Reading these "Unban this [Single Card]" threads gives me great entertainment. The calvinball reference was especially enjoyed, OneRing, particularly since I just finished reading through the Calvin & Hobbes compendium that my brother has. The simplicities of childhood are so awesomely captured in those comics... Anyways, I digress.
In order to actually contribute to this thread (somewhat), I will maintain that Coalition Victory deserves to stay banned for the general Commander community with easily accepted house un-bans. The largest and most compelling point for its staying banned is, in my opinion, the fact that it does win the game on resolution with no other supporting cards, thus leading to a negative emotional experience for the losers of the game where a Coalition Victory resolves. Having lands of each basic land type and a 5C commander are incidental to a 5C deck and thus does not dictate deck building concessions from its pilot. I've already elaborated on the importance of maintaining a positive emotional experience for your playgroup in the "Balance is balanced" thread (still respect that clickbait title), but I suppose it's worth reiterating here.
I'll spoiler those points here for others who decide to read through this thread and because it's not relevant to the discussion.
My observation about EDH is that people sit down with individual and unique 99 card amalgamations in order to actually sling cardboard and feel important. Very often, their deck and the way they've constructed it is a reflection of who they are and how they approach the game, and they want to express that to others as quickly as possible. EDH is a way that they can do this, with a genius high-fantasy slant that invigorates and captures the imagination. I believe that Balance inhibits this most egregiously of any Magic card, in the context of EDH. In order to most effectively convey this personalized approach to EDH, a player needs to follow the rules of MTG as a game and cast spells that allow this type of self-expression. They can only do this by drawing cards and having mana sources to cast those cards. When Balance occurs, I think that it hits too many different cards in too many zones that would normally facilitate this kind of self-expression and therefore would lead to very emotionally damaging experience. A player can easily feel like they have nothing to do BUT lose when they've just lost 2 lands, 3 creatures, AND 3 cards from their hand via Balance resolving. This will inevitably have negative political repercussions, both within the game itself as well as outside of the game, because a player will remember who made them feel so much pain and either refuse to play with that person or vindicate their pain by exclusively targeting that individual in-game. While there is a growing opportunity present in this kind of pain, most people DON'T want to experience that type of pain. EDH is meant to be an avenue of self-expression in a creative way supported by visually distinctive pieces of cardboard that spark the imagination in a formalized and structured way. In general, Stax effects (like Balance and Cataclysm) are unwelcome in most groups for this particular reason. Stax effects actively hinder or slow down a player from actualizing this kind of self-expression.
The final nail in the coffin, in my mind, is that it only costs 2 CMC. That means that it is easily castable on a general basis and can be taken advantage of by the player deploying BAlance fairly early within a game. How I interpret this is that a savvy deck builder can and WILL build their deck to take advantage of Balance, and other attendant Stax effects (do note I use the term Stax pretty liberally), better than their opponents; that's just good deckbuilding. What inevitably happens in execution is that this player was able to develop an advantageous board presence that takes advantage Balance but punishes the rest of the table for NOT building around Balance. And that's probably exactly how it comes across, on an emotional level: punishment. This allows only a single player to actualize their self-expression and achieve that feeling of self-importance that we all crave as human beings at the cost of the other players' ability to self-express. And the social contract that surrounds EDH finds this type of behavior to be MASSIVELY undesirable because, in short, it just isn't fair/just. I don't think that it would be unreasonable to see this kind of effect occur on T3 or T4 of a cEDH game by a Zur player where they can easily AND consistently get Necropotence into play and overcome the massive loss of cards that occurs when Balance resolves, as a brief thought experiment
First, I do want to concede that it's weak to instant speed removal/interaction and is particularly reliant on having a 5C creature in play, which opens up a pretty glaring weakness to its efficacy. Good decks play spot removal and interaction, and so should have the ability somewhere in their deck to prevent Coalition Victory from actually firing off. I'll also concede that, at an 8 mana casting cost, you've probably hit a stage in the game where removal options have been exhausted and/or interaction is minimal because people are tapping out to deploy their threats, be those combo pieces or sweet, sweet haymaking creatures.
But the point is this: The RC, and people generally, want to ensure that sitting down for a game of Commander is enjoyable for everyone. I maintain that people love this game because it's an avenue of self-expression. Some people want to optimize their decks and their gameplay to the highest level possible, and build their decks accordingly (cEDH decks). Some people want to be able to have huge board states, with sweet creatures and enchantments that are stupidly powerful and/or imagination invoking (seriously, who doesn't like the idea of summoning the Soul of the World to fight on your behalf? Crazy people). Some people play Commander strictly FOR the table talk and social interactions that a game of Magic facilitates (group-hug or strong, true-control decks like Phelddagrif). However you play, you confine/limit your ability to this self-expression through the deployment of gorgeously printed/colored cardboard within a specific rules structure. And generally speaking, the more cardboard you can sling, the happier the experience is for you. When taken in multi-player, that means that there should be a greater window to sling more cardboard for all of the players present in that game.
Cards that abruptly cease the ability of each player to maximize the amount of cards they can play are seriously suspect. Coalition Victory DOES abruptly win the game upon resolution (since you're probably not casting it UNLESS you have all the conditions met and reasonably protected) and the opportunity cost of being able to use it as a 1 card win condition are so minimal in a 5C deck. Laboratory Maniac does the win the game upon resolution of a SUBSEQUENT trigger. Doomsday becomes a super tutor that wins the game only upon SUBSEQUENT cards/triggers. Mortal Combat wins the game on a SUBSEQUENT trigger. Door to Nothingness causes a player to lose on a SUBSEQUENT activation and targets only a single player. Simic Ascendancy requires a SUBSEQUENT trigger to win. I hope the point is clear. While in practice, this point is often moot since the setup of resolving any of these I-Win cards has probably occurred, it is a technical difference that many of the other I-Win cards also follow. To reference an example recently used in this thread, Enter the Infinite does functionally draw your deck, but doesn't actually say 'You Win The Game' anywhere in its text. The fact that there is another opportunity to interact is important.
Coalition Victory doesn't provide this opportunity. The game ends when it resolves, regardless of what every other player was building towards and regardless of what cards and resources they've previously played. The point that Toc brings up is totally valid, in this context, since the feel-bad that he experienced is antithetical to what Commander was designed to be.
This sudden end towards self-expression and the playing of the game is what I think causes the "feel bads" that are often referenced. Whatever their motives, they've chosen MTG as their preferred avenue of self-expression. Anything that directly and negatively impacts this ability is worthy of being banned by the RC, in my opinion. I would probably be in favor of extending the banlist by several cards personally, based on this criteria, but that's a separate discussion.
TL;dr: Coalition Victory's successful resolution ends the game abruptly and causes a negative emotional effect on the other players that is contrary to the philosophy/spirit of EDH.
In order to actually contribute to this thread (somewhat), I will maintain that Coalition Victory deserves to stay banned for the general Commander community with easily accepted house un-bans. The largest and most compelling point for its staying banned is, in my opinion, the fact that it does win the game on resolution with no other supporting cards, thus leading to a negative emotional experience for the losers of the game where a Coalition Victory resolves. Having lands of each basic land type and a 5C commander are incidental to a 5C deck and thus does not dictate deck building concessions from its pilot. I've already elaborated on the importance of maintaining a positive emotional experience for your playgroup in the "Balance is balanced" thread (still respect that clickbait title), but I suppose it's worth reiterating here.
I'll spoiler those points here for others who decide to read through this thread and because it's not relevant to the discussion.
The final nail in the coffin, in my mind, is that it only costs 2 CMC. That means that it is easily castable on a general basis and can be taken advantage of by the player deploying BAlance fairly early within a game. How I interpret this is that a savvy deck builder can and WILL build their deck to take advantage of Balance, and other attendant Stax effects (do note I use the term Stax pretty liberally), better than their opponents; that's just good deckbuilding. What inevitably happens in execution is that this player was able to develop an advantageous board presence that takes advantage Balance but punishes the rest of the table for NOT building around Balance. And that's probably exactly how it comes across, on an emotional level: punishment. This allows only a single player to actualize their self-expression and achieve that feeling of self-importance that we all crave as human beings at the cost of the other players' ability to self-express. And the social contract that surrounds EDH finds this type of behavior to be MASSIVELY undesirable because, in short, it just isn't fair/just. I don't think that it would be unreasonable to see this kind of effect occur on T3 or T4 of a cEDH game by a Zur player where they can easily AND consistently get Necropotence into play and overcome the massive loss of cards that occurs when Balance resolves, as a brief thought experiment
First, I do want to concede that it's weak to instant speed removal/interaction and is particularly reliant on having a 5C creature in play, which opens up a pretty glaring weakness to its efficacy. Good decks play spot removal and interaction, and so should have the ability somewhere in their deck to prevent Coalition Victory from actually firing off. I'll also concede that, at an 8 mana casting cost, you've probably hit a stage in the game where removal options have been exhausted and/or interaction is minimal because people are tapping out to deploy their threats, be those combo pieces or sweet, sweet haymaking creatures.
But the point is this: The RC, and people generally, want to ensure that sitting down for a game of Commander is enjoyable for everyone. I maintain that people love this game because it's an avenue of self-expression. Some people want to optimize their decks and their gameplay to the highest level possible, and build their decks accordingly (cEDH decks). Some people want to be able to have huge board states, with sweet creatures and enchantments that are stupidly powerful and/or imagination invoking (seriously, who doesn't like the idea of summoning the Soul of the World to fight on your behalf? Crazy people). Some people play Commander strictly FOR the table talk and social interactions that a game of Magic facilitates (group-hug or strong, true-control decks like Phelddagrif). However you play, you confine/limit your ability to this self-expression through the deployment of gorgeously printed/colored cardboard within a specific rules structure. And generally speaking, the more cardboard you can sling, the happier the experience is for you. When taken in multi-player, that means that there should be a greater window to sling more cardboard for all of the players present in that game.
Cards that abruptly cease the ability of each player to maximize the amount of cards they can play are seriously suspect. Coalition Victory DOES abruptly win the game upon resolution (since you're probably not casting it UNLESS you have all the conditions met and reasonably protected) and the opportunity cost of being able to use it as a 1 card win condition are so minimal in a 5C deck. Laboratory Maniac does the win the game upon resolution of a SUBSEQUENT trigger. Doomsday becomes a super tutor that wins the game only upon SUBSEQUENT cards/triggers. Mortal Combat wins the game on a SUBSEQUENT trigger. Door to Nothingness causes a player to lose on a SUBSEQUENT activation and targets only a single player. Simic Ascendancy requires a SUBSEQUENT trigger to win. I hope the point is clear. While in practice, this point is often moot since the setup of resolving any of these I-Win cards has probably occurred, it is a technical difference that many of the other I-Win cards also follow. To reference an example recently used in this thread, Enter the Infinite does functionally draw your deck, but doesn't actually say 'You Win The Game' anywhere in its text. The fact that there is another opportunity to interact is important.
Coalition Victory doesn't provide this opportunity. The game ends when it resolves, regardless of what every other player was building towards and regardless of what cards and resources they've previously played. The point that Toc brings up is totally valid, in this context, since the feel-bad that he experienced is antithetical to what Commander was designed to be.
This sudden end towards self-expression and the playing of the game is what I think causes the "feel bads" that are often referenced. Whatever their motives, they've chosen MTG as their preferred avenue of self-expression. Anything that directly and negatively impacts this ability is worthy of being banned by the RC, in my opinion. I would probably be in favor of extending the banlist by several cards personally, based on this criteria, but that's a separate discussion.
TL;dr: Coalition Victory's successful resolution ends the game abruptly and causes a negative emotional effect on the other players that is contrary to the philosophy/spirit of EDH.
Hope this novel makes sense!
UB Dralnu, Lich Lord
RBW [Primer]-Kaalia of the Vast
BUG [Primer]-Tasigur, the Golden Fang
GWU [Primer]-Arcades, the Strategist
WUB Primer-Aminatou, the Fateshifter
UBR Nicol Bolas, the Ravager