Hey, if Coalition Victory just turns out to be another card like Winter Orb, something totally toxic to Commander games but casuals won't touch it, then by all means unban Coalition Victory. I'm just with you in that I have no idea how widespread Coalition Victory would see play if it were unbanned.
Wait... so we're in agreement? When did this happen?
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.
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?
Wait... so we're in agreement? When did this happen?
Probably not long after Carthage last posted.
He mentioned Winter Orb in his last post, and that made me question why it was legal, despite most likely being a terrible card for the format. Nobody ever made an argument why some cards with no acceptable fair use might be legal. The conclusion I reached was that there are just too many Winter Orbs and Armageddons to outright ban them all. If every inappropriate card in Commander were banned, that would lead to an unmanageable banned list. Fortunately, that isn't necessary. Cards like Winter Orb just so happen to be poisonous to casual players. They absolutely hate playing with them. That's why it doesn't need banned. Casual players don't need protection from cards they're unwilling to play, and spikes will find something to poison casuals with regardless of what's legal.
Now, the million dollar question is: is Coalition Victory just another Winter Orb, a card that's unhealthy for the format, but one that casual players have no interest in using? If the answer is yes, I think it would only make sense to unban it. If the answer is no, I think it would be wise to keep it banned. I just don't know the extent of Coalition Victory's popularity. Because of how powerful it is and how trivial it is to set up, I'm inclined to believe that it would be popular among casual player and shoehorned into every five color deck, but I don't know the truth. It may very well be something that could easily be let go of.
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.
For me, casual isn't a derogatory word. I just find it as a useful word to describe the uninvested Commander players as opposed to the heavily enfranchised ones. With that out of the way, casual players are the ones I trust the least to uphold the spirit of the format (aside from Spikes). I believe that casual players will ultimately just play what they think is fun. If what they think is fun happens to coincide with the spirit of the format, cool. That worked out. If not, can you really blame them? What else would you expect people to put into their decks other than what they think would be fun to play? The enfranchised players are the ones I trust to uphold the spirit of the format. They're the ones with knowledge of Commander philosophy, not casuals. Casuals I wouldn't trust one bit.
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?
It's definitely in the spirit of Commander. As I've mentioned before though, fair use isn't so much about whether or not it's possible to use a card fairly, but if players will actually do so in practice.
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.
Now, provided that Coalition Victory were popular enough to actually see play, would players use it the same way you would? I'm not sure. Honestly, I mostly doubt it. If it isn't popular enough to see any significant play in the format to begin with though, keeping it banned would be moot, and it might as well be legal so that the players who would like to use it can do what you want to do with the card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Honestly, if it were unbanned most people would never know it exists. It's a jank rare from Invasion block and probably wouldn't be reprinted anytime soon. Unless it gets reprinted, most players would have to go out of their way to buy/trade for one. I'm sure it wasn't a coincidence that Channel, Gifts, and Trade Secrets were banned shortly after reprints. No one can accidentally wreck a game with Victory, though. It literally says "win the game" right on it and would be easy to get itself blacklisted just like any infinite combo win. Omniscience and Great Aurora are much bigger threats than Victory since they look really fun until you realize that in practice, Omni isn't really that useful except as a combo piece due to the fact that it goes crazy with a mass of draw/tutors and Aurora randomly wrecks games often enough just casting it while Victory is exactly as fun as it looks. Honestly, most of the arguments against it are rediculous fear mongering like Panharmicon and Paradox Engine were the last 2 sets or Blightsteel was in Mirrodin Besieged.
I'm sure Victory would probably never be heard from again like Worldfire (which I never remember hearing about until it was banned 3 months after release) Of course, I remember back when Sway of the Stars hit the list and never heard anything about it either before it was banned. They should really just go silently into the night, never to be heard from again like Biorhythm. They're jank that could be unbanned and would probably never even make it out of the jank rare boxes of the world and would probably never be reprinted. I mean really, in order to cause chaos, people would have to track them down and buy/trade for jank that doesn't even look like it would be fun. Yeah, there's Worldfire guy and some trolls out there, but even if you want to troll people, there are much lower mana ways to combo or lock down a table. If trolling were a consideration, cards like Stasis, Iona, Jin, and Winter Orb would have bitten it decades ago. Afterall, they're much much better for wrecking a game. Even Myojin of Night's Reach and Myojin of Infinite Rage are as good or better for wrecking games. Banning the particular cards on the list seems to take banning the worst offenders the wrong way in the direction of banning the worst ways of actually wrecking games. Outside of theorycrafting, they banned cards aren't really even all that good for trolling because they're more difficult and more mana than the standard crop of game wreckers that the rules committee has no interest in banning. I bet those janky cards will go away and pretty much never be heard from again after they leave the list. I mean really, there's almost no stories of them causing any actual trouble being played and I seriously doubt anyone can make a good case for why unfun decks would become any more unfun or even slot in the cards. Afterall, outside of theorycrafting, cards don't see play on their own. They're part of actual decks and like with my Maze's End example, Amulet of Vigor probably proceeds Scapeshift so you aren't even going to need Deserted Temple most of the time. Still, it isn't exactly a popular combo even though it's probably as easy to do as Coalition Victory and harder to stop in practice since you can make it all lands and a sorcery.
No, there is a fundamental misunderstanding. I'm sorry, acting civil in your dispute doesn't change that. You can cast and resolve Tooth and Nail, Omniscience, Enter the Infinte, Doomsday, etc. and not win, whether by design or by disruption. That is 100% not the case with CV. Its a fact. It's written on the card.
I get it, you don't agree. But this isn't those other threads with those specific cards. This is a thread about a card that states "Cast, Resolve, Win." Its what the card does. It's what it was designed to do. How can you even dispute that fact? A better way to say this, you can't do anything besides win with this card. That.Is.It. It's "fair use" is to end the game. Not end the game the next upkeep. Not at the end of the turn. Not after expelling near-infinite resources. Cast-win.
Whether or not it gets played is irrelevant. Nobody is going to play Black Lotus or Moxen. Different reasons for doing so, maybe, but same basic logic.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, are going to say it could be a Moose? Sure, could be, but its not, because you can clearly see that it's not.
Honestly, there is no misunderstanding. I know exactly what CV does - it gives someone a win. And quite honestly, acting civil actually keeps the discussion going and keeps it more onto facts and less about personal attacks, which is a nice change for this subforum.
My arguments are and continue to be roughly this paraphrased list:
Power creep of other combos has made this card not a big deal. An 8-CMC card that can provide a 'I win' if you have the conditions of the card met is quite honestly not a big deal. And I am emphasizing the point that you need to meet the conditions of the card to get the win. This card isn't just 'I win' guaranteed. It's quite honestly highly easy to disrupt with removal and counter magic, which is again necessary for every combo piece, annoying creature, win-condition card that is used in this format. Battlecruiser EDH exists, but we don't structure the BL to make sure that always is a 'safe' way to win. In fact, I would love to promote more cards that require people to interact, and this card definitely falls into that grouping.
You can definitely play this card 'fairly' - running it in a General Tazri and resolving it for a win is definitely fair. (osieorb18 beat me to the punch on this one, but still stands)
I don't believe this card is going to ruin the EDH experience for casuals. In fact, I think it could encourage some to try a 5-color deck, which is probably the least popular combination in the format (no evidence, just PBtE is pretty high and stops a lot of people from attempting)
I don't believe this card is going to even enter the scope of cEDH (not a reason for a card to be on/off the BL, but still my thought)
Cards have been unbanned because they were perceived as a 'bogyman' and have come into the format, not added anything valuable/positive back, and still not broken the format. See Worldgorger Dragon and Staff of Domination.
Every card you referenced (T&N, Omni, Enter, Doomsday, etc.) all fundamentally stop by the same mechanics - counter or removal. So what if you can counter or remove more options/threats, you're probably going to deal with the 'gun' (card that is enabling the win, which is the list of cards before) and not the 'bullet' (the source of the win).
Again, we draw our lines in the sand differently, Buffsam89. And there is nothing wrong with that. Also, you keep addressing T&N, which I haven't been pointing a huge finger at, and have yet to really discuss the concept of the Worldgorger Dragon unban which brought literally nothing other than an infinite combo back to the format. I've asked for you to address this several times, but I feel like you're dodging that argument intentionally.
Already addressed it, couple of posts up, actually. Instead of being so hung up on how fair cards get broken, reread what's already been discussed. "Combo 'gunna combo", ringing a bell?
The only point I care to address of yours, as it's just so insanely simplified, is the first one. What conditions? The condition that you run a non-General Tazri 5-C deck? That is the only reason not to run Cv in a 5c deck. At some point throughout the game, you'll have those conditions met, just by playing.
Ignoring this is just so painful to read. How that specific fact can just be dismissed is mind boggling. This isn't even a discussion, as far as I'm concerned anyways. This is one side ignoring what the card fundamentally does, and the other side continually reminding them of that, except its falling on deaf ears, for whatever reason.
What's even more baffling is that those wanting it to be unbanned trying to tell those who don't that it has these "conditions", that are somehow incredibly difficult to meet. If you are entwining Tooth and Nail, you are dedicating more resources for the win to that then CV. If you are comboing off with Worldgorger Dragon, you are dedicating more resources to that than you are CV. What's an even bigger difference is that those combos have little to nothing to do with your commander. There are times they just won't work because a piece has been destroyed/exiled. That just doesn't apply to CV.
Why the hell should a card exist in a casual format that does absolutely nothing but win the game? I hate on the RC pretty hard, but they are definelty intelligent enough to realize that it would be a mistake to unban it.
I mean, seriously, I cannot believe how long this thread has gone on. This isn't some complex issue requiring hours of research, it's just common sense.
Again, by virtue of building a 5-C deck, you have built it to win with CV. What's even "worse", is that it can be done better(oh, like other combos, shocker!) throw in Prismastic Omen, Transguild Courier there you go. Redundancy.
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. Actually, back to the first point, I would probably see more of CV were it off the list than I have ever seen WGD combo. Or Koko combo, or anything else that's been recently unbanned. Its the type of card that has no business existing in this format.
Edit: I also think you are misinterpreting my view on the cards you liken CV to. Considering this isn't their respective threads, I don't really feel the need to be transparent on that, but maybe it'll help you, doubtful, but it's worth a shot.
I hate WGD kills. I hate T&N kills. I hate Omniscience/Lab Man/EtI kills. But you know what? Kudos to them for building their deck in such a way to pull it off. Their reward will usually be me/the table forcing them to play it out, and pointing out missed triggers if they arise and chuckling at their expense. Sometimes they'll switch to a different deck that's more "appropriate" for the table their at, or they'll welcome the challenge of being a target going forward. I'm cool with all of that.
How I envision CV is much different. The table will be caught off-guard at first, specifically if the deck plays out to be a non-threatening build. The other 3 players would probably be pretty salty that they lost that way, as it is pretty anti-climatic. Then, going forward, if they continue on with 5-C that is, well just keep them in check however we need to make sure CV doesn't work. MLD and Targeted LD, continually hating their commander off the table, etc. Now, how is that fun for that player? Kind of goes back to what Mercury said.
Why the hell should a card exist in a casual format that does absolutely nothing but win the game?
Sorry for not giving your earlier posts more attention. Most of them seemed directed specifically towards Vash. Regardless, I wanted to take the time to answer your question here directly. I think I may be in a position you'll agree with.
To start, I want to say that I'm totally with you regarding Coalition Victory. The card is a total blight on Commander, and it really has no business existing in the format. Having said that, Wizards did print the card, so the Commander community must reconcile with that somehow. Expunging the card through the ban list is one option, the option I've advocated throughout most of this thread, but I would like to present a question to you that may lead to an alternative: What if Coalition Victory, despite being such a reprehensible card in Commander, actually turned out to be unpopular? What if nobody would play with Coalition Victory even if it were legal?
Now, you may not believe that possible, in which case, hey, I'm with you. Keep Coalition Victory banned under those circumstances. But if the card actually does turn out to be unpopular, and players won't play with Coalition Victory even if it were legal, then I think there's a strong argument for unbanning it. Why? To answer your question directly, because players are no longer at risk of being exposed to the card. If nobody is running around with Coalition Victory, then nobody needs protected from it. For all intents and purposes, Coalition Victory would still be banned while technically still being legal. That frees up space on the banned list, making it easier to digest, and everybody wins. This is the same argument Vash is making with Worldgorger Dragon. The Rules Committee unbanned Worldgorger several years ago, and the repercussions have been negligible even though Worldgorger is a card with almost no fair application. The reason for this is simply because players don't care about Worldgorger anymore. They don't play with the card, and if nobody is playing with it, the banned list doesn't need to worry about protecting players from it.
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.
I should have addressed with before posting, but I missed this, so I'm editing it in now. I think this is a perfectly fair stance to take, that it doesn't matter if the card would be used or not. I think that a stance against all socially unacceptable cards is fine, but how do you reconcile all of the cards like Winter Orb and Armageddon that aren't banned?
Already addressed it, couple of posts up, actually. Instead of being so hung up on how fair cards get broken, reread what's already been discussed. "Combo 'gunna combo", ringing a bell?
The only point I care to address of yours, as it's just so insanely simplified, is the first one. What conditions? The condition that you run a non-General Tazri 5-C deck? That is the only reason not to run Cv in a 5c deck. At some point throughout the game, you'll have those conditions met, just by playing.
Ignoring this is just so painful to read. How that specific fact can just be dismissed is mind boggling. This isn't even a discussion, as far as I'm concerned anyways. This is one side ignoring what the card fundamentally does, and the other side continually reminding them of that, except its falling on deaf ears, for whatever reason.
What's even more baffling is that those wanting it to be unbanned trying to tell those who don't that it has these "conditions", that are somehow incredibly difficult to meet. If you are entwining Tooth and Nail, you are dedicating more resources for the win to that then CV. If you are comboing off with Worldgorger Dragon, you are dedicating more resources to that than you are CV. What's an even bigger difference is that those combos have little to nothing to do with your commander. There are times they just won't work because a piece has been destroyed/exiled. That just doesn't apply to CV.
Why the hell should a card exist in a casual format that does absolutely nothing but win the game? I hate on the RC pretty hard, but they are definelty intelligent enough to realize that it would be a mistake to unban it.
I mean, seriously, I cannot believe how long this thread has gone on. This isn't some complex issue requiring hours of research, it's just common sense.
Again, by virtue of building a 5-C deck, you have built it to win with CV. What's even "worse", is that it can be done better(oh, like other combos, shocker!) throw in Prismastic Omen, Transguild Courier there you go. Redundancy.
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. Actually, back to the first point, I would probably see more of CV were it off the list than I have ever seen WGD combo. Or Koko combo, or anything else that's been recently unbanned. Its the type of card that has no business existing in this format.
[....]
Honestly, arrogantAxolotl did a fantastic job summarizing my point on Worldgorger, so I won't repeat it, but my argument is there.
I am not arguing leveraging the 'ease' of the card and don't think it should be put into consideration towards why it is banned. Yes, CV could be easy to win with in 5-color decks, but the same easiness can be applied to Felidar Sovereign, Helix Pinnacle, and Test of Endurance in other decks too. Where we really differ Buffsam is the argument of magnitude, and we're just not going to come to an agreement. I would much rather give the card a shot in the format than just letting it sit and rot on the list.
And this thread is going 'on and on' just like how long the Iona thread went - some people are passionate about their opinions and want to discuss it.
For me, casual isn't a derogatory word. I just find it as a useful word to describe the uninvested Commander players as opposed to the heavily enfranchised ones. With that out of the way, casual players are the ones I trust the least to uphold the spirit of the format (aside from Spikes). I believe that casual players will ultimately just play what they think is fun. If what they think is fun happens to coincide with the spirit of the format, cool. That worked out. If not, can you really blame them? What else would you expect people to put into their decks other than what they think would be fun to play? The enfranchised players are the ones I trust to uphold the spirit of the format. They're the ones with knowledge of Commander philosophy, not casuals. Casuals I wouldn't trust one bit.
I think this goes back to a point I made way, way earlier in the thread:
CV creates exactly the same undesirable game states as any other combo/haymaker finish... except CV is actually better because nobody does it on accident. It's literally impossible to put CV into your deck thinking it does anything other than win the game. Which is a far cry from the actually problematic cards that look flashy and cool, but secretly exist only to prevent a single player from actually playing the game, like Iona, Shield of Emeria or Sorin Markov. Now those create undesirable game states.
That's a plus in my book, not a negative. The fact that [Coalition Victory] 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.
Nobody "accidentally" wins with CV. You put it in your deck knowing full well what it does. Will there, in some place, be a player who doesn't quite understand the ramifications of putting such a card in their deck? Almost certainly. But it'll probably take only a few games for them to realize it isn't very fun, or to move on to greener pastures and win with a better combo.
I hate WGD kills. I hate T&N kills. I hate Omniscience/Lab Man/EtI kills. But you know what? Kudos to them for building their deck in such a way to pull it off. Their reward will usually be me/the table forcing them to play it out, and pointing out missed triggers if they arise and chuckling at their expense. Sometimes they'll switch to a different deck that's more "appropriate" for the table their at, or they'll welcome the challenge of being a target going forward. I'm cool with all of that.
How I envision CV is much different. The table will be caught off-guard at first, specifically if the deck plays out to be a non-threatening build. The other 3 players would probably be pretty salty that they lost that way, as it is pretty anti-climatic. Then, going forward, if they continue on with 5-C that is, well just keep them in check however we need to make sure CV doesn't work. MLD and Targeted LD, continually hating their commander off the table, etc. Now, how is that fun for that player? Kind of goes back to what Mercury said.
Pot, meet Kettle. How on earth can you reconcile the top paragraph with the bottom? Honestly it feels like you'd be okay with CV if on resolution you had to answer some random rules questions to win, because perceived effort through deckbuilding/rules-chicanery seems to matter to you. In the top paragraph you take an extremely reasonable stance that I think most people here share. But then in the second paragraph, you set up the exact same situation, in which the same solutions clearly exist (either switch to a more table-appropriate deck or understand you're playing archenemy now) but gloss over them for a fear-mongering vision of a ruthless 3v1 game in which nobody has fun.
I'm actually thinking of starting a new thread that discusses the idea of using the unpopularity of cards as a justification for unbanning them. Limited Resources immediately comes to mind.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
If you don't comprehend what I'm saying, Impossible, don't quote it and dissect it.
So you don't see the difference in a player being ganged up on for winning via Hermit Druid Reanimation combo, and the 5c Wall-tribal player who happens to run Coalition Victory? I don't know what to tell you, other than you are being incredibly dense, to put it lightly.
Vash, The Iona thread was different. People were arguing the impact of what a 9-mana, color hosing beatstick did in an average game of magic. Most of it revolved around spirit of the format and the like, and the manacost was restrictive, and it ultimately would be answered at some point, blah, blah, blah. Here, we're arguing over what CV does. One side likens it to haymakers. Haymakers that can, and are, used fairly(Insurrection, RotDR, T&N, EtI), but that also lead to game ending interactions between different cards. It is a fact that CV cannot, and never can be, used in a similar fashion, ever. It only leads to the game ending. Its a fact that cannot be disputed, try as you might with your "line in the sand" commentary.
Axotol, I understand where you are coming from, but that's risky business. Applying that criteria(never used) to CV can also be applied to Black Lotus, the Moxen, etc. For obviously different reasons, but that, to me, leads to an even more convoluted approach to the format. As for the Winter Orb/Armageddon question, that's an archetype that would require quite a few other cards to join them. Cascading bans, no? Likening them to CV just doesn't seem the least bit appropriate.
I don't have a personal distaste for the card. I just see what it represents and how it would have nothing but a negative impact on the format.
Edit: Let's clarify the Worldgorger Dragon debate. As a casual player, I have no interest in the card. At first glance, there is nothing but downside associated with it. Sure, if you understand the stack triggers, and the way to abuse them with additional cards, then it becomes clear how powerful it is. It's an intricate combo, well beyond the average joe's willingness to explore, in all honesty. I wouldn't be surprised if that was what ultimately lead to it being removed from the list. The tables you don't want it to ruin, it won't, because the players probably wouldn't have a clear understanding of how powerful its effect is. Otherwise, it's going to be played at tables where EntertheOmni, Hermit Druid, and other degenerate strategies exist. Lie to me and tell me that's the case with CV...
Quick question Impossible. You say you'd love to play a Weatherlight theme deck with CVictory as it's wincon. Do you have a playgroup? If yes, why not ask them if they'd be okay with that specific deck? Perhaps with the addendum that you cannot use your commander as the creature fulfillment?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
So you don't see the difference in a player being ganged up on for winning via Hermit Druid Reanimation combo, and the 5c Wall-tribal player who happens to run Coalition Victory? I don't know what to tell you, other than you are being incredibly dense, to put it lightly.
First, as I said before, nobody just "happens to run Coalition Victory", exactly like how nobody just "happens to run Palinchron infinites." Second, no, I don't see a difference. If you're playing cards like that, you have to acknowledge the fact that your opponents are going to do whatever they can to stop it.
One side likens it to haymakers. Haymakers that can, and are, used fairly(Insurrection, RotDR, T&N, EtI), but that also lead to game ending interactions between different cards. It is a fact that CV cannot, and never can be, used in a similar fashion, ever. It only leads to the game ending.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Games need to end at some point. What difference does it make if it's from CV/Insurrection/T&N/Enter the Infinite? Also, just as a side note, it's kind of absurd to be making the argument that CV "only leads to the game ending" while implying that Insurrection/EtI somehow don't. Win or lose, a player who resolves Enter the Infinite is only playing for one more turn. Likewise, I've never seen a table survive a resolved Insurrection.
Quick question Impossible. You say you'd love to play a Weatherlight theme deck with CVictory as it's wincon. Do you have a playgroup? If yes, why not ask them if they'd be okay with that specific deck? Perhaps with the addendum that you cannot use your commander as the creature fulfillment?
Not enough of a playgroup. Too many people swap in and out for it to be feasible to okay playing a specifically banned card in the 99. Not to mention the headache of "if you get to play X why can't I play Y," which as evidenced by this very thread, is just a nightmare waiting to happen.
P.S. The commander is Legacy Weapon. It already cannot possibly fulfill the creature requirement of Coalition Victory for multiple reasons, mainly being neither a creature nor 5-colors.
Also, just as a side note, it's kind of absurd to be making the argument that CV "only leads to the game ending" while implying that Insurrection/EtI somehow don't. Win or lose, a player who resolves Enter the Infinite is only playing for one more turn. Likewise, I've never seen a table survive a resolved Insurrection.
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.
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.
While I agree that Insurrection does not always lead to a game ending (in fact, I rarely ever see games end due to Insurrection), this example is completely bogus. An untapped Homeward Path isn't hidden information. Sure, people can misplay to on board answers, but that applies to anything. This argument is like saying Coalition Victory doesn't always end the game because the caster didn't realize somebody had an on board Seal of Removal.
A realistic example would be that someone casts Insurrection while there's only 25 power worth of creatures in play. Dealing 25 damage to one player is well worth 5RRR mana, and it's a play I see made all the time. It does not end games.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
A realistic example would be that someone casts Insurrection while there's only 25 power worth of creatures in play. Dealing 25 damage to one player is well worth 5RRR mana, and it's a play I see made all the time. It does not end games.
The only outcomes I've seen to a resolved Insurrection are that the insurrection player takes all the creatures and has enough power to finish everyone, or the insurrection player takes all the creatures and kills some number of other players, then dies to the backswing. I've never seen a resolved Insurrection fail to kill at least one player.
If the caster of Insurrection doesn't look out for Homeward Path, then he should take it as a harsh but valuable lesson. That's the first card you look for on the board, ditto with Rise of the Dark Realms. That's just poor judgment from the individual, and a rather inexperienced one.
Worldgorger Dragon is a mono-color card, like Iona. CV is a 5C color card. If so many like to theorycraft, it's really not hard to assume that the former 2 cards are likely to see more play than the latter. Besides, no one is complaining about a mono-color "I-win-card", yet people are going bonkers over a niche 5C card? C'mon wake up man.
And if the likes of Iona is allowed to run freely, why can't CV? Are we bold enough to say there're more 5C decks than W/x decks?
You say that like it's a bad thing. Games need to end at some point. What difference does it make if it's from CV/Insurrection/T&N/Enter the Infinite? Also, just as a side note, it's kind of absurd to be making the argument that CV "only leads to the game ending" while implying that Insurrection/EtI somehow don't. Win or lose, a player who resolves Enter the Infinite is only playing for one more turn. Likewise, I've never seen a table survive a resolved Insurrection.
The difference is how it ends - CV isn't flashy enough, arranging a position that's legitimately innocent in every 5C deck (5 basic land types and the Commander) and then winning because of that makes for a particularly unmemorable game, even if it's the first time it happens. Sure, someday someone would win with CV with 5 Basic Lands and 5 creatures, but before then I'm sure countless games ended with the typical unmemorable setup.
Yes, TNN into Mike & Trike isn't memorable enough either, mainly because the competitive combo players exhausted it to the point no one wants to see it, but at the very least, people can see the mechanics actively leading to the win, the very motion of Mike and Trike emerging from the deck and Trike firing, dying and returning, then firing again. Sure, in most competitive circles, it's more likely the player just showed the 2 cards and the group moves on to the next game, but I'm sure the players at least mentally executed the process that led to their end and that fulfills the "ending" need. Not necessarily satisfying, but mechanically sound. Enter the Infinite would fare even better, some people might actually just want to see the whole mess play out.
CV is the only card that "Abruptly" executes "Phase 2" of a winning combo, while its "Phase 1" requirements are seemingly innocent. TNN is an abrupt "Phase 1" where it gets "Phase 2" (Mike & Trike) immediately, but at least Phase 2 isn't abrupt mechanically, and that matters a lot to the feeling you get when you end the game, even in those cases you don't physically go through the process. On top of that, "Phase 2" isn't predetermined to be always Mike & Trike, giving it a better degree of variety. CV can only have variety of "Phase 1", but the abruptness of its "Phase 2" (because it's just "I have these = I win" as a "mechanic" and said mechanic only exists on that card) does too good a job disregarding the variety possible in "Phase 1".
I once saw a game ended because its player Planar Bridged for Felidar Sovereign at the end of the opponent-before-his-turn. This was the closest replicate to a CV victory (innocent "Phase 1", abrupt "Phase 2") I witnessed and the only reason no one felt bad was because that game only had 2 players left at that point of time and the player with the Bridge had enough power to win regardless of what he Bridged for. Had it been in the middle of a player/board-laden game, I would have most certainly felt a sense of "incompleteness" in that game. The Sovereign needed the Bridge (or some other flash enabler) to create that abrupt "Phase 2", CV is pretty much the only card that is capable of executing "abrupt Phase 2"s by itself.
We cannot take what we see for granted and assume that it applies to the entire format worldwide - all because most of us here (me included) have compressed a TNN-Mike-Trike win to be as an "abrupt win" like any other, we cannot take that assumption as the norm when making a decision for the entire format, we need to break it down and see whether the uncompressed combo provides a sense of completion when it executes. Perhaps to you, any form of winning is a completion (perhaps even when opponents randomly concede), but "casual" players play for the experience and (the ability to visualize/see) the completion of the game is very much part of that experience.
Even the Bridge-Sovereign example showed the interaction of the Bridge bringing the Sovereign out before the abrupt cut to the game, whereas CV just shows you some lands and a Commander and when you look at it in hindsight, getting the bridge out and maintaining 40+ life is at least an alarm of some sort (actually the Bridge itself is an alarm already) whereas treating someone with some lands and their Commander out as an alarm isn't exactly as memorable.
I'll be honest, this is mostly nonsense. Having a long physical execution time to the end of your combo doesn't somehow make it more acceptable, it makes it worse. Nobody wants to watch you play out an Eggs combo or a Seismic Swans combo because there's a very small chance you could fizzle. It's mildly interesting to see a new combo once, then excruciatingly boring every time after that. The fact that CV has no loop to demonstrate or no chance to fizzle mid-combo doesn't make it any worse than say... T&N for Mike&Trike just because it makes for an easy comparison. Using that as a reason to keep CV banned is ridiculous.
I'll be honest, this is mostly nonsense. Having a long physical execution time to the end of your combo doesn't somehow make it more acceptable, it makes it worse. Nobody wants to watch you play out an Eggs combo or a Seismic Swans combo because there's a very small chance you could fizzle. It's mildly interesting to see a new combo once, then excruciatingly boring every time after that. The fact that CV has no loop to demonstrate or no chance to fizzle mid-combo doesn't make it any worse than say... T&N for Mike&Trike just because it makes for an easy comparison. Using that as a reason to keep CV banned is ridiculous.
Isn't your first statement literally the opposite of the objective of EDH? EDH strives to make long physical combos acceptable and better, something no other format does because of their competitive nature. Sure, in competitive EDH your statement is indeed true, but the RC molds the list in line with Casual EDH and not Competitive EDH. "Casuals won't play it if it isn't fun" is precisely the reason CV is on the list, if Casuals have no incentive/will to play it at all, it means the format has no incentive to keep it in as well. TNN-Mike-Trike may be as "nonsensical" as well, but the only reason TNN is still free is because Casuals have the incentive/will to play TNN and can do so because it can be played fairly. Bluntly put, the entire format is designed to put the Competitive player's choices at the mercy of Casual player's choices, which as should be for what is literally the only casual format left running about in the game.
Isn't your first statement literally the opposite of the objective of EDH? EDH strives to make long physical combos acceptable and better, something no other format does because of their competitive nature.
...No? Recurring Time Warp with Archaeomancer every turn should not be encouraged. It's one thing to combo kill a table with Mike&Trike or CV if it were legal, everyone can just shuffle up and play again. But it is something else entirely to force everyone else to twiddle their thumbs for 20 minutes while you sit there and try to figure out if you've managed to combo off with Seismic-Swans, or wait for you to take infinite turns trying to find a way to win. Why on earth are some of these things acceptable to you but others aren't, apparently depending entirely on how long they take to physically execute?
I was unable to finish a commander game at our commander night because the jeskai ascendency player took about 30 minutes to play through one turn( and didn't win ). It just took forever to remember and go through the ~5 triggers that happened every spell cast.
Long execution combos are not fun for the table.
Coalition victory and others are not satisfying or interesting.
Long execution combos are not interesting either, with the added downside of wasting everyone's time.
Isn't your first statement literally the opposite of the objective of EDH? EDH strives to make long physical combos acceptable and better, something no other format does because of their competitive nature.
...No? Recurring Time Warp with Archaeomancer every turn should not be encouraged. It's one thing to combo kill a table with Mike&Trike or CV if it were legal, everyone can just shuffle up and play again. But it is something else entirely to force everyone else to twiddle their thumbs for 20 minutes while you sit there and try to figure out if you've managed to combo off with Seismic-Swans, or wait for you to take infinite turns trying to find a way to win. Why on earth are some of these things acceptable to you but others aren't, apparently depending entirely on how long they take to physically execute?
That's a fine perspective to have there, but from that perspective your point should be for banning cards that enable long (Solitaire) combos, which has nothing to do with CV's current position. CV ending games instantly isn't going to solve nor discourage the long combo problem you raised. Making the average game shorter simply because CV helps in those statistics also harms the long-but-memorable games (that need not necessarily involve combo) that EDH is trying to create. If your counterpoint to this is that "long-but-memorable" games is no longer applicable, then it simply means your playgroup has gotten to the competitive point where the progress of the game and/or its memorability doesn't matter and it returns back to the classic Competitive vs Casual debate, and yes, if the format was tailored towards competitive, CV's position would no doubt be superfluous, but the format is still tailored towards casual and the only reason "competitive aspects" such as TNN-Mike-Trike still exist is because its separate components are still played by Casuals complying by the "long-but-memorable" aspect of the format. Like I said, in a casual format, the limits of what the competitive player can play is limited by what the casual players desire to play.
I was unable to finish a commander game at our commander night because the jeskai ascendency player took about 30 minutes to play through one turn( and didn't win ). It just took forever to remember and go through the ~5 triggers that happened every spell cast.
Long execution combos are not fun for the table.
Coalition victory and others are not satisfying or interesting.
Long execution combos are not interesting either, with the added downside of wasting everyone's time.
People actually make each other play out infinite combos? In my playgroup, we announce what is about to happen then demonstrate one iteration and the fact it can be repeated. I just demonstrated that I can take infinite turns, does anyone have a way to stop this? Do you want to see how I eventually win or is this game? I just landed a splinter twin on a pestermite, I move to make 30 Billion of them, can anyone stop this? Ok, now here's how they attack, anyone have an answer? Isn't this how real people act? Do people actually make you toggle the pestermite 30 billion times? Hell, online you normally get a concede while the combo is still on the stack. I've had to manually combo all of twice, once was an infinite life gain combo and the other was infinite damage, but for the latter the guy said he just wanted to see Reveka, Wizard Savant kill him.
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 was unable to finish a commander game at our commander night because the jeskai ascendency player took about 30 minutes to play through one turn( and didn't win ). It just took forever to remember and go through the ~5 triggers that happened every spell cast.
Long execution combos are not fun for the table.
Coalition victory and others are not satisfying or interesting.
Long execution combos are not interesting either, with the added downside of wasting everyone's time.
People actually make each other play out infinite combos? In my playgroup, we announce what is about to happen then demonstrate one iteration and the fact it can be repeated. I just demonstrated that I can take infinite turns, does anyone have a way to stop this? Do you want to see how I eventually win or is this game? I just landed a splinter twin on a pestermite, I move to make 30 Billion of them, can anyone stop this? Ok, now here's how they attack, anyone have an answer? Isn't this how real people act? Do people actually make you toggle the pestermite 30 billion times? Hell, online you normally get a concede while the combo is still on the stack. I've had to manually combo all of twice, once was an infinite life gain combo and the other was infinite damage, but for the latter the guy said he just wanted to see Reveka, Wizard Savant kill him.
He was stopped before it could go infinite. He played a ton of rituals and creatures and then we wiped the board.
There are things like high tide and eggs that just take a long time before you know if they actually won.
That's a fine perspective to have there, but from that perspective your point should be for banning cards that enable long (Solitaire) combos, which has nothing to do with CV's current position. CV ending games instantly isn't going to solve nor discourage the long combo problem you raised.
To be fair, I didn't raise this point. You did when you started going on about "phases" of a combo, as if the fact that Coalition Victory doesn't have a long execution is somehow a point against it:
Yes, TNN into Mike & Trike isn't memorable enough either, mainly because the competitive combo players exhausted it to the point no one wants to see it, but at the very least, people can see the mechanics actively leading to the win, the very motion of Mike and Trike emerging from the deck and Trike firing, dying and returning, then firing again.
Nobody is arguing that CV is a fun way to end the game. But neither is Mike&Trike or Doomsday or Enter the Infinite, but all of those remain legal. The argument is that CV is no worse than any number of other cards that end the game upon resolution, figuratively if not literally. In the interest of having the smallest possible ban list, there is no reason for CV to remain banned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
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?
Probably not long after Carthage last posted.
He mentioned Winter Orb in his last post, and that made me question why it was legal, despite most likely being a terrible card for the format. Nobody ever made an argument why some cards with no acceptable fair use might be legal. The conclusion I reached was that there are just too many Winter Orbs and Armageddons to outright ban them all. If every inappropriate card in Commander were banned, that would lead to an unmanageable banned list. Fortunately, that isn't necessary. Cards like Winter Orb just so happen to be poisonous to casual players. They absolutely hate playing with them. That's why it doesn't need banned. Casual players don't need protection from cards they're unwilling to play, and spikes will find something to poison casuals with regardless of what's legal.
Now, the million dollar question is: is Coalition Victory just another Winter Orb, a card that's unhealthy for the format, but one that casual players have no interest in using? If the answer is yes, I think it would only make sense to unban it. If the answer is no, I think it would be wise to keep it banned. I just don't know the extent of Coalition Victory's popularity. Because of how powerful it is and how trivial it is to set up, I'm inclined to believe that it would be popular among casual player and shoehorned into every five color deck, but I don't know the truth. It may very well be something that could easily be let go of.
For me, casual isn't a derogatory word. I just find it as a useful word to describe the uninvested Commander players as opposed to the heavily enfranchised ones. With that out of the way, casual players are the ones I trust the least to uphold the spirit of the format (aside from Spikes). I believe that casual players will ultimately just play what they think is fun. If what they think is fun happens to coincide with the spirit of the format, cool. That worked out. If not, can you really blame them? What else would you expect people to put into their decks other than what they think would be fun to play? The enfranchised players are the ones I trust to uphold the spirit of the format. They're the ones with knowledge of Commander philosophy, not casuals. Casuals I wouldn't trust one bit.
It's definitely in the spirit of Commander. As I've mentioned before though, fair use isn't so much about whether or not it's possible to use a card fairly, but if players will actually do so in practice. Now, provided that Coalition Victory were popular enough to actually see play, would players use it the same way you would? I'm not sure. Honestly, I mostly doubt it. If it isn't popular enough to see any significant play in the format to begin with though, keeping it banned would be moot, and it might as well be legal so that the players who would like to use it can do what you want to do with the card.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I'm sure Victory would probably never be heard from again like Worldfire (which I never remember hearing about until it was banned 3 months after release) Of course, I remember back when Sway of the Stars hit the list and never heard anything about it either before it was banned. They should really just go silently into the night, never to be heard from again like Biorhythm. They're jank that could be unbanned and would probably never even make it out of the jank rare boxes of the world and would probably never be reprinted. I mean really, in order to cause chaos, people would have to track them down and buy/trade for jank that doesn't even look like it would be fun. Yeah, there's Worldfire guy and some trolls out there, but even if you want to troll people, there are much lower mana ways to combo or lock down a table. If trolling were a consideration, cards like Stasis, Iona, Jin, and Winter Orb would have bitten it decades ago. Afterall, they're much much better for wrecking a game. Even Myojin of Night's Reach and Myojin of Infinite Rage are as good or better for wrecking games. Banning the particular cards on the list seems to take banning the worst offenders the wrong way in the direction of banning the worst ways of actually wrecking games. Outside of theorycrafting, they banned cards aren't really even all that good for trolling because they're more difficult and more mana than the standard crop of game wreckers that the rules committee has no interest in banning. I bet those janky cards will go away and pretty much never be heard from again after they leave the list. I mean really, there's almost no stories of them causing any actual trouble being played and I seriously doubt anyone can make a good case for why unfun decks would become any more unfun or even slot in the cards. Afterall, outside of theorycrafting, cards don't see play on their own. They're part of actual decks and like with my Maze's End example, Amulet of Vigor probably proceeds Scapeshift so you aren't even going to need Deserted Temple most of the time. Still, it isn't exactly a popular combo even though it's probably as easy to do as Coalition Victory and harder to stop in practice since you can make it all lands and a sorcery.
Already addressed it, couple of posts up, actually. Instead of being so hung up on how fair cards get broken, reread what's already been discussed. "Combo 'gunna combo", ringing a bell?
The only point I care to address of yours, as it's just so insanely simplified, is the first one. What conditions? The condition that you run a non-General Tazri 5-C deck? That is the only reason not to run Cv in a 5c deck. At some point throughout the game, you'll have those conditions met, just by playing.
Ignoring this is just so painful to read. How that specific fact can just be dismissed is mind boggling. This isn't even a discussion, as far as I'm concerned anyways. This is one side ignoring what the card fundamentally does, and the other side continually reminding them of that, except its falling on deaf ears, for whatever reason.
What's even more baffling is that those wanting it to be unbanned trying to tell those who don't that it has these "conditions", that are somehow incredibly difficult to meet. If you are entwining Tooth and Nail, you are dedicating more resources for the win to that then CV. If you are comboing off with Worldgorger Dragon, you are dedicating more resources to that than you are CV. What's an even bigger difference is that those combos have little to nothing to do with your commander. There are times they just won't work because a piece has been destroyed/exiled. That just doesn't apply to CV.
Why the hell should a card exist in a casual format that does absolutely nothing but win the game? I hate on the RC pretty hard, but they are definelty intelligent enough to realize that it would be a mistake to unban it.
I mean, seriously, I cannot believe how long this thread has gone on. This isn't some complex issue requiring hours of research, it's just common sense.
Again, by virtue of building a 5-C deck, you have built it to win with CV. What's even "worse", is that it can be done better(oh, like other combos, shocker!) throw in Prismastic Omen, Transguild Courier there you go. Redundancy.
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. Actually, back to the first point, I would probably see more of CV were it off the list than I have ever seen WGD combo. Or Koko combo, or anything else that's been recently unbanned. Its the type of card that has no business existing in this format.
Edit: I also think you are misinterpreting my view on the cards you liken CV to. Considering this isn't their respective threads, I don't really feel the need to be transparent on that, but maybe it'll help you, doubtful, but it's worth a shot.
I hate WGD kills. I hate T&N kills. I hate Omniscience/Lab Man/EtI kills. But you know what? Kudos to them for building their deck in such a way to pull it off. Their reward will usually be me/the table forcing them to play it out, and pointing out missed triggers if they arise and chuckling at their expense. Sometimes they'll switch to a different deck that's more "appropriate" for the table their at, or they'll welcome the challenge of being a target going forward. I'm cool with all of that.
How I envision CV is much different. The table will be caught off-guard at first, specifically if the deck plays out to be a non-threatening build. The other 3 players would probably be pretty salty that they lost that way, as it is pretty anti-climatic. Then, going forward, if they continue on with 5-C that is, well just keep them in check however we need to make sure CV doesn't work. MLD and Targeted LD, continually hating their commander off the table, etc. Now, how is that fun for that player? Kind of goes back to what Mercury said.
Sorry for not giving your earlier posts more attention. Most of them seemed directed specifically towards Vash. Regardless, I wanted to take the time to answer your question here directly. I think I may be in a position you'll agree with.
To start, I want to say that I'm totally with you regarding Coalition Victory. The card is a total blight on Commander, and it really has no business existing in the format. Having said that, Wizards did print the card, so the Commander community must reconcile with that somehow. Expunging the card through the ban list is one option, the option I've advocated throughout most of this thread, but I would like to present a question to you that may lead to an alternative: What if Coalition Victory, despite being such a reprehensible card in Commander, actually turned out to be unpopular? What if nobody would play with Coalition Victory even if it were legal?
Now, you may not believe that possible, in which case, hey, I'm with you. Keep Coalition Victory banned under those circumstances. But if the card actually does turn out to be unpopular, and players won't play with Coalition Victory even if it were legal, then I think there's a strong argument for unbanning it. Why? To answer your question directly, because players are no longer at risk of being exposed to the card. If nobody is running around with Coalition Victory, then nobody needs protected from it. For all intents and purposes, Coalition Victory would still be banned while technically still being legal. That frees up space on the banned list, making it easier to digest, and everybody wins. This is the same argument Vash is making with Worldgorger Dragon. The Rules Committee unbanned Worldgorger several years ago, and the repercussions have been negligible even though Worldgorger is a card with almost no fair application. The reason for this is simply because players don't care about Worldgorger anymore. They don't play with the card, and if nobody is playing with it, the banned list doesn't need to worry about protecting players from it.
EDIT:
I should have addressed with before posting, but I missed this, so I'm editing it in now. I think this is a perfectly fair stance to take, that it doesn't matter if the card would be used or not. I think that a stance against all socially unacceptable cards is fine, but how do you reconcile all of the cards like Winter Orb and Armageddon that aren't banned?
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I am not arguing leveraging the 'ease' of the card and don't think it should be put into consideration towards why it is banned. Yes, CV could be easy to win with in 5-color decks, but the same easiness can be applied to Felidar Sovereign, Helix Pinnacle, and Test of Endurance in other decks too. Where we really differ Buffsam is the argument of magnitude, and we're just not going to come to an agreement. I would much rather give the card a shot in the format than just letting it sit and rot on the list.
And this thread is going 'on and on' just like how long the Iona thread went - some people are passionate about their opinions and want to discuss it.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
So you don't see the difference in a player being ganged up on for winning via Hermit Druid Reanimation combo, and the 5c Wall-tribal player who happens to run Coalition Victory? I don't know what to tell you, other than you are being incredibly dense, to put it lightly.
Vash, The Iona thread was different. People were arguing the impact of what a 9-mana, color hosing beatstick did in an average game of magic. Most of it revolved around spirit of the format and the like, and the manacost was restrictive, and it ultimately would be answered at some point, blah, blah, blah. Here, we're arguing over what CV does. One side likens it to haymakers. Haymakers that can, and are, used fairly(Insurrection, RotDR, T&N, EtI), but that also lead to game ending interactions between different cards. It is a fact that CV cannot, and never can be, used in a similar fashion, ever. It only leads to the game ending. Its a fact that cannot be disputed, try as you might with your "line in the sand" commentary.
Axotol, I understand where you are coming from, but that's risky business. Applying that criteria(never used) to CV can also be applied to Black Lotus, the Moxen, etc. For obviously different reasons, but that, to me, leads to an even more convoluted approach to the format. As for the Winter Orb/Armageddon question, that's an archetype that would require quite a few other cards to join them. Cascading bans, no? Likening them to CV just doesn't seem the least bit appropriate.
I don't have a personal distaste for the card. I just see what it represents and how it would have nothing but a negative impact on the format.
Edit: Let's clarify the Worldgorger Dragon debate. As a casual player, I have no interest in the card. At first glance, there is nothing but downside associated with it. Sure, if you understand the stack triggers, and the way to abuse them with additional cards, then it becomes clear how powerful it is. It's an intricate combo, well beyond the average joe's willingness to explore, in all honesty. I wouldn't be surprised if that was what ultimately lead to it being removed from the list. The tables you don't want it to ruin, it won't, because the players probably wouldn't have a clear understanding of how powerful its effect is. Otherwise, it's going to be played at tables where EntertheOmni, Hermit Druid, and other degenerate strategies exist. Lie to me and tell me that's the case with CV...
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
P.S. The commander is Legacy Weapon. It already cannot possibly fulfill the creature requirement of Coalition Victory for multiple reasons, mainly being neither a creature nor 5-colors.
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.
While I agree that Insurrection does not always lead to a game ending (in fact, I rarely ever see games end due to Insurrection), this example is completely bogus. An untapped Homeward Path isn't hidden information. Sure, people can misplay to on board answers, but that applies to anything. This argument is like saying Coalition Victory doesn't always end the game because the caster didn't realize somebody had an on board Seal of Removal.
A realistic example would be that someone casts Insurrection while there's only 25 power worth of creatures in play. Dealing 25 damage to one player is well worth 5RRR mana, and it's a play I see made all the time. It does not end games.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Actually, there are a lot of responses to CV. To successfully cast it, you may have to play through or not encounter:
That's a decent number of cards.
Worldgorger Dragon is a mono-color card, like Iona. CV is a 5C color card. If so many like to theorycraft, it's really not hard to assume that the former 2 cards are likely to see more play than the latter. Besides, no one is complaining about a mono-color "I-win-card", yet people are going bonkers over a niche 5C card? C'mon wake up man.
And if the likes of Iona is allowed to run freely, why can't CV? Are we bold enough to say there're more 5C decks than W/x decks?
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
The difference is how it ends - CV isn't flashy enough, arranging a position that's legitimately innocent in every 5C deck (5 basic land types and the Commander) and then winning because of that makes for a particularly unmemorable game, even if it's the first time it happens. Sure, someday someone would win with CV with 5 Basic Lands and 5 creatures, but before then I'm sure countless games ended with the typical unmemorable setup.
Yes, TNN into Mike & Trike isn't memorable enough either, mainly because the competitive combo players exhausted it to the point no one wants to see it, but at the very least, people can see the mechanics actively leading to the win, the very motion of Mike and Trike emerging from the deck and Trike firing, dying and returning, then firing again. Sure, in most competitive circles, it's more likely the player just showed the 2 cards and the group moves on to the next game, but I'm sure the players at least mentally executed the process that led to their end and that fulfills the "ending" need. Not necessarily satisfying, but mechanically sound. Enter the Infinite would fare even better, some people might actually just want to see the whole mess play out.
CV is the only card that "Abruptly" executes "Phase 2" of a winning combo, while its "Phase 1" requirements are seemingly innocent. TNN is an abrupt "Phase 1" where it gets "Phase 2" (Mike & Trike) immediately, but at least Phase 2 isn't abrupt mechanically, and that matters a lot to the feeling you get when you end the game, even in those cases you don't physically go through the process. On top of that, "Phase 2" isn't predetermined to be always Mike & Trike, giving it a better degree of variety. CV can only have variety of "Phase 1", but the abruptness of its "Phase 2" (because it's just "I have these = I win" as a "mechanic" and said mechanic only exists on that card) does too good a job disregarding the variety possible in "Phase 1".
I once saw a game ended because its player Planar Bridged for Felidar Sovereign at the end of the opponent-before-his-turn. This was the closest replicate to a CV victory (innocent "Phase 1", abrupt "Phase 2") I witnessed and the only reason no one felt bad was because that game only had 2 players left at that point of time and the player with the Bridge had enough power to win regardless of what he Bridged for. Had it been in the middle of a player/board-laden game, I would have most certainly felt a sense of "incompleteness" in that game. The Sovereign needed the Bridge (or some other flash enabler) to create that abrupt "Phase 2", CV is pretty much the only card that is capable of executing "abrupt Phase 2"s by itself.
We cannot take what we see for granted and assume that it applies to the entire format worldwide - all because most of us here (me included) have compressed a TNN-Mike-Trike win to be as an "abrupt win" like any other, we cannot take that assumption as the norm when making a decision for the entire format, we need to break it down and see whether the uncompressed combo provides a sense of completion when it executes. Perhaps to you, any form of winning is a completion (perhaps even when opponents randomly concede), but "casual" players play for the experience and (the ability to visualize/see) the completion of the game is very much part of that experience.
Even the Bridge-Sovereign example showed the interaction of the Bridge bringing the Sovereign out before the abrupt cut to the game, whereas CV just shows you some lands and a Commander and when you look at it in hindsight, getting the bridge out and maintaining 40+ life is at least an alarm of some sort (actually the Bridge itself is an alarm already) whereas treating someone with some lands and their Commander out as an alarm isn't exactly as memorable.
Isn't your first statement literally the opposite of the objective of EDH? EDH strives to make long physical combos acceptable and better, something no other format does because of their competitive nature. Sure, in competitive EDH your statement is indeed true, but the RC molds the list in line with Casual EDH and not Competitive EDH. "Casuals won't play it if it isn't fun" is precisely the reason CV is on the list, if Casuals have no incentive/will to play it at all, it means the format has no incentive to keep it in as well. TNN-Mike-Trike may be as "nonsensical" as well, but the only reason TNN is still free is because Casuals have the incentive/will to play TNN and can do so because it can be played fairly. Bluntly put, the entire format is designed to put the Competitive player's choices at the mercy of Casual player's choices, which as should be for what is literally the only casual format left running about in the game.
I was unable to finish a commander game at our commander night because the jeskai ascendency player took about 30 minutes to play through one turn( and didn't win ). It just took forever to remember and go through the ~5 triggers that happened every spell cast.
Long execution combos are not fun for the table.
Coalition victory and others are not satisfying or interesting.
Long execution combos are not interesting either, with the added downside of wasting everyone's time.
That's a fine perspective to have there, but from that perspective your point should be for banning cards that enable long (Solitaire) combos, which has nothing to do with CV's current position. CV ending games instantly isn't going to solve nor discourage the long combo problem you raised. Making the average game shorter simply because CV helps in those statistics also harms the long-but-memorable games (that need not necessarily involve combo) that EDH is trying to create. If your counterpoint to this is that "long-but-memorable" games is no longer applicable, then it simply means your playgroup has gotten to the competitive point where the progress of the game and/or its memorability doesn't matter and it returns back to the classic Competitive vs Casual debate, and yes, if the format was tailored towards competitive, CV's position would no doubt be superfluous, but the format is still tailored towards casual and the only reason "competitive aspects" such as TNN-Mike-Trike still exist is because its separate components are still played by Casuals complying by the "long-but-memorable" aspect of the format. Like I said, in a casual format, the limits of what the competitive player can play is limited by what the casual players desire to play.
People actually make each other play out infinite combos? In my playgroup, we announce what is about to happen then demonstrate one iteration and the fact it can be repeated. I just demonstrated that I can take infinite turns, does anyone have a way to stop this? Do you want to see how I eventually win or is this game? I just landed a splinter twin on a pestermite, I move to make 30 Billion of them, can anyone stop this? Ok, now here's how they attack, anyone have an answer? Isn't this how real people act? Do people actually make you toggle the pestermite 30 billion times? Hell, online you normally get a concede while the combo is still on the stack. I've had to manually combo all of twice, once was an infinite life gain combo and the other was infinite damage, but for the latter the guy said he just wanted to see Reveka, Wizard Savant kill him.
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!
He was stopped before it could go infinite. He played a ton of rituals and creatures and then we wiped the board.
There are things like high tide and eggs that just take a long time before you know if they actually won.