I certainly agree that the best games are hard-fought, but at the same time, that seems like a pretty telegraphed win, disruptable by many kinds of interaction. No one having a counterspell, enchantment removal, or creature removal seems like kind of a red flag that the meta needs more interactivity. Although it's also possible that they were playing a little beyond the power of the table if people couldn't even figure out what was happening.
Anyway, I'd say palinchron (and animar) is the real problem here. Once you've got infinite mana, winning the game is pretty easy. Simic ascendancy is pretty tame considering it's slower than just fireballing the table.
Seems reasonable, unbanning a card, going "whoops" and putting it right back on would look bad and be confusing.
I do want to emphasize that I personally don't have much vested interest in changing the banlist (there's only a handful of cards on it that I'd be likely to play if legalized: gifts ungiven, library of alexandria, recurring nightmare, primeval titan, prophet of kruphix...and I guess karakas since I'd be a fool not to). Mostly I just enjoy debating the plusses and minuses of cards, and trying to make sense of the banlist and work out what my opinions are, and whether or not they're defensible. Apologies if that seems like a "hot take" or whatever.
At least in my experience I think the banlist is mostly unneeded. With a few exceptions I think the result of unbanning a card would either be negligible because the only people likely to consider playing them were doing other obnoxious stuff already (time vault, erayo, worldfire), or the card would likely become prevalent, but is only borderline bannable (prime time, prophet, recurring nightmare).
I think the casual metas tend to self-regulate for the most part. The problems that do tend to arise are difficult to fix with a banlist. The "These cards [...] may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards." comment on the banlist is a nice idea in theory, but in practice the type of people who are going to consistently push up against the edges of the banlist probably aren't going to be deterred by the spirit of the law. They'll just find the next best thing.
This. There are some real douche canoes out there who will just straight up like about their deck. I played an online match with a Maralen player who announced from the start that he wasn't running combo. He complained when someone removed Maralen the first time that he wasn't running combo and it was just a casual hug deck. He finally convinced the table to let Maralen stick. He immediately searched up a combo. When the table predictably got mad, he went into full "lol I tricked you with my superior intellect" mode. In a playgroup, this won't happen, but in pickup games and online you sort of have to expect people to lie, and you will be burned when you don't. Maralen simply does not get to live for me anymore. For a 5 color commander with CV legal I personally would hold back removal for it, but I see plenty of people willing to play prevent with commanders that have a reputation and I have no doubt 5 color commanders would fit that for a lot of people.
The maralen scenario is very different because you only know if they're playing the combo after it's too late. Your only way to play around it is to kill on sight (or keep counters for whatever combo it is).
Not true for CV. If you're wary of a liar you can adopt a wait-and-see approach with your removal.
And this really only matters for skilled players who are aware of potential threats and will presumably know how to correctly play around them. I've been at tables where people merrily tap out the turn niv came down with no concern for the risk of curiosity. CV interacts badly with these players, not because they'll be too aggressive against 5C, but because they won't even be paying attention.
Dirk, you may hate the argument, but guess what? It's still a valid argument. And while I'm not a fan of it either, I can see the validity of it.
I think in casual circles people won't play around it at all, because casual players don't play around anything. That's why it might be problematic in those spheres.
And then for good players, they'll stay aware of it and play correctly and it'll be fine.
There will probably be like one casual guy who is super pissed about CV and guns down every 5c deck with extreme prejudice no matter what they say. But that guy is an idiot and he's going to lose to other decks that aren't wasting their removal.
So wait, do I not hold up my instant speed removal for an unknown potential threat that may never appear, or do I hold it up so that I can answer CV when it is cast?
I'm also confused because you brought this card back into discussion to state why you thought it was fine and wouldn't mind if it were legal. And yet while you continue to off-handedly mention how you see why it's banned, you in the same breath argue every single person who explains their opinions on why it is and should stay banned, including to argue how it fits into the rules philosophy. Make up your mind, should it be legal or remain banned?
(1) the rules philosophy is bunk (see previous post).
(2) that doesn't mean it should be unbanned.
(3) I can think a card is reasonable to ban, while disagreeing with people's specific reasons for why it's banned. Some people in this thread have had good justification for the banning. I don't argue with those people.
(4) I can also think a card is reasonable to ban at large, while also thinking it would be fine in my local playgroup (or at least, fine by me, if I was at the table).
(5) You leave up removal, not just for CV but the other multifarious horrible things that might happen to you. Leaving up removal is not the same level of commitment as actually using said removal. Leaving up removal just in case = good. Killing every 5c commander immediately = dumb.
1 - correct, it was not an argument to unban it. Nor is any of this an argument to unban it. Just pointing out that it would ok at many tables.
2 - I'll give you sudden spoiling, but outside of split second I'm calling BS on "more points of interaction". For one thing, assuming a labman wincon (which it doesn't necessarily need to be, of course), it's still basically the same point of interaction as CV (ignoring, I suppose, the potential to have multiple 5c creatures) - kill the crucial creature before the spell (brainstorm?) resolves. Except that with ETI they've got every counterspell in their deck in their hand, so good luck resolving targeted removal or forced draw if it's not split second or otherwise uncounterable.
Hmm, I might be a little too parenthesis-happy.
There is some truth to the idea that only (semi-)competitive builds play it, since you've really gotta be planning on winning with it to want to run it. But that said, it gets almost 250% of the play that doomsday does - comparable to azami, lady of scrolls for example. Or expropriate for another. That's a lot more than I'd like, personally, for a virtually-impossible-to-interact-with-except-by-counterspells instant-wincon. But that's just my opinion.
3 - it's kind of difficult to isolate only the "how badly does this interact with the format" part of the card from the rest of it. I mean, nobody is calling for the banning of spirit of resistance, which gets the same boon from the commander rule (i.e. the card does nothing without a 5c creature(s), and the format makes it easy to have a 5c creature on tap) - the difference is that the sort of thing CV does is much more powerful.
