....well, not that 'consistency' is an argument, but that argument (what positive does it add to the game) can be applied to quite a few other cards too. null rod, iona, shield of emeria, invoke prejudice, even omen of fire, the list goes on).
Just 'cuz you don't appreciate it, doesn't mean no one appreciates it. I'm not really sure that cards that aren't deserving to be banned should stay banned just because of inertia. Cards should be played as long as they're not actually problematic.
Except that all the cards you listed actually do something other than just win the game. They all have fair uses (except, I'd argue, for Iona, because I think she should eat a ban, but she's borderline). The only use for CV is to immediately win the game. Because what CV does is expressly opposed to the philosophy of the format, unbanning it would detract from the format rather than add to it. A few people would enjoy this, likely fewer than think they would, and most would not. The enjoyment those few people would get out of this card is legitimate, but irrelevant. People would also enjoy playing the rest of the power 9 beyond timetwister, there would be people who'd enjoy Shaharazad, etc. This card isn't just banned due to inertia, and would eat a near immediate ban if it was first printed in WAR. One of the few cards to eat a near immediate ban upon printing was Worldfire, for mostly the same reasons as CV. RC members have repeatedly commented about why this card is banned, and none of it has to do with inertia.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
No thanks. I don't feel like hitting my head against a brick wall of stupidity for another 15 pages. I think I lost enough brain cells the last time. Case-in-point, there are at least two people here that either think Stasis is an interactive card:
I've seen some terrible comparisons, but bringing stasis into this and claiming its a non interactive auto win is just wow.
So hard pass on the "trying to enlighten you" plan. I'd rather try to explain game theory to a dog. At least that one has a chance of succeeding.
The why the F*** are you even here? You clearly enjoy banging your head against the wall, which would actually explain a lot with the crap you post.
One line “zingers” don’t exactly further any sort of relevant discussion. So combine your ramblings with a guy whose stance is “I’m not advocating one way or the other for the card to be banned, and I don’t agree with the RC, but this is why I don’t think CV needs to be banned” and your left with what we have here.
Honestly, the thread should just be locked and do away with the discussion all together. The points were brought up in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Nothing has changed in the format. It’s the same people on the same sides of their respective fences.
I also vote to lock this dumpster fire. Hell, this thread alone begs the question "how has this dude not been permabanned yet?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
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.
And this is the point where you've surrendered your credibility. What's really gotten into you lately? You've been trying to push controversial hot takes like "balance is fine" and "CV is fine" and then trying to both A: have it both ways by claiming you still think it should be banned but everyone who thinks it should be banned is wrong and B: argue they are fine based on your own specific playgroup and dismiss any argument that acknowledges the wider community or the banlist philosophy (which from what you've been posting is a hell of a lot more consistent than your own hot takes).
It's become apparent that you aren't actually interested in having a real conversation and much more interested in starting arguments. Especially when half of your responses in this thread have essentially been git gud scrub. You've been playing calvinball far too often lately, and it's impossible to have a good faith conversation when one party is constantly changing what they think is important and the argument they are trying to make depending on what works better to dismiss counter arguments.
The only way I can see your posts making sense at this point is if the idea you are trying to get across is "CV should be banned, but it's a fine card to house unban." If that's the case, you've done an awful job getting your point across.
Finally, when you start a SCD about whether something should get banned or come off the banlist, the reasonable expectation is that you are discussing this in the context of the actual RC and how they ban and unban cards. The reason for this is so that an actual common ground discussion can be had rather than everyone talking past each other because they are all only taking into account their own arbitrary criteria and preferences. As we can see, simply discussing personal preferences when having an SCD inevitably degenerates into "I think it's fine" vs "I don't" with no way for either side to effectively make their point, because the two sides don't agree, or even know, what makes a card "fine" or "not fine" for everyone. And it's a terrible place to discuss the general banlist philosophy and it's perceived shortcomings, because there is already a stickied thread for that, and every time it comes up in a SCD thread it ends up being a threadjack that devolves into circular arguments.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
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.
You're absolutely right; most removal(land or creature) operates at instant speed, and ideally, one would wait until the casting of CV to fully neuter the potential threat. But surprisingly(not really), casual tables are FULL of sub-optimal plays. CV will likely exacerbate the problem of those sub-optimal plays, because people will primarily have 'gotta stop CV' on their mind. It is possible(even likely) that the problem will correct its course after a while as more people learn the right timing, but that's not a ship I'd want to be on in the meantime.
Again, you assume that people are going to be completely open and honest about what's in their deck('they can just say they're not running CV), but not everyone will. The dishonesty of those few will leave a foul taste in the mouth of those who got snookered, leading to them not even caring if the next BUGRW guy does or does NOT have Coalition Victory. They've been fooled once, and d***ed if they'll be fooled again, you're going down! Yeah, there's generally no reason to conceal your deck because it's just a casual game, but by and large, no one cares: they like to keep surprises, fun or not.
CV, overall, would be poison for the format because we're human. It'd be nice to play in a format where everyone was open about what's in their deck, played degenerate cards fairly, and there was no ban list(imperfect as it is), but here we are. You make points about EtI(I use T&N, so I'm biased on that), but those cards need more setup beyond 'playing the game'.
And that's all I'm going to say, because you're not pushing for an unban like others.
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.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
The eyerolling associated with 'all it does is win the game' doesn't change the fact that all it does is win the game. It's not interactive, and it's a feelsbad card. I'm not overly worried about it in terms of power level and being successful. Counterspells exist, so there's that. It's just.....what does the format gain by having this card available? At very most, a non-interactive, now-obsolete win the game card that has a smidgen of lore associated (barely).
Sure sounds like you were describing Stasis. A non-interactive, feelsbad card that doesn't have any power level concerns associated with it but doesn't really add anything fun or interesting to the format. Pretty much describes Stasis to a T. So if the basis for banning CV is because it doesn't add anything to the format, perhaps we should be looking around at some other offenders too, no?
Stasis is plenty interactive. It affects other people's boards, it's a permanent that can be easily removed, requires input from the caster in order to stay on the field, and it doesn't end the game on the stop. There is no equivalency here with CV, period.
But we're not going to. Instead we're going to continue parroting "interacts poorly with the format" like it's the password into Heaven, because that's simpler.
I didn't mention 'interacts poorly with the format'. You did. If this is all you have to add to the discussion you're free to not reply.
I've seen some terrible comparisons, but bringing stasis into this and claiming its a non interactive auto win is just wow.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
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.
I'm going to refute your points individually
1. Your point here makes sense, but is an argument for it staying banned. Saying that it would be a problematic card in casual but cEDH and skilled 75% metas could handle it is just another way of saying that it's a card that should be banned but on the table for house unbans in strong metas. I guess this isn't really a refutation so much as agreeing with the point because it makes my case.
2. There's a good argument for banning cards like ETI, but there are real differences between the cards that make something like ETI less banworthy than CV. ETI provides more points of interaction, costs more, and can actually backfire and lose you the game to a well timed forced draw or sudden spoiling. Nonetheless, I think CV is so far over the line that ETI being less banworthy may be academic as it may still be banworthy. Although, I really only see it in more competitive builds since going the ETI route, like the Doomsday route, means you've given it thought and decided to run a combo deck, whereas CV requires little though beyond identifying that it can be a free win in your sliver deck.
3. Interacting poorly with the format alone makes this a borderline card. When taken with it's other violations, we don't have to engage in an academic exercise as to whether this alone should keep it banned. Even if this alone were insufficient, it's still significant enough to warrant a banning in conjunction with it hitting problem game states hard and hitting problematic omnipresence moderately (projected anyway).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Enter the Infinite I think is a relevant comparison. It really does just win without any setup, and is a close to printing "you win" as you conceivably get without actually printing "you win." Doomsday is a bit different. Without even getting into the fact that Doomsday is a particularly skill intensive card compared to other potential game enders, Doomsday requires a significant amount of deckbuilding considerations AND a fair amount of setup to ensure it actually does win. Its a super tutor for 5 cards that also searches your graveyard, but it tutors them all to the top of your library at sorcery speed. It requires a way to actually draw those cards immediately to be a "cast this and win" card.
The thing with cards like Doomsday is they generally will not be played until they can win you the game, so it might seem like that's all they do, but they can certainly be played without winning you the game, which is something CV simply doesn't do. Doomsday can, in desperation, be played as a tutor. T&N can be played as a big dumb spell that grabs big dumb creatures, following "build casually play competitively" you can build your deck to ensure that's all it does. Primal Surge is either a "play and win" card with significant deck building restrictions, or a big dumb spell that's little different than other big dumb spells in a normal deck. The RC has said on several occasions that these alternative "fair" uses matter when deciding whether to ban or unban a card. The chance of a spell being problematic to casual play is another big factor, which is much more likely for something splashy and straightforward like CV or Worldfire than something techy, subtle, and skill intensive like Doomsday. Also important is the ability of a card to accidentally ruin games. Nobody has ever put Doomsday in a deck and accidentally hit a combo. CV otoh is a card that bleeds flavor and seems really cool, and seems to a casual player like an obvious inclusion in a 5 color deck, then it actually gets played and sucks the life out of the room. Worldfire as well is a flavorful, evocative, splashy effect that Timmy would be drawn to, and then they cast it in game and suddenly its frowns all around.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
* 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.
Bro, read your the problematic game states quote again. I even quoted the relevant sentence to you before. "Cards that have a limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere" is one of the things they look for with this criteria. There is quite literally no better poster child for that that CV. The first sentence makes it clear that winning, in and of itself, is not problematic, but the rest of the paragraph goes on to detail situations in which winning can be problematic. Simple logic here, a card that has no function other than to win out of nowhere is only a type of card that can win the game out of nowhere, so saying that the RC doesn't ban all cards that are capable of winning the game when cast ISN'T saying that they won't ban cards whose only use is winning out of nowhere. Further, winning with minimal interaction is only a subset of states that fall under the larger category of winning. Thus, the RC can easily say that winning isn't problematic, but winning in this specific way is, and thus cards that do so can be banned. It is logically coherent and your attempt to argue otherwise falls flat.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
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.
I'm sorry, but if your trying to compare bannability in vintage and legacy to bannability in commander, you are woefully off base on several levels.
First of all, you ignore that the sort of cards that are good in vintage/legacy and the sort of cards that are good in commander are often quite different, to the point that your whole exercise is a useless apples to oranges comparison. Take Delver of secrets, a legacy all star, which sucks in edh. Or deathrite shaman, which is just pretty good in edh (and even then, it's better in cEDH and very underwhelming in casual metas) while being banned in several more competitive formats. Meanwhile, ***** like bio and worldfire are rightly banned in commander while being laughably bad in literally every other format.
Second, you are continually making the mistake of not understanding the underlying banlist philosophy, or simply ignoring it. Power level and balance are not ban criteria. Interacting poorly with the format does not only refer to cards becoming oppressively powerful, but also to cards just becoming unfun to the point of ruining games. Karakas is the poster child here, as what it does, while powerful, isn't anywhere close to the most powerful thing you can do. It is, however, an annoying and game wrecking effect enabled by the formats focus on legendary creatures that are always available. CV ends up being another poster child for the same reason, because of the degree to which always having a 5 color available makes meeting it's conditions, which is a significant hurdle in 60 card, trivially easy. Commander being 40 life and multiplayer also contributes to this, as it makes 8 Mana win cons viable especially at casual tables, while outside of urzatron or sneak and show that's not a thing in normal magic, especially not competitive 1v1 formats.
You've done a fine job making the case on why you wouldn't mind playing against CV, but those arguments aren't relevant to the banlist. If you were trying to argue for house unbans I'd be right there with you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Lastly, Dirk you have a way of presenting your arguments and describing yourself and decks in a manner that gives me the impression you fancy yourself a very good player playing in higher power games. Not disputing this, but I mention it because if so, you aren't the type of player that the Rules Committee is concerned with. You can handle yourself in a game, and you probably play in a similarly powered group that can regulate itself through house bans or metagaming your decks. So using the argument of "I don't have a problem with this card and these cards are worse" is skewed towards a small group of players and isn't necessarily representative of the majority of players.
I don't think this is an accurate representation of the Hippo's arguments at all. He was quite clear, along with being a point I'd agree with, regarding the Teferi vs Niv analogy. New players might and have been peeved at losing to Niv/Locust/Nekusar decks drawing cards and dealing all of the damage, but that comes down to that deck doing "all of the things" between drawing cards and taking super long turns to do so. Teferi on the other hand, is a much harder interaction for them to understand that can literally stop everyone else playing the game until they win.
However, CV adds nothing the format needs right now, whilst only providing another "feels-bad" moment to annoy all those who hate Dramatic Scepter and Second Sun style wins - That being what appears to be the thought of "if my life total isn't going to 0, its not a legitimate win". The hate for Expropriate on the other hand just fits in with players hating long periods of inaction. I played my Selvala ER deck this Monday gone for example, drawing all of my opponents lots of cards, didn't even win the game or come close. The response? "Its not fun because we aren't playing". But I have to agree with them, since this concept of long periods of inaction = bad rings true for many other things other than extra turns. Should cards be banned based on this notion? Thats where I would disagree with Dirk.
Dirk, I get what you're saying and that you see why the RC wants it banned, but your argument and reason for bringing this card back up are to discuss why you think it should be unbanned. That is what I'm responding to for the most part. Retarding CV vs Teferi and similar win the game cards that create feel-bad game states, those are largely self regulating because players can recognize that their opponents are having a miserable time finishing the game. Coalition Victory (and Expropriate, Tooth and Nail, Doomsday, etc. all fall into this category as well) on the other hand, very quickly ends the game. So there is no social pressure to not run it, "hey the game.is over we can just shuffle up a new one". This mentality, combined with the relative ease of running CV, makes it attractive to put in every 5c deck. I don't worry about Expropriate, Enter the Infinite, or Omniscience, because they are cards that I see seldomly in my group. I would fully expect every true 5c deck to run CV and question them if they weren't. Because with 10 fetches and 20 duals that I can buy relatively cheaply (although the enemy fetches have climbed again) along side ETBT fetches and green ramp, 9t should be no effort at all by turn 8 to have all land types and your general in play.
One other thought since you mentioned disagreeing with "interacts poorly with the format" and Serra Ascendant. If she were legendary and always available in the Command zone[quote from="DirkGently »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/commander-rules-discussion-forum/754514-coalition-victory?comment=414"]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.
Except that having access to a 5 color creature at all times is a big deal. You simply don't have to draw or tutor for it. That takes care of half of the conditions for CV from the get go, and if you can cast it the other half is very likely met. It simply makes it far too easy to just cast a card that just wins the game.
This is a card that belongs on the banlist, but it's probably one of the cards in the banlist that is most safely house unbanned. Power level is not a ban criteria, though it influences several. Because of this, CV has a relatively low power level considering how hard it hits the ban criteria. Thus, in certain playgroups, it's rather safe to house unban. In fact, I'd argue that it's problems would disappear in a playgroup that sees a lot of control decks ran by decent players, or a more highly skilled 75% playgroup. It's not going to surprise anyone, since a house unban requires discussion and everyone will expect it, and with skilled players or enough control decks actually firing it off would be difficult. Thus, CV in such a playgroup would go from being a miserable game ender that cold cocks the table to a cute, inefficient wincon that the player is trying to force.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
But why create a new thread when one already exists for this card?
Nah, this card shouldn't be unbanned. All it does is win the game, it combos with almost any commander that can cast it (except for 3 now), and serves literally no other purpose. It is exactly the sort of card that the RC doesn't want, and banning it sends a message about their vision for the format. It adds nothing to the format, but certainly detracts from it.
Honestly, just refer back to the thread that already exists. It basically hits "interacts poorly with the format" as hard as a card can. Having a 5 color creature always available drastically reduces the hurdle you have to get over for this card. It also hits "creates problematic game states" as hard as it can. No, winning is not a problematic game state, but "cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere" are. It is only minimally telegraphed, as the hints that its coming are 1: the player played lands and 2: the player cast their commander. That is far too broad to be reasonably considered telegraphing, and it implicates most 5 color decks. It would also hit problematic casual omnipresence somewhat, as if you are running a 5 color commander in casual this is almost a no brainer, it will win you the game with minimal setup and an extremely limited window to answer it. The only thing holding it back on this a bit is that 5 color legends themselves aren't that common. Taken together, it shouldn't be a surprise that this card is banned.
The cEDH argument is absolutely irrelevant, as always. Less powerful cards that CV are banned. In casual, its conditions, including hitting 8 mana, are trivial, and casual tables are less likely to be able to answer it in its short window. Dirk's argument about similar cards includes "sure, those are easier to play around and don't necessarily win the game," which pretty much answers why they aren't banned but CV is. T&N at its most miserable is comparable to CV, but can also be used in non miserable ways. I suspect that if the RC's philosophy changed from allowing problematic cards if they have non problematic uses and actually get played that way (as T&N, Rise, etc do at casual tables) to banning problematic cards without looking for mitigated factors (basically, only looking at one side of the equation), then many of those cards would be banned. CV is the sort of effect that loudly goes against the founding spirit of the format, and that's literally all the card does, not just in practice but its actually all it can do. So its banned, not just because it has no redeeming qualities to offset its miserable function, but because it also serves the secondary purpose of the banlist, which is to communicate what sort of things you should avoid. In this case, its trying to win the game with one card and minimal interaction, and trying to cheat the format.
Expropriate is Timewalk stapled to Blatant Thievery. Its extremely powerful, but doesn't win the game on its own. So long as everyone votes money, the caster usually gets a significant boost to winning but it isn't a sure thing. If there are enough bonkers things around the table, its much more likely to be an auto win, with the extra turn making it ape insurrection a bit, but I've seen it resolve without being game ending enough that I can't put it in the same category as Worldfire, CV, Bio, etc. T&N is really the most egregious point of comparison, with Enter the Infinite and Doomsday also there. I understand why T&N isn't banned, because it does have fair uses and I have encountered them, just like Hulk. Enter and Doomsday function as intended, and both require more deckbuilding considerations than CV and arguably a good amount more skill to execute (especially Doomsday, which is a cEDH staple but sees scant casual play).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I started rereading this thread, and I hadn't realized that papa_funk had already answered why this card is staying banned back at the start. It has now been explained by the RC twice. At this point, people still arguing for an unban are straight up ignoring reality.
I am again calling for the thread to be temporarily locked as all points from both sides have been made ad nauseum, the RC has spoken twice definitively on the subject, and posters are either talking past each other or engaging in insults or passive aggressive bs. The card is not getting unbanned unless the RC changes its ban criteria to drop the interacts poorly with the format category, as this card is the poster child for that category. Discussion of THAT moves beyond a single card discussion surrounding just CV, so there is no further purpose for this thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Honestly, this thread had become a crap show. The question has been answered by the RC. People can disagree, but its childish to pretend like the RC didn't address the issue in a way that is consistent with their stated policy and other bannings. You don't like those criteria, fine, start a thread about how it should change, again that would be an interesting conversation that might actually get people thinking. Continuing this thread, however is just pissing in the wind at this point, so I'm out, and requesting a lock.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
The problem I have with the blanket way people talk about that card and the ban list in general is illustrated well right there.
You seem to have built in your head a conception about this boogeyman of a card that will only ever be in every single deck that plays five colors or in none them and are falling into the same traps about reality and not that you accuse others of.
Why isn't every white deck in Commander running Approach of the Second Sun if we are going to play on theoretical nonsense parameters of how people build magic decks.
Or the idea that a game ending at the resolution of an 8 mana spell is a negating effect on the rest of the game of magic to that point is an weird way of looking at a multiplayer game played in a social setting.
If you think that approach of the second sun and CV are even remotely comparable, then you really, truly don't know what you are talking about.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
But then, as it's the same answer as you've already been told about 50 times...I'm not surprised you'd think different.
Because it turns out simply being told something over and over without a good explanation as to why is deeply frustrating. The official answer does nothing to address the points raised in this thread and instead resorts to the same kind of fear-mongering ("If CV was legal everyone would have to target the 5-color player first because baseless assumptions!") that has permeated this entire discussion. Obviously, as this is the official RC stance there is no point in arguing anymore beyond simply saying how wrong this clearly is and leaving it at that. But hey, it's not like the RC has ever beenwrongbefore. Never!
History will vindicate me.
Sorry, but no, the stay banned side has addressed your points, repeatedly, for months now. The RC gave a detailed answer, and you have nothing to counter the argument that the only thing, literally the only thing, that CV does is win the game in a way that interacts poorly with the structure of the format.
Your examples of cards that have been unbanned are, frankly, irrelevant, as they are nothing like CV. If you were being reasonable, you'd have noticed that the cards that ARE like CV, like Worldfire, Biorythm, and Sway of the Stars, are banned and almost certainly going to stay that way. And unlike cards like Koko, Staff, or even Hulk, where we saw alternatives printed and not banned, and where competing strategies got better, things that led to their unbanning, Worldfire was printed long after CV had been on the banlist, and was QUICKLY banned. I'm still surprised that on its own wasn't enough of a signal that the RC isn't unbanning these sorts of cards any time soon.
What's really frustrating is when someone pretends that arguments are invalid simply because they don't like them. You lost track of what we are talking about here. This isn't a discussion about whether you think you'd be cool with CV being ran in your playgroup, its a discussion about whether the RC would unban CV (and by implication, the cards like it that actually can do something other than win on the spot) based on their ban criteria and whether CV still meets them. The stays banned side made arguments as to why they thought it should stay banned, some of which where according to preference (e.g., thinking the effect was unfair), but also arguments for why the RC would leave it banned, which were entirely based on the ban criteria. Once again, it keeps coming down to the fact that there is no other use for CV other than to do something that the RC has repeatedly, and consistently, said goes against what Commander is supposed to be. Its not like Hulk (and T&N and Boonweaver), where the competitive combo win is something the RC isn't keen on, but the existence of alternative uses means that its possible for those cards to show up in games and do other things. Its not like World Gorger Dragon, where there existed a possibility where it would enable just another combo to build around, and would have been rebanned if it got out of control. There exist only two scenarios if CV gets unbanned: CV sees play and does its thing, eating a reban, or CV doesn't see play, which is functionally the same as the status quo. The best case scenario is that it only pops up in playgroups that are OK with it, and whoa house unbans are totally a thing so you can do that now already! And you don't have to worry that the rando online or at the store running 5 color goodstuff is going to just randomly fire off CV, so he can actually run that deck without everyone gunning for him out of the gate, because even if he isn't running CV his opponents would have to assume he is if it where unbanned.
Now, is there a discussion to be had as to whether the RC should revisit its ban criteria, that perhaps "interacts poorly with the format" should be removed? I think that would be an interesting discussion, and wouldn't get bogged down in whether certain cards meet that requirement and whether those cards have other uses that outweigh it or other problems that reinforce it. It would be a discussion on a philosophical aspect of the banlist rather than how an individual card fits. That would be a discussion worth having. IF the RC were to do away with that, I'd see most of the banned legendaries come off the list, as well as Karakas, Sway, Wordlfire, Biorythmn, CV, possibly Trade Secrets (the collusion aspect is a poor multiplayer interaction), Upheaval, and perhaps even Limited Resources.
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Except that all the cards you listed actually do something other than just win the game. They all have fair uses (except, I'd argue, for Iona, because I think she should eat a ban, but she's borderline). The only use for CV is to immediately win the game. Because what CV does is expressly opposed to the philosophy of the format, unbanning it would detract from the format rather than add to it. A few people would enjoy this, likely fewer than think they would, and most would not. The enjoyment those few people would get out of this card is legitimate, but irrelevant. People would also enjoy playing the rest of the power 9 beyond timetwister, there would be people who'd enjoy Shaharazad, etc. This card isn't just banned due to inertia, and would eat a near immediate ban if it was first printed in WAR. One of the few cards to eat a near immediate ban upon printing was Worldfire, for mostly the same reasons as CV. RC members have repeatedly commented about why this card is banned, and none of it has to do with inertia.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I also vote to lock this dumpster fire. Hell, this thread alone begs the question "how has this dude not been permabanned yet?"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
And this is the point where you've surrendered your credibility. What's really gotten into you lately? You've been trying to push controversial hot takes like "balance is fine" and "CV is fine" and then trying to both A: have it both ways by claiming you still think it should be banned but everyone who thinks it should be banned is wrong and B: argue they are fine based on your own specific playgroup and dismiss any argument that acknowledges the wider community or the banlist philosophy (which from what you've been posting is a hell of a lot more consistent than your own hot takes).
It's become apparent that you aren't actually interested in having a real conversation and much more interested in starting arguments. Especially when half of your responses in this thread have essentially been git gud scrub. You've been playing calvinball far too often lately, and it's impossible to have a good faith conversation when one party is constantly changing what they think is important and the argument they are trying to make depending on what works better to dismiss counter arguments.
The only way I can see your posts making sense at this point is if the idea you are trying to get across is "CV should be banned, but it's a fine card to house unban." If that's the case, you've done an awful job getting your point across.
Finally, when you start a SCD about whether something should get banned or come off the banlist, the reasonable expectation is that you are discussing this in the context of the actual RC and how they ban and unban cards. The reason for this is so that an actual common ground discussion can be had rather than everyone talking past each other because they are all only taking into account their own arbitrary criteria and preferences. As we can see, simply discussing personal preferences when having an SCD inevitably degenerates into "I think it's fine" vs "I don't" with no way for either side to effectively make their point, because the two sides don't agree, or even know, what makes a card "fine" or "not fine" for everyone. And it's a terrible place to discuss the general banlist philosophy and it's perceived shortcomings, because there is already a stickied thread for that, and every time it comes up in a SCD thread it ends up being a threadjack that devolves into circular arguments.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
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.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I've seen some terrible comparisons, but bringing stasis into this and claiming its a non interactive auto win is just wow.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I'm going to refute your points individually
1. Your point here makes sense, but is an argument for it staying banned. Saying that it would be a problematic card in casual but cEDH and skilled 75% metas could handle it is just another way of saying that it's a card that should be banned but on the table for house unbans in strong metas. I guess this isn't really a refutation so much as agreeing with the point because it makes my case.
2. There's a good argument for banning cards like ETI, but there are real differences between the cards that make something like ETI less banworthy than CV. ETI provides more points of interaction, costs more, and can actually backfire and lose you the game to a well timed forced draw or sudden spoiling. Nonetheless, I think CV is so far over the line that ETI being less banworthy may be academic as it may still be banworthy. Although, I really only see it in more competitive builds since going the ETI route, like the Doomsday route, means you've given it thought and decided to run a combo deck, whereas CV requires little though beyond identifying that it can be a free win in your sliver deck.
3. Interacting poorly with the format alone makes this a borderline card. When taken with it's other violations, we don't have to engage in an academic exercise as to whether this alone should keep it banned. Even if this alone were insufficient, it's still significant enough to warrant a banning in conjunction with it hitting problem game states hard and hitting problematic omnipresence moderately (projected anyway).
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
The thing with cards like Doomsday is they generally will not be played until they can win you the game, so it might seem like that's all they do, but they can certainly be played without winning you the game, which is something CV simply doesn't do. Doomsday can, in desperation, be played as a tutor. T&N can be played as a big dumb spell that grabs big dumb creatures, following "build casually play competitively" you can build your deck to ensure that's all it does. Primal Surge is either a "play and win" card with significant deck building restrictions, or a big dumb spell that's little different than other big dumb spells in a normal deck. The RC has said on several occasions that these alternative "fair" uses matter when deciding whether to ban or unban a card. The chance of a spell being problematic to casual play is another big factor, which is much more likely for something splashy and straightforward like CV or Worldfire than something techy, subtle, and skill intensive like Doomsday. Also important is the ability of a card to accidentally ruin games. Nobody has ever put Doomsday in a deck and accidentally hit a combo. CV otoh is a card that bleeds flavor and seems really cool, and seems to a casual player like an obvious inclusion in a 5 color deck, then it actually gets played and sucks the life out of the room. Worldfire as well is a flavorful, evocative, splashy effect that Timmy would be drawn to, and then they cast it in game and suddenly its frowns all around.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Bro, read your the problematic game states quote again. I even quoted the relevant sentence to you before. "Cards that have a limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere" is one of the things they look for with this criteria. There is quite literally no better poster child for that that CV. The first sentence makes it clear that winning, in and of itself, is not problematic, but the rest of the paragraph goes on to detail situations in which winning can be problematic. Simple logic here, a card that has no function other than to win out of nowhere is only a type of card that can win the game out of nowhere, so saying that the RC doesn't ban all cards that are capable of winning the game when cast ISN'T saying that they won't ban cards whose only use is winning out of nowhere. Further, winning with minimal interaction is only a subset of states that fall under the larger category of winning. Thus, the RC can easily say that winning isn't problematic, but winning in this specific way is, and thus cards that do so can be banned. It is logically coherent and your attempt to argue otherwise falls flat.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I'm sorry, but if your trying to compare bannability in vintage and legacy to bannability in commander, you are woefully off base on several levels.
First of all, you ignore that the sort of cards that are good in vintage/legacy and the sort of cards that are good in commander are often quite different, to the point that your whole exercise is a useless apples to oranges comparison. Take Delver of secrets, a legacy all star, which sucks in edh. Or deathrite shaman, which is just pretty good in edh (and even then, it's better in cEDH and very underwhelming in casual metas) while being banned in several more competitive formats. Meanwhile, ***** like bio and worldfire are rightly banned in commander while being laughably bad in literally every other format.
Second, you are continually making the mistake of not understanding the underlying banlist philosophy, or simply ignoring it. Power level and balance are not ban criteria. Interacting poorly with the format does not only refer to cards becoming oppressively powerful, but also to cards just becoming unfun to the point of ruining games. Karakas is the poster child here, as what it does, while powerful, isn't anywhere close to the most powerful thing you can do. It is, however, an annoying and game wrecking effect enabled by the formats focus on legendary creatures that are always available. CV ends up being another poster child for the same reason, because of the degree to which always having a 5 color available makes meeting it's conditions, which is a significant hurdle in 60 card, trivially easy. Commander being 40 life and multiplayer also contributes to this, as it makes 8 Mana win cons viable especially at casual tables, while outside of urzatron or sneak and show that's not a thing in normal magic, especially not competitive 1v1 formats.
You've done a fine job making the case on why you wouldn't mind playing against CV, but those arguments aren't relevant to the banlist. If you were trying to argue for house unbans I'd be right there with you.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Except that having access to a 5 color creature at all times is a big deal. You simply don't have to draw or tutor for it. That takes care of half of the conditions for CV from the get go, and if you can cast it the other half is very likely met. It simply makes it far too easy to just cast a card that just wins the game.
This is a card that belongs on the banlist, but it's probably one of the cards in the banlist that is most safely house unbanned. Power level is not a ban criteria, though it influences several. Because of this, CV has a relatively low power level considering how hard it hits the ban criteria. Thus, in certain playgroups, it's rather safe to house unban. In fact, I'd argue that it's problems would disappear in a playgroup that sees a lot of control decks ran by decent players, or a more highly skilled 75% playgroup. It's not going to surprise anyone, since a house unban requires discussion and everyone will expect it, and with skilled players or enough control decks actually firing it off would be difficult. Thus, CV in such a playgroup would go from being a miserable game ender that cold cocks the table to a cute, inefficient wincon that the player is trying to force.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Nah, this card shouldn't be unbanned. All it does is win the game, it combos with almost any commander that can cast it (except for 3 now), and serves literally no other purpose. It is exactly the sort of card that the RC doesn't want, and banning it sends a message about their vision for the format. It adds nothing to the format, but certainly detracts from it.
Honestly, just refer back to the thread that already exists. It basically hits "interacts poorly with the format" as hard as a card can. Having a 5 color creature always available drastically reduces the hurdle you have to get over for this card. It also hits "creates problematic game states" as hard as it can. No, winning is not a problematic game state, but "cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere" are. It is only minimally telegraphed, as the hints that its coming are 1: the player played lands and 2: the player cast their commander. That is far too broad to be reasonably considered telegraphing, and it implicates most 5 color decks. It would also hit problematic casual omnipresence somewhat, as if you are running a 5 color commander in casual this is almost a no brainer, it will win you the game with minimal setup and an extremely limited window to answer it. The only thing holding it back on this a bit is that 5 color legends themselves aren't that common. Taken together, it shouldn't be a surprise that this card is banned.
The cEDH argument is absolutely irrelevant, as always. Less powerful cards that CV are banned. In casual, its conditions, including hitting 8 mana, are trivial, and casual tables are less likely to be able to answer it in its short window. Dirk's argument about similar cards includes "sure, those are easier to play around and don't necessarily win the game," which pretty much answers why they aren't banned but CV is. T&N at its most miserable is comparable to CV, but can also be used in non miserable ways. I suspect that if the RC's philosophy changed from allowing problematic cards if they have non problematic uses and actually get played that way (as T&N, Rise, etc do at casual tables) to banning problematic cards without looking for mitigated factors (basically, only looking at one side of the equation), then many of those cards would be banned. CV is the sort of effect that loudly goes against the founding spirit of the format, and that's literally all the card does, not just in practice but its actually all it can do. So its banned, not just because it has no redeeming qualities to offset its miserable function, but because it also serves the secondary purpose of the banlist, which is to communicate what sort of things you should avoid. In this case, its trying to win the game with one card and minimal interaction, and trying to cheat the format.
Expropriate is Timewalk stapled to Blatant Thievery. Its extremely powerful, but doesn't win the game on its own. So long as everyone votes money, the caster usually gets a significant boost to winning but it isn't a sure thing. If there are enough bonkers things around the table, its much more likely to be an auto win, with the extra turn making it ape insurrection a bit, but I've seen it resolve without being game ending enough that I can't put it in the same category as Worldfire, CV, Bio, etc. T&N is really the most egregious point of comparison, with Enter the Infinite and Doomsday also there. I understand why T&N isn't banned, because it does have fair uses and I have encountered them, just like Hulk. Enter and Doomsday function as intended, and both require more deckbuilding considerations than CV and arguably a good amount more skill to execute (especially Doomsday, which is a cEDH staple but sees scant casual play).
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I am again calling for the thread to be temporarily locked as all points from both sides have been made ad nauseum, the RC has spoken twice definitively on the subject, and posters are either talking past each other or engaging in insults or passive aggressive bs. The card is not getting unbanned unless the RC changes its ban criteria to drop the interacts poorly with the format category, as this card is the poster child for that category. Discussion of THAT moves beyond a single card discussion surrounding just CV, so there is no further purpose for this thread.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
If you think that approach of the second sun and CV are even remotely comparable, then you really, truly don't know what you are talking about.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Sorry, but no, the stay banned side has addressed your points, repeatedly, for months now. The RC gave a detailed answer, and you have nothing to counter the argument that the only thing, literally the only thing, that CV does is win the game in a way that interacts poorly with the structure of the format.
Your examples of cards that have been unbanned are, frankly, irrelevant, as they are nothing like CV. If you were being reasonable, you'd have noticed that the cards that ARE like CV, like Worldfire, Biorythm, and Sway of the Stars, are banned and almost certainly going to stay that way. And unlike cards like Koko, Staff, or even Hulk, where we saw alternatives printed and not banned, and where competing strategies got better, things that led to their unbanning, Worldfire was printed long after CV had been on the banlist, and was QUICKLY banned. I'm still surprised that on its own wasn't enough of a signal that the RC isn't unbanning these sorts of cards any time soon.
What's really frustrating is when someone pretends that arguments are invalid simply because they don't like them. You lost track of what we are talking about here. This isn't a discussion about whether you think you'd be cool with CV being ran in your playgroup, its a discussion about whether the RC would unban CV (and by implication, the cards like it that actually can do something other than win on the spot) based on their ban criteria and whether CV still meets them. The stays banned side made arguments as to why they thought it should stay banned, some of which where according to preference (e.g., thinking the effect was unfair), but also arguments for why the RC would leave it banned, which were entirely based on the ban criteria. Once again, it keeps coming down to the fact that there is no other use for CV other than to do something that the RC has repeatedly, and consistently, said goes against what Commander is supposed to be. Its not like Hulk (and T&N and Boonweaver), where the competitive combo win is something the RC isn't keen on, but the existence of alternative uses means that its possible for those cards to show up in games and do other things. Its not like World Gorger Dragon, where there existed a possibility where it would enable just another combo to build around, and would have been rebanned if it got out of control. There exist only two scenarios if CV gets unbanned: CV sees play and does its thing, eating a reban, or CV doesn't see play, which is functionally the same as the status quo. The best case scenario is that it only pops up in playgroups that are OK with it, and whoa house unbans are totally a thing so you can do that now already! And you don't have to worry that the rando online or at the store running 5 color goodstuff is going to just randomly fire off CV, so he can actually run that deck without everyone gunning for him out of the gate, because even if he isn't running CV his opponents would have to assume he is if it where unbanned.
Now, is there a discussion to be had as to whether the RC should revisit its ban criteria, that perhaps "interacts poorly with the format" should be removed? I think that would be an interesting discussion, and wouldn't get bogged down in whether certain cards meet that requirement and whether those cards have other uses that outweigh it or other problems that reinforce it. It would be a discussion on a philosophical aspect of the banlist rather than how an individual card fits. That would be a discussion worth having. IF the RC were to do away with that, I'd see most of the banned legendaries come off the list, as well as Karakas, Sway, Wordlfire, Biorythmn, CV, possibly Trade Secrets (the collusion aspect is a poor multiplayer interaction), Upheaval, and perhaps even Limited Resources.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!