I certainly agree that the best games are hard-fought, but at the same time, that seems like a pretty telegraphed win, disruptable by many kinds of interaction. No one having a counterspell, enchantment removal, or creature removal seems like kind of a red flag that the meta needs more interactivity. Although it's also possible that they were playing a little beyond the power of the table if people couldn't even figure out what was happening.
Anyway, I'd say palinchron (and animar) is the real problem here. Once you've got infinite mana, winning the game is pretty easy. Simic ascendancy is pretty tame considering it's slower than just fireballing the table.
Oh, I totally agree. I pack removal, but I can't pack enough for 3 other people, and I just didn't have a Reclamation Sage or Krosan Grip handy. Besides with Animar having pro-black there was no point swinging into him with my commander - or using Ulvenwald Tracker - the only other control piece I had in play at the time the game ended. It's funny though, the turn before he went off the cat dragon player had a chance to at least stall the win. He attacked me instead, presumably because I'd killed one of his cat dragon tokens. If he'd swung into Animar for 5, Animar couldn't block, would have had to sac, and we'd have had bare minimum one more turn to find an answer for ascendancy. It still baffled me that no one else was packing an answer for a win con so slow. Either that or they didn't expect it to go off so quick. I don't know, either way most of what Animar does is pretty gross. The point was more that it was a lame way to win the game, but yes, it was a pretty sloppy game in terms of decent play lines.
It was a completely legitimate play, but the only player that left the table with good feels was Animar. Bringing it back to this discussion, that’s exactly how I see the vibes when CV resolves for the win. I’m not going to stop anyone playing it (or any other win the game card for that matter) but I’d be lying to not say it leaves me wanting more. And that could be just me, but I feel the best games for all involved are emphatically not walkover wins or easy win cons. A great game should be a battle that’s hard fought and hard won.
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.
Your remarks thus far beg the question of why you’re commenting at all. If it’s just for snide remarks, congratulations. Mission achieved, you’re edgier than anyone else here. Otherwise, until you can actually draw a legitimate comparison between Stasis and Coalition Victory you’re adding nothing to the debate. It seems you’re of the opinion we’ve been through this territory before, and you may be right, but that’s still no excuse for trolling. No one is forcing you to continue to comment.
Public Mod Note
(Wildfire393):
Flaming Warning issued
]I think expro is a somewhat bad example because it CAN still fail to win the game, for sure. It's mostly just a card that I think preys upon the commander's love of big, splashy effects in an unfun way. It's like griselbrand - it looks like a sweet EDH card until you actually play it and it's miserable cancer (except without the modern implications). I don't like wotc making cards like expro because it seems like they're deliberately targeting EDH, but not in a way that I, at least, like. I prefer cards that require some skill to be good rather than just "woo, I got to 9 mana so I get to do blatantly broken unfun stuff!"
But as a comparison to CV, it's not ideal, fair.
I agree wholeheartedly - it's a big, dumb, splashy EDH card thats enjoyable for exactly one person and often ends the game with bad feelings.
T&N does come up in these conversations (and I may have mentioned it once or twice) but I think it's justifiably not banned. Primarily because there are fair ways to use it, and also because it's reasonably skill-friendly in most of the ways it's played - instant-speed removal interacts well with it, usually, and getting good non-instant-win value out of it takes some amount of skill. I think it'd dumb and I don't play it, and if someone else plays it for kikiscripts then I'm miffed, but I'm not crying out for blood about it. I get why it hasn't been banned.
Agreed here, too. It's strong, but like any tutor it's as strong as what you're searching for. Not everyone plays it for degeneracy.
ETI, on the other hand, I think has no justification. It's much harder to interact with than CV, and while you "have to walk it across the line"...I mean, come on. How many games where ETI has resolved haven't resulted in the caster winning? And if they didn't, did the caster perhaps have their brain replaced with a small hamster earlier in the day? Unless you're discarding ulamog or something, you've gotta win by the next turn, and you're definitely not playing it unless you think you can do that. And they've gotta comb through their stupid deck to find the cards they need, and the counterspells if anyone tries to interact...I just see nothing redeemable about the card. No fair use, no fun, just a nigh-impossible-to-interact-with win-the-game slog. Playable in anything with blue. Boo. Boo on ETI.
EDIT: actually, in fairness it has one redeemable feature - that terese nielsen art.
The art is great, like everything Terese does. Granted, of the three, this is the closest comparison in terms of an open and shut win the game card. It's not foolproof, but chances are if someone casts this they win the game from it, agreed.
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.
-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.
I don't think it's all that strong personally. I just don't see why the format needs this sort of card. If that meant a slippery slope leading to Laboratory Maniac, Helix Pinnacle and all the other win the game jank hitting the list, personally I'd be ok with that. I feel like a victory should be earned. These cards bend that symmetry in ways that are generally boring.
-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 may be alone here, but I don't get the comparison to ETI, T&N or Expropriate. They're all suuuper strong cards. But they don't win the game on the spot. You still have to walk it over the line and there's plenty of cases where that won't happen.
-I think 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 can agree with most of this. It's easy enough to stop. It just doesn't add anything I want to see in the format, so if it were unbanned I wouldn't use it. It's not the first card I think of when I think of things that ought to stay on the banlist, but it's boring enough I couldn't care if I never play a game against it. I just don't think enough of the card to want to see anything about its status change, quite honestly. And I struggle to see why anyone else cares either, unless it's strictly in terms of a banlist that makes perfect, precise, logical sense.
It's just.....what does the format gain by having this card available?
Sorry I can't hear you over the sound of Stasis being legal. If your criteria is "what good does this card add to the format" I think you're going to need a much, much, much longer banned list.
Where did Stasis even come from? You're opening a whole different can of worms to try (yet again) to win this argument. It's an annoying card, sure. Worthy of banning? Probably not. More relevant to this discussion, worthy of being on the banlist for the same reasons as CV? Not even in the same ballpark.
There's other win the game cards out now that are mostly better than CV, so I don't actually care if it does come off the banlist. Nonetheless I think the reason it is where it is, is because it doesn't add anything. In the decks it fits in it reads 'win the game' for a vast majority of the conditions you play it in. That's boring, antisocial and doesn't encourage good feelings for anyone except the guy who cheesed the win. I don't think it would see play, so it's sort of a moot point. If it did, well....it's a dumb way to win the game to me. I'd shake hands, say gg, and probably not play that person again, but that's just me.
As an aside, I'd be interested to see what your idea of a banlist looks like, being someone who has weighed in on this topic regularly. I won't judge, it just interests me to see where your argument comes from, especially considering Stasis somehow wriggled its way into the discussion.
Oh man, we're back here again? Ok. Nothing has changed for me. 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).
Like, I don't care if it does get unbanned, I just don't see why you'd bother anymore. If anyone wants to run this card, they're probably not the sort of person I want to play.
Not a convincing argument. Play your commander, win. That's the strategy with CV.
It requiring more than one card isn't an argument, it is a statement of fact.
EDIT: I agree its a boring strat, and that could be a strat for 5C decks. There are dedicated combo decks that all they try to do is assemble a combo as quickly as possible its generally frowned on. This would fall into that same trap, but this isnt going to be some magic bullet non-combo people jam into 5C decks to win out of nowhere.
It totally could be though - it adds nothing to a deck other than a win from nowhere. What I got from the article is that the cons outweigh the pros of inclusion, and in that respect I agree, personally. There's no fun to it, no challenge, it's just a fire alarm. Break the glass, hit the switch, game over.
Either way, I respect your opinion, but mines been stated too and I'm off this merry go round at this point.
The equating to combo wins is a false comparison, as they're combos. Combinations of cards. CV is 1. Not the same, and in my experience the more cards involved in a combo the more socially acceptable. A one card combo is not a combo, it's a win-con with very few ways to answer.
This is factually inaccurate. It requires at a minimum 5 color creature and lands of each basic type. You can argue that very easy, and be accurate. But to call it one card isn't. There are unbanned cards that requires less setup, and plenty that go infinite with just a Commander out.
When combo was 'soft banned' (Koko and Hulk out etc), sure it made sense on the list. Now its just another combo that wins, or instant removal makes useless.
Not a convincing argument. Play your commander, win. That's the strategy with CV.
Man, did this thread ever get sour again really quick.
I get that it's an unsatisfactory answer for some. However:
The equating to combo wins is a false comparison, as they're combos. Combinations of cards. CV is 1. Not the same, and in my experience the more cards involved in a combo the more socially acceptable. A one card combo is not a combo, it's a win-con with very few ways to answer.
As far 'the RC doesn't listen', well that's a closed minded way of looking at it. Stating cards that have come off the banlist only illustrates that things can change, and that none of the places on that list are above consideration for releasing to play. This, in fact, indicates that the RC are capable of rethinking decisions, evolving over time, and working in the best interests of the majority of the community.
Any further discussion at this point will carry on without me. I've said my piece, tried to stay non-inflammatory, and have tried my best not to throw salt anyone's way. And I honored my promise to bring the issue up with the officials for a clearer answer. If that isn't accepted, I'm out. Feel free to continue slinging mud back and forth if you see the need to, because that's all this really is at this point. This issue is a dead horse, so I'm not going to flog it any further.
Kevin Tran asks, "Will there be a continuous move to unban cards as the format demonstrates positive health consistently? Any considerations to unban Coalition Victory?"
We tend to be conservative when evaluating cards for both banning and unbanning. There is value in format stability, which does provide some incentive to seek reasons to make a change rather than doing so for change's sake.
Coalition Victory doesn't interact well with the format rules. The card essentially reads "do what you normally do over the course of a Commander game. At some point, win unless someone has an instant-speed response" without requiring you to throw in combo pieces or anything. That's not healthy for anyone in casual play. People who are facing a five-color deck have to constantly evaluate whether they can do anything other than deal with a potentially upcoming Coalition Victory. People running five-color decks find themselves unable to keep a commander (or worse, lands) because they might be running Coalition Victory. That's not a great place to be, and I'm not seeing any fun upsides to the card that might balance it out.
So, the arguments that I, Lou, and others have been making all thread. Nice to see it confirmed by word of god so to speak.
Without being smug about it, yes. Not posting for a 'told you so' at all, just nice to have confirmation of a murky subject that's perceived by the powers that be the same way I and others do.
Kevin Tran asks, "Will there be a continuous move to unban cards as the format demonstrates positive health consistently? Any considerations to unban Coalition Victory?"
We tend to be conservative when evaluating cards for both banning and unbanning. There is value in format stability, which does provide some incentive to seek reasons to make a change rather than doing so for change's sake.
Coalition Victory doesn't interact well with the format rules. The card essentially reads "do what you normally do over the course of a Commander game. At some point, win unless someone has an instant-speed response" without requiring you to throw in combo pieces or anything. That's not healthy for anyone in casual play. People who are facing a five-color deck have to constantly evaluate whether they can do anything other than deal with a potentially upcoming Coalition Victory. People running five-color decks find themselves unable to keep a commander (or worse, lands) because they might be running Coalition Victory. That's not a great place to be, and I'm not seeing any fun upsides to the card that might balance it out.
Oh, I totally agree. I pack removal, but I can't pack enough for 3 other people, and I just didn't have a Reclamation Sage or Krosan Grip handy. Besides with Animar having pro-black there was no point swinging into him with my commander - or using Ulvenwald Tracker - the only other control piece I had in play at the time the game ended. It's funny though, the turn before he went off the cat dragon player had a chance to at least stall the win. He attacked me instead, presumably because I'd killed one of his cat dragon tokens. If he'd swung into Animar for 5, Animar couldn't block, would have had to sac, and we'd have had bare minimum one more turn to find an answer for ascendancy. It still baffled me that no one else was packing an answer for a win con so slow. Either that or they didn't expect it to go off so quick. I don't know, either way most of what Animar does is pretty gross. The point was more that it was a lame way to win the game, but yes, it was a pretty sloppy game in terms of decent play lines.
It was a completely legitimate play, but the only player that left the table with good feels was Animar. Bringing it back to this discussion, that’s exactly how I see the vibes when CV resolves for the win. I’m not going to stop anyone playing it (or any other win the game card for that matter) but I’d be lying to not say it leaves me wanting more. And that could be just me, but I feel the best games for all involved are emphatically not walkover wins or easy win cons. A great game should be a battle that’s hard fought and hard won.
Apologies, Cryo. At this point I've said everything I've got to say on the topic anyway.
Your remarks thus far beg the question of why you’re commenting at all. If it’s just for snide remarks, congratulations. Mission achieved, you’re edgier than anyone else here. Otherwise, until you can actually draw a legitimate comparison between Stasis and Coalition Victory you’re adding nothing to the debate. It seems you’re of the opinion we’ve been through this territory before, and you may be right, but that’s still no excuse for trolling. No one is forcing you to continue to comment.
I agree wholeheartedly - it's a big, dumb, splashy EDH card thats enjoyable for exactly one person and often ends the game with bad feelings.
Agreed here, too. It's strong, but like any tutor it's as strong as what you're searching for. Not everyone plays it for degeneracy.
The art is great, like everything Terese does. Granted, of the three, this is the closest comparison in terms of an open and shut win the game card. It's not foolproof, but chances are if someone casts this they win the game from it, agreed.
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 don't think it's all that strong personally. I just don't see why the format needs this sort of card. If that meant a slippery slope leading to Laboratory Maniac, Helix Pinnacle and all the other win the game jank hitting the list, personally I'd be ok with that. I feel like a victory should be earned. These cards bend that symmetry in ways that are generally boring.
I may be alone here, but I don't get the comparison to ETI, T&N or Expropriate. They're all suuuper strong cards. But they don't win the game on the spot. You still have to walk it over the line and there's plenty of cases where that won't happen.
I can agree with most of this. It's easy enough to stop. It just doesn't add anything I want to see in the format, so if it were unbanned I wouldn't use it. It's not the first card I think of when I think of things that ought to stay on the banlist, but it's boring enough I couldn't care if I never play a game against it. I just don't think enough of the card to want to see anything about its status change, quite honestly. And I struggle to see why anyone else cares either, unless it's strictly in terms of a banlist that makes perfect, precise, logical sense.
Where did Stasis even come from? You're opening a whole different can of worms to try (yet again) to win this argument. It's an annoying card, sure. Worthy of banning? Probably not. More relevant to this discussion, worthy of being on the banlist for the same reasons as CV? Not even in the same ballpark.
There's other win the game cards out now that are mostly better than CV, so I don't actually care if it does come off the banlist. Nonetheless I think the reason it is where it is, is because it doesn't add anything. In the decks it fits in it reads 'win the game' for a vast majority of the conditions you play it in. That's boring, antisocial and doesn't encourage good feelings for anyone except the guy who cheesed the win. I don't think it would see play, so it's sort of a moot point. If it did, well....it's a dumb way to win the game to me. I'd shake hands, say gg, and probably not play that person again, but that's just me.
As an aside, I'd be interested to see what your idea of a banlist looks like, being someone who has weighed in on this topic regularly. I won't judge, it just interests me to see where your argument comes from, especially considering Stasis somehow wriggled its way into the discussion.
Like, I don't care if it does get unbanned, I just don't see why you'd bother anymore. If anyone wants to run this card, they're probably not the sort of person I want to play.
It totally could be though - it adds nothing to a deck other than a win from nowhere. What I got from the article is that the cons outweigh the pros of inclusion, and in that respect I agree, personally. There's no fun to it, no challenge, it's just a fire alarm. Break the glass, hit the switch, game over.
Either way, I respect your opinion, but mines been stated too and I'm off this merry go round at this point.
Not a convincing argument. Play your commander, win. That's the strategy with CV.
EDIT: Totally support locking this thread.
I get that it's an unsatisfactory answer for some. However:
The equating to combo wins is a false comparison, as they're combos. Combinations of cards. CV is 1. Not the same, and in my experience the more cards involved in a combo the more socially acceptable. A one card combo is not a combo, it's a win-con with very few ways to answer.
As far 'the RC doesn't listen', well that's a closed minded way of looking at it. Stating cards that have come off the banlist only illustrates that things can change, and that none of the places on that list are above consideration for releasing to play. This, in fact, indicates that the RC are capable of rethinking decisions, evolving over time, and working in the best interests of the majority of the community.
Any further discussion at this point will carry on without me. I've said my piece, tried to stay non-inflammatory, and have tried my best not to throw salt anyone's way. And I honored my promise to bring the issue up with the officials for a clearer answer. If that isn't accepted, I'm out. Feel free to continue slinging mud back and forth if you see the need to, because that's all this really is at this point. This issue is a dead horse, so I'm not going to flog it any further.
I didn't see it that way, I just wanted to make sure no one else does either.
Without being smug about it, yes. Not posting for a 'told you so' at all, just nice to have confirmation of a murky subject that's perceived by the powers that be the same way I and others do.
Kevin Tran asks, "Will there be a continuous move to unban cards as the format demonstrates positive health consistently? Any considerations to unban Coalition Victory?"
We tend to be conservative when evaluating cards for both banning and unbanning. There is value in format stability, which does provide some incentive to seek reasons to make a change rather than doing so for change's sake.
Coalition Victory doesn't interact well with the format rules. The card essentially reads "do what you normally do over the course of a Commander game. At some point, win unless someone has an instant-speed response" without requiring you to throw in combo pieces or anything. That's not healthy for anyone in casual play. People who are facing a five-color deck have to constantly evaluate whether they can do anything other than deal with a potentially upcoming Coalition Victory. People running five-color decks find themselves unable to keep a commander (or worse, lands) because they might be running Coalition Victory. That's not a great place to be, and I'm not seeing any fun upsides to the card that might balance it out.