This sort of goes to my general beef with the guidelines for banning - from my reading, they're very post-hoc. That is, the reasons read as a justification for why they've banned cards that they already decided on banning. Cards that only win the game should be banned? Oh, ok, then why isn't chance encounter banned? All it does is win the game, right? Or how about ubiquity - I mean, come on, you can't possibly get more ubiquitous than sol ring, which remains unbanned. Or high barrier to entry - mana crypt is the best card in the format, fits into virtually deck, and currently sells for over $150, well beyond the budget of most commander players. It's the best card in the format and I see it in, like, maybe 10% of decks generously, but it remains unbanned. Meanwhile we're justifying time vault with this criteria despite the fact that only a tiny handful of decks would even consider playing it. Creating unpleasant game states is vague as hell, and seems like an obvious justification for banning winter orb, stasis, and the like, but instead it's being used to justify...painter's servant? What?
All of this, to me, signals a banlist that was devised from the cards first, with the justification provided afterwards. So tbh I don't care that much about whether things technically fit the criteria outlined by the RC, because they're so open-ended it would include hundreds of cards, and besides, it's not how they're determining what to ban anyway.
I don't think the problem with Coalition Victory is how easy it is to pull off.
I think the problem with Coalition Victory is how it forces players to interact with any deck that has a 5 color general. I think Coalition Victory being legal will ruin plenty of games where it's not in a single deck.
As people have made perfectly clear, it's not that Coalition Victory is a big splashy spell that ends the game, we have plenty of those. I don't particularly think that it's one of the more powerful ones, although the fact that it can't be used to do other fun things (like Tooth and Nail can) certainly doesn't work in its favor.
If Coalition Victory is legal, my entire gameplay calculus changes when my opponent sits down with a 5 color general. I don't have to watch if they are setting up for it, because simply by playing the game they are doing so. I am incentivized to keep their general off the board, and attack their manabase - even if it's not the best use of my resources to do so. It's not fun for me, nor is it fun for the 5 color player, who may not even be playing Coalition Victory.
You say it may be nice for the guy with the casual Atogatog deck to get a new toy. And maybe it would be. I just think the format is better because the guy can play a casual Atogatog deck without a massive target on his head because Coalition Victory is legal.
Before I say anything else, let me reiterate that I don't necessarily think CV should be unbanned, and I don't really care one way or another if it is, and I would most likely never play it if it was.
But I haaaaaate this argument. It requires such a poor understanding of good magic play to make sense. I'm gonna list a few reasons why.
Just because someone COULD have a game-ender doesn't mean they DO. It rarely makes sense to dedicate major resources (like targeted removal) to a merely potential threat, especially in multiplayer where your resources are much more limited than the total resources of your opponents, let alone things they only MIGHT have. Does that mean sometimes you'll lose the game because they did have CV and you bet against it? Sure, occasionally, but you'll win a lot more because you didn't waste cards dealing with a threat that never existed.
The majority of good removal (and all counterspells ) is instant-speed. Killing the commander on sight based on theoretical threats is not just silly, it's a bad use of the card even if they DID have CV, because then they still have CV in hand and you've only delayed the problem. You wait until they cast it, and THEN you kill the commander, thus effectively countering the spell while killing their commander at the same time. Using this tactic of course means that their commander is relatively safe, provided they don't cast CV - which is exactly what you'd want, gameplay-wise.
Most decks aren't playing LD to "attack their manabase" even if they wanted to. If they are, it's probably strip/waste/DB/GQ/etc, all of which operate at instant speed, so see the previous point.
Even if the players involved are terrible at magic and play the way this argument thinks they should, the 5c player could just tell them he's not running CV and head the whole "problem" off at the pass.
Not to travel down the Worship path again, I don’t see how this is even relevant here. Acknowledging that this isn’t “safe” for casual tables ends the discussion, and especially consideirng you added qualifiers to make it “safe” for 75%. If anything, these are the types of comments that skew the focus, because you are not adhering to the criteria set forth by the RC.
I did say I wasn't advocating to unban it. I'm just saying stuff about the card.
If there's a card I actually want unbanned, it's definitely library. C'mon RC, make my draw-go dreams come true (while putting the value of the card into the stratosphere, probably)!
And what stops the owner of CV packing their own set of protections? And there are other ways to disrupt EtI besides counter spells. Specificlly the most recent RCotD, Uba Mask, or at the very least creates a win now or lose scenario. Which is also another point, EtI either wins or loses, wether that’s a point in favor of or not is debateable, but that certainly isn’t how CV works.
I think most ETI wincons can win easily through uba mask. Better example would have been spirit of the labyrinth. Anyway, neither of those are good examples because you'd have to know it was coming in advance. Like, so far in advance that you built your deck to combat it. Maybe for people with a steady, small playgroup that's an option, but it's sure not for me.
As far as what stops the CV player from packing answers - well, nothing, but he's got 3 people he's gotta fight at the same time, so the odds are not stacked in his favor. He's gotta wait for the right window to minimize risk, which increases the chances his commander will die to a random board wipe or something and force him to skip turns recasting. Plus he's paying a lot of mana for CV that can't be used for counterspells. And of course he can really only answer responses with counterspells specifically. I'm just saying, in a good meta I would expect that winning with CV is reasonably earned.
To me, I usually see EtI as a working mans win. Sure, you’ve played the draw-go game all along, picked a good spot to “go off”, but there are a lot of scenarios that take place earlier in the game that can hinder, or flat out stop EtI, not many which create crummy games for any one player. For CV, you’re talking Kill on Sight Commander and LD. While a EtI win is deflating, having to wade through all the hate just because you could CV for the win is pretty bad as well. This is strictly a matter of opinion and play styles, so to each their own, just the way I see it on the reg.
I don't get why people would need to "kill on sight" a 5c commander because of CV. If I saw a 5c commander and CV was legal, I'd be wary of it, but I wouldn't just kill the commander right away. They might not have CV. They might not even be running it. And if they were, I'd want to hold up my removal, so that if they try to cast CV I can get that sweet, sweet 2-for-1. So as long as they don't try to play CV, their commander is safe (well, unless I'm killing it for another reason).
Also I have no idea what you mean about ETI. Unless someone made you discard it or played some stax piece you can't answer, it's basically always an auto-win. I don't see how that's a working man's win.
You know what's a working man's win? Killing people with a 4/4 flying hippo. That'll put some hair on your chest.
It may be simple, but it should really only require that explanation. Not to go on to much of a tangent, but what are some of the most powerful EDH generals? Ones that tutor. You are always +1 CA with a card like that in the command zone, and you’ve built a deck around them so you have an answer for most any situation. To a lesser extent, that is what a 5c general is to CV. You always have access to that one piece needed to seal the game.
Seems like exactly what curiosity is to niv. Or trike is to mikaeus. Just another 2-card combo with a commander.
I may be alone here, but I don't get the comparison to ETI, T&N or Expropriate. They're all suuuper strong cards. But they don't win the game on the spot. You still have to walk it over the line and there's plenty of cases where that won't happen.
I think expro is a somewhat bad example because it CAN still fail to win the game, for sure. It's mostly just a card that I think preys upon the commander's love of big, splashy effects in an unfun way. It's like griselbrand - it looks like a sweet EDH card until you actually play it and it's miserable cancer (except without the modern implications). I don't like wotc making cards like expro because it seems like they're deliberately targeting EDH, but not in a way that I, at least, like. I prefer cards that require some skill to be good rather than just "woo, I got to 9 mana so I get to do blatantly broken unfun stuff!"
But as a comparison to CV, it's not ideal, fair.
T&N does come up in these conversations (and I may have mentioned it once or twice) but I think it's justifiably not banned. Primarily because there are fair ways to use it, and also because it's reasonably skill-friendly in most of the ways it's played - instant-speed removal interacts well with it, usually, and getting good non-instant-win value out of it takes some amount of skill. I think it'd dumb and I don't play it, and if someone else plays it for kikiscripts then I'm miffed, but I'm not crying out for blood about it. I get why it hasn't been banned.
ETI, on the other hand, I think has no justification. It's much harder to interact with than CV, and while you "have to walk it across the line"...I mean, come on. How many games where ETI has resolved haven't resulted in the caster winning? And if they didn't, did the caster perhaps have their brain replaced with a small hamster earlier in the day? Unless you're discarding ulamog or something, you've gotta win by the next turn, and you're definitely not playing it unless you think you can do that. And they've gotta comb through their stupid deck to find the cards they need, and the counterspells if anyone tries to interact...I just see nothing redeemable about the card. No fair use, no fun, just a nigh-impossible-to-interact-with win-the-game slog. Playable in anything with blue. Boo. Boo on ETI.
EDIT: actually, in fairness it has one redeemable feature - that terese nielsen art.
I feel like the topic has gotten a little scattershot so I'd like to try to bring it back to more of a focus. I don't personally really care if the card gets unbanned, myself. It's not a card I'd ever play. So just to be clear - I'm not arguing that I want it unbanned. Here's the main things I'm trying to say:
-While I get that the card is a feelbad at a casual level, I think it's ultimately a pretty safe card for 75%+ metas assuming the players are competent. The spell should generally not be able to go off, and if it can, the winner probably could have won with a number of different cards. Casual does matter though - as I said, I don't want (or at least care about) it being unbanned. But I think people overestimate how good and unanswerable it is, in a non-cEDH, 75%-ish setting.
-At least from how I see the game, I think there are much more "deflating" cards that win the game with fewer avenues to respond. ETI is a good example - sure, labman can be killed, but let's be real that isn't happening if ETI resolved because there's now like 20 counterspells in the controller's hand, and the ETI itself can only be answered by a counterspell. For me, if I controlled the banlist, I'd rather those cards were banned before I'd give a crap about CV. But I'd be fine with both being banned - I just don't really care about CV at all.
-I think using "interacts badly with the format" as the sole justification is an oversimplification for why the card is banned, because the actual reason it's banned is difficult to articulate without bringing into question other cards (like expropriate and ETI) and the actual interaction it has with the rules of the format is substantive but not enormously so (nowhere near LR or felidar, for example). For that matter, I think "only wins the game" is also a bad justification, since there are plenty of other cards that do that too - besides ETI and DD that only implicitly win the game, lab man and all the other alt-wincons explicitly do the same thing (well, I guess lab man also attacks and blocks. Grey ogre ftw!), even if they are usually easier to interact with (but that's not listed as a criteria...I don't think? I hate reading, someone else tell me that I screwed up if it's in there). Do I think other cards could be banned on the same criteria? Probably. I'd rather those cards were also banned, than that CV was unbanned, though. But out of the dumb, easymode win-the-game cards I think CV is one that I, personally, find among the least offensive because it's among the easiest to interact with.
Interacts poorly - 100% it does. The card was designed such that you had to draw into or use what little ramp was available to get five land types, and draw into multiple creatures or a 5c one. In a 60 card deck this is an huge drawback because you are creating a deck building weakness. In EDH, the rules of the format take care of this nearly. You always have a 5c creature in your hand to play, and your deck is built intentionally to produce all five colors of mana without suffering the same drawbacks that you would have in 60 card magic.
Creates undesirable game states - it wins the game out of nowhere, such that you cast it, no one has an instant speed answer and the game ends regardless of everything up until that point. Yes it is telegraphed in the sense that we can assume every 5c deck runs it but beyond that there is no indication other than the player having their general and lands in play.
Problematic casual Omnipresence - every deck that can run this card should run it and will warp those games simply by being legal. There is also no need to optimize your deck to run it beyond running fetches.
Problematic casual omnipresence - people aren't all playing expro. Unless you're playing in a super-fast, counterspell-dense, or LD-happy meta, that card would make almost any deck better. People don't always play it, though. I think you're too pessimistic about what sorts of things people are actually going to play. Lots of people don't play boring insta-win cards like expro, I'm sure the same is true for CV. Not to mention being only 2% of commanders. Plus not everyone has fetches (although it's certainly doable without them).
Creates undesirable game states - So I should have read the banlist criteria more closely, because it actually says explicitly "cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere" which obviously fits CV to a T (although I think it's weird they say losing isn't undesirable in the same paragraph, but whatever). So that's on me, the card does obviously fit that criteria. Now, why they wouldn't apply the same criteria to enter the infinite, doomsday, etc I'm not sure. And then they also say "early-game cards that lock players out" but it's not like winter orb or geddon are banned. Are there even cards that fit that bullet point? I guess maybe erayo and/or leovold? Although I'd argue those interact badly with the format by being always-accessible, because their decks are otherwise generally fine without being able to rely on the commander, so idk why they need another criteria that hasn't been used on other cards, including those that very obviously do exactly that. But anyway. My point is - I think it totally justifies itself in this category BUT I think it should just as easily justify banning, at a minimum, ETI and DD. And Primal surge, for that matter. Maybe decree of annihilation too. But definitely definitely DD and ETI.
interacts poorly - maybe we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not even sure what you mean about "the same drawbacks as 60 card" as far as lands - if anything it's easier to get 5 colors in 60 card since you can run up to 40 fetches (probably don't actually run that many). True of standard I guess? Outside of that I think modern, and certainly legacy and vintage, have more powerful fixing than we do. And while yes, having a 5c creature in the command zone is a decent benefit, it strikes me as relative minor compared to the upgrade to SA, karakas, felidar, and LR.
Now, as onering points out, SA is a powerful source of a bad effect, basically. french vanilla beaters are usually very bad here - SA manages to break the glass ceiling by being SO insanely beyond the normal curve that it's still good. But this is why I think this criteria is a little misleading - SA has moved waaaaay past its "original intent" (to quote the guidelines) but, because it's not the sort of thing that's good in commander, it's not a banlist candidate. So really, the issue isn't JUST that it interacts badly with the rules by being much more powerful than intended, but that it interacts badly with the rules AND is an effect that's powerful in commander.
I think even if it did have the text "can't use your commander" I'm pretty sure people would still want it banned, because of the feel-bads of a sorcery saying you win the game (despite being pretty interact-able). At least it would be something people would talk about. That, to me, says that "how it interacts with the format" is a pretty small part of why it's a problematic card - it's just the most obvious tip of the iceberg that people can focus on.
* Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander. Commander introduces specific structural differences to the game of Magic (notably singleton decks, color restrictions in deckbuilding, and the existence of a Commander). Magic cards not designed with Commander in mind sometimes interact with those elements in ways that change the effective functionality of the card. Cards that have moved too far (in a potentially problematic direction) from their original intent due to this mismatch are candidates for banning. This criterion also includes legendary creatures that are problematic if always available.
* Creates Undesirable Game States. Losing is not an undesirable game state. However, a game in which one or more players, playing comparable casual decks, have minimal participation in the game is something which players should be steered away from. Warning signs include massive overall resource imbalance, early-game cards that lock players out, and cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere.
* Problematic Casual Omnipresence. Some cards are so powerful that they become must-includes in decks that can run them and have a strongly negative impact on the games in which they appear, even when not built to optimize their effect. This does not include cards which are part of a specifc two-card combination - there are too many of those available in the format to usefully preclude - but may include cards which have numerous combinations with other commonly-played cards.
* Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly. Commander is a format devoted to splashy spells and epic plays, but they need to happen at appropriate times. Some acceleration is acceptable, but plays which are epic on turn ten are undesirable on turn three, so we rein in cards capable of generating a lot of mana early given the correct circumstances.
* Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry. Commander is a socially welcoming format with a vast cardpool. These two traits clash when it comes to certain early Magic cards, even if they would possibly be acceptable in their game play. It's not enough that the card is simply expensive. It must also be something that would be near-universally played if available and contribute to a perception that the format is only for the Vintage audience.
It produces no mana, so that's obviously out. It's worth 50 cents, so I think the barrier to entry should be fine. Casual omnipresence is impossible since only ~2% of commanders can even legally play it. Sure, maybe it's pretty omnipresent in those 2%, but (1) who cares, it's still 2%, and (2) sol ring is played in nearly every deck I've sat across from, so this criteria is nonsense on its face.
So that leaves us with 2 criteria.
Creates undesirable game states seems almost plausible unless you read the first sentence - "losing is not an undesirable game state". So that's a pretty open-and-shut case. You can maybe argue that "well, it'll make people pick on 5c commanders for fear of it," but that seems ridiculous to me. People don't constantly pulverize all green players just because T&N exists, or blue players because expro or ETI or omniscience exist. Those cards could happen and end the game, but it's all a calculated risk. Yes, they might have CV but they probably don't. Decks are big. Not to say people shouldn't have responses just in case, but they won't, or shouldn't, fire them off at the commander immediately always. That's just bad play.
So now we're down to the last one. The one that the RC is forced to use because none of the others fit. "Because it wins the game" is not a criteria. "Because it doesn't give people a chance to respond" is not a criteria (plus it's false). "Because it doesn't have a fun use" isn't a criteria, in fact it's almost explicitly why cards like doomsday are still legal. So we're forced to use the "interacts badly with the format" criteria.
Now, don't get me wrong - CV is much, much better here than any other format. No question about that. Spells with this casting cost are basically unplayable in virtually every other format, let alone with the same setup required and ease of disruption. That's because of the casual nature of the format, the high life totals, the multiple players, all contribute to a game that's much harder to win, and even harder to win "fairly". But that's also true of many other cards in the format. The fact that this is a format where rise of the dark realms is good is a feature, not a bug. So they can't focus on that.
So the criteria they have to use is that having access to a 5c creature all the time is sufficient boon to the card to justify banning ALONE. And there's no way to justify that, because even with that boost other formats would laugh CV out of the building. But they have to claim it's a huge problem, on its own, because it's the only way to justify banning the card with the banlist criteria as-is.
Now, if you wanted to ask me to justify banning it - that's pretty easy. Big, boring, win-the-game-now cards aren't interesting or conducive to a good game, especially among casual players who don't appreciate the threat-answer dichotomy that characterizes competitive magic. Cards that just exist to win the game without any play-around are not interesting. But then, imo, you've gotta ban enter the infinite too, and doomsday, because those fit the exact same criteria. And, at least imo, expro, although that one is more debatable.
Look, it's fine to think the card should be banned, but the argument that the ONLY reason is because it "interacts badly with [the commander being a reliable source of a 5c creature]" is fairly ridiculous. That's a reasonable contributing factor but it's far from the whole story.
My suspicion is that people don't play expro for the same reason I don't - because brainless "I win the game" cards are boring. Or maybe because it's $50 now. That could also be it. I've taken 2 out of circulation, maybe if we work together we can de facto ban it
It's kind of hard to compare SA without the commander damage thing, but even then it's not a fair comparison. You still need to draw CV, after all. Maybe it makes more sense to you, but at least from where I'm sitting it seems pretty apples-and-oranges. A much closer comparison, to me, would be curiosity (+ niv) where it's a combo with your commander. Which isn't perfectly apt either, but it's a lot closer imo.
The point of my "does this interact badly with the format" exercise was to compare how much the format effects those cards. If the card is bannable in commander because it interacts badly with the format, then if it interacted the same way with another format (by changing how the card works, as I did) and seems bannable there, then it seems like the current version should also be banned in commander. And, at least in terms of its interaction with having a 5c commander, I think CV gets a resounding "no" compared to other cards that get a boost from the format.
Not that I don't think the card gets a big boost from the format, but the boost is like 90% "because it's a slow casual format" and 10% "because you have a 5c creature on tap". And from what I can tell, the RC argues strictly from that 10%. (Which I kind of get, because if your argue from the 90% then the same is true for other powerful expensive cards like expro which remain unbanned.)
I don't really follow what you're trying to prove with your fixed cards. I mean, if you fixed SA it's basically unplayable, but that says nothing about whether it should be banned. I guess if a banned card would still be broken even if fixed it would prove that the interaction with the format is irrelevant, but the lack of that doesn't prove the reverse. It proves that the interaction with the format is strong, but not that it's sufficient to ban the card.
There are cards that interact badly with the format (SA, felidar) that we don't ban and don't need banning.
Some further musing about the "interacts badly with the format" argument.
Let's do an exercise where we take cards that interact badly with commander, and try to create a version that interacts roughly the same in other, tournament formats.
First up, serra ascendant. Commander you start with 10 more life than the requirement, so to match let's change the required life to 10. That would absolutely get banned in every format, but that's not quite fair, since commander has twice as high of life totals. So let's scale it down to +2/+2, so it's a 3/3 lifelink flyer as long as you have 10 or more life.
restricted in vintage: maybe? Unsure. Perhaps not.
banned in legacy: probably, delver is already popular and this is significantly better imo.
banned in modern: I would say definitely.
banned in standard: oh my yes.
Ok, now let's look at limited resources. The destroy land clause is basically the same, but the can't play land clause should probably be reduced to 5, assuming we're comparing to a 4-man game of commander.
restricted in vintage: not sure, but definitely seems possible.
banned in legacy: I think very probably.
banned in modern: definitely.
banned in standard: lololol.
Alright, now coalition victory. This one is kind of tricky, but the general issue is supposedly that you always have access to a 5c creature. So let's add "when you draw CV, you add a copy of sliver queen to your hand that goes to the CZ when it dies and does the whole commander thing". Obviously not possible with magic templating but whatever. This is being REALLY generous since in commander your opponent would normally ALSO have some sort of commander obviously and the CV doesn't add anything to your hand, but let's just roll with it.
restricted in vintage: no way
banned in legacy: definitely not
banned in modern: nope
banned in standard: maaaaybe, but mostly for giving you sliver queen. And even then, I think it's very unlikely.
So that's why I call BS on the "interacts badly with the format" thing. At least as regards having a 5c creature in the command zone.
If there IS an argument for why it interacts badly with the format, it has more to do with how the format is much slower than those other formats so that 8-mana 5-color plays aren't laughable, the power level of cards that create a board state where a 5c creature can reasonably fly under the radar, and also the general attitude of the format that removal and counters should be run sparsely, tapping out all the time is par for the course, and careful play is for tryhards. Having the 5c creature on retainer is just the cherry on top, at best.
While I do think that Teferi pool creates a miserable game state and that is definitely a problem, I'd still loathe the combo even if it won immediately because my #1 beef with it is that it's basically impossible to play around it, even if you suspect it's coming. Which is my #1 problem with expro too (although it's also tedious).
Maybe I'm misreading you, but I'm a little confused. You point out that expro, T&N, DD, and CV all end the game quickly so there's no social pressure not to run them...doesn't that kind of defeat your argument, unless you want those other cards banned too? As I said, maybe I'm misreading you. But if you don't see expropriate because it's uninteresting, then I don't see any reason you'd expect to see CV either.
Anyway I agree it's not hard to have a commander in play, at least for a turn, and your land types covered. But if that's all you've got, and you cast CV without backup on 8 mana, I would expect you to be punished in a prepared playgroup.
Not entirely sure what you're getting at about SA. Serra ascendant is kind of interesting because she's simultaneously much better and much worse - much better because 30 life is trivial and takes no setup, and much worse because you're facing down 120 enemy life instead of 20. Were she a commander, that would dramatically change the math because of commander damage, plus being always available T1 after which she dramatically goes down in power, so I would be unsurprised to see it banned were it legendary.
Anyway, ignoring the whole commander damage issue, similar things happen for CV - it's better because you have a 5c creature in your hand all the time, but it's also worse because you've got 3x the number of people aiming counterspells and removal at you. Does it get a net benefit from the format? I mean, probably, but no worse than many other cards imo. Compare to something like limited resources, where the format being multiplayer has an insane impact, or karakas that invalidates huge swaths of decks at virtually no cost because the format revolves around legends. Those to me seem like "interacts badly with the format". Having a 5c creature in your hand...eh, idk. I'm not seeing it. I can see reasonable justification for keeping it banned, but that isn't it. Imo.
Anyway, I'd say palinchron (and animar) is the real problem here. Once you've got infinite mana, winning the game is pretty easy. Simic ascendancy is pretty tame considering it's slower than just fireballing the table.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I do want to emphasize that I personally don't have much vested interest in changing the banlist (there's only a handful of cards on it that I'd be likely to play if legalized: gifts ungiven, library of alexandria, recurring nightmare, primeval titan, prophet of kruphix...and I guess karakas since I'd be a fool not to). Mostly I just enjoy debating the plusses and minuses of cards, and trying to make sense of the banlist and work out what my opinions are, and whether or not they're defensible. Apologies if that seems like a "hot take" or whatever.
At least in my experience I think the banlist is mostly unneeded. With a few exceptions I think the result of unbanning a card would either be negligible because the only people likely to consider playing them were doing other obnoxious stuff already (time vault, erayo, worldfire), or the card would likely become prevalent, but is only borderline bannable (prime time, prophet, recurring nightmare).
I think the casual metas tend to self-regulate for the most part. The problems that do tend to arise are difficult to fix with a banlist. The "These cards [...] may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards." comment on the banlist is a nice idea in theory, but in practice the type of people who are going to consistently push up against the edges of the banlist probably aren't going to be deterred by the spirit of the law. They'll just find the next best thing.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Not true for CV. If you're wary of a liar you can adopt a wait-and-see approach with your removal.
And this really only matters for skilled players who are aware of potential threats and will presumably know how to correctly play around them. I've been at tables where people merrily tap out the turn niv came down with no concern for the risk of curiosity. CV interacts badly with these players, not because they'll be too aggressive against 5C, but because they won't even be paying attention.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
And then for good players, they'll stay aware of it and play correctly and it'll be fine.
There will probably be like one casual guy who is super pissed about CV and guns down every 5c deck with extreme prejudice no matter what they say. But that guy is an idiot and he's going to lose to other decks that aren't wasting their removal. (1) the rules philosophy is bunk (see previous post).
(2) that doesn't mean it should be unbanned.
(3) I can think a card is reasonable to ban, while disagreeing with people's specific reasons for why it's banned. Some people in this thread have had good justification for the banning. I don't argue with those people.
(4) I can also think a card is reasonable to ban at large, while also thinking it would be fine in my local playgroup (or at least, fine by me, if I was at the table).
(5) You leave up removal, not just for CV but the other multifarious horrible things that might happen to you. Leaving up removal is not the same level of commitment as actually using said removal. Leaving up removal just in case = good. Killing every 5c commander immediately = dumb.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
2 - I'll give you sudden spoiling, but outside of split second I'm calling BS on "more points of interaction". For one thing, assuming a labman wincon (which it doesn't necessarily need to be, of course), it's still basically the same point of interaction as CV (ignoring, I suppose, the potential to have multiple 5c creatures) - kill the crucial creature before the spell (brainstorm?) resolves. Except that with ETI they've got every counterspell in their deck in their hand, so good luck resolving targeted removal or forced draw if it's not split second or otherwise uncounterable.
Hmm, I might be a little too parenthesis-happy.
There is some truth to the idea that only (semi-)competitive builds play it, since you've really gotta be planning on winning with it to want to run it. But that said, it gets almost 250% of the play that doomsday does - comparable to azami, lady of scrolls for example. Or expropriate for another. That's a lot more than I'd like, personally, for a virtually-impossible-to-interact-with-except-by-counterspells instant-wincon. But that's just my opinion.
3 - it's kind of difficult to isolate only the "how badly does this interact with the format" part of the card from the rest of it. I mean, nobody is calling for the banning of spirit of resistance, which gets the same boon from the commander rule (i.e. the card does nothing without a 5c creature(s), and the format makes it easy to have a 5c creature on tap) - the difference is that the sort of thing CV does is much more powerful.
This sort of goes to my general beef with the guidelines for banning - from my reading, they're very post-hoc. That is, the reasons read as a justification for why they've banned cards that they already decided on banning. Cards that only win the game should be banned? Oh, ok, then why isn't chance encounter banned? All it does is win the game, right? Or how about ubiquity - I mean, come on, you can't possibly get more ubiquitous than sol ring, which remains unbanned. Or high barrier to entry - mana crypt is the best card in the format, fits into virtually deck, and currently sells for over $150, well beyond the budget of most commander players. It's the best card in the format and I see it in, like, maybe 10% of decks generously, but it remains unbanned. Meanwhile we're justifying time vault with this criteria despite the fact that only a tiny handful of decks would even consider playing it. Creating unpleasant game states is vague as hell, and seems like an obvious justification for banning winter orb, stasis, and the like, but instead it's being used to justify...painter's servant? What?
All of this, to me, signals a banlist that was devised from the cards first, with the justification provided afterwards. So tbh I don't care that much about whether things technically fit the criteria outlined by the RC, because they're so open-ended it would include hundreds of cards, and besides, it's not how they're determining what to ban anyway.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
But I haaaaaate this argument. It requires such a poor understanding of good magic play to make sense. I'm gonna list a few reasons why.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
If there's a card I actually want unbanned, it's definitely library. C'mon RC, make my draw-go dreams come true (while putting the value of the card into the stratosphere, probably)!
I think most ETI wincons can win easily through uba mask. Better example would have been spirit of the labyrinth. Anyway, neither of those are good examples because you'd have to know it was coming in advance. Like, so far in advance that you built your deck to combat it. Maybe for people with a steady, small playgroup that's an option, but it's sure not for me.
As far as what stops the CV player from packing answers - well, nothing, but he's got 3 people he's gotta fight at the same time, so the odds are not stacked in his favor. He's gotta wait for the right window to minimize risk, which increases the chances his commander will die to a random board wipe or something and force him to skip turns recasting. Plus he's paying a lot of mana for CV that can't be used for counterspells. And of course he can really only answer responses with counterspells specifically. I'm just saying, in a good meta I would expect that winning with CV is reasonably earned.
I don't get why people would need to "kill on sight" a 5c commander because of CV. If I saw a 5c commander and CV was legal, I'd be wary of it, but I wouldn't just kill the commander right away. They might not have CV. They might not even be running it. And if they were, I'd want to hold up my removal, so that if they try to cast CV I can get that sweet, sweet 2-for-1. So as long as they don't try to play CV, their commander is safe (well, unless I'm killing it for another reason).
Also I have no idea what you mean about ETI. Unless someone made you discard it or played some stax piece you can't answer, it's basically always an auto-win. I don't see how that's a working man's win.
You know what's a working man's win? Killing people with a 4/4 flying hippo. That'll put some hair on your chest. Seems like exactly what curiosity is to niv. Or trike is to mikaeus. Just another 2-card combo with a commander.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
But as a comparison to CV, it's not ideal, fair.
T&N does come up in these conversations (and I may have mentioned it once or twice) but I think it's justifiably not banned. Primarily because there are fair ways to use it, and also because it's reasonably skill-friendly in most of the ways it's played - instant-speed removal interacts well with it, usually, and getting good non-instant-win value out of it takes some amount of skill. I think it'd dumb and I don't play it, and if someone else plays it for kikiscripts then I'm miffed, but I'm not crying out for blood about it. I get why it hasn't been banned.
ETI, on the other hand, I think has no justification. It's much harder to interact with than CV, and while you "have to walk it across the line"...I mean, come on. How many games where ETI has resolved haven't resulted in the caster winning? And if they didn't, did the caster perhaps have their brain replaced with a small hamster earlier in the day? Unless you're discarding ulamog or something, you've gotta win by the next turn, and you're definitely not playing it unless you think you can do that. And they've gotta comb through their stupid deck to find the cards they need, and the counterspells if anyone tries to interact...I just see nothing redeemable about the card. No fair use, no fun, just a nigh-impossible-to-interact-with win-the-game slog. Playable in anything with blue. Boo. Boo on ETI.
EDIT: actually, in fairness it has one redeemable feature - that terese nielsen art.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
-While I get that the card is a feelbad at a casual level, I think it's ultimately a pretty safe card for 75%+ metas assuming the players are competent. The spell should generally not be able to go off, and if it can, the winner probably could have won with a number of different cards. Casual does matter though - as I said, I don't want (or at least care about) it being unbanned. But I think people overestimate how good and unanswerable it is, in a non-cEDH, 75%-ish setting.
-At least from how I see the game, I think there are much more "deflating" cards that win the game with fewer avenues to respond. ETI is a good example - sure, labman can be killed, but let's be real that isn't happening if ETI resolved because there's now like 20 counterspells in the controller's hand, and the ETI itself can only be answered by a counterspell. For me, if I controlled the banlist, I'd rather those cards were banned before I'd give a crap about CV. But I'd be fine with both being banned - I just don't really care about CV at all.
-I think using "interacts badly with the format" as the sole justification is an oversimplification for why the card is banned, because the actual reason it's banned is difficult to articulate without bringing into question other cards (like expropriate and ETI) and the actual interaction it has with the rules of the format is substantive but not enormously so (nowhere near LR or felidar, for example). For that matter, I think "only wins the game" is also a bad justification, since there are plenty of other cards that do that too - besides ETI and DD that only implicitly win the game, lab man and all the other alt-wincons explicitly do the same thing (well, I guess lab man also attacks and blocks. Grey ogre ftw!), even if they are usually easier to interact with (but that's not listed as a criteria...I don't think? I hate reading, someone else tell me that I screwed up if it's in there). Do I think other cards could be banned on the same criteria? Probably. I'd rather those cards were also banned, than that CV was unbanned, though. But out of the dumb, easymode win-the-game cards I think CV is one that I, personally, find among the least offensive because it's among the easiest to interact with.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Creates undesirable game states - So I should have read the banlist criteria more closely, because it actually says explicitly "cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere" which obviously fits CV to a T (although I think it's weird they say losing isn't undesirable in the same paragraph, but whatever). So that's on me, the card does obviously fit that criteria. Now, why they wouldn't apply the same criteria to enter the infinite, doomsday, etc I'm not sure. And then they also say "early-game cards that lock players out" but it's not like winter orb or geddon are banned. Are there even cards that fit that bullet point? I guess maybe erayo and/or leovold? Although I'd argue those interact badly with the format by being always-accessible, because their decks are otherwise generally fine without being able to rely on the commander, so idk why they need another criteria that hasn't been used on other cards, including those that very obviously do exactly that. But anyway. My point is - I think it totally justifies itself in this category BUT I think it should just as easily justify banning, at a minimum, ETI and DD. And Primal surge, for that matter. Maybe decree of annihilation too. But definitely definitely DD and ETI.
interacts poorly - maybe we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not even sure what you mean about "the same drawbacks as 60 card" as far as lands - if anything it's easier to get 5 colors in 60 card since you can run up to 40 fetches (probably don't actually run that many). True of standard I guess? Outside of that I think modern, and certainly legacy and vintage, have more powerful fixing than we do. And while yes, having a 5c creature in the command zone is a decent benefit, it strikes me as relative minor compared to the upgrade to SA, karakas, felidar, and LR.
Now, as onering points out, SA is a powerful source of a bad effect, basically. french vanilla beaters are usually very bad here - SA manages to break the glass ceiling by being SO insanely beyond the normal curve that it's still good. But this is why I think this criteria is a little misleading - SA has moved waaaaay past its "original intent" (to quote the guidelines) but, because it's not the sort of thing that's good in commander, it's not a banlist candidate. So really, the issue isn't JUST that it interacts badly with the rules by being much more powerful than intended, but that it interacts badly with the rules AND is an effect that's powerful in commander.
I think even if it did have the text "can't use your commander" I'm pretty sure people would still want it banned, because of the feel-bads of a sorcery saying you win the game (despite being pretty interact-able). At least it would be something people would talk about. That, to me, says that "how it interacts with the format" is a pretty small part of why it's a problematic card - it's just the most obvious tip of the iceberg that people can focus on.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
It produces no mana, so that's obviously out. It's worth 50 cents, so I think the barrier to entry should be fine. Casual omnipresence is impossible since only ~2% of commanders can even legally play it. Sure, maybe it's pretty omnipresent in those 2%, but (1) who cares, it's still 2%, and (2) sol ring is played in nearly every deck I've sat across from, so this criteria is nonsense on its face.
So that leaves us with 2 criteria.
Creates undesirable game states seems almost plausible unless you read the first sentence - "losing is not an undesirable game state". So that's a pretty open-and-shut case. You can maybe argue that "well, it'll make people pick on 5c commanders for fear of it," but that seems ridiculous to me. People don't constantly pulverize all green players just because T&N exists, or blue players because expro or ETI or omniscience exist. Those cards could happen and end the game, but it's all a calculated risk. Yes, they might have CV but they probably don't. Decks are big. Not to say people shouldn't have responses just in case, but they won't, or shouldn't, fire them off at the commander immediately always. That's just bad play.
So now we're down to the last one. The one that the RC is forced to use because none of the others fit. "Because it wins the game" is not a criteria. "Because it doesn't give people a chance to respond" is not a criteria (plus it's false). "Because it doesn't have a fun use" isn't a criteria, in fact it's almost explicitly why cards like doomsday are still legal. So we're forced to use the "interacts badly with the format" criteria.
Now, don't get me wrong - CV is much, much better here than any other format. No question about that. Spells with this casting cost are basically unplayable in virtually every other format, let alone with the same setup required and ease of disruption. That's because of the casual nature of the format, the high life totals, the multiple players, all contribute to a game that's much harder to win, and even harder to win "fairly". But that's also true of many other cards in the format. The fact that this is a format where rise of the dark realms is good is a feature, not a bug. So they can't focus on that.
So the criteria they have to use is that having access to a 5c creature all the time is sufficient boon to the card to justify banning ALONE. And there's no way to justify that, because even with that boost other formats would laugh CV out of the building. But they have to claim it's a huge problem, on its own, because it's the only way to justify banning the card with the banlist criteria as-is.
Now, if you wanted to ask me to justify banning it - that's pretty easy. Big, boring, win-the-game-now cards aren't interesting or conducive to a good game, especially among casual players who don't appreciate the threat-answer dichotomy that characterizes competitive magic. Cards that just exist to win the game without any play-around are not interesting. But then, imo, you've gotta ban enter the infinite too, and doomsday, because those fit the exact same criteria. And, at least imo, expro, although that one is more debatable.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Look, it's fine to think the card should be banned, but the argument that the ONLY reason is because it "interacts badly with [the commander being a reliable source of a 5c creature]" is fairly ridiculous. That's a reasonable contributing factor but it's far from the whole story.
EDIT: aww man I wasted my 5000th post. Lame.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
It's kind of hard to compare SA without the commander damage thing, but even then it's not a fair comparison. You still need to draw CV, after all. Maybe it makes more sense to you, but at least from where I'm sitting it seems pretty apples-and-oranges. A much closer comparison, to me, would be curiosity (+ niv) where it's a combo with your commander. Which isn't perfectly apt either, but it's a lot closer imo.
The point of my "does this interact badly with the format" exercise was to compare how much the format effects those cards. If the card is bannable in commander because it interacts badly with the format, then if it interacted the same way with another format (by changing how the card works, as I did) and seems bannable there, then it seems like the current version should also be banned in commander. And, at least in terms of its interaction with having a 5c commander, I think CV gets a resounding "no" compared to other cards that get a boost from the format.
Not that I don't think the card gets a big boost from the format, but the boost is like 90% "because it's a slow casual format" and 10% "because you have a 5c creature on tap". And from what I can tell, the RC argues strictly from that 10%. (Which I kind of get, because if your argue from the 90% then the same is true for other powerful expensive cards like expro which remain unbanned.)
I don't really follow what you're trying to prove with your fixed cards. I mean, if you fixed SA it's basically unplayable, but that says nothing about whether it should be banned. I guess if a banned card would still be broken even if fixed it would prove that the interaction with the format is irrelevant, but the lack of that doesn't prove the reverse. It proves that the interaction with the format is strong, but not that it's sufficient to ban the card.
There are cards that interact badly with the format (SA, felidar) that we don't ban and don't need banning.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Let's do an exercise where we take cards that interact badly with commander, and try to create a version that interacts roughly the same in other, tournament formats.
First up, serra ascendant. Commander you start with 10 more life than the requirement, so to match let's change the required life to 10. That would absolutely get banned in every format, but that's not quite fair, since commander has twice as high of life totals. So let's scale it down to +2/+2, so it's a 3/3 lifelink flyer as long as you have 10 or more life.
restricted in vintage: maybe? Unsure. Perhaps not.
banned in legacy: probably, delver is already popular and this is significantly better imo.
banned in modern: I would say definitely.
banned in standard: oh my yes.
Ok, now let's look at limited resources. The destroy land clause is basically the same, but the can't play land clause should probably be reduced to 5, assuming we're comparing to a 4-man game of commander.
restricted in vintage: not sure, but definitely seems possible.
banned in legacy: I think very probably.
banned in modern: definitely.
banned in standard: lololol.
Alright, now coalition victory. This one is kind of tricky, but the general issue is supposedly that you always have access to a 5c creature. So let's add "when you draw CV, you add a copy of sliver queen to your hand that goes to the CZ when it dies and does the whole commander thing". Obviously not possible with magic templating but whatever. This is being REALLY generous since in commander your opponent would normally ALSO have some sort of commander obviously and the CV doesn't add anything to your hand, but let's just roll with it.
restricted in vintage: no way
banned in legacy: definitely not
banned in modern: nope
banned in standard: maaaaybe, but mostly for giving you sliver queen. And even then, I think it's very unlikely.
So that's why I call BS on the "interacts badly with the format" thing. At least as regards having a 5c creature in the command zone.
If there IS an argument for why it interacts badly with the format, it has more to do with how the format is much slower than those other formats so that 8-mana 5-color plays aren't laughable, the power level of cards that create a board state where a 5c creature can reasonably fly under the radar, and also the general attitude of the format that removal and counters should be run sparsely, tapping out all the time is par for the course, and careful play is for tryhards. Having the 5c creature on retainer is just the cherry on top, at best.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Maybe I'm misreading you, but I'm a little confused. You point out that expro, T&N, DD, and CV all end the game quickly so there's no social pressure not to run them...doesn't that kind of defeat your argument, unless you want those other cards banned too? As I said, maybe I'm misreading you. But if you don't see expropriate because it's uninteresting, then I don't see any reason you'd expect to see CV either.
Anyway I agree it's not hard to have a commander in play, at least for a turn, and your land types covered. But if that's all you've got, and you cast CV without backup on 8 mana, I would expect you to be punished in a prepared playgroup.
Not entirely sure what you're getting at about SA. Serra ascendant is kind of interesting because she's simultaneously much better and much worse - much better because 30 life is trivial and takes no setup, and much worse because you're facing down 120 enemy life instead of 20. Were she a commander, that would dramatically change the math because of commander damage, plus being always available T1 after which she dramatically goes down in power, so I would be unsurprised to see it banned were it legendary.
Anyway, ignoring the whole commander damage issue, similar things happen for CV - it's better because you have a 5c creature in your hand all the time, but it's also worse because you've got 3x the number of people aiming counterspells and removal at you. Does it get a net benefit from the format? I mean, probably, but no worse than many other cards imo. Compare to something like limited resources, where the format being multiplayer has an insane impact, or karakas that invalidates huge swaths of decks at virtually no cost because the format revolves around legends. Those to me seem like "interacts badly with the format". Having a 5c creature in your hand...eh, idk. I'm not seeing it. I can see reasonable justification for keeping it banned, but that isn't it. Imo.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6