Tell you what, though; the next time Sheldon does a Q&A, I will personally submit a question about Coalition Victorys state of legality in present day Magic, and make sure the answer gets back to this thread. That'll solve any confusion as to where the RC stands on the issue.
That is the supposed goal of the ban list. But it's also simply not feasible. The RC might see it as banning an exemplar so that everyone can see the types of cards not to play, but what it actually means is that anything not on the ban list is fair game. Tinker is a no-go but Natural Order is a-okay. Etc. Basically, the RC needs to move further in either direction: either ban assuming people are going to naturally try and break the format and clamp down on the more broken things (which will result in a fairly large ban list) or loosen up on the bans by taking off all but the very worse offenders (mainly the Perceived Barrier to Entry ones and the insidiously unfun cards like Prime Time and PoK that 'accidentally' ruin games) and assume people are self-regulating in accordance to the social contract. Right now the list is kind of in limbo when the dividing line between what is banned and what isn't basically amounts to personal whim and how stringently they feel like applying the criteria.
Also that would be nice. Thanks.
Happy to help.
I get this too. I think the RC is mostly happy with where EDH is at present, and is generally of the opinion that too much meddling leads to dramtic changes, unhappiness, and not a good atmosphere. So I think, while I can appreciate the stance you're taking, it's important to realize that any stance they take regarding a particular card, they need to be able to back up to the hilt, as no one wants a ban list a mile long. Slippery slopes are debates to have, and really tough presumptions to deny. I don't think there's a huge amount of people out there who would miss the 'win the game' cards if they were to be associated with CV in this way, but there's still some decent interactions there (Barren Glory is my fave) that crazy jank decks would miss out on. And variety is to be celebrated in a game like this.
Banning of a card continues to be based on one of three principles...
* When a card's power level in multiplayer EDH is signficantly in excess of both it's mana cost AND power level in other formats (due to different rules or game sizes). [Examples include Panoptic Mirror and Biorythm]
* A card's dollar cost is prohibitive for most players and the card usually detracts from the playing experience of everyone in the game [The Power 8]
* A card or class of cards can not be consistantly interpreted by all players [Silver bordered cards]
Coalition Victory is a strong candidate for the first principle.. it is a single card which can suddenly end interesting games with little difficulty, due to the presence of 5 colour generals which the player is guarenteed to have access to. As such, opinion was unanimously in favour of banning it.
This is cut and dried to me.
As far as modern interpretations of these criterion and how CV fits in, its still clearly the strongest 'win the game' card, and I think there's every justification for it to stay banned, if for no other reason than to prevent it being a staple 5C card. It would be, to say otherwise is to give people more credit than deserved.
That being said, your comments about social interaction in the game are accurate. Every player has the right to object to unsavoury games or metas. To my mind, the RC is all in favour of this happening. I think keeping CV on the list is an effort to make sure that it doesn't become a staple in the decks that CAN play it, as it's particularly non-interactive, and an effort to guide the game into a more interactive, social play style. That is what EDH is designed for.
Tell you what, though; the next time Sheldon does a Q&A, I will personally submit a question about Coalition Victorys state of legality in present day Magic, and make sure the answer gets back to this thread. That'll solve any confusion as to where the RC stands on the issue.
Yeah, I don't think it was ever really accepted that these two cannot be compared. That's probably part of why this discussion has become quite circular.
The irony here, though, is that the creature you’d need to remove to fizzle Coalition Victory(aka-Your Commander)does not Die to Doomblade.
At this point, I’m in “don’t feed the trolls” mode. This individual is beyond being reasoned with, has talked back their own points, and just continues to move the line in the sand.
I'm trying to have a rational debate. I won't sling mud or offend anyone, and I don't believe that's the intent of the opposing argument either. It's a good thought exercise to talk through these things and rationalise where things are and where they could be, but I feel like there really hasn't been an argument for Coalition Victory coming off the list that holds up under it's own weight. If one were provided, I would concede the point, but I'm happy leaving this argument where it is for now.
So according to this, we should just unban Primeval Titan, Prophet of Kruphix, Braids, Cabal Minion, Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary and Sylvan Primordial because they're all "suspectible to removal", right?
The argument "Dies to removal" holds no ground in any discussion. Being harder to remove/interact with is a strike against a card, for sure, but being easy to remove does not neccesarily make a card fair to play.
It physically pains me to see you use the ol' "dies to Doom Blade" argument immediately after listing two cards that are WotC's response to people complaining for years about creatures dying to Doom Blade. Prime Time and Primordial are literally the antithesis of "dies to Doom Blade". Please... that phrase does actually mean something. It's not just a catch-all answer to dismiss any creature.
'Dies to Doom Blade' actually doesn't really mean much. Sure it's irrelevant for creatures that carry their value on ETB triggers. But in any case, using a separate card as an example of why the initial card is bad/good/banworthy is poor argumentation. We should be, at most, only discussing a card's merit in comparison to other cards of similar construct or intent. This is the most logical and rational way of assessing each card on its merits for being format legal.
So far, you've provided no such argument. This is why LouCypher is knocking the DTDB argument as irrelevant here - it might be relevant to other discussions, but DTDB plays no part in this discussion.
Those who do not learn from the debates of the past are doomed to repeat them.
You've listed a bunch of fairly niche cards that I would be mildly surprised to actually see cast in a game. I'm not saying there isn't anything that can be done. I'm saying those are the types of answers I wouldn't reasonably expect most decks to have, compared to say something like creature removal.
I've pretty much said my piece here, and am comfortable that the matter is more or less put to rest, for now. But the cards listed in that quote of mine are just a fraction of what's available to make a player draw a card (I used this term because that's the usual terminology when forcing draw on another player): http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?page=1&text=+[draws]
There's staples in here, there's hidden gems, there's 169 cards that probably don't entirely encompass all of the myriad ways in which EtI can be made redundant. Most of them will work just fine. Also, if Platinum Angel is entering the debate in other places, why not add it here?
I'm not saying you're wrong and that CV doesn't deserve unbanning, I'm just saying that the arguments in favour of unbanning have not been convincing thus far. There's been false equivalencies drawn between CV and other cards which don't match up, and nothing else convincing enough for me to continue the debate.
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.
Now, if you look further, you'll note cards like Enter the Infinite, Doomsday, Mortal Combat...they all require more cards than just themselves to actually win. They all require specific cards to be built in the deck, whether it's Omniscience/Lab Man (ETI), specific Doomsdayable stacks, a way to quickly get 20+ creatures in the yard...none are a one-card-i-win button. They require specific deckbuilding.
Beyond that, each of those cards can be used just as a cool trick in a deck. A gy-using deck might just consider slotting in a Mortal Combat in order to give it another angle of attack.
Coalition Victory, again, only requires one slot. Why does this matter, you asked, well...
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. 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.
So that's the thing. Having a card that, no matter what the game before has done reads "Now you win the game and no I don't have any other modes" is not good for the game.
That's okay. I haven't take you seriously since... right about here:
Quote from Buffsam89 »
When Coalition Victory resolves, what won the game? CV, no?
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 back and forth is clearly ad hominem and serves neither side of the debate. Using this sort of rhetoric does not serve your argument.
Ubiquitous in the scope of a cgg doesn't pertain to how often it appears in a certain category of decks such as five colored ones. Ubiquity pertains to saturation of the format's environment as a whole. In other words, realistically what percentage of the total games played will Coalition Victory appear in a deck and is that percentage large enough to have a meaningful impact on the environment? When comparing it to things like Worldfire you have to bear in mind that being five colored means it can only be in comparatively few decks while monocolored cards like Worldfire can fit into a significantly larger deck pool and therefore have a much larger impact on the environment.
I get all of this and yeah it's undeniable in its own way - there aren't many pentacolour decks around. I would say that most that could run it, would, though. Which is pervasive enough to contend with Tooth and Nail and Protean Hulk, the primary comparisons thus far.
Furthermore, winning the game is not an undesirable game state.
No it's not, in general. But seeing this win con come up repeatedly would piss me off, and I can't think of anyone I know who would disagree.
Isn't "lacks interaction" one of the arguments for wanting the card to stay banned? "I play a card, you play cards to stop it, I play other cards to get around your removal" is the very definition of interaction. Just saying.
Ok. All I was saying is the argument being made was redundant, because for as many ways to make CV whiff, there are as many ways to make sure it doesn't. The argument being made was essentially 'dies to doom blade', which is never a good argument.
