tstorm's Zedruu is built on winning creatively as opposed to the usual painful gifts route and could serve as a baseline the kind of deck you're looking for. Look up "Zedruu the Greatest of All Time" in the commander multi-player section on this site.
I understand that if I use Trap Runner's activated ability on Saprazzan Heir my opponent will draw cards because Saprazzan Heir only cares that it was blocked by not how.
If I use Trap Runner's activated ability on Coral Eel equipped with Infiltration Lens, does the ability being on a creature count as "blocked by a creature" for purposes of weather or not my opponent draws cards in this case?
With all that in mind, no there aren't a preponderance of pentacoloured decks around, and I don't think CV being unbanned would change that. That being said, there's every chance it would become ubiquitous as a staple in pentacoloured decks if unbanned. All this aside, I don't see this as the primary reason it was banned. I think its predominantly the 'undesirable game state' argument, although the argument could be made that its also a culprit under the 'interacts poorly with the structure of commander' criterion, as it need do no more than resolve to end the game - it kind of straddles those two criteria to my mind. And that's enough to justify it being on the list. No one likes a game that ends abruptly with the resolution of a single spell with no avenue to intervene, and the nature of the color identity rulings in Commander leads CV to be too easily manipulated by particular generals.
Ubiquitous in the scope of a cgg doesn't pertain to how often it appears in a certain category of decks such as five colored ones. Ubiquity pertains to saturation of the format's environment as a whole. In other words, realistically what percentage of the total games played will Coalition Victory appear in a deck and is that percentage large enough to have a meaningful impact on the environment? When comparing it to things like Worldfire you have to bear in mind that being five colored means it can only be in comparatively few decks while monocolored cards like Worldfire can fit into a significantly larger deck pool and therefore have a much larger impact on the environment.
Furthermore, winning the game is not an undesirable game state. An undesirable game state is more like using Leovold, Emissary of Trest as a commander and forcing your opponents to watch as you're the only one actually playing the game. At least Coalition Victory is merciful in that it ends things and lets people move on the next game. As for interacts poorly with the structure of commander, that's more for cards that leverage the rules and game play mechanics to get their advantage, such as Karakas. Considering this card takes advantage of the fact that it will always have access to a five colored creature (commander) I'll be willing to give you that if you want. Still, that leaves my question: will it appear often enough in game play to warrant this being enough of a problem for the banned list to care?
Someone obviously skipped the last 12 pages. This is just blatantly false and has been covered quite extensively already. Short version is that every color has instant-speed ways to remove a creature or a land providing the colors/types for CV's conditions, which will cause CV to resolve with no effect.
And pentacolour has plenty of ways to build contingency into decks to mitigate this. Dual lands, shock lands, hybrid colour creatures, this rebuttal is zero sum.
Isn't "lacks interaction" one of the arguments for wanting the card to stay banned? "I play a card, you play cards to stop it, I play other cards to get around your removal" is the very definition of interaction. Just saying.
If I agree, CV adds nothing productive to the game, so why unban it?
This is a terrible argument and always has been. "Not adding anything to the game" is just an excuse to project personal distaste for a card as reason to keep it banned. Weather or not a card is fun, interesting, or makes for better games is a player issue and not one the banned list should ever care about. (Especially considering that it's completely opinionated.) The banned list should only care about cards that take enough from the format that their presence often enough creates a toxic or otherwise miserable experience. Therefore the burden of proof is on demonstrating weather or not a given card has enough of a negative to warrant being on the list, not if it has enough of a positive to warrant coming off.
To emphasize further, if the banned list were being created from scratch right now, would you honestly expect Card X to be included? If you say "no", than the reason it would not be added to this hypothetical list is also the reason it should not remain on the real one.
In a world where Food Chain Tazri is a thing and there are super competitive Scion/Horde/Child decks around, can you guarantee that you wouldn't be able to produce an out of the blue, non-interactive CV win on a regular basis? With access to all colours, you have tutors, ways to play it for cheaper, ensure it doesn't get countered - this is the undesirable game state. I don't mind reshuffling and playing again after a short game, but the chances are high CV is able to be played and resolved for the win consistently.
The rules committee - and therefore the banned list - doesn't care about competitive decks. Bringing them up is irrelevant to this thread.
I want to ask a simple question (and please don't hate me for it): even if we assume that the card is as broken as some claim, will it appear in enough games for that to be a real issue? It's not just how powerful or centralizing a card is that matters, but also its ubiquity, as it's a combination of the two that generates its toxicity. I mean, it is a five colored card, so even if it saw play in every deck it could that's still a rather small deck percentage by comparison. That's a pretty big difference from the mono colored cards cited above that can appear in a significantly larger deck pool.
I control Obstinate Familiar and cast Concentrate. If I only wanted to draw one or two cards can I do that or does Obstinate Familiar make me choose to draw all or none?
