I think Coalition Victory doesn't need to be banned, but doesn't add much to the game beyond another build-around win card.
Enter the Infinite can be played fairly... You play Possessed Portal and a no-maximum hand size effect off of Enter the Infinite and sit there with an amazing hand, maybe with solid counter spells, or interesting utility...
And whenever the argument about what it LITERALLY does comes up, you and others just opt to ignore it. If you're going to debate something, at least debate the actual points made, because right now it's just reiterating the same non-reasons for unbanning it while avoiding the reason to keep it actually banned.
You've made the point that it either wins the game on resolution or does nothing at all. Why is that relevant?
And whenever the argument about what it LITERALLY does comes up, you and others just opt to ignore it. If you're going to debate something, at least debate the actual points made, because right now it's just reiterating the same non-reasons for unbanning it while avoiding the reason to keep it actually banned.
You've made the point that it either wins the game on resolution or does nothing at all. Why is that relevant?
Because it's the only card that does only that in the entire game, which is why it's banned. It, plus the ease with which it's requirements are assembled, completely render the game that happened before useless, and all it requires is that one single card. It is unique in that aspect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Because it's the only card that does only that in the entire game, which is why it's banned. It, plus the ease with which it's requirements are assembled, completely render the game that happened before useless, and all it requires is that one single card.
It requires at least your 5-color general and the 5 basic land types in addition to the spell itself, making it comparable to any other game-ending combo that is currently legal. The fact that Coalition Victory uniquely does literal nothing by itself (compared to the figurative nothing of other individual combo pieces) should be irrelevant.
Some people are obviously very naive here. There're heated debates as to why Sol Ring should be banned, and some people giving reasons such as "I don't always play Sol Ring". So, to the very same people, why do they make the same assumption that CV has to be played in a 5C deck? If one argues that people aren't robots as to jam Sol Ring in every deck, who gives you the God-given right to assume people will play CV in their 5C decks?
You are assuming people
-are sheep
-always play the same path patterns
-always seek insta-victory
-will 100% put CV in their 5C deck.
-have 5C decks. It's a freaking WUBRG spell!
Yet you fail to see that people
-are unique
-have different playgroups/playstyles
-have a different philosophy on EDH
-do not always play 5C. Do you know how rare that is?
Interacts badly with EDH? I'll say fast mana, tutors interact badly with the supposed EDH philosophy. Wake and up try to be objective man...
Lastly it's a net positive that there's one less card in the banned list. What's there not to like? I seem to recall many people complaining about the size of the list. Care to do some reflection on how to reduce that?
One of the players in my group runs at least one 5C deck,and if i knew that CV was going to be in it,I'd be more worried about his winning that way than any other means. To the point I'd always splash red for MLD/mass removal effects ranging from Impending Disaster to Apocalypse and so forth. As it currently stands, I don't run those cards because his 5c deck has other means to win that are easier to deal with.
EDIT: I do find it slightly funny that one of the users arguing for it's unbanning already plays with their own group ban list as opposed to the current one.
EDIT: I do find it slightly funny that one of the users arguing for it's unbanning already plays with their own group ban list as opposed to the current one.
I'm not following. Are you implying that said individual isn't qualified to argue for Coalition Victory's unbanning because of this, or are you trying to express something else?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
EDIT: I do find it slightly funny that one of the users arguing for it's unbanning already plays with their own group ban list as opposed to the current one.
I'm not following. Are you implying that said individual isn't qualified to argue for Coalition Victory's unbanning because of this, or are you trying to express something else?
Yes and no. His views on it do matter to some degree since he does have experience but because we don't know the full extent of his group's ban list and meta which is clearly different than the majority of players.
I don't think custom ban list has anything to do with Coalition Victory. It's pretty obvious what it does. Meta argument would be more like Emrakul the Aeons Torn or something. Of course, I really doubt Laboratory Maniac ever gets cast when it won't win the game instantly for 2U. Otherwise, it's just a 2/2 that does nothing. Of course, it does require a deck built to abuse it, but if you would build a deck to play Coalition Victory, you'd probably play Maniac or any other instant win combo.
I don't think custom ban list has anything to do with Coalition Victory. It's pretty obvious what it does. Meta argument would be more like Emrakul the Aeons Torn or something. Of course, I really doubt Laboratory Maniac ever gets cast when it won't win the game instantly for 2U. Otherwise, it's just a 2/2 that does nothing. Of course, it does require a deck built to abuse it, but if you would build a deck to play Coalition Victory, you'd probably play Maniac or any other instant win combo.
I've stepped back because it feels like we're talking in circles, but I'd just like to point out that the main argument against the card is that "building a deck to play Coalition Victory" is quite literally "playing a 5c deck". That is the major distinction the "keep it banned" side has been trying to emphasize which sets the cards apart from every other mentioned card in this thread.
I've stepped back because it feels like we're talking in circles, but I'd just like to point out that the main argument against the card is that "building a deck to play Coalition Victory" is quite literally "playing a 5c deck". That is the major distinction the "keep it banned" side has been trying to emphasize which sets the cards apart from every other mentioned card in this thread.
It's been emphasized quite enough at this point. What hasn't been mentioned is WHY that fact alone makes it ban worthy. Any 5-color deck can play it. So what?
It's been emphasized quite enough at this point. What hasn't been mentioned is WHY that fact alone makes it ban worthy. Any 5-color deck can play it. So what?
Well as long as the ban list has been tracking changes it has been banned and there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to remove it. For a card to go on or come off the list the Rules Committee has demonstrated and said that there needs to be some compelling reason to do so, and as of yet I have not seen any good reason. Sure, "a smaller ban list" and "other cards can be played as essentially one card combos", as well as other arguments brought forth in this thread are all valid reasons, but no one has actually given a reason why it being legal would add something positive to the format. And if you're going to remove a card from the ban list that was at one point deemed bad enough to ban, there should be a benefit to the format as well. (I know someone will probably bring up Worldgorger Dragon or Lion's Eye Diamond getting unbanned which have next to zero benefit to the format, but those also don't continue to break one of the format philosophy criteria.)
I still don't really think it interacting badly makes that much sense considering much cheaper, less color intensive combos are that card + commander and serveral of those commanders are less bad than the 5 color options. Even if a card is banned, I still think it's much more sensible to work in the same direction as banning a card, though. There should be good reason it would be banned if it were printed recently too. Assuming Coalition Victory were just printed in, say Eldritch Moon, would people be playing it and wrecking games bad enough we'd be talking about it now? I could see people freaking about it in the beginning like Blightsteel, but I doubt we'd hear much about it after it released. Seriously, graveyard hate has gotten better was good enough for Kokusho and Diamond, Staff, and Dragon came off because combo isn't policed anymore. It's a bad card almost no one would even play seems like it should apply to Coalition Victory, Worldfire and Sway. Of course, from what I saw, Worldfire was only banned because of its similarity to sway and I never actually heard or saw anyone play either card even one time before they were banned. It's like they're example bans, but no one actually wants to play them anyway. It's kind of silly to ban cards based on theorycrafting. Does anyone actually have a single story about any of the three cards in an actual game? At least with Emrakul, Gifts, Hulk, or Servant, people could try and argue that they don't want to play against the card. In this thread we're talking about a hypotheticals about a card I've never heard mentioned other than in discussions about removing it from the list.
For a card to go on or come off the list the Rules Committee has demonstrated and said that there needs to be some compelling reason to do so, and as of yet I have not seen any good reason. Sure, "a smaller ban list" and "other cards can be played as essentially one card combos", as well as other arguments brought forth in this thread are all valid reasons, but no one has actually given a reason why it being legal would add something positive to the format.
It adds a sense of cohesion and the appearance of an actual guiding philosophy to the ban list. The RC has a bunch of vague, catch-all criteria for banning that are applied with extreme bias and it makes the ban list look comical. Removing CV from the list would be another step in the right direction, like removing Kokusho, the Evening Star and Metalworker was.
It adds a sense of cohesion and the appearance of an actual guiding philosophy to the ban list. The RC has a bunch of vague, catch-all criteria for banning that are applied with extreme bias and it makes the ban list look comical. Removing CV from the list would be another step in the right direction, like removing Kokusho, the Evening Star and Metalworker was.
Statements like this are why it is difficult to have a discussion with you because it gives the impression you are arguing from your own negative opinions on the RC rather than with objectivity. CV fails in both the interacts poorly and the creates undesirable game states categories. And no amount of self regulation can change that if the card was legal.
It adds a sense of cohesion and the appearance of an actual guiding philosophy to the ban list. The RC has a bunch of vague, catch-all criteria for banning that are applied with extreme bias and it makes the ban list look comical. Removing CV from the list would be another step in the right direction, like removing Kokusho, the Evening Star and Metalworker was.
Statements like this are why it is difficult to have a discussion with you because it gives the impression you are arguing from your own negative opinions on the RC rather than with objectivity. CV fails in both the interacts poorly and the creates undesirable game states categories. And no amount of self regulation can change that if the card was legal.
"Objectivity" is a rather ridiculous word to be throwing around in this subforum. By their own admission the RC is subjective as to how the ban list is managed. My own negative opinions about the RC come solely from the scant interaction I've had with them on this forum, but that in no way changes the fact that Coalition Victory no longer belongs on the ban list.
Simply repeating the criteria doesn't do anything to convince me otherwise. CV interacts exactly as poorly with the format as literally other any general-centric combo. CV creates exactly the same undesirable game states as any other combo/haymaker finish... except CV is actually better because nobody does it on accident. It's literally impossible to put CV into your deck thinking it does anything other than win the game. Which is a far cry from the actually problematic cards that look flashy and cool, but secretly exist only to prevent a single player from actually playing the game, like Iona, Shield of Emeria or Sorin Markov. Now those create undesirable game states.
Simply repeating the criteria doesn't do anything to convince me otherwise. CV interacts exactly as poorly with the format as literally other any general-centric combo. CV creates exactly the same undesirable game states as any other combo/haymaker finish... except CV is actually better because nobody does it on accident. It's literally impossible to put CV into your deck thinking it does anything other than win the game. Which is a far cry from the actually problematic cards that look flashy and cool, but secretly exist only to prevent a single player from actually playing the game, like Iona, Shield of Emeria or Sorin Markov. Now those create undesirable game states.
I agree with you that a number of cards in Commnder are capable of creating undesirable game states, and I also agree with you that the "interacts poorly in Commander" argument doesn't hold much weight. Do you agree that some cards are more severe than others? Like, do you believe that some cards are worse than others in terms of how negatively they affect a game? If so, to what severity do you believe a card would need to be in order to qualify as being ban-worthy? For example...
Game Two?2W Sorcery
You win the game.
Do you believe something like this would be ban-worthy? I understand that Wizards would never print such a card, but hypothetically, what do you think?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I agree with you that a number of cards in Commnder are capable of creating undesirable game states, and I also agree with you that the "interacts poorly in Commander" argument doesn't hold much weight. Do you agree that some cards are more severe than others? Like, do you believe that some cards are worse than others in terms of how negatively they affect a game? If so, to what severity do you believe a card would need to be in order to qualify as being ban-worthy?
Yes, different cards do different things to the game.
I find it strange when people argue that Sorin Markov creates an undesirable game state, while also arguing that the high starting life totals in the format make aggro "basically useless" (not at all true except in the most competitive and combo-rific of metagames, but whatever). What Sorin actually does is reset the life total of one player - perhaps the combo player? - within easy range of a kill. Seems to me that people complaining about the life totals would consider that a good thing, since it would allow combat-oriented decks to be a bit more competitive.
It was also said, above,
CV creates exactly the same undesirable game states as any other combo/haymaker finish.
Which isn't really true either. A lot of the haymaker cards people complain about are manageable if people build decks that have some built-in resilience. I've seen pillow-fort players laugh at attempts to take them out with Insurrection - "Sure, you can attack me with everything, if you can come up with 13 mana per attacking creature to do it!" - while other players have quashed such attempts with a lowly Fog. Ironically, those sorts of defenses don't tend to come up in combo-oriented metagames, because nobody is worried about combat losses anyhow, and the life totals become meaningless. Pillow forts don't accomplish much if people regularly assemble "I win" combos or win via storm before turn 7.
The real problem with a lot of the arguments being made here is that they are being made from a place of viewing the format in a different manner than it was intended to be played. Mike/Trike, infinite mana combos and such don't really lend themselves to memorable, social games. This is true of most combo wins, in fact. Palinchron stunts lead to lots of wins, but none of them are memorable, because we've all seen them before. Same with storm wins and all that. The fact that they're reliable and effective also makes them predictable and boring. The RC doesn't heavily regulate combo because people who are intent on winning via the same predictable combos or linear avenues of play, or who would argue that something like CV is on par with some other lame combo, don't really "get" the intent of the format in the first place, so there's no real point in trying to regulate against their shenanigans. Ban one combo piece and those sorts of players will find some other way to break a format that is by admission easy to break if that is your intent. If Doomsday, Ad Nauesum and Palinchron were banned, they'd just keep looking for the latest lame combo one might assemble from the format's huge card pool - Leovold + Teferi's Puzzle Box, perhaps? - and trying to keep up with that would lead to a cumbersome banned list. Instead, Coalition Victory, Worldfire and the like are left on the list as obvious examples of the most anticlimactic possible "I win" nonsense, in hopes people will get that wins of that type are considered cheap and unmemorable, and build accordingly.
I agree with you that a number of cards in Commnder are capable of creating undesirable game states, and I also agree with you that the "interacts poorly in Commander" argument doesn't hold much weight. Do you agree that some cards are more severe than others? Like, do you believe that some cards are worse than others in terms of how negatively they affect a game? If so, to what severity do you believe a card would need to be in order to qualify as being ban-worthy?
Yes, different cards do different things to the game.
Do you believe something like this would be ban-worthy? I understand that Wizards would never print such a card, but hypothetically, what do you think
What? Yes. Obviously. It's a T2 win.
Thanks for responding. Honestly, I wasn't expecting you to answer that the way you did. I'm really having a hard time trying to reconcile everything you've said in order to understand your stance here.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my interpretation of your stance is that you believe Coalition Victory is no different than a slew of other cards like Insurrection, Palinchron, Tooth and Nail, and Felidar Sovereign. You believe Coalition Victory is a miserable card, but since the Rules Committee has already chosen to allow the aforementioned cards in Commander, it only makes sense to you that Coalition Victory also be unbanned to keep the banned list consistent. I'm also assuming you believe that Coalition Victory can't be banned because, in order for the Rules Committee to stay consistent, that would also mean having to ban Insurrection et al, and there are too many cards of that nature for that to be a realistic option, so you can't take the stance that all crazy haymakers be banned.
If I understand you correctly and everything I've said thus far accurately represents what you believe, what I don't understand is why you would believe something like Game Two? would deserve being banned. Is it only because I costed the card at 2W instead of something like 4WW, or 8UUUU, or 3WUBRG? Is the only source of our disagreement just how severe Coalition Victory is in contrast to other haymakers?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I find it strange when people argue that Sorin Markov creates an undesirable game state, while also arguing that the high starting life totals in the format make aggro "basically useless" (not at all true except in the most competitive and combo-rific of metagames, but whatever). What Sorin actually does is reset the life total of one player - perhaps the combo player? - within easy range of a kill. Seems to me that people complaining about the life totals would consider that a good thing, since it would allow combat-oriented decks to be a bit more competitive.
I'm just going to assume you're talking about me. "Making aggro basically useless" was a direct quote from one of my posts, which you apparently took to mean something other than I intended. I wasn't complaining about the starting life total, I was merely stating the consequences of the format rules. When you start at 40 life, aggro decks face an absurd uphill battle. That's just a fact.
Sorin Markov is problematic for a few reasons. First, getting set to 10 means you'll probably be dead before you untap for your turn. If the Sorin player doesn't kill you outright on the same turn, others will finish you off because you're an easy target. Second, and more importantly in my opinion, is that it only kills one player. There's nothing fun about getting killed very early on and then having to sit there for an hour or so while the remaining 3 players play an interesting game. It's even worse when it's arbitrary. We've all seen the person who rolls the dice to decide who to attack. Le sigh. And finally, Sorin is a planeswalker. He is extremely flashy and he makes newer or casual players want to play him because he's a cool card. But those players are also the ones least likely to understand how problematic he is gameplay-wise.
Instead, Coalition Victory, Worldfire and the like are left on the list as obvious examples of the most anticlimactic possible "I win" nonsense, in hopes people will get that wins of that type are considered cheap and unmemorable, and build accordingly.
That's all well and good, but despite the RC's efforts to encourage houserules, a steady playgroup is something that many players don't have the luxury of. For those players, the banlist is gospel. When you sit down with new people you know what cards are legal and which aren't. So when the RC lists some cards but not similar ones, it sends the implicit message that the ones not listed are kosher.
You believe Coalition Victory is a miserable card, but since the Rules Committee has already chosen to allow the aforementioned cards in Commander, it only makes sense to you that Coalition Victory also be unbanned to keep the banned list consistent.
Correct, although I want to point out that my thinking it's an unfun card is unrelated to my opinion that it should be banned/unbanned. Merely that CV is comparable to a large swath of unbanned cards, thus it should also be unbanned.
I'm also assuming you believe that Coalition Victory can't be banned because, in order for the Rules Committee to stay consistent, that would also mean having to ban Insurrection et al, and there are too many cards of that nature for that to be a realistic option, so you can't take the stance that all crazy haymakers be banned.
Correct. Again, I'm not actually making any sort of judgement call on whether they should be banned or not. Just because I don't enjoy them doesn't mean they need to be banned.
If I understand you correctly and everything I've said thus far accurately represents what you believe, what I don't understand is why you would believe something like Game Two? would deserve being banned. Is it only because I costed the card at 2W instead of something like 4WW, or 8UUUU, or 3WUBRG? Is the only source of our disagreement just how severe Coalition Victory is in contrast to other haymakers?
Apparently. Judging from how WotC costs cards, anything at ~8+ should probably be winning the game anyways, in fact if not in text. So that's the obvious break point. So a 5WUBRG spell that just said "Win the game no questions asked" would probably be fine. And 3WUBRG with the creature+land requirement is also fine.
Well, severity is going to mean something anyway. I mean Time Vault is banned, but Time Vault land needing 3+ cards for the combo makes it ok. I'm sure a new limited resources that capped lands at some larger number like, say, 25 might not get banned either. What about a new Braids that's a 7 mana 6/6 flying dragon? The existance of cards that are functionally identical except for mana cost still gets power 9 banned. Fastbond is banned but Asusa is ok as a commander. Karakas is banned but Tsabo Tavoc and Hero's Demise are ok even though they interact much differently in Commander. Library isn't ok but Scroll of Origins is ok at 2 mana with a better effect. That's like a third of the banned list where there are cards that do the same thing but cost more. Obviously, the fact that Coalition Victory is really bad compared to other combos seems like it should play into it.
Also, Coalition Victory can't create an undesirable game state since either does nothing or creates no game state at all since the game is over. Most cards including the infamous Craw Wurm create game states where the game ends.
If I understand you correctly and everything I've said thus far accurately represents what you believe, what I don't understand is why you would believe something like Game Two? would deserve being banned. Is it only because I costed the card at 2W instead of something like 4WW, or 8UUUU, or 3WUBRG? Is the only source of our disagreement just how severe Coalition Victory is in contrast to other haymakers?
Apparently. Judging from how WotC costs cards, anything at ~8+ should probably be winning the game anyways, in fact if not in text. So that's the obvious break point. So a 5WUBRG spell that just said "Win the game no questions asked" would probably be fine. And 3WUBRG with the creature+land requirement is also fine.
If that's the case, why not adopt my stance on the card?
I think you recognize that Coalition Victory isn't a card that's promoting positive games of Commander, especially for the target audience, the players who are much less enfranchised than we are. It's possible to still keep Coalition Victory out of peoples' hands while still maintaining a consistent banned list though. All that's necessary is to acknowledge that Coalition Victory is a more extreme card than a lot of its comparatives and much of that stems from the fact that Coalition Victory can't be used in ways that create positive game play.
Maybe the meta where you come from looks a lot different from mine and that's why you feel so strongly about the similarity between popular haymakers and Coalition Victory, but from where I play Commander, I see cards like Insurrection, Rise of the Dark Realms, and Tooth and Nail cast all the time without any issue. I wouldn't even describe them as having a negative effect on the game. They're often extremely powerful, but they aren't always used in a capacity to instantly end the game. They typically just promote the kinds of games that the community largely believes Commander should be about. We could debate a bit about which cards we believe stand out as exceptions that aren't banned, but if you evaluate Coalition Victory to be much more dire than its brethren, you really can have your cake and eat it too here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
All that's necessary is to acknowledge that Coalition Victory is a more extreme card than a lot of its comparatives and much of that stems from the fact that Coalition Victory can't be used in ways that create positive game play.
That's a plus in my book, not a negative. The fact that it either wins or does nothing means it's much less likely to be unknowingly abused by a casual/new player. I think a lot of people are forgetting how newer players see the game; Channel isn't the problem, it was the Fireball that killed them. CV, on the other hand, does exactly what it says on the tin, and that makes it easy to identify if these kinds of cards are a problem when talking with players about what kind of games you want to play. They'll lose to it and go "man that was super unfun" or "oh nice one lets go again" but either way everyone will know.
So, in 2 days, there are zero stories about anyone ever seeing Coalition Victory, Worldfire, or Sway of the Stars actually being played? I think that's a big blow to the usefulness of their bans. Now, here, we don't really ban stuff and there have been a couple discussions about Worldfire and Sway over the last 8 years, but they haven't actually made it into any decks for basically the reasons I've mentioned over the course of serveral threads. I actually have a feeling that the overall feelbads in the format would go down unbanning all 3 and banning some actually played card like Winter Orb or Armageddon. I don't think they need to be banned. I just don't see the point in banning stuff that will pretty much never actually see play. I'm sure Biorhythm can go on the list of wouldn't be played anyway, as well. I haven't even ever seen one in person and never heard about it other than discussions to unban it. I'm sure they were probably only banned because of casual leagues where people ran them to try and find the best win condition you couldn't write a league rule against without effectively banning a large swath of cards. That seems like something that could be accomplished with a houserule ban considering they'd probably never even be played outside of super casual leagues with a bunch of rules to try and police fun sucking. Of course, the 2 shops I've seen it tried, ended up with unweildly banned lists anyway trying to reign in the win at all costs players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTG Rules Advisor
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Enter the Infinite can be played fairly... You play Possessed Portal and a no-maximum hand size effect off of Enter the Infinite and sit there with an amazing hand, maybe with solid counter spells, or interesting utility...
Because it's the only card that does only that in the entire game, which is why it's banned. It, plus the ease with which it's requirements are assembled, completely render the game that happened before useless, and all it requires is that one single card. It is unique in that aspect.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
You are assuming people
-are sheep
-always play the same path patterns
-always seek insta-victory
-will 100% put CV in their 5C deck.
-have 5C decks. It's a freaking WUBRG spell!
Yet you fail to see that people
-are unique
-have different playgroups/playstyles
-have a different philosophy on EDH
-do not always play 5C. Do you know how rare that is?
Interacts badly with EDH? I'll say fast mana, tutors interact badly with the supposed EDH philosophy. Wake and up try to be objective man...
Lastly it's a net positive that there's one less card in the banned list. What's there not to like? I seem to recall many people complaining about the size of the list. Care to do some reflection on how to reduce that?
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
EDIT: I do find it slightly funny that one of the users arguing for it's unbanning already plays with their own group ban list as opposed to the current one.
I'm not following. Are you implying that said individual isn't qualified to argue for Coalition Victory's unbanning because of this, or are you trying to express something else?
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Yes and no. His views on it do matter to some degree since he does have experience but because we don't know the full extent of his group's ban list and meta which is clearly different than the majority of players.
I've stepped back because it feels like we're talking in circles, but I'd just like to point out that the main argument against the card is that "building a deck to play Coalition Victory" is quite literally "playing a 5c deck". That is the major distinction the "keep it banned" side has been trying to emphasize which sets the cards apart from every other mentioned card in this thread.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Well as long as the ban list has been tracking changes it has been banned and there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to remove it. For a card to go on or come off the list the Rules Committee has demonstrated and said that there needs to be some compelling reason to do so, and as of yet I have not seen any good reason. Sure, "a smaller ban list" and "other cards can be played as essentially one card combos", as well as other arguments brought forth in this thread are all valid reasons, but no one has actually given a reason why it being legal would add something positive to the format. And if you're going to remove a card from the ban list that was at one point deemed bad enough to ban, there should be a benefit to the format as well. (I know someone will probably bring up Worldgorger Dragon or Lion's Eye Diamond getting unbanned which have next to zero benefit to the format, but those also don't continue to break one of the format philosophy criteria.)
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Statements like this are why it is difficult to have a discussion with you because it gives the impression you are arguing from your own negative opinions on the RC rather than with objectivity. CV fails in both the interacts poorly and the creates undesirable game states categories. And no amount of self regulation can change that if the card was legal.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Simply repeating the criteria doesn't do anything to convince me otherwise. CV interacts exactly as poorly with the format as literally other any general-centric combo. CV creates exactly the same undesirable game states as any other combo/haymaker finish... except CV is actually better because nobody does it on accident. It's literally impossible to put CV into your deck thinking it does anything other than win the game. Which is a far cry from the actually problematic cards that look flashy and cool, but secretly exist only to prevent a single player from actually playing the game, like Iona, Shield of Emeria or Sorin Markov. Now those create undesirable game states.
Let's set Coalition Victory aside for a second.
I agree with you that a number of cards in Commnder are capable of creating undesirable game states, and I also agree with you that the "interacts poorly in Commander" argument doesn't hold much weight. Do you agree that some cards are more severe than others? Like, do you believe that some cards are worse than others in terms of how negatively they affect a game? If so, to what severity do you believe a card would need to be in order to qualify as being ban-worthy? For example...
Game Two? 2W
Sorcery
You win the game.
Do you believe something like this would be ban-worthy? I understand that Wizards would never print such a card, but hypothetically, what do you think?
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
It was also said, above, Which isn't really true either. A lot of the haymaker cards people complain about are manageable if people build decks that have some built-in resilience. I've seen pillow-fort players laugh at attempts to take them out with Insurrection - "Sure, you can attack me with everything, if you can come up with 13 mana per attacking creature to do it!" - while other players have quashed such attempts with a lowly Fog. Ironically, those sorts of defenses don't tend to come up in combo-oriented metagames, because nobody is worried about combat losses anyhow, and the life totals become meaningless. Pillow forts don't accomplish much if people regularly assemble "I win" combos or win via storm before turn 7.
The real problem with a lot of the arguments being made here is that they are being made from a place of viewing the format in a different manner than it was intended to be played. Mike/Trike, infinite mana combos and such don't really lend themselves to memorable, social games. This is true of most combo wins, in fact. Palinchron stunts lead to lots of wins, but none of them are memorable, because we've all seen them before. Same with storm wins and all that. The fact that they're reliable and effective also makes them predictable and boring. The RC doesn't heavily regulate combo because people who are intent on winning via the same predictable combos or linear avenues of play, or who would argue that something like CV is on par with some other lame combo, don't really "get" the intent of the format in the first place, so there's no real point in trying to regulate against their shenanigans. Ban one combo piece and those sorts of players will find some other way to break a format that is by admission easy to break if that is your intent. If Doomsday, Ad Nauesum and Palinchron were banned, they'd just keep looking for the latest lame combo one might assemble from the format's huge card pool - Leovold + Teferi's Puzzle Box, perhaps? - and trying to keep up with that would lead to a cumbersome banned list. Instead, Coalition Victory, Worldfire and the like are left on the list as obvious examples of the most anticlimactic possible "I win" nonsense, in hopes people will get that wins of that type are considered cheap and unmemorable, and build accordingly.
