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.
There's a player at my LGS who is absolutely in love with it. I don't know if he has a favorite card in Magic, but if I had to guess, it would be Worldfire. He is utterly obsessed with it. The banned list is literally the only thing keeping him from jamming it into every single one of his decks. I'm completely seriously. He's even told us before that he doesn't even care that it's banned; he's going to put it into some of his decks anyway despite the fact that everyone has repeated told him not to do so and that they despise the card. He still doesn't care; he's going to do it anyway, and while I've never actually caught him in the act, it wouldn't surprise me if someone else at my LGS has had a Worldfire sprung up on them by now.
Let me say this: there are players out there who absolutely do not give a damn about whether or not you like the cards in their deck. As long as the card is legal, they believe it's fair for them to include it into their deck no matter how much you disagree. The banned list is the one and only thing keeping these kinds of players in check. And he isn't a bad guy either! I'm not about to begin boycotting games against him because he has this one immensely irritating fascination with Worldfire. That's just petty, and the idea that playgroups can self regulate their players only holds true to a certain extent. Players might discuss about how they feel about Worldfire or Coalition Victory once a game is over with, but as long as its owner enjoys the card, that's it. They're the only person capable of making changes to their deck. If nobody else likes it, tough nuts.
Also, **** Worldfire. Like, seriously. If I had to create my own Commander banned list from scratch, Worldfire would probably be THE first card on the list, if not the top three.
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.
There's a player at my LGS who is absolutely in love with it. I don't know if he has a favorite card in Magic, but if I had to guess, it would be Worldfire. He is utterly obsessed with it. The banned list is literally the only thing keeping him from jamming it into every single one of his decks. I'm completely seriously. He's even told us before that he doesn't even care that it's banned; he's going to put it into some of his decks anyway despite the fact that everyone has repeated told him not to do so and that they despise the card. He still doesn't care; he's going to do it anyway, and while I've never actually caught him in the act, it wouldn't surprise me if someone else at my LGS has had a Worldfire sprung up on them by now.
Let me say this: there are players out there who absolutely do not give a damn about whether or not you like the cards in their deck. As long as the card is legal, they believe it's fair for them to include it into their deck no matter how much you disagree. The banned list is the one and only thing keeping these kinds of players in check. And he isn't a bad guy either! I'm not about to begin boycotting games against him because he has this one immensely irritating fascination with Worldfire. That's just petty, and the idea that playgroups can self regulate their players only holds true to a certain extent. Players might discuss about how they feel about Worldfire or Coalition Victory once a game is over with, but as long as its owner enjoys the card, that's it. They're the only person capable of making changes to their deck. If nobody else likes it, tough nuts.
Also, **** Worldfire. Like, seriously. If I had to create my own Commander banned list from scratch, Worldfire would probably be THE first card on the list, if not the top three.
But the ban list doesn't keep players in check. Some of the strongest most degenerate unfun strategies are fully legal. Commander resembles vintage when players are truly building to win.
I guess it might keep a subset of people who both have zero social awareness AND are obsessed with a one or more specific cards on the banlist, but I highly doubt that's a substantial number of players.
Ok, it does sound like there's one guy out there that would really annoy a group of people with the card. That still doesn't sound like it helps the banned case, though, by itself because there's hundreds of annoying cards and probably at least one person out there obsessed with any of them. Of course, if you went through my decks, you'd think Crush of Wurms was a format staple because I love the card. I play it and Army of the Damned constantly. I'm actually a lot more annoyed with Winter Orb, Eye of the Storm, or Storm Cauldron than I would be about unbanned Sway, Worldfire, or Victory. It isn't reasonable to ban every annoying card, though, or even find a consensus on what they are, though.
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.
We track the ban list changes back to the beginning of 2008, and neither Sway nor CV are on it. So they've both been banned for at least a decade, if not longer. Are you surprised that there aren't many stories about them being played?
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.
I played against Worldfire before its ban. It was essentially an Obliterate with a quick creature follow-up for what would have been game, had the game not been stolen back by a different player. Not that big a deal, actually. Sway of the Stars seems like less of a big deal, even. Coalition Victory is just a random win condition for a 5-color deck. Yes, it's not the hardest to pull-off, but it's not really easy by any stretch of the imagination.
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.
We track the ban list changes back to the beginning of 2008, and neither Sway nor CV are on it. So they've both been banned for at least a decade, if not longer. Are you surprised that there aren't many stories about them being played?
I didn't really expect many (or possibly any) just like I don't expect any of those cards would see much play if unbanned. I mean their only 2 points are to be a dick or basically instant win and there are much lower mana ways to do either. So, do you honestly think they'll be played much at all?
I didn't really expect many (or possibly any) just like I don't expect any of those cards would see much play if unbanned. I mean their only 2 points are to be a dick or basically instant win and there are much lower mana ways to do either. So, do you honestly think they'll be played much at all?
I wouldn't expect Sway to get played, but I fully expect that both Wildfire and CV would be played. They are efficient game ending cards which only require one slot in a deck. (Efficient in the sense that the win they get is effortless)
Looking at the commanders that could actually even pull Worldfire/Victory stunts reasonably, I didn't see any serious red commanders at 3 or less and I think the only one that even has any way to find Worldfire is Adun. If you can't figure out that something's up when someone never casts Zurgo or Ashling early, maybe the problem is with the players being bad. The same kind of applies to the 5 color dudes. Most of them are tribal commanders and if they aren't in a tribal deck and being cast because they have great synergy with their tribe, something is probably up. Unless your commander is Chromat, Progenitus, or Child, it should be easy to spot and Progenitus basically has to one shot people anyway to actually be playable. It should also be pretty easy to hate out people playing Worldfire/Victory as well since they cost so much mana. The more I look at it, the more it's slipping away from competitive mindset to these are one card combos that are on the cutting edge of jank. I'd assume most people that try it out would probably end up cutting them on their own either because they're terrible, too much hate, or to play better combos that don't require you to play terrible commanders. You don't even need social pressure for cards that bad. It's perfectly easy to apply some in game pressure to them especially since they seem to telegraph themselves in practice. I mean Worldfire is the same mana cost and way worse at winning the game than Omnisience since Omni goes off with any large mass of draw/tutors and is in a color that can play control. It even has Enter the Infinite that was probably custom built for it so you can go through your deck faster and you can play it with good commanders. There also isn't even any misconception about what your doing like when I tried out Great Aurora as a wrath since Victory and Worldfire are pretty straightforward about what you intend to do with them. Even if they and Sway can technically hit some banned list criteria, I don't see them actually causing many problems in practice other than that Worldfire guy. Way back when Victory and Sway were banned, there wasn't really much coverage of the format at all, nevermind trying to break it wide open with something like the Hermit Druid deck or a list stuffed with nothing but tutors and 2 card combos. Back then, they were actually trying to reign in the tide of combo before people realized you could build a whole deck of nothing but combo.
Looking at the commanders that could actually even pull Worldfire/Victory stunts reasonably, I didn't see any serious red commanders at 3 or less and I think the only one that even has any way to find Worldfire is Adun. If you can't figure out that something's up when someone never casts Zurgo or Ashling early, maybe the problem is with the players being bad. The same kind of applies to the 5 color dudes. Most of them are tribal commanders and if they aren't in a tribal deck and being cast because they have great synergy with their tribe, something is probably up. Unless your commander is Chromat, Progenitus, or Child, it should be easy to spot and Progenitus basically has to one shot people anyway to actually be playable. It should also be pretty easy to hate out people playing Worldfire/Victory as well since they cost so much mana. The more I look at it, the more it's slipping away from competitive mindset to these are one card combos that are on the cutting edge of jank. I'd assume most people that try it out would probably end up cutting them on their own either because they're terrible, too much hate, or to play better combos that don't require you to play terrible commanders. You don't even need social pressure for cards that bad. It's perfectly easy to apply some in game pressure to them especially since they seem to telegraph themselves in practice. I mean Worldfire is the same mana cost and way worse at winning the game than Omnisience since Omni goes off with any large mass of draw/tutors and is in a color that can play control. It even has Enter the Infinite that was probably custom built for it so you can go through your deck faster and you can play it with good commanders. There also isn't even any misconception about what your doing like when I tried out Great Aurora as a wrath since Victory and Worldfire are pretty straightforward about what you intend to do with them. Even if they and Sway can technically hit some banned list criteria, I don't see them actually causing many problems in practice other than that Worldfire guy. Way back when Victory and Sway were banned, there wasn't really much coverage of the format at all, nevermind trying to break it wide open with something like the Hermit Druid deck or a list stuffed with nothing but tutors and 2 card combos. Back then, they were actually trying to reign in the tide of combo before people realized you could build a whole deck of nothing but combo.
Worldfire just takes someone floating a lot of mana to cast their commander after resolution. If it emptied the caster's mana pool on resolution, I personally doubt the card would be banned. It isn't about just mono-R decks, and honestly it's inclusion would make BR and UR a lot more competitive.
Coalition Victory can be a very fair way for someone to win. Quite honestly, I would love to have it in a General Tazri deck because it would truly be an achievement to accomplish. I understand the issue of it sitting in a Reaper King deck and just winning by having him in play and some lands, but to think that CV would 'suddenly' cause people to laser focus on 5-color decks and hate them off the table doesn't jive with me, considering how you don't hear about everyone always killing the decks that could contain other notorious game winning cards...
Would anyone's opinion about coalition victory change if it was errata'ed to the basic land and requirement that gold creatures don't count for the condition?
In other words, dual lands don't work for the land condition.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
I think that's stretching the definition of competitive. Anything over maybe 12 or 13 mana you probably aren't reaching even in super casual metas outside of mana doublers or building a deck that doesn't really do anything but ramp. You'd probably have to play something that lets you cast it for free. Even my Progenitus deck that's a huge percentage green ramp rarely goes higher than that. Sure, if you stick Mana Reflection/Mirari's Wake and it makes it around, you might be able to cast Progenitus and Victory in a single turn, but they're nuke on sight cards anyway.
Would anyone's opinion about coalition victory change if it was errata'ed to the basic land and requirement that gold creatures don't count for the condition?
In other words, dual lands don't work for the land condition.
Possibly. I mean, there's a point at which the conditions become so difficult that, despite Coalition Victory's design flaws, it no longer really becomes a problem. Would that errata bring about those circumstances? I'm not sure. The biggest issue with Coalition Victory isn't the fact that it's easy to do (although that's a problem too), it's the fact that it's a sorcery. Someone either casts it and wins the game or doesn't because someone blew up one of their creatures in response. Now, if Coalition Victory were an enchantment that checked for victory conditions on upkeep like Test of Endurance, then everything would be peachy; no errata necessary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
The thing about that logic, that CV is banned because it's a Sorcery that says "Win the game", is that there are plenty of other cards legal in the format that, implicitly, deliver the same sort of ultimatum of "Respond to my spell with Instant-speed interaction or lose". Tooth and Nail, Enter the Infinite, Rise of the Dark Realms, etc. And those don't require any sort of prior board presence.
It seems as though CV is doomed to languish on the banlist due to committee inertia, much like certain cards on other banlists (Legacy, I'm lookin' at you and Earthcraft/Survival).
The thing about that logic, that CV is banned because it's a Sorcery that says "Win the game", is that there are plenty of other cards legal in the format that, implicitly, deliver the same sort of ultimatum of "Respond to my spell with Instant-speed interaction or lose". Tooth and Nail, Enter the Infinite, Rise of the Dark Realms, etc. And those don't require any sort of prior board presence.
You're right about that, but Coalition Victory isn't banned for one reason alone. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm just kind of repeating myself at this point. Here are the reasons I previously identified as to why Coalition Victory is uniquely problematic:
As I mentioned previously, I believe Coalition Victory is unique in that it is one of the only Magic cards which satisfies each of the following criteria:
Being a sorcery falls into category 1, being difficult to interact with. I think you could make a good argument for Enter the Infinite also meeting each of those criteria, but not Tooth and Nail or Rise of the Dark Realms.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
The thing about that logic, that CV is banned because it's a Sorcery that says "Win the game", is that there are plenty of other cards legal in the format that, implicitly, deliver the same sort of ultimatum of "Respond to my spell with Instant-speed interaction or lose". Tooth and Nail, Enter the Infinite, Rise of the Dark Realms, etc. And those don't require any sort of prior board presence.
You're right about that, but Coalition Victory isn't banned for one reason alone. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm just kind of repeating myself at this point. Here are the reasons I previously identified as to why Coalition Victory is uniquely problematic:
As I mentioned previously, I believe Coalition Victory is unique in that it is one of the only Magic cards which satisfies each of the following criteria:
Being a sorcery falls into category 1, being difficult to interact with. I think you could make a good argument for Enter the Infinite also meeting each of those criteria, but not Tooth and Nail or Rise of the Dark Realms.
If tooth and nail can have fair use, then coalition victory can have fair use.
"I only have basic lands, no land search, and mono colored creatures in my deck"
If tooth and nail can have fair use, then coalition victory can have fair use.
"I only have basic lands, no land search, and mono colored creatures in my deck"
Fair use is more about the way players actually use cards in practice than the literal interpretation of "is it possible to use this without concern?" Take a Haakon, Stromgald Scourge deck with 98 Swamps and a Yawgmoth's Bargain for example. Is Yawgmoth's Bargain "fair" in that deck? Sure. It isn't going to cause any problems in a deck like that, but players aren't going to play with Yawgmoth's Bargain that way. Coalition Victory is just like that. Sure, players could build their decks in such a way that Coalition Victory actually became an impressive feat to win with, but players aren't going to play the card in the way you describe, especially since the inclusion of Coalition Victory in one's deck mandates a five color creature in the command zone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
If tooth and nail can have fair use, then coalition victory can have fair use.
"I only have basic lands, no land search, and mono colored creatures in my deck"
Fair use is more about the way players actually use cards in practice than the literal interpretation of "is it possible to use this without concern?" Take a Haakon, Stromgald Scourge deck with 98 Swamps and a Yawgmoth's Bargain for example. Is Yawgmoth's Bargain "fair" in that deck? Sure. It isn't going to cause any problems in a deck like that, but players aren't going to play with Yawgmoth's Bargain that way. Coalition Victory is just like that. Sure, players could build their decks in such a way that Coalition Victory actually became an impressive feat to win with, but players aren't going to play the card in the way you describe, especially since the inclusion of Coalition Victory in one's deck mandates a five color creature in the command zone.
If we move on to "players aren't going to use card X that way", then tooth and nail 100% meets all criteria to be banned, and the banlist is inconsistent. I never see tooth and nail used for anything other than ending, at minimum, one player.
Tooth and Nail, Enter the Infinite, Rise of the Dark Realms, etc. And those don't require any sort of prior board presence.
Rise of the Dark Realms (& Insurrection) are dependent on the entirety of the game up to the point they are cast. While you should be in a dominant position after casting one of them, they rarely win the game outright, and are usually much easier to interact with.
Neither function differently in Commander than they would any other multiplayer game.
Enter the Infinite is far more difficult to cast, and requires the deck to be built in such a way as to allow a game-ending followup. Because of those additional pieces involved (or full turn cycle, if lacking them), it is considerably easier to interact with most of the time.
Tooth and Nail is a card I, and many others, frequently argue for banning, in large part because it does (effectively) end the game on resolution, largely regardless of the game state. The only reason it is not banned, to the best of my understanding, is the key difference between it and Coalition Victory - it can be played in a manner that does not simply end the game.
It also does not change functionality in Commander, relative to other formats.
It seems as though CV is doomed to languish on the banlist due to committee inertia, much like certain cards on other banlists (Legacy, I'm lookin' at you and Earthcraft/Survival).
I disagree with the ban of Survival of the Fittest in Legacy - always have. But it has nothing to do with 'inerta'.
If we move on to "players aren't going to use card X that way", then tooth and nail 100% meets all criteria to be banned, and the banlist is inconsistent. I never see tooth and nail used for anything other than ending, at minimum, one player.
If that's your experience, I can totally see why you believe that. In my meta, Tooth and Nail is never anything more than two haymakers. It's incredibly powerful, but never game ending where I play cards.
And again people are ignoring the fact that Coalition Victory is the only card that always ends the game on the spot unless its get countered, which is something no other card can claim a 100% rate to. Even Tooth and Nail isn't always iWin because some people build their decks to be high value without instant iWin buttons (Such as yours truly) leaving T&N to still be a very high-powered play, but not an instant win. Coalition Victory is literally nothing but an iWin button. All the other cards named here have either a need for further setup, the deck being built in a special way or can be interacted with in more ways.
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.
And again people are ignoring the fact that Coalition Victory is the only card that always ends the game on the spot unless its get countered, which is something no other card can claim a 100% rate to. Even Tooth and Nail isn't always iWin because some people build their decks to be high value without instant iWin buttons (Such as yours truly) leaving T&N to still be a very high-powered play, but not an instant win. Coalition Victory is literally nothing but an iWin button. All the other cards named here have either a need for further setup, the deck being built in a special way or can be interacted with in more ways.
Lou, the reason why the opposition is ignoring this fact is because they don't perceive Coalition Victory as being any different than other haymakers already legal in the format. They think it's just as bad, not worse. To them, instantly winning the game in text is no different than instantly winning the game in application. They also, for reasons I don't understand, seem to not care that Coalition Victory has no fair application where cards like Tooth and Nail do. They understand that banning all haymakers is unreasonable though, so they've taken a stance that all haymakers (and they believe Coalition Victory is one) should be legal.
You want me to honestly believe its fine to have a "I win " card on the banlist but ignore the dozen others that are free to be used? Like how about a Hive Mind into a Pact of the Titan, if my opponent's cannot produce red mana, they lose.
The thing about that logic, that CV is banned because it's a Sorcery that says "Win the game", is that there are plenty of other cards legal in the format that, implicitly, deliver the same sort of ultimatum of "Respond to my spell with Instant-speed interaction or lose". Tooth and Nail, Enter the Infinite, Rise of the Dark Realms, etc. And those don't require any sort of prior board presence.
People say Tooth and Nail can be use in fair ways... I mean get a grip guys. You're choosing to belittle your mates, or playing around with them when you're using it "fairly". If you choose to play it fairly, why not omit it altogether?
But if an obnoxious card like T&N is gonna run rampant, I don't see why CV shouldn't. Anyways, whenever people play insta-win cards like these, the rest can always ignore the fella and continue their game. It's social education. Only playgroups who wanna combo will use this anyway. They're looking for quickies, probably coz they can't last.
Enter the infinite is a good comparison card I think, when was the last time someone ran enter the infinite to be fair? Is it even possible? Coalition victory is the same way.
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.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I think Laboratory Maniac, Biovisionary, and Maze's End fulfill pretty much the same as Coalition Victory. They literally have win the game written on them and end it that turn. I mean all Maze's End needs is 11 lands, Scapeshift, and anything that can untap the Maze. Biovisionary just needs Rite of Replication. I mean really? A vanilla 2/2 or a 2/3 counts as fair use? All of those win conditions win the game instantly short of instant spot removal, so I really don't see how it's any different especially since 2/3 are pretty much totally useless in commander with all the 2/2 and 2/3 for 3 with abilities that exist.
Lou, the reason why the opposition is ignoring this fact is because they don't perceive Coalition Victory as being any different than other haymakers already legal in the format. They think it's just as bad, not worse. To them, instantly winning the game in text is no different than instantly winning the game in application. They also, for reasons I don't understand, seem to not care that Coalition Victory has no fair application where cards like Tooth and Nail do. They understand that banning all haymakers is unreasonable though, so they've taken a stance that all haymakers (and they believe Coalition Victory is one) should be legal.
You're missing one other viewpoint, which is my own and a couple others too: That having it's presence on the banlist is unnecessary based on how the format has scaled over time due to card prints. Laboratory Maniac, the commonly mentioned card, wasn't printed when CV was placed on the list. Same for Enter the Infinite, Biovisionary, and Rise of the Dark Realms. I find it hard to say any of these 4 cards I mentioned have practical fair uses when players include them - they are employed to win games and let us not belittle ourselves to argue against that.
However, I agree that pulling CV off the banlist does not add anything back to the format, but keeping it on the list also doesn't protect the format from the quick 'I win' cards that already effectively exist. If the goal is for a minimal banlist (which is my goal), then the inclusion of CV on the current list can also be seen as an old practice and not a necessary one anymore. A good similar example is why Worldgorger Dragon was removed from the banlist - it was old and unnecessary and adding it back to the format didn't truly add anything but an infinite combo generator, which usually wins games when they are employed...
I still object to adding cards like Rise of the Dark Realms, Insurrection and the likes to the comparison to Coalition Victory, simply because those cards need a lot more setup, and never guarantee a win. You play them as a wincon, yes, but they often enough get fired off to either eliminiate one player or as a way to reestablish after a boardwipe. That alone gives them different applications from Coalition Victory.
Likewise, Laboratory Maniac, Enter the Infinite and Biovisionary each require specific cards to work with. Biovisionary requires Rite of Replication (Haven't ever seen it be done in another way) and if you want to win on the spot with him you need 12 mana. With more vulnerable pieces to boot. Laboratory Maniac doesn't win the game on the spot either, if you drop him you still need to draw up your deck right away or mill yourself and then draw a card. As for Enter the Infinite...have you ever seen that card get cast without Omniscience and then pull out a win? I know I have only once, which was behind a Leyline of Anticipation and drew into a combo at end of turn. So in each of those cases, you can't say that it wins the game in the same way Coalition Victory does - not with that level of ease, at least. What does Coalition Victory require? Your commander, 8 mana with 5 basic lands represented among your lands...and that's it. That's not exactly hard to get to in a normal game.
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.
I still object to adding cards like Rise of the Dark Realms, Insurrection and the likes to the comparison to Coalition Victory, simply because those cards need a lot more setup, and never guarantee a win. You play them as a wincon, yes, but they often enough get fired off to either eliminiate one player or as a way to reestablish after a boardwipe. That alone gives them different applications from Coalition Victory.
Likewise, Laboratory Maniac, Enter the Infinite and Biovisionary each require specific cards to work with. Biovisionary requires Rite of Replication (Haven't ever seen it be done in another way) and if you want to win on the spot with him you need 12 mana. With more vulnerable pieces to boot. Laboratory Maniac doesn't win the game on the spot either, if you drop him you still need to draw up your deck right away or mill yourself and then draw a card. As for Enter the Infinite...have you ever seen that card get cast without Omniscience and then pull out a win? I know I have only once, which was behind a Leyline of Anticipation and drew into a combo at end of turn. So in each of those cases, you can't say that it wins the game in the same way Coalition Victory does - not with that level of ease, at least. What does Coalition Victory require? Your commander, 8 mana with 5 basic lands represented among your lands...and that's it. That's not exactly hard to get to in a normal game.
I disagree with framing the argument in terms of the ease of execution of the other named cards - especially in a format where tutors are common, so getting an exact card into hand to employ a combo is not a real 'challenge'. The point I am making is those cards require setup, just like CV does, and are a common source for a games ending. Additionally, my other point was a card was unbanned that brought no real 'value' back to the format but was considered to be a 'boogeyman' back in the original days of EDH, which is where I consider CV to also be. Power-creep has made this card a lot less terrible for the format IMO.
The reality is none of the cards mentioned, including CV, are guaranteed a win. Removal, GY hate, counter spells are all methods employed to stop these combos.
