Another thing to keep in mind about T&N is that, even as a 1 card win the game machine, its objectively worse than CV.
CV takes 1 slot, T&N takes 3.
If you are looking for ways to shut down CV beyond counter spells, then you have to note that there are as many ways to shut down T&N, and people have reasons to run those answers even without knowing T&N is a possibility. Any Torpor Orb effect or Aven Mindcensor effect stops T&N, and those are effects that are just good in commander. Spot removal, timed right, will also shut down T&N. StP will stop Mike and Trike, and if you screw it up that's not a knock against Mike and Trike its a knock against you. If it stops CV reliably, it also stops T&N, and more things stop T&N that don't stop CV (targeted LD is unlikely to be reliable unless the player is running only basics).
Seriously, T&N, along with Hulk, is a borderline card that has as many arguments for eating a ban as for staying legal. Its as problematic as a card can get without being banned. CV is worse. Not worse power wise, worse in terms of its ability to cause problems and its complete lack of any kind of alternate line of play. If T&N represents the line of demarcation between "needs to be banned" and "OK to stay legal" based on how it plays at its most problematic, CV crosses that line into banned territory. When you consider that the only reason Hulk and T&N haven't been banned is that they can be used in ways besides their problematic use, and CV doesn't, then the case is closed against CV. T&N and Hulk being able to contribute value to the game if used in a way other than their most problematic use act as a point in their favor for staying legal, while CV's only use is akin to Hulk and T&N at their most problematic, but with fewer answers and less opportunity cost and deck building considerations.
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!
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.
Ubiquity is not a reason to ban cards without other considerations, the most salient being that a card also takes over every game it gets played in. Sol Ring and Mana Crypt, powerful as they are, don't do this. Outside of cEDH, which is typically decided in the early turns, most Sol Rings and Mana Crypts don't actually get dropped until past the point where they can be decisive. They are only decisive when played early enough for them to give you a major boost compared to the mana normally available on that turn, and that still won't win you the game if another player also lands one in that time frame. Turn 1-3 Sol Ring is incredible, turn 5 is meh, and after that you'd rather be top decking action than rocks most of the time. Its never outright bad, but once the game goes on its no longer a defining play. You tend to remember the turn 1 and 2 Sol Rings and how they set the tenor for the game, even when the guy who landed it ends up losing because it turned into archenemy, but its easy to forget all those rings and crypts absentmindedly dropped turn 7 or 9 that maybe let someone get an extra cast of their commander or pump an extra 2 into an X spell but otherwise functioned like a cheap Cultivate that could get taken out by Vandalblast.
Prophet, on the other hand, like Prime Time before it, became the central focus of any game it was cast in. The game ended up revolving around it, whether it was dealt with immediately or whether it resolved and got to stick for a bit. It was always as much of a factor as a turn 1 Sol Ring.
CV would have that same degree of ubiquity in 5 color, and it would, by definition, always be the card the game revolves around whenever it gets cast. Always. Either you dealt with it, or it won the game. Not just gave you a major advantage that contributed to your win like Prophet or Prime Time, but straight up won. Its got the same problem as Prophet and Prime Time, but worse.
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).
True, I was wrong about lantern. Thanks for pointing out that I didn't mention Omen though, which is superb mana fixing that 5 color decks that don't run duals tend to run anyway, like Lantern, so the point stands. And remember, that's only relevant when you are trying to run this in a deck that is all non dual, non basics. Running Shocks, Duals, Fetches makes it trivially easy to get all 5 types multiple times in 8 lands, and you can run a basic heavy mana base even in 5 color by leaning heavily on green ramp, as Lou said (and if you don't want to spring for duals, you can split the difference with shocks,
some fetches, and basics with some green ramp).
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.
There's a lot to unpack here. First, 8 mana is not efficient, UNLESS IT WINS YOU THE GAME. Sweet Jesus, that's all CV does! There are several cards in the 7+ range that not only see play, but are powerhouses, and they all have a higher opportunity cost. 8 mana is an opportunity cost, but its not enough to keep other cards from being great because of how far they get you to winning the game, and CV actually just wins you the game. The chance of it "literally doing nothing" is less than T&N. Again, we end up in a situation where CV is better at what it does and has fewer drawbacks than cards that are either banned or barely legal.
And I agree that people show restraint when deck building. Unfortunately, at this point you are basically arguing that CV will be ok because it people will choose not to run it because of how much it wrecks games. And here's the thing, the cards that operate similar to CV in that they can just win immediately on their own, like T&N and Hulk, actually have applications in those decks. They can be played "fair" simply by not including the combo. Which is why they aren't banned. CV has no use other than being a one card combo in this format. That is a fact. Simply costing 8 mana and 1 card slot is not enough of an opportunity cost for something that takes out the table.
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!
And I agree that people show restraint when deck building. Unfortunately, at this point you are basically arguing that CV will be ok because it people will choose not to run it because of how much it wrecks games. And here's the thing, the cards that operate similar to CV in that they can just win immediately on their own, like T&N and Hulk, actually have applications in those decks. They can be played "fair" simply by not including the combo. Which is why they aren't banned. CV has no use other than being a one card combo in this format. That is a fact. Simply costing 8 mana and 1 card slot is not enough of an opportunity cost for something that takes out the table.
I'd like to point out that the discussion of restraint in deckbuilding does not sway any argument in favour of CV. If I'm building for restraint (and I do - cEDH is a different beast and the idea of a banlist there is a whole different kettle of fish) I'm definitely not including Coalition Victory. It's on the spot victory, and there is no other reason to cast it. If you don't have the conditions met, you're wasting your time and your mana. Comparing to Tooth and Nail and Protean Hulk is a redundant exercise - they are capable of being used with restraint. They're capable of being used degenerately too, but it's all in application. CV has no other mode - it's all in, and once it resolves the game ends.
And I agree that people show restraint when deck building. Unfortunately, at this point you are basically arguing that CV will be ok because it people will choose not to run it because of how much it wrecks games. And here's the thing, the cards that operate similar to CV in that they can just win immediately on their own, like T&N and Hulk, actually have applications in those decks. They can be played "fair" simply by not including the combo. Which is why they aren't banned. CV has no use other than being a one card combo in this format. That is a fact. Simply costing 8 mana and 1 card slot is not enough of an opportunity cost for something that takes out the table.
I'd like to point out that the discussion of restraint in deckbuilding does not sway any argument in favour of CV. If I'm building for restraint (and I do - cEDH is a different beast and the idea of a banlist there is a whole different kettle of fish) I'm definitely not including Coalition Victory. It's on the spot victory, and there is no other reason to cast it. If you don't have the conditions met, you're wasting your time and your mana. Comparing to Tooth and Nail and Protean Hulk is a redundant exercise - they are capable of being used with restraint. They're capable of being used degenerately too, but it's all in application. CV has no other mode - it's all in, and once it resolves the game ends.
Exactly. This leaves us needing to ask what unbanning CV would add to the format and compare that against its potential negative impact
It adds two things. First, it adds a more reliable "combo" win for 5 color decks that want to upgrade from T&N in order to free up slots or not get their combo shut down by torpor orb or other such effects, or provides an additional combo at the cost of one slot. Probably not cEDH worthy, since the 5 color cEDH deck of choice is Tazri, who is not actually 5 colors. Second, it provides an alternative wincon for 5 color decks that don't actively try to support it, like a Tazri Allies deck, or a deck low on basic land types, or just any 5 color deck that won't be ramping basic land types reliably if they happen to draw CV in their opening hand, or aren't packing a counters to make sure it sticks. Basically, they run it because it will win if they draw it, but they aren't building the deck to take advantage of it.
Next, the problems it causes. Any deck that is built to go for a CV win as soon as possible is going to play out like a slower version of cEDH combo. It's going to piss off casual tables and at best be a deck that is fun once before being taken apart. We see all the time how groups react to unexpected fast combo, and this is just another case of that without any other applications. Not enough in its own to be banned, but this is the sort of card that attracts players that don't normally run combo. It's a big flashy Timmy spell, an alt wincon that looks cool and references one of the most important moments in magics story. When Timmy goes and builds his new deck to make the big, fun, flavorful alt win con work, and it just annoys his friends who from then on make sure it will never work again, it backfires. The best case scenario is Timmy goes "well, that was neat, time to take it apart", because otherwise he'll be met with an exercise in frustration every time he plays it, and it will be "that deck". If Timmy just jams it into a pre existing slivers deck, or other 5 color deck, planning on casting it if he draws it but not trying to make it happen, it becomes just a lame, anticlimactic win from nowhere.
This sort of thing is fine in certain playgroups, but it is less likely to be ran in the groups that will tolerate it, and adds very little value there except as an upgrade over other combos that are already available. A combo friendly playgroup is going to gain very little from this getting unbanned.
For the harm and drama it would cause to casual groups, and the near nonexistent value it adds to the format, in addition to taking advantage of the rules of the format, it should stay banned.
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!
Agree with all of this. All unbanning Coalition Victory achieves long term is a once-off underwhelming alt win-con, followed by a shower of counterspells flung at said deck until it becomes as unfun for the person running CV as it is for everyone else, ultimately resulting in the deck being taken apart, or a salty playgroup. There's no pros in this scenario, only cons.
Essentially, as a card that adds nothing to the decks that would run it and isn't adding to the social side of EDH, there really is no compelling reason to remove it from the list.
Okay so this post turned into a behemoth. I've broken it up into spoilers for convenience, based on who(or is it whom? I can never remember) I'm responding to.
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.
That's stupid. This is way simpler than you're making it out to be. Is the card banned? If yes: what were the reasons for the ban, and are those reasons still applicable today?
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.
This is purely a matter of degree. More or less every card functions differently in EDH compared to any other format because of the multitude of rules specific to it. I kind of thought that was obvious. Ancestral Statue is objectively a terrible card. It only becomes not terrible when you have guaranteed access to the other half of it's two-card combo at all times in every game. I guess that's not broken enough to warrant a ban, though. What about Child of Alara? It was never intended to be used as a repeatable boardwipe that you have access to whenever you want. Child is clearly a better card in EDH specifically because it can abuse the rules regarding generals. Does Child of Alara "interact poorly with the format"? How about everyone's favorite whipping boy, Tooth and Nail? The card benefits from EDH's high starting life total and prevalence of ramp making it extremely easy to cast remarkably faster and more reliably than it's 9CMC Entwine cost would be in any other format, not to mention bypassing the singleton rule by being a tutor. T&N is clearly benefiting from the rules of EDH and is a significantly better card in EDH than it was/is/probably will ever be in any other format. Where is the line that pushes something into "interacts poorly with the format" territory?
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.
See above. If "becomes easier to use in conjunction with your general" were an actual ban criteria the list would be hundreds, if not thousands, of cards long. I'm not arguing that CV isn't easier to successfully pull off in EDH -- it most certainly is -- I'm arguing that that shouldn't matter. As already stated, just "interacting poorly with the format" is a pretty poor excuse to ban a card; the interaction has to be doing something specifically problematic to be worth considering for a ban. So, let's take the poor format interaction as a given for CV, specifically that it is easier to meet the creature condition for the card because of your general. Now, given that: is the card's current power level (i.e. assuming you have a general that fulfills the creature requirement by itself readily [but not always because general tax is a thing] available) simply too strong to be allowed? Does CV, as it exists now, create undesirable game states? Does CV have a perceived barrier to entry? These are the questions we have to be asking. Not just repeating "it interacts poorly with the format so trololol it's banned" over and over again as some people are fond of 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.
Oh I see the difference, alright, I just don't think it's the same one you see. As I've said previously, I think the worst cards for the format (and by extension the cards the RC should be focusing on) are the ones that subtly create unfun game states. But that is neither here nor there. To the point at hand, just because you don't think CV is interesting doesn't mean everyone feels the same. Some people are more than happy to play CV as an 8-mana win-the-game attempt, in the same way some people are more than happy to play Hermit Druid combo. What you find acceptable and what others find acceptable is going to vary wildly.
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 "accidentally 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.
(Emphasis mine)Seeing the problem yet? Cards with so-called "fair uses" stand on their own, so you add them to the deck for their surface value. Then, since you're already running them you might as well add the cards that go well with those cards... so on and so forth until you end up with a "combo-wombo machine" that upsets the balance of the playgroup.
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).
First, Karn was (mostly) a joke, hence the "honorable mention" part. He does, however, invalidate the earlier game. Is he a problem? Obviously not. But picking on these "reset the game" style spells without mentioning the card that literally has the text "restart the game" seems foolish.
Second, I don't understand your reasoning. Are you saying I can't build my deck to take advantage of Worldfire or Sway of the Stars in the same way I can with Warp World of Great Aurora?
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.
There is nothing stopping you. But we should still consider the potential worst cases of cards and interactions. There is also the slippery-slope argument to be made which we've already touched on. Cards that are strong enough to stand on their own in your deck that ALSO serve as combo pieces are quite problematic. T&N is basically the poster child for this.
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.
I'm not overestimating it, I'm merely pointing it out. Some people here seem to just assume your mana is perfect all the time. It's not. The mana base is the biggest downside to playing 5-color to begin with. Not to mention that CV's land requirement also helps alleviate one of the biggest problems with cards like these which is the ol' T1 Sol Ring into Mana Vault play a 7-drop T2. It's a bit harder power out CV absurdly early because of the combined WUBRG in the cost and the land type requirement. Again, not trying to make it sound harder than it is. I'd fully expect a reasonable deck to have all basic land types by T8 a high percentage of the time. But it's not something to ignore, either, especially when it opens up Strip Mine and friends to become ways to stop CV.
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.
If you keep insisting that CV is a "one-card-now-I-win" thing I'm going to continue taking liberties with my examples. CV is minimum a 2-card combo involving your general. More if you count the required lands but apparently we don't do that around here. If you're just going to take that for granted, I'm going to start assuming more favorable givens for my examples. For example, Omniscience wins the game because of course your hand is stocked, it always is. Omniscience is a one-card-combo you guys.
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.
Actually my argument is that CV is functionally similar to numerous cards already in the format therefore it should also be legal in the interest of maintaining the smallest possible ban list without compromising the format. Despite all of the *****ing, moaning, and arbitrary lines in the sand some people seem to be drawing, you know deep down that the majority of the cards I've used as examples thus far in the thread (T&N, Enter the Infinite, Omniscience, Rise of the Dark Realms, Doomsday, Ad Nauseam, so on and so forth) directly or indirectly lead to the game ending once resolved a vast majority of the time. That's why people play them to begin with. Some are better at their job, some are worse. Some are more "competitive" and some are less. But they all serve the same purpose when you slot them into your deck. CV doesn't deserve to be singled out when it is clearly a rather middling member of this broad category of finisher spells that already see wide-spread play.
Another thing to keep in mind about T&N is that, even as a 1 card win the game machine, its objectively worse than CV.
CV takes 1 slot, T&N takes 3.
Yes it is objectively worse in that one specific way. Let's ignore that T&N is mono-colored, has only 2 colored mana symbols, happens to be in the primary ramp color, and is more flexible and thus more resilient to hate.
StP will stop Mike and Trike, and if you screw it up that's not a knock against Mike and Trike its a knock against you. If it stops CV reliably, it also stops T&N, and more things stop T&N that don't stop CV (targeted LD is unlikely to be reliable unless the player is running only basics).
Swords will specifically stop Mike&Trike in that they cannot start the loop yet. For example, T&N for Mike&Trike, pass turn is a valid play if you suspect a Swords and wish to untap with countermagic to just go off through the removal anyways. And that is just one possible combo you can get with T&N. Conversely Swords just straight nullifies a CV.
CV would have that same degree of ubiquity in 5 color, and it would, by definition, always be the card the game revolves around whenever it gets cast. Always. Either you dealt with it, or it won the game. Not just gave you a major advantage that contributed to your win like Prophet or Prime Time, but straight up won. Its got the same problem as Prophet and Prime Time, but worse.
(-snip-) Regardless of how wrong I think you are about Sol Ring this isn't the place to discuss it. Sol Ring was brought up as a counterpoint of Mercury's point which was essentially "its too goodstuff and will see too much play". Which clearly isn't a factor in banning, as evidenced by Sol Ring. You are objectively wrong for not putting Sol Ring in your EDH deck, regardless of any other factors. I dare say there is no other card outside of the P9 that can make a claim like that. If a colorless 1-drop that fits into quite literally every deck isn't too ubiquitous to be banned, there is no way Coalition Victory would be.
As for over centralizing the game, see any combo ever. Do you have an answer? Cool, keep playing. No? Let's go to game two. PoK and Prime Time also have a high chance of "accidentally" ruining the game. Even if you're doing presumably fair things with them, everyone else can just take them and do less fair things with them. I've personally watched a game going fine with a PoK in play until someone cloned it and proceeded to go off. I have this sneaking suspicion that's not really a concern with CV. What, are you going to Reins of Power their general then Aethersnatch the CV? Honestly I wouldn't even be upset, I'd be impressed.
There's a lot to unpack here. First, 8 mana is not efficient, UNLESS IT WINS YOU THE GAME. Sweet Jesus, that's all CV does! There are several cards in the 7+ range that not only see play, but are powerhouses, and they all have a higher opportunity cost. 8 mana is an opportunity cost, but its not enough to keep other cards from being great because of how far they get you to winning the game, and CV actually just wins you the game. The chance of it "literally doing nothing" is less than T&N. Again, we end up in a situation where CV is better at what it does and has fewer drawbacks than cards that are either banned or barely legal.
Wait, are you arguing that CV is too powerful in a format in which I can Flash-Hulk? Or cast Doomsday? Or Entomb-Exhume? Or just playing Sol Ring T1? And Hulk actually got unbanned! As in, it didn't just fall through the cracks somehow. The RC made a conscious choice to add that card back into the available pool, and his power is orders of magnitude higher than CV's.
Also, what is your logic for saying T&N has a higher fail-rate than CV? That's just not true.
And I agree that people show restraint when deck building. Unfortunately, at this point you are basically arguing that CV will be ok because it people will choose not to run it because of how much it wrecks games. And here's the thing, the cards that operate similar to CV in that they can just win immediately on their own, like T&N and Hulk, actually have applications in those decks. They can be played "fair" simply by not including the combo. Which is why they aren't banned. CV has no use other than being a one card combo in this format. That is a fact. Simply costing 8 mana and 1 card slot is not enough of an opportunity cost for something that takes out the table.
I've already gone into this at length so I don't particularly want to dive in again. The short and sweet of it is that those are the cards that should be scrutinized more closely not the other way around, because those are the cards that are hardest to identify as causing problems.
It's a big flashy Timmy spell, an alt wincon that looks cool and references one of the most important moments in magics story. When Timmy goes and builds his new deck to make the big, fun, flavorful alt win con work, and it just annoys his friends who from then on make sure it will never work again, it backfires. The best case scenario is Timmy goes "well, that was neat, time to take it apart", because otherwise he'll be met with an exercise in frustration every time he plays it, and it will be "that deck". If Timmy just jams it into a pre existing slivers deck, or other 5 color deck, planning on casting it if he draws it but not trying to make it happen, it becomes just a lame, anticlimactic win from nowhere.
This sort of thing is fine in certain playgroups, but it is less likely to be ran in the groups that will tolerate it, and adds very little value there except as an upgrade over other combos that are already available. A combo friendly playgroup is going to gain very little from this getting unbanned.
First, you keep saying CV is an upgrade for existing combo decks. It's not. It's probably plan C or D. It's significantly worse than most other combos already, and if you're in 5-colors you have literally every better option available to you. In no way is CV an upgrade.
Second, that's not really for us to decide. If the Timmy's group is fine with it, great he's got a cool finisher. If they're not, it's an easy 1 card swap. This just comes down to communication between the players.
Okay so this post turned into a behemoth. I've broken it up into spoilers for convenience, based on who(or is it whom? I can never remember) I'm responding to.
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.
That's stupid. This is way simpler than you're making it out to be. Is the card banned? If yes: what were the reasons for the ban, and are those reasons still applicable today?
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.
This is purely a matter of degree. More or less every card functions differently in EDH compared to any other format because of the multitude of rules specific to it. I kind of thought that was obvious. Ancestral Statue is objectively a terrible card. It only becomes not terrible when you have guaranteed access to the other half of it's two-card combo at all times in every game. I guess that's not broken enough to warrant a ban, though. What about Child of Alara? It was never intended to be used as a repeatable boardwipe that you have access to whenever you want. Child is clearly a better card in EDH specifically because it can abuse the rules regarding generals. Does Child of Alara "interact poorly with the format"? How about everyone's favorite whipping boy, Tooth and Nail? The card benefits from EDH's high starting life total and prevalence of ramp making it extremely easy to cast remarkably faster and more reliably than it's 9CMC Entwine cost would be in any other format, not to mention bypassing the singleton rule by being a tutor. T&N is clearly benefiting from the rules of EDH and is a significantly better card in EDH than it was/is/probably will ever be in any other format. Where is the line that pushes something into "interacts poorly with the format" territory?
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.
See above. If "becomes easier to use in conjunction with your general" were an actual ban criteria the list would be hundreds, if not thousands, of cards long. I'm not arguing that CV isn't easier to successfully pull off in EDH -- it most certainly is -- I'm arguing that that shouldn't matter. As already stated, just "interacting poorly with the format" is a pretty poor excuse to ban a card; the interaction has to be doing something specifically problematic to be worth considering for a ban. So, let's take the poor format interaction as a given for CV, specifically that it is easier to meet the creature condition for the card because of your general. Now, given that: is the card's current power level (i.e. assuming you have a general that fulfills the creature requirement by itself readily [but not always because general tax is a thing] available) simply too strong to be allowed? Does CV, as it exists now, create undesirable game states? Does CV have a perceived barrier to entry? These are the questions we have to be asking. Not just repeating "it interacts poorly with the format so trololol it's banned" over and over again as some people are fond of 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.
Oh I see the difference, alright, I just don't think it's the same one you see. As I've said previously, I think the worst cards for the format (and by extension the cards the RC should be focusing on) are the ones that subtly create unfun game states. But that is neither here nor there. To the point at hand, just because you don't think CV is interesting doesn't mean everyone feels the same. Some people are more than happy to play CV as an 8-mana win-the-game attempt, in the same way some people are more than happy to play Hermit Druid combo. What you find acceptable and what others find acceptable is going to vary wildly.
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 "accidentally 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.
(Emphasis mine)Seeing the problem yet? Cards with so-called "fair uses" stand on their own, so you add them to the deck for their surface value. Then, since you're already running them you might as well add the cards that go well with those cards... so on and so forth until you end up with a "combo-wombo machine" that upsets the balance of the playgroup.
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).
First, Karn was (mostly) a joke, hence the "honorable mention" part. He does, however, invalidate the earlier game. Is he a problem? Obviously not. But picking on these "reset the game" style spells without mentioning the card that literally has the text "restart the game" seems foolish.
Second, I don't understand your reasoning. Are you saying I can't build my deck to take advantage of Worldfire or Sway of the Stars in the same way I can with Warp World of Great Aurora?
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.
There is nothing stopping you. But we should still consider the potential worst cases of cards and interactions. There is also the slippery-slope argument to be made which we've already touched on. Cards that are strong enough to stand on their own in your deck that ALSO serve as combo pieces are quite problematic. T&N is basically the poster child for this.
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.
I'm not overestimating it, I'm merely pointing it out. Some people here seem to just assume your mana is perfect all the time. It's not. The mana base is the biggest downside to playing 5-color to begin with. Not to mention that CV's land requirement also helps alleviate one of the biggest problems with cards like these which is the ol' T1 Sol Ring into Mana Vault play a 7-drop T2. It's a bit harder power out CV absurdly early because of the combined WUBRG in the cost and the land type requirement. Again, not trying to make it sound harder than it is. I'd fully expect a reasonable deck to have all basic land types by T8 a high percentage of the time. But it's not something to ignore, either, especially when it opens up Strip Mine and friends to become ways to stop CV.
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.
If you keep insisting that CV is a "one-card-now-I-win" thing I'm going to continue taking liberties with my examples. CV is minimum a 2-card combo involving your general. More if you count the required lands but apparently we don't do that around here. If you're just going to take that for granted, I'm going to start assuming more favorable givens for my examples. For example, Omniscience wins the game because of course your hand is stocked, it always is. Omniscience is a one-card-combo you guys.
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.
Actually my argument is that CV is functionally similar to numerous cards already in the format therefore it should also be legal in the interest of maintaining the smallest possible ban list without compromising the format. Despite all of the *****ing, moaning, and arbitrary lines in the sand some people seem to be drawing, you know deep down that the majority of the cards I've used as examples thus far in the thread (T&N, Enter the Infinite, Omniscience, Rise of the Dark Realms, Doomsday, Ad Nauseam, so on and so forth) directly or indirectly lead to the game ending once resolved a vast majority of the time. That's why people play them to begin with. Some are better at their job, some are worse. Some are more "competitive" and some are less. But they all serve the same purpose when you slot them into your deck. CV doesn't deserve to be singled out when it is clearly a rather middling member of this broad category of finisher spells that already see wide-spread play.
Another thing to keep in mind about T&N is that, even as a 1 card win the game machine, its objectively worse than CV.
CV takes 1 slot, T&N takes 3.
Yes it is objectively worse in that one specific way. Let's ignore that T&N is mono-colored, has only 2 colored mana symbols, happens to be in the primary ramp color, and is more flexible and thus more resilient to hate.
StP will stop Mike and Trike, and if you screw it up that's not a knock against Mike and Trike its a knock against you. If it stops CV reliably, it also stops T&N, and more things stop T&N that don't stop CV (targeted LD is unlikely to be reliable unless the player is running only basics).
Swords will specifically stop Mike&Trike in that they cannot start the loop yet. For example, T&N for Mike&Trike, pass turn is a valid play if you suspect a Swords and wish to untap with countermagic to just go off through the removal anyways. And that is just one possible combo you can get with T&N. Conversely Swords just straight nullifies a CV.
CV would have that same degree of ubiquity in 5 color, and it would, by definition, always be the card the game revolves around whenever it gets cast. Always. Either you dealt with it, or it won the game. Not just gave you a major advantage that contributed to your win like Prophet or Prime Time, but straight up won. Its got the same problem as Prophet and Prime Time, but worse.
(-snip-) Regardless of how wrong I think you are about Sol Ring this isn't the place to discuss it. Sol Ring was brought up as a counterpoint of Mercury's point which was essentially "its too goodstuff and will see too much play". Which clearly isn't a factor in banning, as evidenced by Sol Ring. You are objectively wrong for not putting Sol Ring in your EDH deck, regardless of any other factors. I dare say there is no other card outside of the P9 that can make a claim like that. If a colorless 1-drop that fits into quite literally every deck isn't too ubiquitous to be banned, there is no way Coalition Victory would be.
As for over centralizing the game, see any combo ever. Do you have an answer? Cool, keep playing. No? Let's go to game two. PoK and Prime Time also have a high chance of "accidentally" ruining the game. Even if you're doing presumably fair things with them, everyone else can just take them and do less fair things with them. I've personally watched a game going fine with a PoK in play until someone cloned it and proceeded to go off. I have this sneaking suspicion that's not really a concern with CV. What, are you going to Reins of Power their general then Aethersnatch the CV? Honestly I wouldn't even be upset, I'd be impressed.
There's a lot to unpack here. First, 8 mana is not efficient, UNLESS IT WINS YOU THE GAME. Sweet Jesus, that's all CV does! There are several cards in the 7+ range that not only see play, but are powerhouses, and they all have a higher opportunity cost. 8 mana is an opportunity cost, but its not enough to keep other cards from being great because of how far they get you to winning the game, and CV actually just wins you the game. The chance of it "literally doing nothing" is less than T&N. Again, we end up in a situation where CV is better at what it does and has fewer drawbacks than cards that are either banned or barely legal.
Wait, are you arguing that CV is too powerful in a format in which I can Flash-Hulk? Or cast Doomsday? Or Entomb-Exhume? Or just playing Sol Ring T1? And Hulk actually got unbanned! As in, it didn't just fall through the cracks somehow. The RC made a conscious choice to add that card back into the available pool, and his power is orders of magnitude higher than CV's.
Also, what is your logic for saying T&N has a higher fail-rate than CV? That's just not true.
And I agree that people show restraint when deck building. Unfortunately, at this point you are basically arguing that CV will be ok because it people will choose not to run it because of how much it wrecks games. And here's the thing, the cards that operate similar to CV in that they can just win immediately on their own, like T&N and Hulk, actually have applications in those decks. They can be played "fair" simply by not including the combo. Which is why they aren't banned. CV has no use other than being a one card combo in this format. That is a fact. Simply costing 8 mana and 1 card slot is not enough of an opportunity cost for something that takes out the table.
I've already gone into this at length so I don't particularly want to dive in again. The short and sweet of it is that those are the cards that should be scrutinized more closely not the other way around, because those are the cards that are hardest to identify as causing problems.
It's a big flashy Timmy spell, an alt wincon that looks cool and references one of the most important moments in magics story. When Timmy goes and builds his new deck to make the big, fun, flavorful alt win con work, and it just annoys his friends who from then on make sure it will never work again, it backfires. The best case scenario is Timmy goes "well, that was neat, time to take it apart", because otherwise he'll be met with an exercise in frustration every time he plays it, and it will be "that deck". If Timmy just jams it into a pre existing slivers deck, or other 5 color deck, planning on casting it if he draws it but not trying to make it happen, it becomes just a lame, anticlimactic win from nowhere.
This sort of thing is fine in certain playgroups, but it is less likely to be ran in the groups that will tolerate it, and adds very little value there except as an upgrade over other combos that are already available. A combo friendly playgroup is going to gain very little from this getting unbanned.
First, you keep saying CV is an upgrade for existing combo decks. It's not. It's probably plan C or D. It's significantly worse than most other combos already, and if you're in 5-colors you have literally every better option available to you. In no way is CV an upgrade.
Second, that's not really for us to decide. If the Timmy's group is fine with it, great he's got a cool finisher. If they're not, it's an easy 1 card swap. This just comes down to communication between the players.
At this point, we're arguing in circles. There is no point in further engaging with someone who ignores important parts of an argument in order to continually argue the same point. You missed half my argument in the Sol Ring example, and half my argument in comparing it to T&N. As I, and others, have made it several times already, and you persist in ignoring it, I have to conclude that you are either being willfully obtuse or, if you don't understand it somehow, no further explanation will help you. I'm checking out of this thread.
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!
Despite all of the *****ing, moaning, and arbitrary lines in the sand some people seem to be drawing, you know deep down that the majority of the cards I've used as examples thus far in the thread (T&N, Enter the Infinite, Omniscience, Rise of the Dark Realms, Doomsday, Ad Nauseam, so on and so forth) directly or indirectly lead to the game ending once resolved a vast majority of the time. That's why people play them to begin with. Some are better at their job, some are worse. Some are more "competitive" and some are less. But they all serve the same purpose when you slot them into your deck.
The biggest point is that each of those cards, whether you like it or not, do have more casual applications to various degrees. This especially goes for the first 4 cards in your example. None of them actually win the game on their own, they require a bit more than just "Play your lands and your general like you are likely to do each game you play anyway".
You have to keep in mind the target audience for the game. Hermit Druid, another card you touched upon, isn't banned because unless you're running the very specific build that causes early KO's, it's not really a great card. Like sure there's a few archetypes that'll like having him, but you get where I'm going there.
This also goes for Doomsday and Ad Nauseam. Neither are cards that an average mid-power EDH player is going to look at and be like "I'm going to stuff this in my deck for *****s and giggles" and then oops accidentally the game is broken. They require specific builds. Ad Nauseam is in my Edgar Markov deck where it generally reads 3BB: Draw 7 cards, lose 6 life or something in that general area. Is that broken? Strong, for sure.
Now the other cards you're prone to point at do have casual applications that translate to other things than "Win the game on the spot". While I do think Omniscience and Enter the Infinite are hilariously poor design (they stem from an era I like to call "WOTC throwing ***** at commander and see what sticks while injecting a lot of bad stuff into the format" which stretches from roughly the release of the first commander set to Theros) both do give the potentional for fun and interesting interactions depending on the playgroup. This goes for just about every other card you've listed as well.
And it's a fact - one that you cannot argue - that Coalition Victory can do anything else other than "Win the game or bust". All those other cards can. And therein lies the difference.
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.
As a matter of fact not to mention it's secretly has "can't be countered" because it's a cast trigger just like the eldrazis have
Except you need to cast that one twice, which is quite a difference.
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.
As a matter of fact not to mention it's secretly has "can't be countered" because it's a cast trigger just like the eldrazis have
Except if it’s countered the first time, it goes to the grave and not into the library making it that much harder to pull off. Even still, it’s telegraphed and doesn’t require an instant-speed response to deal with it.
And it's a fact - one that you cannot argue - that Coalition Victory can do anything else other than "Win the game or bust". All those other cards can. And therein lies the difference.
Okay, I have a hypothetical for you. Imagine this card:
Searching for Victory3WUBRG
Sorcery
Search your library for up to one creature card, put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library.
You win the game if you control a land of each basic land type and a creature of each color.
> Would a strictly better version that doesn't even require the creature part to be present on cast need to be banned?
So basically now you can only hope it either gets countered or you can destroy 1-x lands in hopes that the land type condition can't be met.
Are you serious? Lol.
> Would a strictly better version that doesn't even require the creature part to be present on cast need to be banned?
So basically now you can only hope it either gets countered or you can destroy 1-x lands in hopes that the land type condition can't be met.
Are you serious? Lol.
I think it's an interesting question, even if the card in the example doesn't exemplify the question all that well. Basically, is a "strictly better" version of a card that's already problematic also problematic even if the new card introduces elements with which the playerbase can use the card more fairly? In this example, I think the answer is no, but I think that becomes a lot less clear if the card were mono-colored.
Searching for Victory5GGG Sorcery
Search your library for up to one creature card, put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library.
You win the game if you control a land of each basic land type and a creature of each color.
With this example, we now run into the issue of players wanting to use the card in mono-green decks as sort of a half Tooth and Nail and not as a game ending combo card. In addition, there's also the potential for green/X decks to do interesting things with the card in combination with things like Prismatic Omen and Swirling Spriggan. In any case, I think it's important to look at how cards are actually played rather than how cards can potentially be played. Virtually every card can be played fairly, even something like Coalition Victory. That's why it's not all that important whether or not cards can be played fairly. What matters is whether or not the player base at large will actually play their cards in that manner.
I would say that this is taken into account with the ban list, and is probably part of why Tooth and Nail hasn't been banned; for every person who Avengerhoofs for the win, there are people who don't use it as an instant win con. I'm one of those people. There's been lots of discussion around some new releases in that respect - I've seen lots around Paradox Engine and Storm the Vault. Either one CAN be used fairly, whether they are or not is up to the individual. It's actually part of why I like EDH so much, a lot of the responsibility for maintaining a healthy format is left to the society.
Coalition Victory...I feel like the justification for banning it is more along the lines of non-interactive game play that being sufficiently broken. It is, ultimately, a reasonably underwhelming way to win, regardless of whether it happens T4 or T12.
Basically, is a "strictly better" version of a card that's already problematic also problematic even if the new card introduces elements with which the playerbase can use the card more fairly?
I kept the card as close to CV as possible to make the comparison obvious and to try and isolate the "fair use" factor as much as possible. I wanted to know if Lou would consider that card acceptable because of it's supposed "fair use" despite having all of the same problems that CV does.
Virtually every card can be played fairly, even something like Coalition Victory.
Explain this. How does a card that only does one thing, get played fairly?Of all the things to discuss about CV, this is something that can’t even be disputed! My god, this is just freaking ridiculous at this point.
You know you don’t have a rational argument when you begin creating cards that will never be printed to justify said argument.
For the love of god, somebody please lock this thread.
Explain this. How does a card that only does one thing, get played fairly?Of all the things to discuss about CV, this is something that can’t even be disputed! My god, this is just freaking ridiculous at this point.
Coalition Victory is a difficult card to play fairly (for obvious reasons), but that doesn't mean it can't be played fairly. Imagine Coalition Victory inside a Ramos, Dragon Engine deck. The goal of said deck could be to win with Coalition Victory, but to do so maybe the deck would need to jump significant hurdles, significant self-imposed hurdles. Maybe none of the deck's lands have any basic land types and none of its creatures have colors. Winning with a Coalition Victory this way would be really satisfying (and fair) because it would mean using the deck's other cards to somehow set up the conditions necessary for Coalition Victory to win, something the deck's designer made deliberately hard to do.
Thus, my point: it doesn't particularly matter whether or not cards can be played fairly. What matters is whether players will actually play those cards fairly in practice. In the case of Coalition Victory, I believe players won't.
Explain this. How does a card that only does one thing, get played fairly?Of all the things to discuss about CV, this is something that can’t even be disputed! My god, this is just freaking ridiculous at this point.
Coalition Victory is a difficult card to play fairly (for obvious reasons), but that doesn't mean it can't be played fairly. Imagine Coalition Victory inside a Ramos, Dragon Engine deck. The goal of said deck could be to win with Coalition Victory, but to do so maybe the deck would need to jump significant hurdles, significant self-imposed hurdles. Maybe none of the deck's lands have any basic land types and none of its creatures have colors. Winning with a Coalition Victory this way would be really satisfying (and fair) because it would mean using the deck's other cards to somehow set up the conditions necessary for Coalition Victory to win, something the deck's designer made deliberately hard to do.
Thus, my point: it doesn't particularly matter whether or not cards can be played fairly. What matters is whether players will actually play those cards fairly in practice. In the case of Coalition Victory, I believe players won't.
That’s insulting. Beyond that, it’s a waste of time. Hate to break it to ya, but sometimes, the truth hurts. This whole time, all of the arguments from myself, Lou, Onering, etc. have been rooted in facts. Meanwhile, Impossible, and to a lesser extent, you, have just dismissed all of those points and base your arguments off of biased opinions and hypotheticals. Now, there is absolutely no discussion to be had.
No, but I'm taking this personally because it very clearly is. Ever since I called you out for bull*****ting earlier, something you very much confessed to here, you've done nothing but try to slander me. It isn't appreciated.
This whole time, all of the arguments from myself, Lou, Onering, etc. have been rooted in facts. Meanwhile, Impossible, and to a lesser extent, you, have just dismissed all of those points and base your arguments off of biased opinions and hypotheticals.
Seriously? I've dismissed all of these arguments? Frankly, I think you have no idea where I stand on Coalition Victory. From my perspective, it's very much evident you haven't been paying attention to anything I've been saying thus far. You've only just dismissed what I've had to say outright because discrediting me to save face is easier for you than acknowledging you said something earlier that you genuinely shouldn't have.
If you fail to see any value in this thread, you're perfectly able to leave it. I continue to see worth in conversing with honest interlocutors. Your comments have made it abundantly clear you do not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
And it's a fact - one that you cannot argue - that Coalition Victory can do anything else other than "Win the game or bust". All those other cards can. And therein lies the difference.
Okay, I have a hypothetical for you. Imagine this card:
Searching for Victory3WUBRG
Sorcery
Search your library for up to one creature card, put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library.
You win the game if you control a land of each basic land type and a creature of each color.
Do you think this card would need to be banned?
That one? Yes. The 5GGG version ArrogantAxolotl posted? That one I'd be willing to try out.
You could indeed argue your version does have fair uses, but it's still very much a card that's too linear and, well, hard NOT to break. To go back to the comparison of T&N: Let's say you're new to the game and you played a few months of standard, and now you're starting to get into EDH. You picked up some cards from friends among which T&N and Your Version Of Coalition Victory. Which of these cards do you think this new player will be able to "break" more easily? That's a comparison that does need to be looked at. Someone new playing T&N might very well just grab Worldspine Wurm and Xenagos because that's a badass play. They might even not know about the insta-win buttons at that point (Though that chance quickly diminishes the moment you start playing more).
Whereas your version spells it out perfectly for them.
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.
That one? Yes. The 5GGG version ArrogantAxolotl posted? That one I'd be willing to try out.
You are aware that both mine and Axol's are functionally identical in a 5-color deck, right? How does it make sense that you're more okay with the one that can be played more easily? What if it just cast 8 generic mana? Would that make it even less ban worthy than Axol's mono-green one?
Honestly I think I am just fundamentally misunderstanding some part of your argument. I don't understand how you think the 5GGG version is acceptable for EDH but vanilla ol' Coalition Victory isn't.
Which of these cards do you think this new player will be able to "break" more easily?
Depending on what you mean by "break" it's almost certainly T&N. New players tend to shy away from 5-color decks because the mana base in intimidating and the sheer amount of choices they have are overwhelming. Thus T&N is probably the first one they'll cast and end up doing something particularly unfun with, like finding Terastodon+Woodfall Primus and blowing up their friend's lands.
They might even not know about the insta-win buttons at that point (Though that chance quickly diminishes the moment you start playing more).
For the record, I've actually been in a game in which a relatively new player cast T&N, said "get Mike&Trike for the win" and when the other players asked her to play it out, she couldn't demonstrate a single loop. She "just knew that those two cards are a combo" somehow. Implying that T&N is somehow better because it's combos are more esoteric really doesn't fly when everyone has Google in their pocket literally all the time.
Which of these cards do you think this new player will be able to "break" more easily?
Depending on what you mean by "break" it's almost certainly T&N. New players tend to shy away from 5-color decks because the mana base in intimidating and the sheer amount of choices they have are overwhelming. Thus T&N is probably the first one they'll cast and end up doing something particularly unfun with, like finding Terastodon+Woodfall Primus and blowing up their friend's lands.
I don't know how many new players you know, but all of the ones I've met will cram their decks full of suboptimal cards to try to get a spell like Coalition Victory to work because new players typically don't understand how manabases or manacurves work, they want to play with as many colours as they can get away with, and, as has been repeatedly stressed, Coalition Victory has "you win the game" right in the text box.
No, but I'm taking this personally because it very clearly is. Ever since I called you out for bull*****ting earlier, something you very much confessed to here, you've done nothing but try to slander me. It isn't appreciated.
This whole time, all of the arguments from myself, Lou, Onering, etc. have been rooted in facts. Meanwhile, Impossible, and to a lesser extent, you, have just dismissed all of those points and base your arguments off of biased opinions and hypotheticals.
Seriously? I've dismissed all of these arguments? Frankly, I think you have no idea where I stand on Coalition Victory. From my perspective, it's very much evident you haven't been paying attention to anything I've been saying thus far. You've only just dismissed what I've had to say outright because discrediting me to save face is easier for you than acknowledging you said something earlier that you genuinely shouldn't have.
If you fail to see any value in this thread, you're perfectly able to leave it. I continue to see worth in conversing with honest interlocutors. Your comments have made it abundantly clear you do not.
You’re “example” doesn’t work for 2 reasons. It’s an 8-Mana creature tutor to battlefield, that alone means it won’t see play considering it directly competes with Green Suns Zenith, Chord of Calling, all of the sac-tutors and even Wild Pair, oh, and of course T&N. Then, you slap on the win-con, which just makes it Coalition Victory that can go into more decks. Which brings me back to my point about creating cards.
The only reason you and impossible are creating cards is because you are trying to move the line in the sand, simply because you have nothing that’s legal, or in print for that matter, to compare it to. At that point, what are we discussing? If CV was a different card and said different things it wouldn’t need to be banned?
There is value in discussing Coalition Victory. What I cannot see value in is discussing these hypotheticals. You are muddying the waters and making it near-Impossible to have a relevant discussion about the card by creating these scenarios that just have no real background to them.
It’s easy, if Commander didn’t have a Commander that was available at all times, Coalition Victory wouldn’t be banned.
I know where you stand, it’s all the way back on page one. Which is also my other point. We aren’t discussing anything that hasn’t already been discussed. The format philopshy hasn’t changed. No cards that “interact poorly with the format” have been unbanned I’d argue Leovled hit that criteria, to a degree, and was banned.(not the only reason, of course).
I look at these threads as starting points for house-rules. In this thread, there are both legitimate pros, and obviously cons, to CV. If somebody wants to run it, they absolutely can, but they have to understand that you need explain to your group why you want to and to get their blessing. Continually comparing CV to cards like T&N is a disservice to both cards, and isn’t where you should start in discussing with your group on whether they should allow you to play it.
Edit: just so we’re clear, I understand why you created that card. What I’m pointing out is that it still doesn’t outline your point very well. TLDR; nobody would play that anyways, as there are better options. If CV was legal, 5-C players would absolutely jam it.
CV takes 1 slot, T&N takes 3.
If you are looking for ways to shut down CV beyond counter spells, then you have to note that there are as many ways to shut down T&N, and people have reasons to run those answers even without knowing T&N is a possibility. Any Torpor Orb effect or Aven Mindcensor effect stops T&N, and those are effects that are just good in commander. Spot removal, timed right, will also shut down T&N. StP will stop Mike and Trike, and if you screw it up that's not a knock against Mike and Trike its a knock against you. If it stops CV reliably, it also stops T&N, and more things stop T&N that don't stop CV (targeted LD is unlikely to be reliable unless the player is running only basics).
Seriously, T&N, along with Hulk, is a borderline card that has as many arguments for eating a ban as for staying legal. Its as problematic as a card can get without being banned. CV is worse. Not worse power wise, worse in terms of its ability to cause problems and its complete lack of any kind of alternate line of play. If T&N represents the line of demarcation between "needs to be banned" and "OK to stay legal" based on how it plays at its most problematic, CV crosses that line into banned territory. When you consider that the only reason Hulk and T&N haven't been banned is that they can be used in ways besides their problematic use, and CV doesn't, then the case is closed against CV. T&N and Hulk being able to contribute value to the game if used in a way other than their most problematic use act as a point in their favor for staying legal, while CV's only use is akin to Hulk and T&N at their most problematic, but with fewer answers and less opportunity cost and deck building considerations.
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!
I wanted to post this separately to answer your arguments directly
Ubiquity is not a reason to ban cards without other considerations, the most salient being that a card also takes over every game it gets played in. Sol Ring and Mana Crypt, powerful as they are, don't do this. Outside of cEDH, which is typically decided in the early turns, most Sol Rings and Mana Crypts don't actually get dropped until past the point where they can be decisive. They are only decisive when played early enough for them to give you a major boost compared to the mana normally available on that turn, and that still won't win you the game if another player also lands one in that time frame. Turn 1-3 Sol Ring is incredible, turn 5 is meh, and after that you'd rather be top decking action than rocks most of the time. Its never outright bad, but once the game goes on its no longer a defining play. You tend to remember the turn 1 and 2 Sol Rings and how they set the tenor for the game, even when the guy who landed it ends up losing because it turned into archenemy, but its easy to forget all those rings and crypts absentmindedly dropped turn 7 or 9 that maybe let someone get an extra cast of their commander or pump an extra 2 into an X spell but otherwise functioned like a cheap Cultivate that could get taken out by Vandalblast.
Prophet, on the other hand, like Prime Time before it, became the central focus of any game it was cast in. The game ended up revolving around it, whether it was dealt with immediately or whether it resolved and got to stick for a bit. It was always as much of a factor as a turn 1 Sol Ring.
CV would have that same degree of ubiquity in 5 color, and it would, by definition, always be the card the game revolves around whenever it gets cast. Always. Either you dealt with it, or it won the game. Not just gave you a major advantage that contributed to your win like Prophet or Prime Time, but straight up won. Its got the same problem as Prophet and Prime Time, but worse.
True, I was wrong about lantern. Thanks for pointing out that I didn't mention Omen though, which is superb mana fixing that 5 color decks that don't run duals tend to run anyway, like Lantern, so the point stands. And remember, that's only relevant when you are trying to run this in a deck that is all non dual, non basics. Running Shocks, Duals, Fetches makes it trivially easy to get all 5 types multiple times in 8 lands, and you can run a basic heavy mana base even in 5 color by leaning heavily on green ramp, as Lou said (and if you don't want to spring for duals, you can split the difference with shocks,
some fetches, and basics with some green ramp).
There's a lot to unpack here. First, 8 mana is not efficient, UNLESS IT WINS YOU THE GAME. Sweet Jesus, that's all CV does! There are several cards in the 7+ range that not only see play, but are powerhouses, and they all have a higher opportunity cost. 8 mana is an opportunity cost, but its not enough to keep other cards from being great because of how far they get you to winning the game, and CV actually just wins you the game. The chance of it "literally doing nothing" is less than T&N. Again, we end up in a situation where CV is better at what it does and has fewer drawbacks than cards that are either banned or barely legal.
And I agree that people show restraint when deck building. Unfortunately, at this point you are basically arguing that CV will be ok because it people will choose not to run it because of how much it wrecks games. And here's the thing, the cards that operate similar to CV in that they can just win immediately on their own, like T&N and Hulk, actually have applications in those decks. They can be played "fair" simply by not including the combo. Which is why they aren't banned. CV has no use other than being a one card combo in this format. That is a fact. Simply costing 8 mana and 1 card slot is not enough of an opportunity cost for something that takes out the table.
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!
I'd like to point out that the discussion of restraint in deckbuilding does not sway any argument in favour of CV. If I'm building for restraint (and I do - cEDH is a different beast and the idea of a banlist there is a whole different kettle of fish) I'm definitely not including Coalition Victory. It's on the spot victory, and there is no other reason to cast it. If you don't have the conditions met, you're wasting your time and your mana. Comparing to Tooth and Nail and Protean Hulk is a redundant exercise - they are capable of being used with restraint. They're capable of being used degenerately too, but it's all in application. CV has no other mode - it's all in, and once it resolves the game ends.
Exactly. This leaves us needing to ask what unbanning CV would add to the format and compare that against its potential negative impact
It adds two things. First, it adds a more reliable "combo" win for 5 color decks that want to upgrade from T&N in order to free up slots or not get their combo shut down by torpor orb or other such effects, or provides an additional combo at the cost of one slot. Probably not cEDH worthy, since the 5 color cEDH deck of choice is Tazri, who is not actually 5 colors. Second, it provides an alternative wincon for 5 color decks that don't actively try to support it, like a Tazri Allies deck, or a deck low on basic land types, or just any 5 color deck that won't be ramping basic land types reliably if they happen to draw CV in their opening hand, or aren't packing a counters to make sure it sticks. Basically, they run it because it will win if they draw it, but they aren't building the deck to take advantage of it.
Next, the problems it causes. Any deck that is built to go for a CV win as soon as possible is going to play out like a slower version of cEDH combo. It's going to piss off casual tables and at best be a deck that is fun once before being taken apart. We see all the time how groups react to unexpected fast combo, and this is just another case of that without any other applications. Not enough in its own to be banned, but this is the sort of card that attracts players that don't normally run combo. It's a big flashy Timmy spell, an alt wincon that looks cool and references one of the most important moments in magics story. When Timmy goes and builds his new deck to make the big, fun, flavorful alt win con work, and it just annoys his friends who from then on make sure it will never work again, it backfires. The best case scenario is Timmy goes "well, that was neat, time to take it apart", because otherwise he'll be met with an exercise in frustration every time he plays it, and it will be "that deck". If Timmy just jams it into a pre existing slivers deck, or other 5 color deck, planning on casting it if he draws it but not trying to make it happen, it becomes just a lame, anticlimactic win from nowhere.
This sort of thing is fine in certain playgroups, but it is less likely to be ran in the groups that will tolerate it, and adds very little value there except as an upgrade over other combos that are already available. A combo friendly playgroup is going to gain very little from this getting unbanned.
For the harm and drama it would cause to casual groups, and the near nonexistent value it adds to the format, in addition to taking advantage of the rules of the format, it should stay banned.
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!
Essentially, as a card that adds nothing to the decks that would run it and isn't adding to the social side of EDH, there really is no compelling reason to remove it from the list.
This is purely a matter of degree. More or less every card functions differently in EDH compared to any other format because of the multitude of rules specific to it. I kind of thought that was obvious. Ancestral Statue is objectively a terrible card. It only becomes not terrible when you have guaranteed access to the other half of it's two-card combo at all times in every game. I guess that's not broken enough to warrant a ban, though. What about Child of Alara? It was never intended to be used as a repeatable boardwipe that you have access to whenever you want. Child is clearly a better card in EDH specifically because it can abuse the rules regarding generals. Does Child of Alara "interact poorly with the format"? How about everyone's favorite whipping boy, Tooth and Nail? The card benefits from EDH's high starting life total and prevalence of ramp making it extremely easy to cast remarkably faster and more reliably than it's 9CMC Entwine cost would be in any other format, not to mention bypassing the singleton rule by being a tutor. T&N is clearly benefiting from the rules of EDH and is a significantly better card in EDH than it was/is/probably will ever be in any other format. Where is the line that pushes something into "interacts poorly with the format" territory?
See above. If "becomes easier to use in conjunction with your general" were an actual ban criteria the list would be hundreds, if not thousands, of cards long. I'm not arguing that CV isn't easier to successfully pull off in EDH -- it most certainly is -- I'm arguing that that shouldn't matter. As already stated, just "interacting poorly with the format" is a pretty poor excuse to ban a card; the interaction has to be doing something specifically problematic to be worth considering for a ban. So, let's take the poor format interaction as a given for CV, specifically that it is easier to meet the creature condition for the card because of your general. Now, given that: is the card's current power level (i.e. assuming you have a general that fulfills the creature requirement by itself readily [but not always because general tax is a thing] available) simply too strong to be allowed? Does CV, as it exists now, create undesirable game states? Does CV have a perceived barrier to entry? These are the questions we have to be asking. Not just repeating "it interacts poorly with the format so trololol it's banned" over and over again as some people are fond of doing.
Oh I see the difference, alright, I just don't think it's the same one you see. As I've said previously, I think the worst cards for the format (and by extension the cards the RC should be focusing on) are the ones that subtly create unfun game states. But that is neither here nor there. To the point at hand, just because you don't think CV is interesting doesn't mean everyone feels the same. Some people are more than happy to play CV as an 8-mana win-the-game attempt, in the same way some people are more than happy to play Hermit Druid combo. What you find acceptable and what others find acceptable is going to vary wildly.
But that doesn't mean we should be holding CV hostage because people have poor communication skills.
(Emphasis mine)Seeing the problem yet? Cards with so-called "fair uses" stand on their own, so you add them to the deck for their surface value. Then, since you're already running them you might as well add the cards that go well with those cards... so on and so forth until you end up with a "combo-wombo machine" that upsets the balance of the playgroup.
First, Karn was (mostly) a joke, hence the "honorable mention" part. He does, however, invalidate the earlier game. Is he a problem? Obviously not. But picking on these "reset the game" style spells without mentioning the card that literally has the text "restart the game" seems foolish.
Second, I don't understand your reasoning. Are you saying I can't build my deck to take advantage of Worldfire or Sway of the Stars in the same way I can with Warp World of Great Aurora?
There is nothing stopping you. But we should still consider the potential worst cases of cards and interactions. There is also the slippery-slope argument to be made which we've already touched on. Cards that are strong enough to stand on their own in your deck that ALSO serve as combo pieces are quite problematic. T&N is basically the poster child for this.
I'm not overestimating it, I'm merely pointing it out. Some people here seem to just assume your mana is perfect all the time. It's not. The mana base is the biggest downside to playing 5-color to begin with. Not to mention that CV's land requirement also helps alleviate one of the biggest problems with cards like these which is the ol' T1 Sol Ring into Mana Vault play a 7-drop T2. It's a bit harder power out CV absurdly early because of the combined WUBRG in the cost and the land type requirement. Again, not trying to make it sound harder than it is. I'd fully expect a reasonable deck to have all basic land types by T8 a high percentage of the time. But it's not something to ignore, either, especially when it opens up Strip Mine and friends to become ways to stop CV.
If you keep insisting that CV is a "one-card-now-I-win" thing I'm going to continue taking liberties with my examples. CV is minimum a 2-card combo involving your general. More if you count the required lands but apparently we don't do that around here. If you're just going to take that for granted, I'm going to start assuming more favorable givens for my examples. For example, Omniscience wins the game because of course your hand is stocked, it always is. Omniscience is a one-card-combo you guys.
Actually my argument is that CV is functionally similar to numerous cards already in the format therefore it should also be legal in the interest of maintaining the smallest possible ban list without compromising the format. Despite all of the *****ing, moaning, and arbitrary lines in the sand some people seem to be drawing, you know deep down that the majority of the cards I've used as examples thus far in the thread (T&N, Enter the Infinite, Omniscience, Rise of the Dark Realms, Doomsday, Ad Nauseam, so on and so forth) directly or indirectly lead to the game ending once resolved a vast majority of the time. That's why people play them to begin with. Some are better at their job, some are worse. Some are more "competitive" and some are less. But they all serve the same purpose when you slot them into your deck. CV doesn't deserve to be singled out when it is clearly a rather middling member of this broad category of finisher spells that already see wide-spread play.
Swords will specifically stop Mike&Trike in that they cannot start the loop yet. For example, T&N for Mike&Trike, pass turn is a valid play if you suspect a Swords and wish to untap with countermagic to just go off through the removal anyways. And that is just one possible combo you can get with T&N. Conversely Swords just straight nullifies a CV.
(-snip-) Regardless of how wrong I think you are about Sol Ring this isn't the place to discuss it. Sol Ring was brought up as a counterpoint of Mercury's point which was essentially "its too goodstuff and will see too much play". Which clearly isn't a factor in banning, as evidenced by Sol Ring. You are objectively wrong for not putting Sol Ring in your EDH deck, regardless of any other factors. I dare say there is no other card outside of the P9 that can make a claim like that. If a colorless 1-drop that fits into quite literally every deck isn't too ubiquitous to be banned, there is no way Coalition Victory would be.
As for over centralizing the game, see any combo ever. Do you have an answer? Cool, keep playing. No? Let's go to game two. PoK and Prime Time also have a high chance of "accidentally" ruining the game. Even if you're doing presumably fair things with them, everyone else can just take them and do less fair things with them. I've personally watched a game going fine with a PoK in play until someone cloned it and proceeded to go off. I have this sneaking suspicion that's not really a concern with CV. What, are you going to Reins of Power their general then Aethersnatch the CV? Honestly I wouldn't even be upset, I'd be impressed.
Wait, are you arguing that CV is too powerful in a format in which I can Flash-Hulk? Or cast Doomsday? Or Entomb-Exhume? Or just playing Sol Ring T1? And Hulk actually got unbanned! As in, it didn't just fall through the cracks somehow. The RC made a conscious choice to add that card back into the available pool, and his power is orders of magnitude higher than CV's.
Also, what is your logic for saying T&N has a higher fail-rate than CV? That's just not true.
I've already gone into this at length so I don't particularly want to dive in again. The short and sweet of it is that those are the cards that should be scrutinized more closely not the other way around, because those are the cards that are hardest to identify as causing problems.
First, you keep saying CV is an upgrade for existing combo decks. It's not. It's probably plan C or D. It's significantly worse than most other combos already, and if you're in 5-colors you have literally every better option available to you. In no way is CV an upgrade.
Second, that's not really for us to decide. If the Timmy's group is fine with it, great he's got a cool finisher. If they're not, it's an easy 1 card swap. This just comes down to communication between the players.
At this point, we're arguing in circles. There is no point in further engaging with someone who ignores important parts of an argument in order to continually argue the same point. You missed half my argument in the Sol Ring example, and half my argument in comparing it to T&N. As I, and others, have made it several times already, and you persist in ignoring it, I have to conclude that you are either being willfully obtuse or, if you don't understand it somehow, no further explanation will help you. I'm checking out of this thread.
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!
The biggest point is that each of those cards, whether you like it or not, do have more casual applications to various degrees. This especially goes for the first 4 cards in your example. None of them actually win the game on their own, they require a bit more than just "Play your lands and your general like you are likely to do each game you play anyway".
You have to keep in mind the target audience for the game. Hermit Druid, another card you touched upon, isn't banned because unless you're running the very specific build that causes early KO's, it's not really a great card. Like sure there's a few archetypes that'll like having him, but you get where I'm going there.
This also goes for Doomsday and Ad Nauseam. Neither are cards that an average mid-power EDH player is going to look at and be like "I'm going to stuff this in my deck for *****s and giggles" and then oops accidentally the game is broken. They require specific builds. Ad Nauseam is in my Edgar Markov deck where it generally reads 3BB: Draw 7 cards, lose 6 life or something in that general area. Is that broken? Strong, for sure.
Now the other cards you're prone to point at do have casual applications that translate to other things than "Win the game on the spot". While I do think Omniscience and Enter the Infinite are hilariously poor design (they stem from an era I like to call "WOTC throwing ***** at commander and see what sticks while injecting a lot of bad stuff into the format" which stretches from roughly the release of the first commander set to Theros) both do give the potentional for fun and interesting interactions depending on the playgroup. This goes for just about every other card you've listed as well.
And it's a fact - one that you cannot argue - that Coalition Victory can do anything else other than "Win the game or bust". All those other cards can. And therein lies the difference.
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.
Whoever said this is wrong
I see you all forgot about approach of the second sun you just cast it twice for the win.
As a matter of fact not to mention it's secretly has "can't be countered" because it's a cast trigger just like the eldrazis have
Except you need to cast that one twice, which is quite a difference.
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.
Except if it’s countered the first time, it goes to the grave and not into the library making it that much harder to pull off. Even still, it’s telegraphed and doesn’t require an instant-speed response to deal with it.
Not even in the same ball park.
Do you think this card would need to be banned?
So basically now you can only hope it either gets countered or you can destroy 1-x lands in hopes that the land type condition can't be met.
Are you serious? Lol.
Searching for Victory 5GGG
Sorcery
Search your library for up to one creature card, put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library.
You win the game if you control a land of each basic land type and a creature of each color.
With this example, we now run into the issue of players wanting to use the card in mono-green decks as sort of a half Tooth and Nail and not as a game ending combo card. In addition, there's also the potential for green/X decks to do interesting things with the card in combination with things like Prismatic Omen and Swirling Spriggan. In any case, I think it's important to look at how cards are actually played rather than how cards can potentially be played. Virtually every card can be played fairly, even something like Coalition Victory. That's why it's not all that important whether or not cards can be played fairly. What matters is whether or not the player base at large will actually play their cards in that manner.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Coalition Victory...I feel like the justification for banning it is more along the lines of non-interactive game play that being sufficiently broken. It is, ultimately, a reasonably underwhelming way to win, regardless of whether it happens T4 or T12.
Explain this. How does a card that only does one thing, get played fairly?Of all the things to discuss about CV, this is something that can’t even be disputed! My god, this is just freaking ridiculous at this point.
You know you don’t have a rational argument when you begin creating cards that will never be printed to justify said argument.
For the love of god, somebody please lock this thread.
Thus, my point: it doesn't particularly matter whether or not cards can be played fairly. What matters is whether players will actually play those cards fairly in practice. In the case of Coalition Victory, I believe players won't.
This is insulting.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Do you take everything personal? Don’t insult the intelligence of other with outlandish hypotheticals, and then go on to say:
That’s insulting. Beyond that, it’s a waste of time. Hate to break it to ya, but sometimes, the truth hurts. This whole time, all of the arguments from myself, Lou, Onering, etc. have been rooted in facts. Meanwhile, Impossible, and to a lesser extent, you, have just dismissed all of those points and base your arguments off of biased opinions and hypotheticals. Now, there is absolutely no discussion to be had.
Seriously? I've dismissed all of these arguments? Frankly, I think you have no idea where I stand on Coalition Victory. From my perspective, it's very much evident you haven't been paying attention to anything I've been saying thus far. You've only just dismissed what I've had to say outright because discrediting me to save face is easier for you than acknowledging you said something earlier that you genuinely shouldn't have.
If you fail to see any value in this thread, you're perfectly able to leave it. I continue to see worth in conversing with honest interlocutors. Your comments have made it abundantly clear you do not.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
That one? Yes. The 5GGG version ArrogantAxolotl posted? That one I'd be willing to try out.
You could indeed argue your version does have fair uses, but it's still very much a card that's too linear and, well, hard NOT to break. To go back to the comparison of T&N: Let's say you're new to the game and you played a few months of standard, and now you're starting to get into EDH. You picked up some cards from friends among which T&N and Your Version Of Coalition Victory. Which of these cards do you think this new player will be able to "break" more easily? That's a comparison that does need to be looked at. Someone new playing T&N might very well just grab Worldspine Wurm and Xenagos because that's a badass play. They might even not know about the insta-win buttons at that point (Though that chance quickly diminishes the moment you start playing more).
Whereas your version spells it out perfectly for them.
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.
Honestly I think I am just fundamentally misunderstanding some part of your argument. I don't understand how you think the 5GGG version is acceptable for EDH but vanilla ol' Coalition Victory isn't.
Depending on what you mean by "break" it's almost certainly T&N. New players tend to shy away from 5-color decks because the mana base in intimidating and the sheer amount of choices they have are overwhelming. Thus T&N is probably the first one they'll cast and end up doing something particularly unfun with, like finding Terastodon+Woodfall Primus and blowing up their friend's lands. For the record, I've actually been in a game in which a relatively new player cast T&N, said "get Mike&Trike for the win" and when the other players asked her to play it out, she couldn't demonstrate a single loop. She "just knew that those two cards are a combo" somehow. Implying that T&N is somehow better because it's combos are more esoteric really doesn't fly when everyone has Google in their pocket literally all the time.
I don't know how many new players you know, but all of the ones I've met will cram their decks full of suboptimal cards to try to get a spell like Coalition Victory to work because new players typically don't understand how manabases or manacurves work, they want to play with as many colours as they can get away with, and, as has been repeatedly stressed, Coalition Victory has "you win the game" right in the text box.
You’re “example” doesn’t work for 2 reasons. It’s an 8-Mana creature tutor to battlefield, that alone means it won’t see play considering it directly competes with Green Suns Zenith, Chord of Calling, all of the sac-tutors and even Wild Pair, oh, and of course T&N. Then, you slap on the win-con, which just makes it Coalition Victory that can go into more decks. Which brings me back to my point about creating cards.
The only reason you and impossible are creating cards is because you are trying to move the line in the sand, simply because you have nothing that’s legal, or in print for that matter, to compare it to. At that point, what are we discussing? If CV was a different card and said different things it wouldn’t need to be banned?
There is value in discussing Coalition Victory. What I cannot see value in is discussing these hypotheticals. You are muddying the waters and making it near-Impossible to have a relevant discussion about the card by creating these scenarios that just have no real background to them.
It’s easy, if Commander didn’t have a Commander that was available at all times, Coalition Victory wouldn’t be banned.
I know where you stand, it’s all the way back on page one. Which is also my other point. We aren’t discussing anything that hasn’t already been discussed. The format philopshy hasn’t changed. No cards that “interact poorly with the format” have been unbanned I’d argue Leovled hit that criteria, to a degree, and was banned.(not the only reason, of course).
I look at these threads as starting points for house-rules. In this thread, there are both legitimate pros, and obviously cons, to CV. If somebody wants to run it, they absolutely can, but they have to understand that you need explain to your group why you want to and to get their blessing. Continually comparing CV to cards like T&N is a disservice to both cards, and isn’t where you should start in discussing with your group on whether they should allow you to play it.
Edit: just so we’re clear, I understand why you created that card. What I’m pointing out is that it still doesn’t outline your point very well. TLDR; nobody would play that anyways, as there are better options. If CV was legal, 5-C players would absolutely jam it.