I am not trying to make a movement to ban Kiki but meerly to point out that he has the potential to grow more stupidly powerful with additional cards printed.
But this is true for any card. Just look at Dark Depths - before Hexmage came around, it was pretty much a junk land, with few efficient ways of getting it out.
But now.... DD/Hexmage is one of the better combos in black. All because future sets brought power to old cards.
If cards didnt get better with others being printed, then why bother innovating when this is the best we can do?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tantarus: It didn't make the gaka greifer level, so it should be fine
Ok ok, clearly my beliefs on this card are not very widely shared I will leave it be guys.
P.S. while the dark depths comparison is decent Kiki combos with any ETB ability and wizards has been making a ton more of them of late. All it takes is any really powerful game ending ETB effect + kiki and its game over. As Surging Chaos pointed out earlier Village Bell-Ringer + Kiki now exists for another wincon. He is really starting to remind me a bit of Staff of Domination.
Ok ok, clearly my beliefs on this card are not very widely shared I will leave it be guys.
P.S. while the dark depths comparison is decent Kiki combos with any ETB ability and wizards has been making a ton more of them of late. All it takes is any really powerful game ending ETB effect + kiki and its game over. As Surging Chaos pointed out earlier Village Bell-Ringer + Kiki now exists for another wincon. He is really starting to remind me a bit of Staff of Domination.
I think your belief is right on but people are getting to caught up in card names to really understand the bigger picture you are talking about.
But this is true for any card. Just look at Dark Depths - before Hexmage came around, it was pretty much a junk land, with few efficient ways of getting it out.
But now.... DD/Hexmage is one of the better combos in black. All because future sets brought power to old cards.
If cards didnt get better with others being printed, then why bother innovating when this is the best we can do?
Dark Depths, while powerful, is actually not a very good example for future potential. The requirements to make it good, removing counters, are actually very narrow in the context of future sets. On the other hand Kiki, TaN, and Primeval Titan will have a steady stream of cards made every set for no other reason then the game requires creatures and lands to be printed. The potential for favorable interactions is greatly increased for that reason alone and the previously mentioned Village Bell-Ringer is the perfect example. It is nothing more then a combat trick meant of limited and probably will never see any serious constructed play since Blue already has 2 creatures that do the same thing in a better color.
People get worried over the banned Coalition Victory and it's only a 8-mana sorcery speed combo.....requiring your 5 color general to be in play to make it work. One piece of instant removal and the combo falls apart.
I can totally see Tooth and Nail on the chopping block
I think Coalition Victory is banned not just because it's an 8-mana sorcery that auto-wins, but because it auto-wins by literally saying "You win the game." If someone plays that for the win, not only is it anticlimactic, but it's also really prone to "Okay, you win, now the rest of us are going to play for 2nd" (which is a problem a lot of auto-win cards have). It's underwhelming to lose to and to win with. It isn't necessarily that overpowered (it is really powerful), but also has a lameness factor. It'd almost be least contentious if it said, "Exile all permanents you don't control, and you win the game." It's the "You just... win. The end", even at sorcery speed, is somewhat unsatisfying.
Compare Tooth and Nail, which doesn't fetch a combo that says "You win the game", it fetches combo pieces to... do something to win the game (deal infinite damage, attack with infinite creatures, make people draw infinite cards, whatever). This is more interactive and gives opponents more of a feeling they're actually losing the game. Plus, if the board state is affected, it eliminates the "play for 2nd" problem. And lastly, TaN can and does grab non-combo pairs of creatures. Just this week I saw a normally combo heavy player grab Massacre Wurm (and something unrelated) to kill off a single player who had a token swarm.
I can imagine TaN getting banned as the "grabbing two big creatures, woo!" percentage of use falls and "grabbing a two card combo" use rises, but I'd still be surprised. For now though, I don't think it's a problematic card.
Does anyone else feel like Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker might start getting closer to the point where we might talking about him for discussion on the ban list... ...I feel like it is sort of inevitable that he gets the hammer.
The main reason that Kiki-Jiki won't be banned is for consistency of the banned list. The RC has stated multiple times that they don't like having redundant cards on the banned list while other functional prints of cards are not. This is why Worldgorger Dragon was recently taken off the list.
WGD is a two-card instant-win combo. The RC decided that since plenty of other 2 card instant-win combos were not on the list, that WGD had no place being on there either. If WGD was unbanned for this reason, what chance does Kiki-Jiki have of going onto the banned list for the same reason they took WGD off of it?
None, that's what. KJiki is in no danger of going anywhere.
The main reason that Kiki-Jiki won't be banned is for consistency of the banned list. The RC has stated multiple times that they don't like having redundant cards on the banned list while other functional prints of cards are not. This is why Worldgorger Dragon was recently taken off the list.
WGD is a two-card instant-win combo. The RC decided that since plenty of other 2 card instant-win combos were not on the list, that WGD had no place being on there either. If WGD was unbanned for this reason, what chance does Kiki-Jiki have of going onto the banned list for the same reason they took WGD off of it?
None, that's what. KJiki is in no danger of going anywhere.
The big difference is that Kiki is a bit more like Painters Servant in which it has lots of open ways in which new development can exploit it much further. Worldgorger is a very narrow combo and he does very very little outside of the combo. Kiki combos with lots of guys and outside of the usual 2-3 guys there are still tons of gamebreaking creatures that end the game very quickly when combined with Kiki.
I think the big difference in my mind is the fact that it isnt a narrow combo piece but it can end the game in soooooooo many ways. Future sets will simply open up more options for him to become even more broken.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
I feel like EDH will fall apart before tooth and nail gets banned. AKA, no one will listen to the RC anymore. I've stopped following parts of their banlist since it doesn't make sense. The only reason the RC has the influence (and I use that term loosely) is because the player base believes the banlist is reasonable. If a more reasonable banlist shows up, then the RC gets replaced, that simple.
I feel like EDH will fall apart before tooth and nail gets banned. AKA, no one will listen to the RC anymore. I've stopped following parts of their banlist since it doesn't make sense. The only reason the RC has the influence (and I use that term loosely) is because the player base believes the banlist is reasonable. If a more reasonable banlist shows up, then the RC gets replaced, that simple.
Just so long as you never play sanctioned EDH games that way, there's absolutely no problem with people doing this.
I feel like EDH will fall apart before tooth and nail gets banned.
It's certainly a possibility. I guess I wasn't really supporting it as a ban list candidate just a spell that has grown increasingly powerful along with power creep. I have seen TnN become a win button more than just a cool creature tutor, but then again I prefer a smaller ban list that dones't include all two card combos so I hope it doesn't get banned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I really don't like Goodstuff, which makes me a Self-Proclaimed EDH Hipster. I'm also an avid theory-crafter, most of which are terrible.
It's certainly a possibility. I guess I wasn't really supporting it as a ban list candidate just a spell that has grown increasingly powerful along with power creep. I have seen TnN become a win button more than just a cool creature tutor, but then again I prefer a smaller ban list that dones't include all two card combos so I hope it doesn't get banned.
Me too, banning a combo in this format makes no sense. When you ban a combo piece, I can guarantee there are easily a few hundred more to take it's place. Look at staff of domination, it can easily be replaced by an azure mage. The only reason I use that example is because blue is notorious for setting up infinite combos with lots of mana. Same goes for protean hulk, why is he banned when tooth and nail is ok? Tooth and nail is almost superior in every way. Why ban gifts ungiven when we have a dozen other tutors? Parts of the banlist make sense, but other parts resemble a witch hunt towards combos.
Same goes for protean hulk, why is he banned when tooth and nail is ok? Tooth and nail is almost superior in every way. Why ban gifts ungiven when we have a dozen other tutors? Parts of the banlist make sense, but other parts resemble a witch hunt towards combos.
It's much easier to nuke Protean Hulk repeatedly than it is to cast an entwined Tooth and Nail repeatedly. Sure, Hulk can't get any creatures at cc > 6, but there are plenty of amazing creatures at 6 and below. (For strict by-the-numbers comparison, there are currently 391 creatures at cc > 6, and 5953 creatures at cc <= 6. That's not to say all of them are good, of course ;))
There are certainly tutors other than Gifts Ungiven, but unlike most tutors, Gifts gives you two cards in hand, and two cards in your graveyard. For many decks, cards in the graveyard are just as good as in the hand. Sometimes better.
Whether or not you like the fact that a certain card is banned, it's usually easy to figure out why it was done, or why card X was banned over card Y.
@PopeHilarius Coalition Victory doesn't simply say 'you win the game'. It says 'IF you control each basic land and IF you control creatures on the board for all the colors (that being a 5 color general being the simplest way to achieve that), THEN you win the game.'
There is a big difference. I've played a 5 color deck and it's a great deal harder to get all 5 basic land out then it seems. Often I'm playing with mana fixers to achieve my spells. In addition, there are three ways of dealing with Coalition Victory: Counter it, instant removal on a key creature, instant removal on a basic land.
@Overbeing of Myth
With you I agree that the banlist should be more consistant. Though, while many prefer fewer cards on list, I feel this this approach would create further instability in the format. No one is going to want to play if you can make degenerate moves. I wouldn't anyways.
@PopeHilarius Coalition Victory doesn't simply say 'you win the game'. It says 'IF you control each basic land and IF you control creatures on the board for all the colors (that being a 5 color general being the simplest way to achieve that), THEN you win the game.'
