To be fair, I didn't raise this point. You did when you started going on about "phases" of a combo, as if the fact that Coalition Victory doesn't have a long execution is somehow a point against it:
Nobody is arguing that CV is a fun way to end the game. But neither is Mike&Trike or Doomsday or Enter the Infinite, but all of those remain legal. The argument is that CV is no worse than any number of other cards that end the game upon resolution, figuratively if not literally. In the interest of having the smallest possible ban list, there is no reason for CV to remain banned.
I'm not saying CV not having a long execution as a point against it, I'm pointing out it's because the other combos have to compressed is the reason they are free, because the longer the process, the more interaction between the cards are involved. Even something as boring as Mike+Trike involves pinging and dies/etb triggers because of the way it functions, which opens up other paths of possibilities with each individual card that casuals want to play with, which is the reason competitive players still have access to the combo.
CV is only no worse than other game-ending resolutions in a competitive circle, because in that circle the only use for all the other cards comparable to it (Mike & Trike) is similar to CV. Likewise, in casual circles, CV is the only card that absolutely cannot be fun/memorable individually, whereas Mike, Trike, Doomsday & Enter the Infinite still have the potential to be fun/memorable individually in the most casual settings.
I'm not saying CV not having a long execution as a point against it, I'm pointing out it's because the other combos have to compressed is the reason they are free, because the longer the process, the more interaction between the cards are involved. Even something as boring as Mike+Trike involves pinging and dies/etb triggers because of the way it functions, which opens up other paths of possibilities with each individual card that casuals want to play with, which is the reason competitive players still have access to the combo.
CV is only no worse than other game-ending resolutions in a competitive circle, because in that circle the only use for all the other cards comparable to it (Mike & Trike) is similar to CV. Likewise, in casual circles, CV is the only card that absolutely cannot be fun/memorable individually, whereas Mike, Trike, Doomsday & Enter the Infinite still have the potential to be fun/memorable individually in the most casual settings.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like Mike&Trike/Doomsday/Enter the Infinite do not have any potential to be fun/memorable in casual settings... Those are very competitive/'cut-throat' combos that when employed in a casual group leads the group to be more competitive.
The combos tend to end the game that turn, though, so they're all only answerable by instant cards and effects. Just because there might technically be 50+ opportunities to interrupt Mike+Trike vs one for Coalition Victory is irrelevant because there's no reason to wait for subsequent loops. Palinchron combos, Deadeye combos, Splinter Twin, Kiki Jiki, Protean Hulk, even Time Vault is disrupted by a piece of instant removal, counter, or grave hate. Really long complicated combos don't actually change the interaction at all since there's no reason to wait until, they've gone through multiple loops outside of corner cases like Hulk combo where you can exile more than one card or something.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like Mike&Trike/Doomsday/Enter the Infinite do not have any potential to be fun/memorable in casual settings... Those are very competitive/'cut-throat' combos that when employed in a casual group leads the group to be more competitive.
When I said individually I didn't mean the combos, I meant each card separate from each other literally. The only reason they're still free is because there's likely some portion of the casual playerbase who still want to experiment with the cards without executing competitive combos, even when it comes to cards that are more or less terrible without their competitive applications like Doomsday and Enter the Infinite. Cards that say "you win the game" don't even provide that additional option and the only reason the rest of the "direct-win" cards are free is because they are either too slow or have a requirement of effort equivalent of assembling a competitive combo (or both).
The combos tend to end the game that turn, though, so they're all only answerable by instant cards and effects. Just because there might technically be 50+ opportunities to interrupt Mike+Trike vs one for Coalition Victory is irrelevant because there's no reason to wait for subsequent loops. Palinchron combos, Deadeye combos, Splinter Twin, Kiki Jiki, Protean Hulk, even Time Vault is disrupted by a piece of instant removal, counter, or grave hate. Really long complicated combos don't actually change the interaction at all since there's no reason to wait until, they've gone through multiple loops outside of corner cases like Hulk combo where you can exile more than one card or something.
Yes, functionally in the game they have no difference, but you can't say the technical difference is irrelevant because it has implications in deckbuilding, which is more or less half of the format's experience (considering there's quite the handful of people here who have the tendency to just build but not play). You can separate the components of any combo and the cards will still function, just not optimally (but not all players care about optimal play) whereas the "win" cards only have 1 route and its always optimal, which in a sense, goes against the "build casually" mentality. As mentioned earlier, the rest of the "win" cards are either two slow or require substantial buildup, so among them, CV is particularly "optimal", because it got the boost from the Commander Rule.
Yeah, it gets a boost from the whole commander thing, but it's a 5+ mana creature you have to pay full price for before you can cast your 8 mana sorcery and if it dies, it costs 7, 9, 11, etc. Unless you only use your commander for Coalition Victory, it's going to be a really really expensive win mana wise. I mean Sheldon said that one reason Tooth and Nail is ok is because they expect people to run instant creature removal. Coalition Victory needs one mana less than entwined including all 5 colors and you have to control your commander. That's no where near an insanely fast play.
Now, as for build casually, play competitively, yeah, Victory is kind of bad for that, but I think most people would argue things like Winter Orb aren't exactly going to lead to anything casual. Either it's going to tip the mana curve way down to the level of normal tournament formats, lead to a ton of artifact destruction, or it's going to get cut for wrecking games. Banning cards because they can't be used for that mindset would lead to a silly long banned list.
What if i wanted an alternate win con in slivers that requires me to find one of my plains. I dont have fetches. I only have 4 shocks. I cant afford duals. All of 14 of my lands even have basic land types. My only ramp spells can only grab one or two at most. Yeah if i have my general coalition victory is already halfway there. But for me, i would need a minimum four lands and my general to trigger it. I personally would have a better chance of winning with mazes end.so if im not breaking it but playing it to end games that have stalled and dragged on too long, how is that different than tooth and nail into terrastomper and kiki-jiki?
What if i wanted an alternate win con in slivers that requires me to find one of my plains. I dont have fetches. I only have 4 shocks. I cant afford duals. All of 14 of my lands even have basic land types. My only ramp spells can only grab one or two at most. Yeah if i have my general coalition victory is already halfway there. But for me, i would need a minimum four lands and my general to trigger it. I personally would have a better chance of winning with mazes end.so if im not breaking it but playing it to end games that have stalled and dragged on too long, how is that different than tooth and nail into terrastomper and kiki-jiki?
The same thing that's been discussed earlier in the thread: mainly, it's lack of interactivity.
You should also be aware that more duals have been printed covering the land gap(Canopy Vista being one of them). So, it's now a bit easier to accomplish the land stipulation as well.
To reiterate one more thing that was also in this thread: you run slivers, you say? Probably get a decent amount of targeting from other players, right? Would you like to be auto-targeted on sight for playing ANY 5 color commander, just because your deck MIGHT have an auto win-con? Sure, decks have win-cons, but usually you only find out about them after a good game(at which point, you adjust their threat level mentally). 5-colors are going to be at a disadvantage here, particularly if no one trusts what they say("I don't have Coalition Victory in this deck").
Simply put, I agree that despite all the push for it, it should stay banned. It's not going to be fun on either end of the table.
Would you like to be auto-targeted on sight for playing ANY 5 color commander, just because your deck MIGHT have an auto win-con? Sure, decks have win-cons, but usually you only find out about them after a good game(at which point, you adjust their threat level mentally). 5-colors are going to be at a disadvantage here, particularly if no one trusts what they say("I don't have Coalition Victory in this deck").
That's a very good angle that I think people miss a lot in these sorts of arguments.
Seriously? Literally everything you listed, with the exception of Sudden Spoiling, also works as an answer to Coalition Victory. If you're going to make a case, at least get the basic facts right.
Seriously? Literally everything you listed, with the exception of Sudden Spoiling, also works as an answer to Coalition Victory. If you're going to make a case, at least get the basic facts right.
5-colors are going to be at a disadvantage here, particularly if no one trusts what they say("I don't have Coalition Victory in this deck").
Why would I not trust someone who explicitly tells me they're not running a card?
Oh look, a “1 year anniversary” for a card that just doesn’t belong in the format.
Why should I trust what anybody has to say, ever? If you play with the same people all the time, then sure, take them at their word. However, I’d never expect a stranger to give me the low-down on his deck tech. So, to your point, if you can trust said individual, then you can probably propose to them that CV can be allowed via house rules. Problem.Solved.
Why should I trust what anybody has to say, ever? If you play with the same people all the time, then sure, take them at their word. However, I’d never expect a stranger to give me the low-down on his deck tech. So, to your point, if you can trust said individual, then you can probably propose to them that CV can be allowed via house rules. Problem.Solved.
First off, wow. That's pretty pessimistic. Why would someone straight up lie about having a particular card/combo in their deck?
Second, "just house rule it" is a pretty terrible argument. Regardless of the RC's intentions, people play the ban list. Period. Unless you have a strong, established play group, it is simply unfeasible to use house rules. Too many people switching in and out of the group. Too long before every game spent explaining that you're playing with banned cards. Too long arguing about why we allow some banned cards but not others. So on and so forth. Not to mention the same argument could be made in the other direction; if you don't like it being legal just house rule it. The whole idea is just a mess, and just saying "house rule" is not a sufficient answer.
Could we work around it with a house rule? Probably. Would it be worth it? Almost certainly not. None of that changes the underlying fact that, in the interest of maintaining as small a ban list as possible, Coalition Victory doesn't deserve to be banned. It is fundamentally no different from any number of cards that are currently legal.
Because I would never tell somebody the contents of my deck?? That’s kind of the status quo for random games. Now, If I’ve played against these folks before, then it wouldn’t need explaining. Sounds like you’re trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill here. I’d think asking permission to play a banned card would take less time than explaining the contents/strategies of your deck. That just must be me, a guy who plays with a few different groups, each with its own flavor of play, and has never had a problem remembering the “code” of each.
Seriously? Literally everything you listed, with the exception of Sudden Spoiling, also works as an answer to Coalition Victory. If you're going to make a case, at least get the basic facts right.
5-colors are going to be at a disadvantage here, particularly if no one trusts what they say("I don't have Coalition Victory in this deck").
Why would I not trust someone who explicitly tells me they're not running a card?
Seriously? Like everything you listed shows how salty you are because a card you want in the format isn't valid. Yes, some of those answers DO work against CoVic, but guess what? CoVic is still banned. When did I say that the RC's list was balanced and even throughout? I'm well aware(from less contentious posts of yours and others in different topics) that there's a lot of 'line-blurring' between what's banned and what's not. I'm giving SOME reasons; I'm not saying that they are reasons I 100% back, nor did I ever say so. Please get your basic facts right too before you go off as you did; you don't get anyone on your side that way.
Also, pretty much everything Buffsam89 said; if you trust people enough to openly hand your deck over to them so they see what is and isn't in it, that's fine and your way of playing. But some people still like to play their cards close to the vest, and will do 'whatever it takes'. Yes, I don't play with those people if it's overly offensive...just as if you really want CoVic in a deck, house rule. Just house rule.
After about what looks like a year, I don't think my feelings on Coalition Victory have changed much. Coalition Victory is a card I never want to see played. It's effortless to cast, difficult to interact with, and ends the game in spectacularly lame fashion, invalidating all actions taken previous to it in much the same sense as Worldfire. Having said all that, I am also still of the opinion that if the card would see virtually no play (a la Worldgorger Dragon), it could be safely unbanned because the volume of harm it would produce, despite being an absolutely abysmal card, would be minuscule (the Winter Orb argument). That's not what I anticipate happening though, so I'm glad the RC is keeping Coalition Victory where it is.
After about what looks like a year, I don't think my feelings on Coalition Victory have changed much. Coalition Victory is a card I never want to see played. It's effortless to cast, difficult to interact with, and ends the game in spectacularly lame fashion, invalidating all actions taken previous to it in much the same sense as Worldfire. Having said all that, I am also still of the opinion that if the card would see virtually no play (a la Worldgorger Dragon), it could be safely unbanned because the volume of harm it would produce, despite being an absolutely abysmal card, would be minuscule (the Winter Orb argument). That's not what I anticipate happening though, so I'm glad the RC is keeping Coalition Victory where it is.
What you should trust me on is the fact that you didn’t need to actually question me on that. Seriously? Come on, man.
Ugh, this actually bothers me. Really? How often do you sit down at a table and discuss the contents of your deck with your opponents? Hell, I don’t even do that when I’m playing 60-card Casual. It was just a really, really stupid comment, and yeah, I trolled her(and you). It is a game, after all. When you’re playing backyard football, do you tell your friends who you’re going to throw the ball too? Pretty sure it’s called “gamesmanship”.
So cut that “holier than thou” stuff, it’s off-putting coming from somebody whose opinions I usually hold in high regard.
One final edit. If we’re really going to do this, then let me point out the fact that this thread had been dormant for a year. Nothing has changed in the format since then, so the arguments that will ensue are going to be the exact same as they were on the previous 9 pages(as already shown by Impossible).
What you should trust me on is the fact that you didn’t need to actually question me on that. Seriously? Come on, man.
I don't know how to say this courteously. You're being ridiculous. You're being ridiculous, and your attitude really isn't helping the conversation here.
I very much care about the quality of the discourse taking place here because it means users can express ideas on complicated issues like this one without having to wade through bull*****. The fact that you're unwilling to admit you even said something foolish in the first place and would instead prefer to double down on your message because you're feeling aggravated isn't helping your case. If anything. It's made me lose a lot of respect for you as a poster, as someone deserving of my respect.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here though and actually respond to your response in earnest. You have to place your trust in something. For example, I trust Jupiter is the planet fifth furthest from the sun in our solar system. Could that possibly be untrue? Sure. It could. It might actually be sixth furthest. I have no way of proving either one way or the other. I'm merely trusting other people. Why would I do that? Because trusting other people in these sorts of instances helps me make sense of the world. Without doing so I wouldn't be able to make any kind of meaningful decisions. Broadcast tell me there's an accident down I-45 and that I should take a different road to work if I don't want to be late? You better damn well believe I'm trusting that. Could it be untrue? Yes, it could. Should I place my trust in it? Absolutely. So when you ask someone, "Hey, are you playing Coalition Victory by any chance because I would rather not play against that kind of deck?" and they respond "No," take their word for it. If you weren't looking for the truth in the first place, then there's no reason to bother even asking the damn question.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
What you should trust me on is the fact that you didn’t need to actually question me on that. Seriously? Come on, man.
I don't know how to say this courteously. You're being ridiculous. You're being ridiculous, and your attitude really isn't helping the conversation here.
I very much care about the quality of the discourse taking place here because it means users can express ideas on complicated issues like this one without having to wade through bull*****. The fact that you're unwilling to admit you even said something foolish in the first place and would instead prefer to double down on your message because you're feeling aggravated isn't helping your case. If anything. It's made me lose a lot of respect for you as a poster, as someone deserving of my respect.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here though and actually respond to your response in earnest. You have to place your trust in something. For example, I trust Jupiter is the planet fifth furthest from the sun in our solar system. Could that possibly be untrue? Sure. It could. It might actually be sixth furthest. I have no way of proving either one way or the other. I'm merely trusting other people. Why would I do that? Because trusting other people in these sorts of instances helps me make sense of the world. Without doing so I wouldn't be able to make any kind of meaningful decisions. Broadcast tell me there's an accident down I-45 and that I should take a different road to work if I don't want to be late? You better damn well believe I'm trusting that. Could it be untrue? Yes, it could. Should I place my trust in it? Absolutely. So when you ask someone, "Hey, are you playing Coalition Victory by any chance because I would rather not play against that kind of deck?" and they respond "No," take their word for it. If you weren't looking for the truth in the first place, then there's no reason to bother even asking the damn question.
Feel better? Now, anything new to add to this discussion? No? Shocker. So let’s party like it’s 2017 and leave this alone until there is a legitimate reason to discuss it.
Case.Closed.
Funny how my posts are B******t, yet Impossible wanted to go full Flat-Earth theory on Coaltion Victory... again.
P.S.-I just read your post, you should maybe take a break. You just equated “lying” about your deck contents to real-world scenarios.
The real question is, how do you feel about Weathermen and their female counterparts?
Maybe i didnt make myself clear. This would go in my sliver deck, but only be used if every last one of my useful slivers were in the yard or exile zone and all my opponenets had similarly run out of gas. So that a real *****ty game could finally end.
Maybe i didnt make myself clear. This would go in my sliver deck, but only be used if every last one of my useful slivers were in the yard or exile zone and all my opponenets had similarly run out of gas. So that a real *****ty game could finally end.
If that’s the case, that’s where a house rule comes into play. The problem is, for every time CV gets used in a situation like this(i.e. Fairly), it’s going to get abused another 10 Times by players who just want to “win”. It’s a very simple set up, and always a relevant card because of how Commander works, so there is absolutely nothing stopping the 5-C player to pick his spot and just win the game, regardless of what has happened prior.
As for alternatives for your deck and your predicament, there are tons. Mass reanimation spells sound like something you should look into like Rise of the Dark realms or Patriarch’s Bidding. CV is just so anti-climactic and narrow that the rest of the table just feels robbed.
Because I would never tell somebody the contents of my deck??
Oh... I guess that's one way to play. I've certainly never seen anyone just flatly refuse to answer some basic questions about a new deck at the table. Generally while we're all shuffling up and seeing each other's commanders, if there is one who is known to be high powered or combo-centric I'll generally ask something along those lines. For example "Hey I see you're playing Karador, Ghost Chieftain. Are you running any infinites like Karmic Guide/Reveillark or Sun Titan/Saffi Eriksdotter?" It's a simple question and if you feel the need to lie about it I guess that just means you're someone I wouldn't want to play with.
Seriously? Like everything you listed shows how salty you are because a card you want in the format isn't valid. Yes, some of those answers DO work against CoVic, but guess what? CoVic is still banned. When did I say that the RC's list was balanced and even throughout? I'm well aware(from less contentious posts of yours and others in different topics) that there's a lot of 'line-blurring' between what's banned and what's not. I'm giving SOME reasons; I'm not saying that they are reasons I 100% back, nor did I ever say so. Please get your basic facts right too before you go off as you did; you don't get anyone on your side that way.
Yes. I get extremely irritated when people intentionally misrepresent basic facts to try and prove a point. You listed numerous cards that can stop a Tooth and Nail combo or a Coalition Victory, then immediately followed it up by saying CV has no interaction points thus making it worth banning. That is called a lie. And lies annoy me. So yes. Salt.
This entire post of yours if just you walking back your previous one to make it seem like you weren't just outright lying. You previously gave one reason (lack of interactivity) and then immediately lied about how many interaction points CV has. I don't care if you back that reason 100% or not. I don't care if you understand that the line between banned/not-banned is rather ambiguous. I care that you're spreading misinformation. If you want to debate CV on it's own merits, please, go right ahead. If you want to just lie and tell yourself it's banned just because, well frankly I don't have time for that.
Ugh, this actually bothers me. Really? How often do you sit down at a table and discuss the contents of your deck with your opponents? Hell, I don’t even do that when I’m playing 60-card Casual. It was just a really, really stupid comment, and yeah, I trolled her(and you). It is a game, after all. When you’re playing backyard football, do you tell your friends who you’re going to throw the ball too? Pretty sure it’s called “gamesmanship”.
Let us just take your analogy and run with it for a second. Pun intended, by the way. No, I don't expect you to yell out every play you're going to run for an entire game of backyard football. That would be silly. I also don't expect you to play with your hand revealed for an entire game of EDH. That would also be silly. What I would expect, however, is if you ask me "do you want to play some backyard football?" and I say "sure, is it touch or tackle?" is for you to answer the damn question. I want to know what kind of game I should expect. I'm going to be really upset if I show up to play touch football and immediately get tackled full speed. Likewise, if I'm sitting down with my Durdlely-McDurdleson deck I'm obviously not going to be happy when someone pulls out combo-Breya, Etherium Shaper. It's a simple matter of making sure everyone is expecting the same kind of game. I don't understand why you'd feel the need to lie about it.
People still want the literally only card that'd say "Counter this or lose the game" unbanned?
Really?
There is no other SINGLE card that, NO MATTER WHAT, either does absolutely nothing OR wins the game on the spot. CV has no in-between, unlike something like Tooth & Nail which can be used for an Avenger of Zendikar + Regal Force. Coalition Victory has no interesting interactions or anything.
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.
People still want the literally only card that'd say "Counter this or lose the game" unbanned?
Really?
There is no other SINGLE card that, NO MATTER WHAT, either does absolutely nothing OR wins the game on the spot. CV has no in-between, unlike something like Tooth & Nail which can be used for an Avenger of Zendikar + Regal Force. Coalition Victory has no interesting interactions or anything.
I’ll actually take this one step further and say that in the time since we last had a meaningful discussion on this card, I have seen a dramatic decline in T&N “I win” combos, and that’s across about a half-dozen play groups (30-40 peeps). It’s mainly value plays, as you pointed out.
Just because a card can be broken doesn’t mean you can equate it to a card that is broken. The RC has stood pretty firm on this, the banlist supports it as well. I mean, there’s 9 pages worth of this conversation to browse through, and it seems the guy who ressurected the thread has either gotten his answer, or doesn’t care any longer.
Back to my original, indisputable point. Not one announcement about the format since February 2017 has given any more reason to discuss beyond what has already taken place. Maybe if a card like Worldfire were to be freed, then sure, I think an honest discussion could be had about the reasons the 2 cards are different or not, but not now. If anything, the way the format is trending, this card will never come off. 5-Color is a bigger thing now, many more duals in the card pool means more budget-friendly builds. In turn, it makes this card much easier to run for the average joe.
People still want the literally only card that'd say "Counter this or lose the game" unbanned?
Really?
There is no other SINGLE card that, NO MATTER WHAT, either does absolutely nothing OR wins the game on the spot. CV has no in-between, unlike something like Tooth & Nail which can be used for an Avenger of Zendikar + Regal Force. Coalition Victory has no interesting interactions or anything.
I don't know how I feel about CV as a card in the format and it probably means nothing to me personally or the people I play with but exaggeration for the sake of it doesn't help your case in the slightest
CV has to resolve with all of its conditions on the field to be a victory condition, so saying it needs a Counter Spell or the person has victory is some of the most hyperbolic bull***** I have seen on this forum.
People still want the literally only card that'd say "Counter this or lose the game" unbanned?
Really?
There is no other SINGLE card that, NO MATTER WHAT, either does absolutely nothing OR wins the game on the spot. CV has no in-between, unlike something like Tooth & Nail which can be used for an Avenger of Zendikar + Regal Force. Coalition Victory has no interesting interactions or anything.
I don't know how I feel about CV as a card in the format and it probably means nothing to me personally or the people I play with but exaggeration for the sake of it doesn't help your case in the slightest
CV has to resolve with all of its conditions on the field to be a victory condition, so saying it needs a Counter Spell or the person has victory is some of the most hyperbolic bull***** I have seen on this forum.
It’s really not hyperbole. Its fact. If you don’t counter the spell, remove the appropriate creature/land, you lose.
Since we all like playing devils advocate to prove some outlandish point, Coalition Victory will never be cast unless the caster can guarantee the conditions will still be met once it resolves. So, is all it takes is a round of players tapping out to pull out a win, with what? A creature on the board and land of ever basic type? Considering that you are meeting both of those conditions in deck building process just by playing a 5-C general, no deck support necessary. Not difficult at all to find your spot to resolve the spell.
What is really bull**** here is anybody trying to argue the above. As far as hyperbole goes, what about “OMG, Tooth and Nail always wins the game!”. It can, sure, but that’s on the caster and depends on deck contents. Does that apply to CV? No, it does not, at all.
People still want the literally only card that'd say "Counter this or lose the game" unbanned?
Really?
There is no other SINGLE card that, NO MATTER WHAT, either does absolutely nothing OR wins the game on the spot. CV has no in-between, unlike something like Tooth & Nail which can be used for an Avenger of Zendikar + Regal Force. Coalition Victory has no interesting interactions or anything.
I don't know how I feel about CV as a card in the format and it probably means nothing to me personally or the people I play with but exaggeration for the sake of it doesn't help your case in the slightest
CV has to resolve with all of its conditions on the field to be a victory condition, so saying it needs a Counter Spell or the person has victory is some of the most hyperbolic bull***** I have seen on this forum.
Since we all like playing devils advocate to prove some outlandish point, Coalition Victory will never be cast unless the caster can guarantee the conditions will still be met once it resolves. So, is all it takes is a round of players tapping out to pull out a win, with what? A creature on the board and land of ever basic type? Considering that you are meeting both of those conditions in deck building process just by playing a 5-C general, no deck support necessary. Not difficult at all to find your spot to resolve the spell.
What is really bull**** here is anybody trying to argue the above. As far as hyperbole goes, what about “OMG, Tooth and Nail always wins the game!”. It can, sure, but that’s on the caster and depends on deck contents. Does that apply to CV? No, it does not, at all.
Congratulations you just described how ANY combo deck functions in this format. It is always getting the pieces together you need whether in hand or in play, not dying and waiting for an opening from your opponents whether in mana or resources in play.
Also
If you don’t counter the spell, remove the appropriate creature/land, you lose.
&
If you don’t counter the spell, remove the appropriate creature/land, you lose.
Is the definition of hyperbole, please don't try to argue the opposite it makes you look rather foolish.
I'm not saying CV not having a long execution as a point against it, I'm pointing out it's because the other combos have to compressed is the reason they are free, because the longer the process, the more interaction between the cards are involved. Even something as boring as Mike+Trike involves pinging and dies/etb triggers because of the way it functions, which opens up other paths of possibilities with each individual card that casuals want to play with, which is the reason competitive players still have access to the combo.
CV is only no worse than other game-ending resolutions in a competitive circle, because in that circle the only use for all the other cards comparable to it (Mike & Trike) is similar to CV. Likewise, in casual circles, CV is the only card that absolutely cannot be fun/memorable individually, whereas Mike, Trike, Doomsday & Enter the Infinite still have the potential to be fun/memorable individually in the most casual settings.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
When I said individually I didn't mean the combos, I meant each card separate from each other literally. The only reason they're still free is because there's likely some portion of the casual playerbase who still want to experiment with the cards without executing competitive combos, even when it comes to cards that are more or less terrible without their competitive applications like Doomsday and Enter the Infinite. Cards that say "you win the game" don't even provide that additional option and the only reason the rest of the "direct-win" cards are free is because they are either too slow or have a requirement of effort equivalent of assembling a competitive combo (or both).
Yes, functionally in the game they have no difference, but you can't say the technical difference is irrelevant because it has implications in deckbuilding, which is more or less half of the format's experience (considering there's quite the handful of people here who have the tendency to just build but not play). You can separate the components of any combo and the cards will still function, just not optimally (but not all players care about optimal play) whereas the "win" cards only have 1 route and its always optimal, which in a sense, goes against the "build casually" mentality. As mentioned earlier, the rest of the "win" cards are either two slow or require substantial buildup, so among them, CV is particularly "optimal", because it got the boost from the Commander Rule.
Now, as for build casually, play competitively, yeah, Victory is kind of bad for that, but I think most people would argue things like Winter Orb aren't exactly going to lead to anything casual. Either it's going to tip the mana curve way down to the level of normal tournament formats, lead to a ton of artifact destruction, or it's going to get cut for wrecking games. Banning cards because they can't be used for that mindset would lead to a silly long banned list.
The same thing that's been discussed earlier in the thread: mainly, it's lack of interactivity.
You play T&N into Terrastomper or Zealous Conscripts and Kiki-Jiki, there's numerous levels you can interact(disrupt) with the combo; kill the creatures, stop the spell, play an answer, so on. If one plays CoVic, and you aren't playing blue(or have a Pyroblastp or Red Elemental Blast in hand), you and anyone else are done.
You should also be aware that more duals have been printed covering the land gap(Canopy Vista being one of them). So, it's now a bit easier to accomplish the land stipulation as well.
To reiterate one more thing that was also in this thread: you run slivers, you say? Probably get a decent amount of targeting from other players, right? Would you like to be auto-targeted on sight for playing ANY 5 color commander, just because your deck MIGHT have an auto win-con? Sure, decks have win-cons, but usually you only find out about them after a good game(at which point, you adjust their threat level mentally). 5-colors are going to be at a disadvantage here, particularly if no one trusts what they say("I don't have Coalition Victory in this deck").
Simply put, I agree that despite all the push for it, it should stay banned. It's not going to be fun on either end of the table.
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
That's a very good angle that I think people miss a lot in these sorts of arguments.
Oh look, a “1 year anniversary” for a card that just doesn’t belong in the format.
Why should I trust what anybody has to say, ever? If you play with the same people all the time, then sure, take them at their word. However, I’d never expect a stranger to give me the low-down on his deck tech. So, to your point, if you can trust said individual, then you can probably propose to them that CV can be allowed via house rules. Problem.Solved.
Second, "just house rule it" is a pretty terrible argument. Regardless of the RC's intentions, people play the ban list. Period. Unless you have a strong, established play group, it is simply unfeasible to use house rules. Too many people switching in and out of the group. Too long before every game spent explaining that you're playing with banned cards. Too long arguing about why we allow some banned cards but not others. So on and so forth. Not to mention the same argument could be made in the other direction; if you don't like it being legal just house rule it. The whole idea is just a mess, and just saying "house rule" is not a sufficient answer.
Could we work around it with a house rule? Probably. Would it be worth it? Almost certainly not. None of that changes the underlying fact that, in the interest of maintaining as small a ban list as possible, Coalition Victory doesn't deserve to be banned. It is fundamentally no different from any number of cards that are currently legal.
Seriously? Like everything you listed shows how salty you are because a card you want in the format isn't valid. Yes, some of those answers DO work against CoVic, but guess what? CoVic is still banned. When did I say that the RC's list was balanced and even throughout? I'm well aware(from less contentious posts of yours and others in different topics) that there's a lot of 'line-blurring' between what's banned and what's not. I'm giving SOME reasons; I'm not saying that they are reasons I 100% back, nor did I ever say so. Please get your basic facts right too before you go off as you did; you don't get anyone on your side that way.
Also, pretty much everything Buffsam89 said; if you trust people enough to openly hand your deck over to them so they see what is and isn't in it, that's fine and your way of playing. But some people still like to play their cards close to the vest, and will do 'whatever it takes'. Yes, I don't play with those people if it's overly offensive...just as if you really want CoVic in a deck, house rule. Just house rule.
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
After about what looks like a year, I don't think my feelings on Coalition Victory have changed much. Coalition Victory is a card I never want to see played. It's effortless to cast, difficult to interact with, and ends the game in spectacularly lame fashion, invalidating all actions taken previous to it in much the same sense as Worldfire. Having said all that, I am also still of the opinion that if the card would see virtually no play (a la Worldgorger Dragon), it could be safely unbanned because the volume of harm it would produce, despite being an absolutely abysmal card, would be minuscule (the Winter Orb argument). That's not what I anticipate happening though, so I'm glad the RC is keeping Coalition Victory where it is.
Also, seriously? Come on, man.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Oh, I’m sorry. Do you trust me when I say that?
What you should trust me on is the fact that you didn’t need to actually question me on that. Seriously? Come on, man.
Ugh, this actually bothers me. Really? How often do you sit down at a table and discuss the contents of your deck with your opponents? Hell, I don’t even do that when I’m playing 60-card Casual. It was just a really, really stupid comment, and yeah, I trolled her(and you). It is a game, after all. When you’re playing backyard football, do you tell your friends who you’re going to throw the ball too? Pretty sure it’s called “gamesmanship”.
So cut that “holier than thou” stuff, it’s off-putting coming from somebody whose opinions I usually hold in high regard.
One final edit. If we’re really going to do this, then let me point out the fact that this thread had been dormant for a year. Nothing has changed in the format since then, so the arguments that will ensue are going to be the exact same as they were on the previous 9 pages(as already shown by Impossible).
I very much care about the quality of the discourse taking place here because it means users can express ideas on complicated issues like this one without having to wade through bull*****. The fact that you're unwilling to admit you even said something foolish in the first place and would instead prefer to double down on your message because you're feeling aggravated isn't helping your case. If anything. It's made me lose a lot of respect for you as a poster, as someone deserving of my respect.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here though and actually respond to your response in earnest. You have to place your trust in something. For example, I trust Jupiter is the planet fifth furthest from the sun in our solar system. Could that possibly be untrue? Sure. It could. It might actually be sixth furthest. I have no way of proving either one way or the other. I'm merely trusting other people. Why would I do that? Because trusting other people in these sorts of instances helps me make sense of the world. Without doing so I wouldn't be able to make any kind of meaningful decisions. Broadcast tell me there's an accident down I-45 and that I should take a different road to work if I don't want to be late? You better damn well believe I'm trusting that. Could it be untrue? Yes, it could. Should I place my trust in it? Absolutely. So when you ask someone, "Hey, are you playing Coalition Victory by any chance because I would rather not play against that kind of deck?" and they respond "No," take their word for it. If you weren't looking for the truth in the first place, then there's no reason to bother even asking the damn question.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Feel better? Now, anything new to add to this discussion? No? Shocker. So let’s party like it’s 2017 and leave this alone until there is a legitimate reason to discuss it.
Case.Closed.
Funny how my posts are B******t, yet Impossible wanted to go full Flat-Earth theory on Coaltion Victory... again.
P.S.-I just read your post, you should maybe take a break. You just equated “lying” about your deck contents to real-world scenarios.
The real question is, how do you feel about Weathermen and their female counterparts?
If that’s the case, that’s where a house rule comes into play. The problem is, for every time CV gets used in a situation like this(i.e. Fairly), it’s going to get abused another 10 Times by players who just want to “win”. It’s a very simple set up, and always a relevant card because of how Commander works, so there is absolutely nothing stopping the 5-C player to pick his spot and just win the game, regardless of what has happened prior.
As for alternatives for your deck and your predicament, there are tons. Mass reanimation spells sound like something you should look into like Rise of the Dark realms or Patriarch’s Bidding. CV is just so anti-climactic and narrow that the rest of the table just feels robbed.
This entire post of yours if just you walking back your previous one to make it seem like you weren't just outright lying. You previously gave one reason (lack of interactivity) and then immediately lied about how many interaction points CV has. I don't care if you back that reason 100% or not. I don't care if you understand that the line between banned/not-banned is rather ambiguous. I care that you're spreading misinformation. If you want to debate CV on it's own merits, please, go right ahead. If you want to just lie and tell yourself it's banned just because, well frankly I don't have time for that. Let us just take your analogy and run with it for a second. Pun intended, by the way. No, I don't expect you to yell out every play you're going to run for an entire game of backyard football. That would be silly. I also don't expect you to play with your hand revealed for an entire game of EDH. That would also be silly. What I would expect, however, is if you ask me "do you want to play some backyard football?" and I say "sure, is it touch or tackle?" is for you to answer the damn question. I want to know what kind of game I should expect. I'm going to be really upset if I show up to play touch football and immediately get tackled full speed. Likewise, if I'm sitting down with my Durdlely-McDurdleson deck I'm obviously not going to be happy when someone pulls out combo-Breya, Etherium Shaper. It's a simple matter of making sure everyone is expecting the same kind of game. I don't understand why you'd feel the need to lie about it. I don't know what this means.
Really?
There is no other SINGLE card that, NO MATTER WHAT, either does absolutely nothing OR wins the game on the spot. CV has no in-between, unlike something like Tooth & Nail which can be used for an Avenger of Zendikar + Regal Force. Coalition Victory has no interesting interactions or anything.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I’ll actually take this one step further and say that in the time since we last had a meaningful discussion on this card, I have seen a dramatic decline in T&N “I win” combos, and that’s across about a half-dozen play groups (30-40 peeps). It’s mainly value plays, as you pointed out.
Just because a card can be broken doesn’t mean you can equate it to a card that is broken. The RC has stood pretty firm on this, the banlist supports it as well. I mean, there’s 9 pages worth of this conversation to browse through, and it seems the guy who ressurected the thread has either gotten his answer, or doesn’t care any longer.
Back to my original, indisputable point. Not one announcement about the format since February 2017 has given any more reason to discuss beyond what has already taken place. Maybe if a card like Worldfire were to be freed, then sure, I think an honest discussion could be had about the reasons the 2 cards are different or not, but not now. If anything, the way the format is trending, this card will never come off. 5-Color is a bigger thing now, many more duals in the card pool means more budget-friendly builds. In turn, it makes this card much easier to run for the average joe.
I don't know how I feel about CV as a card in the format and it probably means nothing to me personally or the people I play with but exaggeration for the sake of it doesn't help your case in the slightest
CV has to resolve with all of its conditions on the field to be a victory condition, so saying it needs a Counter Spell or the person has victory is some of the most hyperbolic bull***** I have seen on this forum.
It’s really not hyperbole. Its fact. If you don’t counter the spell, remove the appropriate creature/land, you lose.
Since we all like playing devils advocate to prove some outlandish point, Coalition Victory will never be cast unless the caster can guarantee the conditions will still be met once it resolves. So, is all it takes is a round of players tapping out to pull out a win, with what? A creature on the board and land of ever basic type? Considering that you are meeting both of those conditions in deck building process just by playing a 5-C general, no deck support necessary. Not difficult at all to find your spot to resolve the spell.
What is really bull**** here is anybody trying to argue the above. As far as hyperbole goes, what about “OMG, Tooth and Nail always wins the game!”. It can, sure, but that’s on the caster and depends on deck contents. Does that apply to CV? No, it does not, at all.
Congratulations you just described how ANY combo deck functions in this format. It is always getting the pieces together you need whether in hand or in play, not dying and waiting for an opening from your opponents whether in mana or resources in play.
Also
If you don’t counter the spell, remove the appropriate creature/land, you lose.
&
If you don’t counter the spell,
remove the appropriate creature/land, you lose.Is the definition of hyperbole, please don't try to argue the opposite it makes you look rather foolish.