I've got a story about Worldfire.
There's a player at my LGS who is absolutely in love with it. I don't know if he has a favorite card in Magic, but if I had to guess, it would be Worldfire. He is utterly obsessed with it. The banned list is literally the only thing keeping him from jamming it into every single one of his decks. I'm completely seriously. He's even told us before that he doesn't even care that it's banned; he's going to put it into some of his decks anyway despite the fact that everyone has repeated told him not to do so and that they despise the card. He still doesn't care; he's going to do it anyway, and while I've never actually caught him in the act, it wouldn't surprise me if someone else at my LGS has had a Worldfire sprung up on them by now.
Let me say this: there are players out there who absolutely do not give a damn about whether or not you like the cards in their deck. As long as the card is legal, they believe it's fair for them to include it into their deck no matter how much you disagree. The banned list is the one and only thing keeping these kinds of players in check. And he isn't a bad guy either! I'm not about to begin boycotting games against him because he has this one immensely irritating fascination with Worldfire. That's just petty, and the idea that playgroups can self regulate their players only holds true to a certain extent. Players might discuss about how they feel about Worldfire or Coalition Victory once a game is over with, but as long as its owner enjoys the card, that's it. They're the only person capable of making changes to their deck. If nobody else likes it, tough nuts.
Also, **** Worldfire. Like, seriously. If I had to create my own Commander banned list from scratch, Worldfire would probably be THE first card on the list, if not the top three.
EDIT: After some contemplation, I'd probably put Karakas, Channel, and Limited Resources above it, but Worldfire isn't far behind.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
But the ban list doesn't keep players in check. Some of the strongest most degenerate unfun strategies are fully legal. Commander resembles vintage when players are truly building to win.
I guess it might keep a subset of people who both have zero social awareness AND are obsessed with a one or more specific cards on the banlist, but I highly doubt that's a substantial number of players.
We track the ban list changes back to the beginning of 2008, and neither Sway nor CV are on it. So they've both been banned for at least a decade, if not longer. Are you surprised that there aren't many stories about them being played?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I played against Worldfire before its ban. It was essentially an Obliterate with a quick creature follow-up for what would have been game, had the game not been stolen back by a different player. Not that big a deal, actually. Sway of the Stars seems like less of a big deal, even. Coalition Victory is just a random win condition for a 5-color deck. Yes, it's not the hardest to pull-off, but it's not really easy by any stretch of the imagination.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Coalition Victory can be a very fair way for someone to win. Quite honestly, I would love to have it in a General Tazri deck because it would truly be an achievement to accomplish. I understand the issue of it sitting in a Reaper King deck and just winning by having him in play and some lands, but to think that CV would 'suddenly' cause people to laser focus on 5-color decks and hate them off the table doesn't jive with me, considering how you don't hear about everyone always killing the decks that could contain other notorious game winning cards...
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
In other words, dual lands don't work for the land condition.
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
Possibly. I mean, there's a point at which the conditions become so difficult that, despite Coalition Victory's design flaws, it no longer really becomes a problem. Would that errata bring about those circumstances? I'm not sure. The biggest issue with Coalition Victory isn't the fact that it's easy to do (although that's a problem too), it's the fact that it's a sorcery. Someone either casts it and wins the game or doesn't because someone blew up one of their creatures in response. Now, if Coalition Victory were an enchantment that checked for victory conditions on upkeep like Test of Endurance, then everything would be peachy; no errata necessary.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
It seems as though CV is doomed to languish on the banlist due to committee inertia, much like certain cards on other banlists (Legacy, I'm lookin' at you and Earthcraft/Survival).
You're right about that, but Coalition Victory isn't banned for one reason alone. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm just kind of repeating myself at this point. Here are the reasons I previously identified as to why Coalition Victory is uniquely problematic:
Being a sorcery falls into category 1, being difficult to interact with. I think you could make a good argument for Enter the Infinite also meeting each of those criteria, but not Tooth and Nail or Rise of the Dark Realms.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
If tooth and nail can have fair use, then coalition victory can have fair use.
"I only have basic lands, no land search, and mono colored creatures in my deck"
Fair use is more about the way players actually use cards in practice than the literal interpretation of "is it possible to use this without concern?" Take a Haakon, Stromgald Scourge deck with 98 Swamps and a Yawgmoth's Bargain for example. Is Yawgmoth's Bargain "fair" in that deck? Sure. It isn't going to cause any problems in a deck like that, but players aren't going to play with Yawgmoth's Bargain that way. Coalition Victory is just like that. Sure, players could build their decks in such a way that Coalition Victory actually became an impressive feat to win with, but players aren't going to play the card in the way you describe, especially since the inclusion of Coalition Victory in one's deck mandates a five color creature in the command zone.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
If we move on to "players aren't going to use card X that way", then tooth and nail 100% meets all criteria to be banned, and the banlist is inconsistent. I never see tooth and nail used for anything other than ending, at minimum, one player.
And tazri is a mono colored 5 color general.
Rise of the Dark Realms (& Insurrection) are dependent on the entirety of the game up to the point they are cast. While you should be in a dominant position after casting one of them, they rarely win the game outright, and are usually much easier to interact with.
Neither function differently in Commander than they would any other multiplayer game.
Enter the Infinite is far more difficult to cast, and requires the deck to be built in such a way as to allow a game-ending followup. Because of those additional pieces involved (or full turn cycle, if lacking them), it is considerably easier to interact with most of the time.
Tooth and Nail is a card I, and many others, frequently argue for banning, in large part because it does (effectively) end the game on resolution, largely regardless of the game state. The only reason it is not banned, to the best of my understanding, is the key difference between it and Coalition Victory - it can be played in a manner that does not simply end the game.
It also does not change functionality in Commander, relative to other formats.
I disagree with the ban of Survival of the Fittest in Legacy - always have. But it has nothing to do with 'inerta'.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
If that's your experience, I can totally see why you believe that. In my meta, Tooth and Nail is never anything more than two haymakers. It's incredibly powerful, but never game ending where I play cards.
Touche.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
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.
Lou, the reason why the opposition is ignoring this fact is because they don't perceive Coalition Victory as being any different than other haymakers already legal in the format. They think it's just as bad, not worse. To them, instantly winning the game in text is no different than instantly winning the game in application. They also, for reasons I don't understand, seem to not care that Coalition Victory has no fair application where cards like Tooth and Nail do. They understand that banning all haymakers is unreasonable though, so they've taken a stance that all haymakers (and they believe Coalition Victory is one) should be legal.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
However, I agree that pulling CV off the banlist does not add anything back to the format, but keeping it on the list also doesn't protect the format from the quick 'I win' cards that already effectively exist. If the goal is for a minimal banlist (which is my goal), then the inclusion of CV on the current list can also be seen as an old practice and not a necessary one anymore. A good similar example is why Worldgorger Dragon was removed from the banlist - it was old and unnecessary and adding it back to the format didn't truly add anything but an infinite combo generator, which usually wins games when they are employed...
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
Likewise, Laboratory Maniac, Enter the Infinite and Biovisionary each require specific cards to work with. Biovisionary requires Rite of Replication (Haven't ever seen it be done in another way) and if you want to win on the spot with him you need 12 mana. With more vulnerable pieces to boot. Laboratory Maniac doesn't win the game on the spot either, if you drop him you still need to draw up your deck right away or mill yourself and then draw a card. As for Enter the Infinite...have you ever seen that card get cast without Omniscience and then pull out a win? I know I have only once, which was behind a Leyline of Anticipation and drew into a combo at end of turn. So in each of those cases, you can't say that it wins the game in the same way Coalition Victory does - not with that level of ease, at least. What does Coalition Victory require? Your commander, 8 mana with 5 basic lands represented among your lands...and that's it. That's not exactly hard to get to in a normal game.
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.
The reality is none of the cards mentioned, including CV, are guaranteed a win. Removal, GY hate, counter spells are all methods employed to stop these combos.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar