Kevin Tran asks, "Will there be a continuous move to unban cards as the format demonstrates positive health consistently? Any considerations to unban Coalition Victory?"
We tend to be conservative when evaluating cards for both banning and unbanning. There is value in format stability, which does provide some incentive to seek reasons to make a change rather than doing so for change's sake.
Coalition Victory doesn't interact well with the format rules. The card essentially reads "do what you normally do over the course of a Commander game. At some point, win unless someone has an instant-speed response" without requiring you to throw in combo pieces or anything. That's not healthy for anyone in casual play. People who are facing a five-color deck have to constantly evaluate whether they can do anything other than deal with a potentially upcoming Coalition Victory. People running five-color decks find themselves unable to keep a commander (or worse, lands) because they might be running Coalition Victory. That's not a great place to be, and I'm not seeing any fun upsides to the card that might balance it out.
So, the arguments that I, Lou, and others have been making all thread. Nice to see it confirmed by word of god so to speak.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Kevin Tran asks, "Will there be a continuous move to unban cards as the format demonstrates positive health consistently? Any considerations to unban Coalition Victory?"
We tend to be conservative when evaluating cards for both banning and unbanning. There is value in format stability, which does provide some incentive to seek reasons to make a change rather than doing so for change's sake.
Coalition Victory doesn't interact well with the format rules. The card essentially reads "do what you normally do over the course of a Commander game. At some point, win unless someone has an instant-speed response" without requiring you to throw in combo pieces or anything. That's not healthy for anyone in casual play. People who are facing a five-color deck have to constantly evaluate whether they can do anything other than deal with a potentially upcoming Coalition Victory. People running five-color decks find themselves unable to keep a commander (or worse, lands) because they might be running Coalition Victory. That's not a great place to be, and I'm not seeing any fun upsides to the card that might balance it out.
So, the arguments that I, Lou, and others have been making all thread. Nice to see it confirmed by word of god so to speak.
Without being smug about it, yes. Not posting for a 'told you so' at all, just nice to have confirmation of a murky subject that's perceived by the powers that be the same way I and others do.
Sorry, I was being a little dickish there in retrospect. Still, this does pretty rule out CV being unbanned anytime soon, and lays out exactly why. THe only thing of interest left, for me, is that the issue of format stability was directly addressed. The bias is not for or against bans, but maintaining the status quo. This doesn't, of course, mean that the RC isn't actively looking at cards to ban or unban, but simply that they seem to view the status quo in relation to the card in question as a sort of null hypothesis, with the onus on those arguing for it to be banned or unbanned to demonstrate that changing its status would be a benefit to the format, or at least in the case of unbanning a card that doing so would be safe. In all honesty, I quite agree with this approach, just look at how over reliance on the banlist to shape formats has harmed Standard. They are certainly willing to ban cards that become a problem, and unban cards that are no longer a threat to the format, and to do both to promote consistency, but its a slow and measured response when it comes to unbannings (they seem to be MUCH quicker with bannings, see Worldfire).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Kevin Tran asks, "Will there be a continuous move to unban cards as the format demonstrates positive health consistently? Any considerations to unban Coalition Victory?"
We tend to be conservative when evaluating cards for both banning and unbanning. There is value in format stability, which does provide some incentive to seek reasons to make a change rather than doing so for change's sake.
Coalition Victory doesn't interact well with the format rules. The card essentially reads "do what you normally do over the course of a Commander game. At some point, win unless someone has an instant-speed response" without requiring you to throw in combo pieces or anything. That's not healthy for anyone in casual play. People who are facing a five-color deck have to constantly evaluate whether they can do anything other than deal with a potentially upcoming Coalition Victory. People running five-color decks find themselves unable to keep a commander (or worse, lands) because they might be running Coalition Victory. That's not a great place to be, and I'm not seeing any fun upsides to the card that might balance it out.
That isn’t a “new” take on CV, it has been the RC’s stance since the get go. That was honestly the most frustrating part of this argument. Sure, it’s great to see them reinforce their stance after such a long period of time, but you’re kidding yourself if you thought they were going to come out and say anything different.
This was my biggest takeaway.
I'm not seeing any fun upsides to the card that might balance it out.
This is the “It only wins the game” argument in a nutshell. It also should stop the Tooth and Nail comparisons, as that’s a card that does have proven, fun upsides.
Anyway, right on. Glad to see they took the time to answer the question in the first place, and it doesn’t really offer any wiggle room either.
Kevin Tran asks, "Will there be a continuous move to unban cards as the format demonstrates positive health consistently? Any considerations to unban Coalition Victory?"
We tend to be conservative when evaluating cards for both banning and unbanning. There is value in format stability, which does provide some incentive to seek reasons to make a change rather than doing so for change's sake.
Coalition Victory doesn't interact well with the format rules. The card essentially reads "do what you normally do over the course of a Commander game. At some point, win unless someone has an instant-speed response" without requiring you to throw in combo pieces or anything. That's not healthy for anyone in casual play. People who are facing a five-color deck have to constantly evaluate whether they can do anything other than deal with a potentially upcoming Coalition Victory. People running five-color decks find themselves unable to keep a commander (or worse, lands) because they might be running Coalition Victory. That's not a great place to be, and I'm not seeing any fun upsides to the card that might balance it out.
That isn’t a “new” take on CV, it has been the RC’s stance since the get go. That was honestly the most frustrating part of this argument. Sure, it’s great to see them reinforce their stance after such a long period of time, but you’re kidding yourself if you thought they were going to come out and say anything different.
This was my biggest takeaway.
I'm not seeing any fun upsides to the card that might balance it out.
This is the “It only wins the game” argument in a nutshell. It also should stop the Tooth and Nail comparisons, as that’s a card that does have proven, fun upsides.
Anyway, right on. Glad to see they took the time to answer the question in the first place, and it doesn’t really offer any wiggle room either.
Yep. The only way I could see this getting unbanned is if received functional errata to require a different creature and land to count for each color and type, like the acolyte cycle from Alara. Assembling a double rainbow would be a lot more difficult that way and actually be a cute challenge. Five creatures instead of just your commander, and the lands become much easier to answer with strip mine as well as more difficult to assemble (currently Taiga, Scrublands, underground sea gets you there, while adding Plateua and Tropical Island makes a Strip Mine unable to break the rainbow).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Kevin Tran asks, "Will there be a continuous move to unban cards as the format demonstrates positive health consistently? Any considerations to unban Coalition Victory?"
We tend to be conservative when evaluating cards for both banning and unbanning. There is value in format stability, which does provide some incentive to seek reasons to make a change rather than doing so for change's sake.
Coalition Victory doesn't interact well with the format rules. The card essentially reads "do what you normally do over the course of a Commander game. At some point, win unless someone has an instant-speed response" without requiring you to throw in combo pieces or anything. That's not healthy for anyone in casual play. People who are facing a five-color deck have to constantly evaluate whether they can do anything other than deal with a potentially upcoming Coalition Victory. People running five-color decks find themselves unable to keep a commander (or worse, lands) because they might be running Coalition Victory. That's not a great place to be, and I'm not seeing any fun upsides to the card that might balance it out.
That isn’t a “new” take on CV, it has been the RC’s stance since the get go. That was honestly the most frustrating part of this argument. Sure, it’s great to see them reinforce their stance after such a long period of time, but you’re kidding yourself if you thought they were going to come out and say anything different.
This was my biggest takeaway.
I'm not seeing any fun upsides to the card that might balance it out.
This is the “It only wins the game” argument in a nutshell. It also should stop the Tooth and Nail comparisons, as that’s a card that does have proven, fun upsides.
Anyway, right on. Glad to see they took the time to answer the question in the first place, and it doesn’t really offer any wiggle room either.
Yep. The only way I could see this getting unbanned is if received functional errata to require a different creature and land to count for each color and type, like the acolyte cycle from Alara. Assembling a double rainbow would be a lot more difficult that way and actually be a cute challenge. Five creatures instead of just your commander, and the lands become much easier to answer with strip mine as well as more difficult to assemble (currently Taiga, Scrublands, underground sea gets you there, while adding Plateua and Tropical Island makes a Strip Mine unable to break the rainbow).
See, the beauty of this format is that it is possible to do that. You just have to ask your group. Outside of those cutthroat games, why would a group say no to such a thing?
We tend to be conservative when evaluating cards for both banning and unbanning. There is value in format stability, which does provide some incentive to seek reasons to make a change rather than doing so for change's sake.
Coalition Victory doesn't interact well with the format rules. The card essentially reads "do what you normally do over the course of a Commander game. At some point, win unless someone has an instant-speed response" without requiring you to throw in combo pieces or anything. That's not healthy for anyone in casual play. People who are facing a five-color deck have to constantly evaluate whether they can do anything other than deal with a potentially upcoming Coalition Victory. People running five-color decks find themselves unable to keep a commander (or worse, lands) because they might be running Coalition Victory. That's not a great place to be, and I'm not seeing any fun upsides to the card that might balance it out
Emphasis changed by me.
This reads to me as 'CV is just like every other card that creates an infinite combo with a commander, but CV is banned because it can't do anything else'.
I get some people don't like to win with combo, and those people won't play CV. Some people don't like losing to combo. Both those sets of people include me, but this would be one of a dozen things you have to worry about when you play with the other set of people.
I also understand its not coming off the ban list. It was an interesting discussion, but the reasons were known and repeated in this thread.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
But then, as it's the same answer as you've already been told about 50 times...I'm not surprised you'd think different.
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.
But then, as it's the same answer as you've already been told about 50 times...I'm not surprised you'd think different.
Because it turns out simply being told something over and over without a good explanation as to why is deeply frustrating. The official answer does nothing to address the points raised in this thread and instead resorts to the same kind of fear-mongering ("If CV was legal everyone would have to target the 5-color player first because baseless assumptions!") that has permeated this entire discussion. Obviously, as this is the official RC stance there is no point in arguing anymore beyond simply saying how wrong this clearly is and leaving it at that. But hey, it's not like the RC has ever beenwrongbefore. Never!
That's not a great place to be, and I'm not seeing any fun upsides to the card that might balance it out.
You, on the other hand, never managed to counter this.
So no, history will not vindicate you. Coalition Victory is not going to be unbanned. Not now, not in the nearby future, not ever unless we get a completely different RC and even then I have my doubts.
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 am not sure how much of the fun of Commander is the way the deck ends the game in a vacuum so I can see how someone would choose to not answer that question because it is largely immaterial and empty in the context of a ban list.
But then, as it's the same answer as you've already been told about 50 times...I'm not surprised you'd think different.
Because it turns out simply being told something over and over without a good explanation as to why is deeply frustrating. The official answer does nothing to address the points raised in this thread and instead resorts to the same kind of fear-mongering ("If CV was legal everyone would have to target the 5-color player first because baseless assumptions!") that has permeated this entire discussion. Obviously, as this is the official RC stance there is no point in arguing anymore beyond simply saying how wrong this clearly is and leaving it at that. But hey, it's not like the RC has ever beenwrongbefore. Never!
History will vindicate me.
Sorry, but no, the stay banned side has addressed your points, repeatedly, for months now. The RC gave a detailed answer, and you have nothing to counter the argument that the only thing, literally the only thing, that CV does is win the game in a way that interacts poorly with the structure of the format.
Your examples of cards that have been unbanned are, frankly, irrelevant, as they are nothing like CV. If you were being reasonable, you'd have noticed that the cards that ARE like CV, like Worldfire, Biorythm, and Sway of the Stars, are banned and almost certainly going to stay that way. And unlike cards like Koko, Staff, or even Hulk, where we saw alternatives printed and not banned, and where competing strategies got better, things that led to their unbanning, Worldfire was printed long after CV had been on the banlist, and was QUICKLY banned. I'm still surprised that on its own wasn't enough of a signal that the RC isn't unbanning these sorts of cards any time soon.
What's really frustrating is when someone pretends that arguments are invalid simply because they don't like them. You lost track of what we are talking about here. This isn't a discussion about whether you think you'd be cool with CV being ran in your playgroup, its a discussion about whether the RC would unban CV (and by implication, the cards like it that actually can do something other than win on the spot) based on their ban criteria and whether CV still meets them. The stays banned side made arguments as to why they thought it should stay banned, some of which where according to preference (e.g., thinking the effect was unfair), but also arguments for why the RC would leave it banned, which were entirely based on the ban criteria. Once again, it keeps coming down to the fact that there is no other use for CV other than to do something that the RC has repeatedly, and consistently, said goes against what Commander is supposed to be. Its not like Hulk (and T&N and Boonweaver), where the competitive combo win is something the RC isn't keen on, but the existence of alternative uses means that its possible for those cards to show up in games and do other things. Its not like World Gorger Dragon, where there existed a possibility where it would enable just another combo to build around, and would have been rebanned if it got out of control. There exist only two scenarios if CV gets unbanned: CV sees play and does its thing, eating a reban, or CV doesn't see play, which is functionally the same as the status quo. The best case scenario is that it only pops up in playgroups that are OK with it, and whoa house unbans are totally a thing so you can do that now already! And you don't have to worry that the rando online or at the store running 5 color goodstuff is going to just randomly fire off CV, so he can actually run that deck without everyone gunning for him out of the gate, because even if he isn't running CV his opponents would have to assume he is if it where unbanned.
Now, is there a discussion to be had as to whether the RC should revisit its ban criteria, that perhaps "interacts poorly with the format" should be removed? I think that would be an interesting discussion, and wouldn't get bogged down in whether certain cards meet that requirement and whether those cards have other uses that outweigh it or other problems that reinforce it. It would be a discussion on a philosophical aspect of the banlist rather than how an individual card fits. That would be a discussion worth having. IF the RC were to do away with that, I'd see most of the banned legendaries come off the list, as well as Karakas, Sway, Wordlfire, Biorythmn, CV, possibly Trade Secrets (the collusion aspect is a poor multiplayer interaction), Upheaval, and perhaps even Limited Resources.
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
The problem I have with the blanket way people talk about that card and the ban list in general is illustrated well right there.
You seem to have built in your head a conception about this boogeyman of a card that will only ever be in every single deck that plays five colors or in none them and are falling into the same traps about reality and not that you accuse others of.
Why isn't every white deck in Commander running Approach of the Second Sun if we are going to play on theoretical nonsense parameters of how people build magic decks.
Or the idea that a game ending at the resolution of an 8 mana spell is a negating effect on the rest of the game of magic to that point is an weird way of looking at a multiplayer game played in a social setting.
You, on the other hand, never managed to counter this.
God forbid someone gets enjoyment out of casting a sweet, thematic spell. It is literally the culmination of the Legacy being used to kill Yawgmoth and secure a Coalition Victory. The only way it could be sweeter is if it had the Vindicate art instead.
Just because YOU don't see the fun doesn't mean it isn't there.
You, on the other hand, never managed to counter this.
God forbid someone gets enjoyment out of casting a sweet, thematic spell. It is literally the culmination of the Legacy being used to kill Yawgmoth and secure a Coalition Victory. The only way it could be sweeter is if it had the Vindicate art instead.
Just because YOU don't see the fun doesn't mean it isn't there.
This illustrates the point you continually ignore.
This isn’t about you. I can assure you that the other 3+ players at your table will not enjoy that sweet, thematic spell as much as you supposedly will. Same can be said for every play group. Having fun at the expense of others is like an EDH taboo. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. You aren’t playing this format correctly if that is your mindset. The RC outlined that in the explanation above. We aren’t using the same set of parameters as you in our arguments, because what you are describing isn’t EDH in the RC’s vision. Argue all you want, you aren’t going to change that. It’s an exercise in futility.
Why isn't every white deck in Commander running Approach of the Second Sun if we are going to play on theoretical nonsense parameters of how people build magic decks
Oh boy, here we go again. Tell me how casting a spell twice, and only after you’ve dug it out of your library for a second time is the same as CV? Please, enlighten me. I know what you’ll do, you’ll add cards to make it more functional, because that’s the only way.
Or the idea that a game ending at the resolution of an 8 mana spell is a negating effect on the rest of the game of magic to that point is an weird way of looking at a multiplayer game played in a social setting.
This is a joke. If the game ended every time somebody reached 8 mana, I wouldn’t play this format. I’ve had all 42 of my lands on the battlefield in a 21 turn game that I ended up losing. It was an enjoyable game. If I ever had to be part of a game that ended because 5c dude reached 8mana, I wouldn’t play with that guy unless he ditched the cards that resulted in that happening. Do games end early? Yeah, but more or less by coincidence, and not by design.
The problem I have with the blanket way people talk about that card and the ban list in general is illustrated well right there.
You seem to have built in your head a conception about this boogeyman of a card that will only ever be in every single deck that plays five colors or in none them and are falling into the same traps about reality and not that you accuse others of.
Why isn't every white deck in Commander running Approach of the Second Sun if we are going to play on theoretical nonsense parameters of how people build magic decks.
Or the idea that a game ending at the resolution of an 8 mana spell is a negating effect on the rest of the game of magic to that point is an weird way of looking at a multiplayer game played in a social setting.
The problem with you using Approach of the Second Sun as an example is that it telegraphs itself(assuming we're using it by itself). If you're not using it by itself, guess what? It's not Coalition Victory anymore.
Approach, like Felidar Sovereign, Near-Death Experience, Helix Pinnacle and more, require work beyond 'doing what your normally do in an EDH game.' They require you to reach a state, and with Felidar and Near-Death, stay there for a bit. You EARN that win, just as certainly as the infect player gets someone to 10 poison counters.
The RC has summed it up pretty well as to why CV isn't coming off: "Do what you do in the course of an EDH game, and at some point, unless someone has an instant speed response, win."
You, on the other hand, never managed to counter this.
God forbid someone gets enjoyment out of casting a sweet, thematic spell. It is literally the culmination of the Legacy being used to kill Yawgmoth and secure a Coalition Victory. The only way it could be sweeter is if it had the Vindicate art instead.
Just because YOU don't see the fun doesn't mean it isn't there.
Perhaps not, but the definition of 'fun' can only be stretched so far. I think in your case, it's beyond being stretched, to outright ripping.
Coalition Victory may have come out before the advent of EDH, but having seen what happened with OTHER cards that didn't get insta-banned like Worldfire(Prime Time, Griselbrand, Sylvan Primordial), I feel that the RC has made the right call, and (rightly so) called what would happen. It's not a 'boogeyman argument'...it is the very nature of people to utilize the big plays they can use. As games degenerated into control over Prime and Primo, so too would enough 5C decks devolve into racing to a CoVic win. It's the way people, by and large, are. Of course it's fun and thematic for the person pulling it off...but do you really think you'll get a round of "Good game, did NOT see that coming" at the end? Is the fun just supposed to be for the winner?
To turn the phrase back around, "Just because YOU don't see the rationale in keeping CoVic banned, doesn't mean it's not a legitimate concern."
CV requires the cast of your Commander so like Apporach (which doesn't require that) in a vacuum they are both spell that only need 2 spells to be cast the whole game to win. If you want to pull apart every single little reason why this doesn't work and also wouldn't appear in every white deck apply the same logic to entrenched beliefs about CV and what might or might not happen were it unbanned.
As games degenerated into control over Prime and Primo, so too would enough 5C decks devolve into racing to a CoVic win. It's the way people, by and large, are. Of course it's fun and thematic for the person pulling it off...but do you really think you'll get a round of "Good game, did NOT see that coming" at the end? Is the fun just supposed to be for the winner?
To turn the phrase back around, "Just because YOU don't see the rationale in keeping CoVic banned, doesn't mean it's not a legitimate concern."
I know I am singling out a segment of a much larger post but this doesn't apply to CV because those racing 5C color decks already exist and they are doing things so much faster than CV could ever hope to be because it is still an 8Mana Sorcery.
Also a faulty premise is deciding on fun of a game of magic based only on the last thing that happened in it out of context.
(also those kinds of decks are well out of the purview of what gets banned as I would argue from prior comments any decks racing to hit a goal at all)
EDIT: five color decks also are not that common in the grand scheme of things largely because they are a sinkhole for good splashy cards and people tend to like those cards in other places (from personal experience) I don't think that changing this (that isn't happening) would have any effect on the proportionality of five color decks.
It's not a 'boogeyman argument'...it is the very nature of people to utilize the big plays they can use.
Look, I don't really want to continue responding when by the RC's own admission they don't listen so let's keep this brief. This argument is absolutely nonsensical. You're basically arguing that every player is constantly trying to increase the power of their deck without restraint and calling it human nature. That's just demonstrably not true. If it was true, there would be no such thing as a casual deck. Yet that is obviously not the case. People continue to build and play non-optimized decks because *gasp* they enjoy it.
This is the definition of fear mongering. You're deliberately misleading people into thinking that if CV was unbanned literally every future game they play will be against 3 different 5-color decks doing nothing but playing CV. That's just downright dishonest.
CV requires the cast of your Commander so like Apporach (which doesn't require that) in a vacuum they are both spell that only need 2 spells to be cast the whole game to win. If you want to pull apart every single little reason why this doesn't work and also wouldn't appear in every white deck apply the same logic to entrenched beliefs about CV and what might or might not happen were it unbanned.
Except in a vacuum, it takes Approach of the Second sun 7 additional turns to to win. Poke, poke, poke, how many more holes do we need to put in here before your argument completely falls apart?
Look, I don't really want to continue responding when by the RC's own admission they don't listen so let's keep this brief.
Ahahaha, sorry, this so not true. If that was even the slightest bit true, why did they go out of there way to create multiple threads across multiple forums for questions to be asked of them, and then take time to publish an article answering the “peasants” questions? My god, this is asinine.
I mean, if this was the case, you’d guys have the same things in common. Not listening and all. This just reeks of childish antics, “They didn’t agree with me, so I’ll bash them”.
CV requires the cast of your Commander so like Apporach (which doesn't require that) in a vacuum they are both spell that only need 2 spells to be cast the whole game to win. If you want to pull apart every single little reason why this doesn't work and also wouldn't appear in every white deck apply the same logic to entrenched beliefs about CV and what might or might not happen were it unbanned.
Except in a vacuum, it takes Approach of the Second sun 7 additional turns to to win. Poke, poke, poke, how many more holes do we need to put in here before your argument completely falls apart?
My argument was never that this card is the same as this other card lets compare them. My argument was about why people aren't running a card that basically wins on its own in reaction to arguments that seem to claim that this is stated fact. Using a ridiculous example is a nice way sometimes to highlight another ridiculous example or statement.
You also seem hesitant to discuss this point because you snipped out Impossible's well worded bit about how what this thread is basically doing is fear mongering for an inevitable outcome that no proof exists for.
CV requires the cast of your Commander so like Apporach (which doesn't require that) in a vacuum they are both spell that only need 2 spells to be cast the whole game to win. If you want to pull apart every single little reason why this doesn't work and also wouldn't appear in every white deck apply the same logic to entrenched beliefs about CV and what might or might not happen were it unbanned.
Except in a vacuum, it takes Approach of the Second sun 7 additional turns to to win. Poke, poke, poke, how many more holes do we need to put in here before your argument completely falls apart?
My argument was never that this card is the same as this other card lets compare them. My argument was about why people aren't running a card that basically wins on its own in reaction to arguments that seem to claim that this is stated fact. Using a ridiculous example is a nice way sometimes to highlight another ridiculous example or statement.
You also seem hesitant to discuss this point because you snipped out Impossible's well worded bit about how what this thread is basically doing is fear mongering for an inevitable outcome that no proof exists for.
Full retraction mode I see. “Oh, no, you misunderstood my point!”. You’re right, it is a ridiculous example because why would somebody even compare a card that wins the game 7 turns after some event to a card that, well, doesn’t wait 7 turns. Want to know why it’s not in every W? Because it’s a terrible alt. win-con. It’s a 7 Mana sorcery that gains you 7 life and goes into the library. Stop doing these apples to oranges comparisons, it’s borderline pathetic. Why isn’t Mortal Combat in every black deck? Epic Struggle in every green? Fact is, after you’ve cobbled together your 5c EDH deck, you’ve met the criteria for winning with CV. No additional hoops, no timing restrictions, nothing. Care to point me to a card that does that, that’s legal in this format? No? Shocker...
Yep, hesitant alright. Unfortantly for you, proof exists that doing so would not be in my best interest, lol. No “proof” existed that Tide-Pods would cause catastrophic internal damage to ones body if injested, yet, well whatever.
Proof exists? Where is your polling data oh Master of proof.
Do you even know the proof you are trying to provide? I am starting to doubt that. You do a pretty decent job of dancing around it not saying anything though.
Ahahaha, sorry, this so not true. If that was even the slightest bit true, why did they go out of there way to create multiple threads across multiple forums for questions to be asked of them, and then take time to publish an article answering the “peasants” questions? My god, this is asinine.
Nobody arguing repeatedly on a forum has caused us to change our minds, but sometimes someone will come up with a nugget we haven't considered that'll germinate an idea.
I've argued my position. The RC has (unsatisfactorily) responded. That's that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, the arguments that I, Lou, and others have been making all thread. Nice to see it confirmed by word of god so to speak.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Without being smug about it, yes. Not posting for a 'told you so' at all, just nice to have confirmation of a murky subject that's perceived by the powers that be the same way I and others do.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I didn't see it that way, I just wanted to make sure no one else does either.
That isn’t a “new” take on CV, it has been the RC’s stance since the get go. That was honestly the most frustrating part of this argument. Sure, it’s great to see them reinforce their stance after such a long period of time, but you’re kidding yourself if you thought they were going to come out and say anything different.
This was my biggest takeaway.
This is the “It only wins the game” argument in a nutshell. It also should stop the Tooth and Nail comparisons, as that’s a card that does have proven, fun upsides.
Anyway, right on. Glad to see they took the time to answer the question in the first place, and it doesn’t really offer any wiggle room either.
Yep. The only way I could see this getting unbanned is if received functional errata to require a different creature and land to count for each color and type, like the acolyte cycle from Alara. Assembling a double rainbow would be a lot more difficult that way and actually be a cute challenge. Five creatures instead of just your commander, and the lands become much easier to answer with strip mine as well as more difficult to assemble (currently Taiga, Scrublands, underground sea gets you there, while adding Plateua and Tropical Island makes a Strip Mine unable to break the rainbow).
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
See, the beauty of this format is that it is possible to do that. You just have to ask your group. Outside of those cutthroat games, why would a group say no to such a thing?
Emphasis changed by me.
This reads to me as 'CV is just like every other card that creates an infinite combo with a commander, but CV is banned because it can't do anything else'.
I get some people don't like to win with combo, and those people won't play CV. Some people don't like losing to combo. Both those sets of people include me, but this would be one of a dozen things you have to worry about when you play with the other set of people.
I also understand its not coming off the ban list. It was an interesting discussion, but the reasons were known and repeated in this thread.
FTFY.
But then, as it's the same answer as you've already been told about 50 times...I'm not surprised you'd think different.
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.
History will vindicate me.
You, on the other hand, never managed to counter this.
So no, history will not vindicate you. Coalition Victory is not going to be unbanned. Not now, not in the nearby future, not ever unless we get a completely different RC and even then I have my doubts.
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.
Sorry, but no, the stay banned side has addressed your points, repeatedly, for months now. The RC gave a detailed answer, and you have nothing to counter the argument that the only thing, literally the only thing, that CV does is win the game in a way that interacts poorly with the structure of the format.
Your examples of cards that have been unbanned are, frankly, irrelevant, as they are nothing like CV. If you were being reasonable, you'd have noticed that the cards that ARE like CV, like Worldfire, Biorythm, and Sway of the Stars, are banned and almost certainly going to stay that way. And unlike cards like Koko, Staff, or even Hulk, where we saw alternatives printed and not banned, and where competing strategies got better, things that led to their unbanning, Worldfire was printed long after CV had been on the banlist, and was QUICKLY banned. I'm still surprised that on its own wasn't enough of a signal that the RC isn't unbanning these sorts of cards any time soon.
What's really frustrating is when someone pretends that arguments are invalid simply because they don't like them. You lost track of what we are talking about here. This isn't a discussion about whether you think you'd be cool with CV being ran in your playgroup, its a discussion about whether the RC would unban CV (and by implication, the cards like it that actually can do something other than win on the spot) based on their ban criteria and whether CV still meets them. The stays banned side made arguments as to why they thought it should stay banned, some of which where according to preference (e.g., thinking the effect was unfair), but also arguments for why the RC would leave it banned, which were entirely based on the ban criteria. Once again, it keeps coming down to the fact that there is no other use for CV other than to do something that the RC has repeatedly, and consistently, said goes against what Commander is supposed to be. Its not like Hulk (and T&N and Boonweaver), where the competitive combo win is something the RC isn't keen on, but the existence of alternative uses means that its possible for those cards to show up in games and do other things. Its not like World Gorger Dragon, where there existed a possibility where it would enable just another combo to build around, and would have been rebanned if it got out of control. There exist only two scenarios if CV gets unbanned: CV sees play and does its thing, eating a reban, or CV doesn't see play, which is functionally the same as the status quo. The best case scenario is that it only pops up in playgroups that are OK with it, and whoa house unbans are totally a thing so you can do that now already! And you don't have to worry that the rando online or at the store running 5 color goodstuff is going to just randomly fire off CV, so he can actually run that deck without everyone gunning for him out of the gate, because even if he isn't running CV his opponents would have to assume he is if it where unbanned.
Now, is there a discussion to be had as to whether the RC should revisit its ban criteria, that perhaps "interacts poorly with the format" should be removed? I think that would be an interesting discussion, and wouldn't get bogged down in whether certain cards meet that requirement and whether those cards have other uses that outweigh it or other problems that reinforce it. It would be a discussion on a philosophical aspect of the banlist rather than how an individual card fits. That would be a discussion worth having. IF the RC were to do away with that, I'd see most of the banned legendaries come off the list, as well as Karakas, Sway, Wordlfire, Biorythmn, CV, possibly Trade Secrets (the collusion aspect is a poor multiplayer interaction), Upheaval, and perhaps even Limited Resources.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
You seem to have built in your head a conception about this boogeyman of a card that will only ever be in every single deck that plays five colors or in none them and are falling into the same traps about reality and not that you accuse others of.
Why isn't every white deck in Commander running Approach of the Second Sun if we are going to play on theoretical nonsense parameters of how people build magic decks.
Or the idea that a game ending at the resolution of an 8 mana spell is a negating effect on the rest of the game of magic to that point is an weird way of looking at a multiplayer game played in a social setting.
Just because YOU don't see the fun doesn't mean it isn't there.
This illustrates the point you continually ignore.
This isn’t about you. I can assure you that the other 3+ players at your table will not enjoy that sweet, thematic spell as much as you supposedly will. Same can be said for every play group. Having fun at the expense of others is like an EDH taboo. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. You aren’t playing this format correctly if that is your mindset. The RC outlined that in the explanation above. We aren’t using the same set of parameters as you in our arguments, because what you are describing isn’t EDH in the RC’s vision. Argue all you want, you aren’t going to change that. It’s an exercise in futility.
Oh boy, here we go again. Tell me how casting a spell twice, and only after you’ve dug it out of your library for a second time is the same as CV? Please, enlighten me. I know what you’ll do, you’ll add cards to make it more functional, because that’s the only way.
This is a joke. If the game ended every time somebody reached 8 mana, I wouldn’t play this format. I’ve had all 42 of my lands on the battlefield in a 21 turn game that I ended up losing. It was an enjoyable game. If I ever had to be part of a game that ended because 5c dude reached 8mana, I wouldn’t play with that guy unless he ditched the cards that resulted in that happening. Do games end early? Yeah, but more or less by coincidence, and not by design.
The problem with you using Approach of the Second Sun as an example is that it telegraphs itself(assuming we're using it by itself). If you're not using it by itself, guess what? It's not Coalition Victory anymore.
Approach, like Felidar Sovereign, Near-Death Experience, Helix Pinnacle and more, require work beyond 'doing what your normally do in an EDH game.' They require you to reach a state, and with Felidar and Near-Death, stay there for a bit. You EARN that win, just as certainly as the infect player gets someone to 10 poison counters.
The RC has summed it up pretty well as to why CV isn't coming off: "Do what you do in the course of an EDH game, and at some point, unless someone has an instant speed response, win."
Perhaps not, but the definition of 'fun' can only be stretched so far. I think in your case, it's beyond being stretched, to outright ripping.
Coalition Victory may have come out before the advent of EDH, but having seen what happened with OTHER cards that didn't get insta-banned like Worldfire(Prime Time, Griselbrand, Sylvan Primordial), I feel that the RC has made the right call, and (rightly so) called what would happen. It's not a 'boogeyman argument'...it is the very nature of people to utilize the big plays they can use. As games degenerated into control over Prime and Primo, so too would enough 5C decks devolve into racing to a CoVic win. It's the way people, by and large, are. Of course it's fun and thematic for the person pulling it off...but do you really think you'll get a round of "Good game, did NOT see that coming" at the end? Is the fun just supposed to be for the winner?
To turn the phrase back around, "Just because YOU don't see the rationale in keeping CoVic banned, doesn't mean it's not a legitimate concern."
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)
I know I am singling out a segment of a much larger post but this doesn't apply to CV because those racing 5C color decks already exist and they are doing things so much faster than CV could ever hope to be because it is still an 8Mana Sorcery.
Also a faulty premise is deciding on fun of a game of magic based only on the last thing that happened in it out of context.
(also those kinds of decks are well out of the purview of what gets banned as I would argue from prior comments any decks racing to hit a goal at all)
EDIT: five color decks also are not that common in the grand scheme of things largely because they are a sinkhole for good splashy cards and people tend to like those cards in other places (from personal experience) I don't think that changing this (that isn't happening) would have any effect on the proportionality of five color decks.
This is the definition of fear mongering. You're deliberately misleading people into thinking that if CV was unbanned literally every future game they play will be against 3 different 5-color decks doing nothing but playing CV. That's just downright dishonest.
Except in a vacuum, it takes Approach of the Second sun 7 additional turns to to win. Poke, poke, poke, how many more holes do we need to put in here before your argument completely falls apart?
Ahahaha, sorry, this so not true. If that was even the slightest bit true, why did they go out of there way to create multiple threads across multiple forums for questions to be asked of them, and then take time to publish an article answering the “peasants” questions? My god, this is asinine.
I mean, if this was the case, you’d guys have the same things in common. Not listening and all. This just reeks of childish antics, “They didn’t agree with me, so I’ll bash them”.
My argument was never that this card is the same as this other card lets compare them. My argument was about why people aren't running a card that basically wins on its own in reaction to arguments that seem to claim that this is stated fact. Using a ridiculous example is a nice way sometimes to highlight another ridiculous example or statement.
You also seem hesitant to discuss this point because you snipped out Impossible's well worded bit about how what this thread is basically doing is fear mongering for an inevitable outcome that no proof exists for.
Full retraction mode I see. “Oh, no, you misunderstood my point!”. You’re right, it is a ridiculous example because why would somebody even compare a card that wins the game 7 turns after some event to a card that, well, doesn’t wait 7 turns. Want to know why it’s not in every W? Because it’s a terrible alt. win-con. It’s a 7 Mana sorcery that gains you 7 life and goes into the library. Stop doing these apples to oranges comparisons, it’s borderline pathetic. Why isn’t Mortal Combat in every black deck? Epic Struggle in every green? Fact is, after you’ve cobbled together your 5c EDH deck, you’ve met the criteria for winning with CV. No additional hoops, no timing restrictions, nothing. Care to point me to a card that does that, that’s legal in this format? No? Shocker...
Yep, hesitant alright. Unfortantly for you, proof exists that doing so would not be in my best interest, lol. No “proof” existed that Tide-Pods would cause catastrophic internal damage to ones body if injested, yet, well whatever.
Do you even know the proof you are trying to provide? I am starting to doubt that. You do a pretty decent job of dancing around it not saying anything though.
Also you seem unaware of what a retraction is.
Also lets be real the green version is clearly Shaman of Forgotten Ways