MTG Commander/Elder Dragon Highlander
http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/

Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3747
Page 1 of 3

Author:  kayvee [ 2010-Apr-08 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

GIVEN the hypothetical scenario of:

T1: Forest, Worldly Tutor for Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
T2: Forest, Channel for 15, Emrakul, The Aeons Torn -> extra turn

AND the fact that this combo could just as easily be played out on turn 3, 4 or 5,

AND the fact that playing multiple colours (e.g. UG) would make things even easier,

AND the fact that the best recursions spells in the format are accessible to mono-green (Regrowth, Eternal Witness, Reclaim, Recollect), all of which can recur channel by turn 3 ...

... it strikes me that Channel should probably be banned.

Annihilator 6 (i.e. no lands, period)/pro-coloured spells would mean that, so long as you swung for the white (i.e. Wrath, O-Ring) player first, it would be practially impossible to lose once Emrakul is in play.

Do you agree?

Author:  kayvee [ 2010-Apr-08 4:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

Actually, to be fair, I have almost immediately changed my mind:

It would make far more sense to ban Emrakul:

- Channel isn't currently regarded as degenerate, and it versatile and fun to play with.
- Channel into any of the other legendary Eldrazi is nowhere near as broken (no extra turn), and simple bounce/targeted removal will deal with them.
- Every single person who attends a prerelease for Rise of the Eldrazi will possess a copy of Emrakul, giving it an unprecedented opportunity to saturate the format.

Thoughts?

Author:  yawg07 [ 2010-Apr-08 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

kayvee wrote:
- Channel isn't currently regarded as degenerate, and it versatile and fun to play with.


Where have you been? Channel has always been a pretty vicious combo piece.

Author:  kayvee [ 2010-Apr-08 5:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

A vicious combo piece, yes, but not ban worthy, as far as the Powers that Be are concerned, is what I meant. In any event, what's your opinion?

Author:  yawg07 [ 2010-Apr-08 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

I dunno, I'm in the party of "Ban less cards, and DON'T ban cards just because people complain they are strong"
Turn 2, 15/15 extra turn annihilator hard to kill, is damn good. I think it is a scary combo, but I also think that playgroup mentality will keep it under control.

Author:  kayvee [ 2010-Apr-08 5:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

Quote:
Turn 2, 15/15 extra turn annihilator hard to kill, is damn good. I think it is a scary combo, but I also think that playgroup mentality will keep it under control.


Is it hard to kill, tho, or is it realistically impossible to kill once it's on the table?

I'm struggling to think of ways that could be dealt with. Maybe there is one, but I can't see it.

Author:  Cervid [ 2010-Apr-08 5:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

kayvee wrote:
Is it hard to kill, tho, or is it realistically impossible to kill once it's on the table?

I'm struggling to think of ways that could be dealt with. Maybe there is one, but I can't see it.


Ensnaring Bridge will make you a table hero.

Author:  yawg07 [ 2010-Apr-08 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

Cervid wrote:
kayvee wrote:
Is it hard to kill, tho, or is it realistically impossible to kill once it's on the table?

I'm struggling to think of ways that could be dealt with. Maybe there is one, but I can't see it.


Ensnaring Bridge will make you a table hero.

As will Oblivion Ring, Journey to Nowhere, Diabolic Edict, Chainer's Edict, Imperial Edict, Cruel Edict, Innocent Blood, Curfew.

And if you don't like making your table happy, Gilded Drake is sick :D

Author:  Surging Chaos [ 2010-Apr-08 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

I posted this on MTG Salvation, but I'll post it here too:

Banning Emrakul would be a big mistake. Channel is the card that causes the combo to happen, and it has already been a stupidly good combo card to begin with.

It's like Painter's Servant all over again. Kill the true engine of a combo, so you don't have to potentially ban additional cards in the future.

Author:  Bryndon [ 2010-Apr-08 6:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

I'm fully intending to run Channel+Emrakul to make my Teneb deck more competitive against Azami. I understand that the effect is powerful, but to be honest, that's kind of why I want to run it. Also, Channel+Death Grasp is funtimes.

I see a few scenarios:

Emrakul is emergency banned, or banned before I get the chance to playtest it: ... Its not likely. As soon as the RC starts pandering to pre-release mutterings about how card X will change everything we ever believed about anything, we have bigger problems.

Nothing is banned: Lots of people play Emrakul. TimmyA plays Emrakul on his turn and swings at the white player. TimmyB plays Emrakul and they get legend-ruled. High fives are exchanged at first, but eventually it gets stale. Emrakul becomes less popular as a direct result of having been so popular that you couldn't keep her on the table.

Channel gets banned: We go back to plan B - Eldrazi as Elvish Piper and Tooth and Nail fatties. Sure, we don't get the trigger, but they're still big threats. People start packing more spot removal and become better at the game as a result. Also, note that if Channel gets banned, Rofellos and Jhoira are the optimal ways to cast the Eldrazi, which they should be able to do by T 6/7. So any way we slice it, unless RoE is banned from EDH, multiplayer is going to be slightly quicker as a matter of course from now on. I for one welcome our new insect overlords.

Furthermore, Emrakul happens at the same time Rofellos does, and inspires must-answer scenarios. When you -do- answer, your opponent is down 15 life (and this appeals to me soooo much. I want more 'all-in' scenarios in my multiplayer. It'd go quicker and be more emotive!). I think a surge of Channel shenanigans is possible. I think it would make Rafiq tier 1 (Green for channel + worldly, blue for mystical, + access to rafiq for double-strike and finest hour) and make other green decks higher up than they were previously (which would be awesome!), but there's a reason no one plays "Black Lotus + Fireball + Channel" in Vintage, and that's the same reason why I believe any form of banning is ultimately a bit silly.

Author:  odit [ 2010-Apr-08 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

we haven't seen the entire set..

that being said the current answers to a play like this are
1. aether spell bomb ( I run this in alot of my blue decks )
2. diabolic edict
3. laughing at the player that fires this off turn 2 and playing the game without them ( most likely to happen in my play group )

Now what'll be amusing about the critter is the number of times it'll get briberied before folks start to think of better things to put in your deck.

As to banning channel, is all seriousness folks you can run doomsday in this format ...

Let's see the set and play around with it before the OMG it's gotto be banned sets in.

Author:  onlainari [ 2010-Apr-08 11:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

My playgroup wants emrakul banned. It came unexpected to me; I was told this last week. I do rate myself as the most experienced EDH player in the group of about 15 and I can see a game ending with emrakul combo but I would ban Sorin first, personally*. Still, we're a roughly democratic group.

* A player must reach a kind of board position and advantage to neutralize attempts to stop them. There's no way someone could go infinite in our group before turn 15; most likely not until turn 30 where common answered have been exiled.

Author:  Bryndon [ 2010-Apr-09 1:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=234114

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So yeah. For the low price of 30 life, you can start with the boardwipe and follow it with Emrakul, Kozilek, Ulamog, all the rest of the spawn... >.>

I still think there's hope for Channel? ^_^;;;

I mean, this one can be countered, but yeah. That's hilariously crazy.

Author:  chimpion [ 2010-Apr-09 2:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

odit wrote:
3. laughing at the player that fires this off turn 2 and playing the game without them ( most likely to happen in my play group )


That's a little harsh. It's not like a degenerate combo that happens all the time and it's gonna end the game more or less immediately. You should be going lol and shuffling up for a new game >.>

Oh and I personally do not feel that Emrakul should be banned. There are cards which have effects which break the nature of EDH that are still legal such as doomsday or are reliable win con's such as Staff for other generals. Basically relative to things out there Emrakul really isn't that bad.

Author:  kayvee [ 2010-Apr-09 4:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

@Bryndon: It sounds very much like you're speaking from the perspective of a 1v1 player. I'm not, so maybe that's where we differ.

Re: Spawnsire of Ulamog, it's most likely that the previous rule regarding Wishes/"outside the game" effects will be reasserted (i.e., they can only get cards that were in your deck to begin with and have since been Exiled, or cards that are in your 10-card sideboard, if players use that rule).

It's probably going to be unusable, as far as the official rules are concerned.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 7 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/