I see your Grand Abolisher and raise you a Platinum Angel. In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here but the fact that CV (or anything else for that matter) is susceptible to already commonly played answers like spot creature removal is definitely something worth talking about. If everyone is already packing the proper answers, it is far less likely that thing will become problematic.
So according to this, we should just unban Primeval Titan, Prophet of Kruphix, Braids, Cabal Minion, Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary and Sylvan Primordial because they're all "suspectible to removal", right?
The argument "Dies to removal" holds no ground in any discussion. Being harder to remove/interact with is a strike against a card, for sure, but being easy to remove does not neccesarily make a card fair to play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
So according to this, we should just unban Primeval Titan, Prophet of Kruphix, Braids, Cabal Minion, Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary and Sylvan Primordial because they're all "suspectible to removal", right?
The argument "Dies to removal" holds no ground in any discussion. Being harder to remove/interact with is a strike against a card, for sure, but being easy to remove does not neccesarily make a card fair to play.
It physically pains me to see you use the ol' "dies to Doom Blade" argument immediately after listing two cards that are WotC's response to people complaining for years about creatures dying to Doom Blade. Prime Time and Primordial are literally the antithesis of "dies to Doom Blade". Please... that phrase does actually mean something. It's not just a catch-all answer to dismiss any creature.
Also, your second paragraph just contradicts itself within two sentences. First you say prevalence of interaction doesn't matter. Then you immediately follow it up with, and I'm paraphrasing here, "sometimes it matters, though, when things are hard to interact with". And you are right. It does matter. We all know Recurring Nightmare would be unbanned in a heartbeat if it was actually possible to interact with it.
So according to this, we should just unban Primeval Titan, Prophet of Kruphix, Braids, Cabal Minion, Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary and Sylvan Primordial because they're all "suspectible to removal", right?
The argument "Dies to removal" holds no ground in any discussion. Being harder to remove/interact with is a strike against a card, for sure, but being easy to remove does not neccesarily make a card fair to play.
It physically pains me to see you use the ol' "dies to Doom Blade" argument immediately after listing two cards that are WotC's response to people complaining for years about creatures dying to Doom Blade. Prime Time and Primordial are literally the antithesis of "dies to Doom Blade". Please... that phrase does actually mean something. It's not just a catch-all answer to dismiss any creature.
'Dies to Doom Blade' actually doesn't really mean much. Sure it's irrelevant for creatures that carry their value on ETB triggers. But in any case, using a separate card as an example of why the initial card is bad/good/banworthy is poor argumentation. We should be, at most, only discussing a card's merit in comparison to other cards of similar construct or intent. This is the most logical and rational way of assessing each card on its merits for being format legal.
So far, you've provided no such argument. This is why LouCypher is knocking the DTDB argument as irrelevant here - it might be relevant to other discussions, but DTDB plays no part in this discussion.
So according to this, we should just unban Primeval Titan, Prophet of Kruphix, Braids, Cabal Minion, Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary and Sylvan Primordial because they're all "suspectible to removal", right?
The argument "Dies to removal" holds no ground in any discussion. Being harder to remove/interact with is a strike against a card, for sure, but being easy to remove does not neccesarily make a card fair to play.
It physically pains me to see you use the ol' "dies to Doom Blade" argument immediately after listing two cards that are WotC's response to people complaining for years about creatures dying to Doom Blade. Prime Time and Primordial are literally the antithesis of "dies to Doom Blade". Please... that phrase does actually mean something. It's not just a catch-all answer to dismiss any creature.
'Dies to Doom Blade' actually doesn't really mean much. Sure it's irrelevant for creatures that carry their value on ETB triggers. But in any case, using a separate card as an example of why the initial card is bad/good/banworthy is poor argumentation. We should be, at most, only discussing a card's merit in comparison to other cards of similar construct or intent. This is the most logical and rational way of assessing each card on its merits for being format legal.
So far, you've provided no such argument. This is why LouCypher is knocking the DTDB argument as irrelevant here - it might be relevant to other discussions, but DTDB plays no part in this discussion.
The irony here, though, is that the creature you’d need to remove to fizzle Coalition Victory(aka-Your Commander)does not Die to Doomblade.
At this point, I’m in “don’t feed the trolls” mode. This individual is beyond being reasoned with, has talked back their own points, and just continues to move the line in the sand.
The irony here, though, is that the creature you’d need to remove to fizzle Coalition Victory(aka-Your Commander)does not Die to Doomblade.
At this point, I’m in “don’t feed the trolls” mode. This individual is beyond being reasoned with, has talked back their own points, and just continues to move the line in the sand.
I'm trying to have a rational debate. I won't sling mud or offend anyone, and I don't believe that's the intent of the opposing argument either. It's a good thought exercise to talk through these things and rationalise where things are and where they could be, but I feel like there really hasn't been an argument for Coalition Victory coming off the list that holds up under it's own weight. If one were provided, I would concede the point, but I'm happy leaving this argument where it is for now.
The irony here, though, is that the creature you’d need to remove to fizzle Coalition Victory(aka-Your Commander)does not Die to Doomblade.
At this point, I’m in “don’t feed the trolls” mode. This individual is beyond being reasoned with, has talked back their own points, and just continues to move the line in the sand.
I'm trying to have a rational debate. I won't sling mud or offend anyone, and I don't believe that's the intent of the opposing argument either. It's a good thought exercise to talk through these things and rationalise where things are and where they could be, but I feel like there really hasn't been an argument for Coalition Victory coming off the list that holds up under it's own weight. If one were provided, I would concede the point, but I'm happy leaving this argument where it is for now.
To each their own. My problem is that this stuff breeds. There is a lot of misinformation, refusing to acknowledge that is a sign you(not you)aren’t really up for a debate. Facts are facts, every argument both for and against should be based off of them. Is Coalition Victory worse than Tooth and Nail into Zealous Conscripts and Kiki-Jiki, Mirrorbreaker? No, probably not. But, is Coalition Victory worse than Tooth and Nail? Absolutely! If the end result is always a variable, you cannot compare it to Coalition Victory.
Yeah, I don't think it was ever really accepted that these two cannot be compared. That's probably part of why this discussion has become quite circular.
So far, you've provided no such argument. This is why LouCypher is knocking the DTDB argument as irrelevant here - it might be relevant to other discussions, but DTDB plays no part in this discussion.
It is most certainly relevant. Is it the ultimate reason for a banning/unbanning? No, but it is certainly a mitigating factor against possible abuse. If a card is difficult to interact with (hello again, Recurring Nightmare) it is more likely to be abused and/or create problematic situations.
I think the more salient point here is that you are expecting me to give a rebuttal when I honestly don't even know what the initial argument is in the first place. As far as I know, there is no official RC post explaining in detail why CV is banned. The best I found was this short explanation from 2007 when it was initially banned (and yes, I am continuing to ignore that "Tooth and Nail is weaker in EDH than regular Magic because it cannot get 2 of the same creature" nonsense from earlier in the thread):
Banning of a card continues to be based on one of three principles...
When a card's power level in multiplayer EDH is signficantly in excess of both it's mana cost AND power level in other formats (due to different rules or game sizes). [Examples include Panoptic Mirror and Biorythm]
A card's dollar cost is prohibitive for most players and the card usually detracts from the playing experience of everyone in the game [The Power 8]
A card or class of cards can not be consistantly interpreted by all players [Silver bordered cards]
Coalition Victory is a strong candidate for the first principle.. it is a single card which can suddenly end interesting games with little difficulty, due to the presence of 5 colour generals which the player is guarenteed to have access to. As such, opinion was unanimously in favour of banning it.
I guess this is the first version of "interacts poorly with the format" to which I've written numerous posts about but here's the quick and dirty again:
1) This was over 10 years ago. The format has mostly equalized to the point where cards previously thought of as too strong (see Kokopuffs, P.Hulk, Metalworker) have been unbanned to a collective shrug, more or less. To my knowledge there have been no serious calls to put those cards back on the list because at this point they're just more of the same. There are now a multitude of cards that can likewise end the game suddenly and with little difficulty. I believe CV to be just another drop in the pool, so to speak, and at this point it is just an unnecessary spot on the ban list. So, in the interest of maintaining as small a ban list as possible, CV should be removed.
2) "Interacts poorly with the format" is an absurdly nebulous phrase that can be taken to mean any dozens of things. What does this even mean!?! Literally every card is different in some way simply by virtue of the format rules. Singleton means tutors get better, 40 life means aggro gets worse, etc. That alone shouldn't be enough to ban a card. Similarly, playing a deck based around your general is literally the point of the format. Why is that a problem just for Coalition Victory?
Look, I understand that CV is easier to use in EDH because of your general, but does that fact raise it's power level to an unacceptable level as a result? I'm extremely doubtful. There are numerous cards that can combo with specific generals to end the game or at least eliminate one player (Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind + Curiosity or Kaalia of the Vast + Master of Cruelties) and even more if you include generals + multiple cards with a total combined CMC around 8 (Breya, Etherium Shaper + Eldrazi Displacer + Ashnod's Altar or Nekusar, the Mindrazer + Tainted Strike + any Wheel/Windfall effects). If the criteria is 'what can you do with 8 mana and your general?' CV falls pretty far down the list power-wise. So, in the interest of maintaining a coherent, non-arbitrary ban list, CV should be removed.
3) The "fair use" argument. Ugh. "Fair use" is always just code for "I find this acceptable but not that". Paying 3WUBRG and meeting the conditions to win the game is, by definition, a fair use because that is the card's explicit purpose. Whether you personally like that or not is entirely irrelevant. If you don't like winning that way, don't play it. If you don't like other people winning that way, either communicate what kind of games you like to play beforehand or be prepared to stop it with the plethora of options you should probably already be running. So, in the interest of allowing the players who DO enjoy these kinds of games to use CV, CV should be removed.
Yeah, I don't think it was ever really accepted that these two cannot be compared. That's probably part of why this discussion has become quite circular.
You are correct. I do not understand how you (plural) fail to see the obvious comparisons. I can't really explain this any better, so I would like to give an example. Imagine you're at a table with a player you don't know, and their plays consist of the following:
For you, as this player's opponent, is there anything fundamentally different about those situations? Could they have gotten different cards off of T&N or PHulk? Sure. But they didn't. They ended the game. So what are you supposed to do about it? What is your recourse in this situation?
The correct answer here isn't to overreact and complain that these cards should be banned. The correct answer is to either explain to this new player that those aren't the kind of games you/your group likes and ask them to swap out the respective cards/change decks entirely, or you yourself switch to a deck better suited to play those kinds of games. You know, basically the same answers that apply to literally everything you consider an "unfair use". So yes, when I see 3 different cards -- when cast with nothing but lands and their general in play, mind you -- have the exact same effect on a game, I fail to see how these cards "cannot be compared".
This is the absolute last time I’m replying to you. This is honestly a waste of my time, but I’m taking one last shot in the dark.
In all honesty, I skimmed your post above. It says the same things you’ve said across every other page. The only part I care about is the part where you dead wrong.
Pay attention, this is important. WHERE ON TOOTH AND NAIL DOES IT SAY YOU HAVE TO GRAB A GAME-ENDING, INFINITE COMBO?Nowhere.
You have a choice on how the card resolves. It 100% does not have to end the game. In all actuality, if you are playing Tooth and Nail that way, you aren’t the target audience. My quote from Sheldon on the last page(that you ignored) proves as much.
Therefore, your “scenario” is irrelevant. It isn’t reflective of how the RC wants games of EDH to unfold.
I mean, possibly, I may see now where you are coming from now, but what you are describing is not a “normal” game of EDH. It’s not the types of games that influence the RC, one way or another.
Banning of a card continues to be based on one of three principles...
* When a card's power level in multiplayer EDH is signficantly in excess of both it's mana cost AND power level in other formats (due to different rules or game sizes). [Examples include Panoptic Mirror and Biorythm]
* A card's dollar cost is prohibitive for most players and the card usually detracts from the playing experience of everyone in the game [The Power 8]
* A card or class of cards can not be consistantly interpreted by all players [Silver bordered cards]
Coalition Victory is a strong candidate for the first principle.. it is a single card which can suddenly end interesting games with little difficulty, due to the presence of 5 colour generals which the player is guarenteed to have access to. As such, opinion was unanimously in favour of banning it.
This is cut and dried to me.
As far as modern interpretations of these criterion and how CV fits in, its still clearly the strongest 'win the game' card, and I think there's every justification for it to stay banned, if for no other reason than to prevent it being a staple 5C card. It would be, to say otherwise is to give people more credit than deserved.
That being said, your comments about social interaction in the game are accurate. Every player has the right to object to unsavoury games or metas. To my mind, the RC is all in favour of this happening. I think keeping CV on the list is an effort to make sure that it doesn't become a staple in the decks that CAN play it, as it's particularly non-interactive, and an effort to guide the game into a more interactive, social play style. That is what EDH is designed for.
Tell you what, though; the next time Sheldon does a Q&A, I will personally submit a question about Coalition Victorys state of legality in present day Magic, and make sure the answer gets back to this thread. That'll solve any confusion as to where the RC stands on the issue.
Pay attention, this is important. WHERE ON TOOTH AND NAIL DOES IT SAY YOU HAVE TO GRAB A GAME-ENDING, INFINITE COMBO?Nowhere.
Le sigh. This again. I know you hate imagination, but bear with me for a moment: what happens when you're NOT the one casting the spell? You are NOTalways personally responsible for which cards are fetched off of T&N. If someone else casts the spell against you, they get to make the decisions, and lets imagine they decide to end the game with Kiki-Conscripts. From your perspective, as their opponent with no prior knowledge of their deck's contents, how do you feel at that exact moment? Any different than if they had cast CV?
Like, honestly man, I'm almost positive you're trolling me (you basically admitted as much earlier) but come on. Stop assuming you are ALWAYS the one making the deck-building decisions about how to use these cards. Look at the end result when you no longer have the ability to make the decisions. Tell me with a straight face, based on the outcome when cast against you with someone else making the choices, that there are no similarities between T&N, CV, and P.Hulk.
That being said, your comments about social interaction in the game are accurate. Every player has the right to object to unsavoury games or metas. To my mind, the RC is all in favour of this happening. I think keeping CV on the list is an effort to make sure that it doesn't become a staple in the decks that CAN play it, as it's particularly non-interactive, and an effort to guide the game into a more interactive, social play style. That is what EDH is designed for.
Tell you what, though; the next time Sheldon does a Q&A, I will personally submit a question about Coalition Victorys state of legality in present day Magic, and make sure the answer gets back to this thread. That'll solve any confusion as to where the RC stands on the issue.
That is the supposed goal of the ban list. But it's also simply not feasible. The RC might see it as banning an exemplar so that everyone can see the types of cards not to play, but what it actually means is that anything not on the ban list is fair game. Tinker is a no-go but Natural Order is a-okay. Etc. Basically, the RC needs to move further in either direction: either ban assuming people are going to naturally try and break the format and clamp down on the more broken things (which will result in a fairly large ban list) or loosen up on the bans by taking off all but the very worse offenders (mainly the Perceived Barrier to Entry ones and the insidiously unfun cards like Prime Time and PoK that 'accidentally' ruin games) and assume people are self-regulating in accordance to the social contract. Right now the list is kind of in limbo when the dividing line between what is banned and what isn't basically amounts to personal whim and how stringently they feel like applying the criteria.
That is the supposed goal of the ban list. But it's also simply not feasible. The RC might see it as banning an exemplar so that everyone can see the types of cards not to play, but what it actually means is that anything not on the ban list is fair game. Tinker is a no-go but Natural Order is a-okay. Etc. Basically, the RC needs to move further in either direction: either ban assuming people are going to naturally try and break the format and clamp down on the more broken things (which will result in a fairly large ban list) or loosen up on the bans by taking off all but the very worse offenders (mainly the Perceived Barrier to Entry ones and the insidiously unfun cards like Prime Time and PoK that 'accidentally' ruin games) and assume people are self-regulating in accordance to the social contract. Right now the list is kind of in limbo when the dividing line between what is banned and what isn't basically amounts to personal whim and how stringently they feel like applying the criteria.
Also that would be nice. Thanks.
Happy to help.
I get this too. I think the RC is mostly happy with where EDH is at present, and is generally of the opinion that too much meddling leads to dramtic changes, unhappiness, and not a good atmosphere. So I think, while I can appreciate the stance you're taking, it's important to realize that any stance they take regarding a particular card, they need to be able to back up to the hilt, as no one wants a ban list a mile long. Slippery slopes are debates to have, and really tough presumptions to deny. I don't think there's a huge amount of people out there who would miss the 'win the game' cards if they were to be associated with CV in this way, but there's still some decent interactions there (Barren Glory is my fave) that crazy jank decks would miss out on. And variety is to be celebrated in a game like this.
Pay attention, this is important. WHERE ON TOOTH AND NAIL DOES IT SAY YOU HAVE TO GRAB A GAME-ENDING, INFINITE COMBO?Nowhere.
Le sigh. This again. I know you hate imagination, but bear with me for a moment: what happens when you're NOT the one casting the spell? You are NOTalways personally responsible for which cards are fetched off of T&N. If someone else casts the spell against you, they get to make the decisions, and lets imagine they decide to end the game with Kiki-Conscripts. From your perspective, as their opponent with no prior knowledge of their deck's contents, how do you feel at that exact moment? Any different than if they had cast CV?
Like, honestly man, I'm almost positive you're trolling me (you basically admitted as much earlier) but come on. Stop assuming you are ALWAYS the one making the deck-building decisions about how to use these cards. Look at the end result when you no longer have the ability to make the decisions. Tell me with a straight face, based on the outcome when cast against you with someone else making the choices, that there are no similarities between T&N, CV, and P.Hulk.
That being said, your comments about social interaction in the game are accurate. Every player has the right to object to unsavoury games or metas. To my mind, the RC is all in favour of this happening. I think keeping CV on the list is an effort to make sure that it doesn't become a staple in the decks that CAN play it, as it's particularly non-interactive, and an effort to guide the game into a more interactive, social play style. That is what EDH is designed for.
Tell you what, though; the next time Sheldon does a Q&A, I will personally submit a question about Coalition Victorys state of legality in present day Magic, and make sure the answer gets back to this thread. That'll solve any confusion as to where the RC stands on the issue.
That is the supposed goal of the ban list. But it's also simply not feasible. The RC might see it as banning an exemplar so that everyone can see the types of cards not to play, but what it actually means is that anything not on the ban list is fair game. Tinker is a no-go but Natural Order is a-okay. Etc. Basically, the RC needs to move further in either direction: either ban assuming people are going to naturally try and break the format and clamp down on the more broken things (which will result in a fairly large ban list) or loosen up on the bans by taking off all but the very worse offenders (mainly the Perceived Barrier to Entry ones and the insidiously unfun cards like Prime Time and PoK that 'accidentally' ruin games) and assume people are self-regulating in accordance to the social contract. Right now the list is kind of in limbo when the dividing line between what is banned and what isn't basically amounts to personal whim and how stringently they feel like applying the criteria.
Also that would be nice. Thanks.
Straight face. There are none. I don’t play with those people. That’s not the goal of the games we play. It’s boring. It’s a social format, why erode it with plays like that? This is example A. as to why I have continually said you are ignoring everything said, instead, fishing for a reply. I’ve clearly answered this numerous times that it’s almost insulting that you’d have to ask.
Believe it or not, you actually do dictate what shows up with Tooth and Nail or Protean Hulk. If you are so adverse to the gross plays those cards can create, either A. Ask those players not to do that, or B. Don’t play with them. Now, this is where I really lose you in all of this. Either you don’t like those types of gross plays, in which case, why would you want to unban a card that does gross things? Or, you don’t have a problem with those cards, and I’ll just redirect you back to the point that EDH isn’t about that life, so unbanning a card that only does that a little unrealistic.
Your suggestion is extreme. So either the bare minimum, or endless? That will never happen. I never understand the “shorter banlist”, but that’s a debate for another thread.
I’ll highlight the problems with both briefly.
Bare Minimum- The format would probably die. Honestly. There would be no real difference between it, and 60-Card Casual. Everybody would be doing broken things with access to the eternal pool. It would be a worse 1v1 EDH, and that’s great, for 1V1... I know Sheldon did a hypothetical 10(?) card banned list, and some of the cards that could possibly be left off just made me cringe.
“Ban it All”- it would never end. You know this is a multi-player format, right? As the list stands now, we still have quite a few house rules in place for most of my groups, cause, ya know, different strokes for different folks. I would never expect the EDH playerbase as a whole to all be ok with them, which is what going to the extreme is trying to accomplish.
Above all else, the format is a social one. Having a discussion with those you intend to play with is just as much part of the game as choosing a Commander. While true that groups exist where the above plays are acceptable, or even encouraged, there are many, many more that do not play like that. Like it or not, Tooth and Nail does fair things that don’t end the game. This is a fact. If you have people who abuse it, then inform them of this fact. You’ll either never have those problems with those cards again. Or, if the reply is “get gud”, well, that’s a people problem, and those people tend to suck. Unlike most of the playerbase.
Above all else, the format is a social one. Having a discussion with those you intend to play with is just as much part of the game as choosing a Commander.
Ugh, this actually bothers me. Really? How often do you sit down at a table and discuss the contents of your deck with your opponents? Hell, I don’t even do that when I’m playing 60-card Casual. It was just a really, really stupid comment, and yeah, I trolled her[Impossible](and you[arrogantAxolotl]). It is a game, after all. When you’re playing backyard football, do you tell your friends who you’re going to throw the ball too? Pretty sure it’s called “gamesmanship”.
I think I'm gonna go lie down for awhile. I'll come back and make a full response when my head stops hurting.
Public Mod Note
(Airithne):
Warning for trolling/flaming.
Tell you what, though; the next time Sheldon does a Q&A, I will personally submit a question about Coalition Victorys state of legality in present day Magic, and make sure the answer gets back to this thread. That'll solve any confusion as to where the RC stands on the issue.
Don’t bother, you don’t get it, and clearly never will.
This is going no where.
Maybe put the whole quote up.
Why should I trust what anybody has to say, ever? If you play with the same people all the time, then sure, take them at their word. However, I’d never expect a stranger to give me the low-down on his deck tech. So, to your point, if you can trust said individual, then you can probably propose to them that CV can be allowed via house rules. Problem.Solved.
I have no idea how this correlates to what I said above. This quote is in reference to somebody asking about a particular card. Which I’ll stand by, I won’t tell anybody what’s in my deck. However, if I sit down at a table or random people, I will, or the others, will ask about the types of games they like/dislike. Combo/Stax/control/aggro. None of that requires you to tell the other players what you are running.
I used a backyard football analogy as well. This would be considered “scouting”, see what your up against. Whereas, and I said this earlier, giving away information on specific cards is like telling your opponent the plays you’re going to run.
The argument "Dies to removal" holds no ground in any discussion. Being harder to remove/interact with is a strike against a card, for sure, but being easy to remove does not neccesarily make a card fair to play.
Also, your second paragraph just contradicts itself within two sentences. First you say prevalence of interaction doesn't matter. Then you immediately follow it up with, and I'm paraphrasing here, "sometimes it matters, though, when things are hard to interact with".
Lou didn't say "dies to removal doesn't matter, except sometimes it does". If you want to be reductionist about his post, it was "Dies to removal doesn't matter. Doesn't die to removal does matter."
Tell you what, though; the next time Sheldon does a Q&A, I will personally submit a question about Coalition Victorys state of legality in present day Magic, and make sure the answer gets back to this thread. That'll solve any confusion as to where the RC stands on the issue.
Tell you what, though; the next time Sheldon does a Q&A, I will personally submit a question about Coalition Victorys state of legality in present day Magic, and make sure the answer gets back to this thread. That'll solve any confusion as to where the RC stands on the issue.
I'm not 100% on whether it should be unbanned or not, but for me there are two things to consider:
1) Every 5-colour Commander deck (nor nearly) is going to play this card and every time you sit down against a 5-colour Commander, you are going to have to keep track of how close they are to getting that card into play.
2) One of the best ways to combat the card is land destruction. There are ways to protect a creature from removal, but if you always destroy one of two of their land types all the time (not access to those colours, but just to Mountains and Plains, for example), then who cares what they do with their creature.
Once you get into the late game with a 5-colour deck, you simply won't be able to let them keep their commander on the table, ever, because Coalition Victory could just resolve and end the game right there. While you have a similar risk with Tooth and Nail and similar cards, there is little pro-active you can do about it until they try to go for the combo. By comparison, with Coalition Victory, there is plenty you can do throughout the game: you keep going after their commander and specific lands.
While you can try to say the same thing about a green deck featuring a Tooth and Nail combo, they are trying to get to nine mana, and there are plenty of ways to get there, so losing one land or another or an artifact along the way doesn't matter to them as much. Coalition Victory requires more specific combo pieces so it is easier to disrupt and because of the consequences of not disrupting them (you lose), it might encourage people to disrupt them.
One reason cards are banned is because they can have a centralizing effect. The game becomes all about that card. This was demonstrated with Sylvan Primordial and Primeval Titan. I could see something similar with Coalition Victory.
I think the big reasoning behind this card remaining banned is that it is the ONLY card in the game that flat out wins upon resolving. I don't have much of an opinion on whether or not this is fully justifiable, but I can see how this would be viewed as a worrisome card by the RC since it is unique in this way.
1) Every 5-colour Commander deck (nor nearly) is going to play this card and every time you sit down against a 5-colour Commander, you are going to have to keep track of how close they are to getting that card into play.
I just don't think this is true. A very large part of the EDH community dislikes combo, so this is going to trigger those some spidey senses for many of them. I think this is a non-factor
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
It should be noted that there are other ways than removing stuff to disrupt this plan
I realize these are extreme corner cases but for completeness you can stop a Coalition Victory with a Crimson Wisps or cards like it, also cards like Blood MoonMagus of the Moon work if the person is using non-basics to achieve their land goals.
(What I am really saying is that Painter's Servant would be a nice counter to CV when they both become unbanned )
Kevin Tran asks, "Will there be a continuous move to unban cards as the format demonstrates positive health consistently? Any considerations to unban Coalition Victory?"
We tend to be conservative when evaluating cards for both banning and unbanning. There is value in format stability, which does provide some incentive to seek reasons to make a change rather than doing so for change's sake.
Coalition Victory doesn't interact well with the format rules. The card essentially reads "do what you normally do over the course of a Commander game. At some point, win unless someone has an instant-speed response" without requiring you to throw in combo pieces or anything. That's not healthy for anyone in casual play. People who are facing a five-color deck have to constantly evaluate whether they can do anything other than deal with a potentially upcoming Coalition Victory. People running five-color decks find themselves unable to keep a commander (or worse, lands) because they might be running Coalition Victory. That's not a great place to be, and I'm not seeing any fun upsides to the card that might balance it out.
So according to this, we should just unban Primeval Titan, Prophet of Kruphix, Braids, Cabal Minion, Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary and Sylvan Primordial because they're all "suspectible to removal", right?
The argument "Dies to removal" holds no ground in any discussion. Being harder to remove/interact with is a strike against a card, for sure, but being easy to remove does not neccesarily make a card fair to play.
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.
Also, your second paragraph just contradicts itself within two sentences. First you say prevalence of interaction doesn't matter. Then you immediately follow it up with, and I'm paraphrasing here, "sometimes it matters, though, when things are hard to interact with". And you are right. It does matter. We all know Recurring Nightmare would be unbanned in a heartbeat if it was actually possible to interact with it.
So far, you've provided no such argument. This is why LouCypher is knocking the DTDB argument as irrelevant here - it might be relevant to other discussions, but DTDB plays no part in this discussion.
The irony here, though, is that the creature you’d need to remove to fizzle Coalition Victory(aka-Your Commander)does not Die to Doomblade.
At this point, I’m in “don’t feed the trolls” mode. This individual is beyond being reasoned with, has talked back their own points, and just continues to move the line in the sand.
Coalition Victory isn’t coming off the list...
I'm trying to have a rational debate. I won't sling mud or offend anyone, and I don't believe that's the intent of the opposing argument either. It's a good thought exercise to talk through these things and rationalise where things are and where they could be, but I feel like there really hasn't been an argument for Coalition Victory coming off the list that holds up under it's own weight. If one were provided, I would concede the point, but I'm happy leaving this argument where it is for now.
To each their own. My problem is that this stuff breeds. There is a lot of misinformation, refusing to acknowledge that is a sign you(not you)aren’t really up for a debate. Facts are facts, every argument both for and against should be based off of them. Is Coalition Victory worse than Tooth and Nail into Zealous Conscripts and Kiki-Jiki, Mirrorbreaker? No, probably not. But, is Coalition Victory worse than Tooth and Nail? Absolutely! If the end result is always a variable, you cannot compare it to Coalition Victory.
I think the more salient point here is that you are expecting me to give a rebuttal when I honestly don't even know what the initial argument is in the first place. As far as I know, there is no official RC post explaining in detail why CV is banned. The best I found was this short explanation from 2007 when it was initially banned (and yes, I am continuing to ignore that "Tooth and Nail is weaker in EDH than regular Magic because it cannot get 2 of the same creature" nonsense from earlier in the thread): I guess this is the first version of "interacts poorly with the format" to which I've written numerous posts about but here's the quick and dirty again:
1) This was over 10 years ago. The format has mostly equalized to the point where cards previously thought of as too strong (see Kokopuffs, P.Hulk, Metalworker) have been unbanned to a collective shrug, more or less. To my knowledge there have been no serious calls to put those cards back on the list because at this point they're just more of the same. There are now a multitude of cards that can likewise end the game suddenly and with little difficulty. I believe CV to be just another drop in the pool, so to speak, and at this point it is just an unnecessary spot on the ban list. So, in the interest of maintaining as small a ban list as possible, CV should be removed.
2) "Interacts poorly with the format" is an absurdly nebulous phrase that can be taken to mean any dozens of things. What does this even mean!?! Literally every card is different in some way simply by virtue of the format rules. Singleton means tutors get better, 40 life means aggro gets worse, etc. That alone shouldn't be enough to ban a card. Similarly, playing a deck based around your general is literally the point of the format. Why is that a problem just for Coalition Victory?
Look, I understand that CV is easier to use in EDH because of your general, but does that fact raise it's power level to an unacceptable level as a result? I'm extremely doubtful. There are numerous cards that can combo with specific generals to end the game or at least eliminate one player (Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind + Curiosity or Kaalia of the Vast + Master of Cruelties) and even more if you include generals + multiple cards with a total combined CMC around 8 (Breya, Etherium Shaper + Eldrazi Displacer + Ashnod's Altar or Nekusar, the Mindrazer + Tainted Strike + any Wheel/Windfall effects). If the criteria is 'what can you do with 8 mana and your general?' CV falls pretty far down the list power-wise. So, in the interest of maintaining a coherent, non-arbitrary ban list, CV should be removed.
3) The "fair use" argument. Ugh. "Fair use" is always just code for "I find this acceptable but not that". Paying 3WUBRG and meeting the conditions to win the game is, by definition, a fair use because that is the card's explicit purpose. Whether you personally like that or not is entirely irrelevant. If you don't like winning that way, don't play it. If you don't like other people winning that way, either communicate what kind of games you like to play beforehand or be prepared to stop it with the plethora of options you should probably already be running. So, in the interest of allowing the players who DO enjoy these kinds of games to use CV, CV should be removed. You are correct. I do not understand how you (plural) fail to see the obvious comparisons. I can't really explain this any better, so I would like to give an example. Imagine you're at a table with a player you don't know, and their plays consist of the following:
vs.
The correct answer here isn't to overreact and complain that these cards should be banned. The correct answer is to either explain to this new player that those aren't the kind of games you/your group likes and ask them to swap out the respective cards/change decks entirely, or you yourself switch to a deck better suited to play those kinds of games. You know, basically the same answers that apply to literally everything you consider an "unfair use". So yes, when I see 3 different cards -- when cast with nothing but lands and their general in play, mind you -- have the exact same effect on a game, I fail to see how these cards "cannot be compared".
In all honesty, I skimmed your post above. It says the same things you’ve said across every other page. The only part I care about is the part where you dead wrong.
Pay attention, this is important. WHERE ON TOOTH AND NAIL DOES IT SAY YOU HAVE TO GRAB A GAME-ENDING, INFINITE COMBO? Nowhere.
You have a choice on how the card resolves. It 100% does not have to end the game. In all actuality, if you are playing Tooth and Nail that way, you aren’t the target audience. My quote from Sheldon on the last page(that you ignored) proves as much.
Therefore, your “scenario” is irrelevant. It isn’t reflective of how the RC wants games of EDH to unfold.
I mean, possibly, I may see now where you are coming from now, but what you are describing is not a “normal” game of EDH. It’s not the types of games that influence the RC, one way or another.
This is cut and dried to me.
As far as modern interpretations of these criterion and how CV fits in, its still clearly the strongest 'win the game' card, and I think there's every justification for it to stay banned, if for no other reason than to prevent it being a staple 5C card. It would be, to say otherwise is to give people more credit than deserved.
That being said, your comments about social interaction in the game are accurate. Every player has the right to object to unsavoury games or metas. To my mind, the RC is all in favour of this happening. I think keeping CV on the list is an effort to make sure that it doesn't become a staple in the decks that CAN play it, as it's particularly non-interactive, and an effort to guide the game into a more interactive, social play style. That is what EDH is designed for.
Tell you what, though; the next time Sheldon does a Q&A, I will personally submit a question about Coalition Victorys state of legality in present day Magic, and make sure the answer gets back to this thread. That'll solve any confusion as to where the RC stands on the issue.
Like, honestly man, I'm almost positive you're trolling me (you basically admitted as much earlier) but come on. Stop assuming you are ALWAYS the one making the deck-building decisions about how to use these cards. Look at the end result when you no longer have the ability to make the decisions. Tell me with a straight face, based on the outcome when cast against you with someone else making the choices, that there are no similarities between T&N, CV, and P.Hulk.
That is the supposed goal of the ban list. But it's also simply not feasible. The RC might see it as banning an exemplar so that everyone can see the types of cards not to play, but what it actually means is that anything not on the ban list is fair game. Tinker is a no-go but Natural Order is a-okay. Etc. Basically, the RC needs to move further in either direction: either ban assuming people are going to naturally try and break the format and clamp down on the more broken things (which will result in a fairly large ban list) or loosen up on the bans by taking off all but the very worse offenders (mainly the Perceived Barrier to Entry ones and the insidiously unfun cards like Prime Time and PoK that 'accidentally' ruin games) and assume people are self-regulating in accordance to the social contract. Right now the list is kind of in limbo when the dividing line between what is banned and what isn't basically amounts to personal whim and how stringently they feel like applying the criteria.
Also that would be nice. Thanks.
Happy to help.
I get this too. I think the RC is mostly happy with where EDH is at present, and is generally of the opinion that too much meddling leads to dramtic changes, unhappiness, and not a good atmosphere. So I think, while I can appreciate the stance you're taking, it's important to realize that any stance they take regarding a particular card, they need to be able to back up to the hilt, as no one wants a ban list a mile long. Slippery slopes are debates to have, and really tough presumptions to deny. I don't think there's a huge amount of people out there who would miss the 'win the game' cards if they were to be associated with CV in this way, but there's still some decent interactions there (Barren Glory is my fave) that crazy jank decks would miss out on. And variety is to be celebrated in a game like this.
Straight face. There are none. I don’t play with those people. That’s not the goal of the games we play. It’s boring. It’s a social format, why erode it with plays like that? This is example A. as to why I have continually said you are ignoring everything said, instead, fishing for a reply. I’ve clearly answered this numerous times that it’s almost insulting that you’d have to ask.
Believe it or not, you actually do dictate what shows up with Tooth and Nail or Protean Hulk. If you are so adverse to the gross plays those cards can create, either A. Ask those players not to do that, or B. Don’t play with them. Now, this is where I really lose you in all of this. Either you don’t like those types of gross plays, in which case, why would you want to unban a card that does gross things? Or, you don’t have a problem with those cards, and I’ll just redirect you back to the point that EDH isn’t about that life, so unbanning a card that only does that a little unrealistic.
Your suggestion is extreme. So either the bare minimum, or endless? That will never happen. I never understand the “shorter banlist”, but that’s a debate for another thread.
I’ll highlight the problems with both briefly.
Bare Minimum- The format would probably die. Honestly. There would be no real difference between it, and 60-Card Casual. Everybody would be doing broken things with access to the eternal pool. It would be a worse 1v1 EDH, and that’s great, for 1V1... I know Sheldon did a hypothetical 10(?) card banned list, and some of the cards that could possibly be left off just made me cringe.
“Ban it All”- it would never end. You know this is a multi-player format, right? As the list stands now, we still have quite a few house rules in place for most of my groups, cause, ya know, different strokes for different folks. I would never expect the EDH playerbase as a whole to all be ok with them, which is what going to the extreme is trying to accomplish.
Above all else, the format is a social one. Having a discussion with those you intend to play with is just as much part of the game as choosing a Commander. While true that groups exist where the above plays are acceptable, or even encouraged, there are many, many more that do not play like that. Like it or not, Tooth and Nail does fair things that don’t end the game. This is a fact. If you have people who abuse it, then inform them of this fact. You’ll either never have those problems with those cards again. Or, if the reply is “get gud”, well, that’s a people problem, and those people tend to suck. Unlike most of the playerbase.
Here you go http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=18799
This is going no where.
Maybe put the whole quote up.
I have no idea how this correlates to what I said above. This quote is in reference to somebody asking about a particular card. Which I’ll stand by, I won’t tell anybody what’s in my deck. However, if I sit down at a table or random people, I will, or the others, will ask about the types of games they like/dislike. Combo/Stax/control/aggro. None of that requires you to tell the other players what you are running.
I used a backyard football analogy as well. This would be considered “scouting”, see what your up against. Whereas, and I said this earlier, giving away information on specific cards is like telling your opponent the plays you’re going to run.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Yeah, this round already closed unfortunately.
Well now you can ask papa_funk....
1) Every 5-colour Commander deck (nor nearly) is going to play this card and every time you sit down against a 5-colour Commander, you are going to have to keep track of how close they are to getting that card into play.
2) One of the best ways to combat the card is land destruction. There are ways to protect a creature from removal, but if you always destroy one of two of their land types all the time (not access to those colours, but just to Mountains and Plains, for example), then who cares what they do with their creature.
Once you get into the late game with a 5-colour deck, you simply won't be able to let them keep their commander on the table, ever, because Coalition Victory could just resolve and end the game right there. While you have a similar risk with Tooth and Nail and similar cards, there is little pro-active you can do about it until they try to go for the combo. By comparison, with Coalition Victory, there is plenty you can do throughout the game: you keep going after their commander and specific lands.
While you can try to say the same thing about a green deck featuring a Tooth and Nail combo, they are trying to get to nine mana, and there are plenty of ways to get there, so losing one land or another or an artifact along the way doesn't matter to them as much. Coalition Victory requires more specific combo pieces so it is easier to disrupt and because of the consequences of not disrupting them (you lose), it might encourage people to disrupt them.
One reason cards are banned is because they can have a centralizing effect. The game becomes all about that card. This was demonstrated with Sylvan Primordial and Primeval Titan. I could see something similar with Coalition Victory.
I realize these are extreme corner cases but for completeness you can stop a Coalition Victory with a Crimson Wisps or cards like it, also cards like Blood Moon Magus of the Moon work if the person is using non-basics to achieve their land goals.
(What I am really saying is that Painter's Servant would be a nice counter to CV when they both become unbanned )
Kevin Tran asks, "Will there be a continuous move to unban cards as the format demonstrates positive health consistently? Any considerations to unban Coalition Victory?"
We tend to be conservative when evaluating cards for both banning and unbanning. There is value in format stability, which does provide some incentive to seek reasons to make a change rather than doing so for change's sake.
Coalition Victory doesn't interact well with the format rules. The card essentially reads "do what you normally do over the course of a Commander game. At some point, win unless someone has an instant-speed response" without requiring you to throw in combo pieces or anything. That's not healthy for anyone in casual play. People who are facing a five-color deck have to constantly evaluate whether they can do anything other than deal with a potentially upcoming Coalition Victory. People running five-color decks find themselves unable to keep a commander (or worse, lands) because they might be running Coalition Victory. That's not a great place to be, and I'm not seeing any fun upsides to the card that might balance it out.