You left out creature removal, so it's actually 3 criteria and that is more removal/options than many combos out there.
That is true, but at the same time it also means the 5C Commander is always in line of removal, effectively giving all of them the same reputation as those frequently-complained Commanders I mentioned in my previous post. So, even if it is easier to stop the combo, a single card that effectively "red-flags" every 5C Commander for removal doesn't seem like the kind of card that would fit the format. People aren't usually going to wait until CV is on the stack on remove the Commander and when people just choose to target them because "Just in case of CV coming out later", it's not going to be enjoyable for the 5C player who doesn't run CV, the same way people who play those high-end Commanders on a casual build, except it's applied to an entire color identity (5C) instead of a single Commander.
You left out creature removal, so it's actually 3 criteria and that is more removal/options than many combos out there.
That is true, but at the same time it also means the 5C Commander is always in line of removal, effectively giving all of them the same reputation as those frequently-complained Commanders I mentioned in my previous post. So, even if it is easier to stop the combo, a single card that effectively "red-flags" every 5C Commander for removal doesn't seem like the kind of card that would fit the format. People aren't usually going to wait until CV is on the stack on remove the Commander and when people just choose to target them because "Just in case of CV coming out later", it's not going to be enjoyable for the 5C player who doesn't run CV, the same way people who play those high-end Commanders on a casual build, except it's applied to an entire color identity (5C) instead of a single Commander.
Am I supposed to get the entire table to gang on on any green player than can reach tooth and nail mana in the next couple turns?
It's not going to be enjoyable for the green players who don't run tooth and nail to win the game.
Impossible, you are again (along with others) focusing more on the fact that it's a combo card and less on the factop that it interacts poorly with the format while also being a very easy combo card to set up. You are also being disingenuous about how much setup is required. There are 5 new duals, 10 shocks, 5 reprint fetches, 5 slow fetches, 2 basic fetches, and a number of artifacts and land cycling cards. If you cannot meet the condition of "each basic lands type" by turn 8 (ignoring ramp) then you are probably very unlucky. Even playing only basic lands there are lots of cards to fix your mana. So I don't know why Prismatic Omen has to be a requirement for this combo. And there's what, one general you can run at the helm of a 5c deck that isn't naturally all five colors? So that condition is met as easily as saying "cast my general from the command zone?"
So by your own admission you agree that CV doesn't add anything to the format. Assuming you aren't choosing to ignore papa funk you know that CV interacts poorly in a manner which none of the cards you or anyone else listed. And you agree that it is a boring combo. So why unban 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.
Yes, CV either wins the game or does nothing. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that you're making a distinction that is irrelevant. There's no functional difference between a CV win and, say, an Insurrection. If you're casting Insurrection the game is going to end, one way or another. Same as if you cast Enter the Infinite or Palinchron+Phantasmal Image. Just because the cards don't physically say "You win the game" in the text box doesn't mean the game's not over.
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.
Or you could just ask that player if they run CV when you see who his general is? Or just assume they don't and if they get you with it, they get you with it once and now you know, same as literally any other combo. So what?
Also, just as a side note, why does everyone seem to think attacking the mana base is the only viable way to stop CV? It's been mentioned repeatedly in this thread. Swords to Plowshares or any other instant speed removal/bounce effect in response works just as well.
Impossible, you are again (along with others) focusing more on the fact that it's a combo card and less on the factop that it interacts poorly with the format while also being a very easy combo card to set up. You are also being disingenuous about how much setup is required. There are 5 new duals, 10 shocks, 5 reprint fetches, 5 slow fetches, 2 basic fetches, and a number of artifacts and land cycling cards. If you cannot meet the condition of "each basic lands type" by turn 8 (ignoring ramp) then you are probably very unlucky. Even playing only basic lands there are lots of cards to fix your mana. So I don't know why Prismatic Omen has to be a requirement for this combo. And there's what, one general you can run at the helm of a 5c deck that isn't naturally all five colors? So that condition is met as easily as saying "cast my general from the command zone?"
So by your own admission you agree that CV doesn't add anything to the format. Assuming you aren't choosing to ignore papa funk you know that CV interacts poorly in a manner which none of the cards you or anyone else listed. And you agree that it is a boring combo. So why unban it?
First; I am absolutely choosing to ignore papa_funk. I stopped reading his posts after "T&N is weaker in EDH than regular magic because it can't get 2 of the same creature". Either he's being willfully ignorant or he's incompetent. Thus, I choose to ignore.
Second; I wasn't disingenuous about the set up, I gave the absolute minimum number of cards which allow CV to win the game. If you'd like to just ignore the mana requirements as a given, then it becomes a 2 card combo involving your general. Which again, still isn't new or ban worthy.
Third; I already stated why it should be unbanned. It's banning is inconsistent with the given philosophy and is rather arbitrary. It doesn't deserve to be banned any more than the dozens of other obnoxious haymakers that win the game on resolution, in fact if not in text. Just because I personally find them boring doesn't mean everyone does.
]Yes, CV either wins the game or does nothing. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that you're making a distinction that is irrelevant. There's no functional difference between a CV win and, say, an Insurrection. If you're casting Insurrection the game is going to end, one way or another. Same as if you cast Enter the Infinite or Palinchron+Phantasmal Image. Just because the cards don't physically say "You win the game" in the text box doesn't mean the game's not over.
Yes, it does make a difference. For an Insurrection doesn't mean an auto-win. A player can decide to scoop out leaving the Insurrecter with not enough cards to pull off the win. Also, an Insurrection is heavily dependant on the board state. There needs to be enough power on the field to kill all your opponents in one go or else it's not enough.
Phantasmal Image and Palinchron both have other uses (albeit not many in the latter's case) than "win the game", so their inclusion in this debate is moot.
Enter the Infinite should win you the game the moment it's cast, but this plays on the assumption that Omniscience is in play. Without it, chances are you might not have enough mana to close out the game since you just spent 12 already.
So yes, there is a big difference. The only thing CVictory needs is a card that you always have access to, and your mana drops to not bone you over too much. This alone makes it such a standout case over other "I win" buttons.
But most importantly, there's still the difference between a card that CAN and a card that CANT be used for ANYTHING but winning the game on the spot.
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.
Impossible, you are again (along with others) focusing more on the fact that it's a combo card and less on the factop that it interacts poorly with the format while also being a very easy combo card to set up. You are also being disingenuous about how much setup is required. There are 5 new duals, 10 shocks, 5 reprint fetches, 5 slow fetches, 2 basic fetches, and a number of artifacts and land cycling cards. If you cannot meet the condition of "each basic lands type" by turn 8 (ignoring ramp) then you are probably very unlucky. Even playing only basic lands there are lots of cards to fix your mana. So I don't know why Prismatic Omen has to be a requirement for this combo. And there's what, one general you can run at the helm of a 5c deck that isn't naturally all five colors? So that condition is met as easily as saying "cast my general from the command zone?"
So by your own admission you agree that CV doesn't add anything to the format. Assuming you aren't choosing to ignore papa funk you know that CV interacts poorly in a manner which none of the cards you or anyone else listed. And you agree that it is a boring combo. So why unban it?
No, it adds another path to victory. That's what I said. I didn't say it adds nothing.
Enter the infinite interacts poorly with the format by ending the game in a non-interactive way and it only requires a few specific cards be in your deck
Tooth and nail interacts poorly with the format by ending the game in a non-interactive way and only requires a few specific cards be in your deck
Coalition victory was a mistake to ban and I haven't seen a single compelling argument to keep it banned. It's just removing a possible way to end the game, reducing deck building options.
If you don't want to win in a non-interactive way, don't put coalition victory in your deck, easy.
If you don't want your opponent's to win in a non-interactive way, coalition victory is one among dozens of possible ways to do it, so you aren't altering the problematic gameplay by banning it.
If the argument is instead "it looks flashy but is in fact degenerate", there are plenty of cards like both the cards I mentioned above that are the same way.
You do understand that "interacting poorly with the format" has nothing to do with ending the game in a noninteractive way, right? The cards you listed function identically in EDH as they do in the format for which they were designed. Coalition Victory was designed for a format where achieving the specific condition was actually a challenge. The Commander Zone literally removes one of those challenges. If you are unwilling to accept this difference then there is no point continuing this debate because you are ignoring one of the ban criteria which straight from a rules committee member's mouth is given a lot of weight.
Or you could just ask that player if they run CV when you see who his general is? Or just assume they don't and if they get you with it, they get you with it once and now you know, same as literally any other combo. So what?
Also, just as a side note, why does everyone seem to think attacking the mana base is the only viable way to stop CV? It's been mentioned repeatedly in this thread. Swords to Plowshares or any other instant speed removal/bounce effect in response works just as well.
We can raise that easily because we're a closed group discussing the issue in a forum, honestly. However, when you're making decisions for a format worldwide, you have to take the assumption people don't ask each other whether they are running CV as the default and majority setting, the same way nobody asks whether you have TNN Combo in the deck or not.
Yes, creature removal would also respond as well, but what I'm focusing on is preemptive measures - CV effectively encourages all removal to hit either lands or 5-colored creatures and the most susceptible one will almost always be the 5C Commander itself. Since I have to assume there was no prior communication beforehand, without knowing whether there is CV I would almost certainly choose to remove the 5C Commander from the board just in case CV is indeed in the game. Both most-likely scenarios of preemptive measures affect gameplay heavily - if your lands are getting crippled or your Commander just keeps getting removed not because it alone was a threat, but because CV was the threat (regardless whether you have it or not), chances are you aren't going to enjoy the game very much.
Like many have said, you might choose to accept it if you're in a competitive setting, but this preemption isn't limited to those, in Casual Settings people are still going to preempt almost (if not equally) as bad to potential CV plays and that is potentially going to ruin a lot of 5C players' experience, regardless of their Commander/Theme. CV might be more preventable than TNN functionally, but CV is capable of turning an entire Color Identity (5C) into one with a combo-reputation by default more than TNN does with any Color Identity with G in it and that is the reason I don't think CV should come off the list.
You do understand that "interacting poorly with the format" has nothing to do with ending the game in a noninteractive way, right? The cards you listed function identically in EDH as they do in the format for which they were designed. Coalition Victory was designed for a format where achieving the specific condition was actually a challenge. The Commander Zone literally removes one of those challenges. If you are unwilling to accept this difference then there is no point continuing this debate because you are ignoring one of the ban criteria which straight from a rules committee member's mouth is given a lot of weight.
Tooth and nail was designed for a format where reaching it's entwined conditions was meant to be a challenge. It is not a challenge in edh.
Same with all the big mana haymaker game enders.
Tooth and nail was designed for a format where reaching it's entwined conditions was meant to be a challenge. It is not a challenge in edh.
Same with all the big mana haymaker game enders.
While I disagree with Carthage's stance on Coalition Victory, I think he has a good point here. For most of Magic's history, cards weren't designed with Commander in mind because Commander had yet to even be conceived as a format, let alone popularized. As such, there are a large number of cards that don't play in Commander the same way they were intended for heads up Magic. Heck, Wizards continues to print cards that play differently in Commander than in heads up to this day, though they're certainly more cognizant about the repercussions of doing so than ever before.
This may sound odd, but I don't see how Coalition Victory interacts poorly in Commander any more so than, say, Wrath of God. Wrath of God is a legal card, and it isn't very problematic, but I do believe it interacts poorly in Commander (Well, I suppose multiplayer specifically). Yes, Coalition Victory does suffer from the fact that the creature condition is extremely easy to meet, but that condition, the condition of being better in Commander than usual a la Serra Ascendant, should not be the condition by which cards are banned or not, at least not solely. In my eyes, the reason why Coalition Victory deserves its place on the banned list is because it's a miserable, fun-sucking card. It's hard to interact with, and it brings the game to an abrupt, unsatisfying end. There are lots of cards with the potential to do this in Commander, everyone is well aware of that, but I believe most important that Coalition Victory has absolutely zero potential to be used in fair and interesting ways. It's crime is that it's one of the lamest cards ever and that it's always going to be a lame card regardless of what deck it's in. In Commander, it's just easier to be lame.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Tooth and nail was designed for a format where reaching it's entwined conditions was meant to be a challenge. It is not a challenge in edh.
Same with all the big mana haymaker game enders.
I'd be amiss if I didn't point out that right now a 13 mana card is banned in Standard.
However, I can see where you are coming from now. I disagree that it is the fault of the format and most especially any unique rule which makes getting 8+ mana less of a challenge because that requirement is met simply by having a game last 9 turns and make every land drop, a feat we see accomplished in most other formats.
I also get your point about haymakers, because the rules committee have themselves said haymaker spells like Tooth and Nail are supposed to have a large impact on the game.
The 13 mana card in standard, I highly doubt was ever cast for 13. I hear it was cast for 5-8 or 4 if you count Marvel. Of course, if the argument is that Coalition Victory interacts badly with the format because it's a one card combo with 5 color commanders, that has to mean everything that interacts the same way would fall under the same criteria. So, the point is that all the other cards can be used fairly and only win the game with one commander. Protean Hulk, Painter's Servant, Gifts Ungiven, and Panoptic Mirror are banned because they win the game if you stuff serveral other cards in your deck, though. They can also be used fairly, though. Apparently, Hulk's problem is also that it can't tutor out as epic of creatures as Tooth and Nail, though. Servant's problem is that it can combo off an opponent's card. Of course, all cards can combo off an opponent's card if you steal them. The logic seems to be that if a card is banned, it should stay banned unless there's a really good reason it adds good things to the format and if it isn't banned, it has to be so obnoxious and indefensible that it's making games all over the world completely miserable. Now, sure, Coalition Victory is an annoying card, but I seriously doubt its mere existance will result in a group beatdown on the grounds that 5 color players might be running it any more than any of the hundreds of game winning combos already floating around. I don't really like Victory, but it kind of seems like if it were printed for the first time today, it wouldn't be banned any more than Biorhythm or any of the other cards listed above. They're only banned because they were banned in the past, not because they'd be banned now.
I'm not going to lie. If CV were legal I would play under the assumption that it were in every five color deck and play appropriately. And if that means thingame like removing their land when given the opportunity or killing their general just because I can, I wouldn't feel bad about it.
I'm not going to lie. If CV were legal I would play under the assumption that it were in every five color deck and play appropriately. And if that means thingame like removing their land when given the opportunity or killing their general just because I can, I wouldn't feel bad about it.
Do you play under the assumption that every black green deck is going to tooth and nail for mike and trike? Or that every blue deck is going to win the game if they hit 10 mana for omniscience?
We can't use arbitrary irrational behaviour for the banlist.
You do understand that "interacting poorly with the format" has nothing to do with ending the game in a noninteractive way, right? The cards you listed function identically in EDH as they do in the format for which they were designed. Coalition Victory was designed for a format where achieving the specific condition was actually a challenge. The Commander Zone literally removes one of those challenges. If you are unwilling to accept this difference then there is no point continuing this debate because you are ignoring one of the ban criteria which straight from a rules committee member's mouth is given a lot of weight.
Except literally every card works differently in EDH simply by virtue of the format. 100-card singleton means tutors are much better. Starting at 40 life means aggro is basically useless. Multiplayer means 1-for-1 interactions are a losing proposition. Big mana spells that were never actually meant to be hardcast become way better when you can spend the first 5 turns of the game ramping. Etc. Singling out one card for being mildly better in EDH than regular Magic is a travesty.
Since I have to assume there was no prior communication beforehand, without knowing whether there is CV I would almost certainly choose to remove the 5C Commander from the board just in case CV is indeed in the game. Both most-likely scenarios of preemptive measures affect gameplay heavily - if your lands are getting crippled or your Commander just keeps getting removed not because it alone was a threat, but because CV was the threat (regardless whether you have it or not), chances are you aren't going to enjoy the game very much.
Well A) this mostly sounds like a you problem. It's a simple thing to ask if someone is playing infinites or other wise planning on comboing off before you start. Takes a few seconds while you're shuffling. I don't know about you, but if I sit down against new decks, I ask what kind of game we're going for. Especially against known problematic generals.
And B) getting your general removed repeatedly is a problem for you? Because it was my impression that's how the game is played. You obviously don't just let Purphoros, God of the Forge sit there all game. If someone is playing their general, it's probably because it advances their gameplan and you should try to disrupt it as much as possible or else you'll lose. Also you don't need to repeatedly remove a 5-color general if you fear CV, you only have to remove it once in response to the spell and then the threat has passed.
I'm not going to lie. If CV were legal I would play under the assumption that it were in every five color deck and play appropriately. And if that means thingame like removing their land when given the opportunity or killing their general just because I can, I wouldn't feel bad about it.
Do you play under the assumption that every black green deck is going to tooth and nail for mike and trike? Or that every blue deck is going to win the game if they hit 10 mana for omniscience?
We can't use arbitrary irrational behaviour for the banlist.
I am with Cryogen on this one. If CV were legal, I would assume that every 5C deck is playing it and I would play the rest of the game under than assumption because of the difficulty in dealing with it. If the argument is that CV is fine because every color can deal with it by blowing up lands (Red/Green/Strip Mine variants), getting rid of the general (Black/White/Red) or countering CV itself (Blue mostly) then if I am not playing Blue (since it really does all 3 things to stop CV) I am going to actively make sure the 5C player doesn't have all 5 basic land typesor their general.
Since a lot of LD effects are sorcery speed, I can't just respond to CV to blow up a land. Removing the general is a little easier to do in response to CV, but if my removal is countered, I lose. I will do what I can to make sure their general and/or lands don't stick around throughout the game.
I'm not going to lie. If CV were legal I would play under the assumption that it were in every five color deck and play appropriately. And if that means thingame like removing their land when given the opportunity or killing their general just because I can, I wouldn't feel bad about it.
Do you play under the assumption that every black green deck is going to tooth and nail for mike and trike? Or that every blue deck is going to win the game if they hit 10 mana for omniscience?
We can't use arbitrary irrational behaviour for the banlist.
I am with Cryogen on this one. If CV were legal, I would assume that every 5C deck is playing it and I would play the rest of the game under than assumption because of the difficulty in dealing with it. If the argument is that CV is fine because every color can deal with it by blowing up lands (Red/Green/Strip Mine variants), getting rid of the general (Black/White/Red) or countering CV itself (Blue mostly) then if I am not playing Blue (since it really does all 3 things to stop CV) I am going to actively make sure the 5C player doesn't have all 5 basic land typesor their general.
Since a lot of LD effects are sorcery speed, I can't just respond to CV to blow up a land. Removing the general is a little easier to do in response to CV, but if my removal is countered, I lose. I will do what I can to make sure their general and/or lands don't stick around throughout the game.
Why are you not doing this to other decks that can run cards that are just as strong and non interactive at ending the game?
Because its obsessive and neurotic behavior to worry about your opponent running such cards and that the current burden on the mind is only of a fictitious series of scenarios revolving around a single card, Coaltion Victory, and such scenarios are only being played out and used to justify its spot on a banlist?
What is better in the mind's eye of a group of five players?
That each is extremely worried from the very start, based on colors alone, on what card choices went in a opponent's deckbuilding?
That there is a few obvious things they would include in such a deck, but the air amongst the five is more relaxed and filled with mirth?
Personally I would go after the second option as a win is a win after all, whether its a grind or is swift. It doesn't honestly matter how many steps it takes to achieve a victory if the environment is one of jovial intent shared by all. Which is the heart of the format, whether a group be cutthroat or casual. If a player casts a Coalition Victory and it resolves and wins the game, the reasonable and smart thing to do would be to laugh off the loss and start a fresh game. As at the end of the day, Commander is a game-like social experience that is shared amongst friends.
Well A) this mostly sounds like a you problem. It's a simple thing to ask if someone is playing infinites or other wise planning on comboing off before you start. Takes a few seconds while you're shuffling. I don't know about you, but if I sit down against new decks, I ask what kind of game we're going for. Especially against known problematic generals.
And B) getting your general removed repeatedly is a problem for you? Because it was my impression that's how the game is played. You obviously don't just let Purphoros, God of the Forge sit there all game. If someone is playing their general, it's probably because it advances their gameplan and you should try to disrupt it as much as possible or else you'll lose. Also you don't need to repeatedly remove a 5-color general if you fear CV, you only have to remove it once in response to the spell and then the threat has passed.
A) It's not a problem of whether I ask people or not, it's whether I can assume everyone else in the world (not playing with me or you) would ask or not when they start the game. I cannot. The safer assumption is to assume they don't and we have to assume because unless you have a way to ensure everyone playing a game anytime gets reminded to ask so, decision-making for the entire format cannot rely on an uncertainty, regardless of how simple it is to subvert it, because there's no way to quantify that subversion.
B) Yes, you don't let obvious threats sit on the board, the issue is CV makes the 5C Commander always a "obvious threat" from a preemptive perspective. While it's true the CV threat is over once it is dealt with when CV in on the stack, sometimes CV don't show up and the preemptive measures will just keep going on. Doubly worse if the scenario in A) happens (which like I said, always assume it will happen somewhere). Not all removal is instant-speed and when people do threat assessment on Commanders, the 5C Commander with the potential of CV is always more deadly (and likely) than the Purphoros with the potential of combo-ing out, because CV is just that efficient (Purphy might not even win if it combos, whereas CV definitely does).
Of course, the difference between a BG deck T&N-ing for MikeTrike vs a 5CC deck Coalition Victory-ing is that the BG deck needs to dedicate 3 slots in it's deck for said combo whereas the CV player only needs to dedicate 1 slot. Likewise, the Blue player might play Omniscience, but if their hand's ran low and they don't have Enter the Infinite on hand, that might not be enough either. Small but important distinction.
Oh and good luck removing Progenitus with your spot removal.
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.
You're definately going to have to dedicate slots to casting Progenitus though. I should know. You're either going to have to carefully craft your mana base over the course of the game or stick a mana doubler and have it last a turn. It's the hardest card in the game to cast and I've found that you almost have to dedicate slots to cards like Rafiq that can one shot people with it to have an actual win condition because protection from everything also negates pretty much all pumps and 10 power needs 3 attacks from a creature you had to dedicate your whole deck to actually cast. If you manage to actually cast the damn thing and resolve Coalition Victory, whatever. I don't care. Of course, considering 5 color commanders aren't really all that good, focusing fire on it is probably poor threat assessment in most metas. I mean really, the commanders are either tribal dude, mediocre, or mr impossible to cast. They don't really pose all that much of a threat on their own and if they'd play Coalition Victory, they would probably jam other combos too besides the one that requires progenitus mana + 3. I mean it's ok that 9 mana or less win the game on the spot but if bad commanders can pack a 13 mana 2 card combo that needs 2 mana of each color, the word is going to come crashing down. Sure it isn't the most fun card and probably doesn't really add anything at all to the format, but for a 2 card combo, it's probably the jankiest of one there is. I mean really, is there a 2 card combo to win on the spot that costs more than 3WWUUBBRRGG or 3WWWUUUBBBRRRGGG with Progentius? Sure, a few people would do it a couple times, but they'd probably either give up on it from bordom, hate, or playing better combos. I mean you're 5 color. You can run any combo you want. The only halfway sensible reason to ban it is as an example that combo is bad, but even then it's only desirable for the fact that it reads "win the game" on it. Lab Man would be a better candidate for that spot anyway. Coalition Victory probably costs you all your mana for 2 turns to try and pull off something as easily countered as the Tooth and Nail combos. I mean any meta that that it would be decent in would probably give them a talking to the first time they pulled it and in any serious meta, it's way too slow and bad.
Of course, the difference between a BG deck T&N-ing for MikeTrike vs a 5CC deck Coalition Victory-ing is that the BG deck needs to dedicate 3 slots in it's deck for said combo whereas the CV player only needs to dedicate 1 slot. Likewise, the Blue player might play Omniscience, but if their hand's ran low and they don't have Enter the Infinite on hand, that might not be enough either. Small but important distinction.
Oh and good luck removing Progenitus with your spot removal.
Are we now saying that because someone can win the game after resolving the 10 mana spell progenitus with a second 8 mana spell that the 8 mana spell should be banned?
Because there's a sizable list of cards that need to be banned in that case.
I don't consider "you need to add 2 more cards to your deck" a valid reason for special treatment of coalition victory.
The same people who put coalition victory into their 5 color deck are going to tutor up a win with tooth and nail. I believe it's a property of the player that makes them play cards like coalition victory, not something fundamentally wrong with coalition victory itself. The same goes for cards like tooth and nail and other questionable non interactive cards. The game is not improved by having it banned.
Of course, the difference between a BG deck T&N-ing for MikeTrike vs a 5CC deck Coalition Victory-ing is that the BG deck needs to dedicate 3 slots in it's deck for said combo whereas the CV player only needs to dedicate 1 slot. Likewise, the Blue player might play Omniscience, but if their hand's ran low and they don't have Enter the Infinite on hand, that might not be enough either. Small but important distinction.
Oh and good luck removing Progenitus with your spot removal.
Are we now saying that because someone can win the game after resolving the 10 mana spell progenitus with a second 8 mana spell that the 8 mana spell should be banned?
Because there's a sizable list of cards that need to be banned in that case.
I don't consider "you need to add 2 more cards to your deck" a valid reason for special treatment of coalition victory.
The same people who put coalition victory into their 5 color deck are going to tutor up a win with tooth and nail. I believe it's a property of the player that makes them play cards like coalition victory, not something fundamentally wrong with coalition victory itself. The same goes for cards like tooth and nail and other questionable non interactive cards. The game is not improved by having it banned.
And this is why I'm just going to stop arguing. I use Progenitus as an example, a quick remark to the "just use a removal spell" thing, not saying Progenitus is the only way. Furthermore, you still haven't given a good argument as to why the ONLY spell in the game that LITERALLY gets cast and at that very moment says "Win the game" or "Get countered and do nothing" should be unbanned. It is literally, no matter how you play it, the only card that does exactly that. You keep hammering on cards that can be played perfectly fairly in decks that don't have the infinite combos they work with in them, but you want a card unbanned that does nothing but say "I win". And whenever the argument about what it LITERALLY does comes up, you and others just opt to ignore it. If you're going to debate something, at least debate the actual points made, because right now it's just reiterating the same non-reasons for unbanning it while avoiding the reason to keep it actually banned.
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.
Of course, the difference between a BG deck T&N-ing for MikeTrike vs a 5CC deck Coalition Victory-ing is that the BG deck needs to dedicate 3 slots in it's deck for said combo whereas the CV player only needs to dedicate 1 slot. Likewise, the Blue player might play Omniscience, but if their hand's ran low and they don't have Enter the Infinite on hand, that might not be enough either. Small but important distinction.
Oh and good luck removing Progenitus with your spot removal.
Are we now saying that because someone can win the game after resolving the 10 mana spell progenitus with a second 8 mana spell that the 8 mana spell should be banned?
Because there's a sizable list of cards that need to be banned in that case.
I don't consider "you need to add 2 more cards to your deck" a valid reason for special treatment of coalition victory.
The same people who put coalition victory into their 5 color deck are going to tutor up a win with tooth and nail. I believe it's a property of the player that makes them play cards like coalition victory, not something fundamentally wrong with coalition victory itself. The same goes for cards like tooth and nail and other questionable non interactive cards. The game is not improved by having it banned.
And this is why I'm just going to stop arguing. I use Progenitus as an example, a quick remark to the "just use a removal spell" thing, not saying Progenitus is the only way. Furthermore, you still haven't given a good argument as to why the ONLY spell in the game that LITERALLY gets cast and at that very moment says "Win the game" or "Get countered and do nothing" should be unbanned. It is literally, no matter how you play it, the only card that does exactly that. You keep hammering on cards that can be played perfectly fairly in decks that don't have the infinite combos they work with in them, but you want a card unbanned that does nothing but say "I win". And whenever the argument about what it LITERALLY does comes up, you and others just opt to ignore it. If you're going to debate something, at least debate the actual points made, because right now it's just reiterating the same non-reasons for unbanning it while avoiding the reason to keep it actually banned.
Yes, it wins the game or does nothing.
I don't think that's even close to a valid reason for the card to be banned. Not at all.
Casual players who don't understand the game will realize very fast that it isn't the way they want to win and remove it, if they ever do get around to adding it in.
Casual players who do understand the game will not include it in their deck in the first place
Competitive players will include it if it makes them win more.
The extra deckbuilding options outweigh safeguarding the tiny subset of players who want to make a 5 color commander deck, and want it to be big, flashy, and casual, AND don't understand why coalition victory is not fun for that kind of deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That is true, but at the same time it also means the 5C Commander is always in line of removal, effectively giving all of them the same reputation as those frequently-complained Commanders I mentioned in my previous post. So, even if it is easier to stop the combo, a single card that effectively "red-flags" every 5C Commander for removal doesn't seem like the kind of card that would fit the format. People aren't usually going to wait until CV is on the stack on remove the Commander and when people just choose to target them because "Just in case of CV coming out later", it's not going to be enjoyable for the 5C player who doesn't run CV, the same way people who play those high-end Commanders on a casual build, except it's applied to an entire color identity (5C) instead of a single Commander.
Am I supposed to get the entire table to gang on on any green player than can reach tooth and nail mana in the next couple turns?
It's not going to be enjoyable for the green players who don't run tooth and nail to win the game.
So by your own admission you agree that CV doesn't add anything to the format. Assuming you aren't choosing to ignore papa funk you know that CV interacts poorly in a manner which none of the cards you or anyone else listed. And you agree that it is a boring combo. So why unban it?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Also, just as a side note, why does everyone seem to think attacking the mana base is the only viable way to stop CV? It's been mentioned repeatedly in this thread. Swords to Plowshares or any other instant speed removal/bounce effect in response works just as well. First; I am absolutely choosing to ignore papa_funk. I stopped reading his posts after "T&N is weaker in EDH than regular magic because it can't get 2 of the same creature". Either he's being willfully ignorant or he's incompetent. Thus, I choose to ignore.
Second; I wasn't disingenuous about the set up, I gave the absolute minimum number of cards which allow CV to win the game. If you'd like to just ignore the mana requirements as a given, then it becomes a 2 card combo involving your general. Which again, still isn't new or ban worthy.
Third; I already stated why it should be unbanned. It's banning is inconsistent with the given philosophy and is rather arbitrary. It doesn't deserve to be banned any more than the dozens of other obnoxious haymakers that win the game on resolution, in fact if not in text. Just because I personally find them boring doesn't mean everyone does.
Yes, it does make a difference. For an Insurrection doesn't mean an auto-win. A player can decide to scoop out leaving the Insurrecter with not enough cards to pull off the win. Also, an Insurrection is heavily dependant on the board state. There needs to be enough power on the field to kill all your opponents in one go or else it's not enough.
Phantasmal Image and Palinchron both have other uses (albeit not many in the latter's case) than "win the game", so their inclusion in this debate is moot.
Enter the Infinite should win you the game the moment it's cast, but this plays on the assumption that Omniscience is in play. Without it, chances are you might not have enough mana to close out the game since you just spent 12 already.
So yes, there is a big difference. The only thing CVictory needs is a card that you always have access to, and your mana drops to not bone you over too much. This alone makes it such a standout case over other "I win" buttons.
But most importantly, there's still the difference between a card that CAN and a card that CANT be used for ANYTHING but winning the game on the spot.
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, it adds another path to victory. That's what I said. I didn't say it adds nothing.
Enter the infinite interacts poorly with the format by ending the game in a non-interactive way and it only requires a few specific cards be in your deck
Tooth and nail interacts poorly with the format by ending the game in a non-interactive way and only requires a few specific cards be in your deck
Coalition victory was a mistake to ban and I haven't seen a single compelling argument to keep it banned. It's just removing a possible way to end the game, reducing deck building options.
If you don't want to win in a non-interactive way, don't put coalition victory in your deck, easy.
If you don't want your opponent's to win in a non-interactive way, coalition victory is one among dozens of possible ways to do it, so you aren't altering the problematic gameplay by banning it.
If the argument is instead "it looks flashy but is in fact degenerate", there are plenty of cards like both the cards I mentioned above that are the same way.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
We can raise that easily because we're a closed group discussing the issue in a forum, honestly. However, when you're making decisions for a format worldwide, you have to take the assumption people don't ask each other whether they are running CV as the default and majority setting, the same way nobody asks whether you have TNN Combo in the deck or not.
Yes, creature removal would also respond as well, but what I'm focusing on is preemptive measures - CV effectively encourages all removal to hit either lands or 5-colored creatures and the most susceptible one will almost always be the 5C Commander itself. Since I have to assume there was no prior communication beforehand, without knowing whether there is CV I would almost certainly choose to remove the 5C Commander from the board just in case CV is indeed in the game. Both most-likely scenarios of preemptive measures affect gameplay heavily - if your lands are getting crippled or your Commander just keeps getting removed not because it alone was a threat, but because CV was the threat (regardless whether you have it or not), chances are you aren't going to enjoy the game very much.
Like many have said, you might choose to accept it if you're in a competitive setting, but this preemption isn't limited to those, in Casual Settings people are still going to preempt almost (if not equally) as bad to potential CV plays and that is potentially going to ruin a lot of 5C players' experience, regardless of their Commander/Theme. CV might be more preventable than TNN functionally, but CV is capable of turning an entire Color Identity (5C) into one with a combo-reputation by default more than TNN does with any Color Identity with G in it and that is the reason I don't think CV should come off the list.
Tooth and nail was designed for a format where reaching it's entwined conditions was meant to be a challenge. It is not a challenge in edh.
Same with all the big mana haymaker game enders.
While I disagree with Carthage's stance on Coalition Victory, I think he has a good point here. For most of Magic's history, cards weren't designed with Commander in mind because Commander had yet to even be conceived as a format, let alone popularized. As such, there are a large number of cards that don't play in Commander the same way they were intended for heads up Magic. Heck, Wizards continues to print cards that play differently in Commander than in heads up to this day, though they're certainly more cognizant about the repercussions of doing so than ever before.
This may sound odd, but I don't see how Coalition Victory interacts poorly in Commander any more so than, say, Wrath of God. Wrath of God is a legal card, and it isn't very problematic, but I do believe it interacts poorly in Commander (Well, I suppose multiplayer specifically). Yes, Coalition Victory does suffer from the fact that the creature condition is extremely easy to meet, but that condition, the condition of being better in Commander than usual a la Serra Ascendant, should not be the condition by which cards are banned or not, at least not solely. In my eyes, the reason why Coalition Victory deserves its place on the banned list is because it's a miserable, fun-sucking card. It's hard to interact with, and it brings the game to an abrupt, unsatisfying end. There are lots of cards with the potential to do this in Commander, everyone is well aware of that, but I believe most important that Coalition Victory has absolutely zero potential to be used in fair and interesting ways. It's crime is that it's one of the lamest cards ever and that it's always going to be a lame card regardless of what deck it's in. In Commander, it's just easier to be lame.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I'd be amiss if I didn't point out that right now a 13 mana card is banned in Standard.
However, I can see where you are coming from now. I disagree that it is the fault of the format and most especially any unique rule which makes getting 8+ mana less of a challenge because that requirement is met simply by having a game last 9 turns and make every land drop, a feat we see accomplished in most other formats.
I also get your point about haymakers, because the rules committee have themselves said haymaker spells like Tooth and Nail are supposed to have a large impact on the game.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Do you play under the assumption that every black green deck is going to tooth and nail for mike and trike? Or that every blue deck is going to win the game if they hit 10 mana for omniscience?
We can't use arbitrary irrational behaviour for the banlist.
And B) getting your general removed repeatedly is a problem for you? Because it was my impression that's how the game is played. You obviously don't just let Purphoros, God of the Forge sit there all game. If someone is playing their general, it's probably because it advances their gameplan and you should try to disrupt it as much as possible or else you'll lose. Also you don't need to repeatedly remove a 5-color general if you fear CV, you only have to remove it once in response to the spell and then the threat has passed.
Since a lot of LD effects are sorcery speed, I can't just respond to CV to blow up a land. Removing the general is a little easier to do in response to CV, but if my removal is countered, I lose. I will do what I can to make sure their general and/or lands don't stick around throughout the game.
Why are you not doing this to other decks that can run cards that are just as strong and non interactive at ending the game?
What is better in the mind's eye of a group of five players?
Personally I would go after the second option as a win is a win after all, whether its a grind or is swift. It doesn't honestly matter how many steps it takes to achieve a victory if the environment is one of jovial intent shared by all. Which is the heart of the format, whether a group be cutthroat or casual. If a player casts a Coalition Victory and it resolves and wins the game, the reasonable and smart thing to do would be to laugh off the loss and start a fresh game. As at the end of the day, Commander is a game-like social experience that is shared amongst friends.
A) It's not a problem of whether I ask people or not, it's whether I can assume everyone else in the world (not playing with me or you) would ask or not when they start the game. I cannot. The safer assumption is to assume they don't and we have to assume because unless you have a way to ensure everyone playing a game anytime gets reminded to ask so, decision-making for the entire format cannot rely on an uncertainty, regardless of how simple it is to subvert it, because there's no way to quantify that subversion.
B) Yes, you don't let obvious threats sit on the board, the issue is CV makes the 5C Commander always a "obvious threat" from a preemptive perspective. While it's true the CV threat is over once it is dealt with when CV in on the stack, sometimes CV don't show up and the preemptive measures will just keep going on. Doubly worse if the scenario in A) happens (which like I said, always assume it will happen somewhere). Not all removal is instant-speed and when people do threat assessment on Commanders, the 5C Commander with the potential of CV is always more deadly (and likely) than the Purphoros with the potential of combo-ing out, because CV is just that efficient (Purphy might not even win if it combos, whereas CV definitely does).
Oh and good luck removing Progenitus with your spot removal.
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.
Child of Alara isn't much better.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Are we now saying that because someone can win the game after resolving the 10 mana spell progenitus with a second 8 mana spell that the 8 mana spell should be banned?
Because there's a sizable list of cards that need to be banned in that case.
I don't consider "you need to add 2 more cards to your deck" a valid reason for special treatment of coalition victory.
The same people who put coalition victory into their 5 color deck are going to tutor up a win with tooth and nail. I believe it's a property of the player that makes them play cards like coalition victory, not something fundamentally wrong with coalition victory itself. The same goes for cards like tooth and nail and other questionable non interactive cards. The game is not improved by having it banned.
And this is why I'm just going to stop arguing. I use Progenitus as an example, a quick remark to the "just use a removal spell" thing, not saying Progenitus is the only way. Furthermore, you still haven't given a good argument as to why the ONLY spell in the game that LITERALLY gets cast and at that very moment says "Win the game" or "Get countered and do nothing" should be unbanned. It is literally, no matter how you play it, the only card that does exactly that. You keep hammering on cards that can be played perfectly fairly in decks that don't have the infinite combos they work with in them, but you want a card unbanned that does nothing but say "I win". And whenever the argument about what it LITERALLY does comes up, you and others just opt to ignore it. If you're going to debate something, at least debate the actual points made, because right now it's just reiterating the same non-reasons for unbanning it while avoiding the reason to keep it actually banned.
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.
Yes, it wins the game or does nothing.
I don't think that's even close to a valid reason for the card to be banned. Not at all.
Casual players who don't understand the game will realize very fast that it isn't the way they want to win and remove it, if they ever do get around to adding it in.
Casual players who do understand the game will not include it in their deck in the first place
Competitive players will include it if it makes them win more.
The extra deckbuilding options outweigh safeguarding the tiny subset of players who want to make a 5 color commander deck, and want it to be big, flashy, and casual, AND don't understand why coalition victory is not fun for that kind of deck.