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'm just going to say this is false.
Ive used this analogy before, and it didn't work, but it's because people don't want to understand.
Coalition Victory Points of Failure- Counterd, Removal of Creature, Removal of a land(s). All of this must be accomplished at instant speed.
Lab Man- Counter the lab man, counter the draw spell, remove lab man, you need to have exhausted 99 cards from your library(but hey, Coalition Victory needs 8 lands!) usually is part of another combo, or is dedicated combo like Hermit Druid, which requires specific deck set-up, not just lands and a commander.
Insurrection and Rise of the Dark Realms- Just way to many things to list. I've never lost to those cards for 2 reasons. They never resolve, or they never provide enough impact to end the game. Potential is there, but no, these are not the same at all.
Here's one very important fact about Coalition Victory. It could be the only spell in the deck and still work as designed. That is not true of anything else mentioned.
Yes, exactly. When spells like Insurrection and Enter the Infinite resolve, there's still a game going on. Even if winning is all but assured, the player still has to move to a different phase or put other spells or effects on the stack. Speaking in strictly game-mechanical terms, Coalition Victory has one of two resolution states: nothing happens, or you win.
You could also pull off the Maze's End win with Scapeshift as the only spell in the deck with Deserted Temple. Yeah, you can split hairs and come up with technicalities that Coalition Victory is the only card that fulfils all of them, but only a very small percentage of cards have an exact functional reprint. It's still not going to really harm the format anyway.
You could also pull off the Maze's End win with Scapeshift as the only spell in the deck with Deserted Temple. Yeah, you can split hairs and come up with technicalities that Coalition Victory is the only card that fulfils all of them, but only a very small percentage of cards have an exact functional reprint. It's still not going to really harm the format anyway.
Scapeshift + Mazes End still doesn't win on the spot, like CV does...
You're looking at this the wrong way.
If you unban an "instant win" card, you are setting a dangerous precedent. The primary reason it is banned is because it invalidates the game played prior to it's casting. This gives cards like Worldfire and the like traction for removal.
To use Sheldons own words, it wouldn't be be "healthy".
Edit: And just to clarify the "invalidates the game played prior to its casting", as this gets dissected quite a bit, and then cards like the above Innsurrection and RotDR get thrown around. The primary difference is that latter are directly linked to the game played prior. They are resource dependent. Resources that are accumulated turn after turn. They are designed to take advantage of certain situations, those being a crowded battlefield or a pet cemetery. This does not apply to CV, not at all.
Seriously? Scapeshift + Maze's End does win the game exactly like Coalition Victory as long as you have any way to untap it. They both literally read "win the game." Of course, I also think Worldfire, Sway, and Biorhythm should be unbanned. Banning the most inefficient instant wins you possibly could isn't exactly helpful. That could easily just say if you're going to play instant wins, maybe you should play better ones.
Seriously? Scapeshift + Maze's End does win the game exactly like Coalition Victory as long as you have any way to untap it. They both literally read "win the game." Of course, I also think Worldfire, Sway, and Biorhythm should be unbanned. Banning the most inefficient instant wins you possibly could isn't exactly helpful. That could easily just say if you're going to play instant wins, maybe you should play better ones.
"...and Pay an additional 3." Fixed.
My Toyota is just like a Lamborghini, if I just swap the engine increase the aero dynamics and put in leather seats. Come on man, you're obviously an intelligent fellow, how you can't see the glaring difference is baffling.
My Toyota is just like a Lamborghini, if I just swap the engine increase the aero dynamics and put in leather seats. Come on man, you're obviously an intelligent fellow, how you can't see the glaring difference is baffling.
When everyone else is riding bicycles, the differences between a Toyota and a Lambo are fairly irrelevant.
My Toyota is just like a Lamborghini, if I just swap the engine increase the aero dynamics and put in leather seats. Come on man, you're obviously an intelligent fellow, how you can't see the glaring difference is baffling.
When everyone else is riding bicycles, the differences between a Toyota and a Lambo are fairly irrelevant.
Hard to see what this adds to the current conversation, but, hey, not every point can be logical I guess.
I guess that there are those who prefer to ride their bicycles and not be blown off the road by anything but another bicycle, which, you know, is probably the vast majority of the EDH community.
My Toyota is just like a Lamborghini, if I just swap the engine increase the aero dynamics and put in leather seats. Come on man, you're obviously an intelligent fellow, how you can't see the glaring difference is baffling.
When everyone else is riding bicycles, the differences between a Toyota and a Lambo are fairly irrelevant.
Hard to see what this adds to the current conversation, but, hey, not every point can be logical I guess.
I guess that there are those who prefer to ride their bicycles and not be blown off the road by anything but another bicycle, which, you know, is probably the vast majority of the EDH community.
And yet, look at allthesecarsthatarestilllegal. Don't worry though, the Lambo is banned. Everything is all hunky dory!
My Toyota is just like a Lamborghini, if I just swap the engine increase the aero dynamics and put in leather seats. Come on man, you're obviously an intelligent fellow, how you can't see the glaring difference is baffling.
When everyone else is riding bicycles, the differences between a Toyota and a Lambo are fairly irrelevant.
Hard to see what this adds to the current conversation, but, hey, not every point can be logical I guess.
I guess that there are those who prefer to ride their bicycles and not be blown off the road by anything but another bicycle, which, you know, is probably the vast majority of the EDH community.
And yet, look at allthesecarsthatarestilllegal. Don't worry though, the Lambo is banned. Everything is all hunky dory!
And, yet again, not one of those cards have "You win the Game" printed anywhere on the cardboard they are made of.(Except Felidar Soverign, which honestly is much less of a problem than, say, Serra Ascendant, and most certainly not in the same class as the other cards you have listed).
If you can't see the difference between CV and what you are trying to liken it too, then I don't know what to tell you.
Since this is how the game seems to work, specifically when replying to you, your problem is that you aren't running Platinum Angel. There, Problem.Solved. Remove the Ban list because Platinum Angel exists, and every deck has access to it.
I'm not a moderator, but I would like to say that a meaningful discussion isn't going to happen if individuals won't allow themselves to be understood by one another. Lots of users here have very good reasons for believing what they do. The conclusions we reach might be different, but the steps we took to get to them were sound. To understand why others believe what they do, ask more questions, and don't use language that makes one believe they aren't being listened to or respected.
On topic: I've got a pretty big post in the works. Expect it probably before the end of tomorrow.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I'm not a moderator, but I would like to say that a meaningful discussion isn't going to happen if individuals won't allow themselves to be understood by one another. Lots of users here have very good reasons for believing what they do. The conclusions we reach might be different, but the steps we took to get to them were sound. To understand why others believe what they do, ask more questions, and don't use language that makes one believe they aren't being listened to or respected.
On topic: I've got a pretty big post in the works. Expect it probably before the end of tomorrow.
I'm having a hard time beleieveing there can be anything else discussed on the matter, honestly.
This isn't T&N/Protean Hulk. This is "If you are running a 5-C deck, you can play this to win the game regardless of what has happened prior." It could be Beebles-Tribal for crying out loud. It doesn't hinder deck design. It doesn't drive card choices. You could be at 1 life, 9 poison and draw this as your last card in your deck, cast, win. Now, that's pretty epic, except it will be heavily outweighed by the amount of times this will just ruin the games where the caster had no business winning.
Seriously? Scapeshift + Maze's End does win the game exactly like Coalition Victory as long as you have any way to untap it. They both literally read "win the game." Of course, I also think Worldfire, Sway, and Biorhythm should be unbanned. Banning the most inefficient instant wins you possibly could isn't exactly helpful. That could easily just say if you're going to play instant wins, maybe you should play better ones.
"...and Pay an additional 3." Fixed.
My Toyota is just like a Lamborghini, if I just swap the engine increase the aero dynamics and put in leather seats. Come on man, you're obviously an intelligent fellow, how you can't see the glaring difference is baffling.
I think you missed the part where you need 11 lands to do it. The chances you don't already control gates is very low. You only have to sacrifice the non gate, non maze lands and you can give up the one's used to cast scapeshift in a lot of cases So the 3 mana isn't a real issue. Its a silly technicality that isn't worth mentioning unless you're just trying to nitpick a tiny irrelevant difference and blow it up into a meaningful distinction. I mean sure it's possible you can't activate it and play scapeshift in a turn but it's highly improbable when you control enough lands to hardcast darksteel colossus.
When T&N resolves, what wins the game? It wasn't T&N, was it... Feel free to replace T&N with anything from Doomsday to Enter the infinite. Answer is, and always will be, the same.
Seriously? Scapeshift + Maze's End does win the game exactly like Coalition Victory as long as you have any way to untap it. They both literally read "win the game." Of course, I also think Worldfire, Sway, and Biorhythm should be unbanned. Banning the most inefficient instant wins you possibly could isn't exactly helpful. That could easily just say if you're going to play instant wins, maybe you should play better ones.
"...and Pay an additional 3." Fixed.
My Toyota is just like a Lamborghini, if I just swap the engine increase the aero dynamics and put in leather seats. Come on man, you're obviously an intelligent fellow, how you can't see the glaring difference is baffling.
I think you missed the part where you need 11 lands to do it. The chances you don't already control gates is very low. You only have to sacrifice the non gate, non maze lands and you can give up the one's used to cast scapeshift in a lot of cases So the 3 mana isn't a real issue. Its a silly technicality that isn't worth mentioning unless you're just trying to nitpick a tiny irrelevant difference and blow it up into a meaningful distinction. I mean sure it's possible you can't activate it and play scapeshift in a turn but it's highly improbable when you control enough lands to hardcast darksteel colossus.
You can't say "it's the same", and then clearly point out how it is not the same, and then say, in its defense, it's a silly technicality. That "Silly technicality" is the difference between winning then and winning the next turn/upkeep/endstep.
Is that seriously still the hang up here? Because it literally says "win the game" on it, instead of figuratively, it's not okay?
It is if it also fulfills the following other criteria:
A - It wins on the spot unless it's win condition gets removed/countered immediately.
B - It wins without the aid of other spells that need to be cast directly.
C - It wins by simply being played during the game following normal gameplay - eg dropping lands and playing your commander.
Imagine, if you will, a green sorcery. Let's price it at, oh, 10 mana. Seems like a fair price to me. For the sake of completeness, let's say it costs 8GG. And it reads "If you control creatures with a total power of 20 or more, you win the game."
I can safely say that this will be banned, even though similar cards do exist (Mayael's Aria, Epic Struggle) simply because it can be dropped at any given time in any given green deck that simply follows it's gameplan without the need of any forethought. Each and every of the other cards require multiple moving pieces, usually specific cards in a deck. You can say "But tutors", but even those aren't guaranteed. A card that simply auto-wins you the game for playing the game as your deck is designed to do, without needing to dedicate any other cards to it, is not healthy.
And this is why Coalition Victory is not a good card to unban. It rewards any 5cc deck for simply keeping it's general on the field a turn. Oh but you're in all colours ever so you can also find plenty of ways to flash in your general. This leads to every 5 color deck (Aside from Tazri, before someone goes to nitpick again) to simply have an unparraleled iWin button in their deck. Even if they don't build with CVictory in mind, it will always win them the game if they need it, and guess what? They too have all the tutors ever. So if a game goes into a stalemate, they don't need to fish up a combo. Just CVictory and job's done. Every other combo just has a lot more interaction options.
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.
When T&N resolves, what wins the game? It wasn't T&N, was it... Feel free to replace T&N with anything from Doomsday to Enter the infinite. Answer is, and always will be, the same.
This was what I was trying to say earlier. Other "you win the game" combos have moving parts. Either putting other things on the stack, going to different steps or phases, or both. Coalition Victory requires nothing but a static game state.
Who will be putting coalition victory in their deck that wouldn't also use tooth and nail to tutor up a win?
I imagine the overlap there is about 100%
Keeping coalition victory banned just hurts players who want it to make their decks stronger. I can see no reason it hurts casual players unless they have zero social awareness or game knowledge, in which case they will run into lots of deck balance problems anyways with "that sweet combo I read about"
When T&N resolves, what wins the game? It wasn't T&N, was it... Feel free to replace T&N with anything from Doomsday to Enter the infinite. Answer is, and always will be, the same.
Okay, I'll admit I was being a bit of an ass earlier when I sarcastically said "I don't follow," but now I am legitimately flabbergasted. T&N isn't a problem because it's not literally what kills you? Is that the point you're getting at?
This leads to every 5 color deck (Aside from Tazri, before someone goes to nitpick again) to simply have an unparraleled iWin button in their deck. Even if they don't build with CVictory in mind, it will always win them the game if they need it, and guess what? They too have all the tutors ever. So if a game goes into a stalemate, they don't need to fish up a combo. Just CVictory and job's done. Every other combo just has a lot more interaction options.
You make it sound like CV is literally the only way decks have to win aside from turning Craw Wurms sideways. In no way, shape, or form is CV an "unparraleled iWin [sic] button". It's a moderately powerful haymaker that is going to do actual nothing a significant amount of the time, placing it far, far down the list of combos people will use to actually win games.
When T&N resolves, what wins the game? It wasn't T&N, was it... Feel free to replace T&N with anything from Doomsday to Enter the infinite. Answer is, and always will be, the same.
This was what I was trying to say earlier. Other "you win the game" combos have moving parts. Either putting other things on the stack, going to different steps or phases, or both. Coalition Victory requires nothing but a static game state.
That's a rediculously silly distinction. The fact that it literally wins the game the exact instant it resolves instead of after one more spell resolves or you go to your end phase means nothing unless we're talking absurd corner cases. Sure, it's possible someone has to cast both Biovisionary and Rite of Replication during your combat phase and either loses 2+ during combat or to sorcery speed removal during your main phase, but that's just silly and I doubt has ever actually happened. Otherwise, anything you could do before then you could do it at the same time you'd respond to Coalition Victory. I mean if that's your distinction, Biovisionary is better than Coalition Victory since you can use it as a vanilla 2/3 if you can't win with it. You can use Maze's End to ramp with budget duals even if you can't reasonably win with it as well. It's super slow but it's a bit stronger than Journyer's Kite
You make it sound like CV is literally the only way decks have to win aside from turning Craw Wurms sideways. In no way, shape, or form is CV an "unparraleled iWin [sic] button". It's a moderately powerful haymaker that is going to do actual nothing a significant amount of the time, placing it far, far down the list of combos people will use to actually win games.
A Coalition Victory is NOT a haymaker. It's a KO or a total miss, no distinction. There is, again, literally not one single card that mimics this. 5color has more routes to victory sure but if the game drags on a bit longer, tutor into CVictory will be the best play a LOT of times.
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.
When T&N resolves, what wins the game? It wasn't T&N, was it... Feel free to replace T&N with anything from Doomsday to Enter the infinite. Answer is, and always will be, the same.
Okay, I'll admit I was being a bit of an ass earlier when I sarcastically said "I don't follow," but now I am legitimately flabbergasted. T&N isn't a problem because it's not literally what kills you? Is that the point you're getting at?
This leads to every 5 color deck (Aside from Tazri, before someone goes to nitpick again) to simply have an unparraleled iWin button in their deck. Even if they don't build with CVictory in mind, it will always win them the game if they need it, and guess what? They too have all the tutors ever. So if a game goes into a stalemate, they don't need to fish up a combo. Just CVictory and job's done. Every other combo just has a lot more interaction options.
You make it sound like CV is literally the only way decks have to win aside from turning Craw Wurms sideways. In no way, shape, or form is CV an "unparraleled iWin [sic] button". It's a moderately powerful haymaker that is going to do actual nothing a significant amount of the time, placing it far, far down the list of combos people will use to actually win games.
Now you're being deliberately obtuse.
You want to liken T&N combos winning to CV, right?
Ok, I cast T&N, grab Mike and Trike. Did T&N end the game, or did Mike and Trike win the game? The answer would be the same if I hard cast Mike and Trike, no?
Yet Coalition victory on resolution, The only thing it accomplishes is ending the game. No other game actions take place. You drop your hands, gather up your board, and reshuffle. Its over. Reset life to 40.
You make it sound like CV is literally the only way decks have to win aside from turning Craw Wurms sideways. In no way, shape, or form is CV an "unparraleled iWin [sic] button". It's a moderately powerful haymaker that is going to do actual nothing a significant amount of the time, placing it far, far down the list of combos people will use to actually win games.
A Coalition Victory is NOT a haymaker. It's a KO or a total miss, no distinction. There is, again, literally not one single card that mimics this. 5color has more routes to victory sure but if the game drags on a bit longer, tutor into CVictory will be the best play a LOT of times.
This isn't a problem. Casual players won't play it in the same way they won't play armageddon, and competitive players don't care if a card wins the game.
So to sum up : With CV banned the ban list is perceived by some as inconsistent and if it were unbanned the rules/ban list would improve somehow and on the other hand unbanning it really adds nothing that can't be accomplished by other means or more to the game and in fact seems to go against the stated intent of the RC's philosophy.
You make it sound like CV is literally the only way decks have to win aside from turning Craw Wurms sideways. In no way, shape, or form is CV an "unparraleled iWin [sic] button". It's a moderately powerful haymaker that is going to do actual nothing a significant amount of the time, placing it far, far down the list of combos people will use to actually win games.
A Coalition Victory is NOT a haymaker. It's a KO or a total miss, no distinction. There is, again, literally not one single card that mimics this. 5color has more routes to victory sure but if the game drags on a bit longer, tutor into CVictory will be the best play a LOT of times.
This isn't a problem. Casual players won't play it in the same way they won't play armageddon, and competitive players don't care if a card wins the game.
So to sum up : With CV banned the ban list is perceived by some as inconsistent and if it were unbanned the rules/ban list would improve somehow and on the other hand unbanning it really adds nothing that can't be accomplished by other means or more to the game and in fact seems to go against the stated intent of the RC's philosophy.
You make it sound like CV is literally the only way decks have to win aside from turning Craw Wurms sideways. In no way, shape, or form is CV an "unparraleled iWin [sic] button". It's a moderately powerful haymaker that is going to do actual nothing a significant amount of the time, placing it far, far down the list of combos people will use to actually win games.
A Coalition Victory is NOT a haymaker. It's a KO or a total miss, no distinction. There is, again, literally not one single card that mimics this. 5color has more routes to victory sure but if the game drags on a bit longer, tutor into CVictory will be the best play a LOT of times.
This isn't a problem. Casual players won't play it in the same way they won't play armageddon, and competitive players don't care if a card wins the game.
Then why care if it remains banned or not?
Because it restricts deckbuilding to have it banned.
I would strongly prefer no ban list to the present list.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm just going to say this is false.
Ive used this analogy before, and it didn't work, but it's because people don't want to understand.
Coalition Victory Points of Failure- Counterd, Removal of Creature, Removal of a land(s). All of this must be accomplished at instant speed.
Lab Man- Counter the lab man, counter the draw spell, remove lab man, you need to have exhausted 99 cards from your library(but hey, Coalition Victory needs 8 lands!) usually is part of another combo, or is dedicated combo like Hermit Druid, which requires specific deck set-up, not just lands and a commander.
Insurrection and Rise of the Dark Realms- Just way to many things to list. I've never lost to those cards for 2 reasons. They never resolve, or they never provide enough impact to end the game. Potential is there, but no, these are not the same at all.
Here's one very important fact about Coalition Victory. It could be the only spell in the deck and still work as designed. That is not true of anything else mentioned.
Scapeshift + Mazes End still doesn't win on the spot, like CV does...
You're looking at this the wrong way.
If you unban an "instant win" card, you are setting a dangerous precedent. The primary reason it is banned is because it invalidates the game played prior to it's casting. This gives cards like Worldfire and the like traction for removal.
To use Sheldons own words, it wouldn't be be "healthy".
Edit: And just to clarify the "invalidates the game played prior to its casting", as this gets dissected quite a bit, and then cards like the above Innsurrection and RotDR get thrown around. The primary difference is that latter are directly linked to the game played prior. They are resource dependent. Resources that are accumulated turn after turn. They are designed to take advantage of certain situations, those being a crowded battlefield or a pet cemetery. This does not apply to CV, not at all.
"...and Pay an additional 3." Fixed.
My Toyota is just like a Lamborghini, if I just swap the engine increase the aero dynamics and put in leather seats. Come on man, you're obviously an intelligent fellow, how you can't see the glaring difference is baffling.
Hard to see what this adds to the current conversation, but, hey, not every point can be logical I guess.
I guess that there are those who prefer to ride their bicycles and not be blown off the road by anything but another bicycle, which, you know, is probably the vast majority of the EDH community.
And, yet again, not one of those cards have "You win the Game" printed anywhere on the cardboard they are made of.(Except Felidar Soverign, which honestly is much less of a problem than, say, Serra Ascendant, and most certainly not in the same class as the other cards you have listed).
Mortal Combat is missing from your list. Test of Endurance is missing from your list. Mayaels Aria is missing.
If you can't see the difference between CV and what you are trying to liken it too, then I don't know what to tell you.
Since this is how the game seems to work, specifically when replying to you, your problem is that you aren't running Platinum Angel. There, Problem.Solved. Remove the Ban list because Platinum Angel exists, and every deck has access to it.
On topic: I've got a pretty big post in the works. Expect it probably before the end of tomorrow.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I'm having a hard time beleieveing there can be anything else discussed on the matter, honestly.
This isn't T&N/Protean Hulk. This is "If you are running a 5-C deck, you can play this to win the game regardless of what has happened prior." It could be Beebles-Tribal for crying out loud. It doesn't hinder deck design. It doesn't drive card choices. You could be at 1 life, 9 poison and draw this as your last card in your deck, cast, win. Now, that's pretty epic, except it will be heavily outweighed by the amount of times this will just ruin the games where the caster had no business winning.
Take a step back. Look at what you are typing.
When Coalition Victory resolves, what won the game? CV, no?
When T&N resolves, what wins the game? It wasn't T&N, was it... Feel free to replace T&N with anything from Doomsday to Enter the infinite. Answer is, and always will be, the same.
So, it doesn't win the same way Coalition Victory does...
You can't say "it's the same", and then clearly point out how it is not the same, and then say, in its defense, it's a silly technicality. That "Silly technicality" is the difference between winning then and winning the next turn/upkeep/endstep.
It is if it also fulfills the following other criteria:
A - It wins on the spot unless it's win condition gets removed/countered immediately.
B - It wins without the aid of other spells that need to be cast directly.
C - It wins by simply being played during the game following normal gameplay - eg dropping lands and playing your commander.
Imagine, if you will, a green sorcery. Let's price it at, oh, 10 mana. Seems like a fair price to me. For the sake of completeness, let's say it costs 8GG. And it reads "If you control creatures with a total power of 20 or more, you win the game."
I can safely say that this will be banned, even though similar cards do exist (Mayael's Aria, Epic Struggle) simply because it can be dropped at any given time in any given green deck that simply follows it's gameplan without the need of any forethought. Each and every of the other cards require multiple moving pieces, usually specific cards in a deck. You can say "But tutors", but even those aren't guaranteed. A card that simply auto-wins you the game for playing the game as your deck is designed to do, without needing to dedicate any other cards to it, is not healthy.
And this is why Coalition Victory is not a good card to unban. It rewards any 5cc deck for simply keeping it's general on the field a turn. Oh but you're in all colours ever so you can also find plenty of ways to flash in your general. This leads to every 5 color deck (Aside from Tazri, before someone goes to nitpick again) to simply have an unparraleled iWin button in their deck. Even if they don't build with CVictory in mind, it will always win them the game if they need it, and guess what? They too have all the tutors ever. So if a game goes into a stalemate, they don't need to fish up a combo. Just CVictory and job's done. Every other combo just has a lot more interaction options.
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.
This was what I was trying to say earlier. Other "you win the game" combos have moving parts. Either putting other things on the stack, going to different steps or phases, or both. Coalition Victory requires nothing but a static game state.
I imagine the overlap there is about 100%
Keeping coalition victory banned just hurts players who want it to make their decks stronger. I can see no reason it hurts casual players unless they have zero social awareness or game knowledge, in which case they will run into lots of deck balance problems anyways with "that sweet combo I read about"
You make it sound like CV is literally the only way decks have to win aside from turning Craw Wurms sideways. In no way, shape, or form is CV an "unparraleled iWin [sic] button". It's a moderately powerful haymaker that is going to do actual nothing a significant amount of the time, placing it far, far down the list of combos people will use to actually win games.
A Coalition Victory is NOT a haymaker. It's a KO or a total miss, no distinction. There is, again, literally not one single card that mimics this. 5color has more routes to victory sure but if the game drags on a bit longer, tutor into CVictory will be the best play a LOT of times.
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.
Now you're being deliberately obtuse.
You want to liken T&N combos winning to CV, right?
Ok, I cast T&N, grab Mike and Trike. Did T&N end the game, or did Mike and Trike win the game? The answer would be the same if I hard cast Mike and Trike, no?
What if I grab Arbor Elf and Leatherback Baloth? Didn't win the game, did it?
Yet Coalition victory on resolution, The only thing it accomplishes is ending the game. No other game actions take place. You drop your hands, gather up your board, and reshuffle. Its over. Reset life to 40.
This isn't a problem. Casual players won't play it in the same way they won't play armageddon, and competitive players don't care if a card wins the game.
Then why care if it remains banned or not?
Because it restricts deckbuilding to have it banned.
I would strongly prefer no ban list to the present list.