I have three 5-color decks and would never add coalition victory. Sure my mana in the decks is perfect for the card, but I would have to force myself to include duplicate 5-color creatures next to my general. And if I ever did display a coalition victory win then it's just another approach of the second sun effect where everyone is aware of it's presence and then gangs up on you. Your commander would be kill-on-site, and you make yourself the auto-target for random strip mine effects at all points in the game, which is awful for 5-color to deal with. If you include combo enablers like dryad of the ilysian grove/prismatic omen and chromanticore/transguild courier then building around coalition victory is no longer just an "I-win" card, it's a combo taking multiple dedicated slots in the 99.
This is not a question of power level, it's the fact that it doesn't really require anything specific that made it banned imo. Sure, your general might be the only 5-colors creature in your deck but it's still there, and having two 3-colors creatures might also do the trick. Also, the power level of your playgroup might be higher than most casual tables. When you analyse the banlist, you should probably ask yourself: "What kind of play does this card promote? How is it likely to show up in decks that can run it color-wise? Can it accidentally ruin games and leave a bad taste in people's mouths?" You don't need to win consistently with Coalition Victory, it can be there just as a plan B, or plan C, or even plan D. And if your whole playgroup has to gang up on you to compensate the fact that you run it, then maybe it is worth it to have it on the banlist?
I may not be remembering this correctly, but one of the primary reasons braids & erayo were banned was due to complications with multiple ban-lists for MtGO.
I've also gone on many rants about paradox engine already. Yes it's strong, but there were better options to ban for "unfun" situations. PE was one of the few enablers for tap-matters generals, and banning it took a large chunk of creativity and fun away from exploring commanders with tap abilities. The banning of PE opposed to so many other better options was what really shook my primary metas trust and faith in the committee, and was the spark that drove us to house-rules.
The fact that it helps tap-matters generals is certainly an upside, but the card was too susceptible to degenerate plays. If a majority of the players were playing it with combo in mind, or were comboing often enough without even wanting to do so in the deckbuilding process (again, accidental unfun situations), then banning the card was likely the right choice.
There's also no reason to feel bad about having to house-rule some stuff. That's the essence of EDH: keep the core rules and adjust the details to your meta. The banlist is there to give you a general idea of what might cause problems in your game, nobody is pointing a gun at you to make sure you follow it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sorry for my possible english mistakes, I'm not a native speaker.
It's 2020. We live in an EDH world where God-Eternal Kefnet infinite turns exists - a near cEDH quality deck that can easily be made obnoxiously consistent and oppressive even when built on a budget since it only requires two expensive cards for the combo to function (JtMS & scroll rack).
There is no current good reason for the mirror to remain banned. There are a number of cards on the banlist that shouldn't be in this day & age (braids, cabal minion when Urza stax is far more oppressive, Coalition Victory which fails to multiple types of targeted removal, Erayo, Soratami Ascendant when stasis & winter orbs are easier to work with, Lutri, the Spellchaser as a commander or in the 99, paradox engine when dramatic scepter is quicker and more powerful)
edit; just to clarify - I'm not for adding cards to the banlist. IMO it should be as small a list as possible.
It's not necessarily about how effective the card is. It's more about how it can easily generate awkward and unfun situations. There are tons of ways to win via combo or stax in EDH, the point of the banlist is not to prevent those strategies from working. It's to prevent people from accidentally generating those situations when they just thought they were adding cool, non-oppressive cards.
Braids, Cabal Minion as a general can be quite annoying (although I also think it'll be fine), they just banned it when they got rid of the "banned as a commander" banlist, which was imo a mistake.
Paradox Engine can totally lead to unfun situations if you're just running a few rocks, without even thinking about comboing off.
For Erayo, Soratami Ascendant and Coalition Victory, I'm not sure. It might because they look harder to enable than it is in reality? Also Coalition Victory might be run in almost every 5-colors deck, which does not encourage diversity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sorry for my possible english mistakes, I'm not a native speaker.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is not a question of power level, it's the fact that it doesn't really require anything specific that made it banned imo. Sure, your general might be the only 5-colors creature in your deck but it's still there, and having two 3-colors creatures might also do the trick. Also, the power level of your playgroup might be higher than most casual tables. When you analyse the banlist, you should probably ask yourself: "What kind of play does this card promote? How is it likely to show up in decks that can run it color-wise? Can it accidentally ruin games and leave a bad taste in people's mouths?" You don't need to win consistently with Coalition Victory, it can be there just as a plan B, or plan C, or even plan D. And if your whole playgroup has to gang up on you to compensate the fact that you run it, then maybe it is worth it to have it on the banlist?
Okay, that would make sense.
The fact that it helps tap-matters generals is certainly an upside, but the card was too susceptible to degenerate plays. If a majority of the players were playing it with combo in mind, or were comboing often enough without even wanting to do so in the deckbuilding process (again, accidental unfun situations), then banning the card was likely the right choice.
There's also no reason to feel bad about having to house-rule some stuff. That's the essence of EDH: keep the core rules and adjust the details to your meta. The banlist is there to give you a general idea of what might cause problems in your game, nobody is pointing a gun at you to make sure you follow it.
It's not necessarily about how effective the card is. It's more about how it can easily generate awkward and unfun situations. There are tons of ways to win via combo or stax in EDH, the point of the banlist is not to prevent those strategies from working. It's to prevent people from accidentally generating those situations when they just thought they were adding cool, non-oppressive cards.