It's been emphasized quite enough at this point. What hasn't been mentioned is WHY that fact alone makes it ban worthy. Any 5-color deck can play it. So what?
Well as long as the ban list has been tracking changes it has been banned and there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to remove it. For a card to go on or come off the list the Rules Committee has demonstrated and said that there needs to be some compelling reason to do so, and as of yet I have not seen any good reason. Sure, "a smaller ban list" and "other cards can be played as essentially one card combos", as well as other arguments brought forth in this thread are all valid reasons, but no one has actually given a reason why it being legal would add something positive to the format. And if you're going to remove a card from the ban list that was at one point deemed bad enough to ban, there should be a benefit to the format as well. (I know someone will probably bring up Worldgorger Dragon or Lion's Eye Diamond getting unbanned which have next to zero benefit to the format, but those also don't continue to break one of the format philosophy criteria.)
I don't think custom ban list has anything to do with Coalition Victory. It's pretty obvious what it does. Meta argument would be more like Emrakul the Aeons Torn or something. Of course, I really doubt Laboratory Maniac ever gets cast when it won't win the game instantly for 2U. Otherwise, it's just a 2/2 that does nothing. Of course, it does require a deck built to abuse it, but if you would build a deck to play Coalition Victory, you'd probably play Maniac or any other instant win combo.
I've stepped back because it feels like we're talking in circles, but I'd just like to point out that the main argument against the card is that "building a deck to play Coalition Victory" is quite literally "playing a 5c deck". That is the major distinction the "keep it banned" side has been trying to emphasize which sets the cards apart from every other mentioned card in this thread.
I'm not going to lie. If CV were legal I would play under the assumption that it were in every five color deck and play appropriately. And if that means thingame like removing their land when given the opportunity or killing their general just because I can, I wouldn't feel bad about it.
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.
I'd be amiss if I didn't point out that right now a 13 mana card is banned in Standard.
However, I can see where you are coming from now. I disagree that it is the fault of the format and most especially any unique rule which makes getting 8+ mana less of a challenge because that requirement is met simply by having a game last 9 turns and make every land drop, a feat we see accomplished in most other formats.
I also get your point about haymakers, because the rules committee have themselves said haymaker spells like Tooth and Nail are supposed to have a large impact on the game.
You do understand that "interacting poorly with the format" has nothing to do with ending the game in a noninteractive way, right? The cards you listed function identically in EDH as they do in the format for which they were designed. Coalition Victory was designed for a format where achieving the specific condition was actually a challenge. The Commander Zone literally removes one of those challenges. If you are unwilling to accept this difference then there is no point continuing this debate because you are ignoring one of the ban criteria which straight from a rules committee member's mouth is given a lot of weight.
Impossible, you are again (along with others) focusing more on the fact that it's a combo card and less on the factop that it interacts poorly with the format while also being a very easy combo card to set up. You are also being disingenuous about how much setup is required. There are 5 new duals, 10 shocks, 5 reprint fetches, 5 slow fetches, 2 basic fetches, and a number of artifacts and land cycling cards. If you cannot meet the condition of "each basic lands type" by turn 8 (ignoring ramp) then you are probably very unlucky. Even playing only basic lands there are lots of cards to fix your mana. So I don't know why Prismatic Omen has to be a requirement for this combo. And there's what, one general you can run at the helm of a 5c deck that isn't naturally all five colors? So that condition is met as easily as saying "cast my general from the command zone?"
So by your own admission you agree that CV doesn't add anything to the format. Assuming you aren't choosing to ignore papa funk you know that CV interacts poorly in a manner which none of the cards you or anyone else listed. And you agree that it is a boring combo. So why unban it?
Let's not derail this into a Tooth and Nail debate (unless it is as a comparison to Coaltion Victory as initially brought up).
As for the idea of using a card "fairly", there is probably never going to be an agreement here. As Sheldon has often said before, he approaches the format with the "build casually, play competitively" mentality. Now I know that some people in here and in the past have argued this because it requires approaching the game from a less than 100% mindset, and there is a certain amount of truth there. There is also a certain degree of what "could happen" versus what "does happen" (for example T&N and Palinchron). Getting back on topic, papa funk already plainly stated that Coalition Victory fail the "interacts poorly with the format" test (whether or not people choose to agree with this) and that this criteria is given a significant amount of weight. He also said that beyond that it is just an instant "I win" card with no other purpose, and that gave the card even less reason to stay legal. Many users have pointed out other cards which can duplicate this effect under very specific circumstances, but if I correctly recall no one has yet to produce a card that can duplicate this effect with a non-specific general. Also, due to the conditions which must be met, the only way to "play around" this card is to assume that every five color deck will run it and at all times destroy their lands as needed, ensure their general does not stay in play, hold up a removal spell, hold up a counterspell, and/or run and hold up a "you can't lose the game effect". Some of these options have merit outside of CV, but the majority of them just read like the presence of one card forces you to hate on a player just for choosing a particular color set.
So for everyone who wants to unban this card, I ask you this: What does Coalition Victoryadd to the format?
All of that is true of Sliver Queen too until it drops Mana Echoes and makes infinite 1/1 slivers. I don't even like combo in commander and don't play it. My best commander combo ever was Basalt Monolith, Rings of Brighthearth, Comet Storm while Conflux was the only nonland tutor, so I couldn't even get 2/3 pieces. It's not hard to build a 5 color combo deck, though. Coalition Victory just literally has "win the game" written on it so people that have never seen the combo will know for sure the game is over without a demonstration/explanation.
What's your point? There are a number of of cards that go infinite with only a general, but that is ONE specific general. And you also do not think there is a difference between "I make a million bajillion tokens and pass turn in the hopes that no one board wipes before I can attack with them" and "this spell resolved and I just won the game"?
"Interacts poorly with the format" means that a card behaves differently due to the special rules of Commander. We have already seen this with Worldfire, a nine mana spell that requires no additional effort beyond having mana and access to your general - which is the exact same prerequisite as Coalition Victory. Do you have a bunch of mana? Do you have your general? Did the spell resolve? Congratulations, you just won the game.
There are currently 15 dual lands and 5 fast fetches that are relatively cheap. There are another 7 slow fetches that all tutor basic lands types into play. So the argument of requiring work to build a mana base which isn't very difficult or expensive. Nor is casting a creature which costs 5 mana.
And for the "not just going to throw it in" and "bad Tooth and Nail" comments, I ask why. It takes up exactly one slot in your deck and wins the game instantly. Tooth and Nail requires more mana and at a minimum two additional deck slots. So why would you choose to not run CV, or why.why would you choose to run TaN over CV?
Maybe I missed it, but has anyone addressed the fact that unlike "other combo cards", CV doesn't require any additional support? You could quite literally take any random card out of a 5C deck, replace it with CV, and you have a game winning "combo". This is the problem with the card. It's getting looked at as comparison to worse "I win" combo cards, but the real problem is that it interacts poorly with the format.
Well as long as the ban list has been tracking changes it has been banned and there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to remove it. For a card to go on or come off the list the Rules Committee has demonstrated and said that there needs to be some compelling reason to do so, and as of yet I have not seen any good reason. Sure, "a smaller ban list" and "other cards can be played as essentially one card combos", as well as other arguments brought forth in this thread are all valid reasons, but no one has actually given a reason why it being legal would add something positive to the format. And if you're going to remove a card from the ban list that was at one point deemed bad enough to ban, there should be a benefit to the format as well. (I know someone will probably bring up Worldgorger Dragon or Lion's Eye Diamond getting unbanned which have next to zero benefit to the format, but those also don't continue to break one of the format philosophy criteria.)
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I've stepped back because it feels like we're talking in circles, but I'd just like to point out that the main argument against the card is that "building a deck to play Coalition Victory" is quite literally "playing a 5c deck". That is the major distinction the "keep it banned" side has been trying to emphasize which sets the cards apart from every other mentioned card in this thread.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I'd be amiss if I didn't point out that right now a 13 mana card is banned in Standard.
However, I can see where you are coming from now. I disagree that it is the fault of the format and most especially any unique rule which makes getting 8+ mana less of a challenge because that requirement is met simply by having a game last 9 turns and make every land drop, a feat we see accomplished in most other formats.
I also get your point about haymakers, because the rules committee have themselves said haymaker spells like Tooth and Nail are supposed to have a large impact on the game.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
So by your own admission you agree that CV doesn't add anything to the format. Assuming you aren't choosing to ignore papa funk you know that CV interacts poorly in a manner which none of the cards you or anyone else listed. And you agree that it is a boring combo. So why unban it?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
As for the idea of using a card "fairly", there is probably never going to be an agreement here. As Sheldon has often said before, he approaches the format with the "build casually, play competitively" mentality. Now I know that some people in here and in the past have argued this because it requires approaching the game from a less than 100% mindset, and there is a certain amount of truth there. There is also a certain degree of what "could happen" versus what "does happen" (for example T&N and Palinchron). Getting back on topic, papa funk already plainly stated that Coalition Victory fail the "interacts poorly with the format" test (whether or not people choose to agree with this) and that this criteria is given a significant amount of weight. He also said that beyond that it is just an instant "I win" card with no other purpose, and that gave the card even less reason to stay legal. Many users have pointed out other cards which can duplicate this effect under very specific circumstances, but if I correctly recall no one has yet to produce a card that can duplicate this effect with a non-specific general. Also, due to the conditions which must be met, the only way to "play around" this card is to assume that every five color deck will run it and at all times destroy their lands as needed, ensure their general does not stay in play, hold up a removal spell, hold up a counterspell, and/or run and hold up a "you can't lose the game effect". Some of these options have merit outside of CV, but the majority of them just read like the presence of one card forces you to hate on a player just for choosing a particular color set.
So for everyone who wants to unban this card, I ask you this: What does Coalition Victory add to the format?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
What's your point? There are a number of of cards that go infinite with only a general, but that is ONE specific general. And you also do not think there is a difference between "I make a million bajillion tokens and pass turn in the hopes that no one board wipes before I can attack with them" and "this spell resolved and I just won the game"?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
There are currently 15 dual lands and 5 fast fetches that are relatively cheap. There are another 7 slow fetches that all tutor basic lands types into play. So the argument of requiring work to build a mana base which isn't very difficult or expensive. Nor is casting a creature which costs 5 mana.
And for the "not just going to throw it in" and "bad Tooth and Nail" comments, I ask why. It takes up exactly one slot in your deck and wins the game instantly. Tooth and Nail requires more mana and at a minimum two additional deck slots. So why would you choose to not run CV, or why.why would you choose to run TaN over CV?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg