People still want the literally only card that'd say "Counter this or lose the game" unbanned?
Really?
There is no other SINGLE card that, NO MATTER WHAT, either does absolutely nothing OR wins the game on the spot. CV has no in-between, unlike something like Tooth & Nail which can be used for an Avenger of Zendikar + Regal Force. Coalition Victory has no interesting interactions or anything.
I don't know how I feel about CV as a card in the format and it probably means nothing to me personally or the people I play with but exaggeration for the sake of it doesn't help your case in the slightest
CV has to resolve with all of its conditions on the field to be a victory condition, so saying it needs a Counter Spell or the person has victory is some of the most hyperbolic bull***** I have seen on this forum.
Since we all like playing devils advocate to prove some outlandish point, Coalition Victory will never be cast unless the caster can guarantee the conditions will still be met once it resolves. So, is all it takes is a round of players tapping out to pull out a win, with what? A creature on the board and land of ever basic type? Considering that you are meeting both of those conditions in deck building process just by playing a 5-C general, no deck support necessary. Not difficult at all to find your spot to resolve the spell.
What is really bull**** here is anybody trying to argue the above. As far as hyperbole goes, what about “OMG, Tooth and Nail always wins the game!”. It can, sure, but that’s on the caster and depends on deck contents. Does that apply to CV? No, it does not, at all.
Congratulations you just described how ANY combo deck functions in this format. It is always getting the pieces together you need whether in hand or in play, not dying and waiting for an opening from your opponents whether in mana or resources in play.
Also
If you don’t counter the spell, remove the appropriate creature/land, you lose.
&
If you don’t counter the spell, remove the appropriate creature/land, you lose.
Is the definition of hyperbole, please don't try to argue the opposite it makes you look rather foolish.
What’s foolish is you equating “combo pieces” to your general and lands. You could build a deck helmed by Karona, the False God 98 basic lands, and Coalition Victory. That Combo brah.
Please stop, coming from somebody who claims he doesn’t care, you are really reaching here.
Honestly, the Mods should just lock this thread. My point has been proven by 3 separate individuals since this thread was ressurected. Or should we just argue the same points for another 9 pages, have it die for a year, and then revisit? Again.
The reason I said I don't have a horse in this race is because I don't think CV is that strong or would make that big of an impact with the people I play with is all.
Ahhh yes I forgot that Coalition Victory is the one sorcery that doesn't need to be cast from you hand or found from your deck first and you can just cast it whenever you want.
I am not saying things are like combo pieces what I am saying is the deck that wants to win with CV would function generally like any combo deck in the format. Make enough mana, get pieces, resolve everything without disruption.
Sure if I am to use your very ridiculous example you could play a deck with 98 basics a 5 Color Commander and CV and you could win a game, I am assuming at that point your opponents are not playing the game if you pull that deck off winning let me know. You need more parts to make CV work than just the requirements to cast the spell (which in terms of Combos in EDH is pretty steep actually).
Here is my honest take on what would happen were CV unbanned, people would win a game here or there out of surprise of the people being played against much like a Maralen of the Mornsong low CMC Sickening Dreams/Ad nauseam deck can surprise people out of nowhere and then that deck won't win because people will expect it and it will fall into rotation if that group plays those kind of combos as the one that sneaks through or doesn't to win games in the future.
I guess that is also partially why I don't see why it is banned is because I don't think it will see a lot of play because there are still not a lot of 5 color decks. It is not as obvious as say Biorhythm with the ease of making that work in countless decks.
The reason I said I don't have a horse in this race is because I don't think CV is that strong or would make that big of an impact with the people I play with is all.
Ahhh yes I forgot that Coalition Victory is the one sorcery that doesn't need to be cast from you hand or found from your deck first and you can just cast it whenever you want.
I am not saying things are like combo pieces what I am saying is the deck that wants to win with CV would function generally like any combo deck in the format. Make enough mana, get pieces, resolve everything without disruption.
Sure if I am to use your very ridiculous example you could play a deck with 98 basics a 5 Color Commander and CV and you could win a game, I am assuming at that point your opponents are not playing the game if you pull that deck off winning let me know. You need more parts to make CV work than just the requirements to cast the spell (which in terms of Combos in EDH is pretty steep actually).
Here is my honest take on what would happen were CV unbanned, people would win a game here or there out of surprise of the people being played against much like a Maralen of the Mornsong low CMC Sickening Dreams/Ad nauseam deck can surprise people out of nowhere and then that deck won't win because people will expect it and it will fall into rotation if that group plays those kind of combos as the one that sneaks through or doesn't to win games in the future.
I guess that is also partially why I don't see why it is banned is because I don't think it will see a lot of play because there are still not a lot of 5 color decks. It is not as obvious as say Biorhythm with the ease of making that work in countless decks.
As “ridiculous” of an example it is, you can’t discount it because it works. It’s a fact. It’s a singleton format, after all. Would you see the other banned cards every game if they were unbanned? C’mon. Reaching, again.
Coalition Victoryisn’t a combo deck. It doesn’t require you to build around it. What other cards do you need? You run a 5-C deck, and have basic land types, that’s a steep requirement? I sacrifice 1 deck slot for CV, and call it a day. No clue where you are getting that requires more than just that. It’s printed on the freaking card. Or are we talking hypotheticals, as that seems to be the only argument here. No downside to running it because it’s always relevant. If you can cast your commander, you can cast CV. It will be in every 5-C deck. And how exactly would it lose the surprise factor? You just kill the 5-C Commander every time it’s in play? Constantly keep them off 5 land types? All the while they do something else with the other 98 cards in their deck and win anyways.
If it was more like Door to nothingness where it targets a player to lose the game, it would be much less problematic. As is, lots of games will end before they ever get going, for 3+ players. Kind of goes against the format philosophy, and just multi-player in general.
And how exactly would it lose the surprise factor? You just kill the 5-C Commander every time it’s in play? Constantly keep them off 5 land types? All the while they do something else with the other 98 cards in their deck and win anyways.
Well it turns out if you see the same thing over and over again, it becomes less surprising. And the answer isn't to just kill their commander every time you see it, the answer is to hold up an answer to respond to the CV itself.
If it was more like Door to nothingness where it targets a player to lose the game, it would be much less problematic. As is, lots of games will end before they ever get going, for 3+ players. Kind of goes against the format philosophy, and just multi-player in general.
What? How is that better? Forcing a single player to sit and watch an hour+ long game because they randomly got eliminated first is significantly worse than the game ending and everyone shuffling up for another.
Coalition Victoryisn’t a combo deck. It doesn’t require you to build around it. What other cards do you need? You run a 5-C deck, and have basic land types, that’s a steep requirement?
Of course its combo, they answer it or lose the game. Plenty of combos don't require a build around, and can just be backups if you draw into them. Steep requirements do not define combo.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
If you can cast your commander, you can cast CV. It will be in every 5-C deck.
And how did we draw this conclusion? Just because it can be, it will be?
There's no reason for it not to be in a 5-colour deck, just like how there's no reason for Prophet of Kruphixnot to be in an UG deck. Both cards provide enough value by the nature of the format to make a deck without them suboptimal.
I think the comparison to PoK is a bad one because one is an engine and one is a finisher, decks are prone to include more of the former than the latter, and there are a lot of ways you can end a game of Commander but every deck of a certain color doesn't run all the finishers available because that would be bad construction.
As “ridiculous” of an example it is, you can’t discount it because it works. It’s a fact. It’s a singleton format, after all. Would you see the other banned cards every game if they were unbanned? C’mon. Reaching, again.
If you actually think a deck that is a Commander 98 lands and a copy of CV can win a 4 player game of Commander then I have no need to discuss this with you any further.
If you can cast your commander, you can cast CV. It will be in every 5-C deck.
And how did we draw this conclusion? Just because it can be, it will be?
There's no reason for it not to be in a 5-colour deck, just like how there's no reason for Prophet of Kruphixnot to be in an UG deck. Both cards provide enough value by the nature of the format to make a deck without them suboptimal.
I'm pretty shocked that anyone is arguing against this. I mean, yeah, if you are not running basic land types, or barely any, that's a reason not to run it, but even then it can still fire with Chromatic Lantern, which in a 5 color deck is worth it on its own for the fixing (at least in any 5 color deck that wouldn't have easy access to getting 5 basic land types via fetches and duals, which if you are running that you don't need the lantern to make CV work). Its literally just dedicating a single card slot to a card that just wins you the game. Yeah, its 8 mana, but the old adage is "If it costs more than 6, it better win you the game." Well, normally this means creating a large advantage that makes it much more likely that you win, or acting as a finisher after some set up like Hoof, but this just wins it, period. Play your lands, play your commander, play this, that's it. What's the opportunity cost here? Any 5 color good stuff deck would run this, and that will piss off a lot of casual tables. That's really where this is going to show up and solve problems. It could show up as a secondary win con in 5 color hermit druid so long as it isn't General Tazri in case the primary combo gets disrupted, but cEDH can handle it. Casual struggles enough with combo, but a card that just wins, with no opportunity cost, is a bridge too far. Yes, no opportunity cost, whenever you evaluate a card for your deck you ask the questions "how will this help me win, how close does it get me to that goal, and what trade off do I have to make?" The answers to those questions are "It says 'you win' for just playing your lands and commander, it gets you all the way there, and no trade off. Yeah, it sucks that EDH is the only format that this card could be run in, but that's also another reason it would get played.
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!
If you are going to say this card is going to run rampant in lower powered games then you also have to consider those games and those decks will not be running ways to cast it that much earlier or to find the card more efficiently etc etc
It is never just play 8 lands cast one and cast two the simplification being done there is very annoying.
And high ramp and stuff and loop holes of casting for free
But this takes a while to get too and theres way more counterspell like cards today and the secret is this win condition is it's very very fragile more fragile than a house of cards just destroy one Weasley enchantment or the 5-color creature(s) or one colored creature if no 5-color in play with removal and you just countered the win
There's no reason for it not to be in a 5-colour deck, just like how there's no reason for Prophet of Kruphixnot to be in an UG deck. Both cards provide enough value by the nature of the format to make a deck without them suboptimal.
I don't think this is a rabbit-hole you want to jump down. There are scores, if not hundreds, of cards that fit this description, the biggest and most obvious one being Sol Ring and his friend Mana Crypt. This cannot possibly be how we decide to ban cards. I should know, I've been on the 'Ban Sol Ring' train for years now and nothing has come of it despite the fact that you are objectively wrong for not playing it in your deck. Simply being ubiquitous isn't a reason to ban. And that all is glossing over the fact that we're just assuming CV will see play in every possible deck, which is fairly specious at best.
I'm pretty shocked that anyone is arguing against this. I mean, yeah, if you are not running basic land types, or barely any, that's a reason not to run it, but even then it can still fire with Chromatic Lantern, which in a 5 color deck is worth it on its own for the fixing (at least in any 5 color deck that wouldn't have easy access to getting 5 basic land types via fetches and duals, which if you are running that you don't need the lantern to make CV work).
What's the opportunity cost here? Any 5 color good stuff deck would run this, and that will piss off a lot of casual tables. That's really where this is going to show up and solve problems.
The opportunity cost is the fact that you're putting an 8-mana spell that has a high chance of doing literal nothing into your deck. Also, I'm assuming you meant "cause problems" or else I think I've grossly misunderstood the rest of this post.
Yes, no opportunity cost, whenever you evaluate a card for your deck you ask the questions "how will this help me win, how close does it get me to that goal, and what trade off do I have to make?" The answers to those questions are "It says 'you win' for just playing your lands and commander, it gets you all the way there, and no trade off.
First of all, as I already mentioned, there is in fact a not-insignificant opportunity cost to casting an 8-mana spell and just hoping nobody interferes or else you just did actual nothing. That's a real cost that a lot of pro-ban advocates seem to ignore.
Second, if this entire argument were true we'd already be living it because sweet Jesus there are some insanely broken cards that are legal in EDH. If the only thing everyone cared about was winning as efficiently as possible, a lot of our decks would be homogenizing towards the obvious best decks of the format and we'd basically just be playing cEDH but without a competent ban list. Except we're not. Because some people are capable of showing some restraint when deck building. EDH is about more than just stuffing the 99 best cards in your deck and calling it a day. And even if it wasn't, the thought that CV would make it into anyone's list is quite amusing because wow is it inefficient.
Let's be real here for a moment: CV is a largely mediocre card that does that same thing dozens of other cards already do in the format, just in a more straightforward manner. There is no legitimate reason for it to still be banned other than some people are irrationally caught up on the words "win the game". It's time to #FreeCV.
Coalition Victoryisn’t a combo deck. It doesn’t require you to build around it. What other cards do you need? You run a 5-C deck, and have basic land types, that’s a steep requirement?
Of course its combo, they answer it or lose the game. Plenty of combos don't require a build around, and can just be backups if you draw into them. Steep requirements do not define combo.
You just have to play 5-C. That’s it. That was the point in question. Similar to running Rite of Replication in Vela, the Night Clad. You don’t build around it because the build around is already done. You’ll have blue sources to cast the card and a prime target always in the command zone. Or Sculpting Steel in Sharuum, the hegemon. You no casting requirements, and a prime target in the CZ.
This is honestly the most moronic point in that rambling from above. You would have to go out of your way to build a deck that wouldn’t benefit from having Coaltion Victroy.
As for combos in the format, you dedicate a few deck slots to the combo, a few deck slots to protect the combo, and a few spots to recur combo pieces. You won’t do that for CV, because by virtue of building a 5-c deck, you’ve met the requirements. What else do you need to add? Nobody seems to be willing to answer this question. It’s not a combo card. Not in this format. It can lead to a combo win, but by itself, it is not a combo card.
Let's be real here for a moment: CV is a largely mediocre card that does that same thing dozens of other cards already do in the format, just in a more straightforward manner. There is no legitimate reason for it to still be banned other than some people are irrationally caught up on the words "win the game". It's time to #FreeCV.
No, it’s not.
If you are going to say this card is going to run rampant in lower powered games then you also have to consider those games and those decks will not be running ways to cast it that much earlier or to find the card more efficiently etc etc
It is never just play 8 lands cast one and cast two the simplification being done there is very annoying.
See this is funny because it’s contradictory. “Low powered” groups tends to mean more battle-cruiser type games, which means more ramp, less interaction. You can argu the meaning, but it’s pretty much agreed upon in the EDH community that this is what you mean when you say “low powered”. It’s thrown around during spoiler season all the time about high cost fatties. So, what you are actually saying is this card will have an easier time going off than in higher powered metas, and the RC tends to base their bannings on how they affect those lower powered groups.
An example of late is Protean Hulk. When it was unbanned, Sheldon’s words were “The key is not to break it”. So, how do you not break CV? Don’t play 5-C? Haha, that’s why this discussion is so painful.
As for combos in the format, you dedicate a few deck slots to the combo, a few deck slots to protect the combo, and a few spots to recur combo pieces. You won’t do that for CV, because by virtue of building a 5-c deck, you’ve met the requirements. What else do you need to add? Nobody seems to be willing to answer this question. It’s not a combo card. Not in this format. It can lead to a combo win, but by itself, it is not a combo card.
You keep answering your own questions right before you ask them.
If you don't build ways into your deck to find CV or protect you resolving CV with the requirements to survive then it becomes a lot of the time an 8Mana Sorcery that doesn't do anything else. You talk about the card in ways that make it seem like it has no downside at all so I don't know if I can take your posts that seriously.
People still want the literally only card that'd say "Counter this or lose the game" unbanned?
Really?
There is no other SINGLE card that, NO MATTER WHAT, either does absolutely nothing OR wins the game on the spot. CV has no in-between, unlike something like Tooth & Nail which can be used for an Avenger of Zendikar + Regal Force. Coalition Victory has no interesting interactions or anything.
I don't know how I feel about CV as a card in the format and it probably means nothing to me personally or the people I play with but exaggeration for the sake of it doesn't help your case in the slightest
CV has to resolve with all of its conditions on the field to be a victory condition, so saying it needs a Counter Spell or the person has victory is some of the most hyperbolic bull***** I have seen on this forum.
Wait, are you disagreeing with the fact that Coalition Victory is either "Win the game" or "Do nothing at all" with LITERALLY NO IN-BETWEENS? Because if you are, you're wrong. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Coalition Victory literally does nothing EXCEPT win the game on the spot, barring an answer.
Now you might try to point at Mortal Combat or Epic Struggle and other cards in those veins. Thing is, those cards need to survive a turn. If you say "but flash" then I say "It's not one card anymore".
SO. If you can point me to any single card that literally does nothing EXCEPT either win the game on the spot or nothing at all, AND it's legal in Commander? Then sure. But you can't. I know you can't.
And what would the point of adding such a card to the format be?
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.
Sure I agree with that definition of Coalition Victory in the moment it is being cast.
What I have a problem with is the philosophy that something must have a positive impact to the format to not be banned and not the reverse, as far as I have always understood the concept of banning things, is that it is collection of negatives they bring to the format gets something banned, not a collection of positives that keeps thing unbanned.
If that was not the case there are countless on countless on countless commons/uncommons that I would also say have no positive impact on the format.
As for combos in the format, you dedicate a few deck slots to the combo, a few deck slots to protect the combo, and a few spots to recur combo pieces. You won’t do that for CV, because by virtue of building a 5-c deck, you’ve met the requirements. What else do you need to add? Nobody seems to be willing to answer this question. It’s not a combo card. Not in this format. It can lead to a combo win, but by itself, it is not a combo card.
You keep answering your own questions right before you ask them.
If you don't build ways into your deck to find CV or protect you resolving CV with the requirements to survive then it becomes a lot of the time an 8Mana Sorcery that doesn't do anything else. You talk about the card in ways that make it seem like it has no downside at all so I don't know if I can take your posts that seriously.
There isn’t a downside. That’s why it sounds like I’m talking about in that way. You are clearly the one here having a problem understanding. You are making it out like you are building a Coalition Victory combo deck. That’s a 5-C deck, though. So if I built a Sliver Tribal deck, but added CV, it would be a Coalition Victory combo deck? Or built a 5-C Hermit Druid combo deck, and added CV, it’s a Coalition Victory combo deck? It doesn’t require support, as it’s been said over, and over, and over, and over....
