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 3 of 3

Author:  intreped [ 2010-Apr-15 1:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

tempesteye wrote:
"Channel --> Healing Salve --> Hurricane for 40"

Divine Intervention + Vampire Hexmage

Yeah, I'll echo what tempesteye and others elsewhere have said: Channel is definitely too strong, if people make the effort to break it. For some reason it rarely is used that way (in my experience, at least), so unless the Eldrazi change that, I think it's fine to leave it off the suggested ban list.

Author:  Jukren54 [ 2010-Apr-16 2:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

intreped wrote:
tempesteye wrote:
"Channel --> Healing Salve --> Hurricane for 40"

Divine Intervention + Vampire Hexmage

I've actually seen someone pull that off. Of course he was also running Dark Depths combo as well.

Author:  Bryndon [ 2010-Apr-19 9:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

I've played it now in 1vs1 and multiplayer. Its a 2-card combo that does tend to win me the game, with a few caveats - I have to play a coloured general, so one part of the combo can't start in my command zone (oh hey, Vendilion Clique). I have to maintain a life total above 16, which doesn't happen in a multiplayer if I play an early tutor. In short, its encouraging my group to play the game a little quicker and kill off players with weak board positions rather than sitting around waiting for me to go off. I really like this card.

Author:  tampakingpin [ 2010-Apr-26 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

For what it is worth. I have been testing three versions of the channel-eldrazi theme deck. If you use a real mulligan rule, the early win is not so automatic. We have a lot of blue players and noone lets channel just happen. It is a combo that is easily held in check.

The outside of game rules are ambiguous and would seem to let spawnshire work to pump 20 mana from channel and bring in infinite emrakuls. The number of turns taken is an instant win, but you need a couple of combo pieces very much like other degenerate combo pieces that already exist.

The bottom line: it makes a tribal deck competitive vs. blue and 5-color builds, it is difficult to assemble (unless you play all cascade that only hits tutors or channel), but is reasonably interrupted.

My playgroup thought it was funny and we will play channel-eldrazi in multiplayer. The actual biggest shift in EDH has to do with the nature of annihilator. I think the environment will work itself out. BAN LESS CARDS

Author:  zone [ 2010-Apr-29 4:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

A few things:

First, while channel just allow you to use your life as an abundant resource, it is limited by your life and is only truly devastating in the early game. So there is no "infinite" from channel unless you first managed to acquire "infinite" life. Second, channel does nothing for the quality of one's hand. There's no guarantee that a player can have an unbeatable hand without dedicating card choices to crafting it. Lastly, as tampakingpin led to, I feel the real issue is with the annihilator keyword. It is very damaging at practically any point in the game and I feel can lead to many games focusing completely on creatures with that ability. No one cared at all about channel before until annihilator and that I feel says something. Drop the "ban channel" argument and instead ask "is annihilator too good?"

thanks.

Author:  tide spout eliot [ 2010-Apr-30 3:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

Channel can be a total blow out, but it’s a risky card. People seem to be forgetting that.
Ever pay 11 life for a turn 2 DSC? Ever get it pathed immediately? I have .
Granted emrakul is a little different. Because he timewalks. So he’ll hit someone at least once the vast majority of the time. But you typically have 2 other players to deal with, 3 if the player you’re hitting doesn’t have to annihilate his mana base. There are a lot of things that kill/or neuter Emrakul: seal of doom, oblivion ring, path to nowhere, sower of temptation, duplicant, staff of domination,humility, Righteous Aura, shirekmaw, innocent blood, gatekeeper, diabolic edict, all of the other sac shenanigans, the list really goes on.
You also have to consider that turn 2 emrakul IS AND EXTREME CORNERCASE SENARIO.
Number of emrakuls you can play in a deck: 1
number of ways a player can nutralize emrakul: A WHOLE LOT MORE
^this is compounded by the number of players.
As far as the eldrazi wish guy, the wish effects should all be confined to the sb, otherwise people are just going to start to play living wish as a slightly more expensive version of something they wish they could play two of.
Also, I have a sweet misprinted channel.
Should channel be banned?no.
Should people just play smarter? Yes.

Author:  Tarix [ 2010-May-01 2:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

Tide spout eliot,you counted 12 card-solutions for Emrakul (and add that there are much more cards like that). But,two of them can actually deal with Emrakul,those are duplicant and staff of domination. They can do that because they are colorless. You didn't notice that Emrakul has protection from colored spells,so other cards you mentioned cannot deal with Emrakul. Except maybe,and it is a big maybe, innocent blood. But for that there are requirements : 1. You have to play black. 2. Opponent must not have any other creatures in play. 3. You have to have a swamp to play i-blood. Maybe you did not notice that channeled Emrakul will give additional turn in which he will attack. If you have only 1 or 2 lands,they will be sacrificed. If you had a lucky hand you have 2 lands,sol ring,maybe 1 or 2 other permanents. So after Emrakul's attack,you still have nothing,and other guy have 2 to 3 lands and Emrakul in play,at least. Good luck in beating THAT! Personally I played in a 2HG EDH game after RoE pre-release. Me with Merieke and friend with Karn vs Jhoira (without Obliterate, deck is built for time walking) and Teferi (built for bouncing-stealing,has medium draw and 12 counter cards). Jhoira player managed to resolve suspended uncounterable Emrakul and the game was over within his next two turns. I do not want to suggest banning neither for Channel or Emrakul yet. Cards have to be tested. Than we can see what next. In the 2HG game I mentioned,end could be different if I topdecked a land (because I will than be able to steal Emrakul with Helm of possession),so I still believe that testing is needed in this and any playing with new cards in future. Also,I admitt...turn 2 Channeled Emrakul is extremely hard to beat,even with a deck with too much solution-cards.

Author:  Buthrakaur [ 2010-May-01 3:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

I win LoLs has protection from colored SPELLS. Once a card is no longer on the stack, it is no longer a spell, so colored permanents that mimic spells can target him with come into play effects. There are lots of ways to answer him, but they are predominantly black or white, which comes as no shock.

Author:  tide spout eliot [ 2010-May-01 9:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

Tarix wrote:
Tide spout eliot,you counted 12 card-solutions for Emrakul (and add that there are much more cards like that). But,two of them can actually deal with Emrakul,those are duplicant and staff of domination. They can do that because they are colorless. You didn't notice that Emrakul has protection from colored spells,so other cards you mentioned cannot deal with Emrakul. Except maybe,and it is a big maybe, innocent blood. But for that there are requirements : 1. You have to play black. 2. Opponent must not have any other creatures in play. 3. You have to have a swamp to play i-blood. Maybe you did not notice that channeled Emrakul will give additional turn in which he will attack. If you have only 1 or 2 lands,they will be sacrificed. If you had a lucky hand you have 2 lands,sol ring,maybe 1 or 2 other permanents. So after Emrakul's attack,you still have nothing,and other guy have 2 to 3 lands and Emrakul in play,at least. Good luck in beating THAT! Personally I played in a 2HG EDH game after RoE pre-release. Me with Merieke and friend with Karn vs Jhoira (without Obliterate, deck is built for time walking) and Teferi (built for bouncing-stealing,has medium draw and 12 counter cards). Jhoira player managed to resolve suspended uncounterable Emrakul and the game was over within his next two turns. I do not want to suggest banning neither for Channel or Emrakul yet. Cards have to be tested. Than we can see what next. In the 2HG game I mentioned,end could be different if I topdecked a land (because I will than be able to steal Emrakul with Helm of possession),so I still believe that testing is needed in this and any playing with new cards in future. Also,I admitt...turn 2 Channeled Emrakul is extremely hard to beat,even with a deck with too much solution-cards.


Everything I named effects emrakul, even if it has colors. Don’t worry it’s a common mistake a lot of players make, because they just weren’t looking at the card carefully ( but careful reading is important). Colored spells doesn’t mean abilities of colored permanents, or prevent you from sacing it due to you being targeted by diabolic edict, or gatekeeper, or similar effects. Nekrataal pwns emrakul, see I’ve named another one! Also the really awesome goblin assassin lines of play (this card sees 4+flips a turn most of the time)!
Innocent blood sets a lot of chain reactions off, at least in my meta, it can be akin to wrath at times (except it kills indestructibles). Not to mention there’s that card that’s just two innocent bloods glued together. Decks looking for the sac effect usually run a lot of ways to compound its effect, like reoccurring flesh bag marauder, grave pact, grave pact on legs…errr a… wings. You’ve really got to consider the context of these cards.
You’ve also missed the part where I pointed out that turn 2 emrakul IS AN EXTREME CORNERCASE SENARIO…. It happens very rarely… so rare it’s not a major consideration I take into account when I build a deck. On the flip side, turn2 emrakul makes innocent blood look really good (assuming you’ve kept enough land drops to not be stupid).
Also in the event of turn 2 emrakul, however unlikely it may be, there are other players playing the game I’m sure some one of the 2-3 of you can ramp to 3 and o-ring the dude. I mean your odds of having one of the 12+ solutions I’ve mentioned is a lot better than them assembling emrakul+ channel. A LOT BETTER. That’s how numbers work.

Sure emrakul might be a metagame force, but good players adapt to the metagame (if they’re not the ones driving it). Personally, I feel players don’t play enough removal (it really solves a lot of the “problems” players are constantly complaining about) and the more versatile the removal the better.

Author:  zimagic [ 2010-May-01 10:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

tide spout eliot wrote:
Everything I named effects emrakul, even if it has colors. Don’t worry it’s a common mistake a lot of players make, because they just weren’t looking at the card carefully ( but careful reading is important). Colored spells doesn’t mean abilities of colored permanents, or prevent you from sacing it due to you being targeted by diabolic edict, or gatekeeper, or similar effects. Nekrataal pwns emrakul, see I’ve named another one! Also the really awesome goblin assassin lines of play (this card sees 4+flips a turn most of the time)!
Innocent blood sets a lot of chain reactions off, at least in my meta, it can be akin to wrath at times (except it kills indestructibles). Not to mention there’s that card that’s just two innocent bloods glued together. Decks looking for the sac effect usually run a lot of ways to compound its effect, like reoccurring flesh bag marauder, grave pact, grave pact on legs…errr a… wings. You’ve really got to consider the context of these cards.
You’ve also missed the part where I pointed out that turn 2 emrakul IS AN EXTREME CORNERCASE SENARIO…. It happens very rarely… so rare it’s not a major consideration I take into account when I build a deck. On the flip side, turn2 emrakul makes innocent blood look really good (assuming you’ve kept enough land drops to not be stupid).
Also in the event of turn 2 emrakul, however unlikely it may be, there are other players playing the game I’m sure some one of the 2-3 of you can ramp to 3 and o-ring the dude. I mean your odds of having one of the 12+ solutions I’ve mentioned is a lot better than them assembling emrakul+ channel. A LOT BETTER. That’s how numbers work.

Sure emrakul might be a metagame force, but good players adapt to the metagame (if they’re not the ones driving it). Personally, I feel players don’t play enough removal (it really solves a lot of the “problems” players are constantly complaining about) and the more versatile the removal the better.


Clear and reasonable arguament won't get you anywhere, young man!! :wink:

You're right though, let's just wait a while and see how everything works out. We saw a turn three Channel into double Eldrazi (Kozilek & Pathrazer) and that player was first knocked out. The sky didn't fall, we just dealt with him and moved on with the game.

No-one is screaming for Felidar Soverign to be banned any more and we had huge crying, wailing and gnashing of teeth when that was spoiled. If Channel -> Eldrazi proves to be a problem after repeated gameplay, we'll see a response then but we won't see knee jerk bannings. The RC have said that they are looking at this, when they are ready, they'll tell us.

Until then try to >gasp!< enjoy the new set.

Author:  Tarix [ 2010-May-03 9:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

Tide spout eliot,sorry,I completely missunderstood Emrakul's protection! And now I feel stupid...but I'll live that! I did notice the other part where you say that turn 2 Emrakul is extremely rare scenario,I did not comment it simply because I agree with that. Turn 3 or 4 would be more possible to play,but a bit hard to protect him with counterspells. Turn 5 or 6 he is not a problem.

Author:  tide spout eliot [ 2010-May-03 11:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Channel after RoE: would a ban be justified?

Don’t worry about it, it an easy mistake to make. On a related not, I took apart my eldrazi deck (which included tutors and channel) because it wasn’t high powered enough to deal with shuruum, combo goblins, and rofellos. :( next on my list, eldrazi in monoblack drana… then If I have to joriah…… I just want to ramp out some eldrazi though!

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