Why should I trust what anybody has to say, ever? If you play with the same people all the time, then sure, take them at their word. However, I’d never expect a stranger to give me the low-down on his deck tech. So, to your point, if you can trust said individual, then you can probably propose to them that CV can be allowed via house rules. Problem.Solved.
First off, wow. That's pretty pessimistic. Why would someone straight up lie about having a particular card/combo in their deck?
Second, "just house rule it" is a pretty terrible argument. Regardless of the RC's intentions, people play the ban list. Period. Unless you have a strong, established play group, it is simply unfeasible to use house rules. Too many people switching in and out of the group. Too long before every game spent explaining that you're playing with banned cards. Too long arguing about why we allow some banned cards but not others. So on and so forth. Not to mention the same argument could be made in the other direction; if you don't like it being legal just house rule it. The whole idea is just a mess, and just saying "house rule" is not a sufficient answer.
Could we work around it with a house rule? Probably. Would it be worth it? Almost certainly not. None of that changes the underlying fact that, in the interest of maintaining as small a ban list as possible, Coalition Victory doesn't deserve to be banned. It is fundamentally no different from any number of cards that are currently legal.
Seriously? Literally everything you listed, with the exception of Sudden Spoiling, also works as an answer to Coalition Victory. If you're going to make a case, at least get the basic facts right.
That's a fine perspective to have there, but from that perspective your point should be for banning cards that enable long (Solitaire) combos, which has nothing to do with CV's current position. CV ending games instantly isn't going to solve nor discourage the long combo problem you raised.
To be fair, I didn't raise this point. You did when you started going on about "phases" of a combo, as if the fact that Coalition Victory doesn't have a long execution is somehow a point against it:
Yes, TNN into Mike & Trike isn't memorable enough either, mainly because the competitive combo players exhausted it to the point no one wants to see it, but at the very least, people can see the mechanics actively leading to the win, the very motion of Mike and Trike emerging from the deck and Trike firing, dying and returning, then firing again.
Nobody is arguing that CV is a fun way to end the game. But neither is Mike&Trike or Doomsday or Enter the Infinite, but all of those remain legal. The argument is that CV is no worse than any number of other cards that end the game upon resolution, figuratively if not literally. In the interest of having the smallest possible ban list, there is no reason for CV to remain banned.
Isn't your first statement literally the opposite of the objective of EDH? EDH strives to make long physical combos acceptable and better, something no other format does because of their competitive nature.
...No? Recurring Time Warp with Archaeomancer every turn should not be encouraged. It's one thing to combo kill a table with Mike&Trike or CV if it were legal, everyone can just shuffle up and play again. But it is something else entirely to force everyone else to twiddle their thumbs for 20 minutes while you sit there and try to figure out if you've managed to combo off with Seismic-Swans, or wait for you to take infinite turns trying to find a way to win. Why on earth are some of these things acceptable to you but others aren't, apparently depending entirely on how long they take to physically execute?
I'll be honest, this is mostly nonsense. Having a long physical execution time to the end of your combo doesn't somehow make it more acceptable, it makes it worse. Nobody wants to watch you play out an Eggs combo or a Seismic Swans combo because there's a very small chance you could fizzle. It's mildly interesting to see a new combo once, then excruciatingly boring every time after that. The fact that CV has no loop to demonstrate or no chance to fizzle mid-combo doesn't make it any worse than say... T&N for Mike&Trike just because it makes for an easy comparison. Using that as a reason to keep CV banned is ridiculous.
A realistic example would be that someone casts Insurrection while there's only 25 power worth of creatures in play. Dealing 25 damage to one player is well worth 5RRR mana, and it's a play I see made all the time. It does not end games.
The only outcomes I've seen to a resolved Insurrection are that the insurrection player takes all the creatures and has enough power to finish everyone, or the insurrection player takes all the creatures and kills some number of other players, then dies to the backswing. I've never seen a resolved Insurrection fail to kill at least one player.
So you don't see the difference in a player being ganged up on for winning via Hermit Druid Reanimation combo, and the 5c Wall-tribal player who happens to run Coalition Victory? I don't know what to tell you, other than you are being incredibly dense, to put it lightly.
First, as I said before, nobody just "happens to run Coalition Victory", exactly like how nobody just "happens to run Palinchron infinites." Second, no, I don't see a difference. If you're playing cards like that, you have to acknowledge the fact that your opponents are going to do whatever they can to stop it.
One side likens it to haymakers. Haymakers that can, and are, used fairly(Insurrection, RotDR, T&N, EtI), but that also lead to game ending interactions between different cards. It is a fact that CV cannot, and never can be, used in a similar fashion, ever. It only leads to the game ending.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Games need to end at some point. What difference does it make if it's from CV/Insurrection/T&N/Enter the Infinite? Also, just as a side note, it's kind of absurd to be making the argument that CV "only leads to the game ending" while implying that Insurrection/EtI somehow don't. Win or lose, a player who resolves Enter the Infinite is only playing for one more turn. Likewise, I've never seen a table survive a resolved Insurrection.
Quick question Impossible. You say you'd love to play a Weatherlight theme deck with CVictory as it's wincon. Do you have a playgroup? If yes, why not ask them if they'd be okay with that specific deck? Perhaps with the addendum that you cannot use your commander as the creature fulfillment?
Not enough of a playgroup. Too many people swap in and out for it to be feasible to okay playing a specifically banned card in the 99. Not to mention the headache of "if you get to play X why can't I play Y," which as evidenced by this very thread, is just a nightmare waiting to happen.
P.S. The commander is Legacy Weapon. It already cannot possibly fulfill the creature requirement of Coalition Victory for multiple reasons, mainly being neither a creature nor 5-colors.
For me, casual isn't a derogatory word. I just find it as a useful word to describe the uninvested Commander players as opposed to the heavily enfranchised ones. With that out of the way, casual players are the ones I trust the least to uphold the spirit of the format (aside from Spikes). I believe that casual players will ultimately just play what they think is fun. If what they think is fun happens to coincide with the spirit of the format, cool. That worked out. If not, can you really blame them? What else would you expect people to put into their decks other than what they think would be fun to play? The enfranchised players are the ones I trust to uphold the spirit of the format. They're the ones with knowledge of Commander philosophy, not casuals. Casuals I wouldn't trust one bit.
I think this goes back to a point I made way, way earlier in the thread:
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.
Nobody "accidentally" wins with CV. You put it in your deck knowing full well what it does. Will there, in some place, be a player who doesn't quite understand the ramifications of putting such a card in their deck? Almost certainly. But it'll probably take only a few games for them to realize it isn't very fun, or to move on to greener pastures and win with a better combo.
I hate WGD kills. I hate T&N kills. I hate Omniscience/Lab Man/EtI kills. But you know what? Kudos to them for building their deck in such a way to pull it off. Their reward will usually be me/the table forcing them to play it out, and pointing out missed triggers if they arise and chuckling at their expense. Sometimes they'll switch to a different deck that's more "appropriate" for the table their at, or they'll welcome the challenge of being a target going forward. I'm cool with all of that.
How I envision CV is much different. The table will be caught off-guard at first, specifically if the deck plays out to be a non-threatening build. The other 3 players would probably be pretty salty that they lost that way, as it is pretty anti-climatic. Then, going forward, if they continue on with 5-C that is, well just keep them in check however we need to make sure CV doesn't work. MLD and Targeted LD, continually hating their commander off the table, etc. Now, how is that fun for that player? Kind of goes back to what Mercury said.
Pot, meet Kettle. How on earth can you reconcile the top paragraph with the bottom? Honestly it feels like you'd be okay with CV if on resolution you had to answer some random rules questions to win, because perceived effort through deckbuilding/rules-chicanery seems to matter to you. In the top paragraph you take an extremely reasonable stance that I think most people here share. But then in the second paragraph, you set up the exact same situation, in which the same solutions clearly exist (either switch to a more table-appropriate deck or understand you're playing archenemy now) but gloss over them for a fear-mongering vision of a ruthless 3v1 game in which nobody has fun.
Hey, if Coalition Victory just turns out to be another card like Winter Orb, something totally toxic to Commander games but casuals won't touch it, then by all means unban Coalition Victory. I'm just with you in that I have no idea how widespread Coalition Victory would see play if it were unbanned.
Wait... so we're in agreement? When did this happen?
At some point we have to trust that "casuals" (I don't particularly like that word but it seems to be the terminology we're using) who want to enjoy games of EDH are going to build according to the 'spirit of the format', so they're not going to play it. Conversely, Spikes gonna Spike, and CV is woefully under-powered in that department, so they're not going to play it either. Maybe a semi-casual/semi-competitive group could have trouble with it, but a CV attempt has roughly the same interaction points as many of the most common game-winning combos that will pop up in a group like that anyways (T&N combos, Palinchron combos, General-centric combos, etc): counterspells, instant speed creature removal/bounce, and, land destruction.
So who exactly are we trying to prevent from playing CV? It's a slot on the ban list that serves no real purpose.
And, just for the record, I very much would like to play Coalition Victory "fairly", in a theme deck. It's a Weatherlight-inspired deck where all the creatures are the crew members (like Gerrard Capashen, etc.), the artifacts and enchantments are parts of the Legacy (like Heart of Ramos, etc.), and all the spells relate to the Weatherlight in some way (like Sift, with the picture and flavor text on it, etc.). The General of the deck is, of course, Legacy Weapon. And before someone goes "well you're already house-ruling your general, why not house rule CV too?" and the answer is it's way, way easier to show someone my General before we start and explain it's a silly theme deck than it is to ALSO explain that I'm playing banned cards in 99. Doubly true if I were to forget to explain CV beforehand and spring it in the middle of a game. That's how you get the feelbads.
I know it was already pointed out above with General Tazri as an example, but I just wanted to provide another counter-point to the "can't be used fairly" argument that apparently matters way more to people than I thought it did. And, also, I just like talking about a sweet theme deck. If Coalition Victory-ing with the entirety of the Legacy in play isn't within the spirit of EDH, why am I even playing?
It doesn't "Win or do nothing" right on the spot. It's a thing you can pump mana in and is telegraphed. It can be cast and then sit on the battlefield for a while before eventually winning (thus doing something; that is mana getting pumped into it) which Coalition Victory cannot say.
And CV is telegraphed by the fact that you need 3WUBRG, 5 colors worth of creatures and 5 basic land types.
Wow am I glad I don't play with you. Someone explicitly tells you they don't run a certain combo but you still gang up of them anyways because they might be lying to you?
Aside from the fact that it needs 101 mana, is a telegraphed play and needs to see your upkeep before it wins? See, that's the thing with a lot of the other instant wincons. They require a lot more work to be put into them. Someone slapping down a Helix Pinnacle will be kept in check throughout the game and likely kicked out of it before he can hit his 100 mana. If someone can pump in that 100 mana in one go, then wow, you sure you couldn't have won in an easier way? So yeah, it's vastly different.
So the fact that Helix Pinnacle either wins or does nothing doesn't bother you?
A Coalition Victory is NOT a haymaker. It's a KO or a total miss, no distinction. There is, again, literally not one single card that mimics this. 5color has more routes to victory sure but if the game drags on a bit longer, tutor into CVictory will be the best play a LOT of times.
It will be the best play only if you intentionally avoided putting in any of the numerous better options. You seem to be really hung up on the high variance between winning or doing nothing. Like... what do you think about Helix Pinnacle? It does actual nothing until it wins you the game. How is that any different?
Ok, I cast T&N, grab Mike and Trike. Did T&N end the game, or did Mike and Trike win the game? The answer would be the same if I hard cast Mike and Trike, no?
I'm just going to quote myself from earlier in the thread:
Channel isn't the problem, it was the Fireball that killed them.
Like seriously, you understand why this line of reasoning is ridiculous, right? "Moxen are fine, they don't do anything by themselves." "Black Lotus? It doesn't even win the game." Etc. Just because it is not the thing literally killing you doesn't mean it didn't win you the game.
Like I said earlier, CV can be slotted into Reaper King Beebles-Tribal. Fun premise, sure, until CV is cast. Its simple, CV ruins games. Its "If I cast this spell, I win", rather than "If I cast this, put these things into my hand/into play, then do X, Y, and Z, I win.", something Impossible can't seem to wrap his/her head around.
Is "X, Y, and Z" a demonstration of a game-winning loop? Because that appears to be the only difference between a CV win and a T&N Mike&Trike win.
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.
Okay, I'll admit I was being a bit of an ass earlier when I sarcastically said "I don't follow," but now I am legitimately flabbergasted. T&N isn't a problem because it's not literally what kills you? Is that the point you're getting at?
This leads to every 5 color deck (Aside from Tazri, before someone goes to nitpick again) to simply have an unparraleled iWin button in their deck. Even if they don't build with CVictory in mind, it will always win them the game if they need it, and guess what? They too have all the tutors ever. So if a game goes into a stalemate, they don't need to fish up a combo. Just CVictory and job's done. Every other combo just has a lot more interaction options.
You make it sound like CV is literally the only way decks have to win aside from turning Craw Wurms sideways. In no way, shape, or form is CV an "unparraleled iWin [sic] button". It's a moderately powerful haymaker that is going to do actual nothing a significant amount of the time, placing it far, far down the list of combos people will use to actually win games.
My Toyota is just like a Lamborghini, if I just swap the engine increase the aero dynamics and put in leather seats. Come on man, you're obviously an intelligent fellow, how you can't see the glaring difference is baffling.
When everyone else is riding bicycles, the differences between a Toyota and a Lambo are fairly irrelevant.
Hard to see what this adds to the current conversation, but, hey, not every point can be logical I guess.
I guess that there are those who prefer to ride their bicycles and not be blown off the road by anything but another bicycle, which, you know, is probably the vast majority of the EDH community.
And yet, look at allthesecarsthatarestilllegal. Don't worry though, the Lambo is banned. Everything is all hunky dory!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Second, "just house rule it" is a pretty terrible argument. Regardless of the RC's intentions, people play the ban list. Period. Unless you have a strong, established play group, it is simply unfeasible to use house rules. Too many people switching in and out of the group. Too long before every game spent explaining that you're playing with banned cards. Too long arguing about why we allow some banned cards but not others. So on and so forth. Not to mention the same argument could be made in the other direction; if you don't like it being legal just house rule it. The whole idea is just a mess, and just saying "house rule" is not a sufficient answer.
Could we work around it with a house rule? Probably. Would it be worth it? Almost certainly not. None of that changes the underlying fact that, in the interest of maintaining as small a ban list as possible, Coalition Victory doesn't deserve to be banned. It is fundamentally no different from any number of cards that are currently legal.
P.S. The commander is Legacy Weapon. It already cannot possibly fulfill the creature requirement of Coalition Victory for multiple reasons, mainly being neither a creature nor 5-colors.
At some point we have to trust that "casuals" (I don't particularly like that word but it seems to be the terminology we're using) who want to enjoy games of EDH are going to build according to the 'spirit of the format', so they're not going to play it. Conversely, Spikes gonna Spike, and CV is woefully under-powered in that department, so they're not going to play it either. Maybe a semi-casual/semi-competitive group could have trouble with it, but a CV attempt has roughly the same interaction points as many of the most common game-winning combos that will pop up in a group like that anyways (T&N combos, Palinchron combos, General-centric combos, etc): counterspells, instant speed creature removal/bounce, and, land destruction.
So who exactly are we trying to prevent from playing CV? It's a slot on the ban list that serves no real purpose.
And, just for the record, I very much would like to play Coalition Victory "fairly", in a theme deck. It's a Weatherlight-inspired deck where all the creatures are the crew members (like Gerrard Capashen, etc.), the artifacts and enchantments are parts of the Legacy (like Heart of Ramos, etc.), and all the spells relate to the Weatherlight in some way (like Sift, with the picture and flavor text on it, etc.). The General of the deck is, of course, Legacy Weapon. And before someone goes "well you're already house-ruling your general, why not house rule CV too?" and the answer is it's way, way easier to show someone my General before we start and explain it's a silly theme deck than it is to ALSO explain that I'm playing banned cards in 99. Doubly true if I were to forget to explain CV beforehand and spring it in the middle of a game. That's how you get the feelbads.
I know it was already pointed out above with General Tazri as an example, but I just wanted to provide another counter-point to the "can't be used fairly" argument that apparently matters way more to people than I thought it did. And, also, I just like talking about a sweet theme deck. If Coalition Victory-ing with the entirety of the Legacy in play isn't within the spirit of EDH, why am I even playing?
Wow am I glad I don't play with you. Someone explicitly tells you they don't run a certain combo but you still gang up of them anyways because they might be lying to you?
You make it sound like CV is literally the only way decks have to win aside from turning Craw Wurms sideways. In no way, shape, or form is CV an "unparraleled iWin [sic] button". It's a moderately powerful haymaker that is going to do actual nothing a significant amount of the time, placing it far, far down the list of combos people will use to actually win games.