And again people are ignoring the fact that Coalition Victory is the only card that always ends the game on the spot unless its get countered, which is something no other card can claim a 100% rate to. Even Tooth and Nail isn't always iWin because some people build their decks to be high value without instant iWin buttons (Such as yours truly) leaving T&N to still be a very high-powered play, but not an instant win. Coalition Victory is literally nothing but an iWin button. All the other cards named here have either a need for further setup, the deck being built in a special way or can be interacted with in more ways.
Lou, the reason why the opposition is ignoring this fact is because they don't perceive Coalition Victory as being any different than other haymakers already legal in the format. They think it's just as bad, not worse. To them, instantly winning the game in text is no different than instantly winning the game in application. They also, for reasons I don't understand, seem to not care that Coalition Victory has no fair application where cards like Tooth and Nail do. They understand that banning all haymakers is unreasonable though, so they've taken a stance that all haymakers (and they believe Coalition Victory is one) should be legal.
You want me to honestly believe its fine to have a "I win " card on the banlist but ignore the dozen others that are free to be used? Like how about a Hive Mind into a Pact of the Titan, if my opponent's cannot produce red mana, they lose.
The thing about that logic, that CV is banned because it's a Sorcery that says "Win the game", is that there are plenty of other cards legal in the format that, implicitly, deliver the same sort of ultimatum of "Respond to my spell with Instant-speed interaction or lose". Tooth and Nail, Enter the Infinite, Rise of the Dark Realms, etc. And those don't require any sort of prior board presence.
People say Tooth and Nail can be use in fair ways... I mean get a grip guys. You're choosing to belittle your mates, or playing around with them when you're using it "fairly". If you choose to play it fairly, why not omit it altogether?
But if an obnoxious card like T&N is gonna run rampant, I don't see why CV shouldn't. Anyways, whenever people play insta-win cards like these, the rest can always ignore the fella and continue their game. It's social education. Only playgroups who wanna combo will use this anyway. They're looking for quickies, probably coz they can't last.
Enter the infinite is a good comparison card I think, when was the last time someone ran enter the infinite to be fair? Is it even possible? Coalition victory is the same way.
If I understand you correctly and everything I've said thus far accurately represents what you believe, what I don't understand is why you would believe something like Game Two? would deserve being banned. Is it only because I costed the card at 2W instead of something like 4WW, or 8UUUU, or 3WUBRG? Is the only source of our disagreement just how severe Coalition Victory is in contrast to other haymakers?
Apparently. Judging from how WotC costs cards, anything at ~8+ should probably be winning the game anyways, in fact if not in text. So that's the obvious break point. So a 5WUBRG spell that just said "Win the game no questions asked" would probably be fine. And 3WUBRG with the creature+land requirement is also fine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
If we move on to "players aren't going to use card X that way", then tooth and nail 100% meets all criteria to be banned, and the banlist is inconsistent. I never see tooth and nail used for anything other than ending, at minimum, one player.
If that's your experience, I can totally see why you believe that. In my meta, Tooth and Nail is never anything more than two haymakers. It's incredibly powerful, but never game ending where I play cards.
If tooth and nail can have fair use, then coalition victory can have fair use.
"I only have basic lands, no land search, and mono colored creatures in my deck"
Fair use is more about the way players actually use cards in practice than the literal interpretation of "is it possible to use this without concern?" Take a Haakon, Stromgald Scourge deck with 98 Swamps and a Yawgmoth's Bargain for example. Is Yawgmoth's Bargain "fair" in that deck? Sure. It isn't going to cause any problems in a deck like that, but players aren't going to play with Yawgmoth's Bargain that way. Coalition Victory is just like that. Sure, players could build their decks in such a way that Coalition Victory actually became an impressive feat to win with, but players aren't going to play the card in the way you describe, especially since the inclusion of Coalition Victory in one's deck mandates a five color creature in the command zone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
The thing about that logic, that CV is banned because it's a Sorcery that says "Win the game", is that there are plenty of other cards legal in the format that, implicitly, deliver the same sort of ultimatum of "Respond to my spell with Instant-speed interaction or lose". Tooth and Nail, Enter the Infinite, Rise of the Dark Realms, etc. And those don't require any sort of prior board presence.
You're right about that, but Coalition Victory isn't banned for one reason alone. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm just kind of repeating myself at this point. Here are the reasons I previously identified as to why Coalition Victory is uniquely problematic:
As I mentioned previously, I believe Coalition Victory is unique in that it is one of the only Magic cards which satisfies each of the following criteria:
Being a sorcery falls into category 1, being difficult to interact with. I think you could make a good argument for Enter the Infinite also meeting each of those criteria, but not Tooth and Nail or Rise of the Dark Realms.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Would anyone's opinion about coalition victory change if it was errata'ed to the basic land and requirement that gold creatures don't count for the condition?
In other words, dual lands don't work for the land condition.
Possibly. I mean, there's a point at which the conditions become so difficult that, despite Coalition Victory's design flaws, it no longer really becomes a problem. Would that errata bring about those circumstances? I'm not sure. The biggest issue with Coalition Victory isn't the fact that it's easy to do (although that's a problem too), it's the fact that it's a sorcery. Someone either casts it and wins the game or doesn't because someone blew up one of their creatures in response. Now, if Coalition Victory were an enchantment that checked for victory conditions on upkeep like Test of Endurance, then everything would be peachy; no errata necessary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
So, in 2 days, there are zero stories about anyone ever seeing Coalition Victory, Worldfire, or Sway of the Stars actually being played? I think that's a big blow to the usefulness of their bans. Now, here, we don't really ban stuff and there have been a couple discussions about Worldfire and Sway over the last 8 years, but they haven't actually made it into any decks for basically the reasons I've mentioned over the course of serveral threads. I actually have a feeling that the overall feelbads in the format would go down unbanning all 3 and banning some actually played card like Winter Orb or Armageddon. I don't think they need to be banned. I just don't see the point in banning stuff that will pretty much never actually see play. I'm sure Biorhythm can go on the list of wouldn't be played anyway, as well. I haven't even ever seen one in person and never heard about it other than discussions to unban it. I'm sure they were probably only banned because of casual leagues where people ran them to try and find the best win condition you couldn't write a league rule against without effectively banning a large swath of cards. That seems like something that could be accomplished with a houserule ban considering they'd probably never even be played outside of super casual leagues with a bunch of rules to try and police fun sucking. Of course, the 2 shops I've seen it tried, ended up with unweildly banned lists anyway trying to reign in the win at all costs players.
There's a player at my LGS who is absolutely in love with it. I don't know if he has a favorite card in Magic, but if I had to guess, it would be Worldfire. He is utterly obsessed with it. The banned list is literally the only thing keeping him from jamming it into every single one of his decks. I'm completely seriously. He's even told us before that he doesn't even care that it's banned; he's going to put it into some of his decks anyway despite the fact that everyone has repeated told him not to do so and that they despise the card. He still doesn't care; he's going to do it anyway, and while I've never actually caught him in the act, it wouldn't surprise me if someone else at my LGS has had a Worldfire sprung up on them by now.
Let me say this: there are players out there who absolutely do not give a damn about whether or not you like the cards in their deck. As long as the card is legal, they believe it's fair for them to include it into their deck no matter how much you disagree. The banned list is the one and only thing keeping these kinds of players in check. And he isn't a bad guy either! I'm not about to begin boycotting games against him because he has this one immensely irritating fascination with Worldfire. That's just petty, and the idea that playgroups can self regulate their players only holds true to a certain extent. Players might discuss about how they feel about Worldfire or Coalition Victory once a game is over with, but as long as its owner enjoys the card, that's it. They're the only person capable of making changes to their deck. If nobody else likes it, tough nuts.
Also, **** Worldfire. Like, seriously. If I had to create my own Commander banned list from scratch, Worldfire would probably be THE first card on the list, if not the top three.
If I understand you correctly and everything I've said thus far accurately represents what you believe, what I don't understand is why you would believe something like Game Two? would deserve being banned. Is it only because I costed the card at 2W instead of something like 4WW, or 8UUUU, or 3WUBRG? Is the only source of our disagreement just how severe Coalition Victory is in contrast to other haymakers?
Apparently. Judging from how WotC costs cards, anything at ~8+ should probably be winning the game anyways, in fact if not in text. So that's the obvious break point. So a 5WUBRG spell that just said "Win the game no questions asked" would probably be fine. And 3WUBRG with the creature+land requirement is also fine.
If that's the case, why not adopt my stance on the card?
I think you recognize that Coalition Victory isn't a card that's promoting positive games of Commander, especially for the target audience, the players who are much less enfranchised than we are. It's possible to still keep Coalition Victory out of peoples' hands while still maintaining a consistent banned list though. All that's necessary is to acknowledge that Coalition Victory is a more extreme card than a lot of its comparatives and much of that stems from the fact that Coalition Victory can't be used in ways that create positive game play.
Maybe the meta where you come from looks a lot different from mine and that's why you feel so strongly about the similarity between popular haymakers and Coalition Victory, but from where I play Commander, I see cards like Insurrection, Rise of the Dark Realms, and Tooth and Nail cast all the time without any issue. I wouldn't even describe them as having a negative effect on the game. They're often extremely powerful, but they aren't always used in a capacity to instantly end the game. They typically just promote the kinds of games that the community largely believes Commander should be about. We could debate a bit about which cards we believe stand out as exceptions that aren't banned, but if you evaluate Coalition Victory to be much more dire than its brethren, you really can have your cake and eat it too here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I agree with you that a number of cards in Commnder are capable of creating undesirable game states, and I also agree with you that the "interacts poorly in Commander" argument doesn't hold much weight. Do you agree that some cards are more severe than others? Like, do you believe that some cards are worse than others in terms of how negatively they affect a game? If so, to what severity do you believe a card would need to be in order to qualify as being ban-worthy?
Yes, different cards do different things to the game.
Do you believe something like this would be ban-worthy? I understand that Wizards would never print such a card, but hypothetically, what do you think
What? Yes. Obviously. It's a T2 win.
Thanks for responding. Honestly, I wasn't expecting you to answer that the way you did. I'm really having a hard time trying to reconcile everything you've said in order to understand your stance here.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my interpretation of your stance is that you believe Coalition Victory is no different than a slew of other cards like Insurrection, Palinchron, Tooth and Nail, and Felidar Sovereign. You believe Coalition Victory is a miserable card, but since the Rules Committee has already chosen to allow the aforementioned cards in Commander, it only makes sense to you that Coalition Victory also be unbanned to keep the banned list consistent. I'm also assuming you believe that Coalition Victory can't be banned because, in order for the Rules Committee to stay consistent, that would also mean having to ban Insurrection et al, and there are too many cards of that nature for that to be a realistic option, so you can't take the stance that all crazy haymakers be banned.
If I understand you correctly and everything I've said thus far accurately represents what you believe, what I don't understand is why you would believe something like Game Two? would deserve being banned. Is it only because I costed the card at 2W instead of something like 4WW, or 8UUUU, or 3WUBRG? Is the only source of our disagreement just how severe Coalition Victory is in contrast to other haymakers?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Simply repeating the criteria doesn't do anything to convince me otherwise. CV interacts exactly as poorly with the format as literally other any general-centric combo. 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.
I agree with you that a number of cards in Commnder are capable of creating undesirable game states, and I also agree with you that the "interacts poorly in Commander" argument doesn't hold much weight. Do you agree that some cards are more severe than others? Like, do you believe that some cards are worse than others in terms of how negatively they affect a game? If so, to what severity do you believe a card would need to be in order to qualify as being ban-worthy? For example...
Game Two?2W Sorcery
You win the game.
Do you believe something like this would be ban-worthy? I understand that Wizards would never print such a card, but hypothetically, what do you think?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
EDIT: I do find it slightly funny that one of the users arguing for it's unbanning already plays with their own group ban list as opposed to the current one.
I'm not following. Are you implying that said individual isn't qualified to argue for Coalition Victory's unbanning because of this, or are you trying to express something else?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Tooth and nail was designed for a format where reaching it's entwined conditions was meant to be a challenge. It is not a challenge in edh.
Same with all the big mana haymaker game enders.
While I disagree with Carthage's stance on Coalition Victory, I think he has a good point here. For most of Magic's history, cards weren't designed with Commander in mind because Commander had yet to even be conceived as a format, let alone popularized. As such, there are a large number of cards that don't play in Commander the same way they were intended for heads up Magic. Heck, Wizards continues to print cards that play differently in Commander than in heads up to this day, though they're certainly more cognizant about the repercussions of doing so than ever before.
This may sound odd, but I don't see how Coalition Victory interacts poorly in Commander any more so than, say, Wrath of God. Wrath of God is a legal card, and it isn't very problematic, but I do believe it interacts poorly in Commander (Well, I suppose multiplayer specifically). Yes, Coalition Victory does suffer from the fact that the creature condition is extremely easy to meet, but that condition, the condition of being better in Commander than usual a la Serra Ascendant, should not be the condition by which cards are banned or not, at least not solely. In my eyes, the reason why Coalition Victory deserves its place on the banned list is because it's a miserable, fun-sucking card. It's hard to interact with, and it brings the game to an abrupt, unsatisfying end. There are lots of cards with the potential to do this in Commander, everyone is well aware of that, but I believe most important that Coalition Victory has absolutely zero potential to be used in fair and interesting ways. It's crime is that it's one of the lamest cards ever and that it's always going to be a lame card regardless of what deck it's in. In Commander, it's just easier to be lame.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Its obviously unreasonable for me to preemptively play around Curiosity all the time as at any time I could lose the game provided I don't have a reactive solution. I'm also not always going to having akin to Tectonic Edge to keep them off certain lands.
Oh what is this honestly? You never used Nevermore because you suspected or know what your opponent is packing? "I name curiosity." Boom. Suddenly Nevermore was teched to stop a Niv-Mizzet from having the possibility of going off. I guess that's a pretty strong indicator that curiosity is a real problem if I had to tech a card for it.
Yes, that is a strong indicator that Curiosity is a problematic card when played in Niv-Mizzet.
Hmm countermagic can be done by all five colors. Blue is just the strongest and has the largest toolbox. Even green could counter a CV.
Okay, now I feel like you have no interest in listening to anything I have to say, so I'm stopping the conversation with you here. I want to be understood by you just like you want me to understand your thoughts. The attitude you're conveying here is argumentative and disrespectful. I am well aware that there is countermagic outside of blue, and you're aware that it's also virtually nonexistent. My intentions are only to demonstrate why I believe Coalition Victory is qualified as a banned card, not to start petty squabbles.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
People say Tooth and Nail can be use in fair ways... I mean get a grip guys. You're choosing to belittle your mates, or playing around with them when you're using it "fairly". If you choose to play it fairly, why not omit it altogether?
I don't see anything wrong with casting Tooth and Nail as some kind of value card that puts two fatties into play. I agree that it would be silly to not try and win the game with a resolved Tooth and Nail if a player's deck had the cards inside of it to do so, but not every player will deliberately put game ending combos into their deck that Tooth and Nail can tutor out. Playing with suboptimal cards in Commander doesn't strike me as belittling to opponents.
But if an obnoxious card like T&N is gonna run rampant, I don't see why CV shouldn't. Anyways, whenever people play insta-win cards like these, the rest can always ignore the fella and continue their game. It's social education. Only playgroups who wanna combo will use this anyway. They're looking for quickies, probably coz they can't last.
Maybe you've had a lot more negative experiences with Tooth and Nail than I have. I've played several games where opponents cast a Tooth and Nail against me, and it was fine. It wasn't an obnoxious card. Are your local players always using it as a way to immediately end the game? I can see why you would feel the way you do if Tooth and Nail literally was just Coalition Victory every time one of your opponents cast it. That hasn't been my experience though.
Difficult to interact with? Alright, I will bite. What is your creature removal like? They can have the lands, but if you deny their creatures you stop Coalition Victory in its tracks. In fact if you kill-off/bounce-out/exile-away one of their key creatures during the cast of the spell, before it resolves, the spell fizzles. If a player is pulling those shenanigans, I might be tempted to slot in things like Declaration of Naught, Nevermore, Meddling Mage and Voidstone Gargoyle. Land destruction is a viable tactic but in the politicking area of the game, that is like painting a target on your head if you are trigger happy. Sniping a Temple Garden while the spell hasn't resolved can be just as strong as countering the CV in this case as again it fizzles due to insufficient requirements. I fail to see how it is difficult to interact with. Every color can force a fizzle without even a counterspell being slung.
You're right in that every color has ways of disrupting Coalition Victory both preemptively and while it's on the stack, but I don't believe that makes it easy to interact with. I mean, in Magic it's possible to do practically anything. There are always going to be solutions to problematic cards. Whether or not it's reasonable to expect players to have those answers is another thing entirely.
To start, I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect players to be able to preemptively play around Coalition Victory at all times. Any time opponents can't preemptively stop a possible Coalition Victory, they could lose the game provided they also don't have a reactive solution. Players aren't always going to have a removal spell for a five color Commander turn after turn, and players aren't always going to have something akin to Dust Bowl in play either to keep that player off certain land types. Deliberately teching in specific hate cards like Nevermore into one's deck for the sole purpose of resisting a metagame with Coalition Victory also seems like further evidence for why Coalition Victory should stay banned. Nevermore is a really narrow card in Commander. It can answer just about any spell, but the player using Nevermore has to already have prerequisite knowledge of what the spell is they want to prevent. Aside from commanders, that isn't likely. If someone has to go to the extent of playing something so narrow just to shut out Coalition Victory, that's a pretty strong indicator that Coalition Victory would be a problem.
I believe it's more reasonable to expect players to reactively play around Coalition Victory, but that's difficult as well. The only opportunity players have to do that is while Coalition Victory is on the stack. That leaves them with three options. Players can destroy lands in response, destroy creatures in response, or counter the spell outright. I'm going to omit countermagic as a realistic solution since only one out of five colors really only has access to it and since it's also a solution to basically everything. That leaves destroying lands and creatures. For the most part, instant speed land destruction isn't a thing. Off the top of my head, there's Volcanic Offering, but not much else. It's possible to destroy lands at instant speed with other lands like Strip Mine and Wasteland, but it's also unreasonable to expect someone to cast a Coalition Victory while there's an untapped Strip Mine on the table. That's just not going to happen. That really only leaves players with instant speed ways to get rid of creatures. I think this is the most practical way of disrupting a Coalition Victory, but there's still a lot of conditions that go into it, and spot removal only does the job if there aren't already more creatures of each color on the battlefield.
Each of these combos require wildly different levels of setup. Demonic Pact has to stay on the battlefield for several turns before it promises to kill the single player it's donated to. That's two cards, neither of which are a commander. Hive Mind and any Pact are similar. It costs two non-commander cards, but doesn't take nearly as long to setup and can slay multiple opponents at once provided they can't pay the cost. Niv-Mizzet + Curiosity is definitely the easiest of the bunch to set up. With Niv-Mizzet as someone's Commander, it only costs a single one mana spell to enable. That's even easier than Coalition Victory to assemble, but that doesn't mean Coalition Victory isn't a trivial card to set up either, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Putting lands onto the battlefield, getting to eight mana, and casting one's Commander are some of the most effortless prerequisites for assembling a one card win since all of those are things that a player is naturally going to do during the course of a game of Commander. Getting the right land cards is definitely the trickiest part, but with the plethora of fetches, duals, and other basic land tutors like Cultivate available, that still isn't anywhere remotely challenging.
Wins the game once resolved? I reiterate my previous points during the "Difficult to Interact With" part and how easy it is to force a fizzle. Also absolute lies. Platinum Angel with a Vedalken Orrery, Winding Canyons, Leyline of Anticipation or Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir can become suddenly that silver bullet tech for such a deck. A second silver bullet that seems to go overlooked is Angel's Grace. The metas would change and adapt and those who refuse to adapt get left in the dust.
Yes, there will always be answers to any problem in Magic. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect players to have them in a non-competitive format. If flashing in a Platinum Angel is your defense for how "easy" it is to fizzle a Coalition Victory, I really don't know what else to say. That's about the most unrealistic way imaginable to defend oneself against Coalition Victory.
No potential for fair use? Lots of cards could be used fairly, but get abused instead. Its basically like pulling your punches in order to soften your blows. How about wrath effects like wrath of god? By itself nice little board resets, but what if you or your opponent had threats that survived somehow? Its suddenly unfair, right? The spell was abused to further someone's advantage and bring them closer to a victory.
Palinchron is about as fair as Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary. That is to say, both are routinely abused and with just a second card can get out of hand with little trouble.
I think we might have different interpretations as to what it means for a card to have fair use. The idea I'm trying to convey is that unlike some cards, Coalition Victory has no interesting application beyond immediately winning the game. It can't be played in different decks to different degrees of effectiveness. It will just always win the game regardless of what deck it's in unless somehow stopped. A card like Tooth and Nail has different applications. While it can win the game outright if put into a certain shell, it also has the potential to not do so. It can be strong, or weak, or anywhere in between. The way a player uses Tooth and Nail is what creates the potential for fair use. With Coalition Victory, there is no way for players to use it differently.
But you can, and that is all that matters at this borderline. The same way Tooth and Nail can be used to search for fun things instead of combos but "no one (I don't mean that literally)" does that (well, technically more people still do that with Tooth and Nail then people casting Palinchron as a blocker).
See, I disagree with this perspective. I believe the way players actually play with their cards should be the measure for whether or not a card can actually be used fairly. If a card "technically" has other fair uses, but the playerbase at large isn't using a card in those ways, the fact that it can be used fairly is moot. This is exactly why Tooth and Nail isn't a problem. Even though Tooth and Nail always has the potential to immediately end whatever game it's cast in, Commander players don't always choose to play it that way in practice, and that makes it okay. If all Tooth and Nail players were to suddenly have a change of heart though and began using it exclusively to find MikeTrike combos, then it would be a problem.
We do agree that this isn't the sole reason Coalition Victory deserves to stay banned though. As I mentioned previously, I believe Coalition Victory is unique in that it is one of the only Magic cards which satisfies each of the following criteria:
You'd be hard pressed to find another unbanned card in Commander that does each of those things. Palinchron is probably one of the closest, but it does require some kind of setup. It doesn't go infinite on its own, and even if it does generate infinite mana, that isn't game ending if said player can't use the mana generated with it in a productive way. The same thing can't be said for Coalition Victory.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Lou, the reason why the opposition is ignoring this fact is because they don't perceive Coalition Victory as being any different than other haymakers already legal in the format. They think it's just as bad, not worse. To them, instantly winning the game in text is no different than instantly winning the game in application. They also, for reasons I don't understand, seem to not care that Coalition Victory has no fair application where cards like Tooth and Nail do. They understand that banning all haymakers is unreasonable though, so they've taken a stance that all haymakers (and they believe Coalition Victory is one) should be legal.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
If that's your experience, I can totally see why you believe that. In my meta, Tooth and Nail is never anything more than two haymakers. It's incredibly powerful, but never game ending where I play cards.
Touche.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Fair use is more about the way players actually use cards in practice than the literal interpretation of "is it possible to use this without concern?" Take a Haakon, Stromgald Scourge deck with 98 Swamps and a Yawgmoth's Bargain for example. Is Yawgmoth's Bargain "fair" in that deck? Sure. It isn't going to cause any problems in a deck like that, but players aren't going to play with Yawgmoth's Bargain that way. Coalition Victory is just like that. Sure, players could build their decks in such a way that Coalition Victory actually became an impressive feat to win with, but players aren't going to play the card in the way you describe, especially since the inclusion of Coalition Victory in one's deck mandates a five color creature in the command zone.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
You're right about that, but Coalition Victory isn't banned for one reason alone. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm just kind of repeating myself at this point. Here are the reasons I previously identified as to why Coalition Victory is uniquely problematic:
Being a sorcery falls into category 1, being difficult to interact with. I think you could make a good argument for Enter the Infinite also meeting each of those criteria, but not Tooth and Nail or Rise of the Dark Realms.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Possibly. I mean, there's a point at which the conditions become so difficult that, despite Coalition Victory's design flaws, it no longer really becomes a problem. Would that errata bring about those circumstances? I'm not sure. The biggest issue with Coalition Victory isn't the fact that it's easy to do (although that's a problem too), it's the fact that it's a sorcery. Someone either casts it and wins the game or doesn't because someone blew up one of their creatures in response. Now, if Coalition Victory were an enchantment that checked for victory conditions on upkeep like Test of Endurance, then everything would be peachy; no errata necessary.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I've got a story about Worldfire.
There's a player at my LGS who is absolutely in love with it. I don't know if he has a favorite card in Magic, but if I had to guess, it would be Worldfire. He is utterly obsessed with it. The banned list is literally the only thing keeping him from jamming it into every single one of his decks. I'm completely seriously. He's even told us before that he doesn't even care that it's banned; he's going to put it into some of his decks anyway despite the fact that everyone has repeated told him not to do so and that they despise the card. He still doesn't care; he's going to do it anyway, and while I've never actually caught him in the act, it wouldn't surprise me if someone else at my LGS has had a Worldfire sprung up on them by now.
Let me say this: there are players out there who absolutely do not give a damn about whether or not you like the cards in their deck. As long as the card is legal, they believe it's fair for them to include it into their deck no matter how much you disagree. The banned list is the one and only thing keeping these kinds of players in check. And he isn't a bad guy either! I'm not about to begin boycotting games against him because he has this one immensely irritating fascination with Worldfire. That's just petty, and the idea that playgroups can self regulate their players only holds true to a certain extent. Players might discuss about how they feel about Worldfire or Coalition Victory once a game is over with, but as long as its owner enjoys the card, that's it. They're the only person capable of making changes to their deck. If nobody else likes it, tough nuts.
Also, **** Worldfire. Like, seriously. If I had to create my own Commander banned list from scratch, Worldfire would probably be THE first card on the list, if not the top three.
EDIT: After some contemplation, I'd probably put Karakas, Channel, and Limited Resources above it, but Worldfire isn't far behind.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
If that's the case, why not adopt my stance on the card?
I think you recognize that Coalition Victory isn't a card that's promoting positive games of Commander, especially for the target audience, the players who are much less enfranchised than we are. It's possible to still keep Coalition Victory out of peoples' hands while still maintaining a consistent banned list though. All that's necessary is to acknowledge that Coalition Victory is a more extreme card than a lot of its comparatives and much of that stems from the fact that Coalition Victory can't be used in ways that create positive game play.
Maybe the meta where you come from looks a lot different from mine and that's why you feel so strongly about the similarity between popular haymakers and Coalition Victory, but from where I play Commander, I see cards like Insurrection, Rise of the Dark Realms, and Tooth and Nail cast all the time without any issue. I wouldn't even describe them as having a negative effect on the game. They're often extremely powerful, but they aren't always used in a capacity to instantly end the game. They typically just promote the kinds of games that the community largely believes Commander should be about. We could debate a bit about which cards we believe stand out as exceptions that aren't banned, but if you evaluate Coalition Victory to be much more dire than its brethren, you really can have your cake and eat it too here.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Thanks for responding. Honestly, I wasn't expecting you to answer that the way you did. I'm really having a hard time trying to reconcile everything you've said in order to understand your stance here.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my interpretation of your stance is that you believe Coalition Victory is no different than a slew of other cards like Insurrection, Palinchron, Tooth and Nail, and Felidar Sovereign. You believe Coalition Victory is a miserable card, but since the Rules Committee has already chosen to allow the aforementioned cards in Commander, it only makes sense to you that Coalition Victory also be unbanned to keep the banned list consistent. I'm also assuming you believe that Coalition Victory can't be banned because, in order for the Rules Committee to stay consistent, that would also mean having to ban Insurrection et al, and there are too many cards of that nature for that to be a realistic option, so you can't take the stance that all crazy haymakers be banned.
If I understand you correctly and everything I've said thus far accurately represents what you believe, what I don't understand is why you would believe something like Game Two? would deserve being banned. Is it only because I costed the card at 2W instead of something like 4WW, or 8UUUU, or 3WUBRG? Is the only source of our disagreement just how severe Coalition Victory is in contrast to other haymakers?
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Let's set Coalition Victory aside for a second.
I agree with you that a number of cards in Commnder are capable of creating undesirable game states, and I also agree with you that the "interacts poorly in Commander" argument doesn't hold much weight. Do you agree that some cards are more severe than others? Like, do you believe that some cards are worse than others in terms of how negatively they affect a game? If so, to what severity do you believe a card would need to be in order to qualify as being ban-worthy? For example...
Game Two? 2W
Sorcery
You win the game.
Do you believe something like this would be ban-worthy? I understand that Wizards would never print such a card, but hypothetically, what do you think?
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I'm not following. Are you implying that said individual isn't qualified to argue for Coalition Victory's unbanning because of this, or are you trying to express something else?
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Child of Alara isn't much better.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
While I disagree with Carthage's stance on Coalition Victory, I think he has a good point here. For most of Magic's history, cards weren't designed with Commander in mind because Commander had yet to even be conceived as a format, let alone popularized. As such, there are a large number of cards that don't play in Commander the same way they were intended for heads up Magic. Heck, Wizards continues to print cards that play differently in Commander than in heads up to this day, though they're certainly more cognizant about the repercussions of doing so than ever before.
This may sound odd, but I don't see how Coalition Victory interacts poorly in Commander any more so than, say, Wrath of God. Wrath of God is a legal card, and it isn't very problematic, but I do believe it interacts poorly in Commander (Well, I suppose multiplayer specifically). Yes, Coalition Victory does suffer from the fact that the creature condition is extremely easy to meet, but that condition, the condition of being better in Commander than usual a la Serra Ascendant, should not be the condition by which cards are banned or not, at least not solely. In my eyes, the reason why Coalition Victory deserves its place on the banned list is because it's a miserable, fun-sucking card. It's hard to interact with, and it brings the game to an abrupt, unsatisfying end. There are lots of cards with the potential to do this in Commander, everyone is well aware of that, but I believe most important that Coalition Victory has absolutely zero potential to be used in fair and interesting ways. It's crime is that it's one of the lamest cards ever and that it's always going to be a lame card regardless of what deck it's in. In Commander, it's just easier to be lame.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Yes...? I'm not following you here.
Yes, that is a strong indicator that Curiosity is a problematic card when played in Niv-Mizzet.
Okay, now I feel like you have no interest in listening to anything I have to say, so I'm stopping the conversation with you here. I want to be understood by you just like you want me to understand your thoughts. The attitude you're conveying here is argumentative and disrespectful. I am well aware that there is countermagic outside of blue, and you're aware that it's also virtually nonexistent. My intentions are only to demonstrate why I believe Coalition Victory is qualified as a banned card, not to start petty squabbles.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I don't see anything wrong with casting Tooth and Nail as some kind of value card that puts two fatties into play. I agree that it would be silly to not try and win the game with a resolved Tooth and Nail if a player's deck had the cards inside of it to do so, but not every player will deliberately put game ending combos into their deck that Tooth and Nail can tutor out. Playing with suboptimal cards in Commander doesn't strike me as belittling to opponents.
Maybe you've had a lot more negative experiences with Tooth and Nail than I have. I've played several games where opponents cast a Tooth and Nail against me, and it was fine. It wasn't an obnoxious card. Are your local players always using it as a way to immediately end the game? I can see why you would feel the way you do if Tooth and Nail literally was just Coalition Victory every time one of your opponents cast it. That hasn't been my experience though.
You're right in that every color has ways of disrupting Coalition Victory both preemptively and while it's on the stack, but I don't believe that makes it easy to interact with. I mean, in Magic it's possible to do practically anything. There are always going to be solutions to problematic cards. Whether or not it's reasonable to expect players to have those answers is another thing entirely.
To start, I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect players to be able to preemptively play around Coalition Victory at all times. Any time opponents can't preemptively stop a possible Coalition Victory, they could lose the game provided they also don't have a reactive solution. Players aren't always going to have a removal spell for a five color Commander turn after turn, and players aren't always going to have something akin to Dust Bowl in play either to keep that player off certain land types. Deliberately teching in specific hate cards like Nevermore into one's deck for the sole purpose of resisting a metagame with Coalition Victory also seems like further evidence for why Coalition Victory should stay banned. Nevermore is a really narrow card in Commander. It can answer just about any spell, but the player using Nevermore has to already have prerequisite knowledge of what the spell is they want to prevent. Aside from commanders, that isn't likely. If someone has to go to the extent of playing something so narrow just to shut out Coalition Victory, that's a pretty strong indicator that Coalition Victory would be a problem.
I believe it's more reasonable to expect players to reactively play around Coalition Victory, but that's difficult as well. The only opportunity players have to do that is while Coalition Victory is on the stack. That leaves them with three options. Players can destroy lands in response, destroy creatures in response, or counter the spell outright. I'm going to omit countermagic as a realistic solution since only one out of five colors really only has access to it and since it's also a solution to basically everything. That leaves destroying lands and creatures. For the most part, instant speed land destruction isn't a thing. Off the top of my head, there's Volcanic Offering, but not much else. It's possible to destroy lands at instant speed with other lands like Strip Mine and Wasteland, but it's also unreasonable to expect someone to cast a Coalition Victory while there's an untapped Strip Mine on the table. That's just not going to happen. That really only leaves players with instant speed ways to get rid of creatures. I think this is the most practical way of disrupting a Coalition Victory, but there's still a lot of conditions that go into it, and spot removal only does the job if there aren't already more creatures of each color on the battlefield.
Each of these combos require wildly different levels of setup. Demonic Pact has to stay on the battlefield for several turns before it promises to kill the single player it's donated to. That's two cards, neither of which are a commander. Hive Mind and any Pact are similar. It costs two non-commander cards, but doesn't take nearly as long to setup and can slay multiple opponents at once provided they can't pay the cost. Niv-Mizzet + Curiosity is definitely the easiest of the bunch to set up. With Niv-Mizzet as someone's Commander, it only costs a single one mana spell to enable. That's even easier than Coalition Victory to assemble, but that doesn't mean Coalition Victory isn't a trivial card to set up either, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Putting lands onto the battlefield, getting to eight mana, and casting one's Commander are some of the most effortless prerequisites for assembling a one card win since all of those are things that a player is naturally going to do during the course of a game of Commander. Getting the right land cards is definitely the trickiest part, but with the plethora of fetches, duals, and other basic land tutors like Cultivate available, that still isn't anywhere remotely challenging.
Yes, there will always be answers to any problem in Magic. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect players to have them in a non-competitive format. If flashing in a Platinum Angel is your defense for how "easy" it is to fizzle a Coalition Victory, I really don't know what else to say. That's about the most unrealistic way imaginable to defend oneself against Coalition Victory.
I think we might have different interpretations as to what it means for a card to have fair use. The idea I'm trying to convey is that unlike some cards, Coalition Victory has no interesting application beyond immediately winning the game. It can't be played in different decks to different degrees of effectiveness. It will just always win the game regardless of what deck it's in unless somehow stopped. A card like Tooth and Nail has different applications. While it can win the game outright if put into a certain shell, it also has the potential to not do so. It can be strong, or weak, or anywhere in between. The way a player uses Tooth and Nail is what creates the potential for fair use. With Coalition Victory, there is no way for players to use it differently.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
See, I disagree with this perspective. I believe the way players actually play with their cards should be the measure for whether or not a card can actually be used fairly. If a card "technically" has other fair uses, but the playerbase at large isn't using a card in those ways, the fact that it can be used fairly is moot. This is exactly why Tooth and Nail isn't a problem. Even though Tooth and Nail always has the potential to immediately end whatever game it's cast in, Commander players don't always choose to play it that way in practice, and that makes it okay. If all Tooth and Nail players were to suddenly have a change of heart though and began using it exclusively to find Mike Trike combos, then it would be a problem.
We do agree that this isn't the sole reason Coalition Victory deserves to stay banned though. As I mentioned previously, I believe Coalition Victory is unique in that it is one of the only Magic cards which satisfies each of the following criteria:
1. Coalition Victory is extremely difficult to interact with.
You'd be hard pressed to find another unbanned card in Commander that does each of those things. Palinchron is probably one of the closest, but it does require some kind of setup. It doesn't go infinite on its own, and even if it does generate infinite mana, that isn't game ending if said player can't use the mana generated with it in a productive way. The same thing can't be said for Coalition Victory.2. Coalition Victory requires virtually no setup.
3. Coalition Victory instantly wins the game once resolved.
4. Coalition Victory has no potential for fair use.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!