Quote from Buffsam89 »Do you take everything personal?
Quote from Buffsam89 »This whole time, all of the arguments from myself, Lou, Onering, etc. have been rooted in facts. Meanwhile, Impossible, and to a lesser extent, you, have just dismissed all of those points and base your arguments off of biased opinions and hypotheticals.
Quote from Buffsam89 »Now, there is absolutely no discussion to be had.
Quote from Buffsam89 »Explain this. How does a card that only does one thing, get played fairly?Of all the things to discuss about CV, this is something that can’t even be disputed! My god, this is just freaking ridiculous at this point.
Quote from Buffsam89 »You know you don’t have a rational argument when you begin creating cards that will never be printed to justify said argument.
Quote from BloodyWednesday »> Would a strictly better version that doesn't even require the creature part to be present on cast need to be banned?
So basically now you can only hope it either gets countered or you can destroy 1-x lands in hopes that the land type condition can't be met.
Are you serious? Lol.
Quote from Buffsam89 »Oh, I’m sorry. Do you trust me when I say that?
What you should trust me on is the fact that you didn’t need to actually question me on that. Seriously? Come on, man.
Quote from Buffsam89 »Why should I trust what anybody has to say, ever?
Quote from Mercury01 »Because Insurrection doesn't always lead to a game ending. Example: I cast Insurrection, but I didn't realize the Karrthus player had Homeward Path. I spent 5RRR for a sorcery-speed Intruder Alarm.
Quote from Buffsam89 »Why the hell should a card exist in a casual format that does absolutely nothing but win the game?
Quote from Buffsam89 »It doesn't matter if it won't show up often. It doesn't matter that causuals "may" not use it. It doesn't matter that competetive players "may" not run it.
Quote from Impossible »Wait... so we're in agreement? When did this happen?
Quote from Impossible »At some point we have to trust that "casuals" (I don't particularly like that word but it seems to be the terminology we're using) who want to enjoy games of EDH are going to build according to the 'spirit of the format', so they're not going to play it. Conversely, Spikes gonna Spike, and CV is woefully under-powered in that department, so they're not going to play it either. Maybe a semi-casual/semi-competitive group could have trouble with it, but a CV attempt has roughly the same interaction points as many of the most common game-winning combos that will pop up in a group like that anyways (T&N combos, Palinchron combos, General-centric combos, etc): counterspells, instant speed creature removal/bounce, and, land destruction.
Quote from Impossible »So who exactly are we trying to prevent from playing CV? It's a slot on the ban list that serves no real purpose.
And, just for the record, I very much would like to play Coalition Victory "fairly", in a theme deck. It's a Weatherlight-inspired deck where all the creatures are the crew members (like Gerrard Capashen, etc.), the artifacts and enchantments are parts of the Legacy (like Heart of Ramos, etc.), and all the spells relate to the Weatherlight in some way (like Sift, with the picture and flavor text on it, etc.). The General of the deck is, of course, Legacy Weapon. And before someone goes "well you're already house-ruling your general, why not house rule CV too?" and the answer is it's way, way easier to show someone my General before we start and explain it's a silly theme deck than it is to ALSO explain that I'm playing banned cards in 99. Doubly true if I were to forget to explain CV beforehand and spring it in the middle of a game. That's how you get the feelbads.
I know it was already pointed out above with General Tazri as an example, but I just wanted to provide another counter-point to the "can't be used fairly" argument that apparently matters way more to people than I thought it did. And, also, I just like talking about a sweet theme deck. If Coalition Victory-ing with the entirety of the Legacy in play isn't within the spirit of EDH, why am I even playing?
Quote from arrogantAxolotl »Fair use is more about the way players actually use cards in practice than the literal interpretation of "is it possible to use this without concern?" Take a Haakon, Stromgald Scourge deck with 98 Swamps and a Yawgmoth's Bargain for example. Is Yawgmoth's Bargain "fair" in that deck? Sure. It isn't going to cause any problems in a deck like that, but players aren't going to play with Yawgmoth's Bargain that way. Coalition Victory is just like that. Sure, players could build their decks in such a way that Coalition Victory actually became an impressive feat to win with, but players aren't going to play the card in the way you describe, especially since the inclusion of Coalition Victory in one's deck mandates a five color creature in the command zone.
Quote from VashBismark »Also, @arrogantAxolotl - I really appreciate your posts. I disagree with your assessment on Worldgorger, but only because CV has never been a popular card because it's never been allowed to begin with. Testing would need to be done, but my educated guess (aka: have no F*ing idea) is that we would not see a sudden surge of 5-color CV decks that take over the format. I think some games would end by CV and people would adapt. I personally doubt it would spring back up as a 'problem child' along the lines of PoK or PrimeTime.
Quote from Carthage »I strongly, strongly disagree that there are cards that should not be played in commander.
There are cards that should not be played in casual commander because the table does not find them fun.
There are cards that should not be played in competitive commander because they are overpowered and reduce deck variety at a competitive level.
There is very little overlap between these two sets of "shouldn't be legal" cards, and coalition victory is absolutely not a part of "too strong for competitive".
Quote from Carthage »The ban list 100%, without question, does harm to players who want to play "unacceptable" cards.
Quote from Carthage » There are many situations, basically any situation that isn't a kitchen table, where convincing people to allow you to play banned cards is nearly impossible. Acting like house rules actually work is insulting to those that don't have a kitchen table group they can form rules around, and instead play at commander nights and events.
Quote from Carthage »Armageddon is legal, winter orb is legal, demonic tutor for an infinite is legal, food chain prossh is legal, etc. There is nothing even remotely close to "if a card is legal it is fun and fair". Just because a card has conceivable ways to play it that are fair(including coalition victory, using the tazri + only basics example), doesn't mean you can include it without careful thought. Building a commander deck that is fun for a table is really, really hard, something I believe is beyond the vast majority of magic players. It's game design, and game design is hard. The ban list is very much insufficient as a guide for players to build a deck that is fun for the table.
Quote from Carthage »Given that the ban list doesn't even come close to guaranteeing a fair and level playing field, I go in the opposite direction and say let players have as much freedom as they want in deckbuilding. The players who know how to make fun decks will continue to make fun decks, the players that want to play competitively can now include all the competitive cards, and the players who don't have a clue will continue to make miss steps in deckbuilding just like they are capable of doing now, until they eventually become good deckbuilders.
Premise 1: Not every card in Magic is acceptable to play in Commander
Premise 2: Coalition Victory is never an acceptable card to play in Commander
Premise 3: The banned list should protect players from those who wish to play unacceptable cards
Conclusion: The Rules Committee should ban Coalition Victory
Quote from VashBismark »Quote from arrogantAxolotl »Lou, the reason why the opposition is ignoring this fact is because they don't perceive Coalition Victory as being any different than other haymakers already legal in the format. They think it's just as bad, not worse. To them, instantly winning the game in text is no different than instantly winning the game in application. They also, for reasons I don't understand, seem to not care that Coalition Victory has no fair application where cards like Tooth and Nail do. They understand that banning all haymakers is unreasonable though, so they've taken a stance that all haymakers (and they believe Coalition Victory is one) should be legal.You're missing one other viewpoint, which is my own and a couple others too: That having it's presence on the banlist is unnecessary based on how the format has scaled over time due to card prints. Laboratory Maniac, the commonly mentioned card, wasn't printed when CV was placed on the list. Same for Enter the Infinite, Biovisionary, and Rise of the Dark Realms. I find it hard to say any of these 4 cards I mentioned have practical fair uses when players include them - they are employed to win games and let us not belittle ourselves to argue against that.
Quote from arrogantAxolotl »Lou, the reason why the opposition is ignoring this fact is because they don't perceive Coalition Victory as being any different than other haymakers already legal in the format. They think it's just as bad, not worse. To them, instantly winning the game in text is no different than instantly winning the game in application. They also, for reasons I don't understand, seem to not care that Coalition Victory has no fair application where cards like Tooth and Nail do. They understand that banning all haymakers is unreasonable though, so they've taken a stance that all haymakers (and they believe Coalition Victory is one) should be legal.
Quote from LouCypher »I still object to adding cards like Rise of the Dark Realms, Insurrection and the likes to the comparison to Coalition Victory, simply because those cards need a lot more setup, and never guarantee a win. You play them as a wincon, yes, but they often enough get fired off to either eliminiate one player or as a way to reestablish after a boardwipe. That alone gives them different applications from Coalition Victory.
Likewise, Laboratory Maniac, Enter the Infinite and Biovisionary each require specific cards to work with. Biovisionary requires Rite of Replication (Haven't ever seen it be done in another way) and if you want to win on the spot with him you need 12 mana. With more vulnerable pieces to boot. Laboratory Maniac doesn't win the game on the spot either, if you drop him you still need to draw up your deck right away or mill yourself and then draw a card. As for Enter the Infinite...have you ever seen that card get cast without Omniscience and then pull out a win? I know I have only once, which was behind a Leyline of Anticipation and drew into a combo at end of turn. So in each of those cases, you can't say that it wins the game in the same way Coalition Victory does - not with that level of ease, at least. What does Coalition Victory require? Your commander, 8 mana with 5 basic lands represented among your lands...and that's it. That's not exactly hard to get to in a normal game.
Quote from VashBismark »I disagree with framing the argument in terms of the ease of execution of the other named cards - especially in a format where tutors are common, so getting an exact card into hand to employ a combo is not a real 'challenge'. The point I am making is those cards require setup, just like CV does, and are a common source for a games ending.
The reality is none of the cards mentioned, including CV, are guaranteed a win. Removal, GY hate, counter spells are all methods employed to stop these combos.
Quote from VashBismark »However, I agree that pulling CV off the banlist does not add anything back to the format, but keeping it on the list also doesn't protect the format from the quick 'I win' cards that already effectively exist. If the goal is for a minimal banlist (which is my goal), then the inclusion of CV on the current list can also be seen as an old practice and not a necessary one anymore. A good similar example is why Worldgorger Dragon was removed from the banlist - it was old and unnecessary and adding it back to the format didn't truly add anything but an infinite combo generator, which usually wins games when they are employed...
Quote from VashBismark »Additionally, my other point was a card was unbanned that brought no real 'value' back to the format but was considered to be a 'boogeyman' back in the original days of EDH, which is where I consider CV to also be. Power-creep has made this card a lot less terrible for the format IMO.
Quote from Sheldon, Jun 2011 Banned List Announcement »We don't unban cards lightly, but it's time for Worldgorger Dragon to get out of the penalty box. It is no longer a particularly strong example of unwelcome, format-warping, combo-play style, but simply another infinite-combo piece. Those applications are narrow enough that it should not cause problems for social players, and the type of player who wants to play this kind of infinite combo isn't going to play a more fun deck because Worldgorger Dragon is available. Thus, since it's a goal to keep the list as short as possible and focused on more fun-oriented games, we believe it can come off the list.
Quote from Impossible »Quote from arrogantAxolotl »All that's necessary is to acknowledge that Coalition Victory is a more extreme card than a lot of its comparatives and much of that stems from the fact that Coalition Victory can't be used in ways that create positive game play.That's a plus in my book, not a negative. The fact that it either wins or does nothing means it's much less likely to be unknowingly abused by a casual/new player. I think a lot of people are forgetting how newer players see the game; Channel isn't the problem, it was the Fireball that killed them. CV, on the other hand, does exactly what it says on the tin, and that makes it easy to identify if these kinds of cards are a problem when talking with players about what kind of games you want to play. They'll lose to it and go "man that was super unfun" or "oh nice one lets go again" but either way everyone will know.
Quote from arrogantAxolotl »All that's necessary is to acknowledge that Coalition Victory is a more extreme card than a lot of its comparatives and much of that stems from the fact that Coalition Victory can't be used in ways that create positive game play.
Quote from MRHblue »Quote from arrogantAxolotl »Regarding Coalition Victory's status as a banned card, what do you believe should happen to it?I think it should be like all other combo: Played in metas that go for that sort of thing, and hopefully I never see it. Same as the decks setup to win via Primal Surge or Ad Nauseaum.
Quote from arrogantAxolotl »Regarding Coalition Victory's status as a banned card, what do you believe should happen to it?
Quote from Impossible »And CV is telegraphed by the fact that you need 3WUBRG, 5 colors worth of creatures and 5 basic land types.
Quote from Impossible »Wow am I glad I don't play with you. Someone explicitly tells you they don't run a certain combo but you still gang up of them anyways because they might be lying to you?