The only reason you and impossible are creating cards is because you are trying to move the line in the sand, simply because you have nothing that’s legal, or in print for that matter, to compare it to. At that point, what are we discussing? If CV was a different card and said different things it wouldn’t need to be banned?
There is value in discussing Coalition Victory. What I cannot see value in is discussing these hypotheticals. You are muddying the waters and making it near-Impossible to have a relevant discussion about the card by creating these scenarios that just have no real background to them.
To be fair, it's more like you (plural) keep moving the goalposts. Over the course of this thread I've given numerous examples of cards that can and do function similarly to CV, enough to raise doubts about it's necessity on the ban list. Most of the responses have been "but those cards don't literally say 'win the game' on them" or some variation of "but those cards have fair uses". I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the "fair use" of Enter the Infinite is. That card ends the game with more certainty than CV ever did.
As for the thought experiments, they are a oft used way to help re-imagine a problem or argument and come at it from a different angle. If you don't see the value in that I don't really know what to say. Perhaps this isn't the thread for you.
The only reason you and impossible are creating cards is because you are trying to move the line in the sand, simply because you have nothing that’s legal, or in print for that matter, to compare it to. At that point, what are we discussing? If CV was a different card and said different things it wouldn’t need to be banned?
There is value in discussing Coalition Victory. What I cannot see value in is discussing these hypotheticals. You are muddying the waters and making it near-Impossible to have a relevant discussion about the card by creating these scenarios that just have no real background to them.
To be fair, it's more like you (plural) keep moving the goalposts. Over the course of this thread I've given numerous examples of cards that can and do function similarly to CV, enough to raise doubts about it's necessity on the ban list. Most of the responses have been "but those cards don't literally say 'win the game' on them" or some variation of "but those cards have fair uses". I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the "fair use" of Enter the Infinite is. That card ends the game with more certainty than CV ever did.
As for the thought experiments, they are a oft used way to help re-imagine a problem or argument and come at it from a different angle. If you don't see the value in that I don't really know what to say. Perhaps this isn't the thread for you.
Says I’m moving goalposts, goes on to ask why -insert flashy card- isn’t banned because it has no fair use.
Do you even know what “Fair Uses” means? Honest question. I really don’t think you do, it’s evident in every single post you make, that you either don’t know, don’t understand, or just ignore.
Tooth and Nail- Fair use would be grabbing the thousands of non-Infinite creature combos that exist, effectively making a cost reducing to-battlefield tutor. I play it that way. The RC clearly plays it that way. Does it get abused? Sure. It’s not the card, though.
Enter the Infinite- There isn’t much to be said here, but it’s a fragile as all hell win-con that requires your deck to be built around it. I don’t even see it anymore, as I’ve seen it fizzle more times than certain victory. It relies to heavily on other cards, shouldn’t even be in the discussion here. I will say though, it’s fun to watch it play out even on the opposing side as misplays, or opponents interaction can cause it to fail.
How about Worldfire? Biorythm? Sway of the Stars? You never mention, or acknowledge these cards. These share way more in common with Coalition Victory than anything you’ve brought up in this entire thread. Oh, it’s because they don’t make your argument, that’s why. Those cards, and CV, are poster children for “interacts poorly with the format”, which has been mentioned well over a dozen times and always falls on your seemingly deaf ears. You know, part of the criteria the RC uses when determining whether or not to ban a card.
It’s fine to discuss cards, but the RC has set forth a list of criteria they use in banning cards. To me, for a card to be considered safe to be unbanned, it would have to no longer meet that criteria. So, since Coalition Victory has been banned, what makes it not interact poorly with the format any longer? Did the rules change? Did cards that share the same fate get unbanned? Did the RC have a change of heart on the format philosphy and ban criteria?
NO. End of discussion.(Well, unless you are willing to discuss how it doesn’t interact poorly with the format, without using the same tired examples of other cards that clearly do not).
As a matter of fact not to mention it's secretly has "can't be countered" because it's a cast trigger just like the eldrazis have
Approach does not have a cast trigger. It has a self-replacement effect that modifies what it does on resolution. You do actually have to resolve it the second time. (You don't have to resolve it the first time, but if it doesn't resolve that generally means it's going to be rather more difficult to cast a second time in a singleton format.) You also have to cast it from your hand the second time, which I've seen people get bitten by before. (Specifically, trying to do the second cast from their library via Future Sight.)
By comparison, all CV has to do is resolve. No one is going to play it unless it achieves its desired effect, because that's all it does. Unless its countered, there is no interaction to be had, short of corner cases like Time Stop, Aethersnatch, Commandeer.
In any type of fairness, one can only draw comparison between CV and other 'you win the game' cards. Of those, here are the ones I see as the easiest to fulfill: Approach of the Second Sun Epic Struggle Felidar Sovereign Hellkite Tyrant Laboratory Maniac Mayael's Aria Mechanized Production Revel in Riches Test of Endurance
Of these cards (and the rest), not a single one will unequivocally, in every situation, win you the game immediately upon resolution. Each one of them either requires a fairly specific set of conditions that require building around, or is a particularly fragile win condition. There are some among the list that are used nefariously to good effect(Lab Man is the primary culprit I see played), but all of them provide an opportunity for interaction past the point of resolution. That's something Coalition Victory can't claim. It can only be countered, and all you need to do to have met its conditions is have your commander in play. Add Boseiju, who Shelters All into the mix and it's entirely non-interactive and airtight. Sure there are times you might play it in which it wouldn't win you the game, but that's on the user - why would you waste 3WUBRG unless you have the game in the bag?
I'm all for thought experiments, and I enjoy a good debate, but the argument can't be a straw man. You have to make it as fair a comparison as possible.
As far as the card you conceived, I consider it to be if anything more abusable than CV. Only requiring G to cast is nuts. Karametra's Acolyte could get you that within the first 5 turns, as could Growing Rite of Itlimoc or Gaea's Cradle, Elvish Archdruid and plenty of other options.
I think there's a case for most cards. If you can honestly come up with a reason for CV to be unbanned I'll tip my hat. Considering it's already on the list, the onus is on you to prove it justifies unbanning, so good luck.
The only reason you and impossible are creating cards is because you are trying to move the line in the sand, simply because you have nothing that’s legal, or in print for that matter, to compare it to. At that point, what are we discussing? If CV was a different card and said different things it wouldn’t need to be banned?
There is value in discussing Coalition Victory. What I cannot see value in is discussing these hypotheticals. You are muddying the waters and making it near-Impossible to have a relevant discussion about the card by creating these scenarios that just have no real background to them.
To be fair, it's more like you (plural) keep moving the goalposts. Over the course of this thread I've given numerous examples of cards that can and do function similarly to CV, enough to raise doubts about it's necessity on the ban list. Most of the responses have been "but those cards don't literally say 'win the game' on them" or some variation of "but those cards have fair uses". I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the "fair use" of Enter the Infinite is. That card ends the game with more certainty than CV ever did.
As for the thought experiments, they are a oft used way to help re-imagine a problem or argument and come at it from a different angle. If you don't see the value in that I don't really know what to say. Perhaps this isn't the thread for you.
Okay, so if I ramp up to 11 mana and I cast Enter the Infinite, have I won the game?
No, I have not. I still have to play all those cards. And without Omniscience or Dream Halls or something that's gonna be hard.
You haven't given a single card yet that comes even close to rivalling Coalition Victory in sheer "End the game now" potentional. Even T&N, which is already often counted among the "Not many would hate seeing this get banned" camp has more counterplays, requires more deck slots and more work.
As stated before. The card IS on the banlist. YOU should make a compelling argument about why that card should be unbanned, and no, "so the kiddies know just what exactly beat them" is not a good argument.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I want to ask a simple question (and please don't hate me for it): even if we assume that the card is as broken as some claim, will it appear in enough games for that to be a real issue? It's not just how powerful or centralizing a card is that matters, but also its ubiquity, as it's a combination of the two that generates its toxicity. I mean, it is a five colored card, so even if it saw play in every deck it could that's still a rather small deck percentage by comparison. That's a pretty big difference from the mono colored cards cited above that can appear in a significantly larger deck pool.
No hate here, only logical, well thought discussion.
Criteria for banning: * Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander
* Creates Undesirable Game States
* Problematic Casual Omnipresence
* Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly
* Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry
These are direct from the official site. Also from the official site: Meeting one (or more) criteria on the banlist is not a guarantee of a ban. Some cards fit the description, but either aren't problematic enough to justify a ban, are largely eschewed by the casual community, or possess other redeeming factors. Cards are evaluated by their general use, not simply their worst-case scenario. Similar cards may have just enough difference to put them on opposite sides of the line.
With all that in mind, no there aren't a preponderance of pentacoloured decks around, and I don't think CV being unbanned would change that. That being said, there's every chance it would become ubiquitous as a staple in pentacoloured decks if unbanned. All this aside, I don't see this as the primary reason it was banned. I think its predominantly the 'undesirable game state' argument, although the argument could be made that its also a culprit under the 'interacts poorly with the structure of commander' criterion, as it need do no more than resolve to end the game - it kind of straddles those two criteria to my mind. And that's enough to justify it being on the list. No one likes a game that ends abruptly with the resolution of a single spell with no avenue to intervene, and the nature of the color identity rulings in Commander leads CV to be too easily manipulated by particular generals.
Do you even know what “Fair Uses” means? Honest question. I really don’t think you do, it’s evident in every single post you make, that you either don’t know, don’t understand, or just ignore.
Yeah yeah. "Fair use" is whatever use the person talking happens to agree with.
How about Worldfire? Biorythm? Sway of the Stars? You never mention, or acknowledge these cards. These share way more in common with Coalition Victory than anything you’ve brought up in this entire thread. Oh, it’s because they don’t make your argument, that’s why. Those cards, and CV, are poster children for “interacts poorly with the format”, which has been mentioned well over a dozen times and always falls on your seemingly deaf ears. You know, part of the criteria the RC uses when determining whether or not to ban a card.
Why should I mention those cards? Worldfire and Sway of the Stars have obvious problems regarding floating mana beforehand then casting your general afterward. It circumvents the intended function of the card in an non-interactive way. Biorhythm I'm less sure why it's banned but I assume it's because elf-ball style decks are already annoying, and it's super easy to ramp out. CV has no such problems. Having a general certainly makes the conditions easier to achieve but it doesn't circumvent the purpose of the card; it still does what you think it does and it can still be stopped all the same ways.
This really has nothing to do with the argument, I just wanted to ask exactly what is Flux doing on that list? As for the actual point, see below. I'm going to quote and respond to Lou who makes a similar argument.
By comparison, all CV has to do is resolve. No one is going to play it unless it achieves its desired effect, because that's all it does. Unless its countered, there is no interaction to be had, short of corner cases like Time Stop, Aethersnatch, Commandeer.
Someone obviously skipped the last 12 pages. This is just blatantly false and has been covered quite extensively already. Short version is that every color has instant-speed ways to remove a creature or a land providing the colors/types for CV's conditions, which will cause CV to resolve with no effect.
Okay, so if I ramp up to 11 mana and I cast Enter the Infinite, have I won the game?
No, but that game is over for you either way in a turn. Option one is you'll do whatever you were trying to do and presumably win. Option two is you'll fail to go off somehow and then deck yourself. Either way you're essentially done. Ergo, my initial statement that Enter the Infinite ends the game with more certainty than CV. At least when CV fails the game just continues on as normal.
You haven't given a single card yet that comes even close to rivalling Coalition Victory in sheer "End the game now" potentional.
Well, I did just reiterate my stance that EtI will end the game (for the caster, at least) more reliably than CV will so... there's that, I guess?
More relevantly, however, is that I've been indulging this misguided notion that CV is a "single card that ends the game" and restricting myself to examples that similarly fit this description. The fact of the matter is that CV is a single card that does literal nothing. As in, if you play land and pass for 7 turns before slamming CV on turn 8 you will have accomplished absolutely nothing.
Even T&N, which is already often counted among the "Not many would hate seeing this get banned" camp has more counterplays, requires more deck slots and more work.
Arguable. The amount of counterplay is dependent on the combo being fetched, not to mention that T&N can be played into an empty board whereas CV requires at least 1 creature in play. I don't know why you care so much about how many deck slots it takes up, especially when the difference is so minimal. And what exactly does "more work" mean?
As stated before. The card IS on the banlist. YOU should make a compelling argument about why that card should be unbanned, and no, "so the kiddies know just what exactly beat them" is not a good argument.
The argument is that EDH has evolved fairly significantly since CV was originally put on the banned list, and it is worth reconsidering if it still deserves its place. It's been over a decade since CV was banned. And since then, WotC has continued to print cards that push the power level of what we think of as acceptable. At this point it is more or less expected to be able to win the game off the back of some 8+ mana spell, regardless if that spell literally says "win the game" on it, and nobody bats an eye. CV being banned looks like a relic of a bygone era.
Let's just run down the list that was kindly posted: Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander - Eh... sort of? It is certainly easier to meet the requirements of CV but it isn't like Worldfire where having guaranteed access to your general fundamentally changes how the card works. If simply working in conjunction with your general is cause for a ban, the list would be significantly larger.
Creates Undesirable Game States - Not really. It either ends the game and everyone gets to shuffle up for another, or it does nothing and the game continues on like normal. It's no Limited Resources or Panoptic Mirror.
Problematic Casual Omnipresence - This is the biggest actual argument against CV. It's possible that unbanning CV will lead to a sudden spike of 5-color decks, every one of which is running CV just because they can. This seems extremely unlikely to me for the same reasons people don't casually run Armageddon or Enter the Infinite; it is very obvious what kind of effect these kind of cards have and that is something most players choose to avoid when building.
Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly - Not relevant to CV.
Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry - Also not relevant to CV.
Coalition Victory is a ban list leftover that was added back when 'win the game' spells (literal or otherwise) were hardly a thing. This kind of effect is just another drop in the pool at this point. I mean Protean Hulk was recently unbanned, and that is one of the most broken, easy-to-use one-card combo-machines ever printed in EDH. The times, they are a-changin'.
This really has nothing to do with the argument, I just wanted to ask exactly what is Flux doing on that list? As for the actual point, see below. I'm going to quote and respond to Lou who makes a similar argument.
Someone obviously skipped the last 12 pages. This is just blatantly false and has been covered quite extensively already. Short version is that every color has instant-speed ways to remove a creature or a land providing the colors/types for CV's conditions, which will cause CV to resolve with no effect.
And pentacolour has plenty of ways to build contingency into decks to mitigate this. Dual lands, shock lands, hybrid colour creatures, this rebuttal is zero sum.
And neither will CV.
This is just plain wrong. I'll need clarification here before you've come anywhere near close to convincing me or anyone else. If it doesn't win you the game you're not casting it, or you're not doing it right.
Well, I did just reiterate my stance that EtI will end the game (for the caster, at least) more reliably than CV will so... there's that, I guess?
You're changing the stipulations of this debate to fit your stance. EtI is nowhere near close to the banlist, isn't a powerful game-winning card unless built around, and in most decks would be seen as high risk jank. If we're comparing all cards that end the game one way or another, why aren't you discussing cards like Glorious End or Second Chance? BECAUSE THEY'RE JANK.
More relevantly, however, is that I've been indulging this misguided notion that CV is a "single card that ends the game" and restricting myself to examples that similarly fit this description. The fact of the matter is that CV is a single card that does literal nothing. As in, if you play land and pass for 7 turns before slamming CV on turn 8 you will have accomplished absolutely nothing.
Either way you cut this statement, it doesn't support your argument. If I agree, CV adds nothing productive to the game, so why unban it? If I disagree (which would be correct), you've won the game if it resolves. Which fits well under the "undesirable game state" criteria. So why unban it? You're argument is here is that you're playing a card that says "pay 3WURBG." Which is fundamentally incorrect, and intentionally misleading.
The argument is that EDH has evolved fairly significantly since CV was originally put on the banned list, and it is worth reconsidering if it still deserves its place. It's been over a decade since CV was banned. And since then, WotC has continued to print cards that push the power level of what we think of as acceptable. At this point it is more or less expected to be able to win the game off the back of some 8+ mana spell, regardless if that spell literally says "win the game" on it, and nobody bats an eye. CV being banned looks like a relic of a bygone era.
This isn't enough. If you want it off the list, tell me what it adds to the Commander metagame by being available. As a currently banned card, our natural assumption is that it ought to stay there unless there is a reasonable argument that it should be unbanned. So far, I've seen nothing.
Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander - Eh... sort of? It is certainly easier to meet the requirements of CV but it isn't like Worldfire where having guaranteed access to your general fundamentally changes how the card works. If simply working in conjunction with your general is cause for a ban, the list would be significantly larger.
It's on the list for exactly the same reasonWorldfire is; games that end on the spot are not fun, they're underwhelming and satisfy no one's desires for a fun, socially interactive game. This is the fundamental element of what makes Commander different to more competitive formats of Magic. Case closed.
Creates Undesirable Game States - Not really. It either ends the game and everyone gets to shuffle up for another, or it does nothing and the game continues on like normal. It's no Limited Resources or Panoptic Mirror.
In a world where Food Chain Tazri is a thing and there are super competitive Scion/Horde/Child decks around, can you guarantee that you wouldn't be able to produce an out of the blue, non-interactive CV win on a regular basis? With access to all colours, you have tutors, ways to play it for cheaper, ensure it doesn't get countered - this is the undesirable game state. I don't mind reshuffling and playing again after a short game, but the chances are high CV is able to be played and resolved for the win consistently.
Problematic Casual Omnipresence - This is the biggest actual argument against CV. It's possible that unbanning CV will lead to a sudden spike of 5-color decks, every one of which is running CV just because they can. This seems extremely unlikely to me for the same reasons people don't casually run Armageddon or Enter the Infinite; it is very obvious what kind of effect these kind of cards have and that is something most players choose to avoid when building.
Once again, if you're confident that you can produce the win, most competitive decks don't care if they telegraph. It's not a problem for any of the Tier 1 competitive decks - you know what you're facing with Jeleva Storm or Arcum, it doesn't stop them being very strong.
I mean Protean Hulk was recently unbanned, and that is one of the most broken, easy-to-use one-card combo-machines ever printed in EDH.
This statement is fundamentally wrong. It clearly is NOT a one card combo - it is strong with Flash (we're up to two cards now), and tutors to battlefield for two other creatures (now we're up to four). This statement is entirely false, and can be lumped in the same pile as the Tooth and Nail rebuttal - you're comparing apples and oranges to get an equivalency, and it doesn't add up.
With all that in mind, no there aren't a preponderance of pentacoloured decks around, and I don't think CV being unbanned would change that. That being said, there's every chance it would become ubiquitous as a staple in pentacoloured decks if unbanned. All this aside, I don't see this as the primary reason it was banned. I think its predominantly the 'undesirable game state' argument, although the argument could be made that its also a culprit under the 'interacts poorly with the structure of commander' criterion, as it need do no more than resolve to end the game - it kind of straddles those two criteria to my mind. And that's enough to justify it being on the list. No one likes a game that ends abruptly with the resolution of a single spell with no avenue to intervene, and the nature of the color identity rulings in Commander leads CV to be too easily manipulated by particular generals.
Ubiquitous in the scope of a cgg doesn't pertain to how often it appears in a certain category of decks such as five colored ones. Ubiquity pertains to saturation of the format's environment as a whole. In other words, realistically what percentage of the total games played will Coalition Victory appear in a deck and is that percentage large enough to have a meaningful impact on the environment? When comparing it to things like Worldfire you have to bear in mind that being five colored means it can only be in comparatively few decks while monocolored cards like Worldfire can fit into a significantly larger deck pool and therefore have a much larger impact on the environment.
Furthermore, winning the game is not an undesirable game state. An undesirable game state is more like using Leovold, Emissary of Trest as a commander and forcing your opponents to watch as you're the only one actually playing the game. At least Coalition Victory is merciful in that it ends things and lets people move on the next game. As for interacts poorly with the structure of commander, that's more for cards that leverage the rules and game play mechanics to get their advantage, such as Karakas. Considering this card takes advantage of the fact that it will always have access to a five colored creature (commander) I'll be willing to give you that if you want. Still, that leaves my question: will it appear often enough in game play to warrant this being enough of a problem for the banned list to care?
Someone obviously skipped the last 12 pages. This is just blatantly false and has been covered quite extensively already. Short version is that every color has instant-speed ways to remove a creature or a land providing the colors/types for CV's conditions, which will cause CV to resolve with no effect.
And pentacolour has plenty of ways to build contingency into decks to mitigate this. Dual lands, shock lands, hybrid colour creatures, this rebuttal is zero sum.
Isn't "lacks interaction" one of the arguments for wanting the card to stay banned? "I play a card, you play cards to stop it, I play other cards to get around your removal" is the very definition of interaction. Just saying.
If I agree, CV adds nothing productive to the game, so why unban it?
This is a terrible argument and always has been. "Not adding anything to the game" is just an excuse to project personal distaste for a card as reason to keep it banned. Weather or not a card is fun, interesting, or makes for better games is a player issue and not one the banned list should ever care about. (Especially considering that it's completely opinionated.) The banned list should only care about cards that take enough from the format that their presence often enough creates a toxic or otherwise miserable experience. Therefore the burden of proof is on demonstrating weather or not a given card has enough of a negative to warrant being on the list, not if it has enough of a positive to warrant coming off.
To emphasize further, if the banned list were being created from scratch right now, would you honestly expect Card X to be included? If you say "no", than the reason it would not be added to this hypothetical list is also the reason it should not remain on the real one.
In a world where Food Chain Tazri is a thing and there are super competitive Scion/Horde/Child decks around, can you guarantee that you wouldn't be able to produce an out of the blue, non-interactive CV win on a regular basis? With access to all colours, you have tutors, ways to play it for cheaper, ensure it doesn't get countered - this is the undesirable game state. I don't mind reshuffling and playing again after a short game, but the chances are high CV is able to be played and resolved for the win consistently.
The rules committee - and therefore the banned list - doesn't care about competitive decks. Bringing them up is irrelevant to this thread.
I want to ask a simple question (and please don't hate me for it): even if we assume that the card is as broken as some claim, will it appear in enough games for that to be a real issue?
I can't speak for others, but if Coalition Victory were unbanned, I would definitely run it in my Child of Alara deck (currently my only 5C deck). The deck runs 10x duals, 10x shocks, 10x fetches (plus 1x Plains, Murmuring Bosk, and Mistveil Plains for an extra 2 plains and a forest, and Krosan Verge for an 11th fetch), and most of the nonland permanents are or can become indestructible (my two planeswalkers, Sun Titan, Eternal Witness, and Shifting Shadows being the only exceptions). Getting me off the land types I need is difficult by the time I've got 8 mana. Getting me off the creature colors I need is difficult if they're all indestructible, or if I'm relying on Child, it means trading CV for Planar Cleansing by destroying Child... and the deck has plenty of recursion for both creatures and noncreatures to try again.
It clearly is NOT a one card combo - it is strong with Flash (we're up to two cards now), and tutors to battlefield for two other creatures (now we're up to four).
Protean Hulk frequently tutors for more than 2 creatures. My favorite Hulk pile is in fact 13 creatures! (Márton Stromgald, Veteran Armorer, 11x CMC 0 creatures).
More serious Hulk combos often search for 3-4 creatures, or search for a creature that can reanimate Hulk to get multiple Hulk triggers in a single turn, resulting in additional slots total used for the combo.
Ubiquitous in the scope of a cgg doesn't pertain to how often it appears in a certain category of decks such as five colored ones. Ubiquity pertains to saturation of the format's environment as a whole. In other words, realistically what percentage of the total games played will Coalition Victory appear in a deck and is that percentage large enough to have a meaningful impact on the environment? When comparing it to things like Worldfire you have to bear in mind that being five colored means it can only be in comparatively few decks while monocolored cards like Worldfire can fit into a significantly larger deck pool and therefore have a much larger impact on the environment.
I get all of this and yeah it's undeniable in its own way - there aren't many pentacolour decks around. I would say that most that could run it, would, though. Which is pervasive enough to contend with Tooth and Nail and Protean Hulk, the primary comparisons thus far.
Furthermore, winning the game is not an undesirable game state.
No it's not, in general. But seeing this win con come up repeatedly would piss me off, and I can't think of anyone I know who would disagree.
Isn't "lacks interaction" one of the arguments for wanting the card to stay banned? "I play a card, you play cards to stop it, I play other cards to get around your removal" is the very definition of interaction. Just saying.
Ok. All I was saying is the argument being made was redundant, because for as many ways to make CV whiff, there are as many ways to make sure it doesn't. The argument being made was essentially 'dies to doom blade', which is never a good argument.
This is a terrible argument and always has been. "Not adding anything to the game" is just an excuse to project personal distaste for a card as reason to keep it banned. Weather or not a card is fun, interesting, or makes for better games is a player issue and not one the banned list should ever care about.
This is absolutely untrue. The quote I've bolded is absolutely something the RC cares about, and if a card is causing bad times, it's a contender. They make it clear that they encourage a fun, interactive social gaming experience. Besides, this is not personal distaste. I've nothing invested in this argument, and wouldn't play CV if it were legal because it doesn't interest me. Turning the 'adds nothing to the game' statement on its head, though, what does it take away from the game? Fun and to a reasonable extent, interaction. That alone is enough to keep it chained up.
The rules committee - and therefore the banned list - doesn't care about competitive decks. Bringing them up is irrelevant to this thread.
You're not wrong. This is more just an illustration that pentacoloured decks are thoroughly capable of abusing CV to its fullest extent. I know a lot of the blame for consistent abuse of a card falls on the person playing it, but considering it's already on the list, I can see no reason it should be removed.
The rules committee - and therefore the banned list - doesn't care about competitive decks. Bringing them up is irrelevant to this thread.
This is true. Which is why CV is banned. It would cause the most problems at causal tables, which is exactly what the banned list is crafted for. Not sure what you were trying to get at there.
As far as the ubiquity point, it would show up in every 5-C deck. Sure, there aren’t as many options so that limits the potential to see it, but that isn’t something that will remain the same over time. They just printed a 5-C pre-con for Christmas sake. This is an absolutely terrible argument that honestly has no merit. If anything, CV would drive people away from 5-C because it would draw unnecessary hate for having access to the card.
In short, if the list were crafted from scratch, today, I would expect to see CV on there. It just goes against everything the format is about, from exploiting format rules, to ignoring the spirit of the format.
This is just plain wrong. I'll need clarification here before you've come anywhere near close to convincing me or anyone else. If it doesn't win you the game you're not casting it, or you're not doing it right.
You cast Coalition Victory. In response I Swords your Cromat. Look at that, I've successfully stopped your CV and made you waste a card.
You're changing the stipulations of this debate to fit your stance. EtI is nowhere near close to the banlist, isn't a powerful game-winning card unless built around, and in most decks would be seen as high risk jank. If we're comparing all cards that end the game one way or another, why aren't you discussing cards like Glorious End or Second Chance? BECAUSE THEY'RE JANK.
Part of the argument against CV is that it has the potential to end the game with little in the way of set up. EtI has the exact same potential and, as you said, isn't seriously worth considering for the banlist. So why are we singling out CV? Because people have an irrational fear/hatred of the words "win the game"?
Either way you cut this statement, it doesn't support your argument. If I agree, CV adds nothing productive to the game, so why unban it? If I disagree (which would be correct), you've won the game if it resolves. Which fits well under the "undesirable game state" criteria. So why unban it? You're argument is here is that you're playing a card that says "pay 3WURBG." Which is fundamentally incorrect, and intentionally misleading.
Anti-CV people have continually been pushing this idea that CV is one card that says "win the game" with no other text on it, which simply isn't true. CV requires at least 1 creature in play and some number of lands, and it has multiple ways to interact with it across all 5 colors while on the stack to prevent it from winning. The only intentionally misleading statements are those that insist CV is a one-card win-the-game with no way to stop it.
This isn't enough. If you want it off the list, tell me what it adds to the Commander metagame by being available. As a currently banned card, our natural assumption is that it ought to stay there unless there is a reasonable argument that it should be unbanned. So far, I've seen nothing.
I think Avatar_of_Doh answered this point excellently so I don't really have anything to add.
It's on the list for exactly the same reasonWorldfire is; games that end on the spot are not fun, they're underwhelming and satisfy no one's desires for a fun, socially interactive game. This is the fundamental element of what makes Commander different to more competitive formats of Magic. Case closed.
Just because YOU find them underwhelming doesn't mean everyone does. Some people actually enjoy combo finishes. Some people actually enjoy playing with and against Stax decks. And some people just want to win using an epic story-moment card. Again, Doh covered a lot of this already.
In a world where Food Chain Tazri is a thing and there are super competitive Scion/Horde/Child decks around, can you guarantee that you wouldn't be able to produce an out of the blue, non-interactive CV win on a regular basis? With access to all colours, you have tutors, ways to play it for cheaper, ensure it doesn't get countered - this is the undesirable game state. I don't mind reshuffling and playing again after a short game, but the chances are high CV is able to be played and resolved for the win consistently.
First, as (again) Doh pointed out, the RC doesn't care about competitive combos or cutthroat decks. Second, if I'm playing a competitive 5-color deck, you can be sure CV would not be my first, second or maybe even my third win-con of choice. Having all 5-colors and basically the entirety of every Magic card ever printed, I assure you there are numerous, numerous better ways to win than casting an 8-mana spell that requires a 5-color creature in play and even then it still vulnerable to a simple removal spell.
Once again, if you're confident that you can produce the win, most competitive decks don't care if they telegraph. It's not a problem for any of the Tier 1 competitive decks - you know what you're facing with Jeleva Storm or Arcum, it doesn't stop them being very strong.
Again, the RC cares about casual play, where CV has the potential to be the most problematic. CV would never see play in an actual competitive deck except as a Plan D in case literally every other win-con they have gets stopped somehow.
This statement is fundamentally wrong. It clearly is NOT a one card combo - it is strong with Flash (we're up to two cards now), and tutors to battlefield for two other creatures (now we're up to four). This statement is entirely false, and can be lumped in the same pile as the Tooth and Nail rebuttal - you're comparing apples and oranges to get an equivalency, and it doesn't add up.
If my P.Hulk dies and you have no responses, you've lost the game. There are just ever so many combos P.Hulk can get, across an entire spectrum of colors, that he might actually be one of the best competitive EDH cards in existence.
I can't speak for others, but if Coalition Victory were unbanned, I would definitely run it in my Child of Alara deck (currently my only 5C deck). The deck runs 10x duals, 10x shocks, 10x fetches (plus 1x Plains, Murmuring Bosk, and Mistveil Plains for an extra 2 plains and a forest, and Krosan Verge for an 11th fetch), and most of the nonland permanents are or can become indestructible (my two planeswalkers, Sun Titan, Eternal Witness, and Shifting Shadows being the only exceptions). Getting me off the land types I need is difficult by the time I've got 8 mana. Getting me off the creature colors I need is difficult if they're all indestructible, or if I'm relying on Child, it means trading CV for Planar Cleansing by destroying Child... and the deck has plenty of recursion for both creatures and noncreatures to try again.
This...is something. The top half of tour post contradicts the bottom, and vice versa. I mean:
In response I Swords your Cromat. Look at that, I've successfully stopped your CV and made you waste a card.
Or, maybe it can’t be counterd? Or maybe you can’t respond? Or maybe I just say no? Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous your logic is? It’s the “dies to doom blade” argument which, ironically, Cromat cannot. If you are going to equate it to other combos, then you have to acknowledge that all of the conditions you’d play a normal combo under, you’d also play Coalition Victory.This is the worst you’ve come up with yet.
Just because YOU find them underwhelming doesn't mean everyone does. Some people actually enjoy combo finishes. Some people actually enjoy playing with and against Stax decks. And some people just want to win using an epic story-moment card. Again, Doh covered a lot of this already.
This is actually funny. So, why not ask for a house rule? If you want to play it so badly, ask your group. Only takes a few seconds, you’ve said it yourself(you know, asking about deck contents, blah blah blah, when I said that i trust no one, ever). You won’t, though, as you’ve also been very clear on how you feel about that. So my question is, why? Why can’t you ask your group? Will they say no? I could only imagine why? Probably because they dislike the exact things you mentioned. Sorry, but that is not the format EDH strives to be, and the ban list supports that well beyond the few cards listed in this thread. Sheldon has gone on “unofficial record” saying as much.
Again, the RC cares about casual play, where CV has the potential to be the most problematic. CV would never see play in an actual competitive deck except as a Plan D in case literally every other win-con they have gets stopped somehow.
So you want to unban a card that would cause the most damage to Casual tables, the only thing the RC cares about? Got it... Moving on.
If my P.Hulk(Coalition Victoryresolves)does and you have no responses, you've lost the game. There are just ever so many combos P.Hulk can get, across an entire spectrum of colors, that he might actually be one of the best competitive EDH cards in existence.
That part about contradicting? Yeah, pretty evident here. I put what you really meant there in parentheses, because you clearly do not know what you are talking about. This honestly is a joke at this point. I hate to keep rubbing it in, but in terms of P.Hulk and it’s “competitiveness”:
Or, maybe it can’t be counterd? Or maybe you can’t respond? Or maybe I just say no? Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous your logic is? It’s the “dies to doom blade” argument which, ironically, Cromat cannot. If you are going to equate it to other combos, then you have to acknowledge that all of the conditions you’d play a normal combo under, you’d also play Coalition Victory.This is the worst you’ve come up with yet.
What point are you trying to make? That someone has a game-ending threat, and a way to protect that threat... that that's a problem somehow? I honestly don't even know what you're trying to say.
This is actually funny. So, why not ask for a house rule? If you want to play it so badly, ask your group. Only takes a few seconds, you’ve said it yourself(you know, asking about deck contents, blah blah blah, when I said that i trust no one, ever). You won’t, though, as you’ve also been very clear on how you feel about that. So my question is, why? Why can’t you ask your group? Will they say no? I could only imagine why? Probably because they dislike the exact things you mentioned. Sorry, but that is not the format EDH strives to be, and the ban list supports that well beyond the few cards listed in this thread. Sheldon has gone on “unofficial record” saying as much.
You seem to be operating under a false pretense. I don't own a 5-color deck, and even if I did I probably wouldn't play CV. That doesn't change the fact that it doesn't need to be on the ban list.
When T&N resolves, what wins the game? It wasn't T&N, was it... Feel free to replace T&N with anything from Doomsday to Enter the infinite. Answer is, and always will be, the same.
That's okay. I haven't take you seriously since... right about here:
Quote from Buffsam89 »
When Coalition Victory resolves, what won the game? CV, no?
When T&N resolves, what wins the game? It wasn't T&N, was it... Feel free to replace T&N with anything from Doomsday to Enter the infinite. Answer is, and always will be, the same.
This back and forth is clearly ad hominem and serves neither side of the debate. Using this sort of rhetoric does not serve your argument.
This whole debate has been going back-and-forth over the same points constantly. I do want to point out specifically the Enter the Infinite comparison.
If I cast EtI, under normal circumstances, the game will end for me within TWO turns. TWO. Not one. TWO. I get to draw a card for the turn, and then the turn after I'm dead. Gives two turn cycles to do something about it.
Now, of course, you could argue "But you'd just cast Lab Man and evoke Mulldrifter and be done with it." Sure. That's possible. But at that point, I've spent 11 mana in one turn, 6 mana the next, and NOBODY DID ANYTHING about it in a full turn cycle. That's kinda like me resolving Mortal Combat and the entire turn cycle goes by and nothing happens, thus triggering my win.
Wins like that aren't an issue. There was ample counterplay possible. A full turn to go through the motions. And nothing was done.
Now, if you look further, you'll note cards like Enter the Infinite, Doomsday, Mortal Combat...they all require more cards than just themselves to actually win. They all require specific cards to be built in the deck, whether it's Omniscience/Lab Man (ETI), specific Doomsdayable stacks, a way to quickly get 20+ creatures in the yard...none are a one-card-i-win button. They require specific deckbuilding.
Beyond that, each of those cards can be used just as a cool trick in a deck. A gy-using deck might just consider slotting in a Mortal Combat in order to give it another angle of attack.
Coalition Victory, again, only requires one slot. Why does this matter, you asked, well...
Each of the other "big wincon cards" CAN be used without going for the instant kill. They require one of two things: Constraint or Ignorance. Constraint fits within the RC mantra of "Build casually, play competitively". If the strongest combowombo I want to play with T&N is Avenger of Zendikar and Regal Force, then who are you to tell me I'm playing it wrong for not going with MikeTrike instead? I adapt my decks to the powerlevel of my meta. Many people do.
When you add Coalition Victory however, there's no other deckbuilding decisions to be made. You run lands. You run your commander. Those are things you cannot avoid in EDH. Thus, no matter what you do, eventually you'll reach a state of "And now CV wins". This is regardless of how the game so far has panned out. You could argue things like countermagic and instant removal but THAT GOES FOR EVERY COMBO AND IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. And even then, what if I just put down something like, say, Grand Abolisher? I'm quite good at the "Mental Magic Counter Game" so don't try that game with me, it's not a valid argument in any way.
So that's the thing. Having a card that, no matter what the game before has done reads "Now you win the game and no I don't have any other modes" is not good for the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
This whole debate has been going back-and-forth over the same points constantly. I do want to point out specifically the Enter the Infinite comparison.
If I cast EtI, under normal circumstances, the game will end for me within TWO turns. TWO. Not one. TWO. I get to draw a card for the turn, and then the turn after I'm dead. Gives two turn cycles to do something about it.
Now, of course, you could argue "But you'd just cast Lab Man and evoke Mulldrifter and be done with it." Sure. That's possible. But at that point, I've spent 11 mana in one turn, 6 mana the next, and NOBODY DID ANYTHING about it in a full turn cycle. That's kinda like me resolving Mortal Combat and the entire turn cycle goes by and nothing happens, thus triggering my win.
Wins like that aren't an issue. There was ample counterplay possible. A full turn to go through the motions. And nothing was done.
Now, if you look further, you'll note cards like Enter the Infinite, Doomsday, Mortal Combat...they all require more cards than just themselves to actually win. They all require specific cards to be built in the deck, whether it's Omniscience/Lab Man (ETI), specific Doomsdayable stacks, a way to quickly get 20+ creatures in the yard...none are a one-card-i-win button. They require specific deckbuilding.
Beyond that, each of those cards can be used just as a cool trick in a deck. A gy-using deck might just consider slotting in a Mortal Combat in order to give it another angle of attack.
Coalition Victory, again, only requires one slot. Why does this matter, you asked, well...
Each of the other "big wincon cards" CAN be used without going for the instant kill. They require one of two things: Constraint or Ignorance. Constraint fits within the RC mantra of "Build casually, play competitively". If the strongest combowombo I want to play with T&N is Avenger of Zendikar and Regal Force, then who are you to tell me I'm playing it wrong for not going with MikeTrike instead? I adapt my decks to the powerlevel of my meta. Many people do.
When you add Coalition Victory however, there's no other deckbuilding decisions to be made. You run lands. You run your commander. Those are things you cannot avoid in EDH. Thus, no matter what you do, eventually you'll reach a state of "And now CV wins". This is regardless of how the game so far has panned out. You could argue things like countermagic and instant removal but THAT GOES FOR EVERY COMBO AND IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. And even then, what if I just put down something like, say, Grand Abolisher? I'm quite good at the "Mental Magic Counter Game" so don't try that game with me, it's not a valid argument in any way.
So that's the thing. Having a card that, no matter what the game before has done reads "Now you win the game and no I don't have any other modes" is not good for the game.
I need to read back to review some of the discussion here but please refrain from letting discussions get personal. When you start attacking each other's beliefs a bit too strongly rather than discussing the card it tends to heat things up. Please keep things civil and its always best to not make strong posts aimed at others.
We are all here because we love this game and we want to discuss the rules in such ways that we think will improve our experience. Just, please understand that there is no way we will all ever agree with each other but give others a little more leeway on their own beliefs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
This whole debate has been going back-and-forth over the same points constantly. I do want to point out specifically the Enter the Infinite comparison.
If I cast EtI, under normal circumstances, the game will end for me within TWO turns. TWO. Not one. TWO. I get to draw a card for the turn, and then the turn after I'm dead. Gives two turn cycles to do something about it.
Now, of course, you could argue "But you'd just cast Lab Man and evoke Mulldrifter and be done with it." Sure. That's possible. But at that point, I've spent 11 mana in one turn, 6 mana the next, and NOBODY DID ANYTHING about it in a full turn cycle. That's kinda like me resolving Mortal Combat and the entire turn cycle goes by and nothing happens, thus triggering my win.
Wins like that aren't an issue. There was ample counterplay possible. A full turn to go through the motions. And nothing was done.
I don't exactly consider playing until your draw step "a turn". You cast EtI and presumably that ends your turn because it cost 12 mana. Then you untap and draw your last card and get your last turn. Then next turn you mill. If you want to count differently go right ahead but to me, EtI gives you one turn.
Additionally, what exactly are your opponents supposed to do? Sudden Impact you while you're tapped out? You're untapping with (at least) 12 mana and your entire U deck in your hand. The chances of you not having multiple counterspells in hand to protect Lab Man are astronomically low.
All of this is missing the point, however. It doesn't particularly matter if you win or lose because by casting EtI you've ended that game, either for yourself or everyone else.
Each of the other "big wincon cards" CAN be used without going for the instant kill. They require one of two things: Constraint or Ignorance. Constraint fits within the RC mantra of "Build casually, play competitively". If the strongest combowombo I want to play with T&N is Avenger of Zendikar and Regal Force, then who are you to tell me I'm playing it wrong for not going with MikeTrike instead? I adapt my decks to the powerlevel of my meta. Many people do. When you add Coalition Victory however, there's no other deckbuilding decisions to be made. You run lands. You run your commander. Those are things you cannot avoid in EDH. Thus, no matter what you do, eventually you'll reach a state of "And now CV wins". This is regardless of how the game so far has panned out.
This is just objectively not true. There are now 2 different 5CC generals that do not satisfy CV's color requirements (General Tazri and Ramos, Dragon Engine) as well as ton of self-restrictions you can do if you would like to make winning with CV more challenging: not using any dual lands with basic land types, or requiring certain flavor conditions (i.e. using all the Legacy cards to unleash the full power of the Legacy Weapon resulting in a Coalition Victory) or simply not using your general to fulfill the requirement. Or, and this might sound truly crazy but stick with me, you could just choose not to play CV in your deck. You talk about adjusting the power level of your deck to fit your meta, but it never occurred to you to just not run a card? If it is something you or your group don't like, simply don't play it. That is itself a deckbuilding decision.
You could argue things like countermagic and instant removal but THAT GOES FOR EVERY COMBO AND IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. And even then, what if I just put down something like, say, Grand Abolisher? I'm quite good at the "Mental Magic Counter Game" so don't try that game with me, it's not a valid argument in any way.
I see your Grand Abolisher and raise you a Platinum Angel. In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here but the fact that CV (or anything else for that matter) is susceptible to already commonly played answers like spot creature removal is definitely something worth talking about. If everyone is already packing the proper answers, it is far less likely that thing will become problematic.
After thinking about it, if C.V were to be unbanned, I'd totally look to order it and slot it into the dragon percon along with the others in my play group slotting it into whatever 5c decks they already have or plan to build. Then it would become a race of who can cast it first every game, and that would become the meta here. At which point I may either stop playing for awhile or pull back together my MLD deck with barren glory as the sole wincon.
Those who do not learn from the debates of the past are doomed to repeat them.
You've listed a bunch of fairly niche cards that I would be mildly surprised to actually see cast in a game. I'm not saying there isn't anything that can be done. I'm saying those are the types of answers I wouldn't reasonably expect most decks to have, compared to say something like creature removal.
Those who do not learn from the debates of the past are doomed to repeat them.
You've listed a bunch of fairly niche cards that I would be mildly surprised to actually see cast in a game. I'm not saying there isn't anything that can be done. I'm saying those are the types of answers I wouldn't reasonably expect most decks to have, compared to say something like creature removal.
I've pretty much said my piece here, and am comfortable that the matter is more or less put to rest, for now. But the cards listed in that quote of mine are just a fraction of what's available to make a player draw a card (I used this term because that's the usual terminology when forcing draw on another player): http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?page=1&text=+[draws]
There's staples in here, there's hidden gems, there's 169 cards that probably don't entirely encompass all of the myriad ways in which EtI can be made redundant. Most of them will work just fine. Also, if Platinum Angel is entering the debate in other places, why not add it here?
I'm not saying you're wrong and that CV doesn't deserve unbanning, I'm just saying that the arguments in favour of unbanning have not been convincing thus far. There's been false equivalencies drawn between CV and other cards which don't match up, and nothing else convincing enough for me to continue the debate.
As for the thought experiments, they are a oft used way to help re-imagine a problem or argument and come at it from a different angle. If you don't see the value in that I don't really know what to say. Perhaps this isn't the thread for you.
Says I’m moving goalposts, goes on to ask why -insert flashy card- isn’t banned because it has no fair use.
Do you even know what “Fair Uses” means? Honest question. I really don’t think you do, it’s evident in every single post you make, that you either don’t know, don’t understand, or just ignore.
Tooth and Nail- Fair use would be grabbing the thousands of non-Infinite creature combos that exist, effectively making a cost reducing to-battlefield tutor. I play it that way. The RC clearly plays it that way. Does it get abused? Sure. It’s not the card, though.
Enter the Infinite- There isn’t much to be said here, but it’s a fragile as all hell win-con that requires your deck to be built around it. I don’t even see it anymore, as I’ve seen it fizzle more times than certain victory. It relies to heavily on other cards, shouldn’t even be in the discussion here. I will say though, it’s fun to watch it play out even on the opposing side as misplays, or opponents interaction can cause it to fail.
How about Worldfire? Biorythm? Sway of the Stars? You never mention, or acknowledge these cards. These share way more in common with Coalition Victory than anything you’ve brought up in this entire thread. Oh, it’s because they don’t make your argument, that’s why. Those cards, and CV, are poster children for “interacts poorly with the format”, which has been mentioned well over a dozen times and always falls on your seemingly deaf ears. You know, part of the criteria the RC uses when determining whether or not to ban a card.
It’s fine to discuss cards, but the RC has set forth a list of criteria they use in banning cards. To me, for a card to be considered safe to be unbanned, it would have to no longer meet that criteria. So, since Coalition Victory has been banned, what makes it not interact poorly with the format any longer? Did the rules change? Did cards that share the same fate get unbanned? Did the RC have a change of heart on the format philosphy and ban criteria?
NO. End of discussion.(Well, unless you are willing to discuss how it doesn’t interact poorly with the format, without using the same tired examples of other cards that clearly do not).
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I'm really sorry, but this simply isn't true. There are a lot of ways that Enter the Infinite can backfire. All it takes is someone playing Flux, Temple Bell, Font of Mythos, Blue Suns Zenith, there are a lot of variations to this.
By comparison, all CV has to do is resolve. No one is going to play it unless it achieves its desired effect, because that's all it does. Unless its countered, there is no interaction to be had, short of corner cases like Time Stop, Aethersnatch, Commandeer.
In any type of fairness, one can only draw comparison between CV and other 'you win the game' cards. Of those, here are the ones I see as the easiest to fulfill:
Approach of the Second Sun
Epic Struggle
Felidar Sovereign
Hellkite Tyrant
Laboratory Maniac
Mayael's Aria
Mechanized Production
Revel in Riches
Test of Endurance
Of these cards (and the rest), not a single one will unequivocally, in every situation, win you the game immediately upon resolution. Each one of them either requires a fairly specific set of conditions that require building around, or is a particularly fragile win condition. There are some among the list that are used nefariously to good effect(Lab Man is the primary culprit I see played), but all of them provide an opportunity for interaction past the point of resolution. That's something Coalition Victory can't claim. It can only be countered, and all you need to do to have met its conditions is have your commander in play. Add Boseiju, who Shelters All into the mix and it's entirely non-interactive and airtight. Sure there are times you might play it in which it wouldn't win you the game, but that's on the user - why would you waste 3WUBRG unless you have the game in the bag?
I'm all for thought experiments, and I enjoy a good debate, but the argument can't be a straw man. You have to make it as fair a comparison as possible.
As far as the card you conceived, I consider it to be if anything more abusable than CV. Only requiring G to cast is nuts. Karametra's Acolyte could get you that within the first 5 turns, as could Growing Rite of Itlimoc or Gaea's Cradle, Elvish Archdruid and plenty of other options.
I think there's a case for most cards. If you can honestly come up with a reason for CV to be unbanned I'll tip my hat. Considering it's already on the list, the onus is on you to prove it justifies unbanning, so good luck.
Okay, so if I ramp up to 11 mana and I cast Enter the Infinite, have I won the game?
No, I have not. I still have to play all those cards. And without Omniscience or Dream Halls or something that's gonna be hard.
You haven't given a single card yet that comes even close to rivalling Coalition Victory in sheer "End the game now" potentional. Even T&N, which is already often counted among the "Not many would hate seeing this get banned" camp has more counterplays, requires more deck slots and more work.
As stated before. The card IS on the banlist. YOU should make a compelling argument about why that card should be unbanned, and no, "so the kiddies know just what exactly beat them" is not a good argument.
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.
Criteria for banning:
* Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander
* Creates Undesirable Game States
* Problematic Casual Omnipresence
* Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly
* Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry
These are direct from the official site. Also from the official site:
Meeting one (or more) criteria on the banlist is not a guarantee of a ban. Some cards fit the description, but either aren't problematic enough to justify a ban, are largely eschewed by the casual community, or possess other redeeming factors. Cards are evaluated by their general use, not simply their worst-case scenario. Similar cards may have just enough difference to put them on opposite sides of the line.
With all that in mind, no there aren't a preponderance of pentacoloured decks around, and I don't think CV being unbanned would change that. That being said, there's every chance it would become ubiquitous as a staple in pentacoloured decks if unbanned. All this aside, I don't see this as the primary reason it was banned. I think its predominantly the 'undesirable game state' argument, although the argument could be made that its also a culprit under the 'interacts poorly with the structure of commander' criterion, as it need do no more than resolve to end the game - it kind of straddles those two criteria to my mind. And that's enough to justify it being on the list. No one likes a game that ends abruptly with the resolution of a single spell with no avenue to intervene, and the nature of the color identity rulings in Commander leads CV to be too easily manipulated by particular generals.
This really has nothing to do with the argument, I just wanted to ask exactly what is Flux doing on that list? As for the actual point, see below. I'm going to quote and respond to Lou who makes a similar argument.
Someone obviously skipped the last 12 pages. This is just blatantly false and has been covered quite extensively already. Short version is that every color has instant-speed ways to remove a creature or a land providing the colors/types for CV's conditions, which will cause CV to resolve with no effect.
And neither will CV.
No, but that game is over for you either way in a turn. Option one is you'll do whatever you were trying to do and presumably win. Option two is you'll fail to go off somehow and then deck yourself. Either way you're essentially done. Ergo, my initial statement that Enter the Infinite ends the game with more certainty than CV. At least when CV fails the game just continues on as normal.
Well, I did just reiterate my stance that EtI will end the game (for the caster, at least) more reliably than CV will so... there's that, I guess?
More relevantly, however, is that I've been indulging this misguided notion that CV is a "single card that ends the game" and restricting myself to examples that similarly fit this description. The fact of the matter is that CV is a single card that does literal nothing. As in, if you play land and pass for 7 turns before slamming CV on turn 8 you will have accomplished absolutely nothing.
Arguable. The amount of counterplay is dependent on the combo being fetched, not to mention that T&N can be played into an empty board whereas CV requires at least 1 creature in play. I don't know why you care so much about how many deck slots it takes up, especially when the difference is so minimal. And what exactly does "more work" mean?
The argument is that EDH has evolved fairly significantly since CV was originally put on the banned list, and it is worth reconsidering if it still deserves its place. It's been over a decade since CV was banned. And since then, WotC has continued to print cards that push the power level of what we think of as acceptable. At this point it is more or less expected to be able to win the game off the back of some 8+ mana spell, regardless if that spell literally says "win the game" on it, and nobody bats an eye. CV being banned looks like a relic of a bygone era.
Let's just run down the list that was kindly posted:
Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander - Eh... sort of? It is certainly easier to meet the requirements of CV but it isn't like Worldfire where having guaranteed access to your general fundamentally changes how the card works. If simply working in conjunction with your general is cause for a ban, the list would be significantly larger.
Creates Undesirable Game States - Not really. It either ends the game and everyone gets to shuffle up for another, or it does nothing and the game continues on like normal. It's no Limited Resources or Panoptic Mirror.
Problematic Casual Omnipresence - This is the biggest actual argument against CV. It's possible that unbanning CV will lead to a sudden spike of 5-color decks, every one of which is running CV just because they can. This seems extremely unlikely to me for the same reasons people don't casually run Armageddon or Enter the Infinite; it is very obvious what kind of effect these kind of cards have and that is something most players choose to avoid when building.
Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly - Not relevant to CV.
Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry - Also not relevant to CV.
Coalition Victory is a ban list leftover that was added back when 'win the game' spells (literal or otherwise) were hardly a thing. This kind of effect is just another drop in the pool at this point. I mean Protean Hulk was recently unbanned, and that is one of the most broken, easy-to-use one-card combo-machines ever printed in EDH. The times, they are a-changin'.
Fair point. RTFC, yes. This should have been Windfall or Reforge the Soul, or Wheel of Fate, or Jace's Archivist, or Teferi's Puzzle Box, or Arjun, the Shifting Flame, Forced Fruition, Mindmoil, Walking Archive, Divination, Azure Mage, so on and so forth. If that's all you have though...
And pentacolour has plenty of ways to build contingency into decks to mitigate this. Dual lands, shock lands, hybrid colour creatures, this rebuttal is zero sum.
This is just plain wrong. I'll need clarification here before you've come anywhere near close to convincing me or anyone else. If it doesn't win you the game you're not casting it, or you're not doing it right.
You're changing the stipulations of this debate to fit your stance. EtI is nowhere near close to the banlist, isn't a powerful game-winning card unless built around, and in most decks would be seen as high risk jank. If we're comparing all cards that end the game one way or another, why aren't you discussing cards like Glorious End or Second Chance? BECAUSE THEY'RE JANK.
Either way you cut this statement, it doesn't support your argument. If I agree, CV adds nothing productive to the game, so why unban it? If I disagree (which would be correct), you've won the game if it resolves. Which fits well under the "undesirable game state" criteria. So why unban it? You're argument is here is that you're playing a card that says "pay 3WURBG." Which is fundamentally incorrect, and intentionally misleading.
This isn't enough. If you want it off the list, tell me what it adds to the Commander metagame by being available. As a currently banned card, our natural assumption is that it ought to stay there unless there is a reasonable argument that it should be unbanned. So far, I've seen nothing.
It's on the list for exactly the same reason Worldfire is; games that end on the spot are not fun, they're underwhelming and satisfy no one's desires for a fun, socially interactive game. This is the fundamental element of what makes Commander different to more competitive formats of Magic. Case closed.
In a world where Food Chain Tazri is a thing and there are super competitive Scion/Horde/Child decks around, can you guarantee that you wouldn't be able to produce an out of the blue, non-interactive CV win on a regular basis? With access to all colours, you have tutors, ways to play it for cheaper, ensure it doesn't get countered - this is the undesirable game state. I don't mind reshuffling and playing again after a short game, but the chances are high CV is able to be played and resolved for the win consistently.
Once again, if you're confident that you can produce the win, most competitive decks don't care if they telegraph. It's not a problem for any of the Tier 1 competitive decks - you know what you're facing with Jeleva Storm or Arcum, it doesn't stop them being very strong.
This statement is fundamentally wrong. It clearly is NOT a one card combo - it is strong with Flash (we're up to two cards now), and tutors to battlefield for two other creatures (now we're up to four). This statement is entirely false, and can be lumped in the same pile as the Tooth and Nail rebuttal - you're comparing apples and oranges to get an equivalency, and it doesn't add up.
Ubiquitous in the scope of a cgg doesn't pertain to how often it appears in a certain category of decks such as five colored ones. Ubiquity pertains to saturation of the format's environment as a whole. In other words, realistically what percentage of the total games played will Coalition Victory appear in a deck and is that percentage large enough to have a meaningful impact on the environment? When comparing it to things like Worldfire you have to bear in mind that being five colored means it can only be in comparatively few decks while monocolored cards like Worldfire can fit into a significantly larger deck pool and therefore have a much larger impact on the environment.
Furthermore, winning the game is not an undesirable game state. An undesirable game state is more like using Leovold, Emissary of Trest as a commander and forcing your opponents to watch as you're the only one actually playing the game. At least Coalition Victory is merciful in that it ends things and lets people move on the next game. As for interacts poorly with the structure of commander, that's more for cards that leverage the rules and game play mechanics to get their advantage, such as Karakas. Considering this card takes advantage of the fact that it will always have access to a five colored creature (commander) I'll be willing to give you that if you want. Still, that leaves my question: will it appear often enough in game play to warrant this being enough of a problem for the banned list to care?
Isn't "lacks interaction" one of the arguments for wanting the card to stay banned? "I play a card, you play cards to stop it, I play other cards to get around your removal" is the very definition of interaction. Just saying.
This is a terrible argument and always has been. "Not adding anything to the game" is just an excuse to project personal distaste for a card as reason to keep it banned. Weather or not a card is fun, interesting, or makes for better games is a player issue and not one the banned list should ever care about. (Especially considering that it's completely opinionated.) The banned list should only care about cards that take enough from the format that their presence often enough creates a toxic or otherwise miserable experience. Therefore the burden of proof is on demonstrating weather or not a given card has enough of a negative to warrant being on the list, not if it has enough of a positive to warrant coming off.
To emphasize further, if the banned list were being created from scratch right now, would you honestly expect Card X to be included? If you say "no", than the reason it would not be added to this hypothetical list is also the reason it should not remain on the real one.
The rules committee - and therefore the banned list - doesn't care about competitive decks. Bringing them up is irrelevant to this thread.
Protean Hulk frequently tutors for more than 2 creatures. My favorite Hulk pile is in fact 13 creatures! (Márton Stromgald, Veteran Armorer, 11x CMC 0 creatures).
More serious Hulk combos often search for 3-4 creatures, or search for a creature that can reanimate Hulk to get multiple Hulk triggers in a single turn, resulting in additional slots total used for the combo.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I get all of this and yeah it's undeniable in its own way - there aren't many pentacolour decks around. I would say that most that could run it, would, though. Which is pervasive enough to contend with Tooth and Nail and Protean Hulk, the primary comparisons thus far.
No it's not, in general. But seeing this win con come up repeatedly would piss me off, and I can't think of anyone I know who would disagree.
Ok. All I was saying is the argument being made was redundant, because for as many ways to make CV whiff, there are as many ways to make sure it doesn't. The argument being made was essentially 'dies to doom blade', which is never a good argument.
This is absolutely untrue. The quote I've bolded is absolutely something the RC cares about, and if a card is causing bad times, it's a contender. They make it clear that they encourage a fun, interactive social gaming experience. Besides, this is not personal distaste. I've nothing invested in this argument, and wouldn't play CV if it were legal because it doesn't interest me. Turning the 'adds nothing to the game' statement on its head, though, what does it take away from the game? Fun and to a reasonable extent, interaction. That alone is enough to keep it chained up.
You're not wrong. This is more just an illustration that pentacoloured decks are thoroughly capable of abusing CV to its fullest extent. I know a lot of the blame for consistent abuse of a card falls on the person playing it, but considering it's already on the list, I can see no reason it should be removed.
This is true. Which is why CV is banned. It would cause the most problems at causal tables, which is exactly what the banned list is crafted for. Not sure what you were trying to get at there.
As far as the ubiquity point, it would show up in every 5-C deck. Sure, there aren’t as many options so that limits the potential to see it, but that isn’t something that will remain the same over time. They just printed a 5-C pre-con for Christmas sake. This is an absolutely terrible argument that honestly has no merit. If anything, CV would drive people away from 5-C because it would draw unnecessary hate for having access to the card.
In short, if the list were crafted from scratch, today, I would expect to see CV on there. It just goes against everything the format is about, from exploiting format rules, to ignoring the spirit of the format.
Part of the argument against CV is that it has the potential to end the game with little in the way of set up. EtI has the exact same potential and, as you said, isn't seriously worth considering for the banlist. So why are we singling out CV? Because people have an irrational fear/hatred of the words "win the game"?
Also, I wouldn't consider Second Chance to be jank. It's a fairly well-known combo piece in Zur the Enchanter decks.
Anti-CV people have continually been pushing this idea that CV is one card that says "win the game" with no other text on it, which simply isn't true. CV requires at least 1 creature in play and some number of lands, and it has multiple ways to interact with it across all 5 colors while on the stack to prevent it from winning. The only intentionally misleading statements are those that insist CV is a one-card win-the-game with no way to stop it.
I think Avatar_of_Doh answered this point excellently so I don't really have anything to add.
Just because YOU find them underwhelming doesn't mean everyone does. Some people actually enjoy combo finishes. Some people actually enjoy playing with and against Stax decks. And some people just want to win using an epic story-moment card. Again, Doh covered a lot of this already.
First, as (again) Doh pointed out, the RC doesn't care about competitive combos or cutthroat decks. Second, if I'm playing a competitive 5-color deck, you can be sure CV would not be my first, second or maybe even my third win-con of choice. Having all 5-colors and basically the entirety of every Magic card ever printed, I assure you there are numerous, numerous better ways to win than casting an 8-mana spell that requires a 5-color creature in play and even then it still vulnerable to a simple removal spell.
Again, the RC cares about casual play, where CV has the potential to be the most problematic. CV would never see play in an actual competitive deck except as a Plan D in case literally every other win-con they have gets stopped somehow.
If my P.Hulk dies and you have no responses, you've lost the game. There are just ever so many combos P.Hulk can get, across an entire spectrum of colors, that he might actually be one of the best competitive EDH cards in existence.
Is this a problem for you or your play group? Is it more problematic than T&N for Mike&Trike/Kiki&Conscripts or P.Hulk for a Karmic Guide chain?
Or, maybe it can’t be counterd? Or maybe you can’t respond? Or maybe I just say no? Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous your logic is? It’s the “dies to doom blade” argument which, ironically, Cromat cannot. If you are going to equate it to other combos, then you have to acknowledge that all of the conditions you’d play a normal combo under, you’d also play Coalition Victory.This is the worst you’ve come up with yet.
This is actually funny. So, why not ask for a house rule? If you want to play it so badly, ask your group. Only takes a few seconds, you’ve said it yourself(you know, asking about deck contents, blah blah blah, when I said that i trust no one, ever). You won’t, though, as you’ve also been very clear on how you feel about that. So my question is, why? Why can’t you ask your group? Will they say no? I could only imagine why? Probably because they dislike the exact things you mentioned. Sorry, but that is not the format EDH strives to be, and the ban list supports that well beyond the few cards listed in this thread. Sheldon has gone on “unofficial record” saying as much.
So you want to unban a card that would cause the most damage to Casual tables, the only thing the RC cares about? Got it... Moving on.
That part about contradicting? Yeah, pretty evident here. I put what you really meant there in parentheses, because you clearly do not know what you are talking about. This honestly is a joke at this point. I hate to keep rubbing it in, but in terms of P.Hulk and it’s “competitiveness”:
Like, for reals man. Get with the program.
This isn’t an argument any longer, you literally talked yourself into a corner and now I definitely can’t take anything you say seriously.
You seem to be operating under a false pretense. I don't own a 5-color deck, and even if I did I probably wouldn't play CV. That doesn't change the fact that it doesn't need to be on the ban list.
Do you understand the word "potential"?
That's okay. I haven't take you seriously since... right about here:
This back and forth is clearly ad hominem and serves neither side of the debate. Using this sort of rhetoric does not serve your argument.
If I cast EtI, under normal circumstances, the game will end for me within TWO turns. TWO. Not one. TWO. I get to draw a card for the turn, and then the turn after I'm dead. Gives two turn cycles to do something about it.
Now, of course, you could argue "But you'd just cast Lab Man and evoke Mulldrifter and be done with it." Sure. That's possible. But at that point, I've spent 11 mana in one turn, 6 mana the next, and NOBODY DID ANYTHING about it in a full turn cycle. That's kinda like me resolving Mortal Combat and the entire turn cycle goes by and nothing happens, thus triggering my win.
Wins like that aren't an issue. There was ample counterplay possible. A full turn to go through the motions. And nothing was done.
Now, if you look further, you'll note cards like Enter the Infinite, Doomsday, Mortal Combat...they all require more cards than just themselves to actually win. They all require specific cards to be built in the deck, whether it's Omniscience/Lab Man (ETI), specific Doomsdayable stacks, a way to quickly get 20+ creatures in the yard...none are a one-card-i-win button. They require specific deckbuilding.
Beyond that, each of those cards can be used just as a cool trick in a deck. A gy-using deck might just consider slotting in a Mortal Combat in order to give it another angle of attack.
Coalition Victory, again, only requires one slot. Why does this matter, you asked, well...
Each of the other "big wincon cards" CAN be used without going for the instant kill. They require one of two things: Constraint or Ignorance. Constraint fits within the RC mantra of "Build casually, play competitively". If the strongest combowombo I want to play with T&N is Avenger of Zendikar and Regal Force, then who are you to tell me I'm playing it wrong for not going with MikeTrike instead? I adapt my decks to the powerlevel of my meta. Many people do.
When you add Coalition Victory however, there's no other deckbuilding decisions to be made. You run lands. You run your commander. Those are things you cannot avoid in EDH. Thus, no matter what you do, eventually you'll reach a state of "And now CV wins". This is regardless of how the game so far has panned out. You could argue things like countermagic and instant removal but THAT GOES FOR EVERY COMBO AND IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. And even then, what if I just put down something like, say, Grand Abolisher? I'm quite good at the "Mental Magic Counter Game" so don't try that game with me, it's not a valid argument in any way.
So that's the thing. Having a card that, no matter what the game before has done reads "Now you win the game and no I don't have any other modes" is not good for the game.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I agree with all of this. Well put Lou.
We are all here because we love this game and we want to discuss the rules in such ways that we think will improve our experience. Just, please understand that there is no way we will all ever agree with each other but give others a little more leeway on their own beliefs.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Additionally, what exactly are your opponents supposed to do? Sudden Impact you while you're tapped out? You're untapping with (at least) 12 mana and your entire U deck in your hand. The chances of you not having multiple counterspells in hand to protect Lab Man are astronomically low.
All of this is missing the point, however. It doesn't particularly matter if you win or lose because by casting EtI you've ended that game, either for yourself or everyone else.
This is just objectively not true. There are now 2 different 5CC generals that do not satisfy CV's color requirements (General Tazri and Ramos, Dragon Engine) as well as ton of self-restrictions you can do if you would like to make winning with CV more challenging: not using any dual lands with basic land types, or requiring certain flavor conditions (i.e. using all the Legacy cards to unleash the full power of the Legacy Weapon resulting in a Coalition Victory) or simply not using your general to fulfill the requirement. Or, and this might sound truly crazy but stick with me, you could just choose not to play CV in your deck. You talk about adjusting the power level of your deck to fit your meta, but it never occurred to you to just not run a card? If it is something you or your group don't like, simply don't play it. That is itself a deckbuilding decision.
I see your Grand Abolisher and raise you a Platinum Angel. In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here but the fact that CV (or anything else for that matter) is susceptible to already commonly played answers like spot creature removal is definitely something worth talking about. If everyone is already packing the proper answers, it is far less likely that thing will become problematic.
Those who do not learn from the debates of the past are doomed to repeat them.
I've pretty much said my piece here, and am comfortable that the matter is more or less put to rest, for now. But the cards listed in that quote of mine are just a fraction of what's available to make a player draw a card (I used this term because that's the usual terminology when forcing draw on another player):
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?page=1&text=+[draws]
There's staples in here, there's hidden gems, there's 169 cards that probably don't entirely encompass all of the myriad ways in which EtI can be made redundant. Most of them will work just fine. Also, if Platinum Angel is entering the debate in other places, why not add it here?
I'm not saying you're wrong and that CV doesn't deserve unbanning, I'm just saying that the arguments in favour of unbanning have not been convincing thus far. There's been false equivalencies drawn between CV and other cards which don't match up, and nothing else convincing enough for me to continue the debate.