Onering summed up pretty well why the format doesn't need CV, so I'm just going to address your points.
1. Not relevant since the RC isn't managing the format with cEDH in mind (unless the two groups spill into each other).
2. I don't disagree with this, but "dies to Doom Blade" has rarely been an effective argument on its own.
3. (Continuing from #2) Most 5c generals in my experience are cards I need to deal with sooner rather than later, so if I have removal for them I'm going to use it. But your argument is that if the 5c player is "telegraphing" their play by playing 8 lands and their general then I need to hold up a strip mine or swords to plowshares. The problem is now I'm sitting on removal that should be used to deal with am actual board state, like a gaea's Cradle or big dude swinging at me, not held "just in case". And if a card forces me to want to hold a strip mine for a dual land over a utility land then that should be throwing up red flags right there.
4. I see 5c decks every week now thanks to stupid Ur-Dragon and Slivers. I don't think it takes savvy to anticipate every true 5c deck to run CV. And if you have to say "I think this might be a problem for casual players because..." then that's a red flag.
5. Those dumb legal cards you listed don't always win the game, or can be used in a way that doesn't immediately win the game barring removal. CV quite literally does that. Of the cards you listed, the only one which requires less set up is Tooth and Nail, because it only requires nine mana and dedicating two slots in your deck to your combo, if they weren't cards you were already running. Coalition Victory has no such deck building requirement because the only thing it requires is the general and lands you're already playing.
Just to be clear, I don't necessarily think CV should come off the banlist. I think the main points against it are (1) it literally does nothing except win, and (2) casuals will probably not have/leave up good answers to it. So I can see why it would stay on. But at the same time, at least from my perspective, I think the format would be a lot more enjoyable with expropriate banned and CV unbanned.
BTW, for the record, expropriate is significantly better and harder to play around than blatant thievery, because blatant thievery targets, so you can sac whatever he's trying to steal or kill it before they have a chance to use it. Plus you have to count on people to actually choose the theft effect. The other issue is that at least CV has the good sense to just end the game. Sitting around through an expropriate or enter the infinite win is way more annoying imo. Also worth noting that enter the infinite has 5K uses on edhrec, which is actually kind of a lot imo, and that card also is strictly used to win the game. CV would have to be in a major percentage of 5c decks to see more play (which is kind of unlikely, I mean even sol ring is only in like 85% of edhrec decks).
I did literally say in my post that the cEDH thing wasn't important, but more of a note. So I wish people wouldn't respond to that part like it was an argument, that wasn't really the point.
Personally I don't feel safe unless I'm sitting on at least one piece of instant-speed removal. I do get why that probably isn't the case for casual players, but again, that wasn't really my point, and I can see why the banlist would want to protect those players. I'm speaking strictly from my perspective, which is that I hate things that win the game and are hard to predict and interact with, and CV is neither of those things, at least in comparison to some other, legal cards.
I don't really buy the "interacts badly with the format" thing. Because you have a 5C creature on retainer? I mean, sure that helps a fair bit, but to me that seems like a really minor bump to the card compared to, say, serra ascendant (or felidar sovereign). Not that I think SA is a huge problem, but I don't think there's any denying that its interaction with the life rule is an enormous boost to its power. I mean, if it worked the same way in 60-card as it does here(i.e. turned on unless you've lost 10 life), it would be banned in every format instantly. And if worked the same here as in 60-card (i.e. you need to gain 10 life first) then it would probably see almost no play at all. Hell, for that matter, expropriate also gets much more powerful by having more opponents. Both of these seem like much stronger interactions with the format than just having a 5C creature in your hand, at least to me. You still have to cast and keep alive the creature, it isn't more powerful without any setup, the way is true for SA, FS, and expro. (again, not that I'm saying any of those should be banned, except maybe expro)
As far as "having fetches/shocks and playing your commander isn't a lot of setup", I disagree. For one thing, to reliably hit 5 types does take some doing, but the main issue is that it's fairly easy to disrupt with cards most decks should already be running. But more importantly, there are already a TON of commanders that are basically kill-on-sight-or-you-will-lose-the-game. Lovely design decisions like Vannifar, niv parun, jodah, sisay, teferi, muldrotha, gitrog, ramos, kaalia, yisan, zur, yidris, brago, arcum, narset, breya, jhoira, other jhoira, ezuri, mizzix...you get the picture. If I'm playing against these commanders and I can't at least keep removal up against them at all times, then frequently I've already lost. A lot of the 5c commanders seem relatively tame, and being forced to keep up removal against them only in case of CV seems like a pretty minor concession to me. Especially since I was probably keeping it up for one of those stupid BS commanders anyway.
Just to reiterate one last time - I do get why the RC wants to keep it on the banlist and I can see the argument for why it shouldn't come off. But from my perspective at least, I don't think it would be particularly difficult to play around, and playing against it would be a lot more enjoyable than expro or enter the infinite. So if it were up to me, I'd have more fun with the format if expro or enter (or lab man, for that matter) were banned instead.
My bad about the other thread, I forgot to search for it and didn't notice it until I'd already posted. That said, I was kind of hoping it wouldn't get merged, because now people are way more likely to respond to the (imo badly argued) OP rather than my post, which is pretty quickly going to get buried. Perils of a forum structure, I guess.
I think the format would be a lot more enjoyable with expropriate banned and CV unbanned.
Why not ban them both?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How i feel about competitive players and casual players in EDH: The competitive are german tourists, the casual are italian tourists, both in a italian beach. The italians asking themselves "why are the germans here?" make a legitimate question, the answer is because the beach is beautiful, no matter the country you came from. The italians wanting to ban the germans are dumb, because if the germans pay for their stay and follow the rules like everyone else, they have the right to be in the beach. Hovewer, if the germans started to ask themselves "why are the italians here?"... they would be dumb as hell.
I don't think CV really adds anything to the format either. 5c commanders already have an I Win button at the exact same mana cost in the form of Conflux that is arguably more powerful (since it just wins and goes +4 cards).
I think we'd be better off devoting energy to cards that might be fun.
Thinking about it a little more, I think what bothers me about the current state of the banlist RE: CV vs expro, is that I think it's on the wrong side of power vs interact-ability. CV, when it resolves and the conditions are met, is obviously the most powerful effect in the game. BUT it's relatively easy to interact with. Expro, while sure, it's not a guaranteed win, is much much harder to interact with. Personally, I dislike effects that are hard to interact with a lot more than I dislike effects that are more powerful.
Another good example would be in some combos - teferi + knowledge pool vs niv + curiosity. I dislike the first combo a LOT more, because it's almost impossible to interact with except by countering teferi every time he comes down. Granted, once it resolves, it's not necessarily a guaranteed win - you might be able to kill them without casting any more spells from hand - but it's damn near impossible to stop it happening. Whereas niv is an instant-win (well, depending on life totals and whether you can win from drawing your deck) but it's disruptable by creature removal, enchantment removal, and counters. If I could ban either niv or teferi, I'd ban teferi over niv in a nanosecond.
A couple of things. First, if you say something, people are going to respond. So if it doesn't matter that cEDH doesn't matter in decision making, then don't even bring it up that they don't care about a card (more on that in a second). Second, I can't think of a time when Blatant Thievery has won a game that I've been in. So even though people here and on podcasts like Command Zone hype about Expropriate, I just don't see it beyond being a really expensive card that should have a huge impact on the game, possibly winning it. Lastly, Dirk you have a way of presenting your arguments and describing yourself and decks in a manner that gives me the impression you fancy yourself a very good player playing in higher power games. Not disputing this, but I mention it because if so, you aren't the type of player that the Rules Committee is concerned with. You can handle yourself in a game, and you probably play in a similarly powered group that can regulate itself through house bans or metagaming your decks. So using the argument of "I don't have a problem with this card and these cards are worse" is skewed towards a small group of players and isn't necessarily representative of the majority of players.
I thought it was clear why I brought up cEDH and that it was not an important point. I even said "it doesn't say much at all" in the post. But whatever, it didn't matter much to begin with, let's just drop it.
I also felt I was bring pretty clear when I said that I can see why the RC wants to keep it banned, because it probably interacts worse with casual players/groups who won't be as likely to be prepared for it. It kinda seems like you're just saying back to me what I already said myself. All these opinions are based mostly off how I, personally, feel when playing games of commander. Cards that are relatively easy to interact with, that don't lead to annoying protracted solitaire, that are relatively easy to see coming and can only be played in a small percentage of decks - those cards don't bother me. Just me. That's all I'm saying.
Now, as far as the power level thing goes - while I think I'm good at building decks and playing the game, I don't build cEDH or anywhere close to it (unless you count Phelddagrif, but that's more anti-cEDH than anything). I don't play infinite combos, ever. I don't play dumb easy wins like expropriate or T&N or enter the infinite. I don't hold back on stuff like duals and fetches that serve mostly to smooth out the game rather than win it, but ignoring budget I think most people, looking at my decks vs the decks of the table, would think that the power level of the decks was roughly even. Most of my wins, imo, come from good play rather than powerful cards. When borrowing decks I win a lot too.
Man this has gotten braggy.
Anyway, my point is that, despite how much of a tryhard I sound like, and despite how much effort I put into winning, I don't play anywhere near cEDH power level as a general rule. I've played in quite a few different public groups (on multiple continents!), and while they're all varied, the average power level has been roughly consistent between them. So I think I have a reasonably good idea of what the average player looks like. I'm not holed up in a cEDH commune for the last 10 years that has no idea how the common man plays or anything. You're free to disagree. I'm sure there are closed groups of people playing sub-precon level stuff out there.
As far as CV vs expro - I think commander, and magic, should be a game of skill. Or at least, that's how I personally prefer it. Keeping expro legal while banning CV reads, to me, as a concession to chaos over skill. Any idiot can play expropriate (or enter the infinite, if you prefer) and win, and even a well-prepared player may be unable to stop them. Whereas CV is much harder to pull off, and much easier for a prepared played to block. I like cards that reward skillful play, from the person playing it and the person playing against it, and I think CV does that. At least, a lot more than expro and its detestable ilk.
Lastly, Dirk you have a way of presenting your arguments and describing yourself and decks in a manner that gives me the impression you fancy yourself a very good player playing in higher power games. Not disputing this, but I mention it because if so, you aren't the type of player that the Rules Committee is concerned with. You can handle yourself in a game, and you probably play in a similarly powered group that can regulate itself through house bans or metagaming your decks. So using the argument of "I don't have a problem with this card and these cards are worse" is skewed towards a small group of players and isn't necessarily representative of the majority of players.
I don't think this is an accurate representation of the Hippo's arguments at all. He was quite clear, along with being a point I'd agree with, regarding the Teferi vs Niv analogy. New players might and have been peeved at losing to Niv/Locust/Nekusar decks drawing cards and dealing all of the damage, but that comes down to that deck doing "all of the things" between drawing cards and taking super long turns to do so. Teferi on the other hand, is a much harder interaction for them to understand that can literally stop everyone else playing the game until they win.
However, CV adds nothing the format needs right now, whilst only providing another "feels-bad" moment to annoy all those who hate Dramatic Scepter and Second Sun style wins - That being what appears to be the thought of "if my life total isn't going to 0, its not a legitimate win". The hate for Expropriate on the other hand just fits in with players hating long periods of inaction. I played my Selvala ER deck this Monday gone for example, drawing all of my opponents lots of cards, didn't even win the game or come close. The response? "Its not fun because we aren't playing". But I have to agree with them, since this concept of long periods of inaction = bad rings true for many other things other than extra turns. Should cards be banned based on this notion? Thats where I would disagree with Dirk.
> card that wins just by playing edh requires skill.
> card that needs the caster to make at least 3 choices out multiple options and also needs decision making from the opponents does not require any skill.
Agreed that there's probably not real benefit to unbanning it (except having a slightly shorter banlist). As before, I don't necessarily think it should be unbanned. I just feel that, at least in some regards, the way the banlist is handled doesn't focus on the elements of the game that I, personally, prefer.
> card that wins just by playing edh requires skill.
> card that needs the caster to make at least 3 choices out multiple options and also needs decision making from the opponents does not require any skill.
Well, okay then.
In a casual group against inexperienced players CV may well be a simple "I always win the game when I cast this" card. Against prepared players, just running it out there without protection is an excellent way to get 2-for-1-ed while skipping your turn. CV entails not-insignificant risk that requires some planning to mitigate when playing against savvy opponents.
Not that CV is the gold standard for skilled play or anything, it's still fairly dumb. But it's a lot less dumb than expro, which requires basically nothing from you to be good. Sure, maybe if you're bad at card evaluation you might not get the absolute best result possible out of the card, but even stealing 3 lands and getting an extra turn is extremely powerful. There's really no way for it to be bad unless it's countered. The same is not true for CV, you can get punished very badly for playing it badly. expro offers no such risk.
Dirk, I get what you're saying and that you see why the RC wants it banned, but your argument and reason for bringing this card back up are to discuss why you think it should be unbanned. That is what I'm responding to for the most part. Retarding CV vs Teferi and similar win the game cards that create feel-bad game states, those are largely self regulating because players can recognize that their opponents are having a miserable time finishing the game. Coalition Victory (and Expropriate, Tooth and Nail, Doomsday, etc. all fall into this category as well) on the other hand, very quickly ends the game. So there is no social pressure to not run it, "hey the game.is over we can just shuffle up a new one". This mentality, combined with the relative ease of running CV, makes it attractive to put in every 5c deck. I don't worry about Expropriate, Enter the Infinite, or Omniscience, because they are cards that I see seldomly in my group. I would fully expect every true 5c deck to run CV and question them if they weren't. Because with 10 fetches and 20 duals that I can buy relatively cheaply (although the enemy fetches have climbed again) along side ETBT fetches and green ramp, 9t should be no effort at all by turn 8 to have all land types and your general in play.
One other thought since you mentioned disagreeing with "interacts poorly with the format" and Serra Ascendant. If she were legendary and always available in the Command zone would you think she should be banned?
While I do think that Teferi pool creates a miserable game state and that is definitely a problem, I'd still loathe the combo even if it won immediately because my #1 beef with it is that it's basically impossible to play around it, even if you suspect it's coming. Which is my #1 problem with expro too (although it's also tedious).
Maybe I'm misreading you, but I'm a little confused. You point out that expro, T&N, DD, and CV all end the game quickly so there's no social pressure not to run them...doesn't that kind of defeat your argument, unless you want those other cards banned too? As I said, maybe I'm misreading you. But if you don't see expropriate because it's uninteresting, then I don't see any reason you'd expect to see CV either.
Anyway I agree it's not hard to have a commander in play, at least for a turn, and your land types covered. But if that's all you've got, and you cast CV without backup on 8 mana, I would expect you to be punished in a prepared playgroup.
Not entirely sure what you're getting at about SA. Serra ascendant is kind of interesting because she's simultaneously much better and much worse - much better because 30 life is trivial and takes no setup, and much worse because you're facing down 120 enemy life instead of 20. Were she a commander, that would dramatically change the math because of commander damage, plus being always available T1 after which she dramatically goes down in power, so I would be unsurprised to see it banned were it legendary.
Anyway, ignoring the whole commander damage issue, similar things happen for CV - it's better because you have a 5c creature in your hand all the time, but it's also worse because you've got 3x the number of people aiming counterspells and removal at you. Does it get a net benefit from the format? I mean, probably, but no worse than many other cards imo. Compare to something like limited resources, where the format being multiplayer has an insane impact, or karakas that invalidates huge swaths of decks at virtually no cost because the format revolves around legends. Those to me seem like "interacts badly with the format". Having a 5c creature in your hand...eh, idk. I'm not seeing it. I can see reasonable justification for keeping it banned, but that isn't it. Imo.
Lastly, Dirk you have a way of presenting your arguments and describing yourself and decks in a manner that gives me the impression you fancy yourself a very good player playing in higher power games. Not disputing this, but I mention it because if so, you aren't the type of player that the Rules Committee is concerned with. You can handle yourself in a game, and you probably play in a similarly powered group that can regulate itself through house bans or metagaming your decks. So using the argument of "I don't have a problem with this card and these cards are worse" is skewed towards a small group of players and isn't necessarily representative of the majority of players.
I don't think this is an accurate representation of the Hippo's arguments at all. He was quite clear, along with being a point I'd agree with, regarding the Teferi vs Niv analogy. New players might and have been peeved at losing to Niv/Locust/Nekusar decks drawing cards and dealing all of the damage, but that comes down to that deck doing "all of the things" between drawing cards and taking super long turns to do so. Teferi on the other hand, is a much harder interaction for them to understand that can literally stop everyone else playing the game until they win.
However, CV adds nothing the format needs right now, whilst only providing another "feels-bad" moment to annoy all those who hate Dramatic Scepter and Second Sun style wins - That being what appears to be the thought of "if my life total isn't going to 0, its not a legitimate win". The hate for Expropriate on the other hand just fits in with players hating long periods of inaction. I played my Selvala ER deck this Monday gone for example, drawing all of my opponents lots of cards, didn't even win the game or come close. The response? "Its not fun because we aren't playing". But I have to agree with them, since this concept of long periods of inaction = bad rings true for many other things other than extra turns. Should cards be banned based on this notion? Thats where I would disagree with Dirk.
Dirk, I get what you're saying and that you see why the RC wants it banned, but your argument and reason for bringing this card back up are to discuss why you think it should be unbanned. That is what I'm responding to for the most part. Retarding CV vs Teferi and similar win the game cards that create feel-bad game states, those are largely self regulating because players can recognize that their opponents are having a miserable time finishing the game. Coalition Victory (and Expropriate, Tooth and Nail, Doomsday, etc. all fall into this category as well) on the other hand, very quickly ends the game. So there is no social pressure to not run it, "hey the game.is over we can just shuffle up a new one". This mentality, combined with the relative ease of running CV, makes it attractive to put in every 5c deck. I don't worry about Expropriate, Enter the Infinite, or Omniscience, because they are cards that I see seldomly in my group. I would fully expect every true 5c deck to run CV and question them if they weren't. Because with 10 fetches and 20 duals that I can buy relatively cheaply (although the enemy fetches have climbed again) along side ETBT fetches and green ramp, 9t should be no effort at all by turn 8 to have all land types and your general in play.
One other thought since you mentioned disagreeing with "interacts poorly with the format" and Serra Ascendant. If she were legendary and always available in the Command zone[quote from="DirkGently »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/commander-rules-discussion-forum/754514-coalition-victory?comment=414"]While I do think that Teferi pool creates a miserable game state and that is definitely a problem, I'd still loathe the combo even if it won immediately because my #1 beef with it is that it's basically impossible to play around it, even if you suspect it's coming. Which is my #1 problem with expro too (although it's also tedious).
Maybe I'm misreading you, but I'm a little confused. You point out that expro, T&N, DD, and CV all end the game quickly so there's no social pressure not to run them...doesn't that kind of defeat your argument, unless you want those other cards banned too? As I said, maybe I'm misreading you. But if you don't see expropriate because it's uninteresting, then I don't see any reason you'd expect to see CV either.
Anyway I agree it's not hard to have a commander in play, at least for a turn, and your land types covered. But if that's all you've got, and you cast CV without backup on 8 mana, I would expect you to be punished in a prepared playgroup.
Not entirely sure what you're getting at about SA. Serra ascendant is kind of interesting because she's simultaneously much better and much worse - much better because 30 life is trivial and takes no setup, and much worse because you're facing down 120 enemy life instead of 20. Were she a commander, that would dramatically change the math because of commander damage, plus being always available T1 after which she dramatically goes down in power, so I would be unsurprised to see it banned were it legendary.
Anyway, ignoring the whole commander damage issue, similar things happen for CV - it's better because you have a 5c creature in your hand all the time, but it's also worse because you've got 3x the number of people aiming counterspells and removal at you. Does it get a net benefit from the format? I mean, probably, but no worse than many other cards imo. Compare to something like limited resources, where the format being multiplayer has an insane impact, or karakas that invalidates huge swaths of decks at virtually no cost because the format revolves around legends. Those to me seem like "interacts badly with the format". Having a 5c creature in your hand...eh, idk. I'm not seeing it. I can see reasonable justification for keeping it banned, but that isn't it. Imo.
Except that having access to a 5 color creature at all times is a big deal. You simply don't have to draw or tutor for it. That takes care of half of the conditions for CV from the get go, and if you can cast it the other half is very likely met. It simply makes it far too easy to just cast a card that just wins the game.
This is a card that belongs on the banlist, but it's probably one of the cards in the banlist that is most safely house unbanned. Power level is not a ban criteria, though it influences several. Because of this, CV has a relatively low power level considering how hard it hits the ban criteria. Thus, in certain playgroups, it's rather safe to house unban. In fact, I'd argue that it's problems would disappear in a playgroup that sees a lot of control decks ran by decent players, or a more highly skilled 75% playgroup. It's not going to surprise anyone, since a house unban requires discussion and everyone will expect it, and with skilled players or enough control decks actually firing it off would be difficult. Thus, CV in such a playgroup would go from being a miserable game ender that cold cocks the table to a cute, inefficient wincon that the player is trying to force.
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!
Some further musing about the "interacts badly with the format" argument.
Let's do an exercise where we take cards that interact badly with commander, and try to create a version that interacts roughly the same in other, tournament formats.
First up, serra ascendant. Commander you start with 10 more life than the requirement, so to match let's change the required life to 10. That would absolutely get banned in every format, but that's not quite fair, since commander has twice as high of life totals. So let's scale it down to +2/+2, so it's a 3/3 lifelink flyer as long as you have 10 or more life.
restricted in vintage: maybe? Unsure. Perhaps not.
banned in legacy: probably, delver is already popular and this is significantly better imo.
banned in modern: I would say definitely.
banned in standard: oh my yes.
Ok, now let's look at limited resources. The destroy land clause is basically the same, but the can't play land clause should probably be reduced to 5, assuming we're comparing to a 4-man game of commander.
restricted in vintage: not sure, but definitely seems possible.
banned in legacy: I think very probably.
banned in modern: definitely.
banned in standard: lololol.
Alright, now coalition victory. This one is kind of tricky, but the general issue is supposedly that you always have access to a 5c creature. So let's add "when you draw CV, you add a copy of sliver queen to your hand that goes to the CZ when it dies and does the whole commander thing". Obviously not possible with magic templating but whatever. This is being REALLY generous since in commander your opponent would normally ALSO have some sort of commander obviously and the CV doesn't add anything to your hand, but let's just roll with it.
restricted in vintage: no way
banned in legacy: definitely not
banned in modern: nope
banned in standard: maaaaybe, but mostly for giving you sliver queen. And even then, I think it's very unlikely.
So that's why I call BS on the "interacts badly with the format" thing. At least as regards having a 5c creature in the command zone.
If there IS an argument for why it interacts badly with the format, it has more to do with how the format is much slower than those other formats so that 8-mana 5-color plays aren't laughable, the power level of cards that create a board state where a 5c creature can reasonably fly under the radar, and also the general attitude of the format that removal and counters should be run sparsely, tapping out all the time is par for the course, and careful play is for tryhards. Having the 5c creature on retainer is just the cherry on top, at best.
I don't see Expropriate because... I don't know why. I play in a group with 20-30 people so luck of the draw maybe. There wasn't anything attached to that tidbit, just that I don't see it much.
My point about Serra was to point out how powerful and warping it is to have a card in the Command Zone. Even ignoring the Commander damage, having a 6/6 flying lifelink in your opening hand every single game is a strong play and I would expect near 100% of white decks to run it. Along those lines, I think your comparison to other formats thought experiment is flawed because we don't care about tournament formats and there are other factors which contribute to a card being banned. The better example is how to fix a card which was designed for 1v1 Standard and redesign it for multiplayer singleton. So CV should have a "not your commander" clause attached. Limited Resources should have a "5 times the number of starting players" clause. And so on. And then we can see how bad the card would be.
My suspicion is that people don't play expro for the same reason I don't - because brainless "I win the game" cards are boring. Or maybe because it's $50 now. That could also be it. I've taken 2 out of circulation, maybe if we work together we can de facto ban it
It's kind of hard to compare SA without the commander damage thing, but even then it's not a fair comparison. You still need to draw CV, after all. Maybe it makes more sense to you, but at least from where I'm sitting it seems pretty apples-and-oranges. A much closer comparison, to me, would be curiosity (+ niv) where it's a combo with your commander. Which isn't perfectly apt either, but it's a lot closer imo.
The point of my "does this interact badly with the format" exercise was to compare how much the format effects those cards. If the card is bannable in commander because it interacts badly with the format, then if it interacted the same way with another format (by changing how the card works, as I did) and seems bannable there, then it seems like the current version should also be banned in commander. And, at least in terms of its interaction with having a 5c commander, I think CV gets a resounding "no" compared to other cards that get a boost from the format.
Not that I don't think the card gets a big boost from the format, but the boost is like 90% "because it's a slow casual format" and 10% "because you have a 5c creature on tap". And from what I can tell, the RC argues strictly from that 10%. (Which I kind of get, because if your argue from the 90% then the same is true for other powerful expensive cards like expro which remain unbanned.)
I don't really follow what you're trying to prove with your fixed cards. I mean, if you fixed SA it's basically unplayable, but that says nothing about whether it should be banned. I guess if a banned card would still be broken even if fixed it would prove that the interaction with the format is irrelevant, but the lack of that doesn't prove the reverse. It proves that the interaction with the format is strong, but not that it's sufficient to ban the card.
There are cards that interact badly with the format (SA, felidar) that we don't ban and don't need banning.
Look, it's fine to think the card should be banned, but the argument that the ONLY reason is because it "interacts badly with [the commander being a reliable source of a 5c creature]" is fairly ridiculous. That's a reasonable contributing factor but it's far from the whole story.
Expropriate isn't a great card on its own. It doesn't guarantee the win, it costs 9 mana, it self-exiles...there's various reasons as to why you wouldn't run it. Blatant Thievery is a great card, Time Warp is a great card, stapled together they're a great card, but...
THEY DO NOT WIN THE GAME. They can put the caster in a great position, yes, but so many times the board has just been so well filled that even taking the best permanents AND an extra turn simply left me ahead but not winning the game. You know how to play around Expropriate? Create a board state where you don't lose to Blatant Thievery. Not that hard to do.
Coalition Victory has counterplay, yes, but the counterplay is even more telegraphed than the CV itself. Now, if CV did anything else beyond "win the game", I'd be more interested in giving it a test run as it'd be a card you'd include to have fun with. As is, hell no.
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.
CVs literal text is “you win the game”, how does it not automatically win on resolution?
Anyways besides it blatantly interacting poorly with the format, theres also the point you seem to be opting to ignore that it would create undesirable game states. How? Because everytime a 5c deck gets its five typed lands or its commander in play everyone will just be focused on stopping the CV. So sure, the odds of CV actually resolving might be low due to removal and counters, but its legality would work as a pseudo Karakas only for 5c decks.
Also, again, CV is literally the only card in all of mtg that wins solely by resolving AND is aided by edhs rules. Everything else needs something happening after the original card resolves.
CVs literal text is “you win the game”, how does it not automatically win on resolution?
Anyways besides it blatantly interacting poorly with the format, theres also the point you seem to be opting to ignore that it would create undesirable game states. How? Because everytime a 5c deck gets its five typed lands or its commander in play everyone will just be focused on stopping the CV. So sure, the odds of CV actually resolving might be low due to removal and counters, but its legality would work as a pseudo Karakas only for 5c decks.
Also, again, CV is literally the only card in all of mtg that wins solely by resolving AND is aided by edhs rules. Everything else needs something happening after the original card resolves.
His argument is that you can cast CV, i can Utter End your general, and then it resolves and does nothing. Which is technically true. But similarly I could cast Expropriate on a weak board and lose, or get Fogged for three turns in a row.
* Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander. Commander introduces specific structural differences to the game of Magic (notably singleton decks, color restrictions in deckbuilding, and the existence of a Commander). Magic cards not designed with Commander in mind sometimes interact with those elements in ways that change the effective functionality of the card. Cards that have moved too far (in a potentially problematic direction) from their original intent due to this mismatch are candidates for banning. This criterion also includes legendary creatures that are problematic if always available.
* Creates Undesirable Game States. Losing is not an undesirable game state. However, a game in which one or more players, playing comparable casual decks, have minimal participation in the game is something which players should be steered away from. Warning signs include massive overall resource imbalance, early-game cards that lock players out, and cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere.
* Problematic Casual Omnipresence. Some cards are so powerful that they become must-includes in decks that can run them and have a strongly negative impact on the games in which they appear, even when not built to optimize their effect. This does not include cards which are part of a specifc two-card combination - there are too many of those available in the format to usefully preclude - but may include cards which have numerous combinations with other commonly-played cards.
* Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly. Commander is a format devoted to splashy spells and epic plays, but they need to happen at appropriate times. Some acceleration is acceptable, but plays which are epic on turn ten are undesirable on turn three, so we rein in cards capable of generating a lot of mana early given the correct circumstances.
* Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry. Commander is a socially welcoming format with a vast cardpool. These two traits clash when it comes to certain early Magic cards, even if they would possibly be acceptable in their game play. It's not enough that the card is simply expensive. It must also be something that would be near-universally played if available and contribute to a perception that the format is only for the Vintage audience.
It produces no mana, so that's obviously out. It's worth 50 cents, so I think the barrier to entry should be fine. Casual omnipresence is impossible since only ~2% of commanders can even legally play it. Sure, maybe it's pretty omnipresent in those 2%, but (1) who cares, it's still 2%, and (2) sol ring is played in nearly every deck I've sat across from, so this criteria is nonsense on its face.
So that leaves us with 2 criteria.
Creates undesirable game states seems almost plausible unless you read the first sentence - "losing is not an undesirable game state". So that's a pretty open-and-shut case. You can maybe argue that "well, it'll make people pick on 5c commanders for fear of it," but that seems ridiculous to me. People don't constantly pulverize all green players just because T&N exists, or blue players because expro or ETI or omniscience exist. Those cards could happen and end the game, but it's all a calculated risk. Yes, they might have CV but they probably don't. Decks are big. Not to say people shouldn't have responses just in case, but they won't, or shouldn't, fire them off at the commander immediately always. That's just bad play.
So now we're down to the last one. The one that the RC is forced to use because none of the others fit. "Because it wins the game" is not a criteria. "Because it doesn't give people a chance to respond" is not a criteria (plus it's false). "Because it doesn't have a fun use" isn't a criteria, in fact it's almost explicitly why cards like doomsday are still legal. So we're forced to use the "interacts badly with the format" criteria.
Now, don't get me wrong - CV is much, much better here than any other format. No question about that. Spells with this casting cost are basically unplayable in virtually every other format, let alone with the same setup required and ease of disruption. That's because of the casual nature of the format, the high life totals, the multiple players, all contribute to a game that's much harder to win, and even harder to win "fairly". But that's also true of many other cards in the format. The fact that this is a format where rise of the dark realms is good is a feature, not a bug. So they can't focus on that.
So the criteria they have to use is that having access to a 5c creature all the time is sufficient boon to the card to justify banning ALONE. And there's no way to justify that, because even with that boost other formats would laugh CV out of the building. But they have to claim it's a huge problem, on its own, because it's the only way to justify banning the card with the banlist criteria as-is.
Now, if you wanted to ask me to justify banning it - that's pretty easy. Big, boring, win-the-game-now cards aren't interesting or conducive to a good game, especially among casual players who don't appreciate the threat-answer dichotomy that characterizes competitive magic. Cards that just exist to win the game without any play-around are not interesting. But then, imo, you've gotta ban enter the infinite too, and doomsday, because those fit the exact same criteria. And, at least imo, expro, although that one is more debatable.
Interacts poorly - 100% it does. The card was designed such that you had to draw into or use what little ramp was available to get five land types, and draw into multiple creatures or a 5c one. In a 60 card deck this is an huge drawback because you are creating a deck building weakness. In EDH, the rules of the format take care of this nearly. You always have a 5c creature in your hand to play, and your deck is built intentionally to produce all five colors of mana without suffering the same drawbacks that you would have in 60 card magic.
Creates undesirable game states - it wins the game out of nowhere, such that you cast it, no one has an instant speed answer and the game ends regardless of everything up until that point. Yes it is telegraphed in the sense that we can assume every 5c deck runs it but beyond that there is no indication other than the player having their general and lands in play.
Problematic casual Omnipresence - every deck that can run this card should run it and will warp those games simply by being legal. There is also no need to optimize your deck to run it beyond running fetches.
Some further musing about the "interacts badly with the format" argument.
Let's do an exercise where we take cards that interact badly with commander, and try to create a version that interacts roughly the same in other, tournament formats.
First up, serra ascendant. Commander you start with 10 more life than the requirement, so to match let's change the required life to 10. That would absolutely get banned in every format, but that's not quite fair, since commander has twice as high of life totals. So let's scale it down to +2/+2, so it's a 3/3 lifelink flyer as long as you have 10 or more life.
restricted in vintage: maybe? Unsure. Perhaps not.
banned in legacy: probably, delver is already popular and this is significantly better imo.
banned in modern: I would say definitely.
banned in standard: oh my yes.
Ok, now let's look at limited resources. The destroy land clause is basically the same, but the can't play land clause should probably be reduced to 5, assuming we're comparing to a 4-man game of commander.
restricted in vintage: not sure, but definitely seems possible.
banned in legacy: I think very probably.
banned in modern: definitely.
banned in standard: lololol.
Alright, now coalition victory. This one is kind of tricky, but the general issue is supposedly that you always have access to a 5c creature. So let's add "when you draw CV, you add a copy of sliver queen to your hand that goes to the CZ when it dies and does the whole commander thing". Obviously not possible with magic templating but whatever. This is being REALLY generous since in commander your opponent would normally ALSO have some sort of commander obviously and the CV doesn't add anything to your hand, but let's just roll with it.
restricted in vintage: no way
banned in legacy: definitely not
banned in modern: nope
banned in standard: maaaaybe, but mostly for giving you sliver queen. And even then, I think it's very unlikely.
So that's why I call BS on the "interacts badly with the format" thing. At least as regards having a 5c creature in the command zone.
If there IS an argument for why it interacts badly with the format, it has more to do with how the format is much slower than those other formats so that 8-mana 5-color plays aren't laughable, the power level of cards that create a board state where a 5c creature can reasonably fly under the radar, and also the general attitude of the format that removal and counters should be run sparsely, tapping out all the time is par for the course, and careful play is for tryhards. Having the 5c creature on retainer is just the cherry on top, at best.
I'm sorry, but if your trying to compare bannability in vintage and legacy to bannability in commander, you are woefully off base on several levels.
First of all, you ignore that the sort of cards that are good in vintage/legacy and the sort of cards that are good in commander are often quite different, to the point that your whole exercise is a useless apples to oranges comparison. Take Delver of secrets, a legacy all star, which sucks in edh. Or deathrite shaman, which is just pretty good in edh (and even then, it's better in cEDH and very underwhelming in casual metas) while being banned in several more competitive formats. Meanwhile, ***** like bio and worldfire are rightly banned in commander while being laughably bad in literally every other format.
Second, you are continually making the mistake of not understanding the underlying banlist philosophy, or simply ignoring it. Power level and balance are not ban criteria. Interacting poorly with the format does not only refer to cards becoming oppressively powerful, but also to cards just becoming unfun to the point of ruining games. Karakas is the poster child here, as what it does, while powerful, isn't anywhere close to the most powerful thing you can do. It is, however, an annoying and game wrecking effect enabled by the formats focus on legendary creatures that are always available. CV ends up being another poster child for the same reason, because of the degree to which always having a 5 color available makes meeting it's conditions, which is a significant hurdle in 60 card, trivially easy. Commander being 40 life and multiplayer also contributes to this, as it makes 8 Mana win cons viable especially at casual tables, while outside of urzatron or sneak and show that's not a thing in normal magic, especially not competitive 1v1 formats.
You've done a fine job making the case on why you wouldn't mind playing against CV, but those arguments aren't relevant to the banlist. If you were trying to argue for house unbans I'd be right there with you.
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!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
1. Not relevant since the RC isn't managing the format with cEDH in mind (unless the two groups spill into each other).
2. I don't disagree with this, but "dies to Doom Blade" has rarely been an effective argument on its own.
3. (Continuing from #2) Most 5c generals in my experience are cards I need to deal with sooner rather than later, so if I have removal for them I'm going to use it. But your argument is that if the 5c player is "telegraphing" their play by playing 8 lands and their general then I need to hold up a strip mine or swords to plowshares. The problem is now I'm sitting on removal that should be used to deal with am actual board state, like a gaea's Cradle or big dude swinging at me, not held "just in case". And if a card forces me to want to hold a strip mine for a dual land over a utility land then that should be throwing up red flags right there.
4. I see 5c decks every week now thanks to stupid Ur-Dragon and Slivers. I don't think it takes savvy to anticipate every true 5c deck to run CV. And if you have to say "I think this might be a problem for casual players because..." then that's a red flag.
5. Those dumb legal cards you listed don't always win the game, or can be used in a way that doesn't immediately win the game barring removal. CV quite literally does that. Of the cards you listed, the only one which requires less set up is Tooth and Nail, because it only requires nine mana and dedicating two slots in your deck to your combo, if they weren't cards you were already running. Coalition Victory has no such deck building requirement because the only thing it requires is the general and lands you're already playing.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
BTW, for the record, expropriate is significantly better and harder to play around than blatant thievery, because blatant thievery targets, so you can sac whatever he's trying to steal or kill it before they have a chance to use it. Plus you have to count on people to actually choose the theft effect. The other issue is that at least CV has the good sense to just end the game. Sitting around through an expropriate or enter the infinite win is way more annoying imo. Also worth noting that enter the infinite has 5K uses on edhrec, which is actually kind of a lot imo, and that card also is strictly used to win the game. CV would have to be in a major percentage of 5c decks to see more play (which is kind of unlikely, I mean even sol ring is only in like 85% of edhrec decks).
I did literally say in my post that the cEDH thing wasn't important, but more of a note. So I wish people wouldn't respond to that part like it was an argument, that wasn't really the point.
Personally I don't feel safe unless I'm sitting on at least one piece of instant-speed removal. I do get why that probably isn't the case for casual players, but again, that wasn't really my point, and I can see why the banlist would want to protect those players. I'm speaking strictly from my perspective, which is that I hate things that win the game and are hard to predict and interact with, and CV is neither of those things, at least in comparison to some other, legal cards.
I don't really buy the "interacts badly with the format" thing. Because you have a 5C creature on retainer? I mean, sure that helps a fair bit, but to me that seems like a really minor bump to the card compared to, say, serra ascendant (or felidar sovereign). Not that I think SA is a huge problem, but I don't think there's any denying that its interaction with the life rule is an enormous boost to its power. I mean, if it worked the same way in 60-card as it does here(i.e. turned on unless you've lost 10 life), it would be banned in every format instantly. And if worked the same here as in 60-card (i.e. you need to gain 10 life first) then it would probably see almost no play at all. Hell, for that matter, expropriate also gets much more powerful by having more opponents. Both of these seem like much stronger interactions with the format than just having a 5C creature in your hand, at least to me. You still have to cast and keep alive the creature, it isn't more powerful without any setup, the way is true for SA, FS, and expro. (again, not that I'm saying any of those should be banned, except maybe expro)
As far as "having fetches/shocks and playing your commander isn't a lot of setup", I disagree. For one thing, to reliably hit 5 types does take some doing, but the main issue is that it's fairly easy to disrupt with cards most decks should already be running. But more importantly, there are already a TON of commanders that are basically kill-on-sight-or-you-will-lose-the-game. Lovely design decisions like Vannifar, niv parun, jodah, sisay, teferi, muldrotha, gitrog, ramos, kaalia, yisan, zur, yidris, brago, arcum, narset, breya, jhoira, other jhoira, ezuri, mizzix...you get the picture. If I'm playing against these commanders and I can't at least keep removal up against them at all times, then frequently I've already lost. A lot of the 5c commanders seem relatively tame, and being forced to keep up removal against them only in case of CV seems like a pretty minor concession to me. Especially since I was probably keeping it up for one of those stupid BS commanders anyway.
Just to reiterate one last time - I do get why the RC wants to keep it on the banlist and I can see the argument for why it shouldn't come off. But from my perspective at least, I don't think it would be particularly difficult to play around, and playing against it would be a lot more enjoyable than expro or enter the infinite. So if it were up to me, I'd have more fun with the format if expro or enter (or lab man, for that matter) were banned instead.
My bad about the other thread, I forgot to search for it and didn't notice it until I'd already posted. That said, I was kind of hoping it wouldn't get merged, because now people are way more likely to respond to the (imo badly argued) OP rather than my post, which is pretty quickly going to get buried. Perils of a forum structure, I guess.
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
Why not ban them both?
I think we'd be better off devoting energy to cards that might be fun.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Another good example would be in some combos - teferi + knowledge pool vs niv + curiosity. I dislike the first combo a LOT more, because it's almost impossible to interact with except by countering teferi every time he comes down. Granted, once it resolves, it's not necessarily a guaranteed win - you might be able to kill them without casting any more spells from hand - but it's damn near impossible to stop it happening. Whereas niv is an instant-win (well, depending on life totals and whether you can win from drawing your deck) but it's disruptable by creature removal, enchantment removal, and counters. If I could ban either niv or teferi, I'd ban teferi over niv in a nanosecond.
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
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I also felt I was bring pretty clear when I said that I can see why the RC wants to keep it banned, because it probably interacts worse with casual players/groups who won't be as likely to be prepared for it. It kinda seems like you're just saying back to me what I already said myself. All these opinions are based mostly off how I, personally, feel when playing games of commander. Cards that are relatively easy to interact with, that don't lead to annoying protracted solitaire, that are relatively easy to see coming and can only be played in a small percentage of decks - those cards don't bother me. Just me. That's all I'm saying.
Now, as far as the power level thing goes - while I think I'm good at building decks and playing the game, I don't build cEDH or anywhere close to it (unless you count Phelddagrif, but that's more anti-cEDH than anything). I don't play infinite combos, ever. I don't play dumb easy wins like expropriate or T&N or enter the infinite. I don't hold back on stuff like duals and fetches that serve mostly to smooth out the game rather than win it, but ignoring budget I think most people, looking at my decks vs the decks of the table, would think that the power level of the decks was roughly even. Most of my wins, imo, come from good play rather than powerful cards. When borrowing decks I win a lot too.
Man this has gotten braggy.
Anyway, my point is that, despite how much of a tryhard I sound like, and despite how much effort I put into winning, I don't play anywhere near cEDH power level as a general rule. I've played in quite a few different public groups (on multiple continents!), and while they're all varied, the average power level has been roughly consistent between them. So I think I have a reasonably good idea of what the average player looks like. I'm not holed up in a cEDH commune for the last 10 years that has no idea how the common man plays or anything. You're free to disagree. I'm sure there are closed groups of people playing sub-precon level stuff out there.
As far as CV vs expro - I think commander, and magic, should be a game of skill. Or at least, that's how I personally prefer it. Keeping expro legal while banning CV reads, to me, as a concession to chaos over skill. Any idiot can play expropriate (or enter the infinite, if you prefer) and win, and even a well-prepared player may be unable to stop them. Whereas CV is much harder to pull off, and much easier for a prepared played to block. I like cards that reward skillful play, from the person playing it and the person playing against it, and I think CV does that. At least, a lot more than expro and its detestable ilk.
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
I don't think this is an accurate representation of the Hippo's arguments at all. He was quite clear, along with being a point I'd agree with, regarding the Teferi vs Niv analogy. New players might and have been peeved at losing to Niv/Locust/Nekusar decks drawing cards and dealing all of the damage, but that comes down to that deck doing "all of the things" between drawing cards and taking super long turns to do so. Teferi on the other hand, is a much harder interaction for them to understand that can literally stop everyone else playing the game until they win.
However, CV adds nothing the format needs right now, whilst only providing another "feels-bad" moment to annoy all those who hate Dramatic Scepter and Second Sun style wins - That being what appears to be the thought of "if my life total isn't going to 0, its not a legitimate win". The hate for Expropriate on the other hand just fits in with players hating long periods of inaction. I played my Selvala ER deck this Monday gone for example, drawing all of my opponents lots of cards, didn't even win the game or come close. The response? "Its not fun because we aren't playing". But I have to agree with them, since this concept of long periods of inaction = bad rings true for many other things other than extra turns. Should cards be banned based on this notion? Thats where I would disagree with Dirk.
> card that wins just by playing edh requires skill.
> card that needs the caster to make at least 3 choices out multiple options and also needs decision making from the opponents does not require any skill.
Well, okay then.
Not that CV is the gold standard for skilled play or anything, it's still fairly dumb. But it's a lot less dumb than expro, which requires basically nothing from you to be good. Sure, maybe if you're bad at card evaluation you might not get the absolute best result possible out of the card, but even stealing 3 lands and getting an extra turn is extremely powerful. There's really no way for it to be bad unless it's countered. The same is not true for CV, you can get punished very badly for playing it badly. expro offers no such risk.
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
One other thought since you mentioned disagreeing with "interacts poorly with the format" and Serra Ascendant. If she were legendary and always available in the Command zone would you think she should be banned?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Maybe I'm misreading you, but I'm a little confused. You point out that expro, T&N, DD, and CV all end the game quickly so there's no social pressure not to run them...doesn't that kind of defeat your argument, unless you want those other cards banned too? As I said, maybe I'm misreading you. But if you don't see expropriate because it's uninteresting, then I don't see any reason you'd expect to see CV either.
Anyway I agree it's not hard to have a commander in play, at least for a turn, and your land types covered. But if that's all you've got, and you cast CV without backup on 8 mana, I would expect you to be punished in a prepared playgroup.
Not entirely sure what you're getting at about SA. Serra ascendant is kind of interesting because she's simultaneously much better and much worse - much better because 30 life is trivial and takes no setup, and much worse because you're facing down 120 enemy life instead of 20. Were she a commander, that would dramatically change the math because of commander damage, plus being always available T1 after which she dramatically goes down in power, so I would be unsurprised to see it banned were it legendary.
Anyway, ignoring the whole commander damage issue, similar things happen for CV - it's better because you have a 5c creature in your hand all the time, but it's also worse because you've got 3x the number of people aiming counterspells and removal at you. Does it get a net benefit from the format? I mean, probably, but no worse than many other cards imo. Compare to something like limited resources, where the format being multiplayer has an insane impact, or karakas that invalidates huge swaths of decks at virtually no cost because the format revolves around legends. Those to me seem like "interacts badly with the format". Having a 5c creature in your hand...eh, idk. I'm not seeing it. I can see reasonable justification for keeping it banned, but that isn't it. Imo.
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
Except that having access to a 5 color creature at all times is a big deal. You simply don't have to draw or tutor for it. That takes care of half of the conditions for CV from the get go, and if you can cast it the other half is very likely met. It simply makes it far too easy to just cast a card that just wins the game.
This is a card that belongs on the banlist, but it's probably one of the cards in the banlist that is most safely house unbanned. Power level is not a ban criteria, though it influences several. Because of this, CV has a relatively low power level considering how hard it hits the ban criteria. Thus, in certain playgroups, it's rather safe to house unban. In fact, I'd argue that it's problems would disappear in a playgroup that sees a lot of control decks ran by decent players, or a more highly skilled 75% playgroup. It's not going to surprise anyone, since a house unban requires discussion and everyone will expect it, and with skilled players or enough control decks actually firing it off would be difficult. Thus, CV in such a playgroup would go from being a miserable game ender that cold cocks the table to a cute, inefficient wincon that the player is trying to force.
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!
Let's do an exercise where we take cards that interact badly with commander, and try to create a version that interacts roughly the same in other, tournament formats.
First up, serra ascendant. Commander you start with 10 more life than the requirement, so to match let's change the required life to 10. That would absolutely get banned in every format, but that's not quite fair, since commander has twice as high of life totals. So let's scale it down to +2/+2, so it's a 3/3 lifelink flyer as long as you have 10 or more life.
restricted in vintage: maybe? Unsure. Perhaps not.
banned in legacy: probably, delver is already popular and this is significantly better imo.
banned in modern: I would say definitely.
banned in standard: oh my yes.
Ok, now let's look at limited resources. The destroy land clause is basically the same, but the can't play land clause should probably be reduced to 5, assuming we're comparing to a 4-man game of commander.
restricted in vintage: not sure, but definitely seems possible.
banned in legacy: I think very probably.
banned in modern: definitely.
banned in standard: lololol.
Alright, now coalition victory. This one is kind of tricky, but the general issue is supposedly that you always have access to a 5c creature. So let's add "when you draw CV, you add a copy of sliver queen to your hand that goes to the CZ when it dies and does the whole commander thing". Obviously not possible with magic templating but whatever. This is being REALLY generous since in commander your opponent would normally ALSO have some sort of commander obviously and the CV doesn't add anything to your hand, but let's just roll with it.
restricted in vintage: no way
banned in legacy: definitely not
banned in modern: nope
banned in standard: maaaaybe, but mostly for giving you sliver queen. And even then, I think it's very unlikely.
So that's why I call BS on the "interacts badly with the format" thing. At least as regards having a 5c creature in the command zone.
If there IS an argument for why it interacts badly with the format, it has more to do with how the format is much slower than those other formats so that 8-mana 5-color plays aren't laughable, the power level of cards that create a board state where a 5c creature can reasonably fly under the radar, and also the general attitude of the format that removal and counters should be run sparsely, tapping out all the time is par for the course, and careful play is for tryhards. Having the 5c creature on retainer is just the cherry on top, at best.
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
My point about Serra was to point out how powerful and warping it is to have a card in the Command Zone. Even ignoring the Commander damage, having a 6/6 flying lifelink in your opening hand every single game is a strong play and I would expect near 100% of white decks to run it. Along those lines, I think your comparison to other formats thought experiment is flawed because we don't care about tournament formats and there are other factors which contribute to a card being banned. The better example is how to fix a card which was designed for 1v1 Standard and redesign it for multiplayer singleton. So CV should have a "not your commander" clause attached. Limited Resources should have a "5 times the number of starting players" clause. And so on. And then we can see how bad the card would be.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
It's kind of hard to compare SA without the commander damage thing, but even then it's not a fair comparison. You still need to draw CV, after all. Maybe it makes more sense to you, but at least from where I'm sitting it seems pretty apples-and-oranges. A much closer comparison, to me, would be curiosity (+ niv) where it's a combo with your commander. Which isn't perfectly apt either, but it's a lot closer imo.
The point of my "does this interact badly with the format" exercise was to compare how much the format effects those cards. If the card is bannable in commander because it interacts badly with the format, then if it interacted the same way with another format (by changing how the card works, as I did) and seems bannable there, then it seems like the current version should also be banned in commander. And, at least in terms of its interaction with having a 5c commander, I think CV gets a resounding "no" compared to other cards that get a boost from the format.
Not that I don't think the card gets a big boost from the format, but the boost is like 90% "because it's a slow casual format" and 10% "because you have a 5c creature on tap". And from what I can tell, the RC argues strictly from that 10%. (Which I kind of get, because if your argue from the 90% then the same is true for other powerful expensive cards like expro which remain unbanned.)
I don't really follow what you're trying to prove with your fixed cards. I mean, if you fixed SA it's basically unplayable, but that says nothing about whether it should be banned. I guess if a banned card would still be broken even if fixed it would prove that the interaction with the format is irrelevant, but the lack of that doesn't prove the reverse. It proves that the interaction with the format is strong, but not that it's sufficient to ban the card.
There are cards that interact badly with the format (SA, felidar) that we don't ban and don't need banning.
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
Look, it's fine to think the card should be banned, but the argument that the ONLY reason is because it "interacts badly with [the commander being a reliable source of a 5c creature]" is fairly ridiculous. That's a reasonable contributing factor but it's far from the whole story.
EDIT: aww man I wasted my 5000th post. Lame.
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
THEY DO NOT WIN THE GAME. They can put the caster in a great position, yes, but so many times the board has just been so well filled that even taking the best permanents AND an extra turn simply left me ahead but not winning the game. You know how to play around Expropriate? Create a board state where you don't lose to Blatant Thievery. Not that hard to do.
Coalition Victory has counterplay, yes, but the counterplay is even more telegraphed than the CV itself. Now, if CV did anything else beyond "win the game", I'd be more interested in giving it a test run as it'd be a card you'd include to have fun with. As is, hell no.
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.
Anyways besides it blatantly interacting poorly with the format, theres also the point you seem to be opting to ignore that it would create undesirable game states. How? Because everytime a 5c deck gets its five typed lands or its commander in play everyone will just be focused on stopping the CV. So sure, the odds of CV actually resolving might be low due to removal and counters, but its legality would work as a pseudo Karakas only for 5c decks.
Also, again, CV is literally the only card in all of mtg that wins solely by resolving AND is aided by edhs rules. Everything else needs something happening after the original card resolves.
Womp womp
His argument is that you can cast CV, i can Utter End your general, and then it resolves and does nothing. Which is technically true. But similarly I could cast Expropriate on a weak board and lose, or get Fogged for three turns in a row.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
It produces no mana, so that's obviously out. It's worth 50 cents, so I think the barrier to entry should be fine. Casual omnipresence is impossible since only ~2% of commanders can even legally play it. Sure, maybe it's pretty omnipresent in those 2%, but (1) who cares, it's still 2%, and (2) sol ring is played in nearly every deck I've sat across from, so this criteria is nonsense on its face.
So that leaves us with 2 criteria.
Creates undesirable game states seems almost plausible unless you read the first sentence - "losing is not an undesirable game state". So that's a pretty open-and-shut case. You can maybe argue that "well, it'll make people pick on 5c commanders for fear of it," but that seems ridiculous to me. People don't constantly pulverize all green players just because T&N exists, or blue players because expro or ETI or omniscience exist. Those cards could happen and end the game, but it's all a calculated risk. Yes, they might have CV but they probably don't. Decks are big. Not to say people shouldn't have responses just in case, but they won't, or shouldn't, fire them off at the commander immediately always. That's just bad play.
So now we're down to the last one. The one that the RC is forced to use because none of the others fit. "Because it wins the game" is not a criteria. "Because it doesn't give people a chance to respond" is not a criteria (plus it's false). "Because it doesn't have a fun use" isn't a criteria, in fact it's almost explicitly why cards like doomsday are still legal. So we're forced to use the "interacts badly with the format" criteria.
Now, don't get me wrong - CV is much, much better here than any other format. No question about that. Spells with this casting cost are basically unplayable in virtually every other format, let alone with the same setup required and ease of disruption. That's because of the casual nature of the format, the high life totals, the multiple players, all contribute to a game that's much harder to win, and even harder to win "fairly". But that's also true of many other cards in the format. The fact that this is a format where rise of the dark realms is good is a feature, not a bug. So they can't focus on that.
So the criteria they have to use is that having access to a 5c creature all the time is sufficient boon to the card to justify banning ALONE. And there's no way to justify that, because even with that boost other formats would laugh CV out of the building. But they have to claim it's a huge problem, on its own, because it's the only way to justify banning the card with the banlist criteria as-is.
Now, if you wanted to ask me to justify banning it - that's pretty easy. Big, boring, win-the-game-now cards aren't interesting or conducive to a good game, especially among casual players who don't appreciate the threat-answer dichotomy that characterizes competitive magic. Cards that just exist to win the game without any play-around are not interesting. But then, imo, you've gotta ban enter the infinite too, and doomsday, because those fit the exact same criteria. And, at least imo, expro, although that one is more debatable.
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
Interacts poorly - 100% it does. The card was designed such that you had to draw into or use what little ramp was available to get five land types, and draw into multiple creatures or a 5c one. In a 60 card deck this is an huge drawback because you are creating a deck building weakness. In EDH, the rules of the format take care of this nearly. You always have a 5c creature in your hand to play, and your deck is built intentionally to produce all five colors of mana without suffering the same drawbacks that you would have in 60 card magic.
Creates undesirable game states - it wins the game out of nowhere, such that you cast it, no one has an instant speed answer and the game ends regardless of everything up until that point. Yes it is telegraphed in the sense that we can assume every 5c deck runs it but beyond that there is no indication other than the player having their general and lands in play.
Problematic casual Omnipresence - every deck that can run this card should run it and will warp those games simply by being legal. There is also no need to optimize your deck to run it beyond running fetches.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I'm sorry, but if your trying to compare bannability in vintage and legacy to bannability in commander, you are woefully off base on several levels.
First of all, you ignore that the sort of cards that are good in vintage/legacy and the sort of cards that are good in commander are often quite different, to the point that your whole exercise is a useless apples to oranges comparison. Take Delver of secrets, a legacy all star, which sucks in edh. Or deathrite shaman, which is just pretty good in edh (and even then, it's better in cEDH and very underwhelming in casual metas) while being banned in several more competitive formats. Meanwhile, ***** like bio and worldfire are rightly banned in commander while being laughably bad in literally every other format.
Second, you are continually making the mistake of not understanding the underlying banlist philosophy, or simply ignoring it. Power level and balance are not ban criteria. Interacting poorly with the format does not only refer to cards becoming oppressively powerful, but also to cards just becoming unfun to the point of ruining games. Karakas is the poster child here, as what it does, while powerful, isn't anywhere close to the most powerful thing you can do. It is, however, an annoying and game wrecking effect enabled by the formats focus on legendary creatures that are always available. CV ends up being another poster child for the same reason, because of the degree to which always having a 5 color available makes meeting it's conditions, which is a significant hurdle in 60 card, trivially easy. Commander being 40 life and multiplayer also contributes to this, as it makes 8 Mana win cons viable especially at casual tables, while outside of urzatron or sneak and show that's not a thing in normal magic, especially not competitive 1v1 formats.
You've done a fine job making the case on why you wouldn't mind playing against CV, but those arguments aren't relevant to the banlist. If you were trying to argue for house unbans I'd be right there with you.
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!