Ahahaha, sorry, this so not true. If that was even the slightest bit true, why did they go out of there way to create multiple threads across multiple forums for questions to be asked of them, and then take time to publish an article answering the “peasants” questions? My god, this is asinine.
Nobody arguing repeatedly on a forum has caused us to change our minds, but sometimes someone will come up with a nugget we haven't considered that'll germinate an idea.
I've argued my position. The RC has (unsatisfactorily) responded. That's that.
I think you forgot something
I keep an ear to the ground on several internet sites, such as MtgCommander, MtgSalvation, various Facebook groups, and pay attention to some of the well-known podcasts. We all used to be on Reddit a fair bit, but Reddit's collective tendency to lose their minds over any change (or even rumor of a change) made the value of being there very low and the unpleasantness factor high. After the insane freakout over the tuck rule change, we sort of shrugged our shoulders and moved on. I lurk there occasionally.
The internet is usually great at surfacing potential problems, and we do rely on it for that. It's not so great at figuring out whether something is actually a problem (since internet posters are not terribly representative of the average Commander player) or what a reasonable solution might be. Nobody arguing repeatedly on a forum has caused us to change our minds, but sometimes someone will come up with a nugget we haven't considered that'll germinate an idea.
Emphasis, the actual beef of that reply. Like for real?
Cherry picking at its finest! It’s even a statement that doesn’t support your argument at all. “The RC doesn’t listen”- directs users to article stating that the RC does, in fact, listen.
Man, did this thread ever get sour again really quick.
I get that it's an unsatisfactory answer for some. However:
The equating to combo wins is a false comparison, as they're combos. Combinations of cards. CV is 1. Not the same, and in my experience the more cards involved in a combo the more socially acceptable. A one card combo is not a combo, it's a win-con with very few ways to answer.
As far 'the RC doesn't listen', well that's a closed minded way of looking at it. Stating cards that have come off the banlist only illustrates that things can change, and that none of the places on that list are above consideration for releasing to play. This, in fact, indicates that the RC are capable of rethinking decisions, evolving over time, and working in the best interests of the majority of the community.
Any further discussion at this point will carry on without me. I've said my piece, tried to stay non-inflammatory, and have tried my best not to throw salt anyone's way. And I honored my promise to bring the issue up with the officials for a clearer answer. If that isn't accepted, I'm out. Feel free to continue slinging mud back and forth if you see the need to, because that's all this really is at this point. This issue is a dead horse, so I'm not going to flog it any further.
The problem I have with the blanket way people talk about that card and the ban list in general is illustrated well right there.
You seem to have built in your head a conception about this boogeyman of a card that will only ever be in every single deck that plays five colors or in none them and are falling into the same traps about reality and not that you accuse others of.
Why isn't every white deck in Commander running Approach of the Second Sun if we are going to play on theoretical nonsense parameters of how people build magic decks.
Or the idea that a game ending at the resolution of an 8 mana spell is a negating effect on the rest of the game of magic to that point is an weird way of looking at a multiplayer game played in a social setting.
If you think that approach of the second sun and CV are even remotely comparable, then you really, truly don't know what you are talking about.
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!
Honestly, this thread had become a crap show. The question has been answered by the RC. People can disagree, but its childish to pretend like the RC didn't address the issue in a way that is consistent with their stated policy and other bannings. You don't like those criteria, fine, start a thread about how it should change, again that would be an interesting conversation that might actually get people thinking. Continuing this thread, however is just pissing in the wind at this point, so I'm out, and requesting a lock.
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!
The equating to combo wins is a false comparison, as they're combos. Combinations of cards. CV is 1. Not the same, and in my experience the more cards involved in a combo the more socially acceptable. A one card combo is not a combo, it's a win-con with very few ways to answer.
This is factually inaccurate. It requires at a minimum 5 color creature and lands of each basic type. You can argue that very easy, and be accurate. But to call it one card isn't. There are unbanned cards that requires less setup, and plenty that go infinite with just a Commander out.
When combo was 'soft banned' (Koko and Hulk out etc), sure it made sense on the list. Now its just another combo that wins, or instant removal makes useless.
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.
The equating to combo wins is a false comparison, as they're combos. Combinations of cards. CV is 1. Not the same, and in my experience the more cards involved in a combo the more socially acceptable. A one card combo is not a combo, it's a win-con with very few ways to answer.
This is factually inaccurate. It requires at a minimum 5 color creature and lands of each basic type. You can argue that very easy, and be accurate. But to call it one card isn't. There are unbanned cards that requires less setup, and plenty that go infinite with just a Commander out.
When combo was 'soft banned' (Koko and Hulk out etc), sure it made sense on the list. Now its just another combo that wins, or instant removal makes useless.
Not a convincing argument. Play your commander, win. That's the strategy with CV.
Not a convincing argument. Play your commander, win. That's the strategy with CV.
It requiring more than one card isn't an argument, it is a statement of fact.
EDIT: I agree its a boring strat, and that could be a strat for 5C decks. There are dedicated combo decks that all they try to do is assemble a combo as quickly as possible its generally frowned on. This would fall into that same trap, but this isnt going to be some magic bullet non-combo people jam into 5C decks to win out of nowhere.
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.
Not a convincing argument. Play your commander, win. That's the strategy with CV.
It requiring more than one card isn't an argument, it is a statement of fact.
EDIT: I agree its a boring strat, and that could be a strat for 5C decks. There are dedicated combo decks that all they try to do is assemble a combo as quickly as possible its generally frowned on. This would fall into that same trap, but this isnt going to be some magic bullet non-combo people jam into 5C decks to win out of nowhere.
It totally could be though - it adds nothing to a deck other than a win from nowhere. What I got from the article is that the cons outweigh the pros of inclusion, and in that respect I agree, personally. There's no fun to it, no challenge, it's just a fire alarm. Break the glass, hit the switch, game over.
Either way, I respect your opinion, but mines been stated too and I'm off this merry go round at this point.
It totally could be though - it adds nothing to a deck other than a win from nowhere. What I got from the article is that the cons outweigh the pros of inclusion, and in that respect I agree, personally. There's no fun to it, no challenge, it's just a fire alarm. Break the glass, hit the switch, game over.
I agree, it could. And I can see why the cons would outweigh the pros. But thats true of any combo. But saying its one card just is not true, and that was what I responded to.
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.
The equating to combo wins is a false comparison, as they're combos. Combinations of cards. CV is 1. Not the same, and in my experience the more cards involved in a combo the more socially acceptable. A one card combo is not a combo, it's a win-con with very few ways to answer.
This is factually inaccurate. It requires at a minimum 5 color creature and lands of each basic type. You can argue that very easy, and be accurate. But to call it one card isn't. There are unbanned cards that requires less setup, and plenty that go infinite with just a Commander out.
In terms of MtG, Coalition Victory is a multi-card combo, yes. However, and this is also my stance on why it should remain on the list, in EDH it is not. It requires one card, a card you 100% always have access too, and lands. Lands that you’d be running to cast said creature, regardless. The combo is created by virtue of the deck-building process. Now, where you are incorrect is that last bit. There is not another combo that ends the game with one card and it’s Commander, well, until Helm of the Host and Godo, Bandit warlord, but even then, you have to move through additional phases to complete the game sealing effect. CV ends the game on either Main phase, and requires only that phase.
Just to clarify. CV in a 60-card deck is a true combo. I used to run a deck around it. It was bank, but relied on Prismastic Omen and Transguild Courier. It was a chore to optimize the land base so I could obviously win with CV, but beyond that I needed ways to get the pieces into my hand, ways to recur them, make sure my land-types were properly represented as a fall back option, etc. Those issues do not exist in EDH. In my 5c builds, I have all 5 land types represented in my mana-base a minimum of 5 times before I start bumping numbers to match my curve. In my causal deck, it’s was more like 2-3, and even then, I’d go multiple games without seeing a particular type. Same goes for the creatures. You cannot discount how much of an advantage it is to have your Creature requirement always available to you. They can blow it up as many times as they want, sooner or later, they’ll run out of removal. But, yes, CV is a multi-card combo, but it’s unfair to call it that in EDH, because it most certainly is not.
When combo was 'soft banned' (Koko and Hulk out etc), sure it made sense on the list. Now its just another combo that wins, or instant removal makes useless.
Except that the RC, Sheldon to be precise, specifically stated that when Protean Hulk was unbanned, the secret was “not to break it”. That doesn’t apply here. As for KoKo, they cited the mass printing of GY hate, and they were correct. GY centric decks are not the bane they once were, and that is due to the plentiful amount of hate that’s been printed in recent years, across all colors. Nothing has changed in the format since CV has been banned that makes you feel any different about the card.
In terms of MtG, Coalition Victory is a multi-card combo, yes...Just to clarify. CV in a 60-card deck is a true combo.. but it’s unfair to call it that in EDH, because it most certainly is not.
Well we would have to agree to disagree the format changes whether or not a card is combo. We can certainly agree it is much easier in EDH, and much more resistant due to 5C commander's availability, but that does not change it is combo. You assemble the pieces (yes easier in EDH) and then win unless someone has instant speed removal.
Except that the RC, Sheldon to be precise, specifically stated that when Protean Hulk was unbanned, the secret was “not to break it”. That doesn’t apply here. As for KoKo, they cited the mass printing of GY hate, and they were correct. GY centric decks are not the bane they once were, and that is due to the plentiful amount of hate that’s been printed in recent years, across all colors. Nothing has changed in the format since CV has been banned that makes you feel any different about the card.
That is absolutely a position I understand, and know its not being changed. Like I said more than once, its a grockable position. As opposed to calling CV 'not a combo' or 'a one card combo'.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
What or what is being disputed in this thread is getting murky so I am going to break it all down and clear what I see as what has been proposed here what is true and what is masquerading as it.
FACTS
1. The card is currently banned
2. CV is an 8 Mana Sorcery that requires at minimum 3 lands and 1 creature to satisfy itself to go off and 13 Mana (the cheapest 5C commanders are 5) probably spread over a couple turns.
3. This is a combo
4. If it resolves you win the game
Things that have been stated as facts in this thread
1. If this card is unbanned it will be in every 5C color deck because why wouldn't you run an easy win.
2. It either will be in every deck or it will be in no deck which is the same as it being banned (hint: it isn't)
3. The casting of an 8 Mana sorcery eradicates the fun of a game of Commander up to and including that point.
The problem I have with the blanket way people talk about that card and the ban list in general is illustrated well right there.
You seem to have built in your head a conception about this boogeyman of a card that will only ever be in every single deck that plays five colors or in none them and are falling into the same traps about reality and not that you accuse others of.
Why isn't every white deck in Commander running Approach of the Second Sun if we are going to play on theoretical nonsense parameters of how people build magic decks.
Or the idea that a game ending at the resolution of an 8 mana spell is a negating effect on the rest of the game of magic to that point is an weird way of looking at a multiplayer game played in a social setting.
If you think that approach of the second sun and CV are even remotely comparable, then you really, truly don't know what you are talking about.
Well thankfully I don't if you actually read the sentence there and not just laser focus onto the card it becomes exceptionally clear I don't actually think they are the same thing at all.
1. Yes. While it hasn’t been as extreme as “OMG Every deck will run it always!” as you claim, it’s still a strong belief that every 5c deck will run it “cuz why not”. No reason to think otherwise. It’s flashy. It’s thematic. It’s also a very easy panic button to break through board stalls/lock downs. It’s also good for just ending the game no matter what’s happened before(Down to 1 life? No problem. 4 other players left? Who cares!)So far, I’ve touched on quite a few personalities that exist in the EDH community. So, by that logic, I feel as though I’m safe to assume that every 5c deck that can run Coalition Victory, will.
2. I’ll agree that it’s a terrible argument, and honestly not one in my repitoir. No card is just “not played”. It may be played seldomly, but that’s not never. It also means that at some point, any play group may bump into an individual that does and go on to leave a poor impression on the rest of the group. Now that is true human nature.
3. Well, when that’s the only thing the card will ever do, yeah no real point in trying to argue this tired point. You either get it or you don’t.
4. Well, you did choose that as your comparison of choice. It’s only fair to assume you were directly comparing the 2, otherwise it wouldn’t have any relevance to your point.
1. But this isn't the case with how people build Commander decks now, why would that change after CV? (People don't just build goodstuff decks (if CV is even that) or cram full of win conditions)
2. Again assuming that someone coming up against CV leads to a bad experience overall is a huge assumption it is like the same assumptions people make about land destruction.
3. Winning and negating of fun is not the same thing stop conflating them.
If you read this line:
"Why isn't every white deck in Commander running Approach of the Second Sun |this sentence does not end here| if we are going to play on theoretical nonsense parameters of how people build magic decks."
And the takeaway is that I feel you are being disingenuous.
1. Yes. While it hasn’t been as extreme as “OMG Every deck will run it always!” as you claim, it’s still a strong belief that every 5c deck will run it “cuz why not”. No reason to think otherwise. It’s flashy. It’s thematic. It’s also a very easy panic button to break through board stalls/lock downs. It’s also good for just ending the game no matter what’s happened before(Down to 1 life? No problem. 4 other players left? Who cares!)So far, I’ve touched on quite a few personalities that exist in the EDH community. So, by that logic, I feel as though I’m safe to assume that every 5c deck that can run Coalition Victory, will.
Thats not logic though, its you backing up a bad point with your circular opinion. Lots of people refuse to play combo or stax or any card that says 'You win the game'. There are plenty of people who do. But those groups are not going to coalesce all of the sudden if CV was to get unbanned.
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.
Why is this thread even a thing still? Like what is even the argument anymore?
That it shoupd be unbanned? Well, the RC already said theres no plans of it coming out of the list.
That it's just like any card that combos with the commander? Yes and no. Just like curiosity and niv mizzet (for example) it just needs the natural progression of the game to win: play lands, get your commander out, use the card. Buuut.... on the one hand Curiosity (and most of these other combos) only work with one commander, while CV works with all 5c commanders. And on the other unless everyone is already mostly dead you still need some way to not deckout as you draw your entire library, while CV needs nothing else.
That it's a fun card? People groan at expropriate and actually has effects, some people might be like "oh, cool card!" once or twice, but the generally reaction will probably start from "oh" to various degrees of annoyance.
No it isn't because in one case the possibility for the card to played exists and in other case it doesn't it goes against the whole idea of what a ban list is if that is true.
I started rereading this thread, and I hadn't realized that papa_funk had already answered why this card is staying banned back at the start. It has now been explained by the RC twice. At this point, people still arguing for an unban are straight up ignoring reality.
I am again calling for the thread to be temporarily locked as all points from both sides have been made ad nauseum, the RC has spoken twice definitively on the subject, and posters are either talking past each other or engaging in insults or passive aggressive bs. The card is not getting unbanned unless the RC changes its ban criteria to drop the interacts poorly with the format category, as this card is the poster child for that category. Discussion of THAT moves beyond a single card discussion surrounding just CV, so there is no further purpose for 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!
I’ll help you, and other visitors out by posting the bits below.
Quote from Impossible »
Well if we want to get all nitty-gritty, T&N plays way better in EDH than regular Magic because it bypasses the singleton structure of the format by virtue of being a tutor.
Your logic is backwards. T&N is actually slightly weakened by the singleton format, as you can't get two of the same creature.
Quote from Impossible »
But like... what? That's the most important criteria here? T&N and CV do functionally the same thing (read: win) when played in a game of EDH.
It's an important criteria, yes.
A notable difference between T&N and CV is that in casual play, T&N is often used for awesome, not to end games. If people want to grab "I win" combos, they're going to find a million ways to do it in the card pool, so we're not going to worry about it. They'll get bored eventually.
Quote from Impossible »
Not to mention what about literally any other card the combos with a general or even just the rules of EDH? Is Felidar Sovereign up for a ban because it interacts significantly differently in EDH than it does in regular M:tG? Serra Ascendant? Curiosity is a one-mana win the game card when combined with your always avaliable general: ban worthy?
Felidar Sovereign and Serra Ascendant are often brought up by folks for banning. The fact that you can counter them by orc-piling on that player keeps them on the safe side of the line. And, as you think Curiosity falls into the same bucket, we're obviously done here.
Last edited by papa_funk: Jan 17, 2017
Quote from Impossible »
Then can you please explain how CV is in any way significantly different from Tooth and Nail?
How exactly does Tooth and Nail interact badly with the structure of Commander? It appears to do exactly the same thing it does in normal Magic.
Coalition Victory mostly falls under "Interacts badly with the structure of Commander". The card is supposed to present a challenge to find the lands, the creatures, and then cast it. The dynamic changes when you always have a creature to fulfill the conditions handy at all times.
Since it's insta-win, the other aspects of commander - notably the multiplayer nature, which can help in a lot of situations - don't provide any offset. That makes it a card that gets a lot of scrutiny, and, in this case, a ban.
I think people underestimate how much we weigh "interacts badly" as a criteria.
I keep an ear to the ground on several internet sites, such as MtgCommander, MtgSalvation, various Facebook groups, and pay attention to some of the well-known podcasts. We all used to be on Reddit a fair bit, but Reddit's collective tendency to lose their minds over any change (or even rumor of a change) made the value of being there very low and the unpleasantness factor high. After the insane freakout over the tuck rule change, we sort of shrugged our shoulders and moved on. I lurk there occasionally.
The internet is usually great at surfacing potential problems, and we do rely on it for that. It's not so great at figuring out whether something is actually a problem (since internet posters are not terribly representative of the average Commander player) or what a reasonable solution might be. Nobody arguing repeatedly on a forum has caused us to change our minds, but sometimes someone will come up with a nugget we haven't considered that'll germinate an idea.
The bold bits are Papa_Funk(Toby) and the blurb from the SCG article. I thought it would be nice to remind everybody of where the discussion started, and where it stands now.
This went so well last time I just had to do it again
Anyway, been thinking about instant win-the-games because of my dumb thread about the topic. And I think I might have changed my mind a bit on coalition victory. I think it might actually be fine.
Let's lay out some arguments.
For starters, I don't think the card is likely to have a place in any cEDH table. That doesn't mean it should come off the banlist, in fact it doesn't mean much at all, but I think it's worth mentioning. It's an 8 mana sorcery that requires several on-board conditions to be met. Pretty sure that's not happening. Just so we can kind of establish a baseline for power level to talk about the card. It's not that good.
The next point is that it's actually relatively easy to interact with. Playing around even strip mine is tough, even with fetches and duals. Having a duplicate for every basic land type requires at least 5 dual-typed lands in play, and getting the exact right ones isn't easy unless you're reusing fetches. And every deck can, and probably should, run strip mine or variants. On top of that, creature removal is generally very effective against it. Of course your commander will fit the conditions (with some exceptions), but that's at least a 5cmc creature you have to stick, and one removal spell easily 2-for-1s you. You could potentially double up on that too, but that's even harder than lands. You could stick a bunch of 5c creatures in a deck, but at that point you're just building a bad combo deck. And of course, it could be regular old counterspelled. So you've got 3 ways to interact with it, 2 of which every color has access to. This is a far cry from even, say, biorhythm which nonblue decks can't really interact with. So the complaint that "well it disregards the board state" is kind of bogus. You actually need quite a bit from the board state.
The third point is that it's pretty telegraphed. This isn't a major point but it's related to the previous one. If you see someone with a 5c commander out, 8 mana, and all the basic land types, that's not something that comes around every day. Maybe be wary. Idk, just a thought. Leave that strip mine up at least. Couldn't hurt.
Fourth, and maybe the most important point is that it is a 5-color spell. I don't know about you, but I very rarely see people playing 5c. Not that the 5c commanders are unpopular, but there's just so few of them. Something like 2% of legendaries. And if you DO see a 5c commander, a savvy player should probably be immediately aware of the possibility of coalition victory. It's relatively easy to stop, so keeping up answers isn't difficult if you're looking for it. This is where I think it might be a problem for casual players, because casual players are way less likely to actually be aware of it, and less likely to have strip mine or removal to interact with it.
My last point is that we've already got some really dumb, miserable things in the format that require a whole lot less setup. I'm looking at you, expropriate. In terms of how hard they are to play around, expropriate is way, way harder than coalition victory. And it can come from any blue deck, which is a pretty hefty percentage of the format, so you can't just be on your guard constantly. In terms of dumb, blindsiding victories, expropriate is way, way worse imo. The same is arguably true of T&N, insurrection, rise of the dark realms - sure, those are easier to play around and don't necessarily win the game, but they're all playable in a wide swath of decks and can end the game immediately in the right circumstance - circumstances which are arguably easier to set up than CV.
Anyway, I'm not sure how much the format gains by legalizing it, but at least for myself I don't think I'd mind if it were legal. And I doubt me, or any savvy player, would be likely to lose to it unless they were already probably going to lose anyway.
Isn't there already a thread on CV? Also, I'm not sure how you're actually able to claim that playing shocklands/basics and dropping your commander is a lot of set up.
But why create a new thread when one already exists for this card?
Nah, this card shouldn't be unbanned. All it does is win the game, it combos with almost any commander that can cast it (except for 3 now), and serves literally no other purpose. It is exactly the sort of card that the RC doesn't want, and banning it sends a message about their vision for the format. It adds nothing to the format, but certainly detracts from it.
Honestly, just refer back to the thread that already exists. It basically hits "interacts poorly with the format" as hard as a card can. Having a 5 color creature always available drastically reduces the hurdle you have to get over for this card. It also hits "creates problematic game states" as hard as it can. No, winning is not a problematic game state, but "cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere" are. It is only minimally telegraphed, as the hints that its coming are 1: the player played lands and 2: the player cast their commander. That is far too broad to be reasonably considered telegraphing, and it implicates most 5 color decks. It would also hit problematic casual omnipresence somewhat, as if you are running a 5 color commander in casual this is almost a no brainer, it will win you the game with minimal setup and an extremely limited window to answer it. The only thing holding it back on this a bit is that 5 color legends themselves aren't that common. Taken together, it shouldn't be a surprise that this card is banned.
The cEDH argument is absolutely irrelevant, as always. Less powerful cards that CV are banned. In casual, its conditions, including hitting 8 mana, are trivial, and casual tables are less likely to be able to answer it in its short window. Dirk's argument about similar cards includes "sure, those are easier to play around and don't necessarily win the game," which pretty much answers why they aren't banned but CV is. T&N at its most miserable is comparable to CV, but can also be used in non miserable ways. I suspect that if the RC's philosophy changed from allowing problematic cards if they have non problematic uses and actually get played that way (as T&N, Rise, etc do at casual tables) to banning problematic cards without looking for mitigated factors (basically, only looking at one side of the equation), then many of those cards would be banned. CV is the sort of effect that loudly goes against the founding spirit of the format, and that's literally all the card does, not just in practice but its actually all it can do. So its banned, not just because it has no redeeming qualities to offset its miserable function, but because it also serves the secondary purpose of the banlist, which is to communicate what sort of things you should avoid. In this case, its trying to win the game with one card and minimal interaction, and trying to cheat the format.
Expropriate is Timewalk stapled to Blatant Thievery. Its extremely powerful, but doesn't win the game on its own. So long as everyone votes money, the caster usually gets a significant boost to winning but it isn't a sure thing. If there are enough bonkers things around the table, its much more likely to be an auto win, with the extra turn making it ape insurrection a bit, but I've seen it resolve without being game ending enough that I can't put it in the same category as Worldfire, CV, Bio, etc. T&N is really the most egregious point of comparison, with Enter the Infinite and Doomsday also there. I understand why T&N isn't banned, because it does have fair uses and I have encountered them, just like Hulk. Enter and Doomsday function as intended, and both require more deckbuilding considerations than CV and arguably a good amount more skill to execute (especially Doomsday, which is a cEDH staple but sees scant casual play).
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!
Honestly, I think Panoptic Mirror comes off the list wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy before its even worth talking about Coalition Victory. I don't really think the RC is going to entertain either of them but honestly I am not interested to see Coalition ever resolve. I get what you are saying, but to me it feels like a 1 card combo that comboes with any of the 5c commanders (who aren't 5c identity rather than 5c).
I get what you are saying about most decks being able to interact with creatures but thats not to say that every deck wants to play reactive to someone's commander being in play. In the end, I don't like it not because its competitive but because if it ever resolves, its going to feel like *****. Those it will resolve against are the people it needs to probably stay banned for.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
I think you forgot something
Emphasis, the actual beef of that reply. Like for real?
Cherry picking at its finest! It’s even a statement that doesn’t support your argument at all. “The RC doesn’t listen”- directs users to article stating that the RC does, in fact, listen.
I’m done here.
I get that it's an unsatisfactory answer for some. However:
The equating to combo wins is a false comparison, as they're combos. Combinations of cards. CV is 1. Not the same, and in my experience the more cards involved in a combo the more socially acceptable. A one card combo is not a combo, it's a win-con with very few ways to answer.
As far 'the RC doesn't listen', well that's a closed minded way of looking at it. Stating cards that have come off the banlist only illustrates that things can change, and that none of the places on that list are above consideration for releasing to play. This, in fact, indicates that the RC are capable of rethinking decisions, evolving over time, and working in the best interests of the majority of the community.
Any further discussion at this point will carry on without me. I've said my piece, tried to stay non-inflammatory, and have tried my best not to throw salt anyone's way. And I honored my promise to bring the issue up with the officials for a clearer answer. If that isn't accepted, I'm out. Feel free to continue slinging mud back and forth if you see the need to, because that's all this really is at this point. This issue is a dead horse, so I'm not going to flog it any further.
If you think that approach of the second sun and CV are even remotely comparable, then you really, truly don't know what you are talking about.
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!
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!
When combo was 'soft banned' (Koko and Hulk out etc), sure it made sense on the list. Now its just another combo that wins, or instant removal makes useless.
Not a convincing argument. Play your commander, win. That's the strategy with CV.
EDIT: Totally support locking this thread.
EDIT: I agree its a boring strat, and that could be a strat for 5C decks. There are dedicated combo decks that all they try to do is assemble a combo as quickly as possible its generally frowned on. This would fall into that same trap, but this isnt going to be some magic bullet non-combo people jam into 5C decks to win out of nowhere.
It totally could be though - it adds nothing to a deck other than a win from nowhere. What I got from the article is that the cons outweigh the pros of inclusion, and in that respect I agree, personally. There's no fun to it, no challenge, it's just a fire alarm. Break the glass, hit the switch, game over.
Either way, I respect your opinion, but mines been stated too and I'm off this merry go round at this point.
In terms of MtG, Coalition Victory is a multi-card combo, yes. However, and this is also my stance on why it should remain on the list, in EDH it is not. It requires one card, a card you 100% always have access too, and lands. Lands that you’d be running to cast said creature, regardless. The combo is created by virtue of the deck-building process. Now, where you are incorrect is that last bit. There is not another combo that ends the game with one card and it’s Commander, well, until Helm of the Host and Godo, Bandit warlord, but even then, you have to move through additional phases to complete the game sealing effect. CV ends the game on either Main phase, and requires only that phase.
Just to clarify. CV in a 60-card deck is a true combo. I used to run a deck around it. It was bank, but relied on Prismastic Omen and Transguild Courier. It was a chore to optimize the land base so I could obviously win with CV, but beyond that I needed ways to get the pieces into my hand, ways to recur them, make sure my land-types were properly represented as a fall back option, etc. Those issues do not exist in EDH. In my 5c builds, I have all 5 land types represented in my mana-base a minimum of 5 times before I start bumping numbers to match my curve. In my causal deck, it’s was more like 2-3, and even then, I’d go multiple games without seeing a particular type. Same goes for the creatures. You cannot discount how much of an advantage it is to have your Creature requirement always available to you. They can blow it up as many times as they want, sooner or later, they’ll run out of removal. But, yes, CV is a multi-card combo, but it’s unfair to call it that in EDH, because it most certainly is not.
Except that the RC, Sheldon to be precise, specifically stated that when Protean Hulk was unbanned, the secret was “not to break it”. That doesn’t apply here. As for KoKo, they cited the mass printing of GY hate, and they were correct. GY centric decks are not the bane they once were, and that is due to the plentiful amount of hate that’s been printed in recent years, across all colors. Nothing has changed in the format since CV has been banned that makes you feel any different about the card.
That is absolutely a position I understand, and know its not being changed. Like I said more than once, its a grockable position. As opposed to calling CV 'not a combo' or 'a one card combo'.
FACTS
1. The card is currently banned
2. CV is an 8 Mana Sorcery that requires at minimum 3 lands and 1 creature to satisfy itself to go off and 13 Mana (the cheapest 5C commanders are 5) probably spread over a couple turns.
3. This is a combo
4. If it resolves you win the game
Things that have been stated as facts in this thread
1. If this card is unbanned it will be in every 5C color deck because why wouldn't you run an easy win.
2. It either will be in every deck or it will be in no deck which is the same as it being banned (hint: it isn't)
3. The casting of an 8 Mana sorcery eradicates the fun of a game of Commander up to and including that point.
Well thankfully I don't if you actually read the sentence there and not just laser focus onto the card it becomes exceptionally clear I don't actually think they are the same thing at all.
2. I’ll agree that it’s a terrible argument, and honestly not one in my repitoir. No card is just “not played”. It may be played seldomly, but that’s not never. It also means that at some point, any play group may bump into an individual that does and go on to leave a poor impression on the rest of the group. Now that is true human nature.
3. Well, when that’s the only thing the card will ever do, yeah no real point in trying to argue this tired point. You either get it or you don’t.
4. Well, you did choose that as your comparison of choice. It’s only fair to assume you were directly comparing the 2, otherwise it wouldn’t have any relevance to your point.
2. Again assuming that someone coming up against CV leads to a bad experience overall is a huge assumption it is like the same assumptions people make about land destruction.
3. Winning and negating of fun is not the same thing stop conflating them.
If you read this line:
And the takeaway is that I feel you are being disingenuous.
That it shoupd be unbanned? Well, the RC already said theres no plans of it coming out of the list.
That it's just like any card that combos with the commander? Yes and no. Just like curiosity and niv mizzet (for example) it just needs the natural progression of the game to win: play lands, get your commander out, use the card. Buuut.... on the one hand Curiosity (and most of these other combos) only work with one commander, while CV works with all 5c commanders. And on the other unless everyone is already mostly dead you still need some way to not deckout as you draw your entire library, while CV needs nothing else.
That it's a fun card? People groan at expropriate and actually has effects, some people might be like "oh, cool card!" once or twice, but the generally reaction will probably start from "oh" to various degrees of annoyance.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I am again calling for the thread to be temporarily locked as all points from both sides have been made ad nauseum, the RC has spoken twice definitively on the subject, and posters are either talking past each other or engaging in insults or passive aggressive bs. The card is not getting unbanned unless the RC changes its ban criteria to drop the interacts poorly with the format category, as this card is the poster child for that category. Discussion of THAT moves beyond a single card discussion surrounding just CV, so there is no further purpose for 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 bold bits are Papa_Funk(Toby) and the blurb from the SCG article. I thought it would be nice to remind everybody of where the discussion started, and where it stands now.
Anyway, been thinking about instant win-the-games because of my dumb thread about the topic. And I think I might have changed my mind a bit on coalition victory. I think it might actually be fine.
Let's lay out some arguments.
For starters, I don't think the card is likely to have a place in any cEDH table. That doesn't mean it should come off the banlist, in fact it doesn't mean much at all, but I think it's worth mentioning. It's an 8 mana sorcery that requires several on-board conditions to be met. Pretty sure that's not happening. Just so we can kind of establish a baseline for power level to talk about the card. It's not that good.
The next point is that it's actually relatively easy to interact with. Playing around even strip mine is tough, even with fetches and duals. Having a duplicate for every basic land type requires at least 5 dual-typed lands in play, and getting the exact right ones isn't easy unless you're reusing fetches. And every deck can, and probably should, run strip mine or variants. On top of that, creature removal is generally very effective against it. Of course your commander will fit the conditions (with some exceptions), but that's at least a 5cmc creature you have to stick, and one removal spell easily 2-for-1s you. You could potentially double up on that too, but that's even harder than lands. You could stick a bunch of 5c creatures in a deck, but at that point you're just building a bad combo deck. And of course, it could be regular old counterspelled. So you've got 3 ways to interact with it, 2 of which every color has access to. This is a far cry from even, say, biorhythm which nonblue decks can't really interact with. So the complaint that "well it disregards the board state" is kind of bogus. You actually need quite a bit from the board state.
The third point is that it's pretty telegraphed. This isn't a major point but it's related to the previous one. If you see someone with a 5c commander out, 8 mana, and all the basic land types, that's not something that comes around every day. Maybe be wary. Idk, just a thought. Leave that strip mine up at least. Couldn't hurt.
Fourth, and maybe the most important point is that it is a 5-color spell. I don't know about you, but I very rarely see people playing 5c. Not that the 5c commanders are unpopular, but there's just so few of them. Something like 2% of legendaries. And if you DO see a 5c commander, a savvy player should probably be immediately aware of the possibility of coalition victory. It's relatively easy to stop, so keeping up answers isn't difficult if you're looking for it. This is where I think it might be a problem for casual players, because casual players are way less likely to actually be aware of it, and less likely to have strip mine or removal to interact with it.
My last point is that we've already got some really dumb, miserable things in the format that require a whole lot less setup. I'm looking at you, expropriate. In terms of how hard they are to play around, expropriate is way, way harder than coalition victory. And it can come from any blue deck, which is a pretty hefty percentage of the format, so you can't just be on your guard constantly. In terms of dumb, blindsiding victories, expropriate is way, way worse imo. The same is arguably true of T&N, insurrection, rise of the dark realms - sure, those are easier to play around and don't necessarily win the game, but they're all playable in a wide swath of decks and can end the game immediately in the right circumstance - circumstances which are arguably easier to set up than CV.
Anyway, I'm not sure how much the format gains by legalizing it, but at least for myself I don't think I'd mind if it were legal. And I doubt me, or any savvy player, would be likely to lose to it unless they were already probably going to lose anyway.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
There's a list a mile long of more ridiculous sorceries.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Nah, this card shouldn't be unbanned. All it does is win the game, it combos with almost any commander that can cast it (except for 3 now), and serves literally no other purpose. It is exactly the sort of card that the RC doesn't want, and banning it sends a message about their vision for the format. It adds nothing to the format, but certainly detracts from it.
Honestly, just refer back to the thread that already exists. It basically hits "interacts poorly with the format" as hard as a card can. Having a 5 color creature always available drastically reduces the hurdle you have to get over for this card. It also hits "creates problematic game states" as hard as it can. No, winning is not a problematic game state, but "cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere" are. It is only minimally telegraphed, as the hints that its coming are 1: the player played lands and 2: the player cast their commander. That is far too broad to be reasonably considered telegraphing, and it implicates most 5 color decks. It would also hit problematic casual omnipresence somewhat, as if you are running a 5 color commander in casual this is almost a no brainer, it will win you the game with minimal setup and an extremely limited window to answer it. The only thing holding it back on this a bit is that 5 color legends themselves aren't that common. Taken together, it shouldn't be a surprise that this card is banned.
The cEDH argument is absolutely irrelevant, as always. Less powerful cards that CV are banned. In casual, its conditions, including hitting 8 mana, are trivial, and casual tables are less likely to be able to answer it in its short window. Dirk's argument about similar cards includes "sure, those are easier to play around and don't necessarily win the game," which pretty much answers why they aren't banned but CV is. T&N at its most miserable is comparable to CV, but can also be used in non miserable ways. I suspect that if the RC's philosophy changed from allowing problematic cards if they have non problematic uses and actually get played that way (as T&N, Rise, etc do at casual tables) to banning problematic cards without looking for mitigated factors (basically, only looking at one side of the equation), then many of those cards would be banned. CV is the sort of effect that loudly goes against the founding spirit of the format, and that's literally all the card does, not just in practice but its actually all it can do. So its banned, not just because it has no redeeming qualities to offset its miserable function, but because it also serves the secondary purpose of the banlist, which is to communicate what sort of things you should avoid. In this case, its trying to win the game with one card and minimal interaction, and trying to cheat the format.
Expropriate is Timewalk stapled to Blatant Thievery. Its extremely powerful, but doesn't win the game on its own. So long as everyone votes money, the caster usually gets a significant boost to winning but it isn't a sure thing. If there are enough bonkers things around the table, its much more likely to be an auto win, with the extra turn making it ape insurrection a bit, but I've seen it resolve without being game ending enough that I can't put it in the same category as Worldfire, CV, Bio, etc. T&N is really the most egregious point of comparison, with Enter the Infinite and Doomsday also there. I understand why T&N isn't banned, because it does have fair uses and I have encountered them, just like Hulk. Enter and Doomsday function as intended, and both require more deckbuilding considerations than CV and arguably a good amount more skill to execute (especially Doomsday, which is a cEDH staple but sees scant casual play).
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 get what you are saying about most decks being able to interact with creatures but thats not to say that every deck wants to play reactive to someone's commander being in play. In the end, I don't like it not because its competitive but because if it ever resolves, its going to feel like *****. Those it will resolve against are the people it needs to probably stay banned for.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies