As written in the thread of Joz I will now start a series of threads of cards I think they don't worth the ban. Here's the first one:

Coalition Victory.


I would understand this ban if this was the first card banned in the list, in ancient times, as the first one that gives you an alternate and istantly win-con. A symbol of what should not be played in a format like EDH, cards that ends the games abruptly, with some sort of unstoppable combo or never-ending loop condition. But now, that we got so many alternate win-con cards (and Wizard now makes it at least one per set from M13 to Gatecrash) and none of them are banned, what's the sense of lettin stuck only this one in the ban list? So, what's the problem? That the moment that you cast the spell, if you satisfy all the requirements, you win istantly the game instead of waiting an upkeep and give a turn for the opponent to do anything? Yeah, but what are those requirements?

Ten card. The coalition victory is nothing more and nothing less then a ten freaking cards that you need to have in battlefield at the same time to work out the combo.

Now, considering that most of the powerful combo cards require only another one card for work, and not ten, and you spend much less time and mana to realize them and these combo-cards are perfectly legal, as :

- Splinter-Twin/Pestermite, Kiki-Jiki/Exarch
- Niv-Mizzet / Curiosity
- Temple Bell/ Mind Over Matter
etc.
....what makes sense to ban the Coalition, if as a combo win-con is maybe the worsest for all? Because you need to run a pentadeck, you must to have five different basic/shock/dual lands (or a prismatic omen) and even at least five creatures, each gotting an unique color from the others. The worse of this card is that is that can be so easily disrupted, destroying, blinking or bounce in response any of these 10 cards for make the coalition resolved completely useless without even need to counterspell it.


So, if it's legal and everybody are ok for dying in turn 4 for a Splinter-Twin/Pestermite combo, or for a deck that got one of his combo pieces always available as a general (Niv-Mizzet), I don't see why this cards should be so much worse then others, better, combo win.

Even making a deck where you win around the Primal Surge or Enter the Infinite card would be better then the Coalition, because for stop the combo of these cards really the only way is just to counter them and nothing else.


And now, for answering the points of Joz:

1) and 2) As I said, I suppose that this card was banned more because it was a "symbol" of how EDH games should not ending rather then his real brokeness. But in meta and cards of today I think it's pretty useless, considering that Wizard prints really a lots of more win-con cards since Invasion and if somebody want to win in the combo way he will build the combo deck anyway (see examples above). So, or we ban any possible cards that can realize istant-combo win [the RC already ban just for this the Painter Servant], or is obsolete that the Coalition is still in the "ultra-brokeness" cards page.

3) I admit that Coalition is not a fun card, but the "unfun" point alone looks like is not enough to ban a card (or any Armageddon effect, or Stasis effect, or Erayo effect, or Braids effect would be in the ban list in no time). But if we don't like istant-win combo, I don't get it why the format allow some of them (Pestermite/Kiki-Jiki, etc.) but not others (Painter Servant+Iona for example, and is not even an istant win if we consider that still exist so many ways to trick it depending on what is already in the battlefield).

"Can other cards to "similar" or "same" effects? Yes. But it is much harder to do so usually and requires 2 or more cards often to do just that."

-- How I said before the Coalition is something much more then two cards.


4) Positive aspects? Epic Win, that's pretty what is all about. Negative aspects? Is not fun, how are not fun the many ways to istant-win that are legal in this format and are much way better and aggressive than the coalition.


5) I hope are clear my points. And forgive if I make any sorts of mistakes because I'm not english motherlanguage, and I will try to be as clear as possibile.


6) I don't think I will needed in this case.


Ok, I think I write more than enough for now. Thank you for the attention and I hope in civil and respectful replies. see ya.

This isn't true. You only need a creature of each colour; there is no requirement that those five not be the same creature. And you have a five-colour creature already accessible -- your general.

So you need a land that satisfies each basic land type (very easy with shocklands and even easier with original duals) and your general in play. That's it. Most 5 colour decks will meet those conditions without even trying to summon the general. I know mine did when I had it built. So those decks basically get to include an 8-mana card that says "if this resolves, you win, immediately, no caveats, no exceptions" which requires instant speed disruption to answer and which most decks can't anticipate in advance (since, as mentioned, most 5-colour decks will meet these requirements frequently in the course of normal play).

For all intents and purposes, Coalition Victory is a one-card combo. All of the other alternate win condition cards, with the exception of Biovisionary, give until your next upkeep to respond.

P.S. Feel free to disagree, but in my opinion, it's not "epic" for someone to play a card that says "I arbitrarily win now".

Here's your problem. CV is NOT a ten-card combo in EDH.

You can only play it in a 5-color deck. That means your general HAS to satisfy the creature half on his own. Now factor in the vast array of dual-lands that are likely to be in that deck, and it's more like 4 cards you need, one of which is almost impossible to get rid of effectively and the other 3 are highly interchangeable with the other 30-someodd lands in your deck. Get a start with some good ramp in it, and you can CV around turn 4, which is pretty lame.

Is still a spell which you can't trick easily for the mana cost and probably you would not cast it before turn 8.

"it's not "epic" for someone to play a card that says "I arbitrarily win now".

Winning with the pestermite on turn 4* is not epic either but is a legal combo in EDH. Can you explain me why combo much more efficient and fastest then the Coalition are allowed and the Coalition Itself not?


"with the exception of Biovisionary, give until your next upkeep to respond."

--- Actually you can easily trick even that. How about a Felidar Sovereign put in play with the QuickSilver Amulet just a second before the upkeep and when everybody are already in mana tap? You can't even counter it! It's not difficult to make istant win plays, there are so many ways. Coalition doesn't seem worser than any of the example that I made of.

Why would you need to "trick" it? It WINS INSTANTLY. Pretty much unconditionally.



Tell me what deck, with only its general and a few lands in play, can win instantly by casting Pestermite. Without having to do anything once the Pestermite resolves, and without using the combat step.

I can already tell I'm wasting my time with you. Two posts in and your argument is already internally contradictory, not to mention that you advocated the unbanning of a card without even knowing what it does.

Hey! This is an internet forum. People can complain and whine and call for things without understanding them all they want. Who cares if his idea is poorly thought out and downright stupid. Right?

Oh wait. No. CV is one of those cards that will probably always be on the ban list, and for good reasons.

What I find interesting about this short thread is that it is such a complete snapshot of the 'unban' threads in general.

1. You have the initial poster, who is either pleasantly idealistic or wants to abuse a card (possibly because of losing too often to Kiki-Jiki combo.dek).

2. You have some pleasant initial exchanges trying to present the pro / con arguments.

3. And then it devolves quickly into excessively rude personal attacks.

It's really quite fascinating...

People who refuse to or are incapable of listening to reason deserve to be mocked. Catering to willful ignorance is toxic.

Hmm ahmmm.

Indeed. Though, I do like the part were he referenced my post...kinda..

Who isn't listening to the reasoning that is a request to be more tolerant, and less abrasive? The willfully ignorant?

People explained very nicely why Coalition Victory is banned and will probably not be unbanned ever. The OP ignored this and for whatever reason either doesn't understand or is ignoring reason. There is no amount of "nicely explaining" that will change how he thinks. At least not over the internet. Sometimes people need to be called out for being wrong and having bad ideas, lest they fester.

@jivanmukta: 1 Thing I notice often in these unban threads is the near blinded zealotism the OP has. They believe thrir reasons are just and concise, they fail to look "outside the box" Many a time you will try to reason with them abd they return to their reasons. its all they are willing to listen too. For most their arguement is law. and trying to nake them see othherwise is pointless and a waste of time.

Because this is the internet and everyone's opinion is valid no matter how stupid it is. Wonderful isn't it?

I don't get it. The OP responded once and the thread is considered to have degenerated?

I think people are bringing expectations from other threads into this one. OP's opinion seems based on a flawed understanding of hos the card works.

If CV actually required a unique land of each type and a unique creature of each color it wouldn't be banned. But it doesnt, so it is. Simple as that.

Such as intolerance?