Let me put it a different way: in terms of game mechanics, every deck can run The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, but not every deck wants to.
If you can run Karakas in a deck, why wouldn't you?
My response doesn't change really. Mostly if I didn't think it was necessary or would hurt my land efficiency for decks? Like, if I was in a GWBUR deck or any of the 4-colors running W, I wouldn't include it because it wouldn't be a tutorable land a majority of the time (I care about fetch land type searching and any color production to ensure I can not get color screwed). For 5 color, the ABUR lands + ravnica + fetches put you at 30 lands already, so the remaining 6-7 need to be pretty important lands. Add Command Tower, City of Brass, Reflecting Pool, Exotic Orchard, and Mana Confluence, now I am down 1-2 lands. Does it make the cut for me? Depends on the deck. If it is a tribal (Allies/Elemental), then Cavern of Souls would definitely make it first.
As a user of a very competitive Captain Sisay deck....
Not to crap on your point, but after the first sentence it doesn't matter anymore. Competitive play is not utilized to evaluate cards for the banlist.
Doesn't matter? Even a mildly decent white deck will abuse Karakas.... and the point;
"Karakas in a Legend based format of EDH should remain banned." .... your competitive quip actually highlights this point... it will be a nightmare in social games and very little fun for those being targeted.
As a user of a very competitive Captain Sisay deck, IF I am allowed to add it to my deck, then you will rarely win a game.
I will bounce your commander and someone elses, I will play Karakas during your turn or mine, I will fetch it easier than virtually any tutor, I will bounce my own legends and create such a win condition with Paradox Engine it will be a joke.
Do I want it unbanned? To be selfish - yes.... reality, no way in God's creations should it be unbanned.
I heard someone compare it to Cavern of souls... not a chance. Karakas in a Legend based format of EDH should remain banned.
I think a better way to express what VashBismark is saying is that your scenario is the exception rather than the norm. A Captain Sisay deck is going to naturally abuse a card like Karakas much easier than any random deck with a white color identity. There is no doubt that Karakas will be a good card in any deck, but I'm struggling to think of many situations where it would be broken.
Karakas makes me think of a few things. It reminds me sort of tuck in that the design of your deck as well as what your commander does will heavily dictate how impactful it is with or against you. In the rings of competitive commander, I dont think this would be a problem card at all but when approaching more of the casual to battlecruser commander I can see this card being a very taxing painful card to play against. Depending on who you play against this might be more annoying than Limited Resources.
I think of how much I would love to play it, and then I think about how annoying it would be to encounter and my immediate feeling is that its too dangerous. Sure there are answers but it reminds me a little of Primeval Titan in that I feel like a lot of games would be fought over getting and keeping it in play. I dont feel it would "break" the game so much as create highly undesirable game states for those who dont build and play to a higher level. I feel it would tax the more casual players in a way I dont feel is all that healthy.
The biggest problem in my mind is the lack of opportunity cost to it. Its a land that comes in untapped and it taps for colored mana. There is no downsize in running it is the problem I have. I am someone who owns a Tabernacle and it is a land that does not produce mana as well as hating on niche strategies instead of the format as a whole. The amount of hate and lack of opportunity cost that comes with Karakas are what concern me.
There is no doubt that Karakas will be a good card in any deck, but I'm struggling to think of many situations where it would be broken.
A card doesn't need to be broken to create lousy games of Commander.
This is a very good point. And ISBPathfinder makes some other excellent ones. In a competitive setting, Karakas might be okay, (I don't play that way, but when I think of the combo-rific stuff the competitive players I've watched do, I can't think of much of it that Karakas would even touch), but I think in the sorts of games the format was designed to encourage, it could easily make for fairly miserable games.
To give an example of Axotyl's point, consider cards that aren't broken, but which can lead to miserable game states pretty easily. Grave Pact or Dictate of Erebos are good examples. Of themselves, these cards are not too oppressive, but I'm sure many of you have ended up in situations where you are in a game against a deck built around using sacrifice and Grave Pact effects to keep opponents' boards creature-free. Maybe an Ayli or Meren deck, or a Karador deck like one in my meta in which Grave Pact often is protected behind layers of effects like Privileged Position, Fountain Watch, Karmic Justice and Martyr's Bond. There are much worse things that can happen in a typical Commander game, and most competitive games wouldn't even worry about (or probably play) any of those cards, but in a more typical commander game, stuff like that can feel very oppressive and just plain shut out some people. Voltron players are especially vulnerable, but players of other sorts of general-centric decks can also be pretty much stopped cold by that sort of strategy.
Now consider Karakas, which can screw over those same players a lot more easily, and all on its own. I'm all about running answers and about checks and balances, and I still fail to see how this card would make for more memorable or interesting games, especially at the more typical Commander table.
Now consider Karakas, which can screw over those same players a lot more easily, and all on its own. I'm all about running answers and about checks and balances, and I still fail to see how this card would make for more memorable or interesting games, especially at the more typical Commander table.
Saskia the Unyielding swings wide at player 2 that is marked by Saskia and knocks them out. During their MP2 they activate an effect that grants them an additional combat phase and untaps their creatures. They use their Karakas to bounce Sasika back to hand and then recast her in order to mark the remaining player and swing at them and could be lethal. However the third player could have combat tricks like a Aetherspouts. This third player could also be a combo player and because of the time they bought with whatever combat tricks, they would have enough time to unleash their combo.
There are two sides to every coin and Karakas should also be viewed for how it can help its controller with their own creatures as its not just for bouncing enemy creatures.
There are two sides to every coin and Karakas should also be viewed for how it can help its controller with their own creatures as its not just for bouncing enemy creatures.
There are also a ton of other cards that already do that. Crystal Shard, Cloudstone Curio, anyoftheGatingcreatures. Except none of those cards simultaneously lock out your opponents' generals plus some amount of their 99.
I seriously doubt it would make as much of a mess of games as Portcullis. It's worse than a Gravepact considering how there's so much ETB the gathering going around. Karakas is an efficient card, but other than being pricy and a land you probably want to kill asap, it's not that big of a deal.
There are two sides to every coin and Karakas should also be viewed for how it can help its controller with their own creatures as its not just for bouncing enemy creatures.
There are also a ton of other cards that already do that. Crystal Shard, Cloudstone Curio, anyoftheGatingcreatures. Except none of those cards simultaneously lock out your opponents' generals plus some amount of their 99.
And a Crystal Shard does not possess that same capability? To perhaps even greater effect with the more numerous ways to untap an artifact and gnaw away at your opponent's mana.
Also I feel this bears mentioning, Karakas is weaker in multiplayer. In 1v1 it makes sense why its banned and these arguments for how it can feasibly lock out an opponent's commander. Yet in multiplayer, a Karakas that is by itself is weaker as for each additional player, its value diminishes. Using it proactively may not always be the smart decision and instead should be kept untapped in case of attacks and serve as a deterrence in its untapped presence. As then it also serves a similar purpose to Maze of Ith or Kor Haven or Mystifying Maze. It would also require the same sort of cards as the haven or mazes, Arcane Lighthouse and Glaring Spotlight.
It also has helpful political capability. Say you and a second player in a multiplayer game form a truce. Your buddy's commander is going to be negatively affected by a third player but you save their creature instead. By using your Karakas to help the second player, you use it as a political tool. As its not necessarily a tool to oppress others with, but for them to gain favor for you with as EDH/Commander is a social game.
And a Crystal Shard does not possess that same capability? To perhaps even greater effect with the more numerous ways to untap an artifact and gnaw away at your opponent's mana.
Crystal Shard isn't even close to Karakas. Crystal Shard can be played around by waiting a single turn and leaving an extra mana up, something every deck is capable of doing. Unless your general naturally has Hexproof/Shroud, or is named Maelstrom Wanderer, good luck playing around Karakas.
Also I feel this bears mentioning, Karakas is weaker in multiplayer. In 1v1 it makes sense why its banned and these arguments for how it can feasibly lock out an opponent's commander. Yet in multiplayer, a Karakas that is by itself is weaker as for each additional player, its value diminishes.
It really doesn't. Let's assume a 4-player game. Player A has a Karakas, then Player B, C and D in order. Do you honestly think Player B is ever going to bother running out their general just to get it bounced so that player C and D can maybe stick theirs for a turn? Unless you've all agreed beforehand and turned it into Archenemy, that's not a realistic play. "The threat is stronger than the execution" as they say. Simply having a Karakas in play is good enough to keep people off their generals, usually without even having to activate it.
It also has helpful political capability. Say you and a second player in a multiplayer game form a truce. Your buddy's commander is going to be negatively affected by a third player but you save their creature instead. By using your Karakas to help the second player, you use it as a political tool. As its not necessarily a tool to oppress others with, but for them to gain favor for you with as EDH/Commander is a social game.
Why was his general in play to begin with? You have an active Karakas on the field.
Yes it does get weaker. If you tap it to get rid of one commander from the board, you lack that defense for any future attacks or combos involving legendary creatures until you are able to untap it. Which Is why I said activating proactively is not necessarily the brightest idea either.
Also how about the fact that enemy legendary creatures that are commanders with ETB abilities would actually benefit from you using your Karakas in such a manner? Like Maelstrom Wanderer? I choose to attack with him, if you bounce it back to my hand, I gain value out of future cascading effects which is not necessarily beneficial to you either.
Did you miss the part where I said player 1 and player 2 made a truce or just ignored that part?
Karakas actually has four purposes:
1) Oppression.
2) Political leverage.
3) (ETB/LTB) effects.
4) Saving your own creatures.
I noticed a large body of talk about being against unbanning Karakas has only really regarded the first point, oppression. It was as if this land read to them:
Karakas Legendary Land (MR) T: Add W to your mana pool. T: Return target legendary creature you don't control to it's owners hand.
Then their would be no discussion if this were the correct version of the land. However? That is not what the land reads and yet that is how it is being treated and viewed by those against its unbanning.
I don't really desire for it to be unbanned or remain banned, as I merely want a consistent and regimented banlist that makes sense to the average EDH/Commander player. But I feel I needed to play devil's advocate because of the narrow views on display.
Did you miss the part where I said player 1 and player 2 made a truce or just ignored that part?
That should be ignored, as it's largely irrelevant. Discussions about whether or not a card belongs in the game can't really take into account hypothetical political situations that may or may not arise in any specific game.
Karakas actually has four purposes:
1) Oppression.
2) Political leverage.
3) (ETB/LTB) effects.
4) Saving your own creatures.
I noticed a large body of talk about being against unbanning Karakas has only really regarded the first point, oppression. It was as if