I find it strange when people argue that Sorin Markov creates an undesirable game state, while also arguing that the high starting life totals in the format make aggro "basically useless" (not at all true except in the most competitive and combo-rific of metagames, but whatever). What Sorin actually does is reset the life total of one player - perhaps the combo player? - within easy range of a kill. Seems to me that people complaining about the life totals would consider that a good thing, since it would allow combat-oriented decks to be a bit more competitive.
It was also said, above,
CV creates exactly the same undesirable game states as any other combo/haymaker finish.
Which isn't really true either. A lot of the haymaker cards people complain about are manageable if people build decks that have some built-in resilience. I've seen pillow-fort players laugh at attempts to take them out with Insurrection - "Sure, you can attack me with everything, if you can come up with 13 mana per attacking creature to do it!" - while other players have quashed such attempts with a lowly Fog. Ironically, those sorts of defenses don't tend to come up in combo-oriented metagames, because nobody is worried about combat losses anyhow, and the life totals become meaningless. Pillow forts don't accomplish much if people regularly assemble "I win" combos or win via storm before turn 7.
The real problem with a lot of the arguments being made here is that they are being made from a place of viewing the format in a different manner than it was intended to be played. Mike/Trike, infinite mana combos and such don't really lend themselves to memorable, social games. This is true of most combo wins, in fact. Palinchron stunts lead to lots of wins, but none of them are memorable, because we've all seen them before. Same with storm wins and all that. The fact that they're reliable and effective also makes them predictable and boring. The RC doesn't heavily regulate combo because people who are intent on winning via the same predictable combos or linear avenues of play, or who would argue that something like CV is on par with some other lame combo, don't really "get" the intent of the format in the first place, so there's no real point in trying to regulate against their shenanigans. Ban one combo piece and those sorts of players will find some other way to break a format that is by admission easy to break if that is your intent. If Doomsday, Ad Nauesum and Palinchron were banned, they'd just keep looking for the latest lame combo one might assemble from the format's huge card pool - Leovold + Teferi's Puzzle Box, perhaps? - and trying to keep up with that would lead to a cumbersome banned list. Instead, Coalition Victory, Worldfire and the like are left on the list as obvious examples of the most anticlimactic possible "I win" nonsense, in hopes people will get that wins of that type are considered cheap and unmemorable, and build accordingly.
People say Tooth and Nail can be use in fair ways... I mean get a grip guys. You're choosing to belittle your mates, or playing around with them when you're using it "fairly". If you choose to play it fairly, why not omit it altogether?
Because it's a fun card. And very powerful, but only broken if you choose to break it. And, believe it or not, not everyone chooses to break it.
In the couple decks I have that run TnN, I can't use it to pull up an "I win" combo because I intentionally don't include those combos in my decks. I don't run Zealous Conscripts in any deck that includes Kiki-Jiki. I don't run Triskellion at all, but were I to do so, I would not include it in a deck that included the black Mikaeus. It's not about belittling those I play with, or messing with them, it's about building the way I want to build. When you are building to break TnN, you are choosing to do that. It isn't required. I can still get tons of value by putting very powerful and effective creatures in my deck without playing the same, tedious combos. I can win just fine by putting something more fair like Avenger of Zendikar in play with a haste enabler or some creature that pumps attackers without having to do Kiki/Mite BS. But other times, I use TnN to fetch answers, rather than to try to win with it. I might grab Kiki and Acidic Slime to take out two pillowfort enchantments, or to get rid of Urborg/Coffers.
Combos that don't lead to a win - what I'd refer to as good synergy and such - that's fine. That's what good deck building is about. But the "I win" ones, I just find that stuff predictable and boring.
As do I. But you are not in favor of banning parts of specific combo are you? Because I think thats what this is.
Generally, I'm not about banning parts of specific combo, because most combo cards can be used fairly, even though some (Palinchron, for example) almost never are. But this card is the only part of the combo in question that is a problem, and this specific card has no other possible purpose whatsoever except to enable the "I win" combo. So, in this case I think it staying banned is fine. In contrast, I wouldn't ever argue that Kiki-Jiki or Dark Mike should be banned, though I reserve the right to roll my eyes and sigh when people play boring combos based around those cards. Heck, I play both of those cards in multiple decks. I just never play Trike along with Mike, or Zealous Conscripts in the same deck that contains Kiki.
This just is not true. I don't view the game through a competitive lense at all. The RC no longer takes combo into account for bans, this is combo.
Is it really though? I mean, I understand that you weren't addressing me with this response, but I thought I'd chime in because I'm not sure I even believe that Coalition Victoryis a combo card. It's a one card combo with a trivial setup that opponents can't typically respond to.
Coalition Victory is a combo card in that you have to have certain pieces in play for it to do anything. The problem is, the pieces can be in play and seem completely innocuous, and then if CV is successfully played, the game just ends. That makes it somewhat more obnoxious and anti-climactic than most that are currently possible in the game, but it's still not that much different than the sorts of combo wins preferrred by more competitive players, who typically hold back until the can combo off and win in one turn unless stopped right then and there.
People who are thinking Coalition Victory is fine are approaching the game from a competitive POV, and from that POV, they're pretty much correct that CV really isn't worse than other combo wins. However, what those players are missing - as usual - is that the format was not designed and is not intended as a competitive format full of "I win" combos, but rather as a social one. Social games have different concerns, and the intent - as Sheldon and others in the RC have said repeatedly - is to make for memorable games in which interesting things happen.
This just is not true. I don't view the game through a competitive lense at all. The RC no longer takes combo into account for bans, this is combo.
I know you aren't a competitive player, but a lot of the people who have been chiming in about being okay with CV are competitive players, and they are okay with it because it's essentially just another combo.
So you feel the same way about all combo?
Yeah, I do feel that way about combos which directly result in a win. The Mike/Trike stuff, Kiki/Conscripts, Palinchron stunts, infinite mana, infinite recurson loops, all that stuff... once you've seen it, it's tedious and boring. The fact that it's an effective route to a win doesn't keep me from finding it boring as all get out, because while I would prefer to win as opposed to losing, I would much rather lose a game that was interesting than win with Hermit Druid or Ad Nauseum stunts.
Combos that don't lead to a win - what I'd refer to as good synergy and such - that's fine. That's what good deck building is about. But the "I win" ones, I just find that stuff predictable and boring.
People who are thinking Coalition Victory is fine are approaching the game from a competitive POV, and from that POV, they're pretty much correct that CV really isn't worse than other combo wins. However, what those players are missing - as usual - is that the format was not designed and is not intended as a competitive format full of "I win" combos, but rather as a social one. Social games have different concerns, and the intent - as Sheldon and others in the RC have said repeatedly - is to make for memorable games in which interesting things happen. Combo wins don't make for memorable wins, because the wins obtained are essentially the same from game to game. Once you've seen the trick, most combos are in fact really boring. The greatest drama in a combo win is whether or not someone can get their "I win this turn" combo past removal or countermagic. Similarly, something like Coalition Victory, which in a non-competitive game is just going to come out of left field and instantly win the game, makes for something anti-climactic, as opposed to memorable or interesting. As such, it has no place in the format at the format was designed and intended to be played.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It was also said, above, Which isn't really true either. A lot of the haymaker cards people complain about are manageable if people build decks that have some built-in resilience. I've seen pillow-fort players laugh at attempts to take them out with Insurrection - "Sure, you can attack me with everything, if you can come up with 13 mana per attacking creature to do it!" - while other players have quashed such attempts with a lowly Fog. Ironically, those sorts of defenses don't tend to come up in combo-oriented metagames, because nobody is worried about combat losses anyhow, and the life totals become meaningless. Pillow forts don't accomplish much if people regularly assemble "I win" combos or win via storm before turn 7.
The real problem with a lot of the arguments being made here is that they are being made from a place of viewing the format in a different manner than it was intended to be played. Mike/Trike, infinite mana combos and such don't really lend themselves to memorable, social games. This is true of most combo wins, in fact. Palinchron stunts lead to lots of wins, but none of them are memorable, because we've all seen them before. Same with storm wins and all that. The fact that they're reliable and effective also makes them predictable and boring. The RC doesn't heavily regulate combo because people who are intent on winning via the same predictable combos or linear avenues of play, or who would argue that something like CV is on par with some other lame combo, don't really "get" the intent of the format in the first place, so there's no real point in trying to regulate against their shenanigans. Ban one combo piece and those sorts of players will find some other way to break a format that is by admission easy to break if that is your intent. If Doomsday, Ad Nauesum and Palinchron were banned, they'd just keep looking for the latest lame combo one might assemble from the format's huge card pool - Leovold + Teferi's Puzzle Box, perhaps? - and trying to keep up with that would lead to a cumbersome banned list. Instead, Coalition Victory, Worldfire and the like are left on the list as obvious examples of the most anticlimactic possible "I win" nonsense, in hopes people will get that wins of that type are considered cheap and unmemorable, and build accordingly.
Because it's a fun card. And very powerful, but only broken if you choose to break it. And, believe it or not, not everyone chooses to break it.
In the couple decks I have that run TnN, I can't use it to pull up an "I win" combo because I intentionally don't include those combos in my decks. I don't run Zealous Conscripts in any deck that includes Kiki-Jiki. I don't run Triskellion at all, but were I to do so, I would not include it in a deck that included the black Mikaeus. It's not about belittling those I play with, or messing with them, it's about building the way I want to build. When you are building to break TnN, you are choosing to do that. It isn't required. I can still get tons of value by putting very powerful and effective creatures in my deck without playing the same, tedious combos. I can win just fine by putting something more fair like Avenger of Zendikar in play with a haste enabler or some creature that pumps attackers without having to do Kiki/Mite BS. But other times, I use TnN to fetch answers, rather than to try to win with it. I might grab Kiki and Acidic Slime to take out two pillowfort enchantments, or to get rid of Urborg/Coffers.
Generally, I'm not about banning parts of specific combo, because most combo cards can be used fairly, even though some (Palinchron, for example) almost never are. But this card is the only part of the combo in question that is a problem, and this specific card has no other possible purpose whatsoever except to enable the "I win" combo. So, in this case I think it staying banned is fine. In contrast, I wouldn't ever argue that Kiki-Jiki or Dark Mike should be banned, though I reserve the right to roll my eyes and sigh when people play boring combos based around those cards. Heck, I play both of those cards in multiple decks. I just never play Trike along with Mike, or Zealous Conscripts in the same deck that contains Kiki.
Coalition Victory is a combo card in that you have to have certain pieces in play for it to do anything. The problem is, the pieces can be in play and seem completely innocuous, and then if CV is successfully played, the game just ends. That makes it somewhat more obnoxious and anti-climactic than most that are currently possible in the game, but it's still not that much different than the sorts of combo wins preferrred by more competitive players, who typically hold back until the can combo off and win in one turn unless stopped right then and there.
I know you aren't a competitive player, but a lot of the people who have been chiming in about being okay with CV are competitive players, and they are okay with it because it's essentially just another combo.
Yeah, I do feel that way about combos which directly result in a win. The Mike/Trike stuff, Kiki/Conscripts, Palinchron stunts, infinite mana, infinite recurson loops, all that stuff... once you've seen it, it's tedious and boring. The fact that it's an effective route to a win doesn't keep me from finding it boring as all get out, because while I would prefer to win as opposed to losing, I would much rather lose a game that was interesting than win with Hermit Druid or Ad Nauseum stunts.
Combos that don't lead to a win - what I'd refer to as good synergy and such - that's fine. That's what good deck building is about. But the "I win" ones, I just find that stuff predictable and boring.