Equilibrium - okay, it requires a specific deck. But it can be anywhere from persistently annoying to a real thorn in the side of your opponents. The wording of play instead of cast means blink can help make this pull its weight.
That's the definition of shifting blame. If a card says "do X" but the rules basically say "if you're used as a commander X isn't possible" that flat out defines the rules as being the reason the card can't do X. How many or how few cards are effected doesn't change this.
@ Lithl
Throughout the history of the game rules got changed over far less so I really don't see your point. Unless the rules committee themselves says they don't care about an issue with the rules unless a certain number of cards are effected I continue to hold my position.
One more thing: you're still trying to use "but use card(s) X" as a crutch to excuse the issue. Personal choice should determine weather or not the player put the card(s) into their deck, not because the rules basically force them to.
@ totheyounger77
I play in a place where it's logistically impossible to create or enforce house rules. (To many people popping in and out on a regular basis to keep everyone on the same page if we tried that.) As such, I have no choice but to play with the official rules as is and nothing else. A nice little fyi in case you or anyone reading this wonders why I don't go the house rule route, because I would gladly do that instead of making a spectacle of myself on a public forum if I could.
Remember that cards are not designed specifically with Commander in mind. A lot of these cards might make a splash in other formats, but not fire well in EDH. That's not WOTC's problem, as it's not their format.
You misunderstand. When I mentioned about a card's design, I meant the card's rules text and nothing more. To wit, if a legendary creature says "does X", then having it in the command zone should allow it to do X. Under normal circumstances there are some legendary creatures where this isn't possible under the current rules and that's my point. (Well, part of my point. The other part is that I don't agree with the orignal poster's idea of allowing all of their purposed cards as legal commanders.)
Weather or not a card as a commander is any good strategy wise is a player issue is not relevant to my argument.
I get the argument, I just think there's plenty of choice already, ...
I doubt there will too many players who would agree they don't need more cards to play with. Besides, I'm not asking more cards be added to the pool the way the original post purposes (because technically all of these can already be put into the command zone), but rather to allow more accessibility to what's already present (so you can actually do the cool thing that your card is supposed to do).
... and if you're absolutely dedicated to playing a deck with an obscure commander or one that requires hoops to be jumped through, then you'll clear the hoops or find another option.
Jumping through hoops to make a legendary creature worth playing as a commander is one thing. Jumping through hoops to use it as a commamnder at all is quite another.
The whole point of the format is that you have this legendary creature you really like and now you can build your entire deck around it. If the rules make it unnecessarily difficult (by cornering you into playing a specific card or subset of cards for example) or even impossible, that's an issue with the the format itself and not the card specifically.
Not being able to use a number of legendary creatures as commanders without being forced to include, tutor, and spam one very specific card only echoes the problem. The rules should never make someone feel like a certain portion of their deck is pre-decided for them if they want to use any of these in the command zone.
Let's not forget that even among the already legal cards, not all of them work properly as commanders. There are cards like Jiwari, the Earth Aflame that require compromising on how they're designed and poor Haakon, Stromgald Scourge which can't do anything at all. While I'm OK with someone wanting to house rule whatever random card as a commander, I would rather a discussion about the official rules entertain the possibility of improving the use of the already existent pool before looking to expand it with additional cards.*
*Perhaps a rule that says "You may pay your commander tax to put the card from your command zone into your hand"? Who knows?
Edit - Looking at Extinction, I would think that Eladamri's shroud would protect against that one, but not Wrath of God, because it is targeting a elves.
No. An instant or sorcery spell only targets if uses the word "target", regardless of what the card actually does. Extinction says "Destroy all creatures of the creature type of your choice." The word "target" isn't used by the spell, so nothing is targeted. Eladamri, Lord of Leaves's ability will not save elves from this spell.
For normal split cards it's [c]Left Side Name // Right Side Name[/c] with a space between the names and the // .
Example: [c]Assault // Battery[/c] → Assault // Battery
For aftermath cards it's [c]Top Side Name // Bottom Side Name[/c] with a space between the names and the // .
Example: [c]Heaven // Earth[/c] → Heaven // Earth
For the sake of completion, for a certain silver bordered card it's [c]Who/What/When/Where/Why[/c] → Who/What/When/Where/Why
If I use Trap Runner's activated ability on Coral Eel equipped with Infiltration Lens, does the ability being on a creature count as "blocked by a creature" for purposes of weather or not my opponent draws cards in this case?
Ubiquitous in the scope of a cgg doesn't pertain to how often it appears in a certain category of decks such as five colored ones. Ubiquity pertains to saturation of the format's environment as a whole. In other words, realistically what percentage of the total games played will Coalition Victory appear in a deck and is that percentage large enough to have a meaningful impact on the environment? When comparing it to things like Worldfire you have to bear in mind that being five colored means it can only be in comparatively few decks while monocolored cards like Worldfire can fit into a significantly larger deck pool and therefore have a much larger impact on the environment.
Furthermore, winning the game is not an undesirable game state. An undesirable game state is more like using Leovold, Emissary of Trest as a commander and forcing your opponents to watch as you're the only one actually playing the game. At least Coalition Victory is merciful in that it ends things and lets people move on the next game. As for interacts poorly with the structure of commander, that's more for cards that leverage the rules and game play mechanics to get their advantage, such as Karakas. Considering this card takes advantage of the fact that it will always have access to a five colored creature (commander) I'll be willing to give you that if you want. Still, that leaves my question: will it appear often enough in game play to warrant this being enough of a problem for the banned list to care?
Isn't "lacks interaction" one of the arguments for wanting the card to stay banned? "I play a card, you play cards to stop it, I play other cards to get around your removal" is the very definition of interaction. Just saying.
This is a terrible argument and always has been. "Not adding anything to the game" is just an excuse to project personal distaste for a card as reason to keep it banned. Weather or not a card is fun, interesting, or makes for better games is a player issue and not one the banned list should ever care about. (Especially considering that it's completely opinionated.) The banned list should only care about cards that take enough from the format that their presence often enough creates a toxic or otherwise miserable experience. Therefore the burden of proof is on demonstrating weather or not a given card has enough of a negative to warrant being on the list, not if it has enough of a positive to warrant coming off.
To emphasize further, if the banned list were being created from scratch right now, would you honestly expect Card X to be included? If you say "no", than the reason it would not be added to this hypothetical list is also the reason it should not remain on the real one.
The rules committee - and therefore the banned list - doesn't care about competitive decks. Bringing them up is irrelevant to this thread.
The creature needs to be cast as a spell. You can't blink with it.
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=25568
As for the op, River's Rebuke is basically Cyclonic Rift for only one player.
That's the definition of shifting blame. If a card says "do X" but the rules basically say "if you're used as a commander X isn't possible" that flat out defines the rules as being the reason the card can't do X. How many or how few cards are effected doesn't change this.
@ Lithl
Throughout the history of the game rules got changed over far less so I really don't see your point. Unless the rules committee themselves says they don't care about an issue with the rules unless a certain number of cards are effected I continue to hold my position.
One more thing: you're still trying to use "but use card(s) X" as a crutch to excuse the issue. Personal choice should determine weather or not the player put the card(s) into their deck, not because the rules basically force them to.
@ totheyounger77
I play in a place where it's logistically impossible to create or enforce house rules. (To many people popping in and out on a regular basis to keep everyone on the same page if we tried that.) As such, I have no choice but to play with the official rules as is and nothing else. A nice little fyi in case you or anyone reading this wonders why I don't go the house rule route, because I would gladly do that instead of making a spectacle of myself on a public forum if I could.
You misunderstand. When I mentioned about a card's design, I meant the card's rules text and nothing more. To wit, if a legendary creature says "does X", then having it in the command zone should allow it to do X. Under normal circumstances there are some legendary creatures where this isn't possible under the current rules and that's my point. (Well, part of my point. The other part is that I don't agree with the orignal poster's idea of allowing all of their purposed cards as legal commanders.)
Weather or not a card as a commander is any good strategy wise is a player issue is not relevant to my argument.
I doubt there will too many players who would agree they don't need more cards to play with. Besides, I'm not asking more cards be added to the pool the way the original post purposes (because technically all of these can already be put into the command zone), but rather to allow more accessibility to what's already present (so you can actually do the cool thing that your card is supposed to do).
Jumping through hoops to make a legendary creature worth playing as a commander is one thing. Jumping through hoops to use it as a commamnder at all is quite another.
The whole point of the format is that you have this legendary creature you really like and now you can build your entire deck around it. If the rules make it unnecessarily difficult (by cornering you into playing a specific card or subset of cards for example) or even impossible, that's an issue with the the format itself and not the card specifically.
*Perhaps a rule that says "You may pay your commander tax to put the card from your command zone into your hand"? Who knows?
No. An instant or sorcery spell only targets if uses the word "target", regardless of what the card actually does. Extinction says "Destroy all creatures of the creature type of your choice." The word "target" isn't used by the spell, so nothing is targeted. Eladamri, Lord of Leaves's ability will not save elves from this spell.
For normal split cards it's [c]Left Side Name // Right Side Name[/c] with a space between the names and the // .
Example: [c]Assault // Battery[/c] → Assault // Battery
For aftermath cards it's [c]Top Side Name // Bottom Side Name[/c] with a space between the names and the // .
Example: [c]Heaven // Earth[/c] → Heaven // Earth
For the sake of completion, for a certain silver bordered card it's [c]Who/What/When/Where/Why[/c] → Who/What/When/Where/Why