This whole debate has been going back-and-forth over the same points constantly. I do want to point out specifically the Enter the Infinite comparison.
If I cast EtI, under normal circumstances, the game will end for me within TWO turns. TWO. Not one. TWO. I get to draw a card for the turn, and then the turn after I'm dead. Gives two turn cycles to do something about it.
Now, of course, you could argue "But you'd just cast Lab Man and evoke Mulldrifter and be done with it." Sure. That's possible. But at that point, I've spent 11 mana in one turn, 6 mana the next, and NOBODY DID ANYTHING about it in a full turn cycle. That's kinda like me resolving Mortal Combat and the entire turn cycle goes by and nothing happens, thus triggering my win.
Wins like that aren't an issue. There was ample counterplay possible. A full turn to go through the motions. And nothing was done.
I don't exactly consider playing until your draw step "a turn". You cast EtI and presumably that ends your turn because it cost 12 mana. Then you untap and draw your last card and get your last turn. Then next turn you mill. If you want to count differently go right ahead but to me, EtI gives you one turn.
Additionally, what exactly are your opponents supposed to do? Sudden Impact you while you're tapped out? You're untapping with (at least) 12 mana and your entire U deck in your hand. The chances of you not having multiple counterspells in hand to protect Lab Man are astronomically low.
All of this is missing the point, however. It doesn't particularly matter if you win or lose because by casting EtI you've ended that game, either for yourself or everyone else.
Each of the other "big wincon cards" CAN be used without going for the instant kill. They require one of two things: Constraint or Ignorance. Constraint fits within the RC mantra of "Build casually, play competitively". If the strongest combowombo I want to play with T&N is Avenger of Zendikar and Regal Force, then who are you to tell me I'm playing it wrong for not going with MikeTrike instead? I adapt my decks to the powerlevel of my meta. Many people do. When you add Coalition Victory however, there's no other deckbuilding decisions to be made. You run lands. You run your commander. Those are things you cannot avoid in EDH. Thus, no matter what you do, eventually you'll reach a state of "And now CV wins". This is regardless of how the game so far has panned out.
This is just objectively not true. There are now 2 different 5CC generals that do not satisfy CV's color requirements (General Tazri and Ramos, Dragon Engine) as well as ton of self-restrictions you can do if you would like to make winning with CV more challenging: not using any dual lands with basic land types, or requiring certain flavor conditions (i.e. using all the Legacy cards to unleash the full power of the Legacy Weapon resulting in a Coalition Victory) or simply not using your general to fulfill the requirement. Or, and this might sound truly crazy but stick with me, you could just choose not to play CV in your deck. You talk about adjusting the power level of your deck to fit your meta, but it never occurred to you to just not run a card? If it is something you or your group don't like, simply don't play it. That is itself a deckbuilding decision.
You could argue things like countermagic and instant removal but THAT GOES FOR EVERY COMBO AND IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. And even then, what if I just put down something like, say, Grand Abolisher? I'm quite good at the "Mental Magic Counter Game" so don't try that game with me, it's not a valid argument in any way.
I see your Grand Abolisher and raise you a Platinum Angel. In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here but the fact that CV (or anything else for that matter) is susceptible to already commonly played answers like spot creature removal is definitely something worth talking about. If everyone is already packing the proper answers, it is far less likely that thing will become problematic.
Or, maybe it can’t be counterd? Or maybe you can’t respond? Or maybe I just say no? Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous your logic is? It’s the “dies to doom blade” argument which, ironically, Cromat cannot. If you are going to equate it to other combos, then you have to acknowledge that all of the conditions you’d play a normal combo under, you’d also play Coalition Victory.This is the worst you’ve come up with yet.
What point are you trying to make? That someone has a game-ending threat, and a way to protect that threat... that that's a problem somehow? I honestly don't even know what you're trying to say.
This is actually funny. So, why not ask for a house rule? If you want to play it so badly, ask your group. Only takes a few seconds, you’ve said it yourself(you know, asking about deck contents, blah blah blah, when I said that i trust no one, ever). You won’t, though, as you’ve also been very clear on how you feel about that. So my question is, why? Why can’t you ask your group? Will they say no? I could only imagine why? Probably because they dislike the exact things you mentioned. Sorry, but that is not the format EDH strives to be, and the ban list supports that well beyond the few cards listed in this thread. Sheldon has gone on “unofficial record” saying as much.
You seem to be operating under a false pretense. I don't own a 5-color deck, and even if I did I probably wouldn't play CV. That doesn't change the fact that it doesn't need to be on the ban list.
When T&N resolves, what wins the game? It wasn't T&N, was it... Feel free to replace T&N with anything from Doomsday to Enter the infinite. Answer is, and always will be, the same.
This is just plain wrong. I'll need clarification here before you've come anywhere near close to convincing me or anyone else. If it doesn't win you the game you're not casting it, or you're not doing it right.
You cast Coalition Victory. In response I Swords your Cromat. Look at that, I've successfully stopped your CV and made you waste a card.
You're changing the stipulations of this debate to fit your stance. EtI is nowhere near close to the banlist, isn't a powerful game-winning card unless built around, and in most decks would be seen as high risk jank. If we're comparing all cards that end the game one way or another, why aren't you discussing cards like Glorious End or Second Chance? BECAUSE THEY'RE JANK.
Part of the argument against CV is that it has the potential to end the game with little in the way of set up. EtI has the exact same potential and, as you said, isn't seriously worth considering for the banlist. So why are we singling out CV? Because people have an irrational fear/hatred of the words "win the game"?
Either way you cut this statement, it doesn't support your argument. If I agree, CV adds nothing productive to the game, so why unban it? If I disagree (which would be correct), you've won the game if it resolves. Which fits well under the "undesirable game state" criteria. So why unban it? You're argument is here is that you're playing a card that says "pay 3WURBG." Which is fundamentally incorrect, and intentionally misleading.
Anti-CV people have continually been pushing this idea that CV is one card that says "win the game" with no other text on it, which simply isn't true. CV requires at least 1 creature in play and some number of lands, and it has multiple ways to interact with it across all 5 colors while on the stack to prevent it from winning. The only intentionally misleading statements are those that insist CV is a one-card win-the-game with no way to stop it.
This isn't enough. If you want it off the list, tell me what it adds to the Commander metagame by being available. As a currently banned card, our natural assumption is that it ought to stay there unless there is a reasonable argument that it should be unbanned. So far, I've seen nothing.
I think Avatar_of_Doh answered this point excellently so I don't really have anything to add.
It's on the list for exactly the same reasonWorldfire is; games that end on the spot are not fun, they're underwhelming and satisfy no one's desires for a fun, socially interactive game. This is the fundamental element of what makes Commander different to more competitive formats of Magic. Case closed.
Just because YOU find them underwhelming doesn't mean everyone does. Some people actually enjoy combo finishes. Some people actually enjoy playing with and against Stax decks. And some people just want to win using an epic story-moment card. Again, Doh covered a lot of this already.
In a world where Food Chain Tazri is a thing and there are super competitive Scion/Horde/Child decks around, can you guarantee that you wouldn't be able to produce an out of the blue, non-interactive CV win on a regular basis? With access to all colours, you have tutors, ways to play it for cheaper, ensure it doesn't get countered - this is the undesirable game state. I don't mind reshuffling and playing again after a short game, but the chances are high CV is able to be played and resolved for the win consistently.
First, as (again) Doh pointed out, the RC doesn't care about competitive combos or cutthroat decks. Second, if I'm playing a competitive 5-color deck, you can be sure CV would not be my first, second or maybe even my third win-con of choice. Having all 5-colors and basically the entirety of every Magic card ever printed, I assure you there are numerous, numerous better ways to win than casting an 8-mana spell that requires a 5-color creature in play and even then it still vulnerable to a simple removal spell.
Once again, if you're confident that you can produce the win, most competitive decks don't care if they telegraph. It's not a problem for any of the Tier 1 competitive decks - you know what you're facing with Jeleva Storm or Arcum, it doesn't stop them being very strong.
Again, the RC cares about casual play, where CV has the potential to be the most problematic. CV would never see play in an actual competitive deck except as a Plan D in case literally every other win-con they have gets stopped somehow.
This statement is fundamentally wrong. It clearly is NOT a one card combo - it is strong with Flash (we're up to two cards now), and tutors to battlefield for two other creatures (now we're up to four). This statement is entirely false, and can be lumped in the same pile as the Tooth and Nail rebuttal - you're comparing apples and oranges to get an equivalency, and it doesn't add up.
If my P.Hulk dies and you have no responses, you've lost the game. There are just ever so many combos P.Hulk can get, across an entire spectrum of colors, that he might actually be one of the best competitive EDH cards in existence.
I can't speak for others, but if Coalition Victory were unbanned, I would definitely run it in my Child of Alara deck (currently my only 5C deck). The deck runs 10x duals, 10x shocks, 10x fetches (plus 1x Plains, Murmuring Bosk, and Mistveil Plains for an extra 2 plains and a forest, and Krosan Verge for an 11th fetch), and most of the nonland permanents are or can become indestructible (my two planeswalkers, Sun Titan, Eternal Witness, and Shifting Shadows being the only exceptions). Getting me off the land types I need is difficult by the time I've got 8 mana. Getting me off the creature colors I need is difficult if they're all indestructible, or if I'm relying on Child, it means trading CV for Planar Cleansing by destroying Child... and the deck has plenty of recursion for both creatures and noncreatures to try again.
Do you even know what “Fair Uses” means? Honest question. I really don’t think you do, it’s evident in every single post you make, that you either don’t know, don’t understand, or just ignore.
Yeah yeah. "Fair use" is whatever use the person talking happens to agree with.
How about Worldfire? Biorythm? Sway of the Stars? You never mention, or acknowledge these cards. These share way more in common with Coalition Victory than anything you’ve brought up in this entire thread. Oh, it’s because they don’t make your argument, that’s why. Those cards, and CV, are poster children for “interacts poorly with the format”, which has been mentioned well over a dozen times and always falls on your seemingly deaf ears. You know, part of the criteria the RC uses when determining whether or not to ban a card.
Why should I mention those cards? Worldfire and Sway of the Stars have obvious problems regarding floating mana beforehand then casting your general afterward. It circumvents the intended function of the card in an non-interactive way. Biorhythm I'm less sure why it's banned but I assume it's because elf-ball style decks are already annoying, and it's super easy to ramp out. CV has no such problems. Having a general certainly makes the conditions easier to achieve but it doesn't circumvent the purpose of the card; it still does what you think it does and it can still be stopped all the same ways.
This really has nothing to do with the argument, I just wanted to ask exactly what is Flux doing on that list? As for the actual point, see below. I'm going to quote and respond to Lou who makes a similar argument.
By comparison, all CV has to do is resolve. No one is going to play it unless it achieves its desired effect, because that's all it does. Unless its countered, there is no interaction to be had, short of corner cases like Time Stop, Aethersnatch, Commandeer.
Someone obviously skipped the last 12 pages. This is just blatantly false and has been covered quite extensively already. Short version is that every color has instant-speed ways to remove a creature or a land providing the colors/types for CV's conditions, which will cause CV to resolve with no effect.
Okay, so if I ramp up to 11 mana and I cast Enter the Infinite, have I won the game?
No, but that game is over for you either way in a turn. Option one is you'll do whatever you were trying to do and presumably win. Option two is you'll fail to go off somehow and then deck yourself. Either way you're essentially done. Ergo, my initial statement that Enter the Infinite ends the game with more certainty than CV. At least when CV fails the game just continues on as normal.
You haven't given a single card yet that comes even close to rivalling Coalition Victory in sheer "End the game now" potentional.
Well, I did just reiterate my stance that EtI will end the game (for the caster, at least) more reliably than CV will so... there's that, I guess?
More relevantly, however, is that I've been indulging this misguided notion that CV is a "single card that ends the game" and restricting myself to examples that similarly fit this description. The fact of the matter is that CV is a single card that does literal nothing. As in, if you play land and pass for 7 turns before slamming CV on turn 8 you will have accomplished absolutely nothing.
Even T&N, which is already often counted among the "Not many would hate seeing this get banned" camp has more counterplays, requires more deck slots and more work.
Arguable. The amount of counterplay is dependent on the combo being fetched, not to mention that T&N can be played into an empty board whereas CV requires at least 1 creature in play. I don't know why you care so much about how many deck slots it takes up, especially when the difference is so minimal. And what exactly does "more work" mean?
As stated before. The card IS on the banlist. YOU should make a compelling argument about why that card should be unbanned, and no, "so the kiddies know just what exactly beat them" is not a good argument.
The argument is that EDH has evolved fairly significantly since CV was originally put on the banned list, and it is worth reconsidering if it still deserves its place. It's been over a decade since CV was banned. And since then, WotC has continued to print cards that push the power level of what we think of as acceptable. At this point it is more or less expected to be able to win the game off the back of some 8+ mana spell, regardless if that spell literally says "win the game" on it, and nobody bats an eye. CV being banned looks like a relic of a bygone era.
Let's just run down the list that was kindly posted: Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander - Eh... sort of? It is certainly easier to meet the requirements of CV but it isn't like Worldfire where having guaranteed access to your general fundamentally changes how the card works. If simply working in conjunction with your general is cause for a ban, the list would be significantly larger.
Creates Undesirable Game States - Not really. It either ends the game and everyone gets to shuffle up for another, or it does nothing and the game continues on like normal. It's no Limited Resources or Panoptic Mirror.
Problematic Casual Omnipresence - This is the biggest actual argument against CV. It's possible that unbanning CV will lead to a sudden spike of 5-color decks, every one of which is running CV just because they can. This seems extremely unlikely to me for the same reasons people don't casually run Armageddon or Enter the Infinite; it is very obvious what kind of effect these kind of cards have and that is something most players choose to avoid when building.
Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly - Not relevant to CV.
Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry - Also not relevant to CV.
Coalition Victory is a ban list leftover that was added back when 'win the game' spells (literal or otherwise) were hardly a thing. This kind of effect is just another drop in the pool at this point. I mean Protean Hulk was recently unbanned, and that is one of the most broken, easy-to-use one-card combo-machines ever printed in EDH. The times, they are a-changin'.
The only reason you and impossible are creating cards is because you are trying to move the line in the sand, simply because you have nothing that’s legal, or in print for that matter, to compare it to. At that point, what are we discussing? If CV was a different card and said different things it wouldn’t need to be banned?
There is value in discussing Coalition Victory. What I cannot see value in is discussing these hypotheticals. You are muddying the waters and making it near-Impossible to have a relevant discussion about the card by creating these scenarios that just have no real background to them.
To be fair, it's more like you (plural) keep moving the goalposts. Over the course of this thread I've given numerous examples of cards that can and do function similarly to CV, enough to raise doubts about it's necessity on the ban list. Most of the responses have been "but those cards don't literally say 'win the game' on them" or some variation of "but those cards have fair uses". I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the "fair use" of Enter the Infinite is. That card ends the game with more certainty than CV ever did.
As for the thought experiments, they are a oft used way to help re-imagine a problem or argument and come at it from a different angle. If you don't see the value in that I don't really know what to say. Perhaps this isn't the thread for you.
That one? Yes. The 5GGG version ArrogantAxolotl posted? That one I'd be willing to try out.
You are aware that both mine and Axol's are functionally identical in a 5-color deck, right? How does it make sense that you're more okay with the one that can be played more easily? What if it just cast 8 generic mana? Would that make it even less ban worthy than Axol's mono-green one?
Honestly I think I am just fundamentally misunderstanding some part of your argument. I don't understand how you think the 5GGG version is acceptable for EDH but vanilla ol' Coalition Victory isn't.
Which of these cards do you think this new player will be able to "break" more easily?
Depending on what you mean by "break" it's almost certainly T&N. New players tend to shy away from 5-color decks because the mana base in intimidating and the sheer amount of choices they have are overwhelming. Thus T&N is probably the first one they'll cast and end up doing something particularly unfun with, like finding Terastodon+Woodfall Primus and blowing up their friend's lands.
They might even not know about the insta-win buttons at that point (Though that chance quickly diminishes the moment you start playing more).
For the record, I've actually been in a game in which a relatively new player cast T&N, said "get Mike&Trike for the win" and when the other players asked her to play it out, she couldn't demonstrate a single loop. She "just knew that those two cards are a combo" somehow. Implying that T&N is somehow better because it's combos are more esoteric really doesn't fly when everyone has Google in their pocket literally all the time.
Basically, is a "strictly better" version of a card that's already problematic also problematic even if the new card introduces elements with which the playerbase can use the card more fairly?
I kept the card as close to CV as possible to make the comparison obvious and to try and isolate the "fair use" factor as much as possible. I wanted to know if Lou would consider that card acceptable because of it's supposed "fair use" despite having all of the same problems that CV does.
And it's a fact - one that you cannot argue - that Coalition Victory can do anything else other than "Win the game or bust". All those other cards can. And therein lies the difference.
Okay, I have a hypothetical for you. Imagine this card:
Searching for Victory3WUBRG
Sorcery
Search your library for up to one creature card, put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library.
You win the game if you control a land of each basic land type and a creature of each color.
Okay so this post turned into a behemoth. I've broken it up into spoilers for convenience, based on who(or is it whom? I can never remember) I'm responding to.
For your first post: No. The card is currently banned. Thus, if you want change, you have to provide reasons for the change, preferrably reasons that cannot be easily shot down. The unban-Protean Hulk-camp had to do the exact same thing. The ban-Prophet of Kruphix-camp had to provide reasons as to why it should be banned. That's just how it works.
That's stupid. This is way simpler than you're making it out to be. Is the card banned? If yes: what were the reasons for the ban, and are those reasons still applicable today?
Personally, I'd define "interact poorly with the format" as anything that, thanks to quirks in commander's rules, just becomes crazy. Like Worldfire has the "Float mana, cast worldfire, cast your commander" thing going. Not a lot of cards that interact poorly with the format that actually are broken though.
This is purely a matter of degree. More or less every card functions differently in EDH compared to any other format because of the multitude of rules specific to it. I kind of thought that was obvious. Ancestral Statue is objectively a terrible card. It only becomes not terrible when you have guaranteed access to the other half of it's two-card combo at all times in every game. I guess that's not broken enough to warrant a ban, though. What about Child of Alara? It was never intended to be used as a repeatable boardwipe that you have access to whenever you want. Child is clearly a better card in EDH specifically because it can abuse the rules regarding generals. Does Child of Alara "interact poorly with the format"? How about everyone's favorite whipping boy, Tooth and Nail? The card benefits from EDH's high starting life total and prevalence of ramp making it extremely easy to cast remarkably faster and more reliably than it's 9CMC Entwine cost would be in any other format, not to mention bypassing the singleton rule by being a tutor. T&N is clearly benefiting from the rules of EDH and is a significantly better card in EDH than it was/is/probably will ever be in any other format. Where is the line that pushes something into "interacts poorly with the format" territory?
The fact that you have access to your general at all times is EXACTLY why it interacts poorly in the format. In "normal" magic, you don't always have a 5cc creature in your hand. You have to pull it from your deck and get it out, and then get your Coalition Victory, only then have you won. Meanwhile in EDH you can drop some lands, drop your commander, then play this and voila.
See above. If "becomes easier to use in conjunction with your general" were an actual ban criteria the list would be hundreds, if not thousands, of cards long. I'm not arguing that CV isn't easier to successfully pull off in EDH -- it most certainly is -- I'm arguing that that shouldn't matter. As already stated, just "interacting poorly with the format" is a pretty poor excuse to ban a card; the interaction has to be doing something specifically problematic to be worth considering for a ban. So, let's take the poor format interaction as a given for CV, specifically that it is easier to meet the creature condition for the card because of your general. Now, given that: is the card's current power level (i.e. assuming you have a general that fulfills the creature requirement by itself readily [but not always because general tax is a thing] available) simply too strong to be allowed? Does CV, as it exists now, create undesirable game states? Does CV have a perceived barrier to entry? These are the questions we have to be asking. Not just repeating "it interacts poorly with the format so trololol it's banned" over and over again as some people are fond of doing.
There is a difference between "terrible cards for the format" and "cards some people find unfun". Armageddon is a strategic card. Coalition Victory is not. An "i win" button doesn't add anything interesting to the format.
Oh I see the difference, alright, I just don't think it's the same one you see. As I've said previously, I think the worst cards for the format (and by extension the cards the RC should be focusing on) are the ones that subtly create unfun game states. But that is neither here nor there. To the point at hand, just because you don't think CV is interesting doesn't mean everyone feels the same. Some people are more than happy to play CV as an 8-mana win-the-game attempt, in the same way some people are more than happy to play Hermit Druid combo. What you find acceptable and what others find acceptable is going to vary wildly.
The thing is; any of those other cards you mentioned have other uses beyond just saying "I win the game". There are sorceries that are mostly used to win the game, yes. None do so for nearly as little mana as Coalition Victory, and they all have "fair" uses too. Genesis Wave for x=17 isn't an "i win" button but it will put one in a strong position. Same with something like Exsanguinate. But they won't win you the game.
Honestly, to me the "accidentally finding out a winning combination" is a draw to the format, not a downside. It's how I developed my first deck (Lyzolda) from a hilariously *****ty sac-and-recur thing to a combo-wombo machine. I later dismantled it for becoming too powerful, but yea.
(Emphasis mine)Seeing the problem yet? Cards with so-called "fair uses" stand on their own, so you add them to the deck for their surface value. Then, since you're already running them you might as well add the cards that go well with those cards... so on and so forth until you end up with a "combo-wombo machine" that upsets the balance of the playgroup.
The comparison with Warp World, Great Aurora and Karn is hilarious. Warp World and Great Aurora both benefit the player who'll have most permanents out on the field, who built their deck to take advantage of it. Without auto-winning the game for them. They require a setup, a deck to take advantage of the casting, and thus their effect depends heavily on what has been played before.
Karn, in the meantime, needs several turns of buildup before it can reset the field. (Doubling Season notwithstanding) Things that are telegraphed I have no issue with (Which is why I also don't see an issue with Mortal Combat and friends).
First, Karn was (mostly) a joke, hence the "honorable mention" part. He does, however, invalidate the earlier game. Is he a problem? Obviously not. But picking on these "reset the game" style spells without mentioning the card that literally has the text "restart the game" seems foolish.
Second, I don't understand your reasoning. Are you saying I can't build my deck to take advantage of Worldfire or Sway of the Stars in the same way I can with Warp World of Great Aurora?
What's stopping me from pulling out, say, Avenger of Zendikar + Regal Force with it? Or why wouldn't Timmy McBigDudes get out a Worldspine Wurm and a Xenagos? Likewise, Debt to the Deathless has, in my experience, been cast for X=6 or so just to stabilize or to put one far ahead.
There is nothing stopping you. But we should still consider the potential worst cases of cards and interactions. There is also the slippery-slope argument to be made which we've already touched on. Cards that are strong enough to stand on their own in your deck that ALSO serve as combo pieces are quite problematic. T&N is basically the poster child for this.
The land types bit is hilariously easy. I play Pauper Child of Alara and even there getting all 5 basics is a trivial matter - and that deck plays exactly 1 Plains. While I would argue that for a reasonably regular win with Coalition Victory you'd need at least Shocks, I do think you're overestimating the task at hand. Again all you'd need to do to get the requirements for a CV is to play the game. A budget mana base based in green for the ramp will be able to push it out by turn 6 with relative ease.
I'm not overestimating it, I'm merely pointing it out. Some people here seem to just assume your mana is perfect all the time. It's not. The mana base is the biggest downside to playing 5-color to begin with. Not to mention that CV's land requirement also helps alleviate one of the biggest problems with cards like these which is the ol' T1 Sol Ring into Mana Vault play a 7-drop T2. It's a bit harder power out CV absurdly early because of the combined WUBRG in the cost and the land type requirement. Again, not trying to make it sound harder than it is. I'd fully expect a reasonable deck to have all basic land types by T8 a high percentage of the time. But it's not something to ignore, either, especially when it opens up Strip Mine and friends to become ways to stop CV.
Thing about Omniscience; this is dependant on them actually having a drawpower card behind it. Thus turning it into more than a one-card-now-i-win thing.
If you keep insisting that CV is a "one-card-now-I-win" thing I'm going to continue taking liberties with my examples. CV is minimum a 2-card combo involving your general. More if you count the required lands but apparently we don't do that around here. If you're just going to take that for granted, I'm going to start assuming more favorable givens for my examples. For example, Omniscience wins the game because of course your hand is stocked, it always is. Omniscience is a one-card-combo you guys.
And frankly, your only argument there is that YOU specifically think having an obviously signalled "THIS CARD WON THE GAME" is a good thing in the format - and I'm sure many people will not agree with you on that.
See, had Commander not have this odd little quirk of "Your prerequired creature is always available to you" in the format, it would've been a fine card. But it does. It's what the format is based on. It's what makes Coalition Victory interact poorly with the format. It's why it should stay banned.
Actually my argument is that CV is functionally similar to numerous cards already in the format therefore it should also be legal in the interest of maintaining the smallest possible ban list without compromising the format. Despite all of the *****ing, moaning, and arbitrary lines in the sand some people seem to be drawing, you know deep down that the majority of the cards I've used as examples thus far in the thread (T&N, Enter the Infinite, Omniscience, Rise of the Dark Realms, Doomsday, Ad Nauseam, so on and so forth) directly or indirectly lead to the game ending once resolved a vast majority of the time. That's why people play them to begin with. Some are better at their job, some are worse. Some are more "competitive" and some are less. But they all serve the same purpose when you slot them into your deck. CV doesn't deserve to be singled out when it is clearly a rather middling member of this broad category of finisher spells that already see wide-spread play.
Another thing to keep in mind about T&N is that, even as a 1 card win the game machine, its objectively worse than CV.
CV takes 1 slot, T&N takes 3.
Yes it is objectively worse in that one specific way. Let's ignore that T&N is mono-colored, has only 2 colored mana symbols, happens to be in the primary ramp color, and is more flexible and thus more resilient to hate.
StP will stop Mike and Trike, and if you screw it up that's not a knock against Mike and Trike its a knock against you. If it stops CV reliably, it also stops T&N, and more things stop T&N that don't stop CV (targeted LD is unlikely to be reliable unless the player is running only basics).
Swords will specifically stop Mike&Trike in that they cannot start the loop yet. For example, T&N for Mike&Trike, pass turn is a valid play if you suspect a Swords and wish to untap with countermagic to just go off through the removal anyways. And that is just one possible combo you can get with T&N. Conversely Swords just straight nullifies a CV.
CV would have that same degree of ubiquity in 5 color, and it would, by definition, always be the card the game revolves around whenever it gets cast. Always. Either you dealt with it, or it won the game. Not just gave you a major advantage that contributed to your win like Prophet or Prime Time, but straight up won. Its got the same problem as Prophet and Prime Time, but worse.
(-snip-) Regardless of how wrong I think you are about Sol Ring this isn't the place to discuss it. Sol Ring was brought up as a counterpoint of Mercury's point which was essentially "its too goodstuff and will see too much play". Which clearly isn't a factor in banning, as evidenced by Sol Ring. You are objectively wrong for not putting Sol Ring in your EDH deck, regardless of any other factors. I dare say there is no other card outside of the P9 that can make a claim like that. If a colorless 1-drop that fits into quite literally every deck isn't too ubiquitous to be banned, there is no way Coalition Victory would be.
As for over centralizing the game, see any combo ever. Do you have an answer? Cool, keep playing. No? Let's go to game two. PoK and Prime Time also have a high chance of "accidentally" ruining the game. Even if you're doing presumably fair things with them, everyone else can just take them and do less fair things with them. I've personally watched a game going fine with a PoK in play until someone cloned it and proceeded to go off. I have this sneaking suspicion that's not really a concern with CV. What, are you going to Reins of Power their general then Aethersnatch the CV? Honestly I wouldn't even be upset, I'd be impressed.
There's a lot to unpack here. First, 8 mana is not efficient, UNLESS IT WINS YOU THE GAME. Sweet Jesus, that's all CV does! There are several cards in the 7+ range that not only see play, but are powerhouses, and they all have a higher opportunity cost. 8 mana is an opportunity cost, but its not enough to keep other cards from being great because of how far they get you to winning the game, and CV actually just wins you the game. The chance of it "literally doing nothing" is less than T&N. Again, we end up in a situation where CV is better at what it does and has fewer drawbacks than cards that are either banned or barely legal.
Wait, are you arguing that CV is too powerful in a format in which I can Flash-Hulk? Or cast Doomsday? Or Entomb-Exhume? Or just playing Sol Ring T1? And Hulk actually got unbanned! As in, it didn't just fall through the cracks somehow. The RC made a conscious choice to add that card back into the available pool, and his power is orders of magnitude higher than CV's.
Also, what is your logic for saying T&N has a higher fail-rate than CV? That's just not true.
And I agree that people show restraint when deck building. Unfortunately, at this point you are basically arguing that CV will be ok because it people will choose not to run it because of how much it wrecks games. And here's the thing, the cards that operate similar to CV in that they can just win immediately on their own, like T&N and Hulk, actually have applications in those decks. They can be played "fair" simply by not including the combo. Which is why they aren't banned. CV has no use other than being a one card combo in this format. That is a fact. Simply costing 8 mana and 1 card slot is not enough of an opportunity cost for something that takes out the table.
I've already gone into this at length so I don't particularly want to dive in again. The short and sweet of it is that those are the cards that should be scrutinized more closely not the other way around, because those are the cards that are hardest to identify as causing problems.
It's a big flashy Timmy spell, an alt wincon that looks cool and references one of the most important moments in magics story. When Timmy goes and builds his new deck to make the big, fun, flavorful alt win con work, and it just annoys his friends who from then on make sure it will never work again, it backfires. The best case scenario is Timmy goes "well, that was neat, time to take it apart", because otherwise he'll be met with an exercise in frustration every time he plays it, and it will be "that deck". If Timmy just jams it into a pre existing slivers deck, or other 5 color deck, planning on casting it if he draws it but not trying to make it happen, it becomes just a lame, anticlimactic win from nowhere.
This sort of thing is fine in certain playgroups, but it is less likely to be ran in the groups that will tolerate it, and adds very little value there except as an upgrade over other combos that are already available. A combo friendly playgroup is going to gain very little from this getting unbanned.
First, you keep saying CV is an upgrade for existing combo decks. It's not. It's probably plan C or D. It's significantly worse than most other combos already, and if you're in 5-colors you have literally every better option available to you. In no way is CV an upgrade.
Second, that's not really for us to decide. If the Timmy's group is fine with it, great he's got a cool finisher. If they're not, it's an easy 1 card swap. This just comes down to communication between the players.
I think at this point the burden of proof lays upon those who want it unbanned.
I don't see why. It seems to me that it should be the other way; those in favor of keeping it on the ban list should have strong, compelling arguments for it to stay there. You don't just ban cards willy-nilly. Coalition Victorywas banned, therefore the RC should have had a good reason for it. And according to papa_funk from earlier in the thread, that good reason was mostly "interacts poorly with the format." But papa_funk also said T&N is weaker in EDH than in other formats, so it's tough to take anything he/she says too seriously. Regardless, interacting poorly with the format is a nebulous and poorly defined criteria that, according to papa_funk's earlier definition of 'does it do the same thing in EDH as normal Magic?', can realistically be applied to basically any card. For example, Syphon Mind becomes significantly better in multiplayer. I don't see anyone clamoring for that ban, however.
So how does CV interact poorly with the format, exactly? Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't the entire point of the format to ensure you always have access to your general? Why, I do believe the RC even changed the tuck rule to ensure you literally could not possibly lose your general. And using that always available general to just do literally anything is a time honored tradition. I don't think Child of Alara was intended to be cast every turn to wipe the board, but here we are in this brave new format. So saying CV interacts poorly with the format because it makes use of your general is just utter nonsense. That's kind of the point of the format.
What good does Armegeddon add? There are just so many terrible cards it isn't feasible to ban them all. A card shouldn't need to prove it's worth, it should be legal until proven explicitly problematic.
but the problems are there, some of which have been discussed ad nauseam in this very thread about a year ago. Most notably:
- Sit down with a 5cc deck at a meta you don't really know: Have fun getting stomped on because people fear Coalition Victory come out.
This is a risk you take playing against literally any deck. I could play the most innocuous legendary I can find as my general (Jasmine Boreal, anyone?) and jam it full of tutors and combos. Or I can take a notoriously powerful general and build it extremely casually (Captain Sisay tribal Weatherlight crew?). It is irrational to assume one way or the other. Either ask beforehand to gauge the table's power level, or just get-got once and learn for the future. Blindly turning all of your focus to a 5-color deck just because it's a 5-color deck is a player problem, not a problem with CV.
- Doing literally nothing in a game EXCEPT win on the spot, which NO OTHER SINGLE CARD IN THE GAME DOES.
You are correct. There are no other sorceries that say "win the game" on them. I mean, there are a bunch of sorceries that win the game without saying "win the game" on them so differentiating CV seems ludicrous, but if this is one of the biggest problems you have with the card I guess I can't argue it as it is factually true. I will, however, ask why you think this is a bad thing? As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, I think this is a plus (spoiler tags for large requote):
CV creates exactly the same undesirable game states as any other combo/haymaker finish... except CV is actually better because nobody does it on accident. It's literally impossible to put CV into your deck thinking it does anything other than win the game. Which is a far cry from the actually problematic cards that look flashy and cool, but secretly exist only to prevent a single player from actually playing the game, like Iona, Shield of Emeria or Sorin Markov. Now those create undesirable game states.
That's a plus in my book, not a negative. The fact that [Coalition Victory] either wins or does nothing means it's much less likely to be unknowingly abused by a casual/new player. I think a lot of people are forgetting how newer players see the game; Channel isn't the problem, it was the Fireball that killed them. CV, on the other hand, does exactly what it says on the tin, and that makes it easy to identify if these kinds of cards are a problem when talking with players about what kind of games you want to play. They'll lose to it and go "man that was super unfun" or "oh nice one lets go again" but either way everyone will know.
- The fact that it ignores everything that happened before in the game. Most cards that single-handedly do so are banned, you'll note. (Worldfire, Sway of the Stars being the main culprints) Before anyone points to Obliterate - that one still means whoever's ahead in life/cards in hand has a good chance.
What? It ends the game. How is that ignoring everything that happened before? Does a T&N combo kill ignore everything that happened before it? If I Debt to the Deathless the table for lethal, did I ignore everything that happened before? And lets not look past the fact that these cards are far from universally banned: Warp World and The Great Aurora both have the same effect of basically making the game's outcome a coin toss. I don't understand this argument. What is the deciding factor here that dictates some of these are okay but some aren't? Is there an honorable mention for Karn Liberated, who literally invalidates your previous game and starts a new one?
The card that comes closest to winning on it's own is Tooth and Nail. But unlike Coalition Victory, Tooth and Nail (no matter how much I loathe that card) at least has a few requirements before it wins you the game. Notably, unless you play with reanimation on a stick, the creatures you're tutoring cannot be in the graveyard. Then, beyond spot removal or counterspells, things like fogs can also manage to upset the T&N player.
So the only condition for T&N is you can't be a bad player? If your goal is the combo off, you're not going to play out half of your combo early on in the game and just hope against hope it doesn't end up in your graveyard after a few turn cycles.
Regarding the second point, Fog doesn't stop Mike&Trike or the dozens of other combo targets you can get off of T&N. I assume your point was to show that T&N has more ways to be stopped than CV does, which, I guess is technically true depending on the combo. But you're also glossing over the fact that CV can be stopped with land destruction, which is something I'd expect more decks to be packing than Fogs. Honestly every deck should have at least one Strip Mine variant in the 99 just because of how many problematic lands there are knocking around. Seeing how every color has at least one instant-speed way to remove a creature from play, and lands are colorless, ultimately this means that every deck, regardless of color, has multiple potential avenues of attack to interact while a CV is on the stack. Meanwhile, if you're not careful, Mike&Trike can go off in response to a Swords.
Coalition Victory has exactly two counterplays. Counter the CV, or remove the appropriate permanents that provide all 5 colours. Now that's all fine and dandy, but what if the CV player was smart enough to ensure there's at least 2 creatures of each colour around? The options go down VERY quickly and a single Path to Exile may not be enough, whilst that same PtE will deal with just about any T&N victory if you get your timing right. (Surprisingly a lot of people don't realize at what point you should Path a Mikaeus)
As I mentioned above, you seem to be glossing over the first part of Coalition Victory. You also must control all 5 basic land types, which isn't exactly difficult, but it's not entirely trivial either, especially if you're not running a full 10 ABUR/10 Shocks/10 Fetchs manabase. It is another way to stop a CV that every deck has access to via Strip Mine.
On to your actual point, what would I do if the CV player somehow has multiple creatures of each color, or more realistically just two 2-color creatures then casts CV? I would say that player paid 18 mana (2xWUBRG creatures plus 3WUBRG for the CV itself) and won the game which seems like something that should happen when someone pays 18 mana. It seems like they deserve to win. The game has to end at some point, and I believe one of the guiding principles of Sheldon's philosophy is something along the lines of "it's not okay on T4 but fine on T10+". I don't see the problem. Would it be better if they spent 7UUU on an Omniscience then proceeded to vomit their entire deck into play to win? If you're spending that much mana it should probably be winning you the game. That's not something to be upset about, that's just how the game goes.
So yeah, it's an anticlimactic way to end the game, it barely has counterplay especially in lower-power metas, it completely invalidates anything that happened before, it paints a target on any 5cc player, and it's unique in that it's the sole card that wins the game ON THE SPOT and does nothing else.
So please, do tell what it adds to the format that counterbalances all those strikes against it.
I don't disagree that it's an anticlimactic way to end the game, but so is any combo ever (with one exception). It has roughly as much counterplay as a large number of commonly played combos, mainly involving instant speed creature removal. It ends the game, I don't really understand how that is invalidation anymore than any other kill that ends the game immediately. Painting a target is a player problem that results from poor communication, not from the cards themselves. And as I've said, being extremely clear about what it does is a positive for me. I'd rather the RC focus on the insidious cards that look like they're fun to play with but they secretly terrible for the game.
Spoiler contains the only combo I think is acceptable:
Step 1: Demonic Tutor 5 times.
Step 2: Reveal that you've assembled all 5 pieces of Exodia.
It's unstoppable, but thankfully nobody has tried it against me yet.
P.S. Sorry for how long this took to post. Life has this weird habit of getting in the way some times.
Oh wow, why didn't I look at it that way. You sure convinced me.
In all seriousness, Sam, what exactly is your argument? As clearly as possible, please explain why you think CV deserves a spot on the ban list. What is your most fundamental problem with the card?
There's no reason for it not to be in a 5-colour deck, just like how there's no reason for Prophet of Kruphixnot to be in an UG deck. Both cards provide enough value by the nature of the format to make a deck without them suboptimal.
I don't think this is a rabbit-hole you want to jump down. There are scores, if not hundreds, of cards that fit this description, the biggest and most obvious one being Sol Ring and his friend Mana Crypt. This cannot possibly be how we decide to ban cards. I should know, I've been on the 'Ban Sol Ring' train for years now and nothing has come of it despite the fact that you are objectively wrong for not playing it in your deck. Simply being ubiquitous isn't a reason to ban. And that all is glossing over the fact that we're just assuming CV will see play in every possible deck, which is fairly specious at best.
I'm pretty shocked that anyone is arguing against this. I mean, yeah, if you are not running basic land types, or barely any, that's a reason not to run it, but even then it can still fire with Chromatic Lantern, which in a 5 color deck is worth it on its own for the fixing (at least in any 5 color deck that wouldn't have easy access to getting 5 basic land types via fetches and duals, which if you are running that you don't need the lantern to make CV work).
What's the opportunity cost here? Any 5 color good stuff deck would run this, and that will piss off a lot of casual tables. That's really where this is going to show up and solve problems.
The opportunity cost is the fact that you're putting an 8-mana spell that has a high chance of doing literal nothing into your deck. Also, I'm assuming you meant "cause problems" or else I think I've grossly misunderstood the rest of this post.
Yes, no opportunity cost, whenever you evaluate a card for your deck you ask the questions "how will this help me win, how close does it get me to that goal, and what trade off do I have to make?" The answers to those questions are "It says 'you win' for just playing your lands and commander, it gets you all the way there, and no trade off.
First of all, as I already mentioned, there is in fact a not-insignificant opportunity cost to casting an 8-mana spell and just hoping nobody interferes or else you just did actual nothing. That's a real cost that a lot of pro-ban advocates seem to ignore.
Second, if this entire argument were true we'd already be living it because sweet Jesus there are some insanely broken cards that are legal in EDH. If the only thing everyone cared about was winning as efficiently as possible, a lot of our decks would be homogenizing towards the obvious best decks of the format and we'd basically just be playing cEDH but without a competent ban list. Except we're not. Because some people are capable of showing some restraint when deck building. EDH is about more than just stuffing the 99 best cards in your deck and calling it a day. And even if it wasn't, the thought that CV would make it into anyone's list is quite amusing because wow is it inefficient.
Let's be real here for a moment: CV is a largely mediocre card that does that same thing dozens of other cards already do in the format, just in a more straightforward manner. There is no legitimate reason for it to still be banned other than some people are irrationally caught up on the words "win the game". It's time to #FreeCV.
And how exactly would it lose the surprise factor? You just kill the 5-C Commander every time it’s in play? Constantly keep them off 5 land types? All the while they do something else with the other 98 cards in their deck and win anyways.
Well it turns out if you see the same thing over and over again, it becomes less surprising. And the answer isn't to just kill their commander every time you see it, the answer is to hold up an answer to respond to the CV itself.
If it was more like Door to nothingness where it targets a player to lose the game, it would be much less problematic. As is, lots of games will end before they ever get going, for 3+ players. Kind of goes against the format philosophy, and just multi-player in general.
What? How is that better? Forcing a single player to sit and watch an hour+ long game because they randomly got eliminated first is significantly worse than the game ending and everyone shuffling up for another.
Because I would never tell somebody the contents of my deck??
Oh... I guess that's one way to play. I've certainly never seen anyone just flatly refuse to answer some basic questions about a new deck at the table. Generally while we're all shuffling up and seeing each other's commanders, if there is one who is known to be high powered or combo-centric I'll generally ask something along those lines. For example "Hey I see you're playing Karador, Ghost Chieftain. Are you running any infinites like Karmic Guide/Reveillark or Sun Titan/Saffi Eriksdotter?" It's a simple question and if you feel the need to lie about it I guess that just means you're someone I wouldn't want to play with.
Seriously? Like everything you listed shows how salty you are because a card you want in the format isn't valid. Yes, some of those answers DO work against CoVic, but guess what? CoVic is still banned. When did I say that the RC's list was balanced and even throughout? I'm well aware(from less contentious posts of yours and others in different topics) that there's a lot of 'line-blurring' between what's banned and what's not. I'm giving SOME reasons; I'm not saying that they are reasons I 100% back, nor did I ever say so. Please get your basic facts right too before you go off as you did; you don't get anyone on your side that way.
Yes. I get extremely irritated when people intentionally misrepresent basic facts to try and prove a point. You listed numerous cards that can stop a Tooth and Nail combo or a Coalition Victory, then immediately followed it up by saying CV has no interaction points thus making it worth banning. That is called a lie. And lies annoy me. So yes. Salt.
This entire post of yours if just you walking back your previous one to make it seem like you weren't just outright lying. You previously gave one reason (lack of interactivity) and then immediately lied about how many interaction points CV has. I don't care if you back that reason 100% or not. I don't care if you understand that the line between banned/not-banned is rather ambiguous. I care that you're spreading misinformation. If you want to debate CV on it's own merits, please, go right ahead. If you want to just lie and tell yourself it's banned just because, well frankly I don't have time for that.
Ugh, this actually bothers me. Really? How often do you sit down at a table and discuss the contents of your deck with your opponents? Hell, I don’t even do that when I’m playing 60-card Casual. It was just a really, really stupid comment, and yeah, I trolled her(and you). It is a game, after all. When you’re playing backyard football, do you tell your friends who you’re going to throw the ball too? Pretty sure it’s called “gamesmanship”.
Let us just take your analogy and run with it for a second. Pun intended, by the way. No, I don't expect you to yell out every play you're going to run for an entire game of backyard football. That would be silly. I also don't expect you to play with your hand revealed for an entire game of EDH. That would also be silly. What I would expect, however, is if you ask me "do you want to play some backyard football?" and I say "sure, is it touch or tackle?" is for you to answer the damn question. I want to know what kind of game I should expect. I'm going to be really upset if I show up to play touch football and immediately get tackled full speed. Likewise, if I'm sitting down with my Durdlely-McDurdleson deck I'm obviously not going to be happy when someone pulls out combo-Breya, Etherium Shaper. It's a simple matter of making sure everyone is expecting the same kind of game. I don't understand why you'd feel the need to lie about it.
Additionally, what exactly are your opponents supposed to do? Sudden Impact you while you're tapped out? You're untapping with (at least) 12 mana and your entire U deck in your hand. The chances of you not having multiple counterspells in hand to protect Lab Man are astronomically low.
All of this is missing the point, however. It doesn't particularly matter if you win or lose because by casting EtI you've ended that game, either for yourself or everyone else.
This is just objectively not true. There are now 2 different 5CC generals that do not satisfy CV's color requirements (General Tazri and Ramos, Dragon Engine) as well as ton of self-restrictions you can do if you would like to make winning with CV more challenging: not using any dual lands with basic land types, or requiring certain flavor conditions (i.e. using all the Legacy cards to unleash the full power of the Legacy Weapon resulting in a Coalition Victory) or simply not using your general to fulfill the requirement. Or, and this might sound truly crazy but stick with me, you could just choose not to play CV in your deck. You talk about adjusting the power level of your deck to fit your meta, but it never occurred to you to just not run a card? If it is something you or your group don't like, simply don't play it. That is itself a deckbuilding decision.
I see your Grand Abolisher and raise you a Platinum Angel. In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here but the fact that CV (or anything else for that matter) is susceptible to already commonly played answers like spot creature removal is definitely something worth talking about. If everyone is already packing the proper answers, it is far less likely that thing will become problematic.
You seem to be operating under a false pretense. I don't own a 5-color deck, and even if I did I probably wouldn't play CV. That doesn't change the fact that it doesn't need to be on the ban list.
Do you understand the word "potential"?
That's okay. I haven't take you seriously since... right about here:
Part of the argument against CV is that it has the potential to end the game with little in the way of set up. EtI has the exact same potential and, as you said, isn't seriously worth considering for the banlist. So why are we singling out CV? Because people have an irrational fear/hatred of the words "win the game"?
Also, I wouldn't consider Second Chance to be jank. It's a fairly well-known combo piece in Zur the Enchanter decks.
Anti-CV people have continually been pushing this idea that CV is one card that says "win the game" with no other text on it, which simply isn't true. CV requires at least 1 creature in play and some number of lands, and it has multiple ways to interact with it across all 5 colors while on the stack to prevent it from winning. The only intentionally misleading statements are those that insist CV is a one-card win-the-game with no way to stop it.
I think Avatar_of_Doh answered this point excellently so I don't really have anything to add.
Just because YOU find them underwhelming doesn't mean everyone does. Some people actually enjoy combo finishes. Some people actually enjoy playing with and against Stax decks. And some people just want to win using an epic story-moment card. Again, Doh covered a lot of this already.
First, as (again) Doh pointed out, the RC doesn't care about competitive combos or cutthroat decks. Second, if I'm playing a competitive 5-color deck, you can be sure CV would not be my first, second or maybe even my third win-con of choice. Having all 5-colors and basically the entirety of every Magic card ever printed, I assure you there are numerous, numerous better ways to win than casting an 8-mana spell that requires a 5-color creature in play and even then it still vulnerable to a simple removal spell.
Again, the RC cares about casual play, where CV has the potential to be the most problematic. CV would never see play in an actual competitive deck except as a Plan D in case literally every other win-con they have gets stopped somehow.
If my P.Hulk dies and you have no responses, you've lost the game. There are just ever so many combos P.Hulk can get, across an entire spectrum of colors, that he might actually be one of the best competitive EDH cards in existence.
Is this a problem for you or your play group? Is it more problematic than T&N for Mike&Trike/Kiki&Conscripts or P.Hulk for a Karmic Guide chain?
This really has nothing to do with the argument, I just wanted to ask exactly what is Flux doing on that list? As for the actual point, see below. I'm going to quote and respond to Lou who makes a similar argument.
Someone obviously skipped the last 12 pages. This is just blatantly false and has been covered quite extensively already. Short version is that every color has instant-speed ways to remove a creature or a land providing the colors/types for CV's conditions, which will cause CV to resolve with no effect.
And neither will CV.
No, but that game is over for you either way in a turn. Option one is you'll do whatever you were trying to do and presumably win. Option two is you'll fail to go off somehow and then deck yourself. Either way you're essentially done. Ergo, my initial statement that Enter the Infinite ends the game with more certainty than CV. At least when CV fails the game just continues on as normal.
Well, I did just reiterate my stance that EtI will end the game (for the caster, at least) more reliably than CV will so... there's that, I guess?
More relevantly, however, is that I've been indulging this misguided notion that CV is a "single card that ends the game" and restricting myself to examples that similarly fit this description. The fact of the matter is that CV is a single card that does literal nothing. As in, if you play land and pass for 7 turns before slamming CV on turn 8 you will have accomplished absolutely nothing.
Arguable. The amount of counterplay is dependent on the combo being fetched, not to mention that T&N can be played into an empty board whereas CV requires at least 1 creature in play. I don't know why you care so much about how many deck slots it takes up, especially when the difference is so minimal. And what exactly does "more work" mean?
The argument is that EDH has evolved fairly significantly since CV was originally put on the banned list, and it is worth reconsidering if it still deserves its place. It's been over a decade since CV was banned. And since then, WotC has continued to print cards that push the power level of what we think of as acceptable. At this point it is more or less expected to be able to win the game off the back of some 8+ mana spell, regardless if that spell literally says "win the game" on it, and nobody bats an eye. CV being banned looks like a relic of a bygone era.
Let's just run down the list that was kindly posted:
Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander - Eh... sort of? It is certainly easier to meet the requirements of CV but it isn't like Worldfire where having guaranteed access to your general fundamentally changes how the card works. If simply working in conjunction with your general is cause for a ban, the list would be significantly larger.
Creates Undesirable Game States - Not really. It either ends the game and everyone gets to shuffle up for another, or it does nothing and the game continues on like normal. It's no Limited Resources or Panoptic Mirror.
Problematic Casual Omnipresence - This is the biggest actual argument against CV. It's possible that unbanning CV will lead to a sudden spike of 5-color decks, every one of which is running CV just because they can. This seems extremely unlikely to me for the same reasons people don't casually run Armageddon or Enter the Infinite; it is very obvious what kind of effect these kind of cards have and that is something most players choose to avoid when building.
Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly - Not relevant to CV.
Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry - Also not relevant to CV.
Coalition Victory is a ban list leftover that was added back when 'win the game' spells (literal or otherwise) were hardly a thing. This kind of effect is just another drop in the pool at this point. I mean Protean Hulk was recently unbanned, and that is one of the most broken, easy-to-use one-card combo-machines ever printed in EDH. The times, they are a-changin'.
As for the thought experiments, they are a oft used way to help re-imagine a problem or argument and come at it from a different angle. If you don't see the value in that I don't really know what to say. Perhaps this isn't the thread for you.
Honestly I think I am just fundamentally misunderstanding some part of your argument. I don't understand how you think the 5GGG version is acceptable for EDH but vanilla ol' Coalition Victory isn't.
Depending on what you mean by "break" it's almost certainly T&N. New players tend to shy away from 5-color decks because the mana base in intimidating and the sheer amount of choices they have are overwhelming. Thus T&N is probably the first one they'll cast and end up doing something particularly unfun with, like finding Terastodon+Woodfall Primus and blowing up their friend's lands. For the record, I've actually been in a game in which a relatively new player cast T&N, said "get Mike&Trike for the win" and when the other players asked her to play it out, she couldn't demonstrate a single loop. She "just knew that those two cards are a combo" somehow. Implying that T&N is somehow better because it's combos are more esoteric really doesn't fly when everyone has Google in their pocket literally all the time.
Do you think this card would need to be banned?
This is purely a matter of degree. More or less every card functions differently in EDH compared to any other format because of the multitude of rules specific to it. I kind of thought that was obvious. Ancestral Statue is objectively a terrible card. It only becomes not terrible when you have guaranteed access to the other half of it's two-card combo at all times in every game. I guess that's not broken enough to warrant a ban, though. What about Child of Alara? It was never intended to be used as a repeatable boardwipe that you have access to whenever you want. Child is clearly a better card in EDH specifically because it can abuse the rules regarding generals. Does Child of Alara "interact poorly with the format"? How about everyone's favorite whipping boy, Tooth and Nail? The card benefits from EDH's high starting life total and prevalence of ramp making it extremely easy to cast remarkably faster and more reliably than it's 9CMC Entwine cost would be in any other format, not to mention bypassing the singleton rule by being a tutor. T&N is clearly benefiting from the rules of EDH and is a significantly better card in EDH than it was/is/probably will ever be in any other format. Where is the line that pushes something into "interacts poorly with the format" territory?
See above. If "becomes easier to use in conjunction with your general" were an actual ban criteria the list would be hundreds, if not thousands, of cards long. I'm not arguing that CV isn't easier to successfully pull off in EDH -- it most certainly is -- I'm arguing that that shouldn't matter. As already stated, just "interacting poorly with the format" is a pretty poor excuse to ban a card; the interaction has to be doing something specifically problematic to be worth considering for a ban. So, let's take the poor format interaction as a given for CV, specifically that it is easier to meet the creature condition for the card because of your general. Now, given that: is the card's current power level (i.e. assuming you have a general that fulfills the creature requirement by itself readily [but not always because general tax is a thing] available) simply too strong to be allowed? Does CV, as it exists now, create undesirable game states? Does CV have a perceived barrier to entry? These are the questions we have to be asking. Not just repeating "it interacts poorly with the format so trololol it's banned" over and over again as some people are fond of doing.
Oh I see the difference, alright, I just don't think it's the same one you see. As I've said previously, I think the worst cards for the format (and by extension the cards the RC should be focusing on) are the ones that subtly create unfun game states. But that is neither here nor there. To the point at hand, just because you don't think CV is interesting doesn't mean everyone feels the same. Some people are more than happy to play CV as an 8-mana win-the-game attempt, in the same way some people are more than happy to play Hermit Druid combo. What you find acceptable and what others find acceptable is going to vary wildly.
But that doesn't mean we should be holding CV hostage because people have poor communication skills.
(Emphasis mine)Seeing the problem yet? Cards with so-called "fair uses" stand on their own, so you add them to the deck for their surface value. Then, since you're already running them you might as well add the cards that go well with those cards... so on and so forth until you end up with a "combo-wombo machine" that upsets the balance of the playgroup.
First, Karn was (mostly) a joke, hence the "honorable mention" part. He does, however, invalidate the earlier game. Is he a problem? Obviously not. But picking on these "reset the game" style spells without mentioning the card that literally has the text "restart the game" seems foolish.
Second, I don't understand your reasoning. Are you saying I can't build my deck to take advantage of Worldfire or Sway of the Stars in the same way I can with Warp World of Great Aurora?
There is nothing stopping you. But we should still consider the potential worst cases of cards and interactions. There is also the slippery-slope argument to be made which we've already touched on. Cards that are strong enough to stand on their own in your deck that ALSO serve as combo pieces are quite problematic. T&N is basically the poster child for this.
I'm not overestimating it, I'm merely pointing it out. Some people here seem to just assume your mana is perfect all the time. It's not. The mana base is the biggest downside to playing 5-color to begin with. Not to mention that CV's land requirement also helps alleviate one of the biggest problems with cards like these which is the ol' T1 Sol Ring into Mana Vault play a 7-drop T2. It's a bit harder power out CV absurdly early because of the combined WUBRG in the cost and the land type requirement. Again, not trying to make it sound harder than it is. I'd fully expect a reasonable deck to have all basic land types by T8 a high percentage of the time. But it's not something to ignore, either, especially when it opens up Strip Mine and friends to become ways to stop CV.
If you keep insisting that CV is a "one-card-now-I-win" thing I'm going to continue taking liberties with my examples. CV is minimum a 2-card combo involving your general. More if you count the required lands but apparently we don't do that around here. If you're just going to take that for granted, I'm going to start assuming more favorable givens for my examples. For example, Omniscience wins the game because of course your hand is stocked, it always is. Omniscience is a one-card-combo you guys.
Actually my argument is that CV is functionally similar to numerous cards already in the format therefore it should also be legal in the interest of maintaining the smallest possible ban list without compromising the format. Despite all of the *****ing, moaning, and arbitrary lines in the sand some people seem to be drawing, you know deep down that the majority of the cards I've used as examples thus far in the thread (T&N, Enter the Infinite, Omniscience, Rise of the Dark Realms, Doomsday, Ad Nauseam, so on and so forth) directly or indirectly lead to the game ending once resolved a vast majority of the time. That's why people play them to begin with. Some are better at their job, some are worse. Some are more "competitive" and some are less. But they all serve the same purpose when you slot them into your deck. CV doesn't deserve to be singled out when it is clearly a rather middling member of this broad category of finisher spells that already see wide-spread play.
Swords will specifically stop Mike&Trike in that they cannot start the loop yet. For example, T&N for Mike&Trike, pass turn is a valid play if you suspect a Swords and wish to untap with countermagic to just go off through the removal anyways. And that is just one possible combo you can get with T&N. Conversely Swords just straight nullifies a CV.
(-snip-) Regardless of how wrong I think you are about Sol Ring this isn't the place to discuss it. Sol Ring was brought up as a counterpoint of Mercury's point which was essentially "its too goodstuff and will see too much play". Which clearly isn't a factor in banning, as evidenced by Sol Ring. You are objectively wrong for not putting Sol Ring in your EDH deck, regardless of any other factors. I dare say there is no other card outside of the P9 that can make a claim like that. If a colorless 1-drop that fits into quite literally every deck isn't too ubiquitous to be banned, there is no way Coalition Victory would be.
As for over centralizing the game, see any combo ever. Do you have an answer? Cool, keep playing. No? Let's go to game two. PoK and Prime Time also have a high chance of "accidentally" ruining the game. Even if you're doing presumably fair things with them, everyone else can just take them and do less fair things with them. I've personally watched a game going fine with a PoK in play until someone cloned it and proceeded to go off. I have this sneaking suspicion that's not really a concern with CV. What, are you going to Reins of Power their general then Aethersnatch the CV? Honestly I wouldn't even be upset, I'd be impressed.
Wait, are you arguing that CV is too powerful in a format in which I can Flash-Hulk? Or cast Doomsday? Or Entomb-Exhume? Or just playing Sol Ring T1? And Hulk actually got unbanned! As in, it didn't just fall through the cracks somehow. The RC made a conscious choice to add that card back into the available pool, and his power is orders of magnitude higher than CV's.
Also, what is your logic for saying T&N has a higher fail-rate than CV? That's just not true.
I've already gone into this at length so I don't particularly want to dive in again. The short and sweet of it is that those are the cards that should be scrutinized more closely not the other way around, because those are the cards that are hardest to identify as causing problems.
First, you keep saying CV is an upgrade for existing combo decks. It's not. It's probably plan C or D. It's significantly worse than most other combos already, and if you're in 5-colors you have literally every better option available to you. In no way is CV an upgrade.
Second, that's not really for us to decide. If the Timmy's group is fine with it, great he's got a cool finisher. If they're not, it's an easy 1 card swap. This just comes down to communication between the players.
So how does CV interact poorly with the format, exactly? Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't the entire point of the format to ensure you always have access to your general? Why, I do believe the RC even changed the tuck rule to ensure you literally could not possibly lose your general. And using that always available general to just do literally anything is a time honored tradition. I don't think Child of Alara was intended to be cast every turn to wipe the board, but here we are in this brave new format. So saying CV interacts poorly with the format because it makes use of your general is just utter nonsense. That's kind of the point of the format.
What good does Armegeddon add? There are just so many terrible cards it isn't feasible to ban them all. A card shouldn't need to prove it's worth, it should be legal until proven explicitly problematic.
This is a risk you take playing against literally any deck. I could play the most innocuous legendary I can find as my general (Jasmine Boreal, anyone?) and jam it full of tutors and combos. Or I can take a notoriously powerful general and build it extremely casually (Captain Sisay tribal Weatherlight crew?). It is irrational to assume one way or the other. Either ask beforehand to gauge the table's power level, or just get-got once and learn for the future. Blindly turning all of your focus to a 5-color deck just because it's a 5-color deck is a player problem, not a problem with CV.
You are correct. There are no other sorceries that say "win the game" on them. I mean, there are a bunch of sorceries that win the game without saying "win the game" on them so differentiating CV seems ludicrous, but if this is one of the biggest problems you have with the card I guess I can't argue it as it is factually true. I will, however, ask why you think this is a bad thing? As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, I think this is a plus (spoiler tags for large requote):
So the only condition for T&N is you can't be a bad player? If your goal is the combo off, you're not going to play out half of your combo early on in the game and just hope against hope it doesn't end up in your graveyard after a few turn cycles.
Regarding the second point, Fog doesn't stop Mike&Trike or the dozens of other combo targets you can get off of T&N. I assume your point was to show that T&N has more ways to be stopped than CV does, which, I guess is technically true depending on the combo. But you're also glossing over the fact that CV can be stopped with land destruction, which is something I'd expect more decks to be packing than Fogs. Honestly every deck should have at least one Strip Mine variant in the 99 just because of how many problematic lands there are knocking around. Seeing how every color has at least one instant-speed way to remove a creature from play, and lands are colorless, ultimately this means that every deck, regardless of color, has multiple potential avenues of attack to interact while a CV is on the stack. Meanwhile, if you're not careful, Mike&Trike can go off in response to a Swords.
As I mentioned above, you seem to be glossing over the first part of Coalition Victory. You also must control all 5 basic land types, which isn't exactly difficult, but it's not entirely trivial either, especially if you're not running a full 10 ABUR/10 Shocks/10 Fetchs manabase. It is another way to stop a CV that every deck has access to via Strip Mine.
On to your actual point, what would I do if the CV player somehow has multiple creatures of each color, or more realistically just two 2-color creatures then casts CV? I would say that player paid 18 mana (2xWUBRG creatures plus 3WUBRG for the CV itself) and won the game which seems like something that should happen when someone pays 18 mana. It seems like they deserve to win. The game has to end at some point, and I believe one of the guiding principles of Sheldon's philosophy is something along the lines of "it's not okay on T4 but fine on T10+". I don't see the problem. Would it be better if they spent 7UUU on an Omniscience then proceeded to vomit their entire deck into play to win? If you're spending that much mana it should probably be winning you the game. That's not something to be upset about, that's just how the game goes.
I don't disagree that it's an anticlimactic way to end the game, but so is any combo ever (with one exception). It has roughly as much counterplay as a large number of commonly played combos, mainly involving instant speed creature removal. It ends the game, I don't really understand how that is invalidation anymore than any other kill that ends the game immediately. Painting a target is a player problem that results from poor communication, not from the cards themselves. And as I've said, being extremely clear about what it does is a positive for me. I'd rather the RC focus on the insidious cards that look like they're fun to play with but they secretly terrible for the game.
Spoiler contains the only combo I think is acceptable:
Step 2: Reveal that you've assembled all 5 pieces of Exodia.
P.S. Sorry for how long this took to post. Life has this weird habit of getting in the way some times.
In all seriousness, Sam, what exactly is your argument? As clearly as possible, please explain why you think CV deserves a spot on the ban list. What is your most fundamental problem with the card?
Second, if this entire argument were true we'd already be living it because sweet Jesus there are some insanely broken cards that are legal in EDH. If the only thing everyone cared about was winning as efficiently as possible, a lot of our decks would be homogenizing towards the obvious best decks of the format and we'd basically just be playing cEDH but without a competent ban list. Except we're not. Because some people are capable of showing some restraint when deck building. EDH is about more than just stuffing the 99 best cards in your deck and calling it a day. And even if it wasn't, the thought that CV would make it into anyone's list is quite amusing because wow is it inefficient.
Let's be real here for a moment: CV is a largely mediocre card that does that same thing dozens of other cards already do in the format, just in a more straightforward manner. There is no legitimate reason for it to still be banned other than some people are irrationally caught up on the words "win the game". It's time to #FreeCV.
This entire post of yours if just you walking back your previous one to make it seem like you weren't just outright lying. You previously gave one reason (lack of interactivity) and then immediately lied about how many interaction points CV has. I don't care if you back that reason 100% or not. I don't care if you understand that the line between banned/not-banned is rather ambiguous. I care that you're spreading misinformation. If you want to debate CV on it's own merits, please, go right ahead. If you want to just lie and tell yourself it's banned just because, well frankly I don't have time for that. Let us just take your analogy and run with it for a second. Pun intended, by the way. No, I don't expect you to yell out every play you're going to run for an entire game of backyard football. That would be silly. I also don't expect you to play with your hand revealed for an entire game of EDH. That would also be silly. What I would expect, however, is if you ask me "do you want to play some backyard football?" and I say "sure, is it touch or tackle?" is for you to answer the damn question. I want to know what kind of game I should expect. I'm going to be really upset if I show up to play touch football and immediately get tackled full speed. Likewise, if I'm sitting down with my Durdlely-McDurdleson deck I'm obviously not going to be happy when someone pulls out combo-Breya, Etherium Shaper. It's a simple matter of making sure everyone is expecting the same kind of game. I don't understand why you'd feel the need to lie about it. I don't know what this means.