Because it restricts deckbuilding to have it banned.
No it doesn't. It restricts deckbuilding if it's legal, because there's no reason not to play Coalition Victory in a 5-colour deck.
There's lots of reason not to include it, for example you are looking for longer more interactive games instead of maximizing your win chance.
A long standing aspect of EDH is building decks to have fun with a table instead of just to win. When you are building that way, just don't include coalition victory.
But there are people who want to build decks to win, and they are unfairly restricted by having it on the ban list.
And if we start banning for power reasons, Coalition victory probably doesn't break the top 50 of cards that should be banned.
Because it restricts deckbuilding to have it banned.
No it doesn't. It restricts deckbuilding if it's legal, because there's no reason not to play Coalition Victory in a 5-colour deck.
There's lots of reason not to include it, for example you are looking for longer more interactive games instead of maximizing your win chance.
A long standing aspect of EDH is building decks to have fun with a table instead of just to win. When you are building that way, just don't include coalition victory.
But there are people who want to build decks to win, and they are unfairly restricted by having it on the ban list.
And if we start banning for power reasons, Coalition victory probably doesn't break the top 50 of cards that should be banned.
I understand where you are coming from(but still can't get over the fact that this is coming from the author of the "Avenger of Zendikar is bannable" SCD) but, the banlist is in place to protect individuals from the unknown.
Like I said earlier, CV can be slotted into Reaper King Beebles-Tribal. Fun premise, sure, until CV is cast. Its simple, CV ruins games. Its "If I cast this spell, I win", rather than "If I cast this, put these things into my hand/into play, then do X, Y, and Z, I win.", something Impossible can't seem to wrap his/her head around.
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.
Our argument differences really are more a perspective difference than anything - you list more options/ways to stop other cards and say that they require more cards to be a true 'I wins', which I agree is true, but functionally they all serve the same purpose of allowing someone to say 'I win'.
I think a better way to look at CV is this: Do you believe CV would cause an issue to the health of the format if it got unbanned? Would we suddenly see more 5-color decks played because of this one-card?
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 can be argued that the moving parts of CV is assembling the lands, getting the mana, and also getting the creature in play. It all depends on what you define as a 'static game state', which to me is not static if you're trying to assemble specific lands and getting a 5-color creature in play. I am not arguing the 'ease' of moving parts, but that there are some moving parts still.
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.
[.............]
Then why care if it remains banned or not?
As I stated in a previous post of mine, it's presence in the list is from the origin of the format and I haven't really seen anyone ever bring it up again until recently. No one commented on it, much to my disappointment, but a good parallel to a card that didn't add anything to the format was when Worldgorger Dragon was unbanned. We got an infinite combo added back to the format, but nothing else. As I stated in that post, adding an infinite combo to the format isn't the same as adding a 'I win' card, but the line between them is somewhat blurred because if you're trying to infinite, you're doing it to win.
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.
It will be the best play only if you intentionally avoided putting in any of the numerous better options. You seem to be really hung up on the high variance between winning or doing nothing. Like... what do you think about Helix Pinnacle? It does actual nothing until it wins you the game. How is that any different?
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?
I'm just going to quote myself from earlier in the thread:
Channel isn't the problem, it was the Fireball that killed them.
Like seriously, you understand why this line of reasoning is ridiculous, right? "Moxen are fine, they don't do anything by themselves." "Black Lotus? It doesn't even win the game." Etc. Just because it is not the thing literally killing you doesn't mean it didn't win you the game.
Like I said earlier, CV can be slotted into Reaper King Beebles-Tribal. Fun premise, sure, until CV is cast. Its simple, CV ruins games. Its "If I cast this spell, I win", rather than "If I cast this, put these things into my hand/into play, then do X, Y, and Z, I win.", something Impossible can't seem to wrap his/her head around.
Is "X, Y, and Z" a demonstration of a game-winning loop? Because that appears to be the only difference between a CV win and a T&N Mike&Trike win.
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.
It will be the best play only if you intentionally avoided putting in any of the numerous better options. You seem to be really hung up on the high variance between winning or doing nothing. Like... what do you think about Helix Pinnacle? It does actual nothing until it wins you the game. How is that any different?
Aside from the fact that it needs 101 mana, is a telegraphed play and needs to see your upkeep before it wins? See, that's the thing with a lot of the other instant wincons. They require a lot more work to be put into them. Someone slapping down a Helix Pinnacle will be kept in check throughout the game and likely kicked out of it before he can hit his 100 mana. If someone can pump in that 100 mana in one go, then wow, you sure you couldn't have won in an easier way? So yeah, it's vastly different.
To the argument that casuals won't add in the card: They will. Because it looks harder than it really is. Casuals are also often the ones who Tooth and Nail for MikeTrike, more enfranchised players either avoid those combos or they go for even stronger and faster kills, depending on the playgroup. But casuals seeing a card like Coalition Victory will play it, will get a few wins with it and in the process annoy several players at once.
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.
Aside from the fact that it needs 101 mana, is a telegraphed play and needs to see your upkeep before it wins? See, that's the thing with a lot of the other instant wincons. They require a lot more work to be put into them. Someone slapping down a Helix Pinnacle will be kept in check throughout the game and likely kicked out of it before he can hit his 100 mana. If someone can pump in that 100 mana in one go, then wow, you sure you couldn't have won in an easier way? So yeah, it's vastly different.
So the fact that Helix Pinnacle either wins or does nothing doesn't bother you?
Aside from the fact that it needs 101 mana, is a telegraphed play and needs to see your upkeep before it wins? See, that's the thing with a lot of the other instant wincons. They require a lot more work to be put into them. Someone slapping down a Helix Pinnacle will be kept in check throughout the game and likely kicked out of it before he can hit his 100 mana. If someone can pump in that 100 mana in one go, then wow, you sure you couldn't have won in an easier way? So yeah, it's vastly different.
So the fact that Helix Pinnacle either wins or does nothing doesn't bother you?
It doesn't "Win or do nothing" right on the spot. It's a thing you can pump mana in and is telegraphed. It can be cast and then sit on the battlefield for a while before eventually winning (thus doing something; that is mana getting pumped into it) which Coalition Victory cannot say.
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.
To the argument that casuals won't add in the card: They will. Because it looks harder than it really is. Casuals are also often the ones who Tooth and Nail for MikeTrike, more enfranchised players either avoid those combos or they go for even stronger and faster kills, depending on the playgroup. But casuals seeing a card like Coalition Victory will play it, will get a few wins with it and in the process annoy several players at once.
It doesn't "Win or do nothing" right on the spot. It's a thing you can pump mana in and is telegraphed. It can be cast and then sit on the battlefield for a while before eventually winning (thus doing something; that is mana getting pumped into it) which Coalition Victory cannot say.
And CV is telegraphed by the fact that you need 3WUBRG, 5 colors worth of creatures and 5 basic land types.
Wow am I glad I don't play with you. Someone explicitly tells you they don't run a certain combo but you still gang up of them anyways because they might be lying to you?
And CV is telegraphed by the fact that you need 3WUBRG, 5 colors worth of creatures and 5 basic land types.
Eh... I wouldn't really call this a telegraph because this kind of message requires players possess prior knowledge that Coalition Victory exists. Without knowing what Coalition Victory is, you can't play around it by preemptively destroying relevant lands or creatures. If the conditions are met, it just comes down from a hidden zone (the hand, usually) and ends the game. That isn't explicit, and the fact that five-color players always have the creature condition met by their Commander isn't helpful. Nor is it helpful that a five-color player making their land drops without incident is also progressing Coalition Victory's win condition. Playing one's lands and Commander is about the least suspicious thing one can do and that shouldn't really be construed by players as telegraphing anything.
Wow am I glad I don't play with you. Someone explicitly tells you they don't run a certain combo but you still gang up of them anyways because they might be lying to you?
Agreed. I think you're being a little unreal here Mercury.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I've been thinking both long and hard about this discussion, but it's been hard for me to keep up. A lot of the discussion has been a lot quicker, and while I would have been happy to chime in on several occasions, I wanted to post something a bit more comprehensive. Sadly, this is about the most I can muster right now.
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.
Forgive me if I'm still misinterpreting you, but isn't this just the exact same point the opposition is already making because I'm not seeing any difference here? You have not been as vocal as some of the other opponents. As I stated in the above quote, the opposition believes that Coalition Victory is no different than several popular haymakers already legal in the format, and that provides bearing for its unbanning. Yes, you alone pointed out that some of those cards were not in print at the time Coalition Victory was banned, but isn't the opposition still in agreeance that the existence of such cards is what constitutes Coalition Victory's removal from the banned list? Your observation that some of these haymakers had not been printed at the time of Coalition Victory's banning, while valuable to the discussion, is still moot in regards to you and other opponents being in agreeance. I'm not trying to cause any conflict here. I'm just looking for more clarification because my understanding of what you wrote has led me to believe that you do in fact share the same reason for wanting Coalition Victory unbanned as the other opponents. As such, your claim that I'm missing your viewpoint suggests that I'm either still misinterpreting you or something else.
Having addressed that, I would like to belittle myself by arguing that many cards that users are comparing Coalition Victory to do in fact have practical fair uses. I don't want to mince words here: I firmly believe that Rise of the Dark Realms and Insurrection specifically are two of the most fair cards in Commander and have almost no unfair uses whatsoever. I am in complete agreeance with LouCypher regarding these two cards. As comparisons, they are not anywhere in the same league as Coalition Victory, and any example using them as such is inadequate.
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.
Similarly, I also agree with Lou that cards like Laboratory Maniac, Biovisionary, and Tooth and Nail, while possessing unfair use, still possess plenty of practical fair use as well. Yes, it is true that such cards are employed to win games, but they differentiate themselves from Coalition Victory in the way Lou mentioned: they require specific cards to be used unfairly, and they are more vulnerable than Coalition Victory is. Now, I do feel like a case can be made for some cards like Enter the Infinite and Palinchron as not having any practical fair use, but for most of the cards opponents have compared Coalition Victory to, no. I do not feel those are adequate comparisons.
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.
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 disagree with the idea that Coalition Victory requires any kind of significant setup. Its "setup" is simply playing an ordinary game of Commander. Someone makes their land drops, uses fetchlands intelligently, and casts their Commander. Once they've hit eight mana, that's it. Coalition Victory imminent. Other combos in Commander may be easy to assemble, but Coalition Victory doesn't really require any assembling at all. Players are just naturally going to reach its conditions. I think that makes it worth differentiating from other combos.
I also disagree that Coalition Victory isn't a guaranteed win. Sure, in Magic, nothing is technically a guaranteed win. There will always be ways for players to interact with one another, but Coalition Victory is about as close to a guaranteed win as one can get. It doesn't care about combat. It doesn't care about players' life totals. It doesn't care about the number of cards in their deck, hand, or other zone. Coalition Victory just doesn't care about anything. It's a sorcery, so players either have an instant speed response that they can cast that solves the problem, or they're done. Short of Platinum Angel, there aren't even any static abilities that will interact with it. It obsoletes the entire game before it, and it only occurred because the five-color player did the things you would normally expect from them in a game of Commander.
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...
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.
As it stands, I think this is the best argument presented for taking Coalition Victory off of the banned list. Honestly, I don't really understand the Rules Committee's decision to unban Worldgorger, but here it is:
Quote from Sheldon, Jun 2011 Banned List Announcement »
We don't unban cards lightly, but it's time for Worldgorger Dragon to get out of the penalty box. It is no longer a particularly strong example of unwelcome, format-warping, combo-play style, but simply another infinite-combo piece. Those applications are narrow enough that it should not cause problems for social players, and the type of player who wants to play this kind of infinite combo isn't going to play a more fun deck because Worldgorger Dragon is available. Thus, since it's a goal to keep the list as short as possible and focused on more fun-oriented games, we believe it can come off the list.
To me, the strongest part of this message is the fact that Worldgorger is no longer a strong example of unwelcome play. Namely, I believe that Worldgorger may have just lost so much of its popularity since its initial banning that banning it was no longer a concern since virtually no one wants to play with it anymore and that space could be better spent elsewhere. That's about the only way I can understand this decision, since I don't see Worldgorger as something with almost any fair applications. I could probably buy an argument that Coalition Victory should be unbanned if it went the same way as the Dragon, a troublesome card no longer popular enough to cause any kind of damage.
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.
I didn't understand this response at first, so I took some time to let it soak in. It coincides with what MRHblue wrote on the first page:
Regarding Coalition Victory's status as a banned card, what do you believe should happen to it?
I think it should be like all other combo: Played in metas that go for that sort of thing, and hopefully I never see it. Same as the decks setup to win via Primal Surge or Ad Nauseaum.
If what Impossible is saying here is true, that Coalition Victory is in fact easy to identify as something fun-filling or fun-sucking, that leads me to question what opponents of Coalition Victory believe the entire point of a having a banned list is in the first place. To protect players from only inconspicuous threats like Primeval Titan and Prophet of Kruphix, cards that players are naturally attracted to and want to play with but also subtly create negative games of Commander? Because, in that sense, my feelings are totally in line with MRHblue. I'm perfectly okay with Coalition Victory being legal so long as I never have the misfortune of ever running into it. That really isn't any different than it just being banned though. Consenting adults can already play with cards like Coalition Victory if they want to. They don't need a banned list to tell them how to or how not to play Commander. They'll play it in whichever ways they please.
For me, the purpose of having a banned list is to protect players from being accidentally exposed to otherwise damaging cards in the format. Coalition Victoryisn't a healthy card to have running around, and the banned list is there to protect players like me, who have no desire to play against Coalition Victory in any way, shape, or form. There are very few cards I can genuinely say that about, but Coalition Victory is certainly one of them. And sure, the banned list has limitations. It can't protect players from every damaging card, but most cards can be (and are) played in ways that don't create poor games of Commander. It's the cards that aren't and won't be played in those ways that players need protection from, and Coalition Victory is one of those cards. The fact that Coalition Victory is an obviously unhealthy card as opposed to a subtle one should be moot. Making it legal would only invite players to use it against those who wouldn't consent to it.
Before wrapping up my previous post, I actually wanted to give others an in depth look at my own philosophy regarding why I believe Coalition Victory should remain banned. I tend to spend most of my efforts picking apart other peoples' philosophies, so I felt it would only be fair of me to offer up my own beliefs to scrutiny. It's much easier to stay aloof and to throw rocks at others than it is to get on the pedestal oneself. Also, mods, please forgive me for like... triple posting. I felt as though my previous post was getting large enough as is, and expanding it any further would make it unnecessarily difficult for anyone wanting to quote me.
Premise 1: Not every card in Magic is acceptable to play in Commander
Commander is a mod of Magic. As such, not every card in Magic was made for it. Throughout a great deal of Magic's history, card designers at Wizards never considered the consequences that their creations would have on the health of the Commander format. This is hardly blame worthy, as Commander had not yet been conceived as a format, let alone popularized. This era is where some of Commander's unacceptable cards come from, a time before Commander existed. Today, designers are much more cognizant of how their cards play in Commander. That doesn't mean Commander's well being is always put ahead of everything else though. Take the relatively recent printing of Worldfire for example. Wizards understands that there is a demand for game resetting, Obliterate-esque effects among some of their player base. As such, Wizards prints cards from time to time to satisfy these players. Sometimes, satisfying those players comes at a cost, though this cost is usually paid by Standard players and not Commander ones.
Premise 2: Coalition Victory is never an acceptable card to play in Commander
Unlike cards like Tooth and Nail which possess both acceptable and unacceptable uses, Coalition Victory has no acceptable use in Commander. It always either does nothing or instantly ends the game, and in a victory no less. There is no interesting middle ground by which players can use Coalition Victory to do things other than end the game abruptly. This problem would not be so bad if it were also not exacerbated by the fact that Coalition Victory is much too easy to win with in Commander. The conditions by which Coalition Victory wins the games are conditions that occur naturally over the course of an ordinary Commander game. The fact that Coalition Victory is difficult to interact with also exacerbates the problem even further by offering players few counterplays against it. A card which instantly wins the game when cast, invalidating every move made before it, that is trivial to assemble, difficult to interact with, and in no way can be used to do anything other than instantly win the game is never an acceptable card to play in Commander.
Premise 3: The banned list should protect players from those who wish to play unacceptable cards
Though there may be more than one reason for banning a card, one among them should be to protect Commander players from the negative effects associated with specific cards unscrupulous players seek to use. Consenting players can always opt to play with banned cards should they want to. The ban list does them no harm. What it does is protect the players who can't easily reach a consensus, as is the case in large, dynamic playgroups, from suffering the ill effects of certain cards that might otherwise see play though. Commander players can't all be expected to be philosophers. If a card is legal, players should take confidence knowing that such card should be perfectly fair to play with. Banning a card sends a clear message to players that that card is unacceptable, and they are not permitted to play with it against those who do not consent.
If each premise holds true, that cards exist in Magic that should not be played in Commander, among which Coalition Victory is such in all circumstances, then the Rules Committee should ban it as the banned list should protect players from unacceptable cards. I hope you will agree that my logic is sound, even if you disagree with one or more of my premises. From the discussion thus far, I imagine most opponents will disagree with my second premise, though I would not be too shocked to see a disagreement with the other two. I encourage everyone here, in agreeance with Coalition Victory's banning or against it to have a civil discussion. Hopefully my rationality has made it clear why I believe what I do.
I strongly, strongly disagree that there are cards that should not be played in commander.
There are cards that should not be played in casual commander because the table does not find them fun.
There are cards that should not be played in competitive commander because they are overpowered and reduce deck variety at a competitive level.
There is very little overlap between these two sets of "shouldn't be legal" cards, and coalition victory is absolutely not a part of "too strong for competitive".
The ban list 100%, without question, does harm to players who want to play "unacceptable" cards. There are many situations, basically any situation that isn't a kitchen table, where convincing people to allow you to play banned cards is nearly impossible. Acting like house rules actually work is insulting to those that don't have a kitchen table group they can form rules around, and instead play at commander nights and events.
Armageddon is legal, winter orb is legal, demonic tutor for an infinite is legal, food chain prossh is legal, etc. There is nothing even remotely close to "if a card is legal it is fun and fair". Just because a card has conceivable ways to play it that are fair(including coalition victory, using the tazri + only basics example), doesn't mean you can include it without careful thought. Building a commander deck that is fun for a table is really, really hard, something I believe is beyond the vast majority of magic players. It's game design, and game design is hard. The ban list is very much insufficient as a guide for players to build a deck that is fun for the table.
Given that the ban list doesn't even come close to guaranteeing a fair and level playing field, I go in the opposite direction and say let players have as much freedom as they want in deckbuilding. The players who know how to make fun decks will continue to make fun decks, the players that want to play competitively can now include all the competitive cards, and the players who don't have a clue will continue to make miss steps in deckbuilding just like they are capable of doing now, until they eventually become good deckbuilders.
Thanks for taking the time to shed insight on why you believe what you do, Carthage. For the first time, I finally feel like I have a good grasp on why you feel Coalition Victory deserves to be unbanned.
I strongly, strongly disagree that there are cards that should not be played in commander.
There are cards that should not be played in casual commander because the table does not find them fun.
There are cards that should not be played in competitive commander because they are overpowered and reduce deck variety at a competitive level.
There is very little overlap between these two sets of "shouldn't be legal" cards, and coalition victory is absolutely not a part of "too strong for competitive".
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Commander isn't designed to be a competitive format. It's designed to be a casual one. For that reason, cards aren't banned for being overpowered. While what you're saying may be true, that the overlap in the Venn Diagram of "unfun at casual tables" and "competitively problematic" may be small, that's irrelevant because the competitive circle holds no weight in Commander. You're correct that Coalition Victory isn't a concern competitively. That's true. Competitive concerns were never and aren't something that the Rules Committee cares about though. Commander is and will always be a casual format, so only cards that are troublesome in the first bubble need to be deliberated on by the Rules Committee.
The ban list 100%, without question, does harm to players who want to play "unacceptable" cards.
How so? To me, this is backwards. Yes, the ban list takes away players' freedom to play with certain cards, but players shouldn't have the freedom to do whatever they want.
To create an analogy, the banned list is like the law. The law decrees theft to be illegal. Why? Because society doesn't value peoples' ability to take things away from one another against their will. We don't like the effects theft has on civilization. Similarly, Commander players don't value peoples' ability to play cards like Channel against their will. We don't like the effects Channel has on games of Commander, so we outlaw it. People who wish to steal and people who want to play Channel have that freedom taken away from them because we want to protect the interests of society and the commander table at large respectively.
There are many situations, basically any situation that isn't a kitchen table, where convincing people to allow you to play banned cards is nearly impossible. Acting like house rules actually work is insulting to those that don't have a kitchen table group they can form rules around, and instead play at commander nights and events.
I agree.
I don't have a kitchen table. I play with a large, dynamic playgroup of about 40 or more players at a local card store. Trying to reach a consensus on banning or unbanning anything is nigh impossible. That's why it's extremely important that the Rules Committee protect players from those who wish to use cards which create poor games of Commander. As long as cards are legal, players will use that justification to run unpleasant and miserable cards. Large, moving playgroups like mine can't defend themselves against the ill effects of these things. It takes an overseeing committee to do that.
Coalition Victory is not a healthy card to have running around in Commander. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're the only one here suggesting that unbanning Coalition Victory will improve the health of the format. No other opponent believes that Commander's health as a format will be improved by unbanning this card. They simply want Coalition Victory unbanned for other reasons, like a consistent banned list or a shorter banned list.
Armageddon is legal, winter orb is legal, demonic tutor for an infinite is legal, food chain prossh is legal, etc. There is nothing even remotely close to "if a card is legal it is fun and fair". Just because a card has conceivable ways to play it that are fair(including coalition victory, using the tazri + only basics example), doesn't mean you can include it without careful thought. Building a commander deck that is fun for a table is really, really hard, something I believe is beyond the vast majority of magic players. It's game design, and game design is hard. The ban list is very much insufficient as a guide for players to build a deck that is fun for the table.
All the more reason why the Rules Committee should police cards like Coalition Victory.
As you've pointed out, unfair cards can be used in fair ways and vice-versa. It's not important that unfair cards be playable in fair ways. What's important is the ways in which players use cards in practice. Is Demonic Tutor always causing trouble in practice? No, it isn't. It seldom causes trouble. That's why it hasn't been banned. Even though Demonic Tutor has the potential to be an extremely unfair card, it doesn't tend to be used that way by players, so it isn't a concern.
Yes, the banned list is insufficient when it comes to teaching players what is or isn't fun. I think it's a little better about teaching fairness, but that's besides the point. You're right that we can't expect all Commander players to be philosophers and game designers. Some players will accidentally use cards the wrong way. What the Rules Committee can do is ban cards that are universally used the wrong way though.
Given that the ban list doesn't even come close to guaranteeing a fair and level playing field, I go in the opposite direction and say let players have as much freedom as they want in deckbuilding. The players who know how to make fun decks will continue to make fun decks, the players that want to play competitively can now include all the competitive cards, and the players who don't have a clue will continue to make miss steps in deckbuilding just like they are capable of doing now, until they eventually become good deckbuilders.
Commander has problematic cards, yes. Just because that's true though doesn't mean we should abandon ship and allow people free reign to play with whatever problematic cards they want. That's a really defeatist way to look at things.
The players without a clue are the ones who will unwittingly play with problematic cards like Coalition Victory. It's because of them that a banned list is so important. We don't want other players to suffer the effects of these cards just because some players happen to be ignorant. Sure, they might play with cards like Tooth and Nail in really lame ways, but we can't let their ignorance spoil the fun for everyone else. By only taking away offenders like Coalition Victory, we're not spoiling the fun for anybody, and we reduce the number of toys that the players without a clue can use to damage Commander games. The players who want to create fun decks wouldn't use Coalition Victory anyway, and the competitive players aren't the responsibility of the Commander format.
To create another analogy, think of Tooth and Nail and Coalition Victory as guns. We want our citizens to have access to guns, but we also want to keep them out of the hands of people who have no business using them. Coalition Victory is like an AK-47, a gun that no human being realistically needs. We keep Coalition Victory banned so that the innocent and the ignorant can't accidentally use it to cause harm to the Commander format. Commander is better protected by having banned Coalition Victory. We can't let that extend to every gun though, because we want our citizens to have access to guns. In this analogy, Tooth and Nail is like a hunting rifle. Players can use it acceptably or unacceptably, but we shouldn't allow our freedoms to be too restricted just because some players use them the wrong way. Similarly, we shouldn't allow players the freedom to use murder weapons like the AK-47 just because we don't want to keep anyone from using hunting rifles.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
This proposed scenario does not sound like casual Commander to me. Also, and not to stir the pot and be unconstructive, but you can put a lot of cards into the above scenario. Some examples of cards that have actually been included, meaning I have been in a game and someone was killed (or their commander killed) because they could have the card in hand, are Contamination, Iona, Shield of Emeria, Armageddon, Food Chain, Survival of the Fittest, and Cyclonic Rift. All of those cards are legal and did the same net effect, so why would CV stand out? Why does that situation make CV special and need to be maintained as a ban.
Also, @arrogantAxolotl - I really appreciate your posts. I disagree with your assessment on Worldgorger, but only because CV has never been a popular card because it's never been allowed to begin with. Testing would need to be done, but my educated guess (aka: have no F*ing idea) is that we would not see a sudden surge of 5-color CV decks that take over the format. I think some games would end by CV and people would adapt. I personally doubt it would spring back up as a 'problem child' along the lines of PoK or PrimeTime.
This proposed scenario does not sound like casual Commander to me. Also, and not to stir the pot and be unconstructive, but you can put a lot of cards into the above scenario. Some examples of cards that have actually been included, meaning I have been in a game and someone was killed because they could have the card in hand, are Contamination, Iona, Shield of Emeria, Armageddon, Food Chain, Survival of the Fittest, Cyclonic Rift. All of those are legal and did the same net effect.
Except, you know, they don't end the game...
Winning of the back of a successfully resolved Coalition Victory is probably the least casual thing you could do.
Yeah, poor explanation, but nitpickers 'gonna nitpick. You clearly understand what he's trying to convey, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if CV was removed from the list that this sort of banter wouldn't take place. It's just common sense. It's like people complaining when their combo-piece general is routinely nuked. A.) It's a combo piece, B.)I don't care that your not running the combo, I shouldn't just take your word for it.
Also, @arrogantAxolotl - I really appreciate your posts. I disagree with your assessment on Worldgorger, but only because CV has never been a popular card because it's never been allowed to begin with. Testing would need to be done, but my educated guess (aka: have no F*ing idea) is that we would not see a sudden surge of 5-color CV decks that take over the format. I think some games would end by CV and people would adapt. I personally doubt it would spring back up as a 'problem child' along the lines of PoK or PrimeTime.
Hey, if Coalition Victory just turns out to be another card like Winter Orb, something totally toxic to Commander games but casuals won't touch it, then by all means unban Coalition Victory. I'm just with you in that I have no idea how widespread Coalition Victory would see play if it were unbanned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I seriously doubt Coalition Victory would see much play at all. There are better ways to combo kill a table if you want to that are perfectly legal. I think most of the people that want it to stay banned are more in it for hating combo than actual concern that it's going to see much play. I mean really, 5 color has access to ALL the best combos in the whole format. The only people that would play it are the passive-aggressive people that like to king make and would only use it when they're really pissed off. Anyone else that's going to combo is going to play good combos.
Winning of the back of a successfully resolved Coalition Victory is probably the least casual thing you could do.
Yeah, poor explanation, but nitpickers 'gonna nitpick. You clearly understand what he's trying to convey, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if CV was removed from the list that this sort of banter wouldn't take place. It's just common sense. It's like people complaining when their combo-piece general is routinely nuked. A.) It's a combo piece, B.)I don't care that your not running the combo, I shouldn't just take your word for it.
I completely understand his point. I am illustrating the fact many other cards result in a player being hated off a table, so what makes CV special? Just because it results in a win? If that's it, then really (and I already said this) we are all just drawing our 'lines in the sand' at different points.
Again, I agree that CV would not add anything to the format. What I need you to 'sell me' on is if it was unbanned, do you believe it would behave any differently then how Worldgorger's unban has gone, being that this unban is really the only comparison unban we can look at. And if you do think that is the case, then why?
Winning of the back of a successfully resolved Coalition Victory is probably the least casual thing you could do.
Yeah, poor explanation, but nitpickers 'gonna nitpick. You clearly understand what he's trying to convey, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if CV was removed from the list that this sort of banter wouldn't take place. It's just common sense. It's like people complaining when their combo-piece general is routinely nuked. A.) It's a combo piece, B.)I don't care that your not running the combo, I shouldn't just take your word for it.
I completely understand his point. I am illustrating the fact many other cards result in a player being hated off a table, so what makes CV special? Just because it results in a win? If that's it, then really (and I already said this) we are all just drawing our 'lines in the sand' at different points.
Again, I agree that CV would not add anything to the format. What I need you to 'sell me' on is if it was unbanned, do you believe it would behave any differently then how Worldgorger's unban has gone, being that this unban is really the only comparison unban we can look at. And if you do think that is the case, then why?
The short answer, and really the final answer(from me, anyways) is that it would be entirely different.
Combo decks 'gonna combo. If your jamming elaborate combos into your deck, first, your not playing to what the RC envisions as a prototypical game of EDH. Second, you're probably no worried what the impact your actions have on the table from a social aspect.
The problem with CV is that Timmy, Johnny, Spike, Sally, Jennifer and Beau have the opportunity to run it, with next to no deckbuilding restrictions that accompany many of the combos that it's likened to, not is it as intricate as those combos(Stack manipulation, Trigger Tracking, etc.). And that's the major difference.
Tooth and Nail can be a game ending haymaker at one table, and be a way to put your Petcreaturecards into play at another. How does that apply to CV? It doesn't. To stick with the cliche, there is no fair use for it, which is why it resides on the banned list.
Problems you(generalizing here, Impossible can be thrown in here, but I'm replying to you) are having with the cards you are likening CV to are more of a people problem rather than the cards themselves. If T&N is ruining your games, it's probably because the guy using it is a dick and just wants to combo win with it. CV is more of an "innocent" dick-move, which isn't something you want floating around the format. Kind of like some big, white Angel that I despise.
Winning of the back of a successfully resolved Coalition Victory is probably the least casual thing you could do.
Yeah, poor explanation, but nitpickers 'gonna nitpick. You clearly understand what he's trying to convey, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if CV was removed from the list that this sort of banter wouldn't take place. It's just common sense. It's like people complaining when their combo-piece general is routinely nuked. A.) It's a combo piece, B.)I don't care that your not running the combo, I shouldn't just take your word for it.
I completely understand his point. I am illustrating the fact many other cards result in a player being hated off a table, so what makes CV special? Just because it results in a win? If that's it, then really (and I already said this) we are all just drawing our 'lines in the sand' at different points.
Again, I agree that CV would not add anything to the format. What I need you to 'sell me' on is if it was unbanned, do you believe it would behave any differently then how Worldgorger's unban has gone, being that this unban is really the only comparison unban we can look at. And if you do think that is the case, then why?
The short answer, and really the final answer(from me, anyways) is that it would be entirely different.
Combo decks 'gonna combo. If your jamming elaborate combos into your deck, first, your not playing to what the RC envisions as a prototypical game of EDH. Second, you're probably no worried what the impact your actions have on the table from a social aspect.
The problem with CV is that Timmy, Johnny, Spike, Sally, Jennifer and Beau have the opportunity to run it, with next to no deckbuilding restrictions that accompany many of the combos that it's likened to, not is it as intricate as those combos(Stack manipulation, Trigger Tracking, etc.). And that's the major difference.
Tooth and Nail can be a game ending haymaker at one table, and be a way to put your Petcreaturecards into play at another. How does that apply to CV? It doesn't. To stick with the cliche, there is no fair use for it, which is why it resides on the banned list.
Problems you(generalizing here, Impossible can be thrown in here, but I'm replying to you) are having with the cards you are likening CV to are more of a people problem rather than the cards themselves. If T&N is ruining your games, it's probably because the guy using it is a dick and just wants to combo win with it. CV is more of an "innocent" dick-move, which isn't something you want floating around the format. Kind of like some big, white Angel that I despise.
As I said earlier, we just draw our 'lines in the sand' at different points, which isn't a bad thing. I am personally content with all of the names, except Beau because I don't know a single good Beau, winning a game off of CV. The card screams casual to me and falls in the same group as the other win cards. Are their differences between CV and those other 'I win' cards? Of course, but I focus more on the end result and that always is 'I/He/She/It won the game' and thus my line is drawn there instead of where you draw it.
Winning of the back of a successfully resolved Coalition Victory is probably the least casual thing you could do.
Yeah, poor explanation, but nitpickers 'gonna nitpick. You clearly understand what he's trying to convey, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if CV was removed from the list that this sort of banter wouldn't take place. It's just common sense. It's like people complaining when their combo-piece general is routinely nuked. A.) It's a combo piece, B.)I don't care that your not running the combo, I shouldn't just take your word for it.
I completely understand his point. I am illustrating the fact many other cards result in a player being hated off a table, so what makes CV special? Just because it results in a win? If that's it, then really (and I already said this) we are all just drawing our 'lines in the sand' at different points.
Again, I agree that CV would not add anything to the format. What I need you to 'sell me' on is if it was unbanned, do you believe it would behave any differently then how Worldgorger's unban has gone, being that this unban is really the only comparison unban we can look at. And if you do think that is the case, then why?
The short answer, and really the final answer(from me, anyways) is that it would be entirely different.
Combo decks 'gonna combo. If your jamming elaborate combos into your deck, first, your not playing to what the RC envisions as a prototypical game of EDH. Second, you're probably no worried what the impact your actions have on the table from a social aspect.
The problem with CV is that Timmy, Johnny, Spike, Sally, Jennifer and Beau have the opportunity to run it, with next to no deckbuilding restrictions that accompany many of the combos that it's likened to, not is it as intricate as those combos(Stack manipulation, Trigger Tracking, etc.). And that's the major difference.
Tooth and Nail can be a game ending haymaker at one table, and be a way to put your Petcreaturecards into play at another. How does that apply to CV? It doesn't. To stick with the cliche, there is no fair use for it, which is why it resides on the banned list.
Problems you(generalizing here, Impossible can be thrown in here, but I'm replying to you) are having with the cards you are likening CV to are more of a people problem rather than the cards themselves. If T&N is ruining your games, it's probably because the guy using it is a dick and just wants to combo win with it. CV is more of an "innocent" dick-move, which isn't something you want floating around the format. Kind of like some big, white Angel that I despise.
As I said earlier, we just draw our 'lines in the sand' at different points, which isn't a bad thing. I am personally content with all of the names, except Beau because I don't know a single good Beau, winning a game off of CV. The card screams casual to me and falls in the same group as the other win cards. Are their differences between CV and those other 'I win' cards? Of course, but I focus more on the end result and that always is 'I/He/She/It won the game' and thus my line is drawn there instead of where you draw it.
No, there is a fundamental misunderstanding. I'm sorry, acting civil in your dispute doesn't change that. You can cast and resolve Tooth and Nail, Omniscience, Enter the Infinte, Doomsday, etc. and not win, whether by design or by disruption. That is 100% not the case with CV. Its a fact. It's written on the card.
I get it, you don't agree. But this isn't those other threads with those specific cards. This is a thread about a card that states "Cast, Resolve, Win." Its what the card does. It's what it was designed to do. How can you even dispute that fact? A better way to say this, you can't do anything besides win with this card. That.Is.It. It's "fair use" is to end the game. Not end the game the next upkeep. Not at the end of the turn. Not after expelling near-infinite resources. Cast-win.
Whether or not it gets played is irrelevant. Nobody is going to play Black Lotus or Moxen. Different reasons for doing so, maybe, but same basic logic.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, are going to say it could be a Moose? Sure, could be, but its not, because you can clearly see that it's not.
This seems like a reasonable casual deck that one might run. Maybe you're running General Tazri as the general because you like the card. And while it's perfectly possible to go:
No, there is a fundamental misunderstanding. I'm sorry, acting civil in your dispute doesn't change that. You can cast and resolve Tooth and Nail, Omniscience, Enter the Infinte, Doomsday, etc. and not win, whether by design or by disruption. That is 100% not the case with CV. Its a fact. It's written on the card.
I get it, you don't agree. But this isn't those other threads with those specific cards. This is a thread about a card that states "Cast, Resolve, Win." Its what the card does. It's what it was designed to do. How can you even dispute that fact? A better way to say this, you can't do anything besides win with this card. That.Is.It. It's "fair use" is to end the game. Not end the game the next upkeep. Not at the end of the turn. Not after expelling near-infinite resources. Cast-win.
Whether or not it gets played is irrelevant. Nobody is going to play Black Lotus or Moxen. Different reasons for doing so, maybe, but same basic logic.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, are going to say it could be a Moose? Sure, could be, but its not, because you can clearly see that it's not.
Honestly, there is no misunderstanding. I know exactly what CV does - it gives someone a win. And quite honestly, acting civil actually keeps the discussion going and keeps it more onto facts and less about personal attacks, which is a nice change for this subforum.
My arguments are and continue to be roughly this paraphrased list:
Power creep of other combos has made this card not a big deal. An 8-CMC card that can provide a 'I win' if you have the conditions of the card met is quite honestly not a big deal. And I am emphasizing the point that you need to meet the conditions of the card to get the win. This card isn't just 'I win' guaranteed. It's quite honestly highly easy to disrupt with removal and counter magic, which is again necessary for every combo piece, annoying creature, win-condition card that is used in this format. Battlecruiser EDH exists, but we don't structure the BL to make sure that always is a 'safe' way to win. In fact, I would love to promote more cards that require people to interact, and this card definitely falls into that grouping.
You can definitely play this card 'fairly' - running it in a General Tazri and resolving it for a win is definitely fair. (osieorb18 beat me to the punch on this one, but still stands)
I don't believe this card is going to ruin the EDH experience for casuals. In fact, I think it could encourage some to try a 5-color deck, which is probably the least popular combination in the format (no evidence, just PBtE is pretty high and stops a lot of people from attempting)
I don't believe this card is going to even enter the scope of cEDH (not a reason for a card to be on/off the BL, but still my thought)
Cards have been unbanned because they were perceived as a 'bogyman' and have come into the format, not added anything valuable/positive back, and still not broken the format. See Worldgorger Dragon and Staff of Domination.
Every card you referenced (T&N, Omni, Enter, Doomsday, etc.) all fundamentally stop by the same mechanics - counter or removal. So what if you can counter or remove more options/threats, you're probably going to deal with the 'gun' (card that is enabling the win, which is the list of cards before) and not the 'bullet' (the source of the win).
Again, we draw our lines in the sand differently, Buffsam89. And there is nothing wrong with that. Also, you keep addressing T&N, which I haven't been pointing a huge finger at, and have yet to really discuss the concept of the Worldgorger Dragon unban which brought literally nothing other than an infinite combo back to the format. I've asked for you to address this several times, but I feel like you're dodging that argument intentionally.
No it doesn't. It restricts deckbuilding if it's legal, because there's no reason not to play Coalition Victory in a 5-colour deck.
There's lots of reason not to include it, for example you are looking for longer more interactive games instead of maximizing your win chance.
A long standing aspect of EDH is building decks to have fun with a table instead of just to win. When you are building that way, just don't include coalition victory.
But there are people who want to build decks to win, and they are unfairly restricted by having it on the ban list.
And if we start banning for power reasons, Coalition victory probably doesn't break the top 50 of cards that should be banned.
