavy environment?

4. How many plows?

5. How many Scryings are necessary?

6. What about Crucible?

7. What about sideboard options?

1. I personally agree with Kerz right now.  I don't feel that the game %'s of Balance wins are high enough to warrant its inclusion.  Last night, it was useful in ONE game out of 15 pre/post board games vs. Control Slaver, where usually the pilot was wishing it was a more direct removal spell most of the time (Swords, Fire, etc..).

2. It's a metagame call.  I feel it's needed becasue of the mirror being so common right now.

3. I've never seen 4CC get mana flooded or screwed.  26-27 is gold.

4. I think 3 is the right number.  Control Slaver, the new Crushing Mono-brown artifact deck, the Man Show, 7/10, ect....  There's also still tons of utility creatures out there that need a fast answer.

5. 4 Scryings.  No doubt about it.  Not running 4 is just foolish.  I've lost many games becasue my opponent had a Scrying for 2-3 that found him another Scrying for 2-3, or a tutor that ended whatever I had going.

6. I think Crucible is overratted.  It's to slow without Fastbond, or a Mox in your opening hand going first.  It adds great utility to the deck for sure, but do you really need to fetch EVERY turn until you draw a wasteland? I don't think it's even good vs. Titan, becasue if you don't have to removal spell within a turn of it hitting, then your lands are already worthless anyways.

7.  Nobody can tell you what their thoughts on a SB without your metagame.

[Moxlotus]

@Mixing Mike-You used only one matchup to base your thoughts about Balance.  That is pretty lopsided.  The same could be said against 3cMadness and it would help you 14/15 matches.

[Matt]

Balance is a BOMB in any competitive metagame. Why? Because in any competitive metagame you will be on the other side of a broken start 35% of the time. This fact is undeniable. So, that means 35% of your games you are losing from a development standpoint, and by your own admissions that is when Balance is awesome. In my opinion, if a card is a bomb in 35% of my games it stays in the maindeck.

Are you sure about this? 'Broken start' usually means multiple moxen, or Lotus, or some other card that gives the opponent a positive Balance-count.

[Milton]

Quote:
Balance is a BOMB in any competitive metagame. Why? Because in any competitive metagame you will be on the other side of a broken start 35% of the time. This fact is undeniable. So, that means 35% of your games you are losing from a development standpoint, and by your own admissions that is when Balance is awesome. In my opinion, if a card is a bomb in 35% of my games it stays in the maindeck.  

Are you sure about this? 'Broken start' usually means multiple moxen, or Lotus, or some other card that gives the opponent a positive Balance-count.

I'm having trouble with the notion that Balance helps you recover from an opponent who has a broken turn 1.  What is a "broken" first turn?  4cc or even Tog could go Land, mox, mox, ancestral, mox, lotus, Mindtwist for five, but Balance ain't going to save you there unless you top-deck.  Fish doesn't really have a broken first turn.  Combo has artifact acceleration or some enchantment first turn that Balance usually can't kill.  Sure, there is the first turn Swamp, Ritual, Ritual, Negator, Shade.  Balance will drop your hand size, so spot removal is probabally better.  First turn Welder or Metalworker is not good, but spot removal is better.  The only way Balance is good to save against first turn brokenness is if your opponent plays a bunch of creatures first turn, or draws a bunch of cards first turn and plays artifact mana.  Since I don't see too many first turn creatures, then I have to say that spot removal is almost always better.

And I have been killed too many times while holding Balance, wishing it were something else.  My opponent throws out Tog and plays Time Walk and goes off on me.  If the Balance was a Plow I would win.  There are many man lands in my meta also, and man lands generally scoff at Balance.  How many times have you been holding a Balance, wishing to god that it killed artifact mana because your opponent has three moxes and is able to play anything in his hand?  

By the way, I see Balance as being very favorable in the non-competitive metagame, much more so then the hyper-competitive metagame.  Great players aren't going to overcommit and will be prepared for Balance.  The scrubby metagame, though, is one in which you may need to Balalce away your opponents third turn Verdant Force and his army of Lanowar Elves and tokens.

[Toad]

The only matchups were I almost always want to draw Balance are Control mirrors. I fail to see why 4cC, Tog or friends are non-competitive.

You really really really need to stop seeing Balance as a Wrath of God. That was true in 2002. We are in 2004.

If the Balance was a Plow I would win.

American Balance official text :

Color= White  
Type= Sorcery  
Cost= 1W
Text (4th+errata): Except the player who controls the fewest creatures, each player sacrifices creatures until all players control the same number of creatures as the player who controls the fewest. Discard some cards and sacrifice some lands.

[Zherbus]

Fine, there we have it. Balance is bad against good decks and only good against Elves.dec and Verdant Force. I was wrong to think this discussion could benefit anyone. I'm sorry to have wasted everyones time.

[Milton]

Fine, there we have it. Balance is bad against good decks and only good against Elves.dec and Verdant Force. I was wrong to think this discussion could benefit anyone. I'm sorry to have wasted everyones time.

Come on, that's not adding to the discussion.

And, Toad, Balance is a sorcery.  If your opponent plays a Tog and time walks and goes off on you, your balance won't do anything.  Granted, the game was probabally lost long ago anyway...  

My post was a response to the notion that Balance is ALWAYS a good card and no one EVER loses a game after having cast Balance and Balance will ALWAYS win the game for you and it is NEVER dead in your hand.  I think there is much, much more to it.

Andy you are right, this isn't 2002.  It isn't 2000 either.  We don't have Zuran Orbs in our decks anymore.  We don't face many creatures anymore.  Fetchlands have greatly limited the number of lands that are in play toward the mid and end of the game, and have greatly decreased the likelyhood of someone getting color screwed.  The prolifieration of artifact decks and combo decks has that "go off" on a fundamental turn is somewhat new.  Balance is limited against these decks.  Lastly, I don't play many games where my opponent has a major card advantage to me, where Balance would swing the game significantly.

I understand that Balance is powerful and I assume we all know how to use Balance to maximize effect in various match-ups.  By the way, Balance was most powerful as a sideboard card in The Shining, but I digress.  I'm just simply trying to say that sometimes Balance is better as something else.

Look, I called for redundancy in Keeper a long time ago.  I like the new 4cc.  It is great, and I'm glad it is winning.  Zherbus, et al, did a great job developing this deck.  Still, I'm finding Balance and Mindtwist to be a little too random right now in my 4cc build.  Granted, I still play with them, but I'm just asking the questions and finding the answers.  Don't kill me.

[Toad]

And, Toad, Balance is a sorcery.  If your opponent plays a Tog and time walks and goes off on you, your balance won't do anything.

You know what? That is confirming my previous ironical post. You just consider Balance as a creature control card. That is probably why you mis-use it.

[JACO]

I'm just simply trying to say that sometimes Balance is better as something else.

A lot of people have used this as part of their fundamental argument, and the same can be said about any card that is more than less dead in a particular matchup is 'sometimes better as something else.' Do you want to see a Yawgmoth's Will or Decree of Justice in the first few turns? Of course not, that's why you Brainstorm them away, just like you would a Balance if you don't need it.

...I'll surely be the black sheep of the 4cC player family, but I didn't miss balance all day.

Lastly, I don't play many games where my opponent has a major card advantage to me, where Balance would swing the game significantly.

...I'm finding Balance and Mindtwist to be a little too random right now in my 4cc build.

Balance is way too situational to be extremely effective, and I prefer consistency.

The things that Kerzner, Milton, Grendal, and SamiteHealer are saying are all based around the same fundamental thing. Can you or can you not get to a point where you (the player piloting 4CControl) control the gamestate. If you get to a point where you control the gamestate, you won't need Balance, and if you don't have card #60 getting in your way of accomplishing that goal, you will get there faster. Where they are conciously doing it or not, they are essentially arguing that by cutting Balance and by increasing the redundancy of some of the other key spells in the deck, they increase their chances of getting to a point where they control the gamestate, and have no need for Balance.

When I was playing my URW Scepter deck, I did the same thing by cutting Balance and Mystical Tutor, and it worked very, very well (don't bother with any gayass replies about how Scepter decks suck; this is an example to illustrate my point). However, about one in 8 games where I was in trouble, I thought to myself, what could turn the tables right now? Then I remembered how broken Balance was, and that's why I put it back in.

So the argument regarding the inclusion of Balance basically boils down to the point, 'can I get the gamestate to a point (or get it there quicker) where I don't ever need Balance?' If you feel you can, then don't include Balance in your deck. But when you play in a larger tournament with more than just Drain Slaver and Fish, you're going to run into plenty of matches (like TnT) where Balance is a great spell, and your opponent frequently puts so much pressure on you early that you won't be able to get to a gamestate where you control the tempo. This is very similar to how Hulk often uses a single copy of Pernicious Deed, but it's just not as strong (nor as cheap) as Balance.

[orgcandman]

Both sides have really been skating around the true issue here. The real issue at heart is what makes balance good. The fact that the game is inherently unpredictable makes balance a powerhouse, as just the potential for being underdeveloped is what makes balance neccessary. The small amount of theoretical consistency that you may get by cutting balance just doesn't warrant risking the ability to BALANCE the playing field once you have lost momentum.
Simply put, in type one the key to winning is being as broken as hell each and every turn. Where consistency is nice, broken is better. In most games it's just better to not risk not having it.

To leave off, quoting that lovable frenchie

<Toaddy> setting up devastating Balances is my favourite game plan

[Kerz]

Honestly, I'll do more testing with and without it.

This tourney was only 30 people, and nothing extremely important- a perfect time to test things out. It was also my first time playing 4cc in a tourney enviornment. I tried the deck without Balance, and I split. Naturally, I would lean towards not including it due to the numbers I put up. This list isn't' quite near what I would play a GenCon or SCG- can you chastise me for trying something new ( and winning with it, even)?

I did argue some points against Balance, but I am nowhere near as passionate about my anti-Balance veiws as the pro-Balance people are. I am not a "4cc player" per se, just someone who tries to play the best deck in the format. My belifs for/against Balance are pretty much "meh", I'm always one to argue a point that no one wants to touch. If I was to run a 4cc list tommorow, I'm not sure whether I would include the card. I just want to clarify, I am defintiely NOT "OMFG BALANCE SUCKS!!".. nor did I ever allude to the card being bad at all. I just wanted to get people opinions on whether the card was good enough to be included, and the asnwer was obviouslt an overwhelming yes.

I think this thread can be closed.