1 - correct, it was not an argument to unban it. Nor is any of this an argument to unban it. Just pointing out that it would ok at many tables.
2 - I'll give you sudden spoiling, but outside of split second I'm calling BS on "more points of interaction". For one thing, assuming a labman wincon (which it doesn't necessarily need to be, of course), it's still basically the same point of interaction as CV (ignoring, I suppose, the potential to have multiple 5c creatures) - kill the crucial creature before the spell (brainstorm?) resolves. Except that with ETI they've got every counterspell in their deck in their hand, so good luck resolving targeted removal or forced draw if it's not split second or otherwise uncounterable.
Hmm, I might be a little too parenthesis-happy.
There is some truth to the idea that only (semi-)competitive builds play it, since you've really gotta be planning on winning with it to want to run it. But that said, it gets almost 250% of the play that doomsday does - comparable to azami, lady of scrolls for example. Or expropriate for another. That's a lot more than I'd like, personally, for a virtually-impossible-to-interact-with-except-by-counterspells instant-wincon. But that's just my opinion.
3 - it's kind of difficult to isolate only the "how badly does this interact with the format" part of the card from the rest of it. I mean, nobody is calling for the banning of spirit of resistance, which gets the same boon from the commander rule (i.e. the card does nothing without a 5c creature(s), and the format makes it easy to have a 5c creature on tap) - the difference is that the sort of thing CV does is much more powerful.
This sort of goes to my general beef with the guidelines for banning - from my reading, they're very post-hoc. That is, the reasons read as a justification for why they've banned cards that they already decided on banning. Cards that only win the game should be banned? Oh, ok, then why isn't chance encounter banned? All it does is win the game, right? Or how about ubiquity - I mean, come on, you can't possibly get more ubiquitous than sol ring, which remains unbanned. Or high barrier to entry - mana crypt is the best card in the format, fits into virtually deck, and currently sells for over $150, well beyond the budget of most commander players. It's the best card in the format and I see it in, like, maybe 10% of decks generously, but it remains unbanned. Meanwhile we're justifying time vault with this criteria despite the fact that only a tiny handful of decks would even consider playing it. Creating unpleasant game states is vague as hell, and seems like an obvious justification for banning winter orb, stasis, and the like, but instead it's being used to justify...painter's servant? What?
All of this, to me, signals a banlist that was devised from the cards first, with the justification provided afterwards. So tbh I don't care that much about whether things technically fit the criteria outlined by the RC, because they're so open-ended it would include hundreds of cards, and besides, it's not how they're determining what to ban anyway.
Dirk, you may hate the argument, but guess what? It's still a valid argument. And while I'm not a fan of it either, I can see the validity of it.
You're absolutely right; most removal(land or creature) operates at instant speed, and ideally, one would wait until the casting of CV to fully neuter the potential threat. But surprisingly(not really), casual tables are FULL of sub-optimal plays. CV will likely exacerbate the problem of those sub-optimal plays, because people will primarily have 'gotta stop CV' on their mind. It is possible(even likely) that the problem will correct its course after a while as more people learn the right timing, but that's not a ship I'd want to be on in the meantime.
Again, you assume that people are going to be completely open and honest about what's in their deck('they can just say they're not running CV), but not everyone will. The dishonesty of those few will leave a foul taste in the mouth of those who got snookered, leading to them not even caring if the next BUGRW guy does or does NOT have Coalition Victory. They've been fooled once, and d***ed if they'll be fooled again, you're going down! Yeah, there's generally no reason to conceal your deck because it's just a casual game, but by and large, no one cares: they like to keep surprises, fun or not.
CV, overall, would be poison for the format because we're human. It'd be nice to play in a format where everyone was open about what's in their deck, played degenerate cards fairly, and there was no ban list(imperfect as it is), but here we are. You make points about EtI(I use T&N, so I'm biased on that), but those cards need more setup beyond 'playing the game'.
And that's all I'm going to say, because you're not pushing for an unban like others.
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.
So wait, do I not hold up my instant speed removal for an unknown potential threat that may never appear, or do I hold it up so that I can answer CV when it is cast?
I'm also confused because you brought this card back into discussion to state why you thought it was fine and wouldn't mind if it were legal. And yet while you continue to off-handedly mention how you see why it's banned, you in the same breath argue every single person who explains their opinions on why it is and should stay banned, including to argue how it fits into the rules philosophy. Make up your mind, should it be legal or remain banned?
Dirk, you may hate the argument, but guess what? It's still a valid argument. And while I'm not a fan of it either, I can see the validity of it.
I think in casual circles people won't play around it at all, because casual players don't play around anything. That's why it might be problematic in those spheres.
And then for good players, they'll stay aware of it and play correctly and it'll be fine.
There will probably be like one casual guy who is super pissed about CV and guns down every 5c deck with extreme prejudice no matter what they say. But that guy is an idiot and he's going to lose to other decks that aren't wasting their removal.
So wait, do I not hold up my instant speed removal for an unknown potential threat that may never appear, or do I hold it up so that I can answer CV when it is cast?
I'm also confused because you brought this card back into discussion to state why you thought it was fine and wouldn't mind if it were legal. And yet while you continue to off-handedly mention how you see why it's banned, you in the same breath argue every single person who explains their opinions on why it is and should stay banned, including to argue how it fits into the rules philosophy. Make up your mind, should it be legal or remain banned?
(1) the rules philosophy is bunk (see previous post).
(2) that doesn't mean it should be unbanned.
(3) I can think a card is reasonable to ban, while disagreeing with people's specific reasons for why it's banned. Some people in this thread have had good justification for the banning. I don't argue with those people.
(4) I can also think a card is reasonable to ban at large, while also thinking it would be fine in my local playgroup (or at least, fine by me, if I was at the table).
(5) You leave up removal, not just for CV but the other multifarious horrible things that might happen to you. Leaving up removal is not the same level of commitment as actually using said removal. Leaving up removal just in case = good. Killing every 5c commander immediately = dumb.
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.
I've seen some terrible comparisons, but bringing stasis into this and claiming its a non interactive auto win is just wow.
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!
Dirk, you may hate the argument, but guess what? It's still a valid argument. And while I'm not a fan of it either, I can see the validity of it.
You're absolutely right; most removal(land or creature) operates at instant speed, and ideally, one would wait until the casting of CV to fully neuter the potential threat. But surprisingly(not really), casual tables are FULL of sub-optimal plays. CV will likely exacerbate the problem of those sub-optimal plays, because people will primarily have 'gotta stop CV' on their mind. It is possible(even likely) that the problem will correct its course after a while as more people learn the right timing, but that's not a ship I'd want to be on in the meantime.
Again, you assume that people are going to be completely open and honest about what's in their deck('they can just say they're not running CV), but not everyone will. The dishonesty of those few will leave a foul taste in the mouth of those who got snookered, leading to them not even caring if the next BUGRW guy does or does NOT have Coalition Victory. They've been fooled once, and d***ed if they'll be fooled again, you're going down! Yeah, there's generally no reason to conceal your deck because it's just a casual game, but by and large, no one cares: they like to keep surprises, fun or not.
CV, overall, would be poison for the format because we're human. It'd be nice to play in a format where everyone was open about what's in their deck, played degenerate cards fairly, and there was no ban list(imperfect as it is), but here we are. You make points about EtI(I use T&N, so I'm biased on that), but those cards need more setup beyond 'playing the game'.
And that's all I'm going to say, because you're not pushing for an unban like others.
This. There are some real douche canoes out there who will just straight up like about their deck. I played an online match with a Maralen player who announced from the start that he wasn't running combo. He complained when someone removed Maralen the first time that he wasn't running combo and it was just a casual hug deck. He finally convinced the table to let Maralen stick. He immediately searched up a combo. When the table predictably got mad, he went into full "lol I tricked you with my superior intellect" mode. In a playgroup, this won't happen, but in pickup games and online you sort of have to expect people to lie, and you will be burned when you don't. Maralen simply does not get to live for me anymore. For a 5 color commander with CV legal I personally would hold back removal for it, but I see plenty of people willing to play prevent with commanders that have a reputation and I have no doubt 5 color commanders would fit that for a lot of people.
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!
This. There are some real douche canoes out there who will just straight up like about their deck. I played an online match with a Maralen player who announced from the start that he wasn't running combo. He complained when someone removed Maralen the first time that he wasn't running combo and it was just a casual hug deck. He finally convinced the table to let Maralen stick. He immediately searched up a combo. When the table predictably got mad, he went into full "lol I tricked you with my superior intellect" mode. In a playgroup, this won't happen, but in pickup games and online you sort of have to expect people to lie, and you will be burned when you don't. Maralen simply does not get to live for me anymore. For a 5 color commander with CV legal I personally would hold back removal for it, but I see plenty of people willing to play prevent with commanders that have a reputation and I have no doubt 5 color commanders would fit that for a lot of people.
The maralen scenario is very different because you only know if they're playing the combo after it's too late. Your only way to play around it is to kill on sight (or keep counters for whatever combo it is).
Not true for CV. If you're wary of a liar you can adopt a wait-and-see approach with your removal.
And this really only matters for skilled players who are aware of potential threats and will presumably know how to correctly play around them. I've been at tables where people merrily tap out the turn niv came down with no concern for the risk of curiosity. CV interacts badly with these players, not because they'll be too aggressive against 5C, but because they won't even be paying attention.
No thanks. I don't feel like hitting my head against a brick wall of stupidity for another 15 pages. I think I lost enough brain cells the last time. Case-in-point, there are at least two people here that either think Stasis is an interactive card:
No thanks. I don't feel like hitting my head against a brick wall of stupidity for another 15 pages. I think I lost enough brain cells the last time. Case-in-point, there are at least two people here that either think Stasis is an interactive card:
I've seen some terrible comparisons, but bringing stasis into this and claiming its a non interactive auto win is just wow.
So hard pass on the "trying to enlighten you" plan. I'd rather try to explain game theory to a dog. At least that one has a chance of succeeding.
The why the F*** are you even here? You clearly enjoy banging your head against the wall, which would actually explain a lot with the crap you post.
One line “zingers” don’t exactly further any sort of relevant discussion. So combine your ramblings with a guy whose stance is “I’m not advocating one way or the other for the card to be banned, and I don’t agree with the RC, but this is why I don’t think CV needs to be banned” and your left with what we have here.
Honestly, the thread should just be locked and do away with the discussion all together. The points were brought up in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Nothing has changed in the format. It’s the same people on the same sides of their respective fences.
Public Mod Note
(Wildfire393):
Flaming Warning issued
With the dragon percon,CV would give me another win and with the cards included, I honestly wouldn't need to play my general.....
This is also a valid point. It’s very easy to just point to the elephant in the Command Zone and say, “See, it’s right there”. I hate the “well, I’ll just answer the threat” counter points. They are lazy and nonsensical. Over the course of the game, you are not going to have a way to deal with everything. Sometimes you have to leave it up to opposing players, or sometimes accept that you are just going to have to weather the storm and see where it leads. I mean, you’re talking about an 8-mana sorcery and an 11-mana sorcery. Beyond the layers of protections the casters can employ to ensure they go off, even if they have “shields down” do you have the means to deal with them? At that stage of the game? I mean, I’ve sat at tables where Deadeye Navigator, Prophet of Kruphix, Skittlea have all been in play. How do you have a full grip of cards to even choose from? How are you answering all of those threats and then able to answer more. It’s impossible.
No thanks. I don't feel like hitting my head against a brick wall of stupidity for another 15 pages. I think I lost enough brain cells the last time. Case-in-point, there are at least two people here that either think Stasis is an interactive card:
I've seen some terrible comparisons, but bringing stasis into this and claiming its a non interactive auto win is just wow.
So hard pass on the "trying to enlighten you" plan. I'd rather try to explain game theory to a dog. At least that one has a chance of succeeding.
Your remarks thus far beg the question of why you’re commenting at all. If it’s just for snide remarks, congratulations. Mission achieved, you’re edgier than anyone else here. Otherwise, until you can actually draw a legitimate comparison between Stasis and Coalition Victory you’re adding nothing to the debate. It seems you’re of the opinion we’ve been through this territory before, and you may be right, but that’s still no excuse for trolling. No one is forcing you to continue to comment.
Public Mod Note
(Wildfire393):
Flaming Warning issued
1 - correct, it was not an argument to unban it. Nor is any of this an argument to unban it. Just pointing out that it would ok at many tables.
2 - I'll give you sudden spoiling, but outside of split second I'm calling BS on "more points of interaction". For one thing, assuming a labman wincon (which it doesn't necessarily need to be, of course), it's still basically the same point of interaction as CV (ignoring, I suppose, the potential to have multiple 5c creatures) - kill the crucial creature before the spell (brainstorm?) resolves. Except that with ETI they've got every counterspell in their deck in their hand, so good luck resolving targeted removal or forced draw if it's not split second or otherwise uncounterable.
Hmm, I might be a little too parenthesis-happy.
There is some truth to the idea that only (semi-)competitive builds play it, since you've really gotta be planning on winning with it to want to run it. But that said, it gets almost 250% of the play that doomsday does - comparable to azami, lady of scrolls for example. Or expropriate for another. That's a lot more than I'd like, personally, for a virtually-impossible-to-interact-with-except-by-counterspells instant-wincon. But that's just my opinion.
3 - it's kind of difficult to isolate only the "how badly does this interact with the format" part of the card from the rest of it. I mean, nobody is calling for the banning of spirit of resistance, which gets the same boon from the commander rule (i.e. the card does nothing without a 5c creature(s), and the format makes it easy to have a 5c creature on tap) - the difference is that the sort of thing CV does is much more powerful.
This sort of goes to my general beef with the guidelines for banning - from my reading, they're very post-hoc. That is, the reasons read as a justification for why they've banned cards that they already decided on banning. Cards that only win the game should be banned? Oh, ok, then why isn't chance encounter banned? All it does is win the game, right? Or how about ubiquity - I mean, come on, you can't possibly get more ubiquitous than sol ring, which remains unbanned. Or high barrier to entry - mana crypt is the best card in the format, fits into virtually deck, and currently sells for over $150, well beyond the budget of most commander players. It's the best card in the format and I see it in, like, maybe 10% of decks generously, but it remains unbanned. Meanwhile we're justifying time vault with this criteria despite the fact that only a tiny handful of decks would even consider playing it. Creating unpleasant game states is vague as hell, and seems like an obvious justification for banning winter orb, stasis, and the like, but instead it's being used to justify...painter's servant? What?
All of this, to me, signals a banlist that was devised from the cards first, with the justification provided afterwards. So tbh I don't care that much about whether things technically fit the criteria outlined by the RC, because they're so open-ended it would include hundreds of cards, and besides, it's not how they're determining what to ban anyway.
And this is the point where you've surrendered your credibility. What's really gotten into you lately? You've been trying to push controversial hot takes like "balance is fine" and "CV is fine" and then trying to both A: have it both ways by claiming you still think it should be banned but everyone who thinks it should be banned is wrong and B: argue they are fine based on your own specific playgroup and dismiss any argument that acknowledges the wider community or the banlist philosophy (which from what you've been posting is a hell of a lot more consistent than your own hot takes).
It's become apparent that you aren't actually interested in having a real conversation and much more interested in starting arguments. Especially when half of your responses in this thread have essentially been git gud scrub. You've been playing calvinball far too often lately, and it's impossible to have a good faith conversation when one party is constantly changing what they think is important and the argument they are trying to make depending on what works better to dismiss counter arguments.
The only way I can see your posts making sense at this point is if the idea you are trying to get across is "CV should be banned, but it's a fine card to house unban." If that's the case, you've done an awful job getting your point across.
Finally, when you start a SCD about whether something should get banned or come off the banlist, the reasonable expectation is that you are discussing this in the context of the actual RC and how they ban and unban cards. The reason for this is so that an actual common ground discussion can be had rather than everyone talking past each other because they are all only taking into account their own arbitrary criteria and preferences. As we can see, simply discussing personal preferences when having an SCD inevitably degenerates into "I think it's fine" vs "I don't" with no way for either side to effectively make their point, because the two sides don't agree, or even know, what makes a card "fine" or "not fine" for everyone. And it's a terrible place to discuss the general banlist philosophy and it's perceived shortcomings, because there is already a stickied thread for that, and every time it comes up in a SCD thread it ends up being a threadjack that devolves into circular arguments.
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!
No thanks. I don't feel like hitting my head against a brick wall of stupidity for another 15 pages. I think I lost enough brain cells the last time. Case-in-point, there are at least two people here that either think Stasis is an interactive card:
I've seen some terrible comparisons, but bringing stasis into this and claiming its a non interactive auto win is just wow.
So hard pass on the "trying to enlighten you" plan. I'd rather try to explain game theory to a dog. At least that one has a chance of succeeding.
The why the F*** are you even here? You clearly enjoy banging your head against the wall, which would actually explain a lot with the crap you post.
One line “zingers” don’t exactly further any sort of relevant discussion. So combine your ramblings with a guy whose stance is “I’m not advocating one way or the other for the card to be banned, and I don’t agree with the RC, but this is why I don’t think CV needs to be banned” and your left with what we have here.
Honestly, the thread should just be locked and do away with the discussion all together. The points were brought up in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Nothing has changed in the format. It’s the same people on the same sides of their respective fences.
I also vote to lock this dumpster fire. Hell, this thread alone begs the question "how has this dude not been permabanned yet?"
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!
We're not really worried that Coalition Victory is going to wreck the format, since it's limited to five colors. It's just not the kind of experience we want to promote. "Win the game" cards are inherently risky for the format; fortunately, most of them make you jump through lots of hoops to get there. Waiting a turn cycle for Felidar Sovereign or Test of Endurance makes them viable (if still not completely desirable). If we were evaluating cards on the list for the safest to come off, it'd be in the top 5, for sure.
One of the reasons that we're slow to pulling the trigger on putting borderline cards onto the banned list is that once they're there, we feel that they have a heavier burden of proof to take off--meaning cards already on the list are evaluated to a small measure differently than ones already on.
Seems reasonable, unbanning a card, going "whoops" and putting it right back on would look bad and be confusing.
I do want to emphasize that I personally don't have much vested interest in changing the banlist (there's only a handful of cards on it that I'd be likely to play if legalized: gifts ungiven, library of alexandria, recurring nightmare, primeval titan, prophet of kruphix...and I guess karakas since I'd be a fool not to). Mostly I just enjoy debating the plusses and minuses of cards, and trying to make sense of the banlist and work out what my opinions are, and whether or not they're defensible. Apologies if that seems like a "hot take" or whatever.
At least in my experience I think the banlist is mostly unneeded. With a few exceptions I think the result of unbanning a card would either be negligible because the only people likely to consider playing them were doing other obnoxious stuff already (time vault, erayo, worldfire), or the card would likely become prevalent, but is only borderline bannable (prime time, prophet, recurring nightmare).
I think the casual metas tend to self-regulate for the most part. The problems that do tend to arise are difficult to fix with a banlist. The "These cards [...] may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards." comment on the banlist is a nice idea in theory, but in practice the type of people who are going to consistently push up against the edges of the banlist probably aren't going to be deterred by the spirit of the law. They'll just find the next best thing.
Seems reasonable, unbanning a card, going "whoops" and putting it right back on would look bad and be confusing.
I do want to emphasize that I personally don't have much vested interest in changing the banlist (there's only a handful of cards on it that I'd be likely to play if legalized: gifts ungiven, library of alexandria, recurring nightmare, primeval titan, prophet of kruphix...and I guess karakas since I'd be a fool not to). Mostly I just enjoy debating the plusses and minuses of cards, and trying to make sense of the banlist and work out what my opinions are, and whether or not they're defensible. Apologies if that seems like a "hot take" or whatever.
At least in my experience I think the banlist is mostly unneeded. With a few exceptions I think the result of unbanning a card would either be negligible because the only people likely to consider playing them were doing other obnoxious stuff already (time vault, erayo, worldfire), or the card would likely become prevalent, but is only borderline bannable (prime time, prophet, recurring nightmare).
I think the casual metas tend to self-regulate for the most part. The problems that do tend to arise are difficult to fix with a banlist. The "These cards [...] may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards." comment on the banlist is a nice idea in theory, but in practice the type of people who are going to consistently push up against the edges of the banlist probably aren't going to be deterred by the spirit of the law. They'll just find the next best thing.
this is i think where most people i've met (those who i don't think lurk on this or any other EDH forum) think. EDH itself as a format needs to be self-regulating on a local level, because as it stands, there are a lot of pretty broken things that is possible. It's good that the banlist is supposed to be aimed towards a more casual crowd, which gives players who meet randomly at shops or at events to be able to meet at a somewhat even level.
And like dirk gently says, if some players are out to try to wreck the 'spirit of edh', they're going to do so no matter how robust the banlist is. The fix isn't in the banlist, it should be in the common vision of what the format is. That being said, i would like to know what Sheldon thinks about what experience they do want to promote. If I extrapolate what you wrote here, is it that you want the format to have more tense endings rather than a huge deflated end? My experience with instant-speed i-win here and now effects are that it leads to a pretty deflating end, since there isn't a chance for anyone else to react against it (as long as they don't know that it was going to happen). Whereas a player building up 5000 power on the board is sort of like having test of endurance with 100 life and then having each player one turn to try to do something about it is quite tense as the table tries to deal with it. is that along the lines of what you mean? 'cuz i'm all for that, i think.
To be honest, I tend to forget that i play in a very warped meta compared to most here on mtgs. we play "everything goes, aside from dexterity, and sub-game cards". So every time i see the debate about cards like coalition victory, i think it's fine, 'cuz i never see it causing problems. But when i do play at the local shop, i do jiggle decks to make it EDH-legal, so to speak (on the off-chance i get in trouble with the DCI or something).
It was a completely legitimate play, but the only player that left the table with good feels was Animar. Bringing it back to this discussion, that’s exactly how I see the vibes when CV resolves for the win. I’m not going to stop anyone playing it (or any other win the game card for that matter) but I’d be lying to not say it leaves me wanting more. And that could be just me, but I feel the best games for all involved are emphatically not walkover wins or easy win cons. A great game should be a battle that’s hard fought and hard won.
I certainly agree that the best games are hard-fought, but at the same time, that seems like a pretty telegraphed win, disruptable by many kinds of interaction. No one having a counterspell, enchantment removal, or creature removal seems like kind of a red flag that the meta needs more interactivity. Although it's also possible that they were playing a little beyond the power of the table if people couldn't even figure out what was happening.
Anyway, I'd say palinchron (and animar) is the real problem here. Once you've got infinite mana, winning the game is pretty easy. Simic ascendancy is pretty tame considering it's slower than just fireballing the table.
I certainly agree that the best games are hard-fought, but at the same time, that seems like a pretty telegraphed win, disruptable by many kinds of interaction. No one having a counterspell, enchantment removal, or creature removal seems like kind of a red flag that the meta needs more interactivity. Although it's also possible that they were playing a little beyond the power of the table if people couldn't even figure out what was happening.
Anyway, I'd say palinchron (and animar) is the real problem here. Once you've got infinite mana, winning the game is pretty easy. Simic ascendancy is pretty tame considering it's slower than just fireballing the table.
Oh, I totally agree. I pack removal, but I can't pack enough for 3 other people, and I just didn't have a Reclamation Sage or Krosan Grip handy. Besides with Animar having pro-black there was no point swinging into him with my commander - or using Ulvenwald Tracker - the only other control piece I had in play at the time the game ended. It's funny though, the turn before he went off the cat dragon player had a chance to at least stall the win. He attacked me instead, presumably because I'd killed one of his cat dragon tokens. If he'd swung into Animar for 5, Animar couldn't block, would have had to sac, and we'd have had bare minimum one more turn to find an answer for ascendancy. It still baffled me that no one else was packing an answer for a win con so slow. Either that or they didn't expect it to go off so quick. I don't know, either way most of what Animar does is pretty gross. The point was more that it was a lame way to win the game, but yes, it was a pretty sloppy game in terms of decent play lines.
Reading these "Unban this [Single Card]" threads gives me great entertainment. The calvinball reference was especially enjoyed, OneRing, particularly since I just finished reading through the Calvin & Hobbes compendium that my brother has. The simplicities of childhood are so awesomely captured in those comics... Anyways, I digress.
In order to actually contribute to this thread (somewhat), I will maintain that Coalition Victory deserves to stay banned for the general Commander community with easily accepted house un-bans. The largest and most compelling point for its staying banned is, in my opinion, the fact that it does win the game on resolution with no other supporting cards, thus leading to a negative emotional experience for the losers of the game where a Coalition Victory resolves. Having lands of each basic land type and a 5C commander are incidental to a 5C deck and thus does not dictate deck building concessions from its pilot. I've already elaborated on the importance of maintaining a positive emotional experience for your playgroup in the "Balance is balanced" thread (still respect that clickbait title), but I suppose it's worth reiterating here.
I'll spoiler those points here for others who decide to read through this thread and because it's not relevant to the discussion.
My observation about EDH is that people sit down with individual and unique 99 card amalgamations in order to actually sling cardboard and feel important. Very often, their deck and the way they've constructed it is a reflection of who they are and how they approach the game, and they want to express that to others as quickly as possible. EDH is a way that they can do this, with a genius high-fantasy slant that invigorates and captures the imagination. I believe that Balance inhibits this most egregiously of any Magic card, in the context of EDH. In order to most effectively convey this personalized approach to EDH, a player needs to follow the rules of MTG as a game and cast spells that allow this type of self-expression. They can only do this by drawing cards and having mana sources to cast those cards. When Balance occurs, I think that it hits too many different cards in too many zones that would normally facilitate this kind of self-expression and therefore would lead to very emotionally damaging experience. A player can easily feel like they have nothing to do BUT lose when they've just lost 2 lands, 3 creatures, AND 3 cards from their hand via Balance resolving. This will inevitably have negative political repercussions, both within the game itself as well as outside of the game, because a player will remember who made them feel so much pain and either refuse to play with that person or vindicate their pain by exclusively targeting that individual in-game. While there is a growing opportunity present in this kind of pain, most people DON'T want to experience that type of pain. EDH is meant to be an avenue of self-expression in a creative way supported by visually distinctive pieces of cardboard that spark the imagination in a formalized and structured way. In general, Stax effects (like Balance and Cataclysm) are unwelcome in most groups for this particular reason. Stax effects actively hinder or slow down a player from actualizing this kind of self-expression.
The final nail in the coffin, in my mind, is that it only costs 2 CMC. That means that it is easily castable on a general basis and can be taken advantage of by the player deploying BAlance fairly early within a game. How I interpret this is that a savvy deck builder can and WILL build their deck to take advantage of Balance, and other attendant Stax effects (do note I use the term Stax pretty liberally), better than their opponents; that's just good deckbuilding. What inevitably happens in execution is that this player was able to develop an advantageous board presence that takes advantage Balance but punishes the rest of the table for NOT building around Balance. And that's probably exactly how it comes across, on an emotional level: punishment. This allows only a single player to actualize their self-expression and achieve that feeling of self-importance that we all crave as human beings at the cost of the other players' ability to self-express. And the social contract that surrounds EDH finds this type of behavior to be MASSIVELY undesirable because, in short, it just isn't fair/just. I don't think that it would be unreasonable to see this kind of effect occur on T3 or T4 of a cEDH game by a Zur player where they can easily AND consistently get Necropotence into play and overcome the massive loss of cards that occurs when Balance resolves, as a brief thought experiment
First, I do want to concede that it's weak to instant speed removal/interaction and is particularly reliant on having a 5C creature in play, which opens up a pretty glaring weakness to its efficacy. Good decks play spot removal and interaction, and so should have the ability somewhere in their deck to prevent Coalition Victory from actually firing off. I'll also concede that, at an 8 mana casting cost, you've probably hit a stage in the game where removal options have been exhausted and/or interaction is minimal because people are tapping out to deploy their threats, be those combo pieces or sweet, sweet haymaking creatures.
But the point is this: The RC, and people generally, want to ensure that sitting down for a game of Commander is enjoyable for everyone. I maintain that people love this game because it's an avenue of self-expression. Some people want to optimize their decks and their gameplay to the highest level possible, and build their decks accordingly (cEDH decks). Some people want to be able to have huge board states, with sweet creatures and enchantments that are stupidly powerful and/or imagination invoking (seriously, who doesn't like the idea of summoning the Soul of the World to fight on your behalf? Crazy people). Some people play Commander strictly FOR the table talk and social interactions that a game of Magic facilitates (group-hug or strong, true-control decks like Phelddagrif). However you play, you confine/limit your ability to this self-expression through the deployment of gorgeously printed/colored cardboard within a specific rules structure. And generally speaking, the more cardboard you can sling, the happier the experience is for you. When taken in multi-player, that means that there should be a greater window to sling more cardboard for all of the players present in that game.
Cards that abruptly cease the ability of each player to maximize the amount of cards they can play are seriously suspect. Coalition Victory DOES abruptly win the game upon resolution (since you're probably not casting it UNLESS you have all the conditions met and reasonably protected) and the opportunity cost of being able to use it as a 1 card win condition are so minimal in a 5C deck. Laboratory Maniac does the win the game upon resolution of a SUBSEQUENT trigger. Doomsday becomes a super tutor that wins the game only upon SUBSEQUENT cards/triggers. Mortal Combat wins the game on a SUBSEQUENT trigger. Door to Nothingness causes a player to lose on a SUBSEQUENT activation and targets only a single player. Simic Ascendancy requires a SUBSEQUENT trigger to win. I hope the point is clear. While in practice, this point is often moot since the setup of resolving any of these I-Win cards has probably occurred, it is a technical difference that many of the other I-Win cards also follow. To reference an example recently used in this thread, Enter the Infinite does functionally draw your deck, but doesn't actually say 'You Win The Game' anywhere in its text. The fact that there is another opportunity to interact is important.
Coalition Victory doesn't provide this opportunity. The game ends when it resolves, regardless of what every other player was building towards and regardless of what cards and resources they've previously played. The point that Toc brings up is totally valid, in this context, since the feel-bad that he experienced is antithetical to what Commander was designed to be.
This sudden end towards self-expression and the playing of the game is what I think causes the "feel bads" that are often referenced. Whatever their motives, they've chosen MTG as their preferred avenue of self-expression. Anything that directly and negatively impacts this ability is worthy of being banned by the RC, in my opinion. I would probably be in favor of extending the banlist by several cards personally, based on this criteria, but that's a separate discussion.
TL;dr: Coalition Victory's successful resolution ends the game abruptly and causes a negative emotional effect on the other players that is contrary to the philosophy/spirit of EDH.
2 - I'll give you sudden spoiling, but outside of split second I'm calling BS on "more points of interaction". For one thing, assuming a labman wincon (which it doesn't necessarily need to be, of course), it's still basically the same point of interaction as CV (ignoring, I suppose, the potential to have multiple 5c creatures) - kill the crucial creature before the spell (brainstorm?) resolves. Except that with ETI they've got every counterspell in their deck in their hand, so good luck resolving targeted removal or forced draw if it's not split second or otherwise uncounterable.
Hmm, I might be a little too parenthesis-happy.
There is some truth to the idea that only (semi-)competitive builds play it, since you've really gotta be planning on winning with it to want to run it. But that said, it gets almost 250% of the play that doomsday does - comparable to azami, lady of scrolls for example. Or expropriate for another. That's a lot more than I'd like, personally, for a virtually-impossible-to-interact-with-except-by-counterspells instant-wincon. But that's just my opinion.
3 - it's kind of difficult to isolate only the "how badly does this interact with the format" part of the card from the rest of it. I mean, nobody is calling for the banning of spirit of resistance, which gets the same boon from the commander rule (i.e. the card does nothing without a 5c creature(s), and the format makes it easy to have a 5c creature on tap) - the difference is that the sort of thing CV does is much more powerful.
This sort of goes to my general beef with the guidelines for banning - from my reading, they're very post-hoc. That is, the reasons read as a justification for why they've banned cards that they already decided on banning. Cards that only win the game should be banned? Oh, ok, then why isn't chance encounter banned? All it does is win the game, right? Or how about ubiquity - I mean, come on, you can't possibly get more ubiquitous than sol ring, which remains unbanned. Or high barrier to entry - mana crypt is the best card in the format, fits into virtually deck, and currently sells for over $150, well beyond the budget of most commander players. It's the best card in the format and I see it in, like, maybe 10% of decks generously, but it remains unbanned. Meanwhile we're justifying time vault with this criteria despite the fact that only a tiny handful of decks would even consider playing it. Creating unpleasant game states is vague as hell, and seems like an obvious justification for banning winter orb, stasis, and the like, but instead it's being used to justify...painter's servant? What?
All of this, to me, signals a banlist that was devised from the cards first, with the justification provided afterwards. So tbh I don't care that much about whether things technically fit the criteria outlined by the RC, because they're so open-ended it would include hundreds of cards, and besides, it's not how they're determining what to ban anyway.
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
You're absolutely right; most removal(land or creature) operates at instant speed, and ideally, one would wait until the casting of CV to fully neuter the potential threat. But surprisingly(not really), casual tables are FULL of sub-optimal plays. CV will likely exacerbate the problem of those sub-optimal plays, because people will primarily have 'gotta stop CV' on their mind. It is possible(even likely) that the problem will correct its course after a while as more people learn the right timing, but that's not a ship I'd want to be on in the meantime.
Again, you assume that people are going to be completely open and honest about what's in their deck('they can just say they're not running CV), but not everyone will. The dishonesty of those few will leave a foul taste in the mouth of those who got snookered, leading to them not even caring if the next BUGRW guy does or does NOT have Coalition Victory. They've been fooled once, and d***ed if they'll be fooled again, you're going down! Yeah, there's generally no reason to conceal your deck because it's just a casual game, but by and large, no one cares: they like to keep surprises, fun or not.
CV, overall, would be poison for the format because we're human. It'd be nice to play in a format where everyone was open about what's in their deck, played degenerate cards fairly, and there was no ban list(imperfect as it is), but here we are. You make points about EtI(I use T&N, so I'm biased on that), but those cards need more setup beyond 'playing the game'.
And that's all I'm going to say, because you're not pushing for an unban like others.
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
So wait, do I not hold up my instant speed removal for an unknown potential threat that may never appear, or do I hold it up so that I can answer CV when it is cast?
I'm also confused because you brought this card back into discussion to state why you thought it was fine and wouldn't mind if it were legal. And yet while you continue to off-handedly mention how you see why it's banned, you in the same breath argue every single person who explains their opinions on why it is and should stay banned, including to argue how it fits into the rules philosophy. Make up your mind, should it be legal or remain banned?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
And then for good players, they'll stay aware of it and play correctly and it'll be fine.
There will probably be like one casual guy who is super pissed about CV and guns down every 5c deck with extreme prejudice no matter what they say. But that guy is an idiot and he's going to lose to other decks that aren't wasting their removal. (1) the rules philosophy is bunk (see previous post).
(2) that doesn't mean it should be unbanned.
(3) I can think a card is reasonable to ban, while disagreeing with people's specific reasons for why it's banned. Some people in this thread have had good justification for the banning. I don't argue with those people.
(4) I can also think a card is reasonable to ban at large, while also thinking it would be fine in my local playgroup (or at least, fine by me, if I was at the table).
(5) You leave up removal, not just for CV but the other multifarious horrible things that might happen to you. Leaving up removal is not the same level of commitment as actually using said removal. Leaving up removal just in case = good. Killing every 5c commander immediately = dumb.
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've seen some terrible comparisons, but bringing stasis into this and claiming its a non interactive auto win is just wow.
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!
This. There are some real douche canoes out there who will just straight up like about their deck. I played an online match with a Maralen player who announced from the start that he wasn't running combo. He complained when someone removed Maralen the first time that he wasn't running combo and it was just a casual hug deck. He finally convinced the table to let Maralen stick. He immediately searched up a combo. When the table predictably got mad, he went into full "lol I tricked you with my superior intellect" mode. In a playgroup, this won't happen, but in pickup games and online you sort of have to expect people to lie, and you will be burned when you don't. Maralen simply does not get to live for me anymore. For a 5 color commander with CV legal I personally would hold back removal for it, but I see plenty of people willing to play prevent with commanders that have a reputation and I have no doubt 5 color commanders would fit that for a lot of people.
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!
Not true for CV. If you're wary of a liar you can adopt a wait-and-see approach with your removal.
And this really only matters for skilled players who are aware of potential threats and will presumably know how to correctly play around them. I've been at tables where people merrily tap out the turn niv came down with no concern for the risk of curiosity. CV interacts badly with these players, not because they'll be too aggressive against 5C, but because they won't even be paying attention.
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 why the F*** are you even here? You clearly enjoy banging your head against the wall, which would actually explain a lot with the crap you post.
One line “zingers” don’t exactly further any sort of relevant discussion. So combine your ramblings with a guy whose stance is “I’m not advocating one way or the other for the card to be banned, and I don’t agree with the RC, but this is why I don’t think CV needs to be banned” and your left with what we have here.
Honestly, the thread should just be locked and do away with the discussion all together. The points were brought up in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Nothing has changed in the format. It’s the same people on the same sides of their respective fences.
This is also a valid point. It’s very easy to just point to the elephant in the Command Zone and say, “See, it’s right there”. I hate the “well, I’ll just answer the threat” counter points. They are lazy and nonsensical. Over the course of the game, you are not going to have a way to deal with everything. Sometimes you have to leave it up to opposing players, or sometimes accept that you are just going to have to weather the storm and see where it leads. I mean, you’re talking about an 8-mana sorcery and an 11-mana sorcery. Beyond the layers of protections the casters can employ to ensure they go off, even if they have “shields down” do you have the means to deal with them? At that stage of the game? I mean, I’ve sat at tables where Deadeye Navigator, Prophet of Kruphix, Skittlea have all been in play. How do you have a full grip of cards to even choose from? How are you answering all of those threats and then able to answer more. It’s impossible.
Your remarks thus far beg the question of why you’re commenting at all. If it’s just for snide remarks, congratulations. Mission achieved, you’re edgier than anyone else here. Otherwise, until you can actually draw a legitimate comparison between Stasis and Coalition Victory you’re adding nothing to the debate. It seems you’re of the opinion we’ve been through this territory before, and you may be right, but that’s still no excuse for trolling. No one is forcing you to continue to comment.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Apologies, Cryo. At this point I've said everything I've got to say on the topic anyway.
And this is the point where you've surrendered your credibility. What's really gotten into you lately? You've been trying to push controversial hot takes like "balance is fine" and "CV is fine" and then trying to both A: have it both ways by claiming you still think it should be banned but everyone who thinks it should be banned is wrong and B: argue they are fine based on your own specific playgroup and dismiss any argument that acknowledges the wider community or the banlist philosophy (which from what you've been posting is a hell of a lot more consistent than your own hot takes).
It's become apparent that you aren't actually interested in having a real conversation and much more interested in starting arguments. Especially when half of your responses in this thread have essentially been git gud scrub. You've been playing calvinball far too often lately, and it's impossible to have a good faith conversation when one party is constantly changing what they think is important and the argument they are trying to make depending on what works better to dismiss counter arguments.
The only way I can see your posts making sense at this point is if the idea you are trying to get across is "CV should be banned, but it's a fine card to house unban." If that's the case, you've done an awful job getting your point across.
Finally, when you start a SCD about whether something should get banned or come off the banlist, the reasonable expectation is that you are discussing this in the context of the actual RC and how they ban and unban cards. The reason for this is so that an actual common ground discussion can be had rather than everyone talking past each other because they are all only taking into account their own arbitrary criteria and preferences. As we can see, simply discussing personal preferences when having an SCD inevitably degenerates into "I think it's fine" vs "I don't" with no way for either side to effectively make their point, because the two sides don't agree, or even know, what makes a card "fine" or "not fine" for everyone. And it's a terrible place to discuss the general banlist philosophy and it's perceived shortcomings, because there is already a stickied thread for that, and every time it comes up in a SCD thread it ends up being a threadjack that devolves into circular arguments.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I also vote to lock this dumpster fire. Hell, this thread alone begs the question "how has this dude not been permabanned yet?"
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!
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
One of the reasons that we're slow to pulling the trigger on putting borderline cards onto the banned list is that once they're there, we feel that they have a heavier burden of proof to take off--meaning cards already on the list are evaluated to a small measure differently than ones already on.
I do want to emphasize that I personally don't have much vested interest in changing the banlist (there's only a handful of cards on it that I'd be likely to play if legalized: gifts ungiven, library of alexandria, recurring nightmare, primeval titan, prophet of kruphix...and I guess karakas since I'd be a fool not to). Mostly I just enjoy debating the plusses and minuses of cards, and trying to make sense of the banlist and work out what my opinions are, and whether or not they're defensible. Apologies if that seems like a "hot take" or whatever.
At least in my experience I think the banlist is mostly unneeded. With a few exceptions I think the result of unbanning a card would either be negligible because the only people likely to consider playing them were doing other obnoxious stuff already (time vault, erayo, worldfire), or the card would likely become prevalent, but is only borderline bannable (prime time, prophet, recurring nightmare).
I think the casual metas tend to self-regulate for the most part. The problems that do tend to arise are difficult to fix with a banlist. The "These cards [...] may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards." comment on the banlist is a nice idea in theory, but in practice the type of people who are going to consistently push up against the edges of the banlist probably aren't going to be deterred by the spirit of the law. They'll just find the next best thing.
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
this is i think where most people i've met (those who i don't think lurk on this or any other EDH forum) think. EDH itself as a format needs to be self-regulating on a local level, because as it stands, there are a lot of pretty broken things that is possible. It's good that the banlist is supposed to be aimed towards a more casual crowd, which gives players who meet randomly at shops or at events to be able to meet at a somewhat even level.
And like dirk gently says, if some players are out to try to wreck the 'spirit of edh', they're going to do so no matter how robust the banlist is. The fix isn't in the banlist, it should be in the common vision of what the format is. That being said, i would like to know what Sheldon thinks about what experience they do want to promote. If I extrapolate what you wrote here, is it that you want the format to have more tense endings rather than a huge deflated end? My experience with instant-speed i-win here and now effects are that it leads to a pretty deflating end, since there isn't a chance for anyone else to react against it (as long as they don't know that it was going to happen). Whereas a player building up 5000 power on the board is sort of like having test of endurance with 100 life and then having each player one turn to try to do something about it is quite tense as the table tries to deal with it. is that along the lines of what you mean? 'cuz i'm all for that, i think.
To be honest, I tend to forget that i play in a very warped meta compared to most here on mtgs. we play "everything goes, aside from dexterity, and sub-game cards". So every time i see the debate about cards like coalition victory, i think it's fine, 'cuz i never see it causing problems. But when i do play at the local shop, i do jiggle decks to make it EDH-legal, so to speak (on the off-chance i get in trouble with the DCI or something).
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
It was a completely legitimate play, but the only player that left the table with good feels was Animar. Bringing it back to this discussion, that’s exactly how I see the vibes when CV resolves for the win. I’m not going to stop anyone playing it (or any other win the game card for that matter) but I’d be lying to not say it leaves me wanting more. And that could be just me, but I feel the best games for all involved are emphatically not walkover wins or easy win cons. A great game should be a battle that’s hard fought and hard won.
Anyway, I'd say palinchron (and animar) is the real problem here. Once you've got infinite mana, winning the game is pretty easy. Simic ascendancy is pretty tame considering it's slower than just fireballing the table.
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
Oh, I totally agree. I pack removal, but I can't pack enough for 3 other people, and I just didn't have a Reclamation Sage or Krosan Grip handy. Besides with Animar having pro-black there was no point swinging into him with my commander - or using Ulvenwald Tracker - the only other control piece I had in play at the time the game ended. It's funny though, the turn before he went off the cat dragon player had a chance to at least stall the win. He attacked me instead, presumably because I'd killed one of his cat dragon tokens. If he'd swung into Animar for 5, Animar couldn't block, would have had to sac, and we'd have had bare minimum one more turn to find an answer for ascendancy. It still baffled me that no one else was packing an answer for a win con so slow. Either that or they didn't expect it to go off so quick. I don't know, either way most of what Animar does is pretty gross. The point was more that it was a lame way to win the game, but yes, it was a pretty sloppy game in terms of decent play lines.
In order to actually contribute to this thread (somewhat), I will maintain that Coalition Victory deserves to stay banned for the general Commander community with easily accepted house un-bans. The largest and most compelling point for its staying banned is, in my opinion, the fact that it does win the game on resolution with no other supporting cards, thus leading to a negative emotional experience for the losers of the game where a Coalition Victory resolves. Having lands of each basic land type and a 5C commander are incidental to a 5C deck and thus does not dictate deck building concessions from its pilot. I've already elaborated on the importance of maintaining a positive emotional experience for your playgroup in the "Balance is balanced" thread (still respect that clickbait title), but I suppose it's worth reiterating here.
I'll spoiler those points here for others who decide to read through this thread and because it's not relevant to the discussion.
The final nail in the coffin, in my mind, is that it only costs 2 CMC. That means that it is easily castable on a general basis and can be taken advantage of by the player deploying BAlance fairly early within a game. How I interpret this is that a savvy deck builder can and WILL build their deck to take advantage of Balance, and other attendant Stax effects (do note I use the term Stax pretty liberally), better than their opponents; that's just good deckbuilding. What inevitably happens in execution is that this player was able to develop an advantageous board presence that takes advantage Balance but punishes the rest of the table for NOT building around Balance. And that's probably exactly how it comes across, on an emotional level: punishment. This allows only a single player to actualize their self-expression and achieve that feeling of self-importance that we all crave as human beings at the cost of the other players' ability to self-express. And the social contract that surrounds EDH finds this type of behavior to be MASSIVELY undesirable because, in short, it just isn't fair/just. I don't think that it would be unreasonable to see this kind of effect occur on T3 or T4 of a cEDH game by a Zur player where they can easily AND consistently get Necropotence into play and overcome the massive loss of cards that occurs when Balance resolves, as a brief thought experiment
First, I do want to concede that it's weak to instant speed removal/interaction and is particularly reliant on having a 5C creature in play, which opens up a pretty glaring weakness to its efficacy. Good decks play spot removal and interaction, and so should have the ability somewhere in their deck to prevent Coalition Victory from actually firing off. I'll also concede that, at an 8 mana casting cost, you've probably hit a stage in the game where removal options have been exhausted and/or interaction is minimal because people are tapping out to deploy their threats, be those combo pieces or sweet, sweet haymaking creatures.
But the point is this: The RC, and people generally, want to ensure that sitting down for a game of Commander is enjoyable for everyone. I maintain that people love this game because it's an avenue of self-expression. Some people want to optimize their decks and their gameplay to the highest level possible, and build their decks accordingly (cEDH decks). Some people want to be able to have huge board states, with sweet creatures and enchantments that are stupidly powerful and/or imagination invoking (seriously, who doesn't like the idea of summoning the Soul of the World to fight on your behalf? Crazy people). Some people play Commander strictly FOR the table talk and social interactions that a game of Magic facilitates (group-hug or strong, true-control decks like Phelddagrif). However you play, you confine/limit your ability to this self-expression through the deployment of gorgeously printed/colored cardboard within a specific rules structure. And generally speaking, the more cardboard you can sling, the happier the experience is for you. When taken in multi-player, that means that there should be a greater window to sling more cardboard for all of the players present in that game.
Cards that abruptly cease the ability of each player to maximize the amount of cards they can play are seriously suspect. Coalition Victory DOES abruptly win the game upon resolution (since you're probably not casting it UNLESS you have all the conditions met and reasonably protected) and the opportunity cost of being able to use it as a 1 card win condition are so minimal in a 5C deck. Laboratory Maniac does the win the game upon resolution of a SUBSEQUENT trigger. Doomsday becomes a super tutor that wins the game only upon SUBSEQUENT cards/triggers. Mortal Combat wins the game on a SUBSEQUENT trigger. Door to Nothingness causes a player to lose on a SUBSEQUENT activation and targets only a single player. Simic Ascendancy requires a SUBSEQUENT trigger to win. I hope the point is clear. While in practice, this point is often moot since the setup of resolving any of these I-Win cards has probably occurred, it is a technical difference that many of the other I-Win cards also follow. To reference an example recently used in this thread, Enter the Infinite does functionally draw your deck, but doesn't actually say 'You Win The Game' anywhere in its text. The fact that there is another opportunity to interact is important.
Coalition Victory doesn't provide this opportunity. The game ends when it resolves, regardless of what every other player was building towards and regardless of what cards and resources they've previously played. The point that Toc brings up is totally valid, in this context, since the feel-bad that he experienced is antithetical to what Commander was designed to be.
This sudden end towards self-expression and the playing of the game is what I think causes the "feel bads" that are often referenced. Whatever their motives, they've chosen MTG as their preferred avenue of self-expression. Anything that directly and negatively impacts this ability is worthy of being banned by the RC, in my opinion. I would probably be in favor of extending the banlist by several cards personally, based on this criteria, but that's a separate discussion.
TL;dr: Coalition Victory's successful resolution ends the game abruptly and causes a negative emotional effect on the other players that is contrary to the philosophy/spirit of EDH.
Hope this novel makes sense!
UB Dralnu, Lich Lord
RBW [Primer]-Kaalia of the Vast
BUG [Primer]-Tasigur, the Golden Fang
GWU [Primer]-Arcades, the Strategist
WUB Primer-Aminatou, the Fateshifter
UBR Nicol Bolas, the Ravager