Counter-ability = Balance

[-Griffin]

Please approach this topic with an open mind.

 

I hear a lot that "Counter =/= Balance", but I think we need to actually think about that a bit more. I am not stating Solemn balances everything in the game, please finish reading or put your +1 comment somewhere else.

 

I just want to provoke some thought, so here's a go at devil's advocate:

 

I'm going to start with an exaggerated example and work down. Imagine a format where there were 12 unlimited Normal Spell Cards saying "You win the Duel". You can make a Deck that'll surely make you win on turn 1. In this format, every card on the current banlist would be balanced, UP'd even, since they're so damn useless compared to every used Deck. They're being balanced because they're 100% countered by every Deck, pretty much. (I'm well aware this format is awful and all 12 need to be banned, but this is a hypothetical format where Konami gains new stupid levels. This will happen a lot in these examples, don't say it's invalid because the format won't exist, the concept is the important bit.)

 

Imagine another format where everything that could defeat Stardust is banned. In this, Stardust is horrible OP'd because it can't be countered by anything, and anyone Summoning Stardust wins.

 

Now think of a format where everything that can take down Stardust is a horrible card that needs a -3 or something. People might run them to not auto-lose to Stardust, but they're still so awful that Stardust is broken.

 

Now think of a format where most players run viable +0 counters to Stardust like D-Prison, Juju, ect. Stardust is much, much less broken in this format because players can actively run a way to get rid of it that helps in a lot of situations.

 

Hopefully it's clear there that the number of viable counters to Stardust affects its playability. Now let's discuss Chaos Emperor Dragon. Imagine if it was legal in this format. Solemn can counter it, along with Rai-Oh, Kycoo and some other things. Balanced? No, not at all, it's still too powerful, not everyone will have a counter that often and the whole concept of 'wreak advantage, do damage' is outright bad, IMO. It isn't balanced. It is however, because of these, more balanced. Entirely bannable, but less bannable, ect, ect.

 

If you left the game now and came back in 2 years and looked at any Deck list without knowing what'd changed, you couldn't give a good comment on how effective it was. You'd have no idea if it needed to be faster, more controlling, have more RFG recovery, ect, because you have no idea what's being played, and what format-shaping cards like Starlight, Heavy and Bottomless are being played. Without other cards and Decks to measure by, all the other knowledge in the world wouldn't tell you if a card was balanced in most situations. The level of play and type of cards used are a big part of balance.

 

tl;dr: A counter doesn't make something balanced. A viable counter makes something more balanced, even if such a small amount its list position doesn't change.