* Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander. Commander introduces specific structural differences to the game of Magic (notably singleton decks, color restrictions in deckbuilding, and the existence of a Commander). Magic cards not designed with Commander in mind sometimes interact with those elements in ways that change the effective functionality of the card. Cards that have moved too far (in a potentially problematic direction) from their original intent due to this mismatch are candidates for banning. This criterion also includes legendary creatures that are problematic if always available.
* Creates Undesirable Game States. Losing is not an undesirable game state. However, a game in which one or more players, playing comparable casual decks, have minimal participation in the game is something which players should be steered away from. Warning signs include massive overall resource imbalance, early-game cards that lock players out, and cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere.
* Problematic Casual Omnipresence. Some cards are so powerful that they become must-includes in decks that can run them and have a strongly negative impact on the games in which they appear, even when not built to optimize their effect. This does not include cards which are part of a specifc two-card combination - there are too many of those available in the format to usefully preclude - but may include cards which have numerous combinations with other commonly-played cards.
* Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly. Commander is a format devoted to splashy spells and epic plays, but they need to happen at appropriate times. Some acceleration is acceptable, but plays which are epic on turn ten are undesirable on turn three, so we rein in cards capable of generating a lot of mana early given the correct circumstances.
* Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry. Commander is a socially welcoming format with a vast cardpool. These two traits clash when it comes to certain early Magic cards, even if they would possibly be acceptable in their game play. It's not enough that the card is simply expensive. It must also be something that would be near-universally played if available and contribute to a perception that the format is only for the Vintage audience.
It produces no mana, so that's obviously out. It's worth 50 cents, so I think the barrier to entry should be fine. Casual omnipresence is impossible since only ~2% of commanders can even legally play it. Sure, maybe it's pretty omnipresent in those 2%, but (1) who cares, it's still 2%, and (2) sol ring is played in nearly every deck I've sat across from, so this criteria is nonsense on its face.
So that leaves us with 2 criteria.
Creates undesirable game states seems almost plausible unless you read the first sentence - "losing is not an undesirable game state". So that's a pretty open-and-shut case. You can maybe argue that "well, it'll make people pick on 5c commanders for fear of it," but that seems ridiculous to me. People don't constantly pulverize all green players just because T&N exists, or blue players because expro or ETI or omniscience exist. Those cards could happen and end the game, but it's all a calculated risk. Yes, they might have CV but they probably don't. Decks are big. Not to say people shouldn't have responses just in case, but they won't, or shouldn't, fire them off at the commander immediately always. That's just bad play.
So now we're down to the last one. The one that the RC is forced to use because none of the others fit. "Because it wins the game" is not a criteria. "Because it doesn't give people a chance to respond" is not a criteria (plus it's false). "Because it doesn't have a fun use" isn't a criteria, in fact it's almost explicitly why cards like doomsday are still legal. So we're forced to use the "interacts badly with the format" criteria.
Now, don't get me wrong - CV is much, much better here than any other format. No question about that. Spells with this casting cost are basically unplayable in virtually every other format, let alone with the same setup required and ease of disruption. That's because of the casual nature of the format, the high life totals, the multiple players, all contribute to a game that's much harder to win, and even harder to win "fairly". But that's also true of many other cards in the format. The fact that this is a format where rise of the dark realms is good is a feature, not a bug. So they can't focus on that.
So the criteria they have to use is that having access to a 5c creature all the time is sufficient boon to the card to justify banning ALONE. And there's no way to justify that, because even with that boost other formats would laugh CV out of the building. But they have to claim it's a huge problem, on its own, because it's the only way to justify banning the card with the banlist criteria as-is.
Now, if you wanted to ask me to justify banning it - that's pretty easy. Big, boring, win-the-game-now cards aren't interesting or conducive to a good game, especially among casual players who don't appreciate the threat-answer dichotomy that characterizes competitive magic. Cards that just exist to win the game without any play-around are not interesting. But then, imo, you've gotta ban enter the infinite too, and doomsday, because those fit the exact same criteria. And, at least imo, expro, although that one is more debatable.
Bro, read your the problematic game states quote again. I even quoted the relevant sentence to you before. "Cards that have a limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere" is one of the things they look for with this criteria. There is quite literally no better poster child for that that CV. The first sentence makes it clear that winning, in and of itself, is not problematic, but the rest of the paragraph goes on to detail situations in which winning can be problematic. Simple logic here, a card that has no function other than to win out of nowhere is only a type of card that can win the game out of nowhere, so saying that the RC doesn't ban all cards that are capable of winning the game when cast ISN'T saying that they won't ban cards whose only use is winning out of nowhere. Further, winning with minimal interaction is only a subset of states that fall under the larger category of winning. Thus, the RC can easily say that winning isn't problematic, but winning in this specific way is, and thus cards that do so can be banned. It is logically coherent and your attempt to argue otherwise falls flat.
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!
> “RC doesnt follow it’s own criteria”
> Provides criteria as evidence that it isn’t followed.
> Criteria literally specifies that cards exactly like CV will be banned.
Good job.
So before you say that Exapropriate is the same, like Loucypher said, there’s nothing in it’s text that says it just wins. It’s floor is certainly high since at worst you get an extra turn and three lands, at which point you essentially casted a fused timewarp and explosive vegetation. However, even in its better scenarios you will generally still be playing after it resolves, allowing you choices where you don’t just lose.
Honestly, the Mods should just lock this thread. My point has been proven by 3 separate individuals since this thread was ressurected. Or should we just argue the same points for another 9 pages, have it die for a year, and then revisit? Again.
Just missing Impossible and their insane theory crafting to really make this a party.
My bad about the other thread, I forgot to search for it and didn't notice it until I'd already posted. That said, I was kind of hoping it wouldn't get merged, because now people are way more likely to respond to the (imo badly argued) OP rather than my post, which is pretty quickly going to get buried. Perils of a forum structure, I guess.
You don't have to worry about that. All of your points have already been made here. Spoiler alert: get ready for a lot of
It interacts poorly with the format!
and
All it does is win the game!
responses. I'd suggest you'd be better off not wasting your time.
Interacts poorly - 100% it does. The card was designed such that you had to draw into or use what little ramp was available to get five land types, and draw into multiple creatures or a 5c one. In a 60 card deck this is an huge drawback because you are creating a deck building weakness. In EDH, the rules of the format take care of this nearly. You always have a 5c creature in your hand to play, and your deck is built intentionally to produce all five colors of mana without suffering the same drawbacks that you would have in 60 card magic.
Creates undesirable game states - it wins the game out of nowhere, such that you cast it, no one has an instant speed answer and the game ends regardless of everything up until that point. Yes it is telegraphed in the sense that we can assume every 5c deck runs it but beyond that there is no indication other than the player having their general and lands in play.
Problematic casual Omnipresence - every deck that can run this card should run it and will warp those games simply by being legal. There is also no need to optimize your deck to run it beyond running fetches.
Problematic casual omnipresence - people aren't all playing expro. Unless you're playing in a super-fast, counterspell-dense, or LD-happy meta, that card would make almost any deck better. People don't always play it, though. I think you're too pessimistic about what sorts of things people are actually going to play. Lots of people don't play boring insta-win cards like expro, I'm sure the same is true for CV. Not to mention being only 2% of commanders. Plus not everyone has fetches (although it's certainly doable without them).
Creates undesirable game states - So I should have read the banlist criteria more closely, because it actually says explicitly "cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere" which obviously fits CV to a T (although I think it's weird they say losing isn't undesirable in the same paragraph, but whatever). So that's on me, the card does obviously fit that criteria. Now, why they wouldn't apply the same criteria to enter the infinite, doomsday, etc I'm not sure. And then they also say "early-game cards that lock players out" but it's not like winter orb or geddon are banned. Are there even cards that fit that bullet point? I guess maybe erayo and/or leovold? Although I'd argue those interact badly with the format by being always-accessible, because their decks are otherwise generally fine without being able to rely on the commander, so idk why they need another criteria that hasn't been used on other cards, including those that very obviously do exactly that. But anyway. My point is - I think it totally justifies itself in this category BUT I think it should just as easily justify banning, at a minimum, ETI and DD. And Primal surge, for that matter. Maybe decree of annihilation too. But definitely definitely DD and ETI.
interacts poorly - maybe we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not even sure what you mean about "the same drawbacks as 60 card" as far as lands - if anything it's easier to get 5 colors in 60 card since you can run up to 40 fetches (probably don't actually run that many). True of standard I guess? Outside of that I think modern, and certainly legacy and vintage, have more powerful fixing than we do. And while yes, having a 5c creature in the command zone is a decent benefit, it strikes me as relative minor compared to the upgrade to SA, karakas, felidar, and LR.
Now, as onering points out, SA is a powerful source of a bad effect, basically. french vanilla beaters are usually very bad here - SA manages to break the glass ceiling by being SO insanely beyond the normal curve that it's still good. But this is why I think this criteria is a little misleading - SA has moved waaaaay past its "original intent" (to quote the guidelines) but, because it's not the sort of thing that's good in commander, it's not a banlist candidate. So really, the issue isn't JUST that it interacts badly with the rules by being much more powerful than intended, but that it interacts badly with the rules AND is an effect that's powerful in commander.
I think even if it did have the text "can't use your commander" I'm pretty sure people would still want it banned, because of the feel-bads of a sorcery saying you win the game (despite being pretty interact-able). At least it would be something people would talk about. That, to me, says that "how it interacts with the format" is a pretty small part of why it's a problematic card - it's just the most obvious tip of the iceberg that people can focus on.
Enter the Infinite I think is a relevant comparison. It really does just win without any setup, and is a close to printing "you win" as you conceivably get without actually printing "you win." Doomsday is a bit different. Without even getting into the fact that Doomsday is a particularly skill intensive card compared to other potential game enders, Doomsday requires a significant amount of deckbuilding considerations AND a fair amount of setup to ensure it actually does win. Its a super tutor for 5 cards that also searches your graveyard, but it tutors them all to the top of your library at sorcery speed. It requires a way to actually draw those cards immediately to be a "cast this and win" card.
The thing with cards like Doomsday is they generally will not be played until they can win you the game, so it might seem like that's all they do, but they can certainly be played without winning you the game, which is something CV simply doesn't do. Doomsday can, in desperation, be played as a tutor. T&N can be played as a big dumb spell that grabs big dumb creatures, following "build casually play competitively" you can build your deck to ensure that's all it does. Primal Surge is either a "play and win" card with significant deck building restrictions, or a big dumb spell that's little different than other big dumb spells in a normal deck. The RC has said on several occasions that these alternative "fair" uses matter when deciding whether to ban or unban a card. The chance of a spell being problematic to casual play is another big factor, which is much more likely for something splashy and straightforward like CV or Worldfire than something techy, subtle, and skill intensive like Doomsday. Also important is the ability of a card to accidentally ruin games. Nobody has ever put Doomsday in a deck and accidentally hit a combo. CV otoh is a card that bleeds flavor and seems really cool, and seems to a casual player like an obvious inclusion in a 5 color deck, then it actually gets played and sucks the life out of the room. Worldfire as well is a flavorful, evocative, splashy effect that Timmy would be drawn to, and then they cast it in game and suddenly its frowns all around.
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!
Enter the Infinite I think is a relevant comparison. It really does just win without any setup, and is a close to printing "you win" as you conceivably get without actually printing "you win." Doomsday is a bit different. Without even getting into the fact that Doomsday is a particularly skill intensive card compared to other potential game enders, Doomsday requires a significant amount of deckbuilding considerations AND a fair amount of setup to ensure it actually does win. Its a super tutor for 5 cards that also searches your graveyard, but it tutors them all to the top of your library at sorcery speed. It requires a way to actually draw those cards immediately to be a "cast this and win" card.
The thing with cards like Doomsday is they generally will not be played until they can win you the game, so it might seem like that's all they do, but they can certainly be played without winning you the game, which is something CV simply doesn't do. Doomsday can, in desperation, be played as a tutor. T&N can be played as a big dumb spell that grabs big dumb creatures, following "build casually play competitively" you can build your deck to ensure that's all it does. Primal Surge is either a "play and win" card with significant deck building restrictions, or a big dumb spell that's little different than other big dumb spells in a normal deck. The RC has said on several occasions that these alternative "fair" uses matter when deciding whether to ban or unban a card. The chance of a spell being problematic to casual play is another big factor, which is much more likely for something splashy and straightforward like CV or Worldfire than something techy, subtle, and skill intensive like Doomsday. Also important is the ability of a card to accidentally ruin games. Nobody has ever put Doomsday in a deck and accidentally hit a combo. CV otoh is a card that bleeds flavor and seems really cool, and seems to a casual player like an obvious inclusion in a 5 color deck, then it actually gets played and sucks the life out of the room. Worldfire as well is a flavorful, evocative, splashy effect that Timmy would be drawn to, and then they cast it in game and suddenly its frowns all around.
Just to take this
The thing with cards like Doomsday is they generally will not be played until they can win you the game,
a step further, you have to consider the pieces that actually win you the game as well.
You are just as much “sandbagging” the winning pieces as you are the super tutors(Doomsday, EtI, etc.). For the sake of simplicity, the most common “iWin” with Enter the Infinite involves LabMan. You certainly are not playing LabMan into an unfavorable situation unless you are winning with it, and the same goes for EtI. Having to really pick your spots to utilize these cards significantly impacts the way they are compared to CV. Having continuous access to one of your CV conditions, and the other being laughably easy to achieve, puts it much further ahead of cards like I’ve mentioned, or T&N etc.
Oh man, we're back here again? Ok. Nothing has changed for me. The eyerolling associated with 'all it does is win the game' doesn't change the fact that all it does is win the game. It's not interactive, and it's a feelsbad card. I'm not overly worried about it in terms of power level and being successful. Counterspells exist, so there's that. It's just.....what does the format gain by having this card available? At very most, a non-interactive, now-obsolete win the game card that has a smidgen of lore associated (barely).
Like, I don't care if it does get unbanned, I just don't see why you'd bother anymore. If anyone wants to run this card, they're probably not the sort of person I want to play.
It's just.....what does the format gain by having this card available?
Sorry I can't hear you over the sound of Stasis being legal. If your criteria is "what good does this card add to the format" I think you're going to need a much, much, much longer banned list.
I feel like the topic has gotten a little scattershot so I'd like to try to bring it back to more of a focus. I don't personally really care if the card gets unbanned, myself. It's not a card I'd ever play. So just to be clear - I'm not arguing that I want it unbanned. Here's the main things I'm trying to say:
-While I get that the card is a feelbad at a casual level, I think it's ultimately a pretty safe card for 75%+ metas assuming the players are competent. The spell should generally not be able to go off, and if it can, the winner probably could have won with a number of different cards. Casual does matter though - as I said, I don't want (or at least care about) it being unbanned. But I think people overestimate how good and unanswerable it is, in a non-cEDH, 75%-ish setting.
-At least from how I see the game, I think there are much more "deflating" cards that win the game with fewer avenues to respond. ETI is a good example - sure, labman can be killed, but let's be real that isn't happening if ETI resolved because there's now like 20 counterspells in the controller's hand, and the ETI itself can only be answered by a counterspell. For me, if I controlled the banlist, I'd rather those cards were banned before I'd give a crap about CV. But I'd be fine with both being banned - I just don't really care about CV at all.
-I think using "interacts badly with the format" as the sole justification is an oversimplification for why the card is banned, because the actual reason it's banned is difficult to articulate without bringing into question other cards (like expropriate and ETI) and the actual interaction it has with the rules of the format is substantive but not enormously so (nowhere near LR or felidar, for example). For that matter, I think "only wins the game" is also a bad justification, since there are plenty of other cards that do that too - besides ETI and DD that only implicitly win the game, lab man and all the other alt-wincons explicitly do the same thing (well, I guess lab man also attacks and blocks. Grey ogre ftw!), even if they are usually easier to interact with (but that's not listed as a criteria...I don't think? I hate reading, someone else tell me that I screwed up if it's in there). Do I think other cards could be banned on the same criteria? Probably. I'd rather those cards were also banned, than that CV was unbanned, though. But out of the dumb, easymode win-the-game cards I think CV is one that I, personally, find among the least offensive because it's among the easiest to interact with.
It's just.....what does the format gain by having this card available?
Sorry I can't hear you over the sound of Stasis being legal. If your criteria is "what good does this card add to the format" I think you're going to need a much, much, much longer banned list.
Where did Stasis even come from? You're opening a whole different can of worms to try (yet again) to win this argument. It's an annoying card, sure. Worthy of banning? Probably not. More relevant to this discussion, worthy of being on the banlist for the same reasons as CV? Not even in the same ballpark.
There's other win the game cards out now that are mostly better than CV, so I don't actually care if it does come off the banlist. Nonetheless I think the reason it is where it is, is because it doesn't add anything. In the decks it fits in it reads 'win the game' for a vast majority of the conditions you play it in. That's boring, antisocial and doesn't encourage good feelings for anyone except the guy who cheesed the win. I don't think it would see play, so it's sort of a moot point. If it did, well....it's a dumb way to win the game to me. I'd shake hands, say gg, and probably not play that person again, but that's just me.
As an aside, I'd be interested to see what your idea of a banlist looks like, being someone who has weighed in on this topic regularly. I won't judge, it just interests me to see where your argument comes from, especially considering Stasis somehow wriggled its way into the discussion.
-While I get that the card is a feelbad at a casual level, I think it's ultimately a pretty safe card for 75%+ metas assuming the players are competent. The spell should generally not be able to go off, and if it can, the winner probably could have won with a number of different cards. Casual does matter though - as I said, I don't want (or at least care about) it being unbanned. But I think people overestimate how good and unanswerable it is, in a non-cEDH, 75%-ish setting.
I don't think it's all that strong personally. I just don't see why the format needs this sort of card. If that meant a slippery slope leading to Laboratory Maniac, Helix Pinnacle and all the other win the game jank hitting the list, personally I'd be ok with that. I feel like a victory should be earned. These cards bend that symmetry in ways that are generally boring.
-At least from how I see the game, I think there are much more "deflating" cards that win the game with fewer avenues to respond. ETI is a good example - sure, labman can be killed, but let's be real that isn't happening if ETI resolved because there's now like 20 counterspells in the controller's hand, and the ETI itself can only be answered by a counterspell. For me, if I controlled the banlist, I'd rather those cards were banned before I'd give a crap about CV. But I'd be fine with both being banned - I just don't really care about CV at all.
I may be alone here, but I don't get the comparison to ETI, T&N or Expropriate. They're all suuuper strong cards. But they don't win the game on the spot. You still have to walk it over the line and there's plenty of cases where that won't happen.
-I think using "interacts badly with the format" as the sole justification is an oversimplification for why the card is banned, because the actual reason it's banned is difficult to articulate without bringing into question other cards (like expropriate and ETI) and the actual interaction it has with the rules of the format is substantive but not enormously so (nowhere near LR or felidar, for example). For that matter, I think "only wins the game" is also a bad justification, since there are plenty of other cards that do that too - besides ETI and DD that only implicitly win the game, lab man and all the other alt-wincons explicitly do the same thing (well, I guess lab man also attacks and blocks. Grey ogre ftw!), even if they are usually easier to interact with (but that's not listed as a criteria...I don't think? I hate reading, someone else tell me that I screwed up if it's in there). Do I think other cards could be banned on the same criteria? Probably. I'd rather those cards were also banned, than that CV was unbanned, though. But out of the dumb, easymode win-the-game cards I think CV is one that I, personally, find among the least offensive because it's among the easiest to interact with.
I can agree with most of this. It's easy enough to stop. It just doesn't add anything I want to see in the format, so if it were unbanned I wouldn't use it. It's not the first card I think of when I think of things that ought to stay on the banlist, but it's boring enough I couldn't care if I never play a game against it. I just don't think enough of the card to want to see anything about its status change, quite honestly. And I struggle to see why anyone else cares either, unless it's strictly in terms of a banlist that makes perfect, precise, logical sense.
The eyerolling associated with 'all it does is win the game' doesn't change the fact that all it does is win the game. It's not interactive, and it's a feelsbad card. I'm not overly worried about it in terms of power level and being successful. Counterspells exist, so there's that. It's just.....what does the format gain by having this card available? At very most, a non-interactive, now-obsolete win the game card that has a smidgen of lore associated (barely).
Sure sounds like you were describing Stasis. A non-interactive, feelsbad card that doesn't have any power level concerns associated with it but doesn't really add anything fun or interesting to the format. Pretty much describes Stasis to a T. So if the basis for banning CV is because it doesn't add anything to the format, perhaps we should be looking around at some other offenders too, no?
But we're not going to. Instead we're going to continue parroting "interacts poorly with the format" like it's the password into Heaven, because that's simpler.
While I get that the card is a feelbad at a casual level, I think it's ultimately a pretty safe card for 75%+ metas assuming the players are competent. The spell should generally not be able to go off, and if it can, the winner probably could have won with a number of different cards. Casual does matter though - as I said, I don't want (or at least care about) it being unbanned. But I think people overestimate how good and unanswerable it is, in a non-cEDH, 75%-ish setting.
Not to travel down the Worship path again, I don’t see how this is even relevant here. Acknowledging that this isn’t “safe” for casual tables ends the discussion, and especially consideirng you added qualifiers to make it “safe” for 75%. If anything, these are the types of comments that skew the focus, because you are not adhering to the criteria set forth by the RC.
At least from how I see the game, I think there are much more "deflating" cards that win the game with fewer avenues to respond. ETI is a good example - sure, labman can be killed, but let's be real that isn't happening if ETI resolved because there's now like 20 counterspells in the controller's hand, and the ETI itself can only be answered by a counterspell. For me, if I controlled the banlist, I'd rather those cards were banned before I'd give a crap about CV. But I'd be fine with both being banned - I just don't really care about CV at all.
And what stops the owner of CV packing their own set of protections? And there are other ways to disrupt EtI besides counter spells. Specificlly the most recent RCotD, Uba Mask, or at the very least creates a win now or lose scenario. Which is also another point, EtI either wins or loses, wether that’s a point in favor of or not is debateable, but that certainly isn’t how CV works.
To me, I usually see EtI as a working mans win. Sure, you’ve played the draw-go game all along, picked a good spot to “go off”, but there are a lot of scenarios that take place earlier in the game that can hinder, or flat out stop EtI, not many which create crummy games for any one player. For CV, you’re talking Kill on Sight Commander and LD. While a EtI win is deflating, having to wade through all the hate just because you could CV for the win is pretty bad as well. This is strictly a matter of opinion and play styles, so to each their own, just the way I see it on the reg.
-I think using "interacts badly with the format" as the sole justification is an oversimplification for why the card is banned, because the actual reason it's banned is difficult to articulate without bringing into question other cards (like expropriate and ETI) and the actual interaction it has with the rules of the format is substantive but not enormously so (nowhere near LR or felidar, for example). For that matter, I think "only wins the game" is also a bad justification, since there are plenty of other cards that do that too - besides ETI and DD that only implicitly win the game, lab man and all the other alt-wincons explicitly do the same thing (well, I guess lab man also attacks and blocks. Grey ogre ftw!), even if they are usually easier to interact with (but that's not listed as a criteria...I don't think? I hate reading, someone else tell me that I screwed up if it's in there). Do I think other cards could be banned on the same criteria? Probably. I'd rather those cards were also banned, than that CV was unbanned, though. But out of the dumb, easymode win-the-game cards I think CV is one that I, personally, find among the least concerning because it's among the easiest to interact with.
It may be simple, but it should really only require that explanation. Not to go on to much of a tangent, but what are some of the most powerful EDH generals? Ones that tutor. You are always +1 CA with a card like that in the command zone, and you’ve built a deck around them so you have an answer for most any situation. To a lesser extent, that is what a 5c general is to CV. You always have access to that one piece needed to seal the game.
I may be alone here, but I don't get the comparison to ETI, T&N or Expropriate. They're all suuuper strong cards. But they don't win the game on the spot. You still have to walk it over the line and there's plenty of cases where that won't happen.
I think expro is a somewhat bad example because it CAN still fail to win the game, for sure. It's mostly just a card that I think preys upon the commander's love of big, splashy effects in an unfun way. It's like griselbrand - it looks like a sweet EDH card until you actually play it and it's miserable cancer (except without the modern implications). I don't like wotc making cards like expro because it seems like they're deliberately targeting EDH, but not in a way that I, at least, like. I prefer cards that require some skill to be good rather than just "woo, I got to 9 mana so I get to do blatantly broken unfun stuff!"
But as a comparison to CV, it's not ideal, fair.
T&N does come up in these conversations (and I may have mentioned it once or twice) but I think it's justifiably not banned. Primarily because there are fair ways to use it, and also because it's reasonably skill-friendly in most of the ways it's played - instant-speed removal interacts well with it, usually, and getting good non-instant-win value out of it takes some amount of skill. I think it'd dumb and I don't play it, and if someone else plays it for kikiscripts then I'm miffed, but I'm not crying out for blood about it. I get why it hasn't been banned.
ETI, on the other hand, I think has no justification. It's much harder to interact with than CV, and while you "have to walk it across the line"...I mean, come on. How many games where ETI has resolved haven't resulted in the caster winning? And if they didn't, did the caster perhaps have their brain replaced with a small hamster earlier in the day? Unless you're discarding ulamog or something, you've gotta win by the next turn, and you're definitely not playing it unless you think you can do that. And they've gotta comb through their stupid deck to find the cards they need, and the counterspells if anyone tries to interact...I just see nothing redeemable about the card. No fair use, no fun, just a nigh-impossible-to-interact-with win-the-game slog. Playable in anything with blue. Boo. Boo on ETI.
EDIT: actually, in fairness it has one redeemable feature - that terese nielsen art.
The eyerolling associated with 'all it does is win the game' doesn't change the fact that all it does is win the game. It's not interactive, and it's a feelsbad card. I'm not overly worried about it in terms of power level and being successful. Counterspells exist, so there's that. It's just.....what does the format gain by having this card available? At very most, a non-interactive, now-obsolete win the game card that has a smidgen of lore associated (barely).
Sure sounds like you were describing Stasis. A non-interactive, feelsbad card that doesn't have any power level concerns associated with it but doesn't really add anything fun or interesting to the format. Pretty much describes Stasis to a T. So if the basis for banning CV is because it doesn't add anything to the format, perhaps we should be looking around at some other offenders too, no?
Stasis is plenty interactive. It affects other people's boards, it's a permanent that can be easily removed, requires input from the caster in order to stay on the field, and it doesn't end the game on the stop. There is no equivalency here with CV, period.
But we're not going to. Instead we're going to continue parroting "interacts poorly with the format" like it's the password into Heaven, because that's simpler.
I didn't mention 'interacts poorly with the format'. You did. If this is all you have to add to the discussion you're free to not reply.
Enter the Infinite also requires work to win. You can't just jam it in a blue deck, tap 12 lands and windmill slam it on the table. It is the ease at which you can win off of CV that we are not seeing eye to eye on.
Sorry I can't hear you over the sound of Stasis being legal. If your criteria is "what good does this card add to the format" I think you're going to need a much, much, much longer banned list.
Make a thread and state your case for why Stasis should be banned. If there is any argument beyond creating undesirable game states I would be surprised.
]I think expro is a somewhat bad example because it CAN still fail to win the game, for sure. It's mostly just a card that I think preys upon the commander's love of big, splashy effects in an unfun way. It's like griselbrand - it looks like a sweet EDH card until you actually play it and it's miserable cancer (except without the modern implications). I don't like wotc making cards like expro because it seems like they're deliberately targeting EDH, but not in a way that I, at least, like. I prefer cards that require some skill to be good rather than just "woo, I got to 9 mana so I get to do blatantly broken unfun stuff!"
But as a comparison to CV, it's not ideal, fair.
I agree wholeheartedly - it's a big, dumb, splashy EDH card thats enjoyable for exactly one person and often ends the game with bad feelings.
T&N does come up in these conversations (and I may have mentioned it once or twice) but I think it's justifiably not banned. Primarily because there are fair ways to use it, and also because it's reasonably skill-friendly in most of the ways it's played - instant-speed removal interacts well with it, usually, and getting good non-instant-win value out of it takes some amount of skill. I think it'd dumb and I don't play it, and if someone else plays it for kikiscripts then I'm miffed, but I'm not crying out for blood about it. I get why it hasn't been banned.
Agreed here, too. It's strong, but like any tutor it's as strong as what you're searching for. Not everyone plays it for degeneracy.