I understand where you are coming from(but still can't get over the fact that this is coming from the author of the "Avenger of Zendikar is bannable" SCD) but, the banlist is in place to protect individuals from the unknown.
Like I said earlier, CV can be slotted into Reaper King Beebles-Tribal. Fun premise, sure, until CV is cast. Its simple, CV ruins games. Its "If I cast this spell, I win", rather than "If I cast this, put these things into my hand/into play, then do X, Y, and Z, I win.", something Impossible can't seem to wrap his/her head around.
I think a better way to look at CV is this: Do you believe CV would cause an issue to the health of the format if it got unbanned? Would we suddenly see more 5-color decks played because of this one-card?
That can be argued that the moving parts of CV is assembling the lands, getting the mana, and also getting the creature in play. It all depends on what you define as a 'static game state', which to me is not static if you're trying to assemble specific lands and getting a 5-color creature in play. I am not arguing the 'ease' of moving parts, but that there are some moving parts still.
As I stated in a previous post of mine, it's presence in the list is from the origin of the format and I haven't really seen anyone ever bring it up again until recently. No one commented on it, much to my disappointment, but a good parallel to a card that didn't add anything to the format was when Worldgorger Dragon was unbanned. We got an infinite combo added back to the format, but nothing else. As I stated in that post, adding an infinite combo to the format isn't the same as adding a 'I win' card, but the line between them is somewhat blurred because if you're trying to infinite, you're doing it to win.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
Aside from the fact that it needs 101 mana, is a telegraphed play and needs to see your upkeep before it wins? See, that's the thing with a lot of the other instant wincons. They require a lot more work to be put into them. Someone slapping down a Helix Pinnacle will be kept in check throughout the game and likely kicked out of it before he can hit his 100 mana. If someone can pump in that 100 mana in one go, then wow, you sure you couldn't have won in an easier way? So yeah, it's vastly different.
To the argument that casuals won't add in the card: They will. Because it looks harder than it really is. Casuals are also often the ones who Tooth and Nail for MikeTrike, more enfranchised players either avoid those combos or they go for even stronger and faster kills, depending on the playgroup. But casuals seeing a card like Coalition Victory will play it, will get a few wins with it and in the process annoy several players at once.
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.
It doesn't "Win or do nothing" right on the spot. It's a thing you can pump mana in and is telegraphed. It can be cast and then sit on the battlefield for a while before eventually winning (thus doing something; that is mana getting pumped into it) which Coalition Victory cannot say.
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.
Karona, False God player: Why do you keep killing my commander?
Ghoulcaller Gisa player: Because you're playing a five-colour deck.
Karona, False God player: So? It's Avatar tribal! It's not slivers or superfriends.
Zedruu the Greathearted player: So you could be running Coalition Victory.
Karona, False God player: No, I'm not!
Xenagos, God of Revels player: We don't know that.
Wow am I glad I don't play with you. Someone explicitly tells you they don't run a certain combo but you still gang up of them anyways because they might be lying to you?
Eh... I wouldn't really call this a telegraph because this kind of message requires players possess prior knowledge that Coalition Victory exists. Without knowing what Coalition Victory is, you can't play around it by preemptively destroying relevant lands or creatures. If the conditions are met, it just comes down from a hidden zone (the hand, usually) and ends the game. That isn't explicit, and the fact that five-color players always have the creature condition met by their Commander isn't helpful. Nor is it helpful that a five-color player making their land drops without incident is also progressing Coalition Victory's win condition. Playing one's lands and Commander is about the least suspicious thing one can do and that shouldn't really be construed by players as telegraphing anything.
Agreed. I think you're being a little unreal here Mercury.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Forgive me if I'm still misinterpreting you, but isn't this just the exact same point the opposition is already making because I'm not seeing any difference here? You have not been as vocal as some of the other opponents. As I stated in the above quote, the opposition believes that Coalition Victory is no different than several popular haymakers already legal in the format, and that provides bearing for its unbanning. Yes, you alone pointed out that some of those cards were not in print at the time Coalition Victory was banned, but isn't the opposition still in agreeance that the existence of such cards is what constitutes Coalition Victory's removal from the banned list? Your observation that some of these haymakers had not been printed at the time of Coalition Victory's banning, while valuable to the discussion, is still moot in regards to you and other opponents being in agreeance. I'm not trying to cause any conflict here. I'm just looking for more clarification because my understanding of what you wrote has led me to believe that you do in fact share the same reason for wanting Coalition Victory unbanned as the other opponents. As such, your claim that I'm missing your viewpoint suggests that I'm either still misinterpreting you or something else.
Having addressed that, I would like to belittle myself by arguing that many cards that users are comparing Coalition Victory to do in fact have practical fair uses. I don't want to mince words here: I firmly believe that Rise of the Dark Realms and Insurrection specifically are two of the most fair cards in Commander and have almost no unfair uses whatsoever. I am in complete agreeance with LouCypher regarding these two cards. As comparisons, they are not anywhere in the same league as Coalition Victory, and any example using them as such is inadequate.
Similarly, I also agree with Lou that cards like Laboratory Maniac, Biovisionary, and Tooth and Nail, while possessing unfair use, still possess plenty of practical fair use as well. Yes, it is true that such cards are employed to win games, but they differentiate themselves from Coalition Victory in the way Lou mentioned: they require specific cards to be used unfairly, and they are more vulnerable than Coalition Victory is. Now, I do feel like a case can be made for some cards like Enter the Infinite and Palinchron as not having any practical fair use, but for most of the cards opponents have compared Coalition Victory to, no. I do not feel those are adequate comparisons.
I disagree with the idea that Coalition Victory requires any kind of significant setup. Its "setup" is simply playing an ordinary game of Commander. Someone makes their land drops, uses fetchlands intelligently, and casts their Commander. Once they've hit eight mana, that's it. Coalition Victory imminent. Other combos in Commander may be easy to assemble, but Coalition Victory doesn't really require any assembling at all. Players are just naturally going to reach its conditions. I think that makes it worth differentiating from other combos.
I also disagree that Coalition Victory isn't a guaranteed win. Sure, in Magic, nothing is technically a guaranteed win. There will always be ways for players to interact with one another, but Coalition Victory is about as close to a guaranteed win as one can get. It doesn't care about combat. It doesn't care about players' life totals. It doesn't care about the number of cards in their deck, hand, or other zone. Coalition Victory just doesn't care about anything. It's a sorcery, so players either have an instant speed response that they can cast that solves the problem, or they're done. Short of Platinum Angel, there aren't even any static abilities that will interact with it. It obsoletes the entire game before it, and it only occurred because the five-color player did the things you would normally expect from them in a game of Commander.
As it stands, I think this is the best argument presented for taking Coalition Victory off of the banned list. Honestly, I don't really understand the Rules Committee's decision to unban Worldgorger, but here it is:
To me, the strongest part of this message is the fact that Worldgorger is no longer a strong example of unwelcome play. Namely, I believe that Worldgorger may have just lost so much of its popularity since its initial banning that banning it was no longer a concern since virtually no one wants to play with it anymore and that space could be better spent elsewhere. That's about the only way I can understand this decision, since I don't see Worldgorger as something with almost any fair applications. I could probably buy an argument that Coalition Victory should be unbanned if it went the same way as the Dragon, a troublesome card no longer popular enough to cause any kind of damage.
I didn't understand this response at first, so I took some time to let it soak in. It coincides with what MRHblue wrote on the first page:
If what Impossible is saying here is true, that Coalition Victory is in fact easy to identify as something fun-filling or fun-sucking, that leads me to question what opponents of Coalition Victory believe the entire point of a having a banned list is in the first place. To protect players from only inconspicuous threats like Primeval Titan and Prophet of Kruphix, cards that players are naturally attracted to and want to play with but also subtly create negative games of Commander? Because, in that sense, my feelings are totally in line with MRHblue. I'm perfectly okay with Coalition Victory being legal so long as I never have the misfortune of ever running into it. That really isn't any different than it just being banned though. Consenting adults can already play with cards like Coalition Victory if they want to. They don't need a banned list to tell them how to or how not to play Commander. They'll play it in whichever ways they please.
For me, the purpose of having a banned list is to protect players from being accidentally exposed to otherwise damaging cards in the format. Coalition Victory isn't a healthy card to have running around, and the banned list is there to protect players like me, who have no desire to play against Coalition Victory in any way, shape, or form. There are very few cards I can genuinely say that about, but Coalition Victory is certainly one of them. And sure, the banned list has limitations. It can't protect players from every damaging card, but most cards can be (and are) played in ways that don't create poor games of Commander. It's the cards that aren't and won't be played in those ways that players need protection from, and Coalition Victory is one of those cards. The fact that Coalition Victory is an obviously unhealthy card as opposed to a subtle one should be moot. Making it legal would only invite players to use it against those who wouldn't consent to it.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
My justification for banning Coalition Victory is as follows:
Commander is a mod of Magic. As such, not every card in Magic was made for it. Throughout a great deal of Magic's history, card designers at Wizards never considered the consequences that their creations would have on the health of the Commander format. This is hardly blame worthy, as Commander had not yet been conceived as a format, let alone popularized. This era is where some of Commander's unacceptable cards come from, a time before Commander existed. Today, designers are much more cognizant of how their cards play in Commander. That doesn't mean Commander's well being is always put ahead of everything else though. Take the relatively recent printing of Worldfire for example. Wizards understands that there is a demand for game resetting, Obliterate-esque effects among some of their player base. As such, Wizards prints cards from time to time to satisfy these players. Sometimes, satisfying those players comes at a cost, though this cost is usually paid by Standard players and not Commander ones.
Unlike cards like Tooth and Nail which possess both acceptable and unacceptable uses, Coalition Victory has no acceptable use in Commander. It always either does nothing or instantly ends the game, and in a victory no less. There is no interesting middle ground by which players can use Coalition Victory to do things other than end the game abruptly. This problem would not be so bad if it were also not exacerbated by the fact that Coalition Victory is much too easy to win with in Commander. The conditions by which Coalition Victory wins the games are conditions that occur naturally over the course of an ordinary Commander game. The fact that Coalition Victory is difficult to interact with also exacerbates the problem even further by offering players few counterplays against it. A card which instantly wins the game when cast, invalidating every move made before it, that is trivial to assemble, difficult to interact with, and in no way can be used to do anything other than instantly win the game is never an acceptable card to play in Commander.
Though there may be more than one reason for banning a card, one among them should be to protect Commander players from the negative effects associated with specific cards unscrupulous players seek to use. Consenting players can always opt to play with banned cards should they want to. The ban list does them no harm. What it does is protect the players who can't easily reach a consensus, as is the case in large, dynamic playgroups, from suffering the ill effects of certain cards that might otherwise see play though. Commander players can't all be expected to be philosophers. If a card is legal, players should take confidence knowing that such card should be perfectly fair to play with. Banning a card sends a clear message to players that that card is unacceptable, and they are not permitted to play with it against those who do not consent.
If each premise holds true, that cards exist in Magic that should not be played in Commander, among which Coalition Victory is such in all circumstances, then the Rules Committee should ban it as the banned list should protect players from unacceptable cards. I hope you will agree that my logic is sound, even if you disagree with one or more of my premises. From the discussion thus far, I imagine most opponents will disagree with my second premise, though I would not be too shocked to see a disagreement with the other two. I encourage everyone here, in agreeance with Coalition Victory's banning or against it to have a civil discussion. Hopefully my rationality has made it clear why I believe what I do.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
There are cards that should not be played in casual commander because the table does not find them fun.
There are cards that should not be played in competitive commander because they are overpowered and reduce deck variety at a competitive level.
There is very little overlap between these two sets of "shouldn't be legal" cards, and coalition victory is absolutely not a part of "too strong for competitive".
The ban list 100%, without question, does harm to players who want to play "unacceptable" cards. There are many situations, basically any situation that isn't a kitchen table, where convincing people to allow you to play banned cards is nearly impossible. Acting like house rules actually work is insulting to those that don't have a kitchen table group they can form rules around, and instead play at commander nights and events.
Armageddon is legal, winter orb is legal, demonic tutor for an infinite is legal, food chain prossh is legal, etc. There is nothing even remotely close to "if a card is legal it is fun and fair". Just because a card has conceivable ways to play it that are fair(including coalition victory, using the tazri + only basics example), doesn't mean you can include it without careful thought. Building a commander deck that is fun for a table is really, really hard, something I believe is beyond the vast majority of magic players. It's game design, and game design is hard. The ban list is very much insufficient as a guide for players to build a deck that is fun for the table.
Given that the ban list doesn't even come close to guaranteeing a fair and level playing field, I go in the opposite direction and say let players have as much freedom as they want in deckbuilding. The players who know how to make fun decks will continue to make fun decks, the players that want to play competitively can now include all the competitive cards, and the players who don't have a clue will continue to make miss steps in deckbuilding just like they are capable of doing now, until they eventually become good deckbuilders.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Commander isn't designed to be a competitive format. It's designed to be a casual one. For that reason, cards aren't banned for being overpowered. While what you're saying may be true, that the overlap in the Venn Diagram of "unfun at casual tables" and "competitively problematic" may be small, that's irrelevant because the competitive circle holds no weight in Commander. You're correct that Coalition Victory isn't a concern competitively. That's true. Competitive concerns were never and aren't something that the Rules Committee cares about though. Commander is and will always be a casual format, so only cards that are troublesome in the first bubble need to be deliberated on by the Rules Committee.
How so? To me, this is backwards. Yes, the ban list takes away players' freedom to play with certain cards, but players shouldn't have the freedom to do whatever they want.
To create an analogy, the banned list is like the law. The law decrees theft to be illegal. Why? Because society doesn't value peoples' ability to take things away from one another against their will. We don't like the effects theft has on civilization. Similarly, Commander players don't value peoples' ability to play cards like Channel against their will. We don't like the effects Channel has on games of Commander, so we outlaw it. People who wish to steal and people who want to play Channel have that freedom taken away from them because we want to protect the interests of society and the commander table at large respectively.
I agree.
I don't have a kitchen table. I play with a large, dynamic playgroup of about 40 or more players at a local card store. Trying to reach a consensus on banning or unbanning anything is nigh impossible. That's why it's extremely important that the Rules Committee protect players from those who wish to use cards which create poor games of Commander. As long as cards are legal, players will use that justification to run unpleasant and miserable cards. Large, moving playgroups like mine can't defend themselves against the ill effects of these things. It takes an overseeing committee to do that.
Coalition Victory is not a healthy card to have running around in Commander. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're the only one here suggesting that unbanning Coalition Victory will improve the health of the format. No other opponent believes that Commander's health as a format will be improved by unbanning this card. They simply want Coalition Victory unbanned for other reasons, like a consistent banned list or a shorter banned list.
All the more reason why the Rules Committee should police cards like Coalition Victory.
As you've pointed out, unfair cards can be used in fair ways and vice-versa. It's not important that unfair cards be playable in fair ways. What's important is the ways in which players use cards in practice. Is Demonic Tutor always causing trouble in practice? No, it isn't. It seldom causes trouble. That's why it hasn't been banned. Even though Demonic Tutor has the potential to be an extremely unfair card, it doesn't tend to be used that way by players, so it isn't a concern.
Yes, the banned list is insufficient when it comes to teaching players what is or isn't fun. I think it's a little better about teaching fairness, but that's besides the point. You're right that we can't expect all Commander players to be philosophers and game designers. Some players will accidentally use cards the wrong way. What the Rules Committee can do is ban cards that are universally used the wrong way though.
Commander has problematic cards, yes. Just because that's true though doesn't mean we should abandon ship and allow people free reign to play with whatever problematic cards they want. That's a really defeatist way to look at things.
The players without a clue are the ones who will unwittingly play with problematic cards like Coalition Victory. It's because of them that a banned list is so important. We don't want other players to suffer the effects of these cards just because some players happen to be ignorant. Sure, they might play with cards like Tooth and Nail in really lame ways, but we can't let their ignorance spoil the fun for everyone else. By only taking away offenders like Coalition Victory, we're not spoiling the fun for anybody, and we reduce the number of toys that the players without a clue can use to damage Commander games. The players who want to create fun decks wouldn't use Coalition Victory anyway, and the competitive players aren't the responsibility of the Commander format.
To create another analogy, think of Tooth and Nail and Coalition Victory as guns. We want our citizens to have access to guns, but we also want to keep them out of the hands of people who have no business using them. Coalition Victory is like an AK-47, a gun that no human being realistically needs. We keep Coalition Victory banned so that the innocent and the ignorant can't accidentally use it to cause harm to the Commander format. Commander is better protected by having banned Coalition Victory. We can't let that extend to every gun though, because we want our citizens to have access to guns. In this analogy, Tooth and Nail is like a hunting rifle. Players can use it acceptably or unacceptably, but we shouldn't allow our freedoms to be too restricted just because some players use them the wrong way. Similarly, we shouldn't allow players the freedom to use murder weapons like the AK-47 just because we don't want to keep anyone from using hunting rifles.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Also, @arrogantAxolotl - I really appreciate your posts. I disagree with your assessment on Worldgorger, but only because CV has never been a popular card because it's never been allowed to begin with. Testing would need to be done, but my educated guess (aka: have no F*ing idea) is that we would not see a sudden surge of 5-color CV decks that take over the format. I think some games would end by CV and people would adapt. I personally doubt it would spring back up as a 'problem child' along the lines of PoK or PrimeTime.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
Except, you know, they don't end the game...
Winning of the back of a successfully resolved Coalition Victory is probably the least casual thing you could do.
Yeah, poor explanation, but nitpickers 'gonna nitpick. You clearly understand what he's trying to convey, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if CV was removed from the list that this sort of banter wouldn't take place. It's just common sense. It's like people complaining when their combo-piece general is routinely nuked. A.) It's a combo piece, B.)I don't care that your not running the combo, I shouldn't just take your word for it.
Hey, if Coalition Victory just turns out to be another card like Winter Orb, something totally toxic to Commander games but casuals won't touch it, then by all means unban Coalition Victory. I'm just with you in that I have no idea how widespread Coalition Victory would see play if it were unbanned.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Again, I agree that CV would not add anything to the format. What I need you to 'sell me' on is if it was unbanned, do you believe it would behave any differently then how Worldgorger's unban has gone, being that this unban is really the only comparison unban we can look at. And if you do think that is the case, then why?
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
The short answer, and really the final answer(from me, anyways) is that it would be entirely different.
Combo decks 'gonna combo. If your jamming elaborate combos into your deck, first, your not playing to what the RC envisions as a prototypical game of EDH. Second, you're probably no worried what the impact your actions have on the table from a social aspect.
The problem with CV is that Timmy, Johnny, Spike, Sally, Jennifer and Beau have the opportunity to run it, with next to no deckbuilding restrictions that accompany many of the combos that it's likened to, not is it as intricate as those combos(Stack manipulation, Trigger Tracking, etc.). And that's the major difference.
Tooth and Nail can be a game ending haymaker at one table, and be a way to put your Pet creature cards into play at another. How does that apply to CV? It doesn't. To stick with the cliche, there is no fair use for it, which is why it resides on the banned list.
Problems you(generalizing here, Impossible can be thrown in here, but I'm replying to you) are having with the cards you are likening CV to are more of a people problem rather than the cards themselves. If T&N is ruining your games, it's probably because the guy using it is a dick and just wants to combo win with it. CV is more of an "innocent" dick-move, which isn't something you want floating around the format. Kind of like some big, white Angel that I despise.
And don't hate on the that oh-so-awesome big, white Angel. Well, at least not here
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
No, there is a fundamental misunderstanding. I'm sorry, acting civil in your dispute doesn't change that. You can cast and resolve Tooth and Nail, Omniscience, Enter the Infinte, Doomsday, etc. and not win, whether by design or by disruption. That is 100% not the case with CV. Its a fact. It's written on the card.
I get it, you don't agree. But this isn't those other threads with those specific cards. This is a thread about a card that states "Cast, Resolve, Win." Its what the card does. It's what it was designed to do. How can you even dispute that fact? A better way to say this, you can't do anything besides win with this card. That.Is.It. It's "fair use" is to end the game. Not end the game the next upkeep. Not at the end of the turn. Not after expelling near-infinite resources. Cast-win.
Whether or not it gets played is irrelevant. Nobody is going to play Black Lotus or Moxen. Different reasons for doing so, maybe, but same basic logic.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, are going to say it could be a Moose? Sure, could be, but its not, because you can clearly see that it's not.
My five-color costs and sources deck begs to differ:
1 General Tazri
Lands (35):
1 Ancient Ziggurat
1 City of Brass
1 Command Tower
1 Crystal Quarry
1 Exotic Orchard
1 Evolving Wilds
1 Forbidden Orchard
1 Forest
1 Glimmervoid
1 Grand Coliseum
1 Holdout Settlement
1 Island
1 Lotus Vale
1 Mana Confluence
1 Mirrodin's Core
1 Mountain
1 Opal Palace
1 Pillar of the Paruns
1 Plains
1 Reflecting Pool
1 Rupture Spire
1 Shimmering Grotto
1 Sliver Hive
1 Spire of Industry
1 Swamp
1 Tarnished Citadel
1 Terramorphic Expanse
1 Transguild Promenade
1 Undiscovered Paradise
1 Unknown Shores
1 Vivid Crag
1 Vivid Creek
1 Vivid Grove
1 Vivid Marsh
1 Vivid Meadow
1 Charmed Pendant
1 Chromatic Lantern
1 Chrome Mox
1 Coalition Relic
1 Commander's Sphere
1 Door to Nothingness
1 Fellwar Stone
1 Fist of Suns
1 Gilded Lotus
1 Kaleidostone
1 Legacy Weapon
1 Mox Diamond
1 Mox Opal
1 Mycosynth Lattice
1 Naked Singularity
1 Obelisk of Alara
Creatures (36):
1 Alloy Myr
1 Atogatog
1 Beastcaller Savant
1 Birds of Paradise
1 Bringer of the Black Dawn
1 Bringer of the Blue Dawn
1 Bringer of the Green Dawn
1 Bringer of the Red Dawn
1 Bringer of the White Dawn
1 Child of Alara
1 Chromanticore
1 Composite Golem
1 Cromat
1 Deathrite Shaman
1 Dragonsoul Knight
1 Etched Monstrosity
1 Fleshformer
1 Fusion Elemental
1 Gemhide Sliver
1 Harabaz Druid
1 Horde of Notions
1 Karona, False God
1 Lotus Cobra
1 Maelstrom Archangel
1 Manaweft Sliver
1 Paragon of the Amesha
1 Progenitus
1 Reaper King
1 Scion of the Ur-Dragon
1 Sliver Hivelord
1 Sliver Legion
1 Sliver Overlord
1 Sliver Queen
1 Worldheart Phoenix
1 Dawn's Reflection
1 Fertile Ground
1 Genju of the Realm
1 Maelstrom Nexus
1 Market Festival
1 Prism Array
1 Prismatic Omen
Sorceries (4):
1 Channel the Suns
1 Coalition Victory
1 Conflux
1 Last Stand
This seems like a reasonable casual deck that one might run. Maybe you're running General Tazri as the general because you like the card. And while it's perfectly possible to go:
T1: Mox Diamond, Chrome Mox, Mox Opal, Land, Dawn's Reflection, pass.
T2: Maelstrom Nexus, Birds of Paradise, pass.
T3: Market Festival cascading into Prismatic Omen, pass.
T4: Conflux cascading into Sliver Hivelord, pass.
T5: Coalition Victory for game.
Not only is that ridiculously lucky, but I think that deck deserves that win.
My arguments are and continue to be roughly this paraphrased list:
Again, we draw our lines in the sand differently, Buffsam89. And there is nothing wrong with that. Also, you keep addressing T&N, which I haven't been pointing a huge finger at, and have yet to really discuss the concept of the Worldgorger Dragon unban which brought literally nothing other than an infinite combo back to the format. I've asked for you to address this several times, but I feel like you're dodging that argument intentionally.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar