All of that is true of Sliver Queen too until it drops Mana Echoes and makes infinite 1/1 slivers. I don't even like combo in commander and don't play it. My best commander combo ever was Basalt Monolith, Rings of Brighthearth, Comet Storm while Conflux was the only nonland tutor, so I couldn't even get 2/3 pieces. It's not hard to build a 5 color combo deck, though. Coalition Victory just literally has "win the game" written on it so people that have never seen the combo will know for sure the game is over without a demonstration/explanation.
All of that is true of Sliver Queen too until it drops Mana Echoes and makes infinite 1/1 slivers. I don't even like combo in commander and don't play it. My best commander combo ever was Basalt Monolith, Rings of Brighthearth, Comet Storm while Conflux was the only nonland tutor, so I couldn't even get 2/3 pieces. It's not hard to build a 5 color combo deck, though. Coalition Victory just literally has "win the game" written on it so people that have never seen the combo will know for sure the game is over without a demonstration/explanation.
What's your point? There are a number of of cards that go infinite with only a general, but that is ONE specific general. And you also do not think there is a difference between "I make a million bajillion tokens and pass turn in the hopes that no one board wipes before I can attack with them" and "this spell resolved and I just won the game"?
And for the "not just going to throw it in" and "bad Tooth and Nail" comments, I ask why. It takes up exactly one slot in your deck and wins the game instantly. Tooth and Nail requires more mana and at a minimum two additional deck slots. So why would you choose to not run CV, or why.why would you choose to run TaN over CV?
The difference between 8 and 9 mana is absolutely trivial to a green deck. The reason to run T&N instead of CV is because I built any G/x deck instead of a 5-color monstrosity. 5-color decks are already fairly rare compared to G/x or G/x/x decks, and T&N ends the game exactly as easily as CV, even if it takes a couple more deck slots.
The point is, if people want to combo off in a 5-color deck, they're going to do it, and they're going to do it way faster and more consistently than casting CV and hoping that's good enough. There's really no reason to keep Coalition Victory banned.
Yeah, Coalition Victory is somewhat unique in that it requires little to no setup other than playing the game. It doesn't require the combat step, it doesn't require the upkeep step, it doesn't require a certain life total or zero cards in library, or any other special conditions other than what you would normally be doing in a game of Commander: playing lands and creatures.
Coalition Victory mostly falls under "Interacts badly with the structure of Commander". The card is supposed to present a challenge to find the lands, the creatures, and then cast it. The dynamic changes when you always have a creature to fulfill the conditions handy at all times.
Since it's insta-win, the other aspects of commander - notably the multiplayer nature, which can help in a lot of situations - don't provide any offset. That makes it a card that gets a lot of scrutiny, and, in this case, a ban.
I think people underestimate how much we weigh "interacts badly" as a criteria.
Coalition Victory mostly falls under "Interacts badly with the structure of Commander". The card is supposed to present a challenge to find the lands, the creatures, and then cast it. The dynamic changes when you always have a creature to fulfill the conditions handy at all times.
Since it's insta-win, the other aspects of commander - notably the multiplayer nature, which can help in a lot of situations - don't provide any offset. That makes it a card that gets a lot of scrutiny, and, in this case, a ban.
I think people underestimate how much we weigh "interacts badly" as a criteria.
Isn't there also other combos that interact badly with the structure of Commander due to the fact some commanders make the combos easier to pull off? Such as Sidisi, Undead Vizier + Ad Nauseam as an example.
But those sorts of cards have uses outside of being combo pieces. Coalition Victory doesn't.
I'm always super annoyed by this argument. Felidar Sovereign doesn't haven fair uses. You put it in your deck to win the game without trying. Nobody puts Mind Over Matter into their deck and thinks it's a fair and balanced card. Curiosity goes into one EDH deck ever, and it's to combo off with. Palinchron is never just a flying beater. So on and so forth. Can we please not willfully ignore that the vast, vast, VAST majority of use cases for these cards is as some sort of combo piece?
Coalition Victory mostly falls under "Interacts badly with the structure of Commander". The card is supposed to present a challenge to find the lands, the creatures, and then cast it. The dynamic changes when you always have a creature to fulfill the conditions handy at all times.
Then can you please explain how CV is in any way significantly different from Tooth and Nail? Both are expensive sorceries that end the game when resolved. Both easily slot into any deck that can support the colors. Both can be disrupted by instant speed creature removal. But only one of them requires you to play your minimum 5CMC cost general beforehand and hope it sticks around. Why is THAT the one that's banned?
But those sorts of cards have uses outside of being combo pieces. Coalition Victory doesn't.
I'm always super annoyed by this argument. Felidar Sovereign doesn't haven fair uses. You put it in your deck to win the game without trying. Nobody puts Mind Over Matter into their deck and thinks it's a fair and balanced card. Curiosity goes into one EDH deck ever, and it's to combo off with. Palinchron is never just a flying beater. So on and so forth. Can we please not willfully ignore that the vast, vast, VAST majority of use cases for these cards is as some sort of combo piece?
Coalition Victory mostly falls under "Interacts badly with the structure of Commander". The card is supposed to present a challenge to find the lands, the creatures, and then cast it. The dynamic changes when you always have a creature to fulfill the conditions handy at all times.
Then can you please explain how CV is in any way significantly different from Tooth and Nail? Both are expensive sorceries that end the game when resolved. Both easily slot into any deck that can support the colors. Both can be disrupted by instant speed creature removal. But only one of them requires you to play your minimum 5CMC cost general beforehand and hope it sticks around. Why is THAT the one that's banned?
Because while CV can only be stopped by instantly destroying one of the lands or nuking the general, T&N can also be held back by Fog or something like that unless it fetches MikeTrike. Plus, even though many people treat it as only an iWin button, it does not always win the game on the spot and some people just use it to pull up high value/impact plays, which is an alternate mode in a way which CV does not have access to.
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.
You want me to honestly believe its fine to have a "I win " card on the banlist but ignore the dozen others that are free to be used? Like how about a Hive Mind into a Pact of the Titan, if my opponent's cannot produce red mana, they lose .
If we want to keep Coalition Victory banned may I point out a few others that cause the table to concede?
Possibility of Infinite Mana = Table Concedes.
Possibility of Infinite Creatures = Table Concedes.
Possibility of Infinite Turns = Table Concedes.
Possibility of Infinite Combat Steps = Table Concedes.
Possibility of Infinite Milling = Table Concedes.
Possibility of Infinite Damage = Table Concedes.
If I can make a table concede with just a Ezuri, Claw of Progress with five experience counters and a Sage of Hours that is protected by a Cavern of Souls because nobody at the table wants to deal with infinite turn shenanigans, then isn't that a bit of a contradiction to why Coalition Victory is on the banlist? Because it forces an immediate victory? Because many of the "table concedes" methods that I gave examples of will force a victory by a browbeat method onto the rest of the table if not answered.
Its practically the same shenanigans that went on during pro tours with Timespiral where a deck was running around with Dragonstorm and through browbeating their opponents with the threat, not the actual card, of Bogardan Hellkite, they would concede. Only at one point late during the pro tour did the guy running around with that deck get busted because his deck actually didn't have any dragons.
For every one of these "answers" that people love to bring up, there is an answer for an answer. A well built deck will be sturdy and hard to crack, not simply just flimsily croak and die due to one counter spell.
There is quite a few win conditions out there that are basically "I win cards". How about a forced loss? Such as Bojuka Bogging my oppponent's graveyard and then donating to them a Immortal Coil? That does not take much effort to setup either as the Immortal Coil forces a loss on the controller with no graveyard. Could be in a UB, RB or even URB deck.
How about Oloro? Aetherflux Reservoir + Beacon of Immortality. Get your life to 51+ and then double it to 102 and then spend 100 Life and 9W mana to kill two players at the table. If their a chance at repercussions from killing two, like getting pinged for 1-5 damage, I can knock out one player instead and still have 50+ life and then pick my battle later to pick off the second.
One more example of an easy play: My opponent's are tapped out. I cast Biovisionary with mana from a Cavern of Souls. I then kick a Rite of Replication on Biovisionary and finish it with a Savor the Moment for a "I win" moment. My opponent's couldn't respond because their resources are exhausted. The mana isn't hard to come by because I am in green and most green decks tend to have ramp. Shall I go on and list more easy win conditions?
As one might counterpoint about my examples of "Infinite X" and state how EDH/Commander is a Gentlemen's Game, how its a Casual Game and also how it has social contracts against such combos at playgroups. Or how for instance the Oloro example violates a social contract and would be "quite rude to knock a player out that quickly".
To which I answer: Yes I am here for the beer and social interaction when I am at a table with friends like we are playing a poker game... however I shouldn't forget this a game to be won. If I wanted to build a deck that did anything but win, I could easily build a "durdle deck" and waste the time of me and my friends and prolong the inevitability of either losing or winning by default. If a player wins early on in my group, we up picks up our cards and start a fresh game.
Why I remember for the longest time before EDH became Commander that the banlist was listed as an optional rule. As in more like a guideline than a rule at all. If I may also point this out, my playgroup removed the ban from Coalition Victory at our home group as we disagree with the rules committee's choice. My playgroup's banlist takes several cues from the dual commander banlist which actually has a lot more logical choices of why a card might be on the banlist. As that is one of the other things to point out about the banlist in general: Don't like whats on the list at your group that isn't in a sanctioned event? Houserule it.
Then can you please explain how CV is in any way significantly different from Tooth and Nail?
How exactly does Tooth and Nail interact badly with the structure of Commander? It appears to do exactly the same thing it does in normal Magic.
Well if we want to get all nitty-gritty, T&N plays way better in EDH than regular Magic because it bypasses the singleton structure of the format by virtue of being a tutor.
But like... what? That's the most important criteria here? T&N and CV do functionally the same thing (read: win) when played in a game of EDH. CV being less terrible in EDH than regular M:tG is a frankly ridiculous banning criteria when a better card exists that's still legal.
Not to mention what about literally any other card the combos with a general or even just the rules of EDH? Is Felidar Sovereign up for a ban because it interacts significantly differently in EDH than it does in regular M:tG? Serra Ascendant? Curiosity is a one-mana win the game card when combined with your always avaliable general: ban worthy?
Well if we want to get all nitty-gritty, T&N plays way better in EDH than regular Magic because it bypasses the singleton structure of the format by virtue of being a tutor.
Your logic is backwards. T&N is actually slightly weakened by the singleton format, as you can't get two of the same creature.
But like... what? That's the most important criteria here? T&N and CV do functionally the same thing (read: win) when played in a game of EDH.
It's an important criteria, yes.
A notable difference between T&N and CV is that in casual play, T&N is often used for awesome, not to end games. If people want to grab "I win" combos, they're going to find a million ways to do it in the card pool, so we're not going to worry about it. They'll get bored eventually.
Not to mention what about literally any other card the combos with a general or even just the rules of EDH? Is Felidar Sovereign up for a ban because it interacts significantly differently in EDH than it does in regular M:tG? Serra Ascendant? Curiosity is a one-mana win the game card when combined with your always avaliable general: ban worthy?
Felidar Sovereign and Serra Ascendant are often brought up by folks for banning. The fact that you can counter them by orc-piling on that player keeps them on the safe side of the line. And, as you think Curiosity falls into the same bucket, we're obviously done here.
Then can you please explain how CV is in any way significantly different from Tooth and Nail?
How exactly does Tooth and Nail interact badly with the structure of Commander? It appears to do exactly the same thing it does in normal Magic.
Well if we want to get all nitty-gritty, T&N plays way better in EDH than regular Magic because it bypasses the singleton structure of the format by virtue of being a tutor.
But like... what? That's the most important criteria here? T&N and CV do functionally the same thing (read: win) when played in a game of EDH. CV being less terrible in EDH than regular M:tG is a frankly ridiculous banning criteria when a better card exists that's still legal.
Not to mention what about literally any other card the combos with a general or even just the rules of EDH? Is Felidar Sovereign up for a ban because it interacts significantly differently in EDH than it does in regular M:tG? Serra Ascendant? Curiosity is a one-mana win the game card when combined with your always avaliable general: ban worthy?
Obviously T&N is abused but a an eye is turned the other way as it would be seen as casual. We always seen the shenaigans caused by it, the usual suspects. Seeing it being abused for massive card draw and tokens (Avenger of Zendikar + Regal Force), as a means to play whack-a-mole with your opponents lands (Khamal, Fist of Krosa + Goblin Sharpshooter/Crovax, Ascendant Hero/ Ascendant Evincar), to unleash some indestructible cthulu-oid monstrosity on the land (Realm Seekers + Vampire Hexmage), to generate infinite mana (Palinchron + Deadeye Navigator), a round-about way to buff your entire army while harming your opponent and yourself (Pestilence Demon + Vigor), to generate an infinite army of hasty tokens (Kiki-Jiki + Zealous Conscripts/Pestermite). I doubt it will even get banned even though it is what enables problems to crop up to begin with.
One of the common arguments I have seen for not putting a card on the banlist for over six years: Its the fault of the opponent for not packing/having "answers" for such threats and because such cards like Serra Ascendant who have no immediate board impact like Primeval Titan which immediately granted two lands upon its entry.
Another is that: Such cards are niche and are not the big ones that warp the format such as Curiosity. Very few decks run it and its relatively easy to counter, thus it is fine. It is fair and as part of a gentlemen's agreement it won't be abused.
Final one is: (EDH/Comander) is a casual game at heart and should be treated as such.
It's a good argument. Just because a card can create poor games of Commander doesn't mean it will. Cards play out differently in different kinds of decks. If the RC went around banning every single card with the potential to crate poor games of Commander, not only would their ban list become unmanageable, it would take away cards from players who weren't using them degenerately. That's not cool.
Felidar Sovereign doesn't haven fair uses. You put it in your deck to win the game without trying.
Sure. I'll concede that Felidar Sovereign isn't a fair card in Commander, but it's not Coalition Victory either. Felidar Sovereign requires a player to set it up. They have to have at least 40 life, meaning they can't have already taken a beating that game, and even if they are above the threshold, the Sovereign has to make it all the way around the table without dying in order to trigger. If players are unable to kill it, they can still reduce its controller's life total below 40 too. Felidar Sovereign requires set up and can be interacted with. Coalition Victory doesn't and is much more difficult to interact with.
Curiosity goes into one EDH deck ever, and it's to combo off with.
Except for all these decks listed here on EDHREC that don't use it to combo off with. Niv-Mizzet and Scion combined only make up roughly 40% of decks using the 18 Commanders listed.
Can we please not willfully ignore that the vast, vast, VAST majority of use cases for these cards is as some sort of combo piece?
Some cards are primarily used to combo with and some of them aren't. What makes Coalition Victory different, as I've already mentioned, is that it's 1.) difficult to interact with, 2.) requires virtually no setup, 3.) instantly wins the game when it resolves, and 4.) can't be used fairly. None of the cards you listed as examples meet all of these criteria, though I feel Palinchron comes rather close.
But like... what? That's the most important criteria here? T&N and CV do functionally the same thing (read: win) when played in a game of EDH. CV being less terrible in EDH than regular M:tG is a frankly ridiculous banning criteria when a better card exists that's still legal.
I thought I'd quote you here to remind you that just because Tooth and Nail can end the game once it resolves doesn't mean it will. While I believe Tooth and Nail won't ever not be a powerful card, it won't always be a game ending card because players largely aren't interested in casting Tooth and Nail as a game ending card. They understand that Commander is a social format and not a competitive one. That doesn't mean they won't try and win with the creatures they get with it, but there's a difference between getting something like Avenger of Zendikar plus Ulamog and getting MikeTrike. The banned list isn't about taking away things that are too good. It's about shaping the format in a way that encourages fun games of Commander.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
People who are thinking Coalition Victory is fine are approaching the game from a competitive POV, and from that POV, they're pretty much correct that CV really isn't worse than other combo wins. However, what those players are missing - as usual - is that the format was not designed and is not intended as a competitive format full of "I win" combos, but rather as a social one. Social games have different concerns, and the intent - as Sheldon and others in the RC have said repeatedly - is to make for memorable games in which interesting things happen.
This just is not true. I don't view the game through a competitive lense at all. The RC no longer takes combo into account for bans, this is combo.
Combo wins don't make for memorable wins, because the wins obtained are essentially the same from game to game. Once you've seen the trick, most combos are in fact really boring. The greatest drama in a combo win is whether or not someone can get their "I win this turn" combo past removal or countermagic. Similarly, something like Coalition Victory, which in a non-competitive game is just going to come out of left field and instantly win the game, makes for something anti-climactic, as opposed to memorable or interesting. As such, it has no place in the format at the format was designed and intended to be played.
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.
This just is not true. I don't view the game through a competitive lense at all. The RC no longer takes combo into account for bans, this is combo.
Is it really though? I mean, I understand that you weren't addressing me with this response, but I thought I'd chime in because I'm not sure I even believe that Coalition Victoryis a combo card. It's a one card combo with a trivial setup that opponents can't typically respond to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
People who are thinking Coalition Victory is fine are approaching the game from a competitive POV, and from that POV, they're pretty much correct that CV really isn't worse than other combo wins. However, what those players are missing - as usual - is that the format was not designed and is not intended as a competitive format full of "I win" combos, but rather as a social one. Social games have different concerns, and the intent - as Sheldon and others in the RC have said repeatedly - is to make for memorable games in which interesting things happen.
This just is not true. I don't view the game through a competitive lense at all. The RC no longer takes combo into account for bans, this is combo.
I know you aren't a competitive player, but a lot of the people who have been chiming in about being okay with CV are competitive players, and they are okay with it because it's essentially just another combo.
So you feel the same way about all combo?
Yeah, I do feel that way about combos which directly result in a win. The Mike/Trike stuff, Kiki/Conscripts, Palinchron stunts, infinite mana, infinite recurson loops, all that stuff... once you've seen it, it's tedious and boring. The fact that it's an effective route to a win doesn't keep me from finding it boring as all get out, because while I would prefer to win as opposed to losing, I would much rather lose a game that was interesting than win with Hermit Druid or Ad Nauseum stunts.
Combos that don't lead to a win - what I'd refer to as good synergy and such - that's fine. That's what good deck building is about. But the "I win" ones, I just find that stuff predictable and boring.
This just is not true. I don't view the game through a competitive lense at all. The RC no longer takes combo into account for bans, this is combo.
Is it really though? I mean, I understand that you weren't addressing me with this response, but I thought I'd chime in because I'm not sure I even believe that Coalition Victoryis a combo card. It's a one card combo with a trivial setup that opponents can't typically respond to.
Coalition Victory is a combo card in that you have to have certain pieces in play for it to do anything. The problem is, the pieces can be in play and seem completely innocuous, and then if CV is successfully played, the game just ends. That makes it somewhat more obnoxious and anti-climactic than most that are currently possible in the game, but it's still not that much different than the sorts of combo wins preferrred by more competitive players, who typically hold back until the can combo off and win in one turn unless stopped right then and there.
I think that what's truly important is that Coalition Victory LITERALLY has no uses except "Win on the spot" unless it gets countered. Even something as utterly stupid as Palinchron has, by the broadest definition of the word, "fair" uses which nobody really ever goes for but it is there. If you cast a Palinchron on an empty board, you have a flying blocker. And that appears to be the reason why many combopieces/fetchers are unbanned yet CVictory is banned - the fact that it can be played without saying "GGWP."
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 would argue the only interesting "I Win The Game" card is Chance Encounter. And that is because their is a bit of suspense behind if the controller of it can reach ten victorious coin flips. Even with a Krark's Thumb as that only tilts the odds in their favor, not guarantees them a winning coin flip.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Link to the card ruling. One 5 color Commander counts for all colors and Shock/oldschool duel lands count for two land types.
The combo wouldn't be hard to pull off early to mid game with access to cards like Mizzix's Mastery
What's your point? There are a number of of cards that go infinite with only a general, but that is ONE specific general. And you also do not think there is a difference between "I make a million bajillion tokens and pass turn in the hopes that no one board wipes before I can attack with them" and "this spell resolved and I just won the game"?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
If you want to ban CV because it's an easy "I win" combo, sure go ahead. But then also ban every other easy combos that work with commanders too, or just 2 card combos in general: Felidar Sovereign in Oloro, Ageless Ascetic, any of the cards that loop with Sharuum the Hegemon, Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind and Curiosity, Azami, Lady of Scrolls and Mind over Matter, etc.
The point is, if people want to combo off in a 5-color deck, they're going to do it, and they're going to do it way faster and more consistently than casting CV and hoping that's good enough. There's really no reason to keep Coalition Victory banned.
Maelstrom Archangel laughs at you.
But those sorts of cards have uses outside of being combo pieces. Coalition Victory doesn't.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Since it's insta-win, the other aspects of commander - notably the multiplayer nature, which can help in a lot of situations - don't provide any offset. That makes it a card that gets a lot of scrutiny, and, in this case, a ban.
I think people underestimate how much we weigh "interacts badly" as a criteria.
Isn't there also other combos that interact badly with the structure of Commander due to the fact some commanders make the combos easier to pull off? Such as Sidisi, Undead Vizier + Ad Nauseam as an example.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
Then can you please explain how CV is in any way significantly different from Tooth and Nail? Both are expensive sorceries that end the game when resolved. Both easily slot into any deck that can support the colors. Both can be disrupted by instant speed creature removal. But only one of them requires you to play your minimum 5CMC cost general beforehand and hope it sticks around. Why is THAT the one that's banned?
Because while CV can only be stopped by instantly destroying one of the lands or nuking the general, T&N can also be held back by Fog or something like that unless it fetches MikeTrike. Plus, even though many people treat it as only an iWin button, it does not always win the game on the spot and some people just use it to pull up high value/impact plays, which is an alternate mode in a way which CV does not have access to.
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.
If we want to keep Coalition Victory banned may I point out a few others that cause the table to concede?
Possibility of Infinite Mana = Table Concedes.
Possibility of Infinite Creatures = Table Concedes.
Possibility of Infinite Turns = Table Concedes.
Possibility of Infinite Combat Steps = Table Concedes.
Possibility of Infinite Milling = Table Concedes.
Possibility of Infinite Damage = Table Concedes.
If I can make a table concede with just a Ezuri, Claw of Progress with five experience counters and a Sage of Hours that is protected by a Cavern of Souls because nobody at the table wants to deal with infinite turn shenanigans, then isn't that a bit of a contradiction to why Coalition Victory is on the banlist? Because it forces an immediate victory? Because many of the "table concedes" methods that I gave examples of will force a victory by a browbeat method onto the rest of the table if not answered.
Its practically the same shenanigans that went on during pro tours with Timespiral where a deck was running around with Dragonstorm and through browbeating their opponents with the threat, not the actual card, of Bogardan Hellkite, they would concede. Only at one point late during the pro tour did the guy running around with that deck get busted because his deck actually didn't have any dragons.
For every one of these "answers" that people love to bring up, there is an answer for an answer. A well built deck will be sturdy and hard to crack, not simply just flimsily croak and die due to one counter spell.
There is quite a few win conditions out there that are basically "I win cards". How about a forced loss? Such as Bojuka Bogging my oppponent's graveyard and then donating to them a Immortal Coil? That does not take much effort to setup either as the Immortal Coil forces a loss on the controller with no graveyard. Could be in a UB, RB or even URB deck.
How about Oloro? Aetherflux Reservoir + Beacon of Immortality. Get your life to 51+ and then double it to 102 and then spend 100 Life and 9W mana to kill two players at the table. If their a chance at repercussions from killing two, like getting pinged for 1-5 damage, I can knock out one player instead and still have 50+ life and then pick my battle later to pick off the second.
One more example of an easy play: My opponent's are tapped out. I cast Biovisionary with mana from a Cavern of Souls. I then kick a Rite of Replication on Biovisionary and finish it with a Savor the Moment for a "I win" moment. My opponent's couldn't respond because their resources are exhausted. The mana isn't hard to come by because I am in green and most green decks tend to have ramp. Shall I go on and list more easy win conditions?
As one might counterpoint about my examples of "Infinite X" and state how EDH/Commander is a Gentlemen's Game, how its a Casual Game and also how it has social contracts against such combos at playgroups. Or how for instance the Oloro example violates a social contract and would be "quite rude to knock a player out that quickly".
To which I answer: Yes I am here for the beer and social interaction when I am at a table with friends like we are playing a poker game... however I shouldn't forget this a game to be won. If I wanted to build a deck that did anything but win, I could easily build a "durdle deck" and waste the time of me and my friends and prolong the inevitability of either losing or winning by default. If a player wins early on in my group, we up picks up our cards and start a fresh game.
Why I remember for the longest time before EDH became Commander that the banlist was listed as an optional rule. As in more like a guideline than a rule at all. If I may also point this out, my playgroup removed the ban from Coalition Victory at our home group as we disagree with the rules committee's choice. My playgroup's banlist takes several cues from the dual commander banlist which actually has a lot more logical choices of why a card might be on the banlist. As that is one of the other things to point out about the banlist in general: Don't like whats on the list at your group that isn't in a sanctioned event? Houserule it.
RGU Yasova UGR
BU Skeleton Ship UB
U Heidar U
U Baral U
R Kari Zev R
How exactly does Tooth and Nail interact badly with the structure of Commander? It appears to do exactly the same thing it does in normal Magic.
But like... what? That's the most important criteria here? T&N and CV do functionally the same thing (read: win) when played in a game of EDH. CV being less terrible in EDH than regular M:tG is a frankly ridiculous banning criteria when a better card exists that's still legal.
Not to mention what about literally any other card the combos with a general or even just the rules of EDH? Is Felidar Sovereign up for a ban because it interacts significantly differently in EDH than it does in regular M:tG? Serra Ascendant? Curiosity is a one-mana win the game card when combined with your always avaliable general: ban worthy?
Your logic is backwards. T&N is actually slightly weakened by the singleton format, as you can't get two of the same creature.
It's an important criteria, yes.
A notable difference between T&N and CV is that in casual play, T&N is often used for awesome, not to end games. If people want to grab "I win" combos, they're going to find a million ways to do it in the card pool, so we're not going to worry about it. They'll get bored eventually.
Felidar Sovereign and Serra Ascendant are often brought up by folks for banning. The fact that you can counter them by orc-piling on that player keeps them on the safe side of the line. And, as you think Curiosity falls into the same bucket, we're obviously done here.
Obviously T&N is abused but a an eye is turned the other way as it would be seen as casual. We always seen the shenaigans caused by it, the usual suspects. Seeing it being abused for massive card draw and tokens (Avenger of Zendikar + Regal Force), as a means to play whack-a-mole with your opponents lands (Khamal, Fist of Krosa + Goblin Sharpshooter/Crovax, Ascendant Hero/ Ascendant Evincar), to unleash some indestructible cthulu-oid monstrosity on the land (Realm Seekers + Vampire Hexmage), to generate infinite mana (Palinchron + Deadeye Navigator), a round-about way to buff your entire army while harming your opponent and yourself (Pestilence Demon + Vigor), to generate an infinite army of hasty tokens (Kiki-Jiki + Zealous Conscripts/Pestermite). I doubt it will even get banned even though it is what enables problems to crop up to begin with.
Serra Ascendant, Curiosity, Felidar Sovereign, not likely to be banned.
One of the common arguments I have seen for not putting a card on the banlist for over six years: Its the fault of the opponent for not packing/having "answers" for such threats and because such cards like Serra Ascendant who have no immediate board impact like Primeval Titan which immediately granted two lands upon its entry.
Another is that: Such cards are niche and are not the big ones that warp the format such as Curiosity. Very few decks run it and its relatively easy to counter, thus it is fine. It is fair and as part of a gentlemen's agreement it won't be abused.
Final one is: (EDH/Comander) is a casual game at heart and should be treated as such.
RGU Yasova UGR
BU Skeleton Ship UB
U Heidar U
U Baral U
R Kari Zev R
It's a good argument. Just because a card can create poor games of Commander doesn't mean it will. Cards play out differently in different kinds of decks. If the RC went around banning every single card with the potential to crate poor games of Commander, not only would their ban list become unmanageable, it would take away cards from players who weren't using them degenerately. That's not cool.
Sure. I'll concede that Felidar Sovereign isn't a fair card in Commander, but it's not Coalition Victory either. Felidar Sovereign requires a player to set it up. They have to have at least 40 life, meaning they can't have already taken a beating that game, and even if they are above the threshold, the Sovereign has to make it all the way around the table without dying in order to trigger. If players are unable to kill it, they can still reduce its controller's life total below 40 too. Felidar Sovereign requires set up and can be interacted with. Coalition Victory doesn't and is much more difficult to interact with.
Except for me apparently, because I personally have put Mind Over Matter into one of my decks, intending to play it fairly.
Mind Over Matter is in the same boat as Felidar Sovereign. It's almost never a fair card, but it's not Coalition Victory either. Although more difficult to interact with than Felidar Sovereign, Mind over Matter is still easier to interact with than Coalition Victory and requires its controller to do some setup if they want to win the game instantly with it.
Except for all these decks listed here on EDHREC that don't use it to combo off with. Niv-Mizzet and Scion combined only make up roughly 40% of decks using the 18 Commanders listed.
Palinchron is just like Mind over Matter. It is almost never played fairly, but it still requires some sort of setup.
Some cards are primarily used to combo with and some of them aren't. What makes Coalition Victory different, as I've already mentioned, is that it's 1.) difficult to interact with, 2.) requires virtually no setup, 3.) instantly wins the game when it resolves, and 4.) can't be used fairly. None of the cards you listed as examples meet all of these criteria, though I feel Palinchron comes rather close.
I thought I'd quote you here to remind you that just because Tooth and Nail can end the game once it resolves doesn't mean it will. While I believe Tooth and Nail won't ever not be a powerful card, it won't always be a game ending card because players largely aren't interested in casting Tooth and Nail as a game ending card. They understand that Commander is a social format and not a competitive one. That doesn't mean they won't try and win with the creatures they get with it, but there's a difference between getting something like Avenger of Zendikar plus Ulamog and getting Mike Trike. The banned list isn't about taking away things that are too good. It's about shaping the format in a way that encourages fun games of Commander.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Is it really though? I mean, I understand that you weren't addressing me with this response, but I thought I'd chime in because I'm not sure I even believe that Coalition Victory is a combo card. It's a one card combo with a trivial setup that opponents can't typically respond to.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
I know you aren't a competitive player, but a lot of the people who have been chiming in about being okay with CV are competitive players, and they are okay with it because it's essentially just another combo.
Yeah, I do feel that way about combos which directly result in a win. The Mike/Trike stuff, Kiki/Conscripts, Palinchron stunts, infinite mana, infinite recurson loops, all that stuff... once you've seen it, it's tedious and boring. The fact that it's an effective route to a win doesn't keep me from finding it boring as all get out, because while I would prefer to win as opposed to losing, I would much rather lose a game that was interesting than win with Hermit Druid or Ad Nauseum stunts.
Combos that don't lead to a win - what I'd refer to as good synergy and such - that's fine. That's what good deck building is about. But the "I win" ones, I just find that stuff predictable and boring.
Coalition Victory is a combo card in that you have to have certain pieces in play for it to do anything. The problem is, the pieces can be in play and seem completely innocuous, and then if CV is successfully played, the game just ends. That makes it somewhat more obnoxious and anti-climactic than most that are currently possible in the game, but it's still not that much different than the sorts of combo wins preferrred by more competitive players, who typically hold back until the can combo off and win in one turn unless stopped right then and there.
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.
1 Karona the False God
The Goddess' Avatars (2)
1 Transguild Courier
1 Scrapbasket
1 Coalition Victory
All That She Touches (2)
1 Prismatic Omen
1 Chromatic Lantern
34 Forests
1 Cavern of Souls
1 Boseiju, Who Shelters All
Its basically a shell of a combo deck. It runs combo pieces. It runs pieces that protect the combo parts.
I mean if I really wanted to win in a boring and uninteresting way that is anti-climatic and ran innocuous pieces...
1 Darksteel Citadel
1 Hanna, Ship's Navigator
1 Paradox Haze
1 Prototype Portal
1 Copy Enchantment
1 Sculpting Steel
1 Copy Artifact
1 Phyrexian Metamorph
1 Clever Impersonator
1 Academy Ruins
1 Swiftfoot Boots
1 Lightning Greaves
1 Expedition Map
I would argue the only interesting "I Win The Game" card is Chance Encounter. And that is because their is a bit of suspense behind if the controller of it can reach ten victorious coin flips. Even with a Krark's Thumb as that only tilts the odds in their favor, not guarantees them a winning coin flip.