Thanks for responding. Honestly, I wasn't expecting you to answer that the way you did. I'm really having a hard time trying to reconcile everything you've said in order to understand your stance here.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my interpretation of your stance is that you believe Coalition Victory is no different than a slew of other cards like Insurrection, Palinchron, Tooth and Nail, and Felidar Sovereign. You believe Coalition Victory is a miserable card, but since the Rules Committee has already chosen to allow the aforementioned cards in Commander, it only makes sense to you that Coalition Victory also be unbanned to keep the banned list consistent. I'm also assuming you believe that Coalition Victory can't be banned because, in order for the Rules Committee to stay consistent, that would also mean having to ban Insurrection et al, and there are too many cards of that nature for that to be a realistic option, so you can't take the stance that all crazy haymakers be banned.
If I understand you correctly and everything I've said thus far accurately represents what you believe, what I don't understand is why you would believe something like Game Two? would deserve being banned. Is it only because I costed the card at 2W instead of something like 4WW, or 8UUUU, or 3WUBRG? Is the only source of our disagreement just how severe Coalition Victory is in contrast to other haymakers?
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Sorin Markov is problematic for a few reasons. First, getting set to 10 means you'll probably be dead before you untap for your turn. If the Sorin player doesn't kill you outright on the same turn, others will finish you off because you're an easy target. Second, and more importantly in my opinion, is that it only kills one player. There's nothing fun about getting killed very early on and then having to sit there for an hour or so while the remaining 3 players play an interesting game. It's even worse when it's arbitrary. We've all seen the person who rolls the dice to decide who to attack. Le sigh. And finally, Sorin is a planeswalker. He is extremely flashy and he makes newer or casual players want to play him because he's a cool card. But those players are also the ones least likely to understand how problematic he is gameplay-wise. That's all well and good, but despite the RC's efforts to encourage houserules, a steady playgroup is something that many players don't have the luxury of. For those players, the banlist is gospel. When you sit down with new people you know what cards are legal and which aren't. So when the RC lists some cards but not similar ones, it sends the implicit message that the ones not listed are kosher. Correct
Correct, although I want to point out that my thinking it's an unfun card is unrelated to my opinion that it should be banned/unbanned. Merely that CV is comparable to a large swath of unbanned cards, thus it should also be unbanned. Correct. Again, I'm not actually making any sort of judgement call on whether they should be banned or not. Just because I don't enjoy them doesn't mean they need to be banned.
Apparently. Judging from how WotC costs cards, anything at ~8+ should probably be winning the game anyways, in fact if not in text. So that's the obvious break point. So a 5WUBRG spell that just said "Win the game no questions asked" would probably be fine. And 3WUBRG with the creature+land requirement is also fine.
Also, Coalition Victory can't create an undesirable game state since either does nothing or creates no game state at all since the game is over. Most cards including the infamous Craw Wurm create game states where the game ends.
If that's the case, why not adopt my stance on the card?
I think you recognize that Coalition Victory isn't a card that's promoting positive games of Commander, especially for the target audience, the players who are much less enfranchised than we are. It's possible to still keep Coalition Victory out of peoples' hands while still maintaining a consistent banned list though. All that's necessary is to acknowledge that Coalition Victory is a more extreme card than a lot of its comparatives and much of that stems from the fact that Coalition Victory can't be used in ways that create positive game play.
Maybe the meta where you come from looks a lot different from mine and that's why you feel so strongly about the similarity between popular haymakers and Coalition Victory, but from where I play Commander, I see cards like Insurrection, Rise of the Dark Realms, and Tooth and Nail cast all the time without any issue. I wouldn't even describe them as having a negative effect on the game. They're often extremely powerful, but they aren't always used in a capacity to instantly end the game. They typically just promote the kinds of games that the community largely believes Commander should be about. We could debate a bit about which cards we believe stand out as exceptions that aren't banned, but if you evaluate Coalition Victory to be much more dire than its brethren, you really can have your cake and eat it too here.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!