What I have a problem with is the philosophy that something must have a positive impact to the format to not be banned and not the reverse, as far as I have always understood the concept of banning things, is that it is collection of negatives they bring to the format gets something banned, not a collection of positives that keeps thing unbanned.
And if the pros outweigh the cons, and vice versa? First off, I can’t even think of a point in favor of an unban other than equating it to other cards that it shares nothing in common with (Enter the Infinite and Tooth and Nail seem to be the most used examples) that aren’t banned. Cons, well, let’s just stick with it being a panic button at best and game killing card at worst. It either paints the 5-C player as an archenemy so they don’t get the requirements, or it’s slapped down on the table out of nowhere, winning a game in the least exciting fashion. Kind of defeats the purpose of Multi-Player.
Oh wow, why didn't I look at it that way. You sure convinced me.
In all seriousness, Sam, what exactly is your argument? As clearly as possible, please explain why you think CV deserves a spot on the ban list. What is your most fundamental problem with the card?
Oh wow, why didn't I look at it that way. You sure convinced me.
In all seriousness, Sam, what exactly is your argument? As clearly as possible, please explain why you think CV deserves a spot on the ban list. What is your most fundamental problem with the card?
I think at this point the burden of proof lays upon those who want it unbanned.
What good would CV do to the format. Give 5cc decks an extra wincon? I suppose. But why would 5cc, which is best suited to goodstuff anyway, need another wincon? See, I do get the desire to build Alt-Wincons.dec. but the problems are there, some of which have been discussed ad nauseam in this very thread about a year ago. Most notably:
- Sit down with a 5cc deck at a meta you don't really know: Have fun getting stomped on because people fear Coalition Victory come out.
- Doing literally nothing in a game EXCEPT win on the spot, which NO OTHER SINGLE CARD IN THE GAME DOES.
- The fact that it ignores everything that happened before in the game. Most cards that single-handedly do so are banned, you'll note. (Worldfire, Sway of the Stars being the main culprints) Before anyone points to Obliterate - that one still means whoever's ahead in life/cards in hand has a good chance.
The card that comes closest to winning on it's own is Tooth and Nail. But unlike Coalition Victory, Tooth and Nail (no matter how much I loathe that card) at least has a few requirements before it wins you the game. Notably, unless you play with reanimation on a stick, the creatures you're tutoring cannot be in the graveyard. Then, beyond spot removal or counterspells, things like fogs can also manage to upset the T&N player.
Coalition Victory has exactly two counterplays. Counter the CV, or remove the appropriate permanents that provide all 5 colours. Now that's all fine and dandy, but what if the CV player was smart enough to ensure there's at least 2 creatures of each colour around? The options go down VERY quickly and a single Path to Exile may not be enough, whilst that same PtE will deal with just about any T&N victory if you get your timing right. (Surprisingly a lot of people don't realize at what point you should Path a Mikaeus)
So yeah, it's an anticlimactic way to end the game, it barely has counterplay especially in lower-power metas, it completely invalidates anything that happened before, it paints a target on any 5cc player, and it's unique in that it's the sole card that wins the game ON THE SPOT and does nothing else.
So please, do tell what it adds to the format that counterbalances all those strikes against it.
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.
Oh wow, why didn't I look at it that way. You sure convinced me.
In all seriousness, Sam, what exactly is your argument? As clearly as possible, please explain why you think CV deserves a spot on the ban list. What is your most fundamental problem with the card?
I think at this point the burden of proof lays upon those who want it unbanned.
What good would CV do to the format. Give 5cc decks an extra wincon? I suppose. But why would 5cc, which is best suited to goodstuff anyway, need another wincon? See, I do get the desire to build Alt-Wincons.dec. but the problems are there, some of which have been discussed ad nauseam in this very thread about a year ago. Most notably:
- Sit down with a 5cc deck at a meta you don't really know: Have fun getting stomped on because people fear Coalition Victory come out.
- Doing literally nothing in a game EXCEPT win on the spot, which NO OTHER SINGLE CARD IN THE GAME DOES.
- The fact that it ignores everything that happened before in the game. Most cards that single-handedly do so are banned, you'll note. (Worldfire, Sway of the Stars being the main culprints) Before anyone points to Obliterate - that one still means whoever's ahead in life/cards in hand has a good chance.
The card that comes closest to winning on it's own is Tooth and Nail. But unlike Coalition Victory, Tooth and Nail (no matter how much I loathe that card) at least has a few requirements before it wins you the game. Notably, unless you play with reanimation on a stick, the creatures you're tutoring cannot be in the graveyard. Then, beyond spot removal or counterspells, things like fogs can also manage to upset the T&N player.
Coalition Victory has exactly two counterplays. Counter the CV, or remove the appropriate permanents that provide all 5 colours. Now that's all fine and dandy, but what if the CV player was smart enough to ensure there's at least 2 creatures of each colour around? The options go down VERY quickly and a single Path to Exile may not be enough, whilst that same PtE will deal with just about any T&N victory if you get your timing right. (Surprisingly a lot of people don't realize at what point you should Path a Mikaeus)
So yeah, it's an anticlimactic way to end the game, it barely has counterplay especially in lower-power metas, it completely invalidates anything that happened before, it paints a target on any 5cc player, and it's unique in that it's the sole card that wins the game ON THE SPOT and does nothing else.
So please, do tell what it adds to the format that counterbalances all those strikes against it.
Thanks, Lou. You nailed it here.
I’d also like to reiterate that nothing in the format has changed to even warrant a discussion. Cards in the same camp as this are still banned. Cards that have proven to interact poorly with the format rules or the format philosophy like Coalition Victory have been banned.
So, no, the onus isn’t on us, the pro-ban crowd. The card is banned, and it will remain banned. Nothing legal exists in the format to equate it to.
Sure I agree with that definition of Coalition Victory in the moment it is being cast.
What I have a problem with is the philosophy that something must have a positive impact to the format to not be banned and not the reverse, as far as I have always understood the concept of banning things, is that it is collection of negatives they bring to the format gets something banned, not a collection of positives that keeps thing unbanned.
If that was not the case there are countless on countless on countless commons/uncommons that I would also say have no positive impact on the format.
First things off, the "contribute something positive to the format" is only a secondary gateway applied to cards with negatives that would otherwise render them banned, which is why the bulk of commons/uncommons don't even make it there because they lack even the prerequisite of "negative".
I'm not saying the system is perfect (for starters it can be argued Tooth and Nail and now Protean Hulk got away with it for little positives relative to their negatives), but it's a price we need to pay to not end up with a Prismatic Banlist. EDH as arguably the highest-variance constructed format (since it's multiplayer 100-card singleton...) can generate negatives for each individual card much more easily than the refined streamlined decks of other constructed formats due to the sheer amount of possibilities within its games.
Coalition Victory is the one unfortunate card that hit all the wrong notes, first off by being a simple "win card" which had its assembly conditions much more heavily mitigated by the structure of the format than any other, which is pretty much its only negative. Then it proceeds to flop the "positive check gateway" by being a sorcery (which narrows the answer range/duration compared to likes of creatures/enchantments) and its lack of flexibility (the one reason Tooth and Nail got away, honestly).
In a way, "lack of answers" isn't a "negative" criteria for classifying cards, it's more of the "positive gateway check" where the more answers you have, the more likely you can contribute to the format positively simply from the possibility of interaction. Likewise, the "does nothing otherwise / dead weight in hand" isn't really making the card "better" (in the sense of less ban-worthy), it's actually making the card less flexible (and interactive).
As you have stated, you may have a problem with the criteria being read in such a backwards manner relative to typical banning procedures, but as I said EDH is a vastly different format from others and I still stand by that the general direction is correct (not optimal of course, but generally better than just applying the typical procedures).
I think at this point the burden of proof lays upon those who want it unbanned.
I don't see why. It seems to me that it should be the other way; those in favor of keeping it on the ban list should have strong, compelling arguments for it to stay there. You don't just ban cards willy-nilly. Coalition Victorywas banned, therefore the RC should have had a good reason for it. And according to papa_funk from earlier in the thread, that good reason was mostly "interacts poorly with the format." But papa_funk also said T&N is weaker in EDH than in other formats, so it's tough to take anything he/she says too seriously. Regardless, interacting poorly with the format is a nebulous and poorly defined criteria that, according to papa_funk's earlier definition of 'does it do the same thing in EDH as normal Magic?', can realistically be applied to basically any card. For example, Syphon Mind becomes significantly better in multiplayer. I don't see anyone clamoring for that ban, however.
So how does CV interact poorly with the format, exactly? Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't the entire point of the format to ensure you always have access to your general? Why, I do believe the RC even changed the tuck rule to ensure you literally could not possibly lose your general. And using that always available general to just do literally anything is a time honored tradition. I don't think Child of Alara was intended to be cast every turn to wipe the board, but here we are in this brave new format. So saying CV interacts poorly with the format because it makes use of your general is just utter nonsense. That's kind of the point of the format.
What good does Armegeddon add? There are just so many terrible cards it isn't feasible to ban them all. A card shouldn't need to prove it's worth, it should be legal until proven explicitly problematic.
but the problems are there, some of which have been discussed ad nauseam in this very thread about a year ago. Most notably:
- Sit down with a 5cc deck at a meta you don't really know: Have fun getting stomped on because people fear Coalition Victory come out.
This is a risk you take playing against literally any deck. I could play the most innocuous legendary I can find as my general (Jasmine Boreal, anyone?) and jam it full of tutors and combos. Or I can take a notoriously powerful general and build it extremely casually (Captain Sisay tribal Weatherlight crew?). It is irrational to assume one way or the other. Either ask beforehand to gauge the table's power level, or just get-got once and learn for the future. Blindly turning all of your focus to a 5-color deck just because it's a 5-color deck is a player problem, not a problem with CV.
- Doing literally nothing in a game EXCEPT win on the spot, which NO OTHER SINGLE CARD IN THE GAME DOES.
You are correct. There are no other sorceries that say "win the game" on them. I mean, there are a bunch of sorceries that win the game without saying "win the game" on them so differentiating CV seems ludicrous, but if this is one of the biggest problems you have with the card I guess I can't argue it as it is factually true. I will, however, ask why you think this is a bad thing? As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, I think this is a plus (spoiler tags for large requote):
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.
- The fact that it ignores everything that happened before in the game. Most cards that single-handedly do so are banned, you'll note. (Worldfire, Sway of the Stars being the main culprints) Before anyone points to Obliterate - that one still means whoever's ahead in life/cards in hand has a good chance.
What? It ends the game. How is that ignoring everything that happened before? Does a T&N combo kill ignore everything that happened before it? If I Debt to the Deathless the table for lethal, did I ignore everything that happened before? And lets not look past the fact that these cards are far from universally banned: Warp World and The Great Aurora both have the same effect of basically making the game's outcome a coin toss. I don't understand this argument. What is the deciding factor here that dictates some of these are okay but some aren't? Is there an honorable mention for Karn Liberated, who literally invalidates your previous game and starts a new one?
The card that comes closest to winning on it's own is Tooth and Nail. But unlike Coalition Victory, Tooth and Nail (no matter how much I loathe that card) at least has a few requirements before it wins you the game. Notably, unless you play with reanimation on a stick, the creatures you're tutoring cannot be in the graveyard. Then, beyond spot removal or counterspells, things like fogs can also manage to upset the T&N player.
So the only condition for T&N is you can't be a bad player? If your goal is the combo off, you're not going to play out half of your combo early on in the game and just hope against hope it doesn't end up in your graveyard after a few turn cycles.
Regarding the second point, Fog doesn't stop Mike&Trike or the dozens of other combo targets you can get off of T&N. I assume your point was to show that T&N has more ways to be stopped than CV does, which, I guess is technically true depending on the combo. But you're also glossing over the fact that CV can be stopped with land destruction, which is something I'd expect more decks to be packing than Fogs. Honestly every deck should have at least one Strip Mine variant in the 99 just because of how many problematic lands there are knocking around. Seeing how every color has at least one instant-speed way to remove a creature from play, and lands are colorless, ultimately this means that every deck, regardless of color, has multiple potential avenues of attack to interact while a CV is on the stack. Meanwhile, if you're not careful, Mike&Trike can go off in response to a Swords.
Coalition Victory has exactly two counterplays. Counter the CV, or remove the appropriate permanents that provide all 5 colours. Now that's all fine and dandy, but what if the CV player was smart enough to ensure there's at least 2 creatures of each colour around? The options go down VERY quickly and a single Path to Exile may not be enough, whilst that same PtE will deal with just about any T&N victory if you get your timing right. (Surprisingly a lot of people don't realize at what point you should Path a Mikaeus)
As I mentioned above, you seem to be glossing over the first part of Coalition Victory. You also must control all 5 basic land types, which isn't exactly difficult, but it's not entirely trivial either, especially if you're not running a full 10 ABUR/10 Shocks/10 Fetchs manabase. It is another way to stop a CV that every deck has access to via Strip Mine.
On to your actual point, what would I do if the CV player somehow has multiple creatures of each color, or more realistically just two 2-color creatures then casts CV? I would say that player paid 18 mana (2xWUBRG creatures plus 3WUBRG for the CV itself) and won the game which seems like something that should happen when someone pays 18 mana. It seems like they deserve to win. The game has to end at some point, and I believe one of the guiding principles of Sheldon's philosophy is something along the lines of "it's not okay on T4 but fine on T10+". I don't see the problem. Would it be better if they spent 7UUU on an Omniscience then proceeded to vomit their entire deck into play to win? If you're spending that much mana it should probably be winning you the game. That's not something to be upset about, that's just how the game goes.
So yeah, it's an anticlimactic way to end the game, it barely has counterplay especially in lower-power metas, it completely invalidates anything that happened before, it paints a target on any 5cc player, and it's unique in that it's the sole card that wins the game ON THE SPOT and does nothing else.
So please, do tell what it adds to the format that counterbalances all those strikes against it.
I don't disagree that it's an anticlimactic way to end the game, but so is any combo ever (with one exception). It has roughly as much counterplay as a large number of commonly played combos, mainly involving instant speed creature removal. It ends the game, I don't really understand how that is invalidation anymore than any other kill that ends the game immediately. Painting a target is a player problem that results from poor communication, not from the cards themselves. And as I've said, being extremely clear about what it does is a positive for me. I'd rather the RC focus on the insidious cards that look like they're fun to play with but they secretly terrible for the game.
Spoiler contains the only combo I think is acceptable:
Step 1: Demonic Tutor 5 times.
Step 2: Reveal that you've assembled all 5 pieces of Exodia.
It's unstoppable, but thankfully nobody has tried it against me yet.
P.S. Sorry for how long this took to post. Life has this weird habit of getting in the way some times.
Let’s just stop right here. What is even the logic behind that very sentence? That would be your opinion, whereas what Lou said is an actual fact. Judging by some of your ramblings, I’d say you think you’re a pretty smart individual. So, how is it that we, the “pro-ban” camp, need to prove to you, the “anti-ban” crowd, anything at all? It is exactly as the RC says it is. A card that interacts poorly with the format. Do you know what that means? It doesn’t mean it’s overly powerful. It doesn’t mean it’s broken. It doesn’t mean it costs too much $. It doesn’t mean it violates any particular rule. What it does, though, is take full advantage of rules that define the freaking format. That’s what they mean. It’s not debatable, like, at all. In no other format will you always have access to one of the requirements for this spell. Its also a multi-player format, therefore you have to look at this card immediately eliminating 3+ players. Please, enlighten me on another format where that holds true?
Again, the card is banned. Until you can sway me into thinking that this card doesn’t actually interact poorly with the format, or, that there are legal cards that interact poorly with the format to equate it too, then it’s all on you pal.
The Panoptic Mirror discussion picked back up recently, and it got me to thinking... Can you imagine a world where someone can imprint Coalition Victory on the mirror and make the table scramble to answer it every turn? Whoof.
I think at this point the burden of proof lays upon those who want it unbanned.
I don't see why. It seems to me that it should be the other way; those in favor of keeping it on the ban list should have strong, compelling arguments for it to stay there. You don't just ban cards willy-nilly. Coalition Victorywas banned, therefore the RC should have had a good reason for it. And according to papa_funk from earlier in the thread, that good reason was mostly "interacts poorly with the format." But papa_funk also said T&N is weaker in EDH than in other formats, so it's tough to take anything he/she says too seriously. Regardless, interacting poorly with the format is a nebulous and poorly defined criteria that, according to papa_funk's earlier definition of 'does it do the same thing in EDH as normal Magic?', can realistically be applied to basically any card. For example, Syphon Mind becomes significantly better in multiplayer. I don't see anyone clamoring for that ban, however.
For your first post: No. The card is currently banned. Thus, if you want change, you have to provide reasons for the change, preferrably reasons that cannot be easily shot down. The unban-Protean Hulk-camp had to do the exact same thing. The ban-Prophet of Kruphix-camp had to provide reasons as to why it should be banned. That's just how it works.
Personally, I'd define "interact poorly with the format" as anything that, thanks to quirks in commander's rules, just becomes crazy. Like Worldfire has the "Float mana, cast worldfire, cast your commander" thing going. Not a lot of cards that interact poorly with the format that actually are broken though.
So how does CV interact poorly with the format, exactly? Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't the entire point of the format to ensure you always have access to your general? Why, I do believe the RC even changed the tuck rule to ensure you literally could not possibly lose your general. And using that always available general to just do literally anything is a time honored tradition. I don't think Child of Alara was intended to be cast every turn to wipe the board, but here we are in this brave new format. So saying CV interacts poorly with the format because it makes use of your general is just utter nonsense. That's kind of the point of the format.
What good does Armegeddon add? There are just so many terrible cards it isn't feasible to ban them all. A card shouldn't need to prove it's worth, it should be legal until proven explicitly problematic.
but the problems are there, some of which have been discussed ad nauseam in this very thread about a year ago. Most notably:
- Sit down with a 5cc deck at a meta you don't really know: Have fun getting stomped on because people fear Coalition Victory come out.
This is a risk you take playing against literally any deck. I could play the most innocuous legendary I can find as my general (Jasmine Boreal, anyone?) and jam it full of tutors and combos. Or I can take a notoriously powerful general and build it extremely casually (Captain Sisay tribal Weatherlight crew?). It is irrational to assume one way or the other. Either ask beforehand to gauge the table's power level, or just get-got once and learn for the future. Blindly turning all of your focus to a 5-color deck just because it's a 5-color deck is a player problem, not a problem with CV.
The fact that you have access to your general at all times is EXACTLY why it interacts poorly in the format. In "normal" magic, you don't always have a 5cc creature in your hand. You have to pull it from your deck and get it out, and then get your Coalition Victory, only then have you won. Meanwhile in EDH you can drop some lands, drop your commander, then play this and voila.
Cards like Armageddon do add to the game. There are specific strategies that make the most of MLD and quite frankly I find it insulting to shelve MLD under the same umbrella as a "lol I win" card. MLD requires strategy to be put behind it, not just "play your deck as it's intended and here's an i win now button". I know there's a stigma against MLD but that's due to poor players who pull the 'geddon whenever they can, not due to players who know what they're doing.
There is a difference between "terrible cards for the format" and "cards some people find unfun". Armageddon is a strategic card. Coalition Victory is not. An "i win" button doesn't add anything interesting to the format.
As for the 5-color-hate thing; you might be right except there's often still player bias. Hard to get that out.
- Doing literally nothing in a game EXCEPT win on the spot, which NO OTHER SINGLE CARD IN THE GAME DOES.
You are correct. There are no other sorceries that say "win the game" on them. I mean, there are a bunch of sorceries that win the game without saying "win the game" on them so differentiating CV seems ludicrous, but if this is one of the biggest problems you have with the card I guess I can't argue it as it is factually true. I will, however, ask why you think this is a bad thing? As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, I think this is a plus (spoiler tags for large requote):
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.
The thing is; any of those other cards you mentioned have other uses beyond just saying "I win the game". There are sorceries that are mostly used to win the game, yes. None do so for nearly as little mana as Coalition Victory, and they all have "fair" uses too. Genesis Wave for x=17 isn't an "i win" button but it will put one in a strong position. Same with something like Exsanguinate. But they won't win you the game.
Honestly, to me the "accidentaly finding out a winning combination" is a draw to the format, not a downside. It's how I developed my first deck (Lyzolda) from a hilariously *****ty sac-and-recur thing to a combo-wombo machine. I later dismantled it for becoming too powerful, but yea.
Basically, a key thing to keep in mind is this; the RC generally bans based on what "the general public" plays. Thus, having fair uses is a big plus for a card. CV does literally nothing else, thus it's banned.
- The fact that it ignores everything that happened before in the game. Most cards that single-handedly do so are banned, you'll note. (Worldfire, Sway of the Stars being the main culprints) Before anyone points to Obliterate - that one still means whoever's ahead in life/cards in hand has a good chance.
What? It ends the game. How is that ignoring everything that happened before? Does a T&N combo kill ignore everything that happened before it? If I Debt to the Deathless the table for lethal, did I ignore everything that happened before? And lets not look past the fact that these cards are far from universally banned: Warp World and The Great Aurora both have the same effect of basically making the game's outcome a coin toss. I don't understand this argument. What is the deciding factor here that dictates some of these are okay but some aren't? Is there an honorable mention for Karn Liberated, who literally invalidates your previous game and starts a new one?
The comparison with Warp World, Great Aurora and Karn is hilarious. Warp World and Great Aurora both benefit the player who'll have most permanents out on the field, who built their deck to take advantage of it. Without auto-winning the game for them. They require a setup, a deck to take advantage of the casting, and thus their effect depends heavily on what has been played before.
Karn, in the meantime, needs several turns of buildup before it can reset the field. (Doubling Season notwithstanding) Things that are telegraphed I have no issue with (Which is why I also don't see an issue with Mortal Combat and friends).
Now, Debt and TNN are different cases. But again, they have OTHER options beyond "end the game". TNN doesn't need to be in a deck with infinite combos - there's a reason the mantra "play competitively, build casually" exists. What's stopping me from pulling out, say, Avenger of Zendikar + Regal Force with it? Or why wouldn't Timmy McBigDudes get out a Worldspine Wurm and a Xenagos? Likewise, Debt to the Deathless has, in my experience, been cast for X=6 or so just to stabilize or to put one far ahead.
The card that comes closest to winning on it's own is Tooth and Nail. But unlike Coalition Victory, Tooth and Nail (no matter how much I loathe that card) at least has a few requirements before it wins you the game. Notably, unless you play with reanimation on a stick, the creatures you're tutoring cannot be in the graveyard. Then, beyond spot removal or counterspells, things like fogs can also manage to upset the T&N player.
So the only condition for T&N is you can't be a bad player? If your goal is the combo off, you're not going to play out half of your combo early on in the game and just hope against hope it doesn't end up in your graveyard after a few turn cycles.
Regarding the second point, Fog doesn't stop Mike&Trike or the dozens of other combo targets you can get off of T&N. I assume your point was to show that T&N has more ways to be stopped than CV does, which, I guess is technically true depending on the combo. But you're also glossing over the fact that CV can be stopped with land destruction, which is something I'd expect more decks to be packing than Fogs. Honestly every deck should have at least one Strip Mine variant in the 99 just because of how many problematic lands there are knocking around. Seeing how every color has at least one instant-speed way to remove a creature from play, and lands are colorless, ultimately this means that every deck, regardless of color, has multiple potential avenues of attack to interact while a CV is on the stack. Meanwhile, if you're not careful, Mike&Trike can go off in response to a Swords.
Yeah, T&N is a stupid card. I've conceded that point before. I wouldn't mind it getting banned. But it deserving to eat a ban does not equal Coalition Victory needing to share it's fate.
Also, cards do end up in graveyards through ways other than being played and killed. Wheels, hand disruption, stuff like that is all possible.
I do concede the point that CV can be stopped with targeted land destruction - but honestly, I do file that under "remove the appropriate permanents that provide all 5 colours" pointed below. However, if you're up against someone with 3 duals and 5 basics (1 of each), you're still not in the clear there. It also requires you to have a strip mine open from the very moment the 5cc player is getting close to the requirements for CV, thus needing to ignore Cradles, Coffers and what have you. A weak point from my side admittedly, but still something to keep in mind.
Mike/Trike going off in response to a StP just points to hilariously bad play and would at least be a learning moment to the player who timed the StP wrong. But yea, that's one combo that can go through Fog...but I can't think of many others that are actually played in TnN lists. Might be missing something.
Coalition Victory has exactly two counterplays. Counter the CV, or remove the appropriate permanents that provide all 5 colours. Now that's all fine and dandy, but what if the CV player was smart enough to ensure there's at least 2 creatures of each colour around? The options go down VERY quickly and a single Path to Exile may not be enough, whilst that same PtE will deal with just about any T&N victory if you get your timing right. (Surprisingly a lot of people don't realize at what point you should Path a Mikaeus)
As I mentioned above, you seem to be glossing over the first part of Coalition Victory. You also must control all 5 basic land types, which isn't exactly difficult, but it's not entirely trivial either, especially if you're not running a full 10 ABUR/10 Shocks/10 Fetchs manabase. It is another way to stop a CV that every deck has access to via Strip Mine.
On to your actual point, what would I do if the CV player somehow has multiple creatures of each color, or more realistically just two 2-color creatures then casts CV? I would say that player paid 18 mana (2xWUBRG creatures plus 3WUBRG for the CV itself) and won the game which seems like something that should happen when someone pays 18 mana. It seems like they deserve to win. The game has to end at some point, and I believe one of the guiding principles of Sheldon's philosophy is something along the lines of "it's not okay on T4 but fine on T10+". I don't see the problem. Would it be better if they spent 7UUU on an Omniscience then proceeded to vomit their entire deck into play to win? If you're spending that much mana it should probably be winning you the game. That's not something to be upset about, that's just how the game goes.
I have already addressed the strip mine point above, so let's move beyond that:
The land types bit is hilariously easy. I play Pauper Child of Alara and even there getting all 5 basics is a trivial matter - and that deck plays exactly 1 Plains. While I would argue that for a reasonably regular win with Coalition Victory you'd need at least Shocks, I do think you're overestimating the task at hand. Again all you'd need to do to get the requirements for a CV is to play the game. A budget mana base based in green for the ramp will be able to push it out by turn 6 with relative ease.
Thing about Omniscience; this is dependant on them actually having a drawpower card behind it. Thus turning it into more than a one-card-now-i-win thing.
So yeah, it's an anticlimactic way to end the game, it barely has counterplay especially in lower-power metas, it completely invalidates anything that happened before, it paints a target on any 5cc player, and it's unique in that it's the sole card that wins the game ON THE SPOT and does nothing else.
So please, do tell what it adds to the format that counterbalances all those strikes against it.
I don't disagree that it's an anticlimactic way to end the game, but so is any combo ever (with one exception). It has roughly as much counterplay as a large number of commonly played combos, mainly involving instant speed creature removal. It ends the game, I don't really understand how that is invalidation anymore than any other kill that ends the game immediately. Painting a target is a player problem that results from poor communication, not from the cards themselves. And as I've said, being extremely clear about what it does is a positive for me. I'd rather the RC focus on the insidious cards that look like they're fun to play with but they secretly terrible for the game.
Spoiler contains the only combo I think is acceptable:
Step 1: Demonic Tutor 5 times.
Step 2: Reveal that you've assembled all 5 pieces of Exodia.
It's unstoppable, but thankfully nobody has tried it against me yet.
P.S. Sorry for how long this took to post. Life has this weird habit of getting in the way some times.
Look, you're right in that it might have as much counterplay as most combos. But...beyond Tooth and Nail there are NO combos in the format which require just the 1 card. They all have multiple moving pieces, and those pieces can be played with completely other uses as well. I wouldn't want to ban Curiosity for it's stupid interaction with Niv-Mizzet simply because it can be played in a saboteur-themed deck. Likewise, Mikaeus makes for an amazing zombie lord even without all his degeneracy.
Coalition Victory just...wins.
And frankly, your only argument there is that YOU specifically think having an obviously signalled "THIS CARD WON THE GAME" is a good thing in the format - and I'm sure many people will not agree with you on that.
See, had Commander not have this odd little quirk of "Your prerequired creature is always available to you" in the format, it would've been a fine card. But it does. It's what the format is based on. It's what makes Coalition Victory interact poorly with the format. It's why it should stay banned.
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.
Agree with all of this. It's the most non-conditional immediate win-con in the game, and very much deserves its place on the banlist. In a pauper Child, Reaper or Tazri list it'd be incredibly easy to fulfill. Green ramp will give you most of what you need prior to T5, so I don't even understand why this is an issue.
Who actually WANTS to use this card anyway? Is it fun? No. Is it a challenge? No. At least Approach of the Second Sun and [c]Barren Glory[c/] require building around or clever plays to fulfill the associated condition. Even then, this isn't an enjoyable way to win, IMO. Regardless, I think any comparison of these cards should be around more cards being added to the banlist, not CV being removed. I don't think any of the others are quite strong enough as an on the spot win-con, but nonetheless CV absolutely should not be playable in EDH.
What’s foolish is you equating “combo pieces” to your general and lands. You could build a deck helmed by Karona, the False God 98 basic lands, and Coalition Victory. That Combo brah.
Please stop, coming from somebody who claims he doesn’t care, you are really reaching here.
Honestly, the Mods should just lock this thread. My point has been proven by 3 separate individuals since this thread was ressurected. Or should we just argue the same points for another 9 pages, have it die for a year, and then revisit? Again.
Ahhh yes I forgot that Coalition Victory is the one sorcery that doesn't need to be cast from you hand or found from your deck first and you can just cast it whenever you want.
I am not saying things are like combo pieces what I am saying is the deck that wants to win with CV would function generally like any combo deck in the format. Make enough mana, get pieces, resolve everything without disruption.
Sure if I am to use your very ridiculous example you could play a deck with 98 basics a 5 Color Commander and CV and you could win a game, I am assuming at that point your opponents are not playing the game if you pull that deck off winning let me know. You need more parts to make CV work than just the requirements to cast the spell (which in terms of Combos in EDH is pretty steep actually).
Here is my honest take on what would happen were CV unbanned, people would win a game here or there out of surprise of the people being played against much like a Maralen of the Mornsong low CMC Sickening Dreams/Ad nauseam deck can surprise people out of nowhere and then that deck won't win because people will expect it and it will fall into rotation if that group plays those kind of combos as the one that sneaks through or doesn't to win games in the future.
I guess that is also partially why I don't see why it is banned is because I don't think it will see a lot of play because there are still not a lot of 5 color decks. It is not as obvious as say Biorhythm with the ease of making that work in countless decks.
As “ridiculous” of an example it is, you can’t discount it because it works. It’s a fact. It’s a singleton format, after all. Would you see the other banned cards every game if they were unbanned? C’mon. Reaching, again.
Coalition Victory isn’t a combo deck. It doesn’t require you to build around it. What other cards do you need? You run a 5-C deck, and have basic land types, that’s a steep requirement? I sacrifice 1 deck slot for CV, and call it a day. No clue where you are getting that requires more than just that. It’s printed on the freaking card. Or are we talking hypotheticals, as that seems to be the only argument here. No downside to running it because it’s always relevant. If you can cast your commander, you can cast CV. It will be in every 5-C deck. And how exactly would it lose the surprise factor? You just kill the 5-C Commander every time it’s in play? Constantly keep them off 5 land types? All the while they do something else with the other 98 cards in their deck and win anyways.
If it was more like Door to nothingness where it targets a player to lose the game, it would be much less problematic. As is, lots of games will end before they ever get going, for 3+ players. Kind of goes against the format philosophy, and just multi-player in general.
This has been discussed, ad nauseam.
There's no reason for it not to be in a 5-colour deck, just like how there's no reason for Prophet of Kruphix not to be in an UG deck. Both cards provide enough value by the nature of the format to make a deck without them suboptimal.
If you actually think a deck that is a Commander 98 lands and a copy of CV can win a 4 player game of Commander then I have no need to discuss this with you any further.
I'm pretty shocked that anyone is arguing against this. I mean, yeah, if you are not running basic land types, or barely any, that's a reason not to run it, but even then it can still fire with Chromatic Lantern, which in a 5 color deck is worth it on its own for the fixing (at least in any 5 color deck that wouldn't have easy access to getting 5 basic land types via fetches and duals, which if you are running that you don't need the lantern to make CV work). Its literally just dedicating a single card slot to a card that just wins you the game. Yeah, its 8 mana, but the old adage is "If it costs more than 6, it better win you the game." Well, normally this means creating a large advantage that makes it much more likely that you win, or acting as a finisher after some set up like Hoof, but this just wins it, period. Play your lands, play your commander, play this, that's it. What's the opportunity cost here? Any 5 color good stuff deck would run this, and that will piss off a lot of casual tables. That's really where this is going to show up and solve problems. It could show up as a secondary win con in 5 color hermit druid so long as it isn't General Tazri in case the primary combo gets disrupted, but cEDH can handle it. Casual struggles enough with combo, but a card that just wins, with no opportunity cost, is a bridge too far. Yes, no opportunity cost, whenever you evaluate a card for your deck you ask the questions "how will this help me win, how close does it get me to that goal, and what trade off do I have to make?" The answers to those questions are "It says 'you win' for just playing your lands and commander, it gets you all the way there, and no trade off. Yeah, it sucks that EDH is the only format that this card could be run in, but that's also another reason it would get played.
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!
It is never just play 8 lands cast one and cast two the simplification being done there is very annoying.
I know every five color commander and Transguild Courier excluding Ramos
And Prismatic Omen and lands with multiple land types
And high ramp and stuff and loop holes of casting for free
But this takes a while to get too and theres way more counterspell like cards today and the secret is this win condition is it's very very fragile more fragile than a house of cards just destroy one Weasley enchantment or the 5-color creature(s) or one colored creature if no 5-color in play with removal and you just countered the win
Second, if this entire argument were true we'd already be living it because sweet Jesus there are some insanely broken cards that are legal in EDH. If the only thing everyone cared about was winning as efficiently as possible, a lot of our decks would be homogenizing towards the obvious best decks of the format and we'd basically just be playing cEDH but without a competent ban list. Except we're not. Because some people are capable of showing some restraint when deck building. EDH is about more than just stuffing the 99 best cards in your deck and calling it a day. And even if it wasn't, the thought that CV would make it into anyone's list is quite amusing because wow is it inefficient.
Let's be real here for a moment: CV is a largely mediocre card that does that same thing dozens of other cards already do in the format, just in a more straightforward manner. There is no legitimate reason for it to still be banned other than some people are irrationally caught up on the words "win the game". It's time to #FreeCV.
You just have to play 5-C. That’s it. That was the point in question. Similar to running Rite of Replication in Vela, the Night Clad. You don’t build around it because the build around is already done. You’ll have blue sources to cast the card and a prime target always in the command zone. Or Sculpting Steel in Sharuum, the hegemon. You no casting requirements, and a prime target in the CZ.
This is honestly the most moronic point in that rambling from above. You would have to go out of your way to build a deck that wouldn’t benefit from having Coaltion Victroy.
As for combos in the format, you dedicate a few deck slots to the combo, a few deck slots to protect the combo, and a few spots to recur combo pieces. You won’t do that for CV, because by virtue of building a 5-c deck, you’ve met the requirements. What else do you need to add? Nobody seems to be willing to answer this question. It’s not a combo card. Not in this format. It can lead to a combo win, but by itself, it is not a combo card.
No, it’s not.
See this is funny because it’s contradictory. “Low powered” groups tends to mean more battle-cruiser type games, which means more ramp, less interaction. You can argu the meaning, but it’s pretty much agreed upon in the EDH community that this is what you mean when you say “low powered”. It’s thrown around during spoiler season all the time about high cost fatties. So, what you are actually saying is this card will have an easier time going off than in higher powered metas, and the RC tends to base their bannings on how they affect those lower powered groups.
An example of late is Protean Hulk. When it was unbanned, Sheldon’s words were “The key is not to break it”. So, how do you not break CV? Don’t play 5-C? Haha, that’s why this discussion is so painful.
You keep answering your own questions right before you ask them.
If you don't build ways into your deck to find CV or protect you resolving CV with the requirements to survive then it becomes a lot of the time an 8Mana Sorcery that doesn't do anything else. You talk about the card in ways that make it seem like it has no downside at all so I don't know if I can take your posts that seriously.
Wait, are you disagreeing with the fact that Coalition Victory is either "Win the game" or "Do nothing at all" with LITERALLY NO IN-BETWEENS? Because if you are, you're wrong. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Coalition Victory literally does nothing EXCEPT win the game on the spot, barring an answer.
Now you might try to point at Mortal Combat or Epic Struggle and other cards in those veins. Thing is, those cards need to survive a turn. If you say "but flash" then I say "It's not one card anymore".
SO. If you can point me to any single card that literally does nothing EXCEPT either win the game on the spot or nothing at all, AND it's legal in Commander? Then sure. But you can't. I know you can't.
And what would the point of adding such a card to the format be?
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.
What I have a problem with is the philosophy that something must have a positive impact to the format to not be banned and not the reverse, as far as I have always understood the concept of banning things, is that it is collection of negatives they bring to the format gets something banned, not a collection of positives that keeps thing unbanned.
If that was not the case there are countless on countless on countless commons/uncommons that I would also say have no positive impact on the format.
There isn’t a downside. That’s why it sounds like I’m talking about in that way. You are clearly the one here having a problem understanding. You are making it out like you are building a Coalition Victory combo deck. That’s a 5-C deck, though. So if I built a Sliver Tribal deck, but added CV, it would be a Coalition Victory combo deck? Or built a 5-C Hermit Druid combo deck, and added CV, it’s a Coalition Victory combo deck? It doesn’t require support, as it’s been said over, and over, and over, and over....
And if the pros outweigh the cons, and vice versa? First off, I can’t even think of a point in favor of an unban other than equating it to other cards that it shares nothing in common with (Enter the Infinite and Tooth and Nail seem to be the most used examples) that aren’t banned. Cons, well, let’s just stick with it being a panic button at best and game killing card at worst. It either paints the 5-C player as an archenemy so they don’t get the requirements, or it’s slapped down on the table out of nowhere, winning a game in the least exciting fashion. Kind of defeats the purpose of Multi-Player.
In all seriousness, Sam, what exactly is your argument? As clearly as possible, please explain why you think CV deserves a spot on the ban list. What is your most fundamental problem with the card?
I think at this point the burden of proof lays upon those who want it unbanned.
What good would CV do to the format. Give 5cc decks an extra wincon? I suppose. But why would 5cc, which is best suited to goodstuff anyway, need another wincon? See, I do get the desire to build Alt-Wincons.dec. but the problems are there, some of which have been discussed ad nauseam in this very thread about a year ago. Most notably:
- Sit down with a 5cc deck at a meta you don't really know: Have fun getting stomped on because people fear Coalition Victory come out.
- Doing literally nothing in a game EXCEPT win on the spot, which NO OTHER SINGLE CARD IN THE GAME DOES.
- The fact that it ignores everything that happened before in the game. Most cards that single-handedly do so are banned, you'll note. (Worldfire, Sway of the Stars being the main culprints) Before anyone points to Obliterate - that one still means whoever's ahead in life/cards in hand has a good chance.
The card that comes closest to winning on it's own is Tooth and Nail. But unlike Coalition Victory, Tooth and Nail (no matter how much I loathe that card) at least has a few requirements before it wins you the game. Notably, unless you play with reanimation on a stick, the creatures you're tutoring cannot be in the graveyard. Then, beyond spot removal or counterspells, things like fogs can also manage to upset the T&N player.
Coalition Victory has exactly two counterplays. Counter the CV, or remove the appropriate permanents that provide all 5 colours. Now that's all fine and dandy, but what if the CV player was smart enough to ensure there's at least 2 creatures of each colour around? The options go down VERY quickly and a single Path to Exile may not be enough, whilst that same PtE will deal with just about any T&N victory if you get your timing right. (Surprisingly a lot of people don't realize at what point you should Path a Mikaeus)
So yeah, it's an anticlimactic way to end the game, it barely has counterplay especially in lower-power metas, it completely invalidates anything that happened before, it paints a target on any 5cc player, and it's unique in that it's the sole card that wins the game ON THE SPOT and does nothing else.
So please, do tell what it adds to the format that counterbalances all those strikes against it.
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.
Thanks, Lou. You nailed it here.
I’d also like to reiterate that nothing in the format has changed to even warrant a discussion. Cards in the same camp as this are still banned. Cards that have proven to interact poorly with the format rules or the format philosophy like Coalition Victory have been banned.
So, no, the onus isn’t on us, the pro-ban crowd. The card is banned, and it will remain banned. Nothing legal exists in the format to equate it to.
First things off, the "contribute something positive to the format" is only a secondary gateway applied to cards with negatives that would otherwise render them banned, which is why the bulk of commons/uncommons don't even make it there because they lack even the prerequisite of "negative".
I'm not saying the system is perfect (for starters it can be argued Tooth and Nail and now Protean Hulk got away with it for little positives relative to their negatives), but it's a price we need to pay to not end up with a Prismatic Banlist. EDH as arguably the highest-variance constructed format (since it's multiplayer 100-card singleton...) can generate negatives for each individual card much more easily than the refined streamlined decks of other constructed formats due to the sheer amount of possibilities within its games.
Coalition Victory is the one unfortunate card that hit all the wrong notes, first off by being a simple "win card" which had its assembly conditions much more heavily mitigated by the structure of the format than any other, which is pretty much its only negative. Then it proceeds to flop the "positive check gateway" by being a sorcery (which narrows the answer range/duration compared to likes of creatures/enchantments) and its lack of flexibility (the one reason Tooth and Nail got away, honestly).
In a way, "lack of answers" isn't a "negative" criteria for classifying cards, it's more of the "positive gateway check" where the more answers you have, the more likely you can contribute to the format positively simply from the possibility of interaction. Likewise, the "does nothing otherwise / dead weight in hand" isn't really making the card "better" (in the sense of less ban-worthy), it's actually making the card less flexible (and interactive).
As you have stated, you may have a problem with the criteria being read in such a backwards manner relative to typical banning procedures, but as I said EDH is a vastly different format from others and I still stand by that the general direction is correct (not optimal of course, but generally better than just applying the typical procedures).
So how does CV interact poorly with the format, exactly? Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't the entire point of the format to ensure you always have access to your general? Why, I do believe the RC even changed the tuck rule to ensure you literally could not possibly lose your general. And using that always available general to just do literally anything is a time honored tradition. I don't think Child of Alara was intended to be cast every turn to wipe the board, but here we are in this brave new format. So saying CV interacts poorly with the format because it makes use of your general is just utter nonsense. That's kind of the point of the format.
What good does Armegeddon add? There are just so many terrible cards it isn't feasible to ban them all. A card shouldn't need to prove it's worth, it should be legal until proven explicitly problematic.
This is a risk you take playing against literally any deck. I could play the most innocuous legendary I can find as my general (Jasmine Boreal, anyone?) and jam it full of tutors and combos. Or I can take a notoriously powerful general and build it extremely casually (Captain Sisay tribal Weatherlight crew?). It is irrational to assume one way or the other. Either ask beforehand to gauge the table's power level, or just get-got once and learn for the future. Blindly turning all of your focus to a 5-color deck just because it's a 5-color deck is a player problem, not a problem with CV.
You are correct. There are no other sorceries that say "win the game" on them. I mean, there are a bunch of sorceries that win the game without saying "win the game" on them so differentiating CV seems ludicrous, but if this is one of the biggest problems you have with the card I guess I can't argue it as it is factually true. I will, however, ask why you think this is a bad thing? As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, I think this is a plus (spoiler tags for large requote):
So the only condition for T&N is you can't be a bad player? If your goal is the combo off, you're not going to play out half of your combo early on in the game and just hope against hope it doesn't end up in your graveyard after a few turn cycles.
Regarding the second point, Fog doesn't stop Mike&Trike or the dozens of other combo targets you can get off of T&N. I assume your point was to show that T&N has more ways to be stopped than CV does, which, I guess is technically true depending on the combo. But you're also glossing over the fact that CV can be stopped with land destruction, which is something I'd expect more decks to be packing than Fogs. Honestly every deck should have at least one Strip Mine variant in the 99 just because of how many problematic lands there are knocking around. Seeing how every color has at least one instant-speed way to remove a creature from play, and lands are colorless, ultimately this means that every deck, regardless of color, has multiple potential avenues of attack to interact while a CV is on the stack. Meanwhile, if you're not careful, Mike&Trike can go off in response to a Swords.
As I mentioned above, you seem to be glossing over the first part of Coalition Victory. You also must control all 5 basic land types, which isn't exactly difficult, but it's not entirely trivial either, especially if you're not running a full 10 ABUR/10 Shocks/10 Fetchs manabase. It is another way to stop a CV that every deck has access to via Strip Mine.
On to your actual point, what would I do if the CV player somehow has multiple creatures of each color, or more realistically just two 2-color creatures then casts CV? I would say that player paid 18 mana (2xWUBRG creatures plus 3WUBRG for the CV itself) and won the game which seems like something that should happen when someone pays 18 mana. It seems like they deserve to win. The game has to end at some point, and I believe one of the guiding principles of Sheldon's philosophy is something along the lines of "it's not okay on T4 but fine on T10+". I don't see the problem. Would it be better if they spent 7UUU on an Omniscience then proceeded to vomit their entire deck into play to win? If you're spending that much mana it should probably be winning you the game. That's not something to be upset about, that's just how the game goes.
I don't disagree that it's an anticlimactic way to end the game, but so is any combo ever (with one exception). It has roughly as much counterplay as a large number of commonly played combos, mainly involving instant speed creature removal. It ends the game, I don't really understand how that is invalidation anymore than any other kill that ends the game immediately. Painting a target is a player problem that results from poor communication, not from the cards themselves. And as I've said, being extremely clear about what it does is a positive for me. I'd rather the RC focus on the insidious cards that look like they're fun to play with but they secretly terrible for the game.
Spoiler contains the only combo I think is acceptable:
Step 2: Reveal that you've assembled all 5 pieces of Exodia.
P.S. Sorry for how long this took to post. Life has this weird habit of getting in the way some times.
Let’s just stop right here. What is even the logic behind that very sentence? That would be your opinion, whereas what Lou said is an actual fact. Judging by some of your ramblings, I’d say you think you’re a pretty smart individual. So, how is it that we, the “pro-ban” camp, need to prove to you, the “anti-ban” crowd, anything at all? It is exactly as the RC says it is. A card that interacts poorly with the format. Do you know what that means? It doesn’t mean it’s overly powerful. It doesn’t mean it’s broken. It doesn’t mean it costs too much $. It doesn’t mean it violates any particular rule. What it does, though, is take full advantage of rules that define the freaking format. That’s what they mean. It’s not debatable, like, at all. In no other format will you always have access to one of the requirements for this spell. Its also a multi-player format, therefore you have to look at this card immediately eliminating 3+ players. Please, enlighten me on another format where that holds true?
Again, the card is banned. Until you can sway me into thinking that this card doesn’t actually interact poorly with the format, or, that there are legal cards that interact poorly with the format to equate it too, then it’s all on you pal.
EDIT: then again, Eye of the Storm is a thing...
For your first post: No. The card is currently banned. Thus, if you want change, you have to provide reasons for the change, preferrably reasons that cannot be easily shot down. The unban-Protean Hulk-camp had to do the exact same thing. The ban-Prophet of Kruphix-camp had to provide reasons as to why it should be banned. That's just how it works.
Personally, I'd define "interact poorly with the format" as anything that, thanks to quirks in commander's rules, just becomes crazy. Like Worldfire has the "Float mana, cast worldfire, cast your commander" thing going. Not a lot of cards that interact poorly with the format that actually are broken though.
The fact that you have access to your general at all times is EXACTLY why it interacts poorly in the format. In "normal" magic, you don't always have a 5cc creature in your hand. You have to pull it from your deck and get it out, and then get your Coalition Victory, only then have you won. Meanwhile in EDH you can drop some lands, drop your commander, then play this and voila.
Cards like Armageddon do add to the game. There are specific strategies that make the most of MLD and quite frankly I find it insulting to shelve MLD under the same umbrella as a "lol I win" card. MLD requires strategy to be put behind it, not just "play your deck as it's intended and here's an i win now button". I know there's a stigma against MLD but that's due to poor players who pull the 'geddon whenever they can, not due to players who know what they're doing.
There is a difference between "terrible cards for the format" and "cards some people find unfun". Armageddon is a strategic card. Coalition Victory is not. An "i win" button doesn't add anything interesting to the format.
As for the 5-color-hate thing; you might be right except there's often still player bias. Hard to get that out.
The thing is; any of those other cards you mentioned have other uses beyond just saying "I win the game". There are sorceries that are mostly used to win the game, yes. None do so for nearly as little mana as Coalition Victory, and they all have "fair" uses too. Genesis Wave for x=17 isn't an "i win" button but it will put one in a strong position. Same with something like Exsanguinate. But they won't win you the game.
Honestly, to me the "accidentaly finding out a winning combination" is a draw to the format, not a downside. It's how I developed my first deck (Lyzolda) from a hilariously *****ty sac-and-recur thing to a combo-wombo machine. I later dismantled it for becoming too powerful, but yea.
Basically, a key thing to keep in mind is this; the RC generally bans based on what "the general public" plays. Thus, having fair uses is a big plus for a card. CV does literally nothing else, thus it's banned.
The comparison with Warp World, Great Aurora and Karn is hilarious. Warp World and Great Aurora both benefit the player who'll have most permanents out on the field, who built their deck to take advantage of it. Without auto-winning the game for them. They require a setup, a deck to take advantage of the casting, and thus their effect depends heavily on what has been played before.
Karn, in the meantime, needs several turns of buildup before it can reset the field. (Doubling Season notwithstanding) Things that are telegraphed I have no issue with (Which is why I also don't see an issue with Mortal Combat and friends).
Now, Debt and TNN are different cases. But again, they have OTHER options beyond "end the game". TNN doesn't need to be in a deck with infinite combos - there's a reason the mantra "play competitively, build casually" exists. What's stopping me from pulling out, say, Avenger of Zendikar + Regal Force with it? Or why wouldn't Timmy McBigDudes get out a Worldspine Wurm and a Xenagos? Likewise, Debt to the Deathless has, in my experience, been cast for X=6 or so just to stabilize or to put one far ahead.
Yeah, T&N is a stupid card. I've conceded that point before. I wouldn't mind it getting banned. But it deserving to eat a ban does not equal Coalition Victory needing to share it's fate.
Also, cards do end up in graveyards through ways other than being played and killed. Wheels, hand disruption, stuff like that is all possible.
I do concede the point that CV can be stopped with targeted land destruction - but honestly, I do file that under "remove the appropriate permanents that provide all 5 colours" pointed below. However, if you're up against someone with 3 duals and 5 basics (1 of each), you're still not in the clear there. It also requires you to have a strip mine open from the very moment the 5cc player is getting close to the requirements for CV, thus needing to ignore Cradles, Coffers and what have you. A weak point from my side admittedly, but still something to keep in mind.
Mike/Trike going off in response to a StP just points to hilariously bad play and would at least be a learning moment to the player who timed the StP wrong. But yea, that's one combo that can go through Fog...but I can't think of many others that are actually played in TnN lists. Might be missing something.
I have already addressed the strip mine point above, so let's move beyond that:
The land types bit is hilariously easy. I play Pauper Child of Alara and even there getting all 5 basics is a trivial matter - and that deck plays exactly 1 Plains. While I would argue that for a reasonably regular win with Coalition Victory you'd need at least Shocks, I do think you're overestimating the task at hand. Again all you'd need to do to get the requirements for a CV is to play the game. A budget mana base based in green for the ramp will be able to push it out by turn 6 with relative ease.
Thing about Omniscience; this is dependant on them actually having a drawpower card behind it. Thus turning it into more than a one-card-now-i-win thing.
Look, you're right in that it might have as much counterplay as most combos. But...beyond Tooth and Nail there are NO combos in the format which require just the 1 card. They all have multiple moving pieces, and those pieces can be played with completely other uses as well. I wouldn't want to ban Curiosity for it's stupid interaction with Niv-Mizzet simply because it can be played in a saboteur-themed deck. Likewise, Mikaeus makes for an amazing zombie lord even without all his degeneracy.
Coalition Victory just...wins.
And frankly, your only argument there is that YOU specifically think having an obviously signalled "THIS CARD WON THE GAME" is a good thing in the format - and I'm sure many people will not agree with you on that.
See, had Commander not have this odd little quirk of "Your prerequired creature is always available to you" in the format, it would've been a fine card. But it does. It's what the format is based on. It's what makes Coalition Victory interact poorly with the format. It's why it should stay banned.
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.
Agree with all of this. It's the most non-conditional immediate win-con in the game, and very much deserves its place on the banlist. In a pauper Child, Reaper or Tazri list it'd be incredibly easy to fulfill. Green ramp will give you most of what you need prior to T5, so I don't even understand why this is an issue.
Who actually WANTS to use this card anyway? Is it fun? No. Is it a challenge? No. At least Approach of the Second Sun and [c]Barren Glory[c/] require building around or clever plays to fulfill the associated condition. Even then, this isn't an enjoyable way to win, IMO. Regardless, I think any comparison of these cards should be around more cards being added to the banlist, not CV being removed. I don't think any of the others are quite strong enough as an on the spot win-con, but nonetheless CV absolutely should not be playable in EDH.