ETI, on the other hand, I think has no justification. It's much harder to interact with than CV, and while you "have to walk it across the line"...I mean, come on. How many games where ETI has resolved haven't resulted in the caster winning? And if they didn't, did the caster perhaps have their brain replaced with a small hamster earlier in the day? Unless you're discarding ulamog or something, you've gotta win by the next turn, and you're definitely not playing it unless you think you can do that. And they've gotta comb through their stupid deck to find the cards they need, and the counterspells if anyone tries to interact...I just see nothing redeemable about the card. No fair use, no fun, just a nigh-impossible-to-interact-with win-the-game slog. Playable in anything with blue. Boo. Boo on ETI.
EDIT: actually, in fairness it has one redeemable feature - that terese nielsen art.
The art is great, like everything Terese does. Granted, of the three, this is the closest comparison in terms of an open and shut win the game card. It's not foolproof, but chances are if someone casts this they win the game from it, agreed.
Not to travel down the Worship path again, I don’t see how this is even relevant here. Acknowledging that this isn’t “safe” for casual tables ends the discussion, and especially consideirng you added qualifiers to make it “safe” for 75%. If anything, these are the types of comments that skew the focus, because you are not adhering to the criteria set forth by the RC.
I did say I wasn't advocating to unban it. I'm just saying stuff about the card.
If there's a card I actually want unbanned, it's definitely library. C'mon RC, make my draw-go dreams come true (while putting the value of the card into the stratosphere, probably)!
And what stops the owner of CV packing their own set of protections? And there are other ways to disrupt EtI besides counter spells. Specificlly the most recent RCotD, Uba Mask, or at the very least creates a win now or lose scenario. Which is also another point, EtI either wins or loses, wether that’s a point in favor of or not is debateable, but that certainly isn’t how CV works.
I think most ETI wincons can win easily through uba mask. Better example would have been spirit of the labyrinth. Anyway, neither of those are good examples because you'd have to know it was coming in advance. Like, so far in advance that you built your deck to combat it. Maybe for people with a steady, small playgroup that's an option, but it's sure not for me.
As far as what stops the CV player from packing answers - well, nothing, but he's got 3 people he's gotta fight at the same time, so the odds are not stacked in his favor. He's gotta wait for the right window to minimize risk, which increases the chances his commander will die to a random board wipe or something and force him to skip turns recasting. Plus he's paying a lot of mana for CV that can't be used for counterspells. And of course he can really only answer responses with counterspells specifically. I'm just saying, in a good meta I would expect that winning with CV is reasonably earned.
To me, I usually see EtI as a working mans win. Sure, you’ve played the draw-go game all along, picked a good spot to “go off”, but there are a lot of scenarios that take place earlier in the game that can hinder, or flat out stop EtI, not many which create crummy games for any one player. For CV, you’re talking Kill on Sight Commander and LD. While a EtI win is deflating, having to wade through all the hate just because you could CV for the win is pretty bad as well. This is strictly a matter of opinion and play styles, so to each their own, just the way I see it on the reg.
I don't get why people would need to "kill on sight" a 5c commander because of CV. If I saw a 5c commander and CV was legal, I'd be wary of it, but I wouldn't just kill the commander right away. They might not have CV. They might not even be running it. And if they were, I'd want to hold up my removal, so that if they try to cast CV I can get that sweet, sweet 2-for-1. So as long as they don't try to play CV, their commander is safe (well, unless I'm killing it for another reason).
Also I have no idea what you mean about ETI. Unless someone made you discard it or played some stax piece you can't answer, it's basically always an auto-win. I don't see how that's a working man's win.
You know what's a working man's win? Killing people with a 4/4 flying hippo. That'll put some hair on your chest.
It may be simple, but it should really only require that explanation. Not to go on to much of a tangent, but what are some of the most powerful EDH generals? Ones that tutor. You are always +1 CA with a card like that in the command zone, and you’ve built a deck around them so you have an answer for most any situation. To a lesser extent, that is what a 5c general is to CV. You always have access to that one piece needed to seal the game.
Seems like exactly what curiosity is to niv. Or trike is to mikaeus. Just another 2-card combo with a commander.
fwiw, unbanning a card does in and of itself add to the format. Some player out there is going to "get to play" with a new card.
When it comes to Coalition Victory, at least, you know it's not pushing anything else out of the format. No one is going to be scrambling to build a new 5-color deck because of this card. Maybe it's a nice thing for that the casual player with that Atogatog deck to get a new toy.
Alternate win-cons are relatively tough to pull-off in EDH. I don't see how this one wouldn't be the same.
fwiw, unbanning a card does in and of itself add to the format. Some player out there is going to "get to play" with a new card.
When it comes to Coalition Victory, at least, you know it's not pushing anything else out of the format. No one is going to be scrambling to build a new 5-color deck because of this card. Maybe it's a nice thing for that the casual player with that Atogatog deck to get a new toy.
Alternate win-cons are relatively tough to pull-off in EDH. I don't see how this one wouldn't be the same.
I don't think the problem with Coalition Victory is how easy it is to pull off.
I think the problem with Coalition Victory is how it forces players to interact with any deck that has a 5 color general. I think Coalition Victory being legal will ruin plenty of games where it's not in a single deck.
As people have made perfectly clear, it's not that Coalition Victory is a big splashy spell that ends the game, we have plenty of those. I don't particularly think that it's one of the more powerful ones, although the fact that it can't be used to do other fun things (like Tooth and Nail can) certainly doesn't work in its favor.
If Coalition Victory is legal, my entire gameplay calculus changes when my opponent sits down with a 5 color general. I don't have to watch if they are setting up for it, because simply by playing the game they are doing so. I am incentivized to keep their general off the board, and attack their manabase - even if it's not the best use of my resources to do so. It's not fun for me, nor is it fun for the 5 color player, who may not even be playing Coalition Victory.
You say it may be nice for the guy with the casual Atogatog deck to get a new toy. And maybe it would be. I just think the format is better because the guy can play a casual Atogatog deck without a massive target on his head because Coalition Victory is legal.
Then please enlighten me. Because there is a lot more to banning or unbending a card beyond "does it add to the format". I absolutely think the very first question you should ask when evaluating a card is "does banning/unbanning this card improve the format?". But once you have answered that question, you should look to the rest of the philosophy to see if change is warranted.
I don't think the problem with Coalition Victory is how easy it is to pull off.
I think the problem with Coalition Victory is how it forces players to interact with any deck that has a 5 color general. I think Coalition Victory being legal will ruin plenty of games where it's not in a single deck.
As people have made perfectly clear, it's not that Coalition Victory is a big splashy spell that ends the game, we have plenty of those. I don't particularly think that it's one of the more powerful ones, although the fact that it can't be used to do other fun things (like Tooth and Nail can) certainly doesn't work in its favor.
If Coalition Victory is legal, my entire gameplay calculus changes when my opponent sits down with a 5 color general. I don't have to watch if they are setting up for it, because simply by playing the game they are doing so. I am incentivized to keep their general off the board, and attack their manabase - even if it's not the best use of my resources to do so. It's not fun for me, nor is it fun for the 5 color player, who may not even be playing Coalition Victory.
You say it may be nice for the guy with the casual Atogatog deck to get a new toy. And maybe it would be. I just think the format is better because the guy can play a casual Atogatog deck without a massive target on his head because Coalition Victory is legal.
Before I say anything else, let me reiterate that I don't necessarily think CV should be unbanned, and I don't really care one way or another if it is, and I would most likely never play it if it was.
But I haaaaaate this argument. It requires such a poor understanding of good magic play to make sense. I'm gonna list a few reasons why.
Just because someone COULD have a game-ender doesn't mean they DO. It rarely makes sense to dedicate major resources (like targeted removal) to a merely potential threat, especially in multiplayer where your resources are much more limited than the total resources of your opponents, let alone things they only MIGHT have. Does that mean sometimes you'll lose the game because they did have CV and you bet against it? Sure, occasionally, but you'll win a lot more because you didn't waste cards dealing with a threat that never existed.
The majority of good removal (and all counterspells ) is instant-speed. Killing the commander on sight based on theoretical threats is not just silly, it's a bad use of the card even if they DID have CV, because then they still have CV in hand and you've only delayed the problem. You wait until they cast it, and THEN you kill the commander, thus effectively countering the spell while killing their commander at the same time. Using this tactic of course means that their commander is relatively safe, provided they don't cast CV - which is exactly what you'd want, gameplay-wise.
Most decks aren't playing LD to "attack their manabase" even if they wanted to. If they are, it's probably strip/waste/DB/GQ/etc, all of which operate at instant speed, so see the previous point.
Even if the players involved are terrible at magic and play the way this argument thinks they should, the 5c player could just tell them he's not running CV and head the whole "problem" off at the pass.
I feel like the topic has gotten a little scattershot so I'd like to try to bring it back to more of a focus. I don't personally really care if the card gets unbanned, myself. It's not a card I'd ever play. So just to be clear - I'm not arguing that I want it unbanned. Here's the main things I'm trying to say:
-While I get that the card is a feelbad at a casual level, I think it's ultimately a pretty safe card for 75%+ metas assuming the players are competent. The spell should generally not be able to go off, and if it can, the winner probably could have won with a number of different cards. Casual does matter though - as I said, I don't want (or at least care about) it being unbanned. But I think people overestimate how good and unanswerable it is, in a non-cEDH, 75%-ish setting.
-At least from how I see the game, I think there are much more "deflating" cards that win the game with fewer avenues to respond. ETI is a good example - sure, labman can be killed, but let's be real that isn't happening if ETI resolved because there's now like 20 counterspells in the controller's hand, and the ETI itself can only be answered by a counterspell. For me, if I controlled the banlist, I'd rather those cards were banned before I'd give a crap about CV. But I'd be fine with both being banned - I just don't really care about CV at all.
-I think using "interacts badly with the format" as the sole justification is an oversimplification for why the card is banned, because the actual reason it's banned is difficult to articulate without bringing into question other cards (like expropriate and ETI) and the actual interaction it has with the rules of the format is substantive but not enormously so (nowhere near LR or felidar, for example). For that matter, I think "only wins the game" is also a bad justification, since there are plenty of other cards that do that too - besides ETI and DD that only implicitly win the game, lab man and all the other alt-wincons explicitly do the same thing (well, I guess lab man also attacks and blocks. Grey ogre ftw!), even if they are usually easier to interact with (but that's not listed as a criteria...I don't think? I hate reading, someone else tell me that I screwed up if it's in there). Do I think other cards could be banned on the same criteria? Probably. I'd rather those cards were also banned, than that CV was unbanned, though. But out of the dumb, easymode win-the-game cards I think CV is one that I, personally, find among the least offensive because it's among the easiest to interact with.
I'm going to refute your points individually
1. Your point here makes sense, but is an argument for it staying banned. Saying that it would be a problematic card in casual but cEDH and skilled 75% metas could handle it is just another way of saying that it's a card that should be banned but on the table for house unbans in strong metas. I guess this isn't really a refutation so much as agreeing with the point because it makes my case.
2. There's a good argument for banning cards like ETI, but there are real differences between the cards that make something like ETI less banworthy than CV. ETI provides more points of interaction, costs more, and can actually backfire and lose you the game to a well timed forced draw or sudden spoiling. Nonetheless, I think CV is so far over the line that ETI being less banworthy may be academic as it may still be banworthy. Although, I really only see it in more competitive builds since going the ETI route, like the Doomsday route, means you've given it thought and decided to run a combo deck, whereas CV requires little though beyond identifying that it can be a free win in your sliver deck.
3. Interacting poorly with the format alone makes this a borderline card. When taken with it's other violations, we don't have to engage in an academic exercise as to whether this alone should keep it banned. Even if this alone were insufficient, it's still significant enough to warrant a banning in conjunction with it hitting problem game states hard and hitting problematic omnipresence moderately (projected anyway).
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!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Bro, read your the problematic game states quote again. I even quoted the relevant sentence to you before. "Cards that have a limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere" is one of the things they look for with this criteria. There is quite literally no better poster child for that that CV. The first sentence makes it clear that winning, in and of itself, is not problematic, but the rest of the paragraph goes on to detail situations in which winning can be problematic. Simple logic here, a card that has no function other than to win out of nowhere is only a type of card that can win the game out of nowhere, so saying that the RC doesn't ban all cards that are capable of winning the game when cast ISN'T saying that they won't ban cards whose only use is winning out of nowhere. Further, winning with minimal interaction is only a subset of states that fall under the larger category of winning. Thus, the RC can easily say that winning isn't problematic, but winning in this specific way is, and thus cards that do so can be banned. It is logically coherent and your attempt to argue otherwise falls flat.
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!
> Provides criteria as evidence that it isn’t followed.
> Criteria literally specifies that cards exactly like CV will be banned.
Good job.
So before you say that Exapropriate is the same, like Loucypher said, there’s nothing in it’s text that says it just wins. It’s floor is certainly high since at worst you get an extra turn and three lands, at which point you essentially casted a fused timewarp and explosive vegetation. However, even in its better scenarios you will generally still be playing after it resolves, allowing you choices where you don’t just lose.
Seriously, not a dang thing has changed in the game that has made this discussion any different than the other 10 times it’s been brought up.
Like for real, I’m a gosh dang prophet I tell you-
Just missing Impossible and their insane theory crafting to really make this a party.
And I was not disappointed!
Creates undesirable game states - So I should have read the banlist criteria more closely, because it actually says explicitly "cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere" which obviously fits CV to a T (although I think it's weird they say losing isn't undesirable in the same paragraph, but whatever). So that's on me, the card does obviously fit that criteria. Now, why they wouldn't apply the same criteria to enter the infinite, doomsday, etc I'm not sure. And then they also say "early-game cards that lock players out" but it's not like winter orb or geddon are banned. Are there even cards that fit that bullet point? I guess maybe erayo and/or leovold? Although I'd argue those interact badly with the format by being always-accessible, because their decks are otherwise generally fine without being able to rely on the commander, so idk why they need another criteria that hasn't been used on other cards, including those that very obviously do exactly that. But anyway. My point is - I think it totally justifies itself in this category BUT I think it should just as easily justify banning, at a minimum, ETI and DD. And Primal surge, for that matter. Maybe decree of annihilation too. But definitely definitely DD and ETI.
interacts poorly - maybe we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not even sure what you mean about "the same drawbacks as 60 card" as far as lands - if anything it's easier to get 5 colors in 60 card since you can run up to 40 fetches (probably don't actually run that many). True of standard I guess? Outside of that I think modern, and certainly legacy and vintage, have more powerful fixing than we do. And while yes, having a 5c creature in the command zone is a decent benefit, it strikes me as relative minor compared to the upgrade to SA, karakas, felidar, and LR.
Now, as onering points out, SA is a powerful source of a bad effect, basically. french vanilla beaters are usually very bad here - SA manages to break the glass ceiling by being SO insanely beyond the normal curve that it's still good. But this is why I think this criteria is a little misleading - SA has moved waaaaay past its "original intent" (to quote the guidelines) but, because it's not the sort of thing that's good in commander, it's not a banlist candidate. So really, the issue isn't JUST that it interacts badly with the rules by being much more powerful than intended, but that it interacts badly with the rules AND is an effect that's powerful in commander.
I think even if it did have the text "can't use your commander" I'm pretty sure people would still want it banned, because of the feel-bads of a sorcery saying you win the game (despite being pretty interact-able). At least it would be something people would talk about. That, to me, says that "how it interacts with the format" is a pretty small part of why it's a problematic card - it's just the most obvious tip of the iceberg that people can focus on.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
The thing with cards like Doomsday is they generally will not be played until they can win you the game, so it might seem like that's all they do, but they can certainly be played without winning you the game, which is something CV simply doesn't do. Doomsday can, in desperation, be played as a tutor. T&N can be played as a big dumb spell that grabs big dumb creatures, following "build casually play competitively" you can build your deck to ensure that's all it does. Primal Surge is either a "play and win" card with significant deck building restrictions, or a big dumb spell that's little different than other big dumb spells in a normal deck. The RC has said on several occasions that these alternative "fair" uses matter when deciding whether to ban or unban a card. The chance of a spell being problematic to casual play is another big factor, which is much more likely for something splashy and straightforward like CV or Worldfire than something techy, subtle, and skill intensive like Doomsday. Also important is the ability of a card to accidentally ruin games. Nobody has ever put Doomsday in a deck and accidentally hit a combo. CV otoh is a card that bleeds flavor and seems really cool, and seems to a casual player like an obvious inclusion in a 5 color deck, then it actually gets played and sucks the life out of the room. Worldfire as well is a flavorful, evocative, splashy effect that Timmy would be drawn to, and then they cast it in game and suddenly its frowns all around.
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!
Just to take this a step further, you have to consider the pieces that actually win you the game as well.
You are just as much “sandbagging” the winning pieces as you are the super tutors(Doomsday, EtI, etc.). For the sake of simplicity, the most common “iWin” with Enter the Infinite involves LabMan. You certainly are not playing LabMan into an unfavorable situation unless you are winning with it, and the same goes for EtI. Having to really pick your spots to utilize these cards significantly impacts the way they are compared to CV. Having continuous access to one of your CV conditions, and the other being laughably easy to achieve, puts it much further ahead of cards like I’ve mentioned, or T&N etc.
Like, I don't care if it does get unbanned, I just don't see why you'd bother anymore. If anyone wants to run this card, they're probably not the sort of person I want to play.
-While I get that the card is a feelbad at a casual level, I think it's ultimately a pretty safe card for 75%+ metas assuming the players are competent. The spell should generally not be able to go off, and if it can, the winner probably could have won with a number of different cards. Casual does matter though - as I said, I don't want (or at least care about) it being unbanned. But I think people overestimate how good and unanswerable it is, in a non-cEDH, 75%-ish setting.
-At least from how I see the game, I think there are much more "deflating" cards that win the game with fewer avenues to respond. ETI is a good example - sure, labman can be killed, but let's be real that isn't happening if ETI resolved because there's now like 20 counterspells in the controller's hand, and the ETI itself can only be answered by a counterspell. For me, if I controlled the banlist, I'd rather those cards were banned before I'd give a crap about CV. But I'd be fine with both being banned - I just don't really care about CV at all.
-I think using "interacts badly with the format" as the sole justification is an oversimplification for why the card is banned, because the actual reason it's banned is difficult to articulate without bringing into question other cards (like expropriate and ETI) and the actual interaction it has with the rules of the format is substantive but not enormously so (nowhere near LR or felidar, for example). For that matter, I think "only wins the game" is also a bad justification, since there are plenty of other cards that do that too - besides ETI and DD that only implicitly win the game, lab man and all the other alt-wincons explicitly do the same thing (well, I guess lab man also attacks and blocks. Grey ogre ftw!), even if they are usually easier to interact with (but that's not listed as a criteria...I don't think? I hate reading, someone else tell me that I screwed up if it's in there). Do I think other cards could be banned on the same criteria? Probably. I'd rather those cards were also banned, than that CV was unbanned, though. But out of the dumb, easymode win-the-game cards I think CV is one that I, personally, find among the least offensive because it's among the easiest to interact with.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Where did Stasis even come from? You're opening a whole different can of worms to try (yet again) to win this argument. It's an annoying card, sure. Worthy of banning? Probably not. More relevant to this discussion, worthy of being on the banlist for the same reasons as CV? Not even in the same ballpark.
There's other win the game cards out now that are mostly better than CV, so I don't actually care if it does come off the banlist. Nonetheless I think the reason it is where it is, is because it doesn't add anything. In the decks it fits in it reads 'win the game' for a vast majority of the conditions you play it in. That's boring, antisocial and doesn't encourage good feelings for anyone except the guy who cheesed the win. I don't think it would see play, so it's sort of a moot point. If it did, well....it's a dumb way to win the game to me. I'd shake hands, say gg, and probably not play that person again, but that's just me.
As an aside, I'd be interested to see what your idea of a banlist looks like, being someone who has weighed in on this topic regularly. I won't judge, it just interests me to see where your argument comes from, especially considering Stasis somehow wriggled its way into the discussion.
I don't think it's all that strong personally. I just don't see why the format needs this sort of card. If that meant a slippery slope leading to Laboratory Maniac, Helix Pinnacle and all the other win the game jank hitting the list, personally I'd be ok with that. I feel like a victory should be earned. These cards bend that symmetry in ways that are generally boring.
I may be alone here, but I don't get the comparison to ETI, T&N or Expropriate. They're all suuuper strong cards. But they don't win the game on the spot. You still have to walk it over the line and there's plenty of cases where that won't happen.
I can agree with most of this. It's easy enough to stop. It just doesn't add anything I want to see in the format, so if it were unbanned I wouldn't use it. It's not the first card I think of when I think of things that ought to stay on the banlist, but it's boring enough I couldn't care if I never play a game against it. I just don't think enough of the card to want to see anything about its status change, quite honestly. And I struggle to see why anyone else cares either, unless it's strictly in terms of a banlist that makes perfect, precise, logical sense.
But we're not going to. Instead we're going to continue parroting "interacts poorly with the format" like it's the password into Heaven, because that's simpler.
Not to travel down the Worship path again, I don’t see how this is even relevant here. Acknowledging that this isn’t “safe” for casual tables ends the discussion, and especially consideirng you added qualifiers to make it “safe” for 75%. If anything, these are the types of comments that skew the focus, because you are not adhering to the criteria set forth by the RC.
And what stops the owner of CV packing their own set of protections? And there are other ways to disrupt EtI besides counter spells. Specificlly the most recent RCotD, Uba Mask, or at the very least creates a win now or lose scenario. Which is also another point, EtI either wins or loses, wether that’s a point in favor of or not is debateable, but that certainly isn’t how CV works.
To me, I usually see EtI as a working mans win. Sure, you’ve played the draw-go game all along, picked a good spot to “go off”, but there are a lot of scenarios that take place earlier in the game that can hinder, or flat out stop EtI, not many which create crummy games for any one player. For CV, you’re talking Kill on Sight Commander and LD. While a EtI win is deflating, having to wade through all the hate just because you could CV for the win is pretty bad as well. This is strictly a matter of opinion and play styles, so to each their own, just the way I see it on the reg.
It may be simple, but it should really only require that explanation. Not to go on to much of a tangent, but what are some of the most powerful EDH generals? Ones that tutor. You are always +1 CA with a card like that in the command zone, and you’ve built a deck around them so you have an answer for most any situation. To a lesser extent, that is what a 5c general is to CV. You always have access to that one piece needed to seal the game.
But as a comparison to CV, it's not ideal, fair.
T&N does come up in these conversations (and I may have mentioned it once or twice) but I think it's justifiably not banned. Primarily because there are fair ways to use it, and also because it's reasonably skill-friendly in most of the ways it's played - instant-speed removal interacts well with it, usually, and getting good non-instant-win value out of it takes some amount of skill. I think it'd dumb and I don't play it, and if someone else plays it for kikiscripts then I'm miffed, but I'm not crying out for blood about it. I get why it hasn't been banned.
ETI, on the other hand, I think has no justification. It's much harder to interact with than CV, and while you "have to walk it across the line"...I mean, come on. How many games where ETI has resolved haven't resulted in the caster winning? And if they didn't, did the caster perhaps have their brain replaced with a small hamster earlier in the day? Unless you're discarding ulamog or something, you've gotta win by the next turn, and you're definitely not playing it unless you think you can do that. And they've gotta comb through their stupid deck to find the cards they need, and the counterspells if anyone tries to interact...I just see nothing redeemable about the card. No fair use, no fun, just a nigh-impossible-to-interact-with win-the-game slog. Playable in anything with blue. Boo. Boo on ETI.
EDIT: actually, in fairness it has one redeemable feature - that terese nielsen art.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I didn't mention 'interacts poorly with the format'. You did. If this is all you have to add to the discussion you're free to not reply.
Make a thread and state your case for why Stasis should be banned. If there is any argument beyond creating undesirable game states I would be surprised.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I agree wholeheartedly - it's a big, dumb, splashy EDH card thats enjoyable for exactly one person and often ends the game with bad feelings.
Agreed here, too. It's strong, but like any tutor it's as strong as what you're searching for. Not everyone plays it for degeneracy.
The art is great, like everything Terese does. Granted, of the three, this is the closest comparison in terms of an open and shut win the game card. It's not foolproof, but chances are if someone casts this they win the game from it, agreed.
If there's a card I actually want unbanned, it's definitely library. C'mon RC, make my draw-go dreams come true (while putting the value of the card into the stratosphere, probably)!
I think most ETI wincons can win easily through uba mask. Better example would have been spirit of the labyrinth. Anyway, neither of those are good examples because you'd have to know it was coming in advance. Like, so far in advance that you built your deck to combat it. Maybe for people with a steady, small playgroup that's an option, but it's sure not for me.
As far as what stops the CV player from packing answers - well, nothing, but he's got 3 people he's gotta fight at the same time, so the odds are not stacked in his favor. He's gotta wait for the right window to minimize risk, which increases the chances his commander will die to a random board wipe or something and force him to skip turns recasting. Plus he's paying a lot of mana for CV that can't be used for counterspells. And of course he can really only answer responses with counterspells specifically. I'm just saying, in a good meta I would expect that winning with CV is reasonably earned.
I don't get why people would need to "kill on sight" a 5c commander because of CV. If I saw a 5c commander and CV was legal, I'd be wary of it, but I wouldn't just kill the commander right away. They might not have CV. They might not even be running it. And if they were, I'd want to hold up my removal, so that if they try to cast CV I can get that sweet, sweet 2-for-1. So as long as they don't try to play CV, their commander is safe (well, unless I'm killing it for another reason).
Also I have no idea what you mean about ETI. Unless someone made you discard it or played some stax piece you can't answer, it's basically always an auto-win. I don't see how that's a working man's win.
You know what's a working man's win? Killing people with a 4/4 flying hippo. That'll put some hair on your chest. Seems like exactly what curiosity is to niv. Or trike is to mikaeus. Just another 2-card combo with a commander.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
When it comes to Coalition Victory, at least, you know it's not pushing anything else out of the format. No one is going to be scrambling to build a new 5-color deck because of this card. Maybe it's a nice thing for that the casual player with that Atogatog deck to get a new toy.
Alternate win-cons are relatively tough to pull-off in EDH. I don't see how this one wouldn't be the same.
I don't think the problem with Coalition Victory is how easy it is to pull off.
I think the problem with Coalition Victory is how it forces players to interact with any deck that has a 5 color general. I think Coalition Victory being legal will ruin plenty of games where it's not in a single deck.
As people have made perfectly clear, it's not that Coalition Victory is a big splashy spell that ends the game, we have plenty of those. I don't particularly think that it's one of the more powerful ones, although the fact that it can't be used to do other fun things (like Tooth and Nail can) certainly doesn't work in its favor.
If Coalition Victory is legal, my entire gameplay calculus changes when my opponent sits down with a 5 color general. I don't have to watch if they are setting up for it, because simply by playing the game they are doing so. I am incentivized to keep their general off the board, and attack their manabase - even if it's not the best use of my resources to do so. It's not fun for me, nor is it fun for the 5 color player, who may not even be playing Coalition Victory.
You say it may be nice for the guy with the casual Atogatog deck to get a new toy. And maybe it would be. I just think the format is better because the guy can play a casual Atogatog deck without a massive target on his head because Coalition Victory is legal.
Then please enlighten me. Because there is a lot more to banning or unbending a card beyond "does it add to the format". I absolutely think the very first question you should ask when evaluating a card is "does banning/unbanning this card improve the format?". But once you have answered that question, you should look to the rest of the philosophy to see if change is warranted.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
But I haaaaaate this argument. It requires such a poor understanding of good magic play to make sense. I'm gonna list a few reasons why.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I'm going to refute your points individually
1. Your point here makes sense, but is an argument for it staying banned. Saying that it would be a problematic card in casual but cEDH and skilled 75% metas could handle it is just another way of saying that it's a card that should be banned but on the table for house unbans in strong metas. I guess this isn't really a refutation so much as agreeing with the point because it makes my case.
2. There's a good argument for banning cards like ETI, but there are real differences between the cards that make something like ETI less banworthy than CV. ETI provides more points of interaction, costs more, and can actually backfire and lose you the game to a well timed forced draw or sudden spoiling. Nonetheless, I think CV is so far over the line that ETI being less banworthy may be academic as it may still be banworthy. Although, I really only see it in more competitive builds since going the ETI route, like the Doomsday route, means you've given it thought and decided to run a combo deck, whereas CV requires little though beyond identifying that it can be a free win in your sliver deck.
3. Interacting poorly with the format alone makes this a borderline card. When taken with it's other violations, we don't have to engage in an academic exercise as to whether this alone should keep it banned. Even if this alone were insufficient, it's still significant enough to warrant a banning in conjunction with it hitting problem game states hard and hitting problematic omnipresence moderately (projected anyway).
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!