There is a big difference. I've played a 5 color deck and it's a great deal harder to get all 5 basic land out then it seems. Often I'm playing with mana fixers to achieve my spells. In addition, there are three ways of dealing with Coalition Victory: Counter it, instant removal on a key creature, instant removal on a basic land.
@Overbeing of Myth
With you I agree that the banlist should be more consistant. Though, while many prefer fewer cards on list, I feel this this approach would create further instability in the format. No one is going to want to play if you can make degenerate moves. I wouldn't anyways.
For a well tuned 5c deck that is running a big money manabase getting a land of each type is easily obtained by turn 5 I would say 80-90% of games. Between all of the fetchlands and dual lands most of it is covered by just this add in the fact that you could be using green ramp as well if you want to and if your deck is built to win through coalition it will do so quite easily.
The biggest conditional about the spell is if you creature lives through the spell resolve. Spot removal in response or strip mine one of your lands in response would be the biggest conditionals in my mind.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
@PopeHilarius Coalition Victory doesn't simply say 'you win the game'. It says 'IF you control each basic land and IF you control creatures on the board for all the colors (that being a 5 color general being the simplest way to achieve that), THEN you win the game.'
There is a big difference. I've played a 5 color deck and it's a great deal harder to get all 5 basic land out then it seems. Often I'm playing with mana fixers to achieve my spells. In addition, there are three ways of dealing with Coalition Victory: Counter it, instant removal on a key creature, instant removal on a basic land.
No of course, there's no card that says just "Win the game." But it does say, "you win the game", which is unsatisfying for the reasons I mentioned earlier. What makes Coalition Victory different is that of the 13 auto-win cards, 11 of them trigger in your upkeep (Test of Endurance, Helix Pinnacle, etc.), giving opponents substantial time to disrupt the auto-win. The newest one Laboratory Maniac can be triggered immediately after being played, but only with some way to draw a card and substantial preparation, and unlike Coalition Victory, if the maniac is disrupted, you're very likely to lose instead.
So while yes, Coalition Victory requires set-up and can be disrupted (mostly by creature removal. Very few cards have instant speed land removal, and few of those are playable in EDH), it's still unique in that it's an auto-win sorcery. Have 5 basic lands and your commander? Then it's "Hey, anyone have counters or instant speed removal? Ok cool then I win." That's worlds different than every other auto-win card, and again, not really rewarding to lose to.
I don't mean to start a debate on Coalition Victory, my point is that while both are very powerful sorceries, its in a different league than Tooth and Nail when it comes to annoying wins.
For a well tuned 5c deck that is running a big money manabase getting a land of each type is easily obtained by turn 5 I would say 80-90% of games. Between all of the fetchlands and dual lands most of it is covered by just this add in the fact that you could be using green ramp as well if you want to and if your deck is built to win through coalition it will do so quite easily.
The biggest conditional about the spell is if you creature lives through the spell resolve. Spot removal in response or strip mine one of your lands in response would be the biggest conditionals in my mind.
If someone were to spend that much money on a 5 color deck, why wouldn't they just build Hermit Druid instead? I find it kind of amazing that people think someone would build this competitive 5 color deck based around Coalition Victory when they could win 3-4 turns faster and easier with Hermit Druid. Coalition Victory isn't even good in the only deck that it could be good in. It shouldn't be on the banned list.
So while yes, Coalition Victory requires set-up and can be disrupted (mostly by creature removal. Very few cards have instant speed land removal, and few of those are playable in EDH), it's still unique in that it's an auto-win sorcery. Have 5 basic lands and your commander? Then it's "Hey, anyone have counters or instant speed removal? Ok cool then I win." That's worlds different than every other auto-win card, and again, not really rewarding to lose to.
Yes, no one plays instantspeedlandremoval in EDH. Coalition Victory is an easily beatable card and if your deck loses to it, then your deck will likely lose to any number of other combos. It is in no way a dominant or unbeatable strategy, and there are a whole slew of stronger, faster, more resilient combos running around. Someone might be able to pull it off once, but any half-way decent group will never let that 5-color deck resolve its general and/or assemble every land type again. This is distinctly different from a deck like Sharuum, Arcum, or Azami, where you know how they are going to win but you may or may not be able to disrupt their game plan.
Honestly, if someone could pull off a Coalition Victory win against me, more power to them. It would certainly make me lol.
Emmara is like the worst parts of Legends and Homelands got pregnant, aborted the fetus, tossed it in the trashcan, set it on fire and wrapped the corpse in a Dragon's Maze pack wrapper.
If someone were to spend that much money on a 5 color deck, why wouldn't they just build Hermit Druid instead? I find it kind of amazing that people think someone would build this competitive 5 color deck based around Coalition Victory when they could win 3-4 turns faster and easier with Hermit Druid. Coalition Victory isn't even good in the only deck that it could be good in. It shouldn't be on the banned list.
Yes, no one plays instantspeedlandremoval in EDH. Coalition Victory is an easily beatable card and if your deck loses to it, then your deck will likely lose to any number of other combos. It is in no way a dominant or unbeatable strategy, and there are a whole slew of stronger, faster, more resilient combos running around. Someone might be able to pull it off once, but any half-way decent group will never let that 5-color deck resolve its general and/or assemble every land type again. This is distinctly different from a deck like Sharuum, Arcum, or Azami, where you know how they are going to win but you may or may not be able to disrupt their game plan.
Honestly, if someone could pull off a Coalition Victory win against me, more power to them. It would certainly make me lol.
I was mainly talking about the manabase for it but if it had the coalition it would likely also run the druid. The druid isnt unstopable believe it or not. It isnt a terrible idea to have a few backups and for only taking one slot in the deck I dont think it is so terrible that 5c would refuse to run it altogether.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
Well, I would run Coalition Victory in my Reaper King deck. It has the dual lands, and you just need general + victory to win. But I wouldn't run a Hermit Druid deck-- it sounds really boring to play.
The argument you're making is that Hermit Druid is at least as bannable as Coalition Victory, which I agree with. But you can't conclude "Hermit Druid is unbanned, therefore Coalition Victory should be unbanned." The only conclusions you can make is that Coalition Victory should be legal IF it's correct that Hermit Druid should be legal, and that Hermit Druid should be banned IF it's correct that Coalition Victory should be banned.
The problem with defining [EDH] by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
I think Coalition Victory is banned not just because it's an 8-mana sorcery that auto-wins, but because it auto-wins by literally saying "You win the game." If someone plays that for the win, not only is it anticlimactic, but it's also really prone to "Okay, you win, now the rest of us are going to play for 2nd" (which is a problem a lot of auto-win cards have). It's underwhelming to lose to and to win with. It isn't necessarily that overpowered (it is really powerful), but also has a lameness factor. It'd almost be least contentious if it said, "Exile all permanents you don't control, and you win the game." It's the "You just... win. The end", even at sorcery speed, is somewhat unsatisfying.
Compare Tooth and Nail, which doesn't fetch a combo that says "You win the game", it fetches combo pieces to... do something to win the game (deal infinite damage, attack with infinite creatures, make people draw infinite cards, whatever). This is more interactive and gives opponents more of a feeling they're actually losing the game. Plus, if the board state is affected, it eliminates the "play for 2nd" problem. And lastly, TaN can and does grab non-combo pairs of creatures. Just this week I saw a normally combo heavy player grab Massacre Wurm (and something unrelated) to kill off a single player who had a token swarm.
I can imagine TaN getting banned as the "grabbing two big creatures, woo!" percentage of use falls and "grabbing a two card combo" use rises, but I'd still be surprised. For now though, I don't think it's a problematic card.
I would be surprised if the reason Coalition Victory was banned was because 'it's an anti-climatic victory'. If that were the case, all combos that result in a win, all board lockdowns, all mass land destruction, and especially, all 'you win the game' cards would be banned. All those are 'anti-climatic' in the same sense, imo.
To that end, I believe Coalition Victory was banned because it was a dangerous card to hit the table and that, even at sorcery speed, it did not give the opponents enough time to deal with the situation AND (and this is the key part) it was being abused throughout the overall EDH community. While that can be said for many many cards that are not banned, it gives the players a feel of what the 'spirit of EDH' should be and that non-climatic plays are frowned upon. A banning will not happen unless the card becomes preveliantly overplayed and abused. I do not believe Tooth and Nail is at that point yet, but it could very well be if Wizards continues to put out broken two creature combos. (hense my original comment of it being on the chopping block....the axe hasn't swung yet)
Well, I would run Coalition Victory in my Reaper King deck. It has the dual lands, and you just need general + victory to win. But I wouldn't run a Hermit Druid deck-- it sounds really boring to play.
The argument you're making is that Hermit Druid is at least as bannable as Coalition Victory, which I agree with. But you can't conclude "Hermit Druid is unbanned, therefore Coalition Victory should be unbanned." The only conclusions you can make is that Coalition Victory should be legal IF it's correct that Hermit Druid should be legal, and that Hermit Druid should be banned IF it's correct that Coalition Victory should be banned.
I was arguing that Coalition Victory is not a very good card, and hence should not be banned. At its best it is a five card combo (3 duals to get lands of each type + your general + CV) that wins you the game. Even if one of the combo pieces is your general, I hardly think that any five card combo qualifies as overpowered enough to be banned.
I don't think anyone could build an argument that holds water that Coalition Victory is banned for power reasons. It is on the banned list because the banned list is silly and inconsistent.
To that end, I believe Coalition Victory was banned because it was a dangerous card to hit the table and that, even at sorcery speed, it did not give the opponents enough time to deal with the situation AND (and this is the key part) it was being abused throughout the overall EDH community. While that can be said for many many cards that are not banned, it gives the players a feel of what the 'spirit of EDH' should be and that non-climatic plays are frowned upon.
I really, really dislike this style of argument. A deck that would regularly lose to Coalition Victory will lose to any well-built deck. This is a bad reason for banning cards. We should ban cards that obviously warp the format, and quite frankly I have a hard time imagining that a moderately talented playgroup would be completely unable to beat a 5 color Coalition Victory deck.
Thinking about 'banning' in general, I don't think the RC has made any bad decisions with the cards they've chosen to ban. I feel where the problem that exists against the decisions of the RC is found within their credo as to why a card is banned. (I forget where I read there reasons as to why they ban a card, so if someone knows that link, please post).
Rather than it being 'unfun', 'overcentralized' or 'expensive', their credo should consist of 'case by case base in which a card is overly abused throughout the community to the point where games become degenerate, unfun/boring, unobtainable'. It's a small difference, but I believe it would give clear meaning as to why the RC bans one card and not the other, despite both being of the same nature. In the end, the one card was overly abused whereas the other was not.
(if anyone can make sense of this logic, they deserve a +1)
The banned list is consistent, but it's consistent based off of what they believe the largest % of playerbase they're trying to appeal to finds "Fun", not strict power level. So if you're trying to break a deck, then no, nothing you break is going to get slammed. Hermit Druid is a problem in decks that are designed to be broken. It might destroy some games, but it's easily managed since 1v1 or competitive EDH isn't the point of the format, so the druid being broken doesn't matter.
If you want to host a 1v1 tournie, yeah, ban the Druid, and anything else you feel is too strong. But a victory that has someone going "This is stupid" is far worse for the format than a bunch of people running angry hermit.
Note that for most of the cards you mentioned are essentially different from Coalition Victory. Most of them will have you wait until the beginning of your next upkeep where players will have a full turn cycle to respond to them. Stuff can almost always happen in between.
As for Laboratory Maniac, note that: -
It is new as of Innistrad.
It entails significant amount of risk unlike Coalition Victory. If Laboratory Maniac dies with the trigger on the stack, you do not just not win the game but you are likely to lose the game. That risk ensures that there will be some fun snickers when the combo dude screws himself/herself over with Laboratory Maniac.
I don't think anyone could build an argument that holds water that Coalition Victory is banned for power reasons. It is on the banned list because the banned list is silly and inconsistent.
I believe Coalition Victory (and Biorythm) is banned while stuff like Test of Endurance is not because not only are the conditions very easy to achieve and rather anti-climatic for it, but the win condition must be responded to at instant speed. This is documented somewhere in an RC post about the issue but I'm too lazy to Google it. Many other "you win the game" cards which are not banned are on permanents and trigger on a player's upkeep, which gives the whole table at least one turn to react to the situation. The combination of all those things make it the kind of card people really don't want to see resolve if they're trying to have a good time. And frankly, I agree. (NATH'D :rolleyes:)
To add to the "power" portion of its banning, a 4-5 card combo that includes simply playing lands is not nearly the same as a 4-5 card combo that doesn't. That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. With any 5-color general you're basically looking at a 2-card combo, plus a good manabase.
I don't know how much of it is power level and how much of it is "poster child of card we the RC don't want to see played", but surely you realize power is a part of it.
But this is true for any card. Just look at Dark Depths - before Hexmage came around, it was pretty much a junk land, with few efficient ways of getting it out.
But now.... DD/Hexmage is one of the better combos in black. All because future sets brought power to old cards.
If cards didnt get better with others being printed, then why bother innovating when this is the best we can do?
EDH:
RNorin the WaryR <-Link! (Primer - Mono Red Control)
GUEdric, Spymaster of TrestUG <- Link! (Mini-Primer - Dredge)
Duel Commander:
WUGeist of Saint TraftUW <- Link! (Aggro-Control)
BGSkullbriar, the Walking GraveGB <- Link! (Aggro)
BUGDamia, Sage of StoneGUB <- Link! (Extinction Control)
Church of the Wary
P.S. while the dark depths comparison is decent Kiki combos with any ETB ability and wizards has been making a ton more of them of late. All it takes is any really powerful game ending ETB effect + kiki and its game over. As Surging Chaos pointed out earlier Village Bell-Ringer + Kiki now exists for another wincon. He is really starting to remind me a bit of Staff of Domination.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
I think your belief is right on but people are getting to caught up in card names to really understand the bigger picture you are talking about.
Dark Depths, while powerful, is actually not a very good example for future potential. The requirements to make it good, removing counters, are actually very narrow in the context of future sets. On the other hand Kiki, TaN, and Primeval Titan will have a steady stream of cards made every set for no other reason then the game requires creatures and lands to be printed. The potential for favorable interactions is greatly increased for that reason alone and the previously mentioned Village Bell-Ringer is the perfect example. It is nothing more then a combat trick meant of limited and probably will never see any serious constructed play since Blue already has 2 creatures that do the same thing in a better color.
I think Coalition Victory is banned not just because it's an 8-mana sorcery that auto-wins, but because it auto-wins by literally saying "You win the game." If someone plays that for the win, not only is it anticlimactic, but it's also really prone to "Okay, you win, now the rest of us are going to play for 2nd" (which is a problem a lot of auto-win cards have). It's underwhelming to lose to and to win with. It isn't necessarily that overpowered (it is really powerful), but also has a lameness factor. It'd almost be least contentious if it said, "Exile all permanents you don't control, and you win the game." It's the "You just... win. The end", even at sorcery speed, is somewhat unsatisfying.
Compare Tooth and Nail, which doesn't fetch a combo that says "You win the game", it fetches combo pieces to... do something to win the game (deal infinite damage, attack with infinite creatures, make people draw infinite cards, whatever). This is more interactive and gives opponents more of a feeling they're actually losing the game. Plus, if the board state is affected, it eliminates the "play for 2nd" problem. And lastly, TaN can and does grab non-combo pairs of creatures. Just this week I saw a normally combo heavy player grab Massacre Wurm (and something unrelated) to kill off a single player who had a token swarm.
I can imagine TaN getting banned as the "grabbing two big creatures, woo!" percentage of use falls and "grabbing a two card combo" use rises, but I'd still be surprised. For now though, I don't think it's a problematic card.
The main reason that Kiki-Jiki won't be banned is for consistency of the banned list. The RC has stated multiple times that they don't like having redundant cards on the banned list while other functional prints of cards are not. This is why Worldgorger Dragon was recently taken off the list.
WGD is a two-card instant-win combo. The RC decided that since plenty of other 2 card instant-win combos were not on the list, that WGD had no place being on there either. If WGD was unbanned for this reason, what chance does Kiki-Jiki have of going onto the banned list for the same reason they took WGD off of it?
None, that's what. KJiki is in no danger of going anywhere.
The big difference is that Kiki is a bit more like Painters Servant in which it has lots of open ways in which new development can exploit it much further. Worldgorger is a very narrow combo and he does very very little outside of the combo. Kiki combos with lots of guys and outside of the usual 2-3 guys there are still tons of gamebreaking creatures that end the game very quickly when combined with Kiki.
I think the big difference in my mind is the fact that it isnt a narrow combo piece but it can end the game in soooooooo many ways. Future sets will simply open up more options for him to become even more broken.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Just so long as you never play sanctioned EDH games that way, there's absolutely no problem with people doing this.
Driving Stick with Isochron Scepter.
Trinkets and Treasure: An Artificer's Toolbox.
Proc Drops: Playing with One Drops.
Deck Primer: Toshiro Umezawa
It's certainly a possibility. I guess I wasn't really supporting it as a ban list candidate just a spell that has grown increasingly powerful along with power creep. I have seen TnN become a win button more than just a cool creature tutor, but then again I prefer a smaller ban list that dones't include all two card combos so I hope it doesn't get banned.
BBBMBC Shirei StyleBBB
URUNiv-Mizzet, Warp WorldURU
BGRKresh the BloodbraidedBGR
Me too, banning a combo in this format makes no sense. When you ban a combo piece, I can guarantee there are easily a few hundred more to take it's place. Look at staff of domination, it can easily be replaced by an azure mage. The only reason I use that example is because blue is notorious for setting up infinite combos with lots of mana. Same goes for protean hulk, why is he banned when tooth and nail is ok? Tooth and nail is almost superior in every way. Why ban gifts ungiven when we have a dozen other tutors? Parts of the banlist make sense, but other parts resemble a witch hunt towards combos.
There are certainly tutors other than Gifts Ungiven, but unlike most tutors, Gifts gives you two cards in hand, and two cards in your graveyard. For many decks, cards in the graveyard are just as good as in the hand. Sometimes better.
Whether or not you like the fact that a certain card is banned, it's usually easy to figure out why it was done, or why card X was banned over card Y.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
My point was not that Tooth and Nail should be banned, but that because Coalition Victory is banned, then Tooth and Nail should be aswell to maintain consistancy of the format. If Coalition Victory were to be fair game, then I could understand why Tooth and Nail would be allowed aswell.
@PopeHilarius
Coalition Victory doesn't simply say 'you win the game'. It says 'IF you control each basic land and IF you control creatures on the board for all the colors (that being a 5 color general being the simplest way to achieve that), THEN you win the game.'
There is a big difference. I've played a 5 color deck and it's a great deal harder to get all 5 basic land out then it seems. Often I'm playing with mana fixers to achieve my spells. In addition, there are three ways of dealing with Coalition Victory: Counter it, instant removal on a key creature, instant removal on a basic land.
@Overbeing of Myth
With you I agree that the banlist should be more consistant. Though, while many prefer fewer cards on list, I feel this this approach would create further instability in the format. No one is going to want to play if you can make degenerate moves. I wouldn't anyways.
| B Erebos, God of VampiresB | GYeva SmashG | RBosh ArtifactsR | GURAnimar +1 BeatsGUR | RBVial's Secret Hot SauceRB | UBRNekusar, Draw if you DareUBR | RGBDarigaaz'z DragonsRGB | GBSlimeFEETGB | UBOn-Hit LazavUB | URBrudiclad's Artificer InventionsUR | GUBMuldrotha's ElementalsGUB | WUGKestia's EnchantmentsWUG | GUTatyova - Draw, Land, Go!GU | WGArahbo's EquipmentWG | BUWVarina's ZOMBIE HORDESBUW | WLyra's Angelic SalvationW | WBChurch of TeysaWB | UAzami...WizardsU
For a well tuned 5c deck that is running a big money manabase getting a land of each type is easily obtained by turn 5 I would say 80-90% of games. Between all of the fetchlands and dual lands most of it is covered by just this add in the fact that you could be using green ramp as well if you want to and if your deck is built to win through coalition it will do so quite easily.
The biggest conditional about the spell is if you creature lives through the spell resolve. Spot removal in response or strip mine one of your lands in response would be the biggest conditionals in my mind.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
No of course, there's no card that says just "Win the game." But it does say, "you win the game", which is unsatisfying for the reasons I mentioned earlier. What makes Coalition Victory different is that of the 13 auto-win cards, 11 of them trigger in your upkeep (Test of Endurance, Helix Pinnacle, etc.), giving opponents substantial time to disrupt the auto-win. The newest one Laboratory Maniac can be triggered immediately after being played, but only with some way to draw a card and substantial preparation, and unlike Coalition Victory, if the maniac is disrupted, you're very likely to lose instead.
So while yes, Coalition Victory requires set-up and can be disrupted (mostly by creature removal. Very few cards have instant speed land removal, and few of those are playable in EDH), it's still unique in that it's an auto-win sorcery. Have 5 basic lands and your commander? Then it's "Hey, anyone have counters or instant speed removal? Ok cool then I win." That's worlds different than every other auto-win card, and again, not really rewarding to lose to.
I don't mean to start a debate on Coalition Victory, my point is that while both are very powerful sorceries, its in a different league than Tooth and Nail when it comes to annoying wins.
If someone were to spend that much money on a 5 color deck, why wouldn't they just build Hermit Druid instead? I find it kind of amazing that people think someone would build this competitive 5 color deck based around Coalition Victory when they could win 3-4 turns faster and easier with Hermit Druid. Coalition Victory isn't even good in the only deck that it could be good in. It shouldn't be on the banned list.
Yes, no one plays instant speed land removal in EDH. Coalition Victory is an easily beatable card and if your deck loses to it, then your deck will likely lose to any number of other combos. It is in no way a dominant or unbeatable strategy, and there are a whole slew of stronger, faster, more resilient combos running around. Someone might be able to pull it off once, but any half-way decent group will never let that 5-color deck resolve its general and/or assemble every land type again. This is distinctly different from a deck like Sharuum, Arcum, or Azami, where you know how they are going to win but you may or may not be able to disrupt their game plan.
Honestly, if someone could pull off a Coalition Victory win against me, more power to them. It would certainly make me lol.
Not to mention Beast Within and Chaos Warp.
a 5c deck could probably have counters ready for resolving Coalition. Biorhythm is another "fun" card that probably has no chance of being unbanned.
I was mainly talking about the manabase for it but if it had the coalition it would likely also run the druid. The druid isnt unstopable believe it or not. It isnt a terrible idea to have a few backups and for only taking one slot in the deck I dont think it is so terrible that 5c would refuse to run it altogether.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
The argument you're making is that Hermit Druid is at least as bannable as Coalition Victory, which I agree with. But you can't conclude "Hermit Druid is unbanned, therefore Coalition Victory should be unbanned." The only conclusions you can make is that Coalition Victory should be legal IF it's correct that Hermit Druid should be legal, and that Hermit Druid should be banned IF it's correct that Coalition Victory should be banned.
I would be surprised if the reason Coalition Victory was banned was because 'it's an anti-climatic victory'. If that were the case, all combos that result in a win, all board lockdowns, all mass land destruction, and especially, all 'you win the game' cards would be banned. All those are 'anti-climatic' in the same sense, imo.
If it's because of 'you win the game', then Felidar Sovereign, Near-Death Experience, Epic Struggle, Helix Pinnacle, Laboratory Maniac...this list goes on....would all be banned because all can be easily attainable in the right deck. Infinite mana? Helix Pinnacle does you in. Lot's of life? Felidar Sovereign finishes you off.
To that end, I believe Coalition Victory was banned because it was a dangerous card to hit the table and that, even at sorcery speed, it did not give the opponents enough time to deal with the situation AND (and this is the key part) it was being abused throughout the overall EDH community. While that can be said for many many cards that are not banned, it gives the players a feel of what the 'spirit of EDH' should be and that non-climatic plays are frowned upon. A banning will not happen unless the card becomes preveliantly overplayed and abused. I do not believe Tooth and Nail is at that point yet, but it could very well be if Wizards continues to put out broken two creature combos. (hense my original comment of it being on the chopping block....the axe hasn't swung yet)
| B Erebos, God of VampiresB | GYeva SmashG | RBosh ArtifactsR | GURAnimar +1 BeatsGUR | RBVial's Secret Hot SauceRB | UBRNekusar, Draw if you DareUBR | RGBDarigaaz'z DragonsRGB | GBSlimeFEETGB | UBOn-Hit LazavUB | URBrudiclad's Artificer InventionsUR | GUBMuldrotha's ElementalsGUB | WUGKestia's EnchantmentsWUG | GUTatyova - Draw, Land, Go!GU | WGArahbo's EquipmentWG | BUWVarina's ZOMBIE HORDESBUW | WLyra's Angelic SalvationW | WBChurch of TeysaWB | UAzami...WizardsU
I was arguing that Coalition Victory is not a very good card, and hence should not be banned. At its best it is a five card combo (3 duals to get lands of each type + your general + CV) that wins you the game. Even if one of the combo pieces is your general, I hardly think that any five card combo qualifies as overpowered enough to be banned.
I don't think anyone could build an argument that holds water that Coalition Victory is banned for power reasons. It is on the banned list because the banned list is silly and inconsistent.
Edit:
I really, really dislike this style of argument. A deck that would regularly lose to Coalition Victory will lose to any well-built deck. This is a bad reason for banning cards. We should ban cards that obviously warp the format, and quite frankly I have a hard time imagining that a moderately talented playgroup would be completely unable to beat a 5 color Coalition Victory deck.
Rather than it being 'unfun', 'overcentralized' or 'expensive', their credo should consist of 'case by case base in which a card is overly abused throughout the community to the point where games become degenerate, unfun/boring, unobtainable'. It's a small difference, but I believe it would give clear meaning as to why the RC bans one card and not the other, despite both being of the same nature. In the end, the one card was overly abused whereas the other was not.
(if anyone can make sense of this logic, they deserve a +1)
| B Erebos, God of VampiresB | GYeva SmashG | RBosh ArtifactsR | GURAnimar +1 BeatsGUR | RBVial's Secret Hot SauceRB | UBRNekusar, Draw if you DareUBR | RGBDarigaaz'z DragonsRGB | GBSlimeFEETGB | UBOn-Hit LazavUB | URBrudiclad's Artificer InventionsUR | GUBMuldrotha's ElementalsGUB | WUGKestia's EnchantmentsWUG | GUTatyova - Draw, Land, Go!GU | WGArahbo's EquipmentWG | BUWVarina's ZOMBIE HORDESBUW | WLyra's Angelic SalvationW | WBChurch of TeysaWB | UAzami...WizardsU
If you want to host a 1v1 tournie, yeah, ban the Druid, and anything else you feel is too strong. But a victory that has someone going "This is stupid" is far worse for the format than a bunch of people running angry hermit.
Note that for most of the cards you mentioned are essentially different from Coalition Victory. Most of them will have you wait until the beginning of your next upkeep where players will have a full turn cycle to respond to them. Stuff can almost always happen in between.
As for Laboratory Maniac, note that: -
I believe Coalition Victory (and Biorythm) is banned while stuff like Test of Endurance is not because not only are the conditions very easy to achieve and rather anti-climatic for it, but the win condition must be responded to at instant speed. This is documented somewhere in an RC post about the issue but I'm too lazy to Google it. Many other "you win the game" cards which are not banned are on permanents and trigger on a player's upkeep, which gives the whole table at least one turn to react to the situation. The combination of all those things make it the kind of card people really don't want to see resolve if they're trying to have a good time. And frankly, I agree. (NATH'D :rolleyes:)
To add to the "power" portion of its banning, a 4-5 card combo that includes simply playing lands is not nearly the same as a 4-5 card combo that doesn't. That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. With any 5-color general you're basically looking at a 2-card combo, plus a good manabase.
I don't know how much of it is power level and how much of it is "poster child of card we the RC don't want to see played", but surely you realize power is a part of it.
:symu::symr: Melek WheelStorm
:symw::symg: Trostani Enchantress (updated 6/5)
:symg::symr::symu: Unexpected Results.dec
Thada Adel Stax WIP