Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Sep-22 6:56 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
AgePosted: 2010-Apr-09 5:10 am 

Joined: 2008-Aug-08 6:34 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Rouen, France
kayvee wrote:
@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.


That would be "Booo!" I want to pull out all the eldrazi spells in a seperate binder page and slap them down.

_________________
Current decks:
Sydri's random pile of cards with "Artifact" on them
Scarab God Zombie Horde
Sissay 5c Superfriends
Morophon Eldrazi (5C Devoid)
Grenzo's Goblins


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
AgePosted: 2010-Apr-09 5:25 am 

Joined: 2008-Sep-21 11:51 am
Age: Elder Dragon
@chimp

I'm not saying 3 is the only option, the only reason we'd do that is in the case of the first post were you cast it first / second turn. The game hasn't even started at that point so meh .. we'd just play on without the person being an idiot.

There are piles of answers in the game once it's progressed a bit, as to the all feared infi turns with him, it's a 16 mana 2 cards combo ? consider you can also run 8 mana 3 card combos for infi turns or 5 mana 4 card combos.

He's a cool critter... I'll be interesting to see what folks do with him.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
AgePosted: 2010-Apr-09 3:02 pm 

Joined: 2009-Nov-19 7:25 pm
Age: Wyvern
@Kayvee: No, I'm a multiplayer fan. I feel that Emrakul gets more balanced the more people there are in the game because it increases the chance of there being a FoW for the channel or an edict for Emmy. In 1vs1, Emrakul is way scarier. I wouldn't be surprised if the French ban it, but I'm really hoping we can try it out in multiplayer. It should be noted that if we use the new league rules, you lose a few points for taking an extra turn and more for taking people out in the first five turns. So I guess if people using Emmy are too aggressive, they'll lose even if they win.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
AgePosted: 2010-Apr-09 4:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Jul-13 6:05 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Monmouth, OR
Bryndon wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the French ban it


The French haven't even updated their 1v1 ban list since they posted it:

http://solomoxen.com/forum/index.php?topic=10222.0

They still have Riftsweeper banned despite the command zone being adopted, and as you can see, that list was posted on the 24th of June in 2009.

_________________
onlainari the ragequitter: http://www.mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewt ... 199#p72199

CommanderCast: Community, Strategy, and Technology: http://www.commandercast.com/

Occupy Kokusho


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
AgePosted: 2010-Apr-09 6:51 pm 

Joined: 2009-Nov-19 7:25 pm
Age: Wyvern
Argh, don't tase me, bro! :P As I just finished explaining, I play EDH in multiplayer and I play it using the vanilla banlist.

I've followed discussions on 1vs1 banlists before, but this is actually the first time I've seen the link to the banlist. Regardless, I want to see more RoE cards before calls for banning are made, so I think I'll politely bow out of this discussion until the spoilers are completed :)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
AgePosted: 2010-Apr-10 12:33 pm 

Joined: 2008-Aug-08 6:34 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Rouen, France
Surging Chaos wrote:
Bryndon wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the French ban it


The French haven't even updated their 1v1 ban list since they posted it:

http://solomoxen.com/forum/index.php?topic=10222.0

They still have Riftsweeper banned despite the command zone being adopted, and as you can see, that list was posted on the 24th of June in 2009.


there's been two updates since then, they were both posted on the Sally 1v1 ban list discussion

_________________
Current decks:
Sydri's random pile of cards with "Artifact" on them
Scarab God Zombie Horde
Sissay 5c Superfriends
Morophon Eldrazi (5C Devoid)
Grenzo's Goblins


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
AgePosted: 2010-Apr-10 8:58 pm 

Joined: 2008-May-25 11:17 am
Age: Wyvern
kayvee wrote:
@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.
This rule actually still exists. Genomancer just keeps forgetting to put it back on the rules page.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
AgePosted: 2010-Apr-12 12:43 am 

Joined: 2007-Jun-04 6:34 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Gainsville, FL
Bryndon wrote:
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.


The juicy ability of this card unfortunately does absolutely nothing. If it did, I'd rather run Yawgmoth's Will +Burning Wish.

_________________
Growing Darkness, taking Dawn; I was me, but now he is gone - Metallica, "Fade to Black"


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
AgePosted: 2010-Apr-12 11:21 am 
EDH Rules Committee
User avatar

Joined: 2006-May-09 4:17 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Calgary, AB
Both Channel and the "outside the game" rule are being, at least, given funny looks by the RC.

_________________
Remember: Most legendary creatures have a gender, and most non-legendary ones don't! Use proper pronouns! ;)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
AgePosted: 2010-Apr-14 12:12 am 

Joined: 2009-Aug-01 4:03 am
Age: Hatchling
Spawnsire of Ulamog's ability is absolutely fine for EDH. The creature itself costs 10 mana to play, and the ability costs 20 mana. That's a heck of a hoop to jump through.

If a player manages to assemble 20 mana on a creature that costs 10 (and has no protection), and nobody at the table does anything about it, then that player deserves to play the effect. Not to mention that the effect is one of the coolest effects ever printed, and completely in the spirit of EDH.

Think of it this way. Players assemble combos that end the game all the time, and they are fine under the current rules. Creatures (and enchantments) that "win the game" on their own are fine under the current rules. There are plenty of big, flashy ways to win the game that cost less and are harder to disrupt than this card. I see no reason to stop a player from emptying their trade binder on the table, high-fiving everyone, and shuffling up the next game.

Besides, the Eldrazi only get 13 cards total, and in a colorless deck, no less. Cut the plan some slack. Channel, however? Yeah, that probably has to go. Like Painter's Servant, it's the fuel that makes the fire burn. ;)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
AgePosted: 2010-Apr-14 2:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 1:48 am
Age: Wyvern
Location: Heerhugowaard, Netherlands
I think you can grab changelings aswell, so its a bit more than 13 ;)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
AgePosted: 2010-Apr-14 9:06 am 

Joined: 2008-Dec-18 12:42 pm
Age: Egg
I'm sure we'll get more data on this, but Eldrazi are very, very much as powerful as people think. I'm not sure how many of the posters here have played against any of them, or any deck containing them vs. more speculation, but they're honestly pretty unfun from my experience being across the table from them in a 3-player game.

Here's how my situation went... Me: Playing UW Merfolk, Player A: playing GW Cats and Player E: using Emrakul as his general
Game 1: Player E accelerates to enough mana to play Pathrazer of Ulamog (has annihilator 3) by about turn 3 or 4 with artifact acceleration. Next turn starts to attack me. I had maybe 3-4 creatures in play and 4 lands. None of the creatures big enough to deal with. Player A had less creatures in play even. The game was over when he attacked with that Eldrazi as none of us could find removal before he attacked. Another Eldrazi was played somewhere in there though, but really the first one sealed the deal
Game 2: 2 Eldrazi again make an appearance in short order, but not before the other player (Player A) is able to cast Austere Command choosing Artifacts and Creatures 4 or larger. Then we proceeded to both attack the Eldrazi player to ensure the threat was removed.

In neither game did he manage to resolve the Eldrazi and yet warped the games. Now, some of this can be mitigated by stating that a deck like that is just "un fun" and we choose not to play against it in a casual environment. Some of it might be that more playing is needed.

Regarding Channel, its already pretty ridiculous in a format with 40 life I would say to start with. With the ability to play ANY of the eldrazi off of 2 lands, it certainly warrants the "funny looks" its getting.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
AgePosted: 2010-Apr-14 6:59 pm 

Joined: 2009-Aug-04 7:09 am
Age: Hatchling
Oh please don't ban Channel yet! At least let me live the dream with an Eldrazi EDH deck. I promise it will soon lose the thrill and get boring like Sharuum and I'll stop using it!

Oh well, all the money I saved from FTV:Exiled being not very good for EDH can go towards Relics...


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
AgePosted: 2010-Apr-15 12:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Jul-13 6:05 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Monmouth, OR
Since I didn't want to derail the Metalworker thread, here are my responses to kayvee's last comments regarding Channel from the Metalworker thread.

kayvee wrote:
In mono green or multi, which are notoriously coloured symbol-intensive.


Double green is far easier of a prerequisite to meet than stacking your deck to the gills with artifacts to sastify Metalworker. Much, much easier in fact, as Metalworker can only realistically be abused in a very small handful of deck.

kayvee wrote:
I struggle to think what a metric ton of colourless mana is going to do to win a multiplayer EDH game that doesn't necessarily die to removal, bar burn, which isn't really considered douchey by anyone, and Emrakul, which I can see sense in banning immediately.


If you really think Emrakul is what makes Channel stupid, you have it backwards. Channel is the card that fuels the fire for cheating Emrakul into play.

Besides, banning Emrakul wouldn't actually solve the problem of Channel. Instead of Emrakul, Channel just finds a new set of friends in Kozilek, Ulamog, Mindslaver, Sundering Titan, Planar Portal, and continues to cause the same problems. When you ban a combo, you ban the actual engine that makes it happen, instead of constantly having to re-evaluate new cards as they come out due to new synergies and combos. It's why Painter's Servant was banned and Grindstone unbanned. And it's a good thing too, because I know people would have been groaning over Painter's Servant + All is Dust being available to every deck.

kayvee wrote:
Metalworker doesn't kill you in the late-game, and Channel doesn't combo with anything that untaps creatures/artifacts.


Channel doesn't need to "combo" in the sense of providing synergy. It already does all the work in giving you an arbritarily huge amount of mana to work with.

If untapping Metalworker for infinite mana is such a problem, why not just ban Staff of Domination instead of Metalworker? Despite Staff of Domination's ability to have excellent utility by itself, it unfortunately does not get played in that manner for the most part. It has been reduced to simply fueling infinite combos with Rofellos, Magus of the Coffers, Priest of Titania, and other mass-mana producing creatures.

kayvee wrote:
What about that is specifically degenerate? So does tapping lands.


Uhh... it's called generating over three dozen mana for just 2 mana. :?

_________________
onlainari the ragequitter: http://www.mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewt ... 199#p72199

CommanderCast: Community, Strategy, and Technology: http://www.commandercast.com/

Occupy Kokusho


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?
AgePosted: 2010-Apr-15 12:28 pm 

Joined: 2009-Jan-23 11:34 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Ok, so I think this is an issue not only of power but of potential use;
Some cards are banned because they are clearly broken. Some are banned because they are clearly unfun. Some are band for a combination of reasons. And some are not banned because while they can do unfun, broken things, they are mostly NOT use for that purpose.
Something like Protean Hulk was banned because it was almost always used to end the game. Even though it had may other 'fun' applications it was usually played as a Combo enabler and when it wasn't it was still a card which warped the game.
Channel, while just as 'broken' as something like Hulk, or Gifts, is usually not used that way.
Now, that may change with RoE, but I think calling for preemptive banning is a little alarmist. I mean, if Channel was being used in really broken ways then we'd hear a lot more of "Channel --> Healing Salve --> Hurricane for 40", something that's very easy to accomplish right now.

_________________
Spekter wrote:
niheloim wrote:
Aggravated Assault + Bear Umbra = My attempt to make my group move to ban Uril.
That's not ban-worthy, that's the spirit of EDH. Three-card combo involving the combat phase? Awesome.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: