Keyser wrote:
t seems that everyone wants to make this set into nothing but mediocre cards? There are always powerful cards and weak cards and cards in between. Just because a card is "good" doesn't mean you have to nerf it.
It's about checks and balances, not about making everything "blah"
If balancing is done with that attitude, the game becomes pretty boring on top level constructed, as everyone is just going to play the same things. I know CCGs tend to be like that (remember Umezawa's Jitte in mtg?), but why make it some kind of rule?
In addition, I don't think it helps if there is a single card that keeps another otherwise overpowered card in "check". That kind of balancing just makes the outcome of games depend more on matchups. The deck that doesn't have the "check" card (maybe it's in the wrong domain?) is still helpless.
To me, ideal balance would mean that every balanced deck has a way to deal with pretty much anything, and that every card would be roughly equal in usefulness to the others. By roughly I mean here that it would be enough to get as close as possible with the amount of testing and evidence available. Of course some cards inevitably remain at least a bit better than some others. By a balanced deck I mean a deck that has a reasonable ratio of creatures, spells, enchantments and buildings each. A deck without creatures still would and should be very vulnerable to certain other deck designs.