This is a terrible argument and always has been. "Not adding anything to the game" is just an excuse to project personal distaste for a card as reason to keep it banned. Weather or not a card is fun, interesting, or makes for better games is a player issue and not one the banned list should ever care about.
This is absolutely untrue. The quote I've bolded is absolutely something the RC cares about, and if a card is causing bad times, it's a contender. They make it clear that they encourage a fun, interactive social gaming experience. Besides, this is not personal distaste. I've nothing invested in this argument, and wouldn't play CV if it were legal because it doesn't interest me. Turning the 'adds nothing to the game' statement on its head, though, what does it take away from the game? Fun and to a reasonable extent, interaction. That alone is enough to keep it chained up.
The rules committee - and therefore the banned list - doesn't care about competitive decks. Bringing them up is irrelevant to this thread.
You're not wrong. This is more just an illustration that pentacoloured decks are thoroughly capable of abusing CV to its fullest extent. I know a lot of the blame for consistent abuse of a card falls on the person playing it, but considering it's already on the list, I can see no reason it should be removed.
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 pentacolour has plenty of ways to build contingency into decks to mitigate this. Dual lands, shock lands, hybrid colour creatures, this rebuttal is zero sum.
And neither will CV.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No hate here, only logical, well thought discussion.
Criteria for banning: * Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander
* Creates Undesirable Game States
* Problematic Casual Omnipresence
* Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly
* Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry
These are direct from the official site. Also from the official site: Meeting one (or more) criteria on the banlist is not a guarantee of a ban. Some cards fit the description, but either aren't problematic enough to justify a ban, are largely eschewed by the casual community, or possess other redeeming factors. Cards are evaluated by their general use, not simply their worst-case scenario. Similar cards may have just enough difference to put them on opposite sides of the line.
With all that in mind, no there aren't a preponderance of pentacoloured decks around, and I don't think CV being unbanned would change that. That being said, there's every chance it would become ubiquitous as a staple in pentacoloured decks if unbanned. All this aside, I don't see this as the primary reason it was banned. I think its predominantly the 'undesirable game state' argument, although the argument could be made that its also a culprit under the 'interacts poorly with the structure of commander' criterion, as it need do no more than resolve to end the game - it kind of straddles those two criteria to my mind. And that's enough to justify it being on the list. No one likes a game that ends abruptly with the resolution of a single spell with no avenue to intervene, and the nature of the color identity rulings in Commander leads CV to be too easily manipulated by particular generals.
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.
In any type of fairness, one can only draw comparison between CV and other 'you win the game' cards. Of those, here are the ones I see as the easiest to fulfill: Approach of the Second Sun Epic Struggle Felidar Sovereign Hellkite Tyrant Laboratory Maniac Mayael's Aria Mechanized Production Revel in Riches Test of Endurance
Of these cards (and the rest), not a single one will unequivocally, in every situation, win you the game immediately upon resolution. Each one of them either requires a fairly specific set of conditions that require building around, or is a particularly fragile win condition. There are some among the list that are used nefariously to good effect(Lab Man is the primary culprit I see played), but all of them provide an opportunity for interaction past the point of resolution. That's something Coalition Victory can't claim. It can only be countered, and all you need to do to have met its conditions is have your commander in play. Add Boseiju, who Shelters All into the mix and it's entirely non-interactive and airtight. Sure there are times you might play it in which it wouldn't win you the game, but that's on the user - why would you waste 3WUBRG unless you have the game in the bag?
I'm all for thought experiments, and I enjoy a good debate, but the argument can't be a straw man. You have to make it as fair a comparison as possible.
As far as the card you conceived, I consider it to be if anything more abusable than CV. Only requiring G to cast is nuts. Karametra's Acolyte could get you that within the first 5 turns, as could Growing Rite of Itlimoc or Gaea's Cradle, Elvish Archdruid and plenty of other options.
I think there's a case for most cards. If you can honestly come up with a reason for CV to be unbanned I'll tip my hat. Considering it's already on the list, the onus is on you to prove it justifies unbanning, so good luck.
I would say that this is taken into account with the ban list, and is probably part of why Tooth and Nail hasn't been banned; for every person who Avengerhoofs for the win, there are people who don't use it as an instant win con. I'm one of those people. There's been lots of discussion around some new releases in that respect - I've seen lots around Paradox Engine and Storm the Vault. Either one CAN be used fairly, whether they are or not is up to the individual. It's actually part of why I like EDH so much, a lot of the responsibility for maintaining a healthy format is left to the society.
Coalition Victory...I feel like the justification for banning it is more along the lines of non-interactive game play that being sufficiently broken. It is, ultimately, a reasonably underwhelming way to win, regardless of whether it happens T4 or T12.
Yeah, this round already closed unfortunately.
Happy to help.
I get this too. I think the RC is mostly happy with where EDH is at present, and is generally of the opinion that too much meddling leads to dramtic changes, unhappiness, and not a good atmosphere. So I think, while I can appreciate the stance you're taking, it's important to realize that any stance they take regarding a particular card, they need to be able to back up to the hilt, as no one wants a ban list a mile long. Slippery slopes are debates to have, and really tough presumptions to deny. I don't think there's a huge amount of people out there who would miss the 'win the game' cards if they were to be associated with CV in this way, but there's still some decent interactions there (Barren Glory is my fave) that crazy jank decks would miss out on. And variety is to be celebrated in a game like this.
This is cut and dried to me.
As far as modern interpretations of these criterion and how CV fits in, its still clearly the strongest 'win the game' card, and I think there's every justification for it to stay banned, if for no other reason than to prevent it being a staple 5C card. It would be, to say otherwise is to give people more credit than deserved.
That being said, your comments about social interaction in the game are accurate. Every player has the right to object to unsavoury games or metas. To my mind, the RC is all in favour of this happening. I think keeping CV on the list is an effort to make sure that it doesn't become a staple in the decks that CAN play it, as it's particularly non-interactive, and an effort to guide the game into a more interactive, social play style. That is what EDH is designed for.
Tell you what, though; the next time Sheldon does a Q&A, I will personally submit a question about Coalition Victorys state of legality in present day Magic, and make sure the answer gets back to this thread. That'll solve any confusion as to where the RC stands on the issue.
I'm trying to have a rational debate. I won't sling mud or offend anyone, and I don't believe that's the intent of the opposing argument either. It's a good thought exercise to talk through these things and rationalise where things are and where they could be, but I feel like there really hasn't been an argument for Coalition Victory coming off the list that holds up under it's own weight. If one were provided, I would concede the point, but I'm happy leaving this argument where it is for now.
So far, you've provided no such argument. This is why LouCypher is knocking the DTDB argument as irrelevant here - it might be relevant to other discussions, but DTDB plays no part in this discussion.
I've pretty much said my piece here, and am comfortable that the matter is more or less put to rest, for now. But the cards listed in that quote of mine are just a fraction of what's available to make a player draw a card (I used this term because that's the usual terminology when forcing draw on another player):
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?page=1&text=+[draws]
There's staples in here, there's hidden gems, there's 169 cards that probably don't entirely encompass all of the myriad ways in which EtI can be made redundant. Most of them will work just fine. Also, if Platinum Angel is entering the debate in other places, why not add it here?
I'm not saying you're wrong and that CV doesn't deserve unbanning, I'm just saying that the arguments in favour of unbanning have not been convincing thus far. There's been false equivalencies drawn between CV and other cards which don't match up, and nothing else convincing enough for me to continue the debate.
I agree with all of this. Well put Lou.
This back and forth is clearly ad hominem and serves neither side of the debate. Using this sort of rhetoric does not serve your argument.
I get all of this and yeah it's undeniable in its own way - there aren't many pentacolour decks around. I would say that most that could run it, would, though. Which is pervasive enough to contend with Tooth and Nail and Protean Hulk, the primary comparisons thus far.
No it's not, in general. But seeing this win con come up repeatedly would piss me off, and I can't think of anyone I know who would disagree.
Ok. All I was saying is the argument being made was redundant, because for as many ways to make CV whiff, there are as many ways to make sure it doesn't. The argument being made was essentially 'dies to doom blade', which is never a good argument.
This is absolutely untrue. The quote I've bolded is absolutely something the RC cares about, and if a card is causing bad times, it's a contender. They make it clear that they encourage a fun, interactive social gaming experience. Besides, this is not personal distaste. I've nothing invested in this argument, and wouldn't play CV if it were legal because it doesn't interest me. Turning the 'adds nothing to the game' statement on its head, though, what does it take away from the game? Fun and to a reasonable extent, interaction. That alone is enough to keep it chained up.
You're not wrong. This is more just an illustration that pentacoloured decks are thoroughly capable of abusing CV to its fullest extent. I know a lot of the blame for consistent abuse of a card falls on the person playing it, but considering it's already on the list, I can see no reason it should be removed.
Fair point. RTFC, yes. This should have been Windfall or Reforge the Soul, or Wheel of Fate, or Jace's Archivist, or Teferi's Puzzle Box, or Arjun, the Shifting Flame, Forced Fruition, Mindmoil, Walking Archive, Divination, Azure Mage, so on and so forth. If that's all you have though...
And pentacolour has plenty of ways to build contingency into decks to mitigate this. Dual lands, shock lands, hybrid colour creatures, this rebuttal is zero sum.
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'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.
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.
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.
It's on the list for exactly the same reason Worldfire 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.
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.
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.
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.
Criteria for banning:
* Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander
* Creates Undesirable Game States
* Problematic Casual Omnipresence
* Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly
* Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry
These are direct from the official site. Also from the official site:
Meeting one (or more) criteria on the banlist is not a guarantee of a ban. Some cards fit the description, but either aren't problematic enough to justify a ban, are largely eschewed by the casual community, or possess other redeeming factors. Cards are evaluated by their general use, not simply their worst-case scenario. Similar cards may have just enough difference to put them on opposite sides of the line.
With all that in mind, no there aren't a preponderance of pentacoloured decks around, and I don't think CV being unbanned would change that. That being said, there's every chance it would become ubiquitous as a staple in pentacoloured decks if unbanned. All this aside, I don't see this as the primary reason it was banned. I think its predominantly the 'undesirable game state' argument, although the argument could be made that its also a culprit under the 'interacts poorly with the structure of commander' criterion, as it need do no more than resolve to end the game - it kind of straddles those two criteria to my mind. And that's enough to justify it being on the list. No one likes a game that ends abruptly with the resolution of a single spell with no avenue to intervene, and the nature of the color identity rulings in Commander leads CV to be too easily manipulated by particular generals.
I'm really sorry, but this simply isn't true. There are a lot of ways that Enter the Infinite can backfire. All it takes is someone playing Flux, Temple Bell, Font of Mythos, Blue Suns Zenith, there are a lot of variations to this.
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.
In any type of fairness, one can only draw comparison between CV and other 'you win the game' cards. Of those, here are the ones I see as the easiest to fulfill:
Approach of the Second Sun
Epic Struggle
Felidar Sovereign
Hellkite Tyrant
Laboratory Maniac
Mayael's Aria
Mechanized Production
Revel in Riches
Test of Endurance
Of these cards (and the rest), not a single one will unequivocally, in every situation, win you the game immediately upon resolution. Each one of them either requires a fairly specific set of conditions that require building around, or is a particularly fragile win condition. There are some among the list that are used nefariously to good effect(Lab Man is the primary culprit I see played), but all of them provide an opportunity for interaction past the point of resolution. That's something Coalition Victory can't claim. It can only be countered, and all you need to do to have met its conditions is have your commander in play. Add Boseiju, who Shelters All into the mix and it's entirely non-interactive and airtight. Sure there are times you might play it in which it wouldn't win you the game, but that's on the user - why would you waste 3WUBRG unless you have the game in the bag?
I'm all for thought experiments, and I enjoy a good debate, but the argument can't be a straw man. You have to make it as fair a comparison as possible.
As far as the card you conceived, I consider it to be if anything more abusable than CV. Only requiring G to cast is nuts. Karametra's Acolyte could get you that within the first 5 turns, as could Growing Rite of Itlimoc or Gaea's Cradle, Elvish Archdruid and plenty of other options.
I think there's a case for most cards. If you can honestly come up with a reason for CV to be unbanned I'll tip my hat. Considering it's already on the list, the onus is on you to prove it justifies unbanning, so good luck.
Coalition Victory...I feel like the justification for banning it is more along the lines of non-interactive game play that being sufficiently broken. It is, ultimately, a reasonably underwhelming way to win, regardless of whether it happens T4 or T12.