Combos that don't lead to a win - what I'd refer to as good synergy and such - that's fine. That's what good deck building is about. But the "I win" ones, I just find that stuff predictable and boring.
As do I. But you are not in favor of banning parts of specific combo are you? Because I think thats what this is.
I think that what's truly important is that Coalition Victory LITERALLY has no uses except "Win on the spot" unless it gets countered. Even something as utterly stupid as Palinchron has, by the broadest definition of the word, "fair" uses which nobody really ever goes for but it is there. If you cast a Palinchron on an empty board, you have a flying blocker. And that appears to be the reason why many combopieces/fetchers are unbanned yet CVictory is banned - the fact that it can be played without saying "GGWP."
Cmon Lou, what cards actually do means something. No one plays Pali then lets the cycle go around for people to deal with it. I get thats the reason, I am pointing out it is a poor reason.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Combos that don't lead to a win - what I'd refer to as good synergy and such - that's fine. That's what good deck building is about. But the "I win" ones, I just find that stuff predictable and boring.
As do I. But you are not in favor of banning parts of specific combo are you? Because I think thats what this is.
Generally, I'm not about banning parts of specific combo, because most combo cards can be used fairly, even though some (Palinchron, for example) almost never are. But this card is the only part of the combo in question that is a problem, and this specific card has no other possible purpose whatsoever except to enable the "I win" combo. So, in this case I think it staying banned is fine. In contrast, I wouldn't ever argue that Kiki-Jiki or Dark Mike should be banned, though I reserve the right to roll my eyes and sigh when people play boring combos based around those cards. Heck, I play both of those cards in multiple decks. I just never play Trike along with Mike, or Zealous Conscripts in the same deck that contains Kiki.
Cmon Lou, what cards actually do means something. No one plays Pali then lets the cycle go around for people to deal with it. I get thats the reason, I am pointing out it is a poor reason.
But you can, and that is all that matters at this borderline. The same way Tooth and Nail can be used to search for fun things instead of combos but "no one (I don't mean that literally)" does that (well, technically more people still do that with Tooth and Nail then people casting Palinchron as a blocker).
But that's not the only reason for CV being on the list, since many "win" cards Test of Endurance, Mortal Combat and Helix Pinnacle also can't do much of anything else but "win" only (Felidar Sovereign gets away being a creature), but they have a difference, and it's not that they require a turn cycle (although that's a bonus reinforcement point in favor of them) - it's their requirements aren't really part of "core play".
Yes, combo players will combo, but all because they will doesn't mean people won't try to stop them (which combo player has never gotten his combo stopped before?) The requirements of the win condition determine how people will stop them - with Endurance/Sovereign it's a matter of lowering life totals, something that should happen anyway. With Mortal Combat its graveyard hate, which someone should (hopefully) have. With Helix Pinnacle... it's either you stopped the infinite mana (which doesn't rely on "core play" - there are dozens of unorthodox methods to get infinite mana) or it's slow enough the player deserved to win even if they got 50 mana each turn cycle because of Seedborn Muse.
With Coalition Victory? You have to stop the lands. Sure, stopping lands stops many other combos as well, but with CV, you literally have to. Sure it can be countered as well, but so can the other "win" cards as well and in multiplayer, there's a good chance someone (with no counterspells) is adopting preemptive measures. When the only course of method available is land destruction against a "win condition" available in every 5-color deck, the sheer knee-jerk reaction of land destruction is likely going towards every 5C deck will be real if CV was in the format and it would definitely create an unfair bias against 5C decks in general, even if every 5C decks does indeed choose to pack CV (and they will eventually since it's pretty much the only gameplan fast enough if you managed to dodge the hate). 5C already has a reputation for goodstuff and giving it another layer of "CV combo guaranteed" doesn't seem like it would do variety any good.
But you can, and that is all that matters at this borderline. The same way Tooth and Nail can be used to search for fun things instead of combos but "no one (I don't mean that literally)" does that (well, technically more people still do that with Tooth and Nail then people casting Palinchron as a blocker).
See, I disagree with this perspective. I believe the way players actually play with their cards should be the measure for whether or not a card can actually be used fairly. If a card "technically" has other fair uses, but the playerbase at large isn't using a card in those ways, the fact that it can be used fairly is moot. This is exactly why Tooth and Nail isn't a problem. Even though Tooth and Nail always has the potential to immediately end whatever game it's cast in, Commander players don't always choose to play it that way in practice, and that makes it okay. If all Tooth and Nail players were to suddenly have a change of heart though and began using it exclusively to find MikeTrike combos, then it would be a problem.
We do agree that this isn't the sole reason Coalition Victory deserves to stay banned though. As I mentioned previously, I believe Coalition Victory is unique in that it is one of the only Magic cards which satisfies each of the following criteria:
You'd be hard pressed to find another unbanned card in Commander that does each of those things. Palinchron is probably one of the closest, but it does require some kind of setup. It doesn't go infinite on its own, and even if it does generate infinite mana, that isn't game ending if said player can't use the mana generated with it in a productive way. The same thing can't be said for Coalition Victory.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
But you can, and that is all that matters at this borderline. The same way Tooth and Nail can be used to search for fun things instead of combos but "no one (I don't mean that literally)" does that (well, technically more people still do that with Tooth and Nail then people casting Palinchron as a blocker).
See, I disagree with this perspective. I believe the way players actually play with their cards should be the measure for whether or not a card can actually be used fairly. If a card "technically" has other fair uses, but the playerbase at large isn't using a card in those ways, the fact that it can be used fairly is moot. This is exactly why Tooth and Nail isn't a problem. Even though Tooth and Nail always has the potential to immediately end whatever game it's cast in, Commander players don't always choose to play it that way in practice, and that makes it okay. If all Tooth and Nail players were to suddenly have a change of heart though and began using it exclusively to find MikeTrike combos, then it would be a problem.
We do agree that this isn't the sole reason Coalition Victory deserves to stay banned though. As I mentioned previously, I believe Coalition Victory is unique in that it is one of the only Magic cards which satisfies each of the following criteria:
You'd be hard pressed to find another unbanned card in Commander that does each of those things. Palinchron is probably one of the closest, but it does require some kind of setup. It doesn't go infinite on its own, and even if it does generate infinite mana, that isn't game ending if said player can't use the mana generated with it in a productive way. The same thing can't be said for Coalition Victory.
My mistake with the dramatic "that's all that matters" (which I think led you to think I thought that way). I was just reaffirming Coalition Victory can't even pass the "first line of check" and that is all that mattered, not the other way round (So it was more of "CV can't and that is all that matters at this checkpoint).
Just to save my pride, my flimsy defense is that we don't really have cards on the list of being on the side of "can be played fairly, but most people choose not to", the closest would be Primeval Titan, but that didn't outright win games nor was it part of some established combo. Other cards that can be played fairly and were part of some combo (Panoptic Mirror) didn't really come up with numbers and were more or less banned on "sheer power/boredom" instead (endless turn Mirror is generally worse than TNN Combo).
But that's beside the point, the point is CV can't even pass the first checkpoint all other cards mentioned above can, so I would see Panoptic Mirror come off the list before CV does the same way I expect Palinchron to join the list before Tooth and Nail would.
With Coalition Victory? You have to stop the lands. Sure, stopping lands stops many other combos as well, but with CV, you literally have to. Sure it can be countered as well, but so can the other "win" cards as well and in multiplayer, there's a good chance someone (with no counterspells) is adopting preemptive measures. When the only course of method available is land destruction against a "win condition" available in every 5-color deck, the sheer knee-jerk reaction of land destruction is likely going towards every 5C deck will be real if CV was in the format and it would definitely create an unfair bias against 5C decks in general, even if every 5C decks does indeed choose to pack CV (and they will eventually since it's pretty much the only gameplan fast enough if you managed to dodge the hate). 5C already has a reputation for goodstuff and giving it another layer of "CV combo guaranteed" doesn't seem like it would do variety any good.
We do agree that this isn't the sole reason Coalition Victory deserves to stay banned though. As I mentioned previously, I believe Coalition Victory is unique in that it is one of the only Magic cards which satisfies each of the following criteria:
You'd be hard pressed to find another unbanned card in Commander that does each of those things. Palinchron is probably one of the closest, but it does require some kind of setup. It doesn't go infinite on its own, and even if it does generate infinite mana, that isn't game ending if said player can't use the mana generated with it in a productive way. The same thing can't be said for Coalition Victory.
Difficult to interact with? Alright, I will bite. What is your creature removal like? They can have the lands, but if you deny their creatures you stop Coalition Victory in its tracks. In fact if you kill-off/bounce-out/exile-away one of their key creatures during the cast of the spell, before it resolves, the spell fizzles. If a player is pulling those shenanigans, I might be tempted to slot in things like Declaration of Naught, Nevermore, Meddling Mage and Voidstone Gargoyle. Land destruction is a viable tactic but in the politicking area of the game, that is like painting a target on your head if you are trigger happy. Sniping a Temple Garden while the spell hasn't resolved can be just as strong as countering the CV in this case as again it fizzles due to insufficient requirements. I fail to see how it is difficult to interact with. Every color can force a fizzle without even a counterspell being slung.
Wins the game once resolved? I reiterate my previous points during the "Difficult to Interact With" part and how easy it is to force a fizzle. Also absolute lies. Platinum Angel with a Vedalken Orrery, Winding Canyons, Leyline of Anticipation or Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir can become suddenly that silver bullet tech for such a deck. A second silver bullet that seems to go overlooked is Angel's Grace. The metas would change and adapt and those who refuse to adapt get left in the dust.
No potential for fair use? Lots of cards could be used fairly, but get abused instead. Its basically like pulling your punches in order to soften your blows. How about wrath effects like wrath of god? By itself nice little board resets, but what if you or your opponent had threats that survived somehow? Its suddenly unfair, right? The spell was abused to further someone's advantage and bring them closer to a victory.
Palinchron is about as fair as Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary. That is to say, both are routinely abused and with just a second card can get out of hand with little trouble.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Peasant: Storm (UR) Commander:Hazezon Tamar (GRW), Arjun, the Shifting Flame (UR), [Waiting on Amonkhet] Tiny Leader: [Waiting on Amonkhet] Peasant Dragon: [Waiting on Amonkhet] Modern: Orzhova Spirits (WB) Legacy: Burn (R) Vintage: Bazaar Dredge (B)
People say Tooth and Nail can be use in fair ways... I mean get a grip guys. You're choosing to belittle your mates, or playing around with them when you're using it "fairly". If you choose to play it fairly, why not omit it altogether?
But if an obnoxious card like T&N is gonna run rampant, I don't see why CV shouldn't. Anyways, whenever people play insta-win cards like these, the rest can always ignore the fella and continue their game. It's social education. Only playgroups who wanna combo will use this anyway. They're looking for quickies, probably coz they can't last.
People say Tooth and Nail can be use in fair ways... I mean get a grip guys. You're choosing to belittle your mates, or playing around with them when you're using it "fairly". If you choose to play it fairly, why not omit it altogether?
I don't see anything wrong with casting Tooth and Nail as some kind of value card that puts two fatties into play. I agree that it would be silly to not try and win the game with a resolved Tooth and Nail if a player's deck had the cards inside of it to do so, but not every player will deliberately put game ending combos into their deck that Tooth and Nail can tutor out. Playing with suboptimal cards in Commander doesn't strike me as belittling to opponents.
But if an obnoxious card like T&N is gonna run rampant, I don't see why CV shouldn't. Anyways, whenever people play insta-win cards like these, the rest can always ignore the fella and continue their game. It's social education. Only playgroups who wanna combo will use this anyway. They're looking for quickies, probably coz they can't last.
Maybe you've had a lot more negative experiences with Tooth and Nail than I have. I've played several games where opponents cast a Tooth and Nail against me, and it was fine. It wasn't an obnoxious card. Are your local players always using it as a way to immediately end the game? I can see why you would feel the way you do if Tooth and Nail literally was just Coalition Victory every time one of your opponents cast it. That hasn't been my experience though.
Difficult to interact with? Alright, I will bite. What is your creature removal like? They can have the lands, but if you deny their creatures you stop Coalition Victory in its tracks. In fact if you kill-off/bounce-out/exile-away one of their key creatures during the cast of the spell, before it resolves, the spell fizzles. If a player is pulling those shenanigans, I might be tempted to slot in things like Declaration of Naught, Nevermore, Meddling Mage and Voidstone Gargoyle. Land destruction is a viable tactic but in the politicking area of the game, that is like painting a target on your head if you are trigger happy. Sniping a Temple Garden while the spell hasn't resolved can be just as strong as countering the CV in this case as again it fizzles due to insufficient requirements. I fail to see how it is difficult to interact with. Every color can force a fizzle without even a counterspell being slung.
You're right in that every color has ways of disrupting Coalition Victory both preemptively and while it's on the stack, but I don't believe that makes it easy to interact with. I mean, in Magic it's possible to do practically anything. There are always going to be solutions to problematic cards. Whether or not it's reasonable to expect players to have those answers is another thing entirely.
To start, I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect players to be able to preemptively play around Coalition Victory at all times. Any time opponents can't preemptively stop a possible Coalition Victory, they could lose the game provided they also don't have a reactive solution. Players aren't always going to have a removal spell for a five color Commander turn after turn, and players aren't always going to have something akin to Dust Bowl in play either to keep that player off certain land types. Deliberately teching in specific hate cards like Nevermore into one's deck for the sole purpose of resisting a metagame with Coalition Victory also seems like further evidence for why Coalition Victory should stay banned. Nevermore is a really narrow card in Commander. It can answer just about any spell, but the player using Nevermore has to already have prerequisite knowledge of what the spell is they want to prevent. Aside from commanders, that isn't likely. If someone has to go to the extent of playing something so narrow just to shut out Coalition Victory, that's a pretty strong indicator that Coalition Victory would be a problem.
I believe it's more reasonable to expect players to reactively play around Coalition Victory, but that's difficult as well. The only opportunity players have to do that is while Coalition Victory is on the stack. That leaves them with three options. Players can destroy lands in response, destroy creatures in response, or counter the spell outright. I'm going to omit countermagic as a realistic solution since only one out of five colors really only has access to it and since it's also a solution to basically everything. That leaves destroying lands and creatures. For the most part, instant speed land destruction isn't a thing. Off the top of my head, there's Volcanic Offering, but not much else. It's possible to destroy lands at instant speed with other lands like Strip Mine and Wasteland, but it's also unreasonable to expect someone to cast a Coalition Victory while there's an untapped Strip Mine on the table. That's just not going to happen. That really only leaves players with instant speed ways to get rid of creatures. I think this is the most practical way of disrupting a Coalition Victory, but there's still a lot of conditions that go into it, and spot removal only does the job if there aren't already more creatures of each color on the battlefield.
Each of these combos require wildly different levels of setup. Demonic Pact has to stay on the battlefield for several turns before it promises to kill the single player it's donated to. That's two cards, neither of which are a commander. Hive Mind and any Pact are similar. It costs two non-commander cards, but doesn't take nearly as long to setup and can slay multiple opponents at once provided they can't pay the cost. Niv-Mizzet + Curiosity is definitely the easiest of the bunch to set up. With Niv-Mizzet as someone's Commander, it only costs a single one mana spell to enable. That's even easier than Coalition Victory to assemble, but that doesn't mean Coalition Victory isn't a trivial card to set up either, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Putting lands onto the battlefield, getting to eight mana, and casting one's Commander are some of the most effortless prerequisites for assembling a one card win since all of those are things that a player is naturally going to do during the course of a game of Commander. Getting the right land cards is definitely the trickiest part, but with the plethora of fetches, duals, and other basic land tutors like Cultivate available, that still isn't anywhere remotely challenging.
Wins the game once resolved? I reiterate my previous points during the "Difficult to Interact With" part and how easy it is to force a fizzle. Also absolute lies. Platinum Angel with a Vedalken Orrery, Winding Canyons, Leyline of Anticipation or Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir can become suddenly that silver bullet tech for such a deck. A second silver bullet that seems to go overlooked is Angel's Grace. The metas would change and adapt and those who refuse to adapt get left in the dust.
Yes, there will always be answers to any problem in Magic. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect players to have them in a non-competitive format. If flashing in a Platinum Angel is your defense for how "easy" it is to fizzle a Coalition Victory, I really don't know what else to say. That's about the most unrealistic way imaginable to defend oneself against Coalition Victory.
No potential for fair use? Lots of cards could be used fairly, but get abused instead. Its basically like pulling your punches in order to soften your blows. How about wrath effects like wrath of god? By itself nice little board resets, but what if you or your opponent had threats that survived somehow? Its suddenly unfair, right? The spell was abused to further someone's advantage and bring them closer to a victory.
Palinchron is about as fair as Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary. That is to say, both are routinely abused and with just a second card can get out of hand with little trouble.
I think we might have different interpretations as to what it means for a card to have fair use. The idea I'm trying to convey is that unlike some cards, Coalition Victory has no interesting application beyond immediately winning the game. It can't be played in different decks to different degrees of effectiveness. It will just always win the game regardless of what deck it's in unless somehow stopped. A card like Tooth and Nail has different applications. While it can win the game outright if put into a certain shell, it also has the potential to not do so. It can be strong, or weak, or anywhere in between. The way a player uses Tooth and Nail is what creates the potential for fair use. With Coalition Victory, there is no way for players to use it differently.
To start, I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect players to be able to preemptively play around Coalition Victory at all times. Any time opponents can't preemptively stop a possible Coalition Victory, they could lose the game provided they also don't have a reactive solution. Players aren't always going to have a removal spell for a five color Commander turn after turn, and players aren't always going to have something akin to Dust Bowl in play either to keep that player off certain land types.
Its obviously unreasonable for me to preemptively play around Curiosity all the time as at any time I could lose the game provided I don't have a reactive solution. I'm also not always going to having akin to Tectonic Edge to keep them off certain lands.
Quote from arrogantAxolotl »
Deliberately teching in specific hate cards like Nevermore into one's deck for the sole purpose of resisting a metagame with Coalition Victory also seems like further evidence for why Coalition Victory should stay banned. Nevermore is a really narrow card in Commander. It can answer just about any spell, but the player using Nevermore has to already have prerequisite knowledge of what the spell is they want to prevent. Aside from commanders, that isn't likely. If someone has to go to the extent of playing something so narrow just to shut out Coalition Victory, that's a pretty strong indicator that Coalition Victory would be a problem.
Oh what is this honestly? You never used Nevermore because you suspected or know what your opponent is packing? "I name curiosity." Boom. Suddenly Nevermore was teched to stop a Niv-Mizzet from having the possibility of going off. I guess that's a pretty strong indicator that curiosity is a real problem if I had to tech a card for it.
Quote from arrogantAxolotl »
I believe it's more reasonable to expect players to reactively play around Coalition Victory, but that's difficult as well. The only opportunity players have to do that is while Coalition Victory is on the stack. That leaves them with three options. Players can destroy lands in response, destroy creatures in response, or counter the spell outright. I'm going to omit countermagic as a realistic solution since only one out of five colors really only has access to it and since it's also a solution to basically everything. That leaves destroying lands and creatures. For the most part, instant speed land destruction isn't a thing. Off the top of my head, there's Volcanic Offering, but not much else. It's possible to destroy lands at instant speed with other lands like Strip Mine and Wasteland, but it's also unreasonable to expect someone to cast a Coalition Victory while there's an untapped Strip Mine on the table. That's just not going to happen. That really only leaves players with instant speed ways to get rid of creatures. I think this is the most practical way of disrupting a Coalition Victory, but there's still a lot of conditions that go into it, and spot removal only does the job if there aren't already more creatures of each color on the battlefield.
Hmm countermagic can be done by all five colors. Blue is just the strongest and has the largest toolbox. Even green could counter a CV.
Destruction is a possibility but its not the only thing. Bouncing, tucking, exiling, fighting, stealing just as a few quick examples of other options.
Its never unreasonable. In fact its entirely possible that an opponent didn't notice or has a backup plan or assumes you wouldn't.
Quote from arrogantAxolotl »
Each of these combos require wildly different levels of setup. Demonic Pact has to stay on the battlefield for several turns before it promises to kill the single player it's donated to. That's two cards, neither of which are a commander. Hive Mind and any Pact are similar. It costs two non-commander cards, but doesn't take nearly as long to setup and can slay multiple opponents at once provided they can't pay the cost. Niv-Mizzet + Curiosity is definitely the easiest of the bunch to set up. With Niv-Mizzet as someone's Commander, it only costs a single one mana spell to enable. That's even easier than Coalition Victory to assemble, but that doesn't mean Coalition Victory isn't a trivial card to set up either, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Wasn't one of your strikes against CV "Virtually requires no setup" and that it failed the first criteria? As that is my point. I gave you plenty of examples of cards that virtually require no setup. Even demonic pact is just durdling for three turns and then donating it during the third turn.
Quote from arrogantAxolot »
Putting lands onto the battlefield, getting to eight mana, and casting one's Commander are some of the most effortless prerequisites for assembling a one card win since all of those are things that a player is naturally going to do during the course of a game of Commander. Getting the right land cards is definitely the trickiest part, but with the plethora of fetches, duals, and other basic land tutors like Cultivate available, that still isn't anywhere remotely challenging.
"One Card Win"? Oh I wasn't aware that CV was also a 5-colored creature that counted itself as well.
Yes, there will always be answers to any problem in Magic. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect players to have them in a non-competitive format. If flashing in a Platinum Angel is your defensive for how "easy" it is to fizzle a Coalition Victory, I really don't know what else to say. That's about the most unrealistic way imaginable to defend oneself against Coalition Victory.
Unrealistic? Lets say Bob the Accountant shows up with his five colored deck, everyone at the table knows he runs Coalition Victory (cause its a universe where its not banned). Its unrealistic for me to tech against his deck? Are you saying its unrealistic to tech in a Bojuka Bog or Relic of Progenitus against something like a Karador, Ghost Chieftian deck that shows up regularly at a LGS? Its like knowing that the Baral, Chief of Compliance deck is going to be there and not teching in anti-counterspell cards because it would be "unrealistic".
Quote from arrogantAxolotl »
I think we might have different interpretations as to what it means for a card to have fair use. The idea I'm trying to convey is that unlike some cards, Coalition Victory has no interesting application beyond immediately winning the game. It can't be played in different decks to different degrees of effectiveness. It will just always win the game regardless of what deck it's in unless somehow stopped. A card like Tooth and Nail has different applications. While it can win the game outright if put into a certain shell, it also has the potential to not do so. It can be strong, or weak, or anywhere in between. The way a player uses Tooth and Nail is what creates the potential for fair use. With Coalition Victory, there is no way for players to use it differently.
Door To Nothingness doesn't have a fair use besides kicking a player out of the game and its not on the banlist, throw in an Amulet of Vigor and it do it on the same turn.
I'm going to borrow a part of a post that was used earlier in this thread in relation to T&N.
Quote from One_Who_Tells_Stores »
as a means to play whack-a-mole with your opponents lands (Khamal, Fist of Krosa + Goblin Sharpshooter/Crovax, Ascendant Hero/ Ascendant Evincar),
Its not a game winning combo if I do that but it also makes my opponent have a bad time because I am systematically blowing up their lands while not actually using land destruction at the same time.
Why use a T&N weakly if you have the option to use it strongly? Its a 9 mana tutor that also puts stuff onto the battlefield. As it makes sense to go for at least two creatures with some synergy between each other and not doing so can be a fairly weak tutoring turn. Even a Blazing Archon with Stormtime Leviathan have strong synergy with each other and it doesn't auto-win the game either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Peasant: Storm (UR) Commander:Hazezon Tamar (GRW), Arjun, the Shifting Flame (UR), [Waiting on Amonkhet] Tiny Leader: [Waiting on Amonkhet] Peasant Dragon: [Waiting on Amonkhet] Modern: Orzhova Spirits (WB) Legacy: Burn (R) Vintage: Bazaar Dredge (B)
Its obviously unreasonable for me to preemptively play around Curiosity all the time as at any time I could lose the game provided I don't have a reactive solution. I'm also not always going to having akin to Tectonic Edge to keep them off certain lands.
Oh what is this honestly? You never used Nevermore because you suspected or know what your opponent is packing? "I name curiosity." Boom. Suddenly Nevermore was teched to stop a Niv-Mizzet from having the possibility of going off. I guess that's a pretty strong indicator that curiosity is a real problem if I had to tech a card for it.
Yes, that is a strong indicator that Curiosity is a problematic card when played in Niv-Mizzet.
Hmm countermagic can be done by all five colors. Blue is just the strongest and has the largest toolbox. Even green could counter a CV.
Okay, now I feel like you have no interest in listening to anything I have to say, so I'm stopping the conversation with you here. I want to be understood by you just like you want me to understand your thoughts. The attitude you're conveying here is argumentative and disrespectful. I am well aware that there is countermagic outside of blue, and you're aware that it's also virtually nonexistent. My intentions are only to demonstrate why I believe Coalition Victory is qualified as a banned card, not to start petty squabbles.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
The "playing a card fairly" solution is simple. It depends on the build you made. See, I strongly believe in the "Build to the level you want to play at" adage. The moment I sit down and play, I will throw everything my deck has at you, which means that if I Tooth and Nail you in a deck that has Kiki+Conscripts or Mike+Trike I will get either of those combos and I win, simple as that. However, if I play T&N in my Selvala deck, I literally have no way of insta-winning on the spot. Chances are I'll grab a combination of cards that will put me out in front heavily, like Brisela, or Avenger+Regal Force or Elesh Norn + Avacyn depending on the boardstate, but I can't "Win on the spot" with it. (The deck does not run Craterhoof Behemoth. I have a strict policy of not running cards I absolutely despise, it'd be rather hypocrite of me to run Behemoth)
This is what I mean with "Fair use is possible." Not everyone builds their deck just to combo out or insta-win. Hence, cards that do not literally say "Win the game" can be used in other ways as well, even stupid stuff like Palinchron, Tooth and Nail, and several others.
This is not the case with Coalition Victory. It's either "You win the game" or "It gets countered". There's LITERALLY no in between.
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.
The "playing a card fairly" solution is simple. It depends on the build you made. See, I strongly believe in the "Build to the level you want to play at" adage. The moment I sit down and play, I will throw everything my deck has at you, which means that if I Tooth and Nail you in a deck that has Kiki+Conscripts or Mike+Trike I will get either of those combos and I win, simple as that. However, if I play T&N in my Selvala deck, I literally have no way of insta-winning on the spot. Chances are I'll grab a combination of cards that will put me out in front heavily, like Brisela, or Avenger+Regal Force or Elesh Norn + Avacyn depending on the boardstate, but I can't "Win on the spot" with it. (The deck does not run Craterhoof Behemoth. I have a strict policy of not running cards I absolutely despise, it'd be rather hypocrite of me to run Behemoth)
This is what I mean with "Fair use is possible." Not everyone builds their deck just to combo out or insta-win. Hence, cards that do not literally say "Win the game" can be used in other ways as well, even stupid stuff like Palinchron, Tooth and Nail, and several others.
This is not the case with Coalition Victory. It's either "You win the game" or "It gets countered". There's LITERALLY no in between.
You can use braids fairly
You can use erayo fairly
You can use almost every card on the ban list in a weaker way than what got them banned
So why is tooth and nail given such special treatment?
It's used way more often than not to end the game on the spot as a big mana haymaker.
The "playing a card fairly" solution is simple. It depends on the build you made. See, I strongly believe in the "Build to the level you want to play at" adage. The moment I sit down and play, I will throw everything my deck has at you, which means that if I Tooth and Nail you in a deck that has Kiki+Conscripts or Mike+Trike I will get either of those combos and I win, simple as that. However, if I play T&N in my Selvala deck, I literally have no way of insta-winning on the spot. Chances are I'll grab a combination of cards that will put me out in front heavily, like Brisela, or Avenger+Regal Force or Elesh Norn + Avacyn depending on the boardstate, but I can't "Win on the spot" with it. (The deck does not run Craterhoof Behemoth. I have a strict policy of not running cards I absolutely despise, it'd be rather hypocrite of me to run Behemoth)
This is what I mean with "Fair use is possible." Not everyone builds their deck just to combo out or insta-win. Hence, cards that do not literally say "Win the game" can be used in other ways as well, even stupid stuff like Palinchron, Tooth and Nail, and several others.
This is not the case with Coalition Victory. It's either "You win the game" or "It gets countered". There's LITERALLY no in between.
You can use braids fairly
You can use erayo fairly
You can use almost every card on the ban list in a weaker way than what got them banned
So why is tooth and nail given such special treatment?
It's used way more often than not to end the game on the spot as a big mana haymaker.
I am giving examples of cards that can be used in other ways rather than just win the game because that is literally all Coalition Victory does. I am not talking about Braids, Erayo, Emrakul or whatever else that way because none of them have "Win the game" literally written on them. Focus on the argument at hand, do not point at random corner cases and try to pass them off as an argument as that only shows you're not reading what I'm saying. What I'm saying works in regards to Coalition Victory, and explains why Coalition Victory is banned and not dozens of other combo pieces that have been shouted at by various people. Tooth and Nail is herein the easiest example that it CAN be played fairly.
Now I'll humor you. Yes, you can use Braids, Erayo, Emrakul and such fairly. But the fact is that they easily centralize games no matter the intent around them. Which is why they have their spots on the banlist. They create miserable boardstates or even in fair decks just give too big an advantage for what they do.
Combo, however, is not something that needs to be banned and you'll note that there really aren't any cards on the banlist that are there for having infinite combos - aside from arguably Protean Hulk who has a few other reasons surrounding him which are all not nearly strong enough for it's banning but i digress - but for the way they interact with the game. Coalition Victory, meanwhile, is literally the ONLY card that no matter what the game is like at that very point, does one of two things: Absolutely Nothing or Insta-Win. Pick one. Now repeat after me: Not a single other card does that. Felidar Sovereign? It's still a lifelinking beast and you usually have a full turn cycle to deal with it. Test of Endurance and it's pals? Yeah, they don't do a lot on their own, but they also give you time to interact with them and to prevent their trigger from happening as it's a very telegraphed play or to destroy the enchantment. Biovisionary? Still a small dude on it's own and while you know the Rite of Replication is coming, this requires 2 specific pieces none of which are in your command zone (Which again isn't an issue with Coalition Victory). This is why no other I-Win card is on the banlist.
And as far as comboes go, the RC is not in the business of policing combo (Which is why they really should unban Protean Hulk). If you fill your deck with infinite combos and that's your idea of fun, then I hope you will find someone who plays with you because I will tell you soon enough to either build something fun and interactive for a change, or you'll be finding yourself out of my playgroup rather quickly.
Now let's see how much of it actually gets read. I should probably not name any specific examples to augment my arguments as people just opt to read that single card and then focus their entire argument on that instead of the argument itself.
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.
Let's not derail this into a Tooth and Nail debate (unless it is as a comparison to Coaltion Victory as initially brought up).
As for the idea of using a card "fairly", there is probably never going to be an agreement here. As Sheldon has often said before, he approaches the format with the "build casually, play competitively" mentality. Now I know that some people in here and in the past have argued this because it requires approaching the game from a less than 100% mindset, and there is a certain amount of truth there. There is also a certain degree of what "could happen" versus what "does happen" (for example T&N and Palinchron). Getting back on topic, papa funk already plainly stated that Coalition Victory fail the "interacts poorly with the format" test (whether or not people choose to agree with this) and that this criteria is given a significant amount of weight. He also said that beyond that it is just an instant "I win" card with no other purpose, and that gave the card even less reason to stay legal. Many users have pointed out other cards which can duplicate this effect under very specific circumstances, but if I correctly recall no one has yet to produce a card that can duplicate this effect with a non-specific general. Also, due to the conditions which must be met, the only way to "play around" this card is to assume that every five color deck will run it and at all times destroy their lands as needed, ensure their general does not stay in play, hold up a removal spell, hold up a counterspell, and/or run and hold up a "you can't lose the game effect". Some of these options have merit outside of CV, but the majority of them just read like the presence of one card forces you to hate on a player just for choosing a particular color set.
So for everyone who wants to unban this card, I ask you this: What does Coalition Victoryadd to the format?
Another option to build a deck around it and have its sole purpose be to make that spell work as I've done it with other stuff like undying flames, chance encounter, mortal combat, azor's elocutors just to give some of my past deckbuilding works. It adds another threat to the meta that I have to be prepared for that. It adds more groans and/or cheers to the table amongst friends. It adds creativity to my mind and also my friends minds in the deckbuilding and play phases. Speaking of course as someone whose group has a homebrewed banlist and has had actual experience playing with and against the card on multiple occasions.
People say Tooth and Nail can be use in fair ways... I mean get a grip guys. You're choosing to belittle your mates, or playing around with them when you're using it "fairly". If you choose to play it fairly, why not omit it altogether?
Because it's a fun card. And very powerful, but only broken if you choose to break it. And, believe it or not, not everyone chooses to break it.
In the couple decks I have that run TnN, I can't use it to pull up an "I win" combo because I intentionally don't include those combos in my decks. I don't run Zealous Conscripts in any deck that includes Kiki-Jiki. I don't run Triskellion at all, but were I to do so, I would not include it in a deck that included the black Mikaeus. It's not about belittling those I play with, or messing with them, it's about building the way I want to build. When you are building to break TnN, you are choosing to do that. It isn't required. I can still get tons of value by putting very powerful and effective creatures in my deck without playing the same, tedious combos. I can win just fine by putting something more fair like Avenger of Zendikar in play with a haste enabler or some creature that pumps attackers without having to do Kiki/Mite BS. But other times, I use TnN to fetch answers, rather than to try to win with it. I might grab Kiki and Acidic Slime to take out two pillowfort enchantments, or to get rid of Urborg/Coffers.
Let's not derail this into a Tooth and Nail debate (unless it is as a comparison to Coaltion Victory as initially brought up).
As for the idea of using a card "fairly", there is probably never going to be an agreement here. As Sheldon has often said before, he approaches the format with the "build casually, play competitively" mentality. Now I know that some people in here and in the past have argued this because it requires approaching the game from a less than 100% mindset, and there is a certain amount of truth there. There is also a certain degree of what "could happen" versus what "does happen" (for example T&N and Palinchron). Getting back on topic, papa funk already plainly stated that Coalition Victory fail the "interacts poorly with the format" test (whether or not people choose to agree with this) and that this criteria is given a significant amount of weight. He also said that beyond that it is just an instant "I win" card with no other purpose, and that gave the card even less reason to stay legal. Many users have pointed out other cards which can duplicate this effect under very specific circumstances, but if I correctly recall no one has yet to produce a card that can duplicate this effect with a non-specific general. Also, due to the conditions which must be met, the only way to "play around" this card is to assume that every five color deck will run it and at all times destroy their lands as needed, ensure their general does not stay in play, hold up a removal spell, hold up a counterspell, and/or run and hold up a "you can't lose the game effect". Some of these options have merit outside of CV, but the majority of them just read like the presence of one card forces you to hate on a player just for choosing a particular color set.
So for everyone who wants to unban this card, I ask you this: What does Coalition Victoryadd to the format?
It gives 5 color decks another path to victory to consider among a bunch of others.
It's just another big mana game ender. No reason to have it banned.
Enter the infinite is a good comparison card I think, when was the last time someone ran enter the infinite to be fair? Is it even possible? Coalition victory is the same way.
Let's not derail this into a Tooth and Nail debate (unless it is as a comparison to Coaltion Victory as initially brought up).
As for the idea of using a card "fairly", there is probably never going to be an agreement here. As Sheldon has often said before, he approaches the format with the "build casually, play competitively" mentality. Now I know that some people in here and in the past have argued this because it requires approaching the game from a less than 100% mindset, and there is a certain amount of truth there. There is also a certain degree of what "could happen" versus what "does happen" (for example T&N and Palinchron). Getting back on topic, papa funk already plainly stated that Coalition Victory fail the "interacts poorly with the format" test (whether or not people choose to agree with this) and that this criteria is given a significant amount of weight. He also said that beyond that it is just an instant "I win" card with no other purpose, and that gave the card even less reason to stay legal. Many users have pointed out other cards which can duplicate this effect under very specific circumstances, but if I correctly recall no one has yet to produce a card that can duplicate this effect with a non-specific general. Also, due to the conditions which must be met, the only way to "play around" this card is to assume that every five color deck will run it and at all times destroy their lands as needed, ensure their general does not stay in play, hold up a removal spell, hold up a counterspell, and/or run and hold up a "you can't lose the game effect". Some of these options have merit outside of CV, but the majority of them just read like the presence of one card forces you to hate on a player just for choosing a particular color set.
So for everyone who wants to unban this card, I ask you this: What does Coalition Victoryadd to the format?
It gives 5 color decks another path to victory to consider among a bunch of others.
It's just another big mana game ender. No reason to have it banned.
Enter the infinite is a good comparison card I think, when was the last time someone ran enter the infinite to be fair? Is it even possible? Coalition victory is the same way.
Now tell me, how many of those are guaranteed - as in, 100% guaranteed - gamewins unless an opponent has direct removal or a counterspell available no matter what deck has been built around them? I think you'll find the answer is 0. Because while a vast majority may not run any of those cards to be fair, the fact is that they CAN be used in a somewhat fair way beyond just saying "Win the game." Which, again, Coalition Victory cannot.
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.
Let's not derail this into a Tooth and Nail debate (unless it is as a comparison to Coaltion Victory as initially brought up).
As for the idea of using a card "fairly", there is probably never going to be an agreement here. As Sheldon has often said before, he approaches the format with the "build casually, play competitively" mentality. Now I know that some people in here and in the past have argued this because it requires approaching the game from a less than 100% mindset, and there is a certain amount of truth there. There is also a certain degree of what "could happen" versus what "does happen" (for example T&N and Palinchron). Getting back on topic, papa funk already plainly stated that Coalition Victory fail the "interacts poorly with the format" test (whether or not people choose to agree with this) and that this criteria is given a significant amount of weight. He also said that beyond that it is just an instant "I win" card with no other purpose, and that gave the card even less reason to stay legal. Many users have pointed out other cards which can duplicate this effect under very specific circumstances, but if I correctly recall no one has yet to produce a card that can duplicate this effect with a non-specific general. Also, due to the conditions which must be met, the only way to "play around" this card is to assume that every five color deck will run it and at all times destroy their lands as needed, ensure their general does not stay in play, hold up a removal spell, hold up a counterspell, and/or run and hold up a "you can't lose the game effect". Some of these options have merit outside of CV, but the majority of them just read like the presence of one card forces you to hate on a player just for choosing a particular color set.
So for everyone who wants to unban this card, I ask you this: What does Coalition Victoryadd to the format?
It gives 5 color decks another path to victory to consider among a bunch of others.
It's just another big mana game ender. No reason to have it banned.
Enter the infinite is a good comparison card I think, when was the last time someone ran enter the infinite to be fair? Is it even possible? Coalition victory is the same way.
Now tell me, how many of those are guaranteed - as in, 100% guaranteed - gamewins unless an opponent has direct removal or a counterspell available no matter what deck has been built around them? I think you'll find the answer is 0. Because while a vast majority may not run any of those cards to be fair, the fact is that they CAN be used in a somewhat fair way beyond just saying "Win the game." Which, again, Coalition Victory cannot.
No, you cannot use enter the infinite in a fair way. You just can't. Don't try to take that position. You can try and argue the most pointless of semantics saying you can put it into a deck of 98 basic islands, but that doesn't advance the discussion at all because that's not how this game is played.
No, you cannot use enter the infinite in a fair way. You just can't. Don't try to take that position. You can try and argue the most pointless of semantics saying you can put it into a deck of 98 basic islands, but that doesn't advance the discussion at all because that's not how this game is played.
I believe that what Lou was saying was that those cards that he listed only set up a win. They do not, by themselves, win the game. Enter the Infinite draws your entire deck minus one card. It's easy to capitalize on that in order to win, but you must have a way.
Enter the Infinite will lose you the game if you try and play it fairly, though. Infact, I wonder if it's ever been cast for it's mana cost since it was printed. Just because it doesn't literally win you the game itself means nothing because you will have every card in your deck at your disposal. You only have one turn to use them, though, barring shuffling cards back into your deck or something. The only possible non winning combo you could reasonably do with it is playing cards that care that it costs 12 mana and almost all of those want permanents. I really doubt setting it up to Erratic Explosion someone for 12 is a worthwhile play in commander. I mean if Gifts Ungiven is a problem because it's a great combo enabler, this has no real hoops at all.
Now tell me, how many of those are guaranteed - as in, 100% guaranteed - gamewins unless an opponent has direct removal or a counterspell available no matter what deck has been built around them? I think you'll find the answer is 0. Because while a vast majority may not run any of those cards to be fair, the fact is that they CAN be used in a somewhat fair way beyond just saying "Win the game." Which, again, Coalition Victory cannot.
Well... it can. I can play CV with no creatures in play or without the correct land types if I wanted to. Just like I can play Enter the Infinite and then somehow not win the game. If you put game ending effects in your deck then intentionally play them poorly you can do whatever you want and call it a "fair use." T&N and then search/fail to find. Insurrection in your second main. Doomsday for 5 basic lands. Etc.
So for everyone who wants to unban this card, I ask you this: What does Coalition Victoryadd to the format?
Nothing. But what does Palinchron add? It's my understanding that the RC doesn't try to regulate combos, so why is CV banned? It's a 4-card combo at the absolute minimum (Land + Prismatic Omen + 5 color creature + Coalition Victory) and it's not like it "accidentally" ruins games. You can't mistakenly put it in your deck thinking it did something other than end the game. People who want to combo off with it will, and people who want to play actual games simply won't run it.
There is the distinction between having LITERALLY no modes aside from "Win the game" and "Do nothing" and having the modes "Set up a win" "Be a reasonable card" "Do nothing". And that is the line that's being drawn here. The LITERAL definition of the words "Win or do nothing". Which none of the other cards do. You cannot argue against that fact.
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.
Nothing. But what does Palinchron add? It's my understanding that the RC doesn't try to regulate combos, so why is CV banned? It's a 4-card combo at the absolute minimum (Land + Prismatic Omen + 5 color creature + Coalition Victory) and it's not like it "accidentally" ruins games. You can't mistakenly put it in your deck thinking it did something other than end the game. People who want to combo off with it will, and people who want to play actual games simply won't run it.
As far as I'm concerned, CV will create the image for all 5-Color Commanders the same image that notorious Commanders (E.g. Narset/Leovold) do for themselves. However, being an unknown factor instead of a known factor (Since CV isn't present in the Command Zone) would means most people will assume you're running CV rather than not (the typical usual safe assumptions) regardless whether you're playing CV or not. The pre-emptive measures taken against CV will affect regular gameplay way more than the other "win cards" you mentioned, because pretty much the only non-counter way to ensure CV doesn't happen is to cripple the landbase and make sure the Commander never gets onto the battlefield.
CV effectively turns all 5-Color Commanders into "Narset" in terms of reputation. Yes, we can discuss here and say "But we can just declare we don't play CV and life goes normally for me while combo players still get their CV", but I'm pretty sure reality doesn't work like that - some poor new player with his 5C deck is probably going to get his mana-fixing entirely routed and never be able to cast the Commander successfully even when all he was running was Horde of Notions "goodstuff" (and when I say that I didn't really meant the staples, I meant stuff he/she thought was great), all because every other player isn't sure whether CV is in there or not.
Every other card mentioned in comparison either puts up a red flag by their Commander Choice or requires an preemptive interruption that doesn't involve wrecking the regular gameplay style of the deck. Yes, land destruction would also wreck most for them, but CV is particularly demands either it or a counterspell (which not all players have), whereas the others have more than those 2 criteria.
Every other card mentioned in comparison either puts up a red flag by their Commander Choice or requires an preemptive interruption that doesn't involve wrecking the regular gameplay style of the deck. Yes, land destruction would also wreck most for them, but CV is particularly demands either it or a counterspell (which not all players have), whereas the others have more than those 2 criteria.
You left out creature removal, so it's actually 3 criteria and that is more removal/options than many combos out there.
Cmon Lou, what cards actually do means something. No one plays Pali then lets the cycle go around for people to deal with it. I get thats the reason, I am pointing out it is a poor reason.
Generally, I'm not about banning parts of specific combo, because most combo cards can be used fairly, even though some (Palinchron, for example) almost never are. But this card is the only part of the combo in question that is a problem, and this specific card has no other possible purpose whatsoever except to enable the "I win" combo. So, in this case I think it staying banned is fine. In contrast, I wouldn't ever argue that Kiki-Jiki or Dark Mike should be banned, though I reserve the right to roll my eyes and sigh when people play boring combos based around those cards. Heck, I play both of those cards in multiple decks. I just never play Trike along with Mike, or Zealous Conscripts in the same deck that contains Kiki.
But you can, and that is all that matters at this borderline. The same way Tooth and Nail can be used to search for fun things instead of combos but "no one (I don't mean that literally)" does that (well, technically more people still do that with Tooth and Nail then people casting Palinchron as a blocker).
But that's not the only reason for CV being on the list, since many "win" cards Test of Endurance, Mortal Combat and Helix Pinnacle also can't do much of anything else but "win" only (Felidar Sovereign gets away being a creature), but they have a difference, and it's not that they require a turn cycle (although that's a bonus reinforcement point in favor of them) - it's their requirements aren't really part of "core play".
Yes, combo players will combo, but all because they will doesn't mean people won't try to stop them (which combo player has never gotten his combo stopped before?) The requirements of the win condition determine how people will stop them - with Endurance/Sovereign it's a matter of lowering life totals, something that should happen anyway. With Mortal Combat its graveyard hate, which someone should (hopefully) have. With Helix Pinnacle... it's either you stopped the infinite mana (which doesn't rely on "core play" - there are dozens of unorthodox methods to get infinite mana) or it's slow enough the player deserved to win even if they got 50 mana each turn cycle because of Seedborn Muse.
With Coalition Victory? You have to stop the lands. Sure, stopping lands stops many other combos as well, but with CV, you literally have to. Sure it can be countered as well, but so can the other "win" cards as well and in multiplayer, there's a good chance someone (with no counterspells) is adopting preemptive measures. When the only course of method available is land destruction against a "win condition" available in every 5-color deck, the sheer knee-jerk reaction of land destruction is likely going towards every 5C deck will be real if CV was in the format and it would definitely create an unfair bias against 5C decks in general, even if every 5C decks does indeed choose to pack CV (and they will eventually since it's pretty much the only gameplan fast enough if you managed to dodge the hate). 5C already has a reputation for goodstuff and giving it another layer of "CV combo guaranteed" doesn't seem like it would do variety any good.
See, I disagree with this perspective. I believe the way players actually play with their cards should be the measure for whether or not a card can actually be used fairly. If a card "technically" has other fair uses, but the playerbase at large isn't using a card in those ways, the fact that it can be used fairly is moot. This is exactly why Tooth and Nail isn't a problem. Even though Tooth and Nail always has the potential to immediately end whatever game it's cast in, Commander players don't always choose to play it that way in practice, and that makes it okay. If all Tooth and Nail players were to suddenly have a change of heart though and began using it exclusively to find Mike Trike combos, then it would be a problem.
We do agree that this isn't the sole reason Coalition Victory deserves to stay banned though. As I mentioned previously, I believe Coalition Victory is unique in that it is one of the only Magic cards which satisfies each of the following criteria:
1. Coalition Victory is extremely difficult to interact with.
You'd be hard pressed to find another unbanned card in Commander that does each of those things. Palinchron is probably one of the closest, but it does require some kind of setup. It doesn't go infinite on its own, and even if it does generate infinite mana, that isn't game ending if said player can't use the mana generated with it in a productive way. The same thing can't be said for Coalition Victory.2. Coalition Victory requires virtually no setup.
3. Coalition Victory instantly wins the game once resolved.
4. Coalition Victory has no potential for fair use.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
My mistake with the dramatic "that's all that matters" (which I think led you to think I thought that way). I was just reaffirming Coalition Victory can't even pass the "first line of check" and that is all that mattered, not the other way round (So it was more of "CV can't and that is all that matters at this checkpoint).
Just to save my pride, my flimsy defense is that we don't really have cards on the list of being on the side of "can be played fairly, but most people choose not to", the closest would be Primeval Titan, but that didn't outright win games nor was it part of some established combo. Other cards that can be played fairly and were part of some combo (Panoptic Mirror) didn't really come up with numbers and were more or less banned on "sheer power/boredom" instead (endless turn Mirror is generally worse than TNN Combo).
But that's beside the point, the point is CV can't even pass the first checkpoint all other cards mentioned above can, so I would see Panoptic Mirror come off the list before CV does the same way I expect Palinchron to join the list before Tooth and Nail would.
Difficult to interact with? Alright, I will bite. What is your creature removal like? They can have the lands, but if you deny their creatures you stop Coalition Victory in its tracks. In fact if you kill-off/bounce-out/exile-away one of their key creatures during the cast of the spell, before it resolves, the spell fizzles. If a player is pulling those shenanigans, I might be tempted to slot in things like Declaration of Naught, Nevermore, Meddling Mage and Voidstone Gargoyle. Land destruction is a viable tactic but in the politicking area of the game, that is like painting a target on your head if you are trigger happy. Sniping a Temple Garden while the spell hasn't resolved can be just as strong as countering the CV in this case as again it fizzles due to insufficient requirements. I fail to see how it is difficult to interact with. Every color can force a fizzle without even a counterspell being slung.
Virtually no setup? Don't give me that. Five basic subtypes, 1-5 creatures of different colors, one sorcery speed spell.
Demonic Pact + Donate, Hive Mind + Pact of the Titan, Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind + Curiosity. Takes about the same amount of effort to set those up.
Wins the game once resolved? I reiterate my previous points during the "Difficult to Interact With" part and how easy it is to force a fizzle. Also absolute lies. Platinum Angel with a Vedalken Orrery, Winding Canyons, Leyline of Anticipation or Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir can become suddenly that silver bullet tech for such a deck. A second silver bullet that seems to go overlooked is Angel's Grace. The metas would change and adapt and those who refuse to adapt get left in the dust.
No potential for fair use? Lots of cards could be used fairly, but get abused instead. Its basically like pulling your punches in order to soften your blows. How about wrath effects like wrath of god? By itself nice little board resets, but what if you or your opponent had threats that survived somehow? Its suddenly unfair, right? The spell was abused to further someone's advantage and bring them closer to a victory.
Palinchron is about as fair as Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary. That is to say, both are routinely abused and with just a second card can get out of hand with little trouble.
Commander: Hazezon Tamar (GRW), Arjun, the Shifting Flame (UR), [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Tiny Leader: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Peasant Dragon: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Modern: Orzhova Spirits (WB)
Legacy: Burn (R)
Vintage: Bazaar Dredge (B)
But if an obnoxious card like T&N is gonna run rampant, I don't see why CV shouldn't. Anyways, whenever people play insta-win cards like these, the rest can always ignore the fella and continue their game. It's social education. Only playgroups who wanna combo will use this anyway. They're looking for quickies, probably coz they can't last.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
I don't see anything wrong with casting Tooth and Nail as some kind of value card that puts two fatties into play. I agree that it would be silly to not try and win the game with a resolved Tooth and Nail if a player's deck had the cards inside of it to do so, but not every player will deliberately put game ending combos into their deck that Tooth and Nail can tutor out. Playing with suboptimal cards in Commander doesn't strike me as belittling to opponents.
Maybe you've had a lot more negative experiences with Tooth and Nail than I have. I've played several games where opponents cast a Tooth and Nail against me, and it was fine. It wasn't an obnoxious card. Are your local players always using it as a way to immediately end the game? I can see why you would feel the way you do if Tooth and Nail literally was just Coalition Victory every time one of your opponents cast it. That hasn't been my experience though.
You're right in that every color has ways of disrupting Coalition Victory both preemptively and while it's on the stack, but I don't believe that makes it easy to interact with. I mean, in Magic it's possible to do practically anything. There are always going to be solutions to problematic cards. Whether or not it's reasonable to expect players to have those answers is another thing entirely.
To start, I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect players to be able to preemptively play around Coalition Victory at all times. Any time opponents can't preemptively stop a possible Coalition Victory, they could lose the game provided they also don't have a reactive solution. Players aren't always going to have a removal spell for a five color Commander turn after turn, and players aren't always going to have something akin to Dust Bowl in play either to keep that player off certain land types. Deliberately teching in specific hate cards like Nevermore into one's deck for the sole purpose of resisting a metagame with Coalition Victory also seems like further evidence for why Coalition Victory should stay banned. Nevermore is a really narrow card in Commander. It can answer just about any spell, but the player using Nevermore has to already have prerequisite knowledge of what the spell is they want to prevent. Aside from commanders, that isn't likely. If someone has to go to the extent of playing something so narrow just to shut out Coalition Victory, that's a pretty strong indicator that Coalition Victory would be a problem.
I believe it's more reasonable to expect players to reactively play around Coalition Victory, but that's difficult as well. The only opportunity players have to do that is while Coalition Victory is on the stack. That leaves them with three options. Players can destroy lands in response, destroy creatures in response, or counter the spell outright. I'm going to omit countermagic as a realistic solution since only one out of five colors really only has access to it and since it's also a solution to basically everything. That leaves destroying lands and creatures. For the most part, instant speed land destruction isn't a thing. Off the top of my head, there's Volcanic Offering, but not much else. It's possible to destroy lands at instant speed with other lands like Strip Mine and Wasteland, but it's also unreasonable to expect someone to cast a Coalition Victory while there's an untapped Strip Mine on the table. That's just not going to happen. That really only leaves players with instant speed ways to get rid of creatures. I think this is the most practical way of disrupting a Coalition Victory, but there's still a lot of conditions that go into it, and spot removal only does the job if there aren't already more creatures of each color on the battlefield.
Each of these combos require wildly different levels of setup. Demonic Pact has to stay on the battlefield for several turns before it promises to kill the single player it's donated to. That's two cards, neither of which are a commander. Hive Mind and any Pact are similar. It costs two non-commander cards, but doesn't take nearly as long to setup and can slay multiple opponents at once provided they can't pay the cost. Niv-Mizzet + Curiosity is definitely the easiest of the bunch to set up. With Niv-Mizzet as someone's Commander, it only costs a single one mana spell to enable. That's even easier than Coalition Victory to assemble, but that doesn't mean Coalition Victory isn't a trivial card to set up either, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Putting lands onto the battlefield, getting to eight mana, and casting one's Commander are some of the most effortless prerequisites for assembling a one card win since all of those are things that a player is naturally going to do during the course of a game of Commander. Getting the right land cards is definitely the trickiest part, but with the plethora of fetches, duals, and other basic land tutors like Cultivate available, that still isn't anywhere remotely challenging.
Yes, there will always be answers to any problem in Magic. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect players to have them in a non-competitive format. If flashing in a Platinum Angel is your defense for how "easy" it is to fizzle a Coalition Victory, I really don't know what else to say. That's about the most unrealistic way imaginable to defend oneself against Coalition Victory.
I think we might have different interpretations as to what it means for a card to have fair use. The idea I'm trying to convey is that unlike some cards, Coalition Victory has no interesting application beyond immediately winning the game. It can't be played in different decks to different degrees of effectiveness. It will just always win the game regardless of what deck it's in unless somehow stopped. A card like Tooth and Nail has different applications. While it can win the game outright if put into a certain shell, it also has the potential to not do so. It can be strong, or weak, or anywhere in between. The way a player uses Tooth and Nail is what creates the potential for fair use. With Coalition Victory, there is no way for players to use it differently.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Oh what is this honestly? You never used Nevermore because you suspected or know what your opponent is packing? "I name curiosity." Boom. Suddenly Nevermore was teched to stop a Niv-Mizzet from having the possibility of going off. I guess that's a pretty strong indicator that curiosity is a real problem if I had to tech a card for it.
Hmm countermagic can be done by all five colors. Blue is just the strongest and has the largest toolbox. Even green could counter a CV.
Destruction is a possibility but its not the only thing. Bouncing, tucking, exiling, fighting, stealing just as a few quick examples of other options.
Its never unreasonable. In fact its entirely possible that an opponent didn't notice or has a backup plan or assumes you wouldn't.
Wasn't one of your strikes against CV "Virtually requires no setup" and that it failed the first criteria? As that is my point. I gave you plenty of examples of cards that virtually require no setup. Even demonic pact is just durdling for three turns and then donating it during the third turn.
"One Card Win"? Oh I wasn't aware that CV was also a 5-colored creature that counted itself as well.
Unrealistic? Lets say Bob the Accountant shows up with his five colored deck, everyone at the table knows he runs Coalition Victory (cause its a universe where its not banned). Its unrealistic for me to tech against his deck? Are you saying its unrealistic to tech in a Bojuka Bog or Relic of Progenitus against something like a Karador, Ghost Chieftian deck that shows up regularly at a LGS? Its like knowing that the Baral, Chief of Compliance deck is going to be there and not teching in anti-counterspell cards because it would be "unrealistic".
Door To Nothingness doesn't have a fair use besides kicking a player out of the game and its not on the banlist, throw in an Amulet of Vigor and it do it on the same turn.
I'm going to borrow a part of a post that was used earlier in this thread in relation to T&N.
Its not a game winning combo if I do that but it also makes my opponent have a bad time because I am systematically blowing up their lands while not actually using land destruction at the same time.
Why use a T&N weakly if you have the option to use it strongly? Its a 9 mana tutor that also puts stuff onto the battlefield. As it makes sense to go for at least two creatures with some synergy between each other and not doing so can be a fairly weak tutoring turn. Even a Blazing Archon with Stormtime Leviathan have strong synergy with each other and it doesn't auto-win the game either.
Commander: Hazezon Tamar (GRW), Arjun, the Shifting Flame (UR), [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Tiny Leader: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Peasant Dragon: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Modern: Orzhova Spirits (WB)
Legacy: Burn (R)
Vintage: Bazaar Dredge (B)
Yes...? I'm not following you here.
Yes, that is a strong indicator that Curiosity is a problematic card when played in Niv-Mizzet.
Okay, now I feel like you have no interest in listening to anything I have to say, so I'm stopping the conversation with you here. I want to be understood by you just like you want me to understand your thoughts. The attitude you're conveying here is argumentative and disrespectful. I am well aware that there is countermagic outside of blue, and you're aware that it's also virtually nonexistent. My intentions are only to demonstrate why I believe Coalition Victory is qualified as a banned card, not to start petty squabbles.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
This is what I mean with "Fair use is possible." Not everyone builds their deck just to combo out or insta-win. Hence, cards that do not literally say "Win the game" can be used in other ways as well, even stupid stuff like Palinchron, Tooth and Nail, and several others.
This is not the case with Coalition Victory. It's either "You win the game" or "It gets countered". There's LITERALLY no in between.
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.
You can use braids fairly
You can use erayo fairly
You can use almost every card on the ban list in a weaker way than what got them banned
So why is tooth and nail given such special treatment?
It's used way more often than not to end the game on the spot as a big mana haymaker.
I am giving examples of cards that can be used in other ways rather than just win the game because that is literally all Coalition Victory does. I am not talking about Braids, Erayo, Emrakul or whatever else that way because none of them have "Win the game" literally written on them. Focus on the argument at hand, do not point at random corner cases and try to pass them off as an argument as that only shows you're not reading what I'm saying. What I'm saying works in regards to Coalition Victory, and explains why Coalition Victory is banned and not dozens of other combo pieces that have been shouted at by various people. Tooth and Nail is herein the easiest example that it CAN be played fairly.
Now I'll humor you. Yes, you can use Braids, Erayo, Emrakul and such fairly. But the fact is that they easily centralize games no matter the intent around them. Which is why they have their spots on the banlist. They create miserable boardstates or even in fair decks just give too big an advantage for what they do.
Combo, however, is not something that needs to be banned and you'll note that there really aren't any cards on the banlist that are there for having infinite combos - aside from arguably Protean Hulk who has a few other reasons surrounding him which are all not nearly strong enough for it's banning but i digress - but for the way they interact with the game. Coalition Victory, meanwhile, is literally the ONLY card that no matter what the game is like at that very point, does one of two things: Absolutely Nothing or Insta-Win. Pick one. Now repeat after me: Not a single other card does that. Felidar Sovereign? It's still a lifelinking beast and you usually have a full turn cycle to deal with it. Test of Endurance and it's pals? Yeah, they don't do a lot on their own, but they also give you time to interact with them and to prevent their trigger from happening as it's a very telegraphed play or to destroy the enchantment. Biovisionary? Still a small dude on it's own and while you know the Rite of Replication is coming, this requires 2 specific pieces none of which are in your command zone (Which again isn't an issue with Coalition Victory). This is why no other I-Win card is on the banlist.
And as far as comboes go, the RC is not in the business of policing combo (Which is why they really should unban Protean Hulk). If you fill your deck with infinite combos and that's your idea of fun, then I hope you will find someone who plays with you because I will tell you soon enough to either build something fun and interactive for a change, or you'll be finding yourself out of my playgroup rather quickly.
Now let's see how much of it actually gets read. I should probably not name any specific examples to augment my arguments as people just opt to read that single card and then focus their entire argument on that instead of the argument itself.
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.
As for the idea of using a card "fairly", there is probably never going to be an agreement here. As Sheldon has often said before, he approaches the format with the "build casually, play competitively" mentality. Now I know that some people in here and in the past have argued this because it requires approaching the game from a less than 100% mindset, and there is a certain amount of truth there. There is also a certain degree of what "could happen" versus what "does happen" (for example T&N and Palinchron). Getting back on topic, papa funk already plainly stated that Coalition Victory fail the "interacts poorly with the format" test (whether or not people choose to agree with this) and that this criteria is given a significant amount of weight. He also said that beyond that it is just an instant "I win" card with no other purpose, and that gave the card even less reason to stay legal. Many users have pointed out other cards which can duplicate this effect under very specific circumstances, but if I correctly recall no one has yet to produce a card that can duplicate this effect with a non-specific general. Also, due to the conditions which must be met, the only way to "play around" this card is to assume that every five color deck will run it and at all times destroy their lands as needed, ensure their general does not stay in play, hold up a removal spell, hold up a counterspell, and/or run and hold up a "you can't lose the game effect". Some of these options have merit outside of CV, but the majority of them just read like the presence of one card forces you to hate on a player just for choosing a particular color set.
So for everyone who wants to unban this card, I ask you this: What does Coalition Victory add to the format?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
RGU Yasova UGR
BU Skeleton Ship UB
U Heidar U
U Baral U
R Kari Zev R
Because it's a fun card. And very powerful, but only broken if you choose to break it. And, believe it or not, not everyone chooses to break it.
In the couple decks I have that run TnN, I can't use it to pull up an "I win" combo because I intentionally don't include those combos in my decks. I don't run Zealous Conscripts in any deck that includes Kiki-Jiki. I don't run Triskellion at all, but were I to do so, I would not include it in a deck that included the black Mikaeus. It's not about belittling those I play with, or messing with them, it's about building the way I want to build. When you are building to break TnN, you are choosing to do that. It isn't required. I can still get tons of value by putting very powerful and effective creatures in my deck without playing the same, tedious combos. I can win just fine by putting something more fair like Avenger of Zendikar in play with a haste enabler or some creature that pumps attackers without having to do Kiki/Mite BS. But other times, I use TnN to fetch answers, rather than to try to win with it. I might grab Kiki and Acidic Slime to take out two pillowfort enchantments, or to get rid of Urborg/Coffers.
It gives 5 color decks another path to victory to consider among a bunch of others.
It's just another big mana game ender. No reason to have it banned.
I can't imagine someone would want coalition victory banned but be ok with cards like rise of the dark realms, insurrection, rite of replication, tooth and nail, enter the infinite, omniscience etc. They all fall into the same category of big mana game enders and that's how they are used the vast majority of the time.
Enter the infinite is a good comparison card I think, when was the last time someone ran enter the infinite to be fair? Is it even possible? Coalition victory is the same way.
Now tell me, how many of those are guaranteed - as in, 100% guaranteed - gamewins unless an opponent has direct removal or a counterspell available no matter what deck has been built around them? I think you'll find the answer is 0. Because while a vast majority may not run any of those cards to be fair, the fact is that they CAN be used in a somewhat fair way beyond just saying "Win the game." Which, again, Coalition Victory cannot.
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.
No, you cannot use enter the infinite in a fair way. You just can't. Don't try to take that position. You can try and argue the most pointless of semantics saying you can put it into a deck of 98 basic islands, but that doesn't advance the discussion at all because that's not how this game is played.
I believe that what Lou was saying was that those cards that he listed only set up a win. They do not, by themselves, win the game. Enter the Infinite draws your entire deck minus one card. It's easy to capitalize on that in order to win, but you must have a way.
Let's be absolutely clear here: I'm not arguing that Coalition Victory is a fun card. It's a super obnoxious card and I don't particularly want to play against it. But so is Palinchron, and Tooth and Nail, and Enter the Infinite, and Omniscience, and Felidar Sovereign, and Insurrection, and Mindslaver, and Sorin Markov, and Doomsday, etc. Just because I find them annoying doesn't mean they should be banned under the current ban philosophy.
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.
As far as I'm concerned, CV will create the image for all 5-Color Commanders the same image that notorious Commanders (E.g. Narset/Leovold) do for themselves. However, being an unknown factor instead of a known factor (Since CV isn't present in the Command Zone) would means most people will assume you're running CV rather than not (the typical usual safe assumptions) regardless whether you're playing CV or not. The pre-emptive measures taken against CV will affect regular gameplay way more than the other "win cards" you mentioned, because pretty much the only non-counter way to ensure CV doesn't happen is to cripple the landbase and make sure the Commander never gets onto the battlefield.
CV effectively turns all 5-Color Commanders into "Narset" in terms of reputation. Yes, we can discuss here and say "But we can just declare we don't play CV and life goes normally for me while combo players still get their CV", but I'm pretty sure reality doesn't work like that - some poor new player with his 5C deck is probably going to get his mana-fixing entirely routed and never be able to cast the Commander successfully even when all he was running was Horde of Notions "goodstuff" (and when I say that I didn't really meant the staples, I meant stuff he/she thought was great), all because every other player isn't sure whether CV is in there or not.
Every other card mentioned in comparison either puts up a red flag by their Commander Choice or requires an preemptive interruption that doesn't involve wrecking the regular gameplay style of the deck. Yes, land destruction would also wreck most for them, but CV is particularly demands either it or a counterspell (which not all players have), whereas the others have more than those 2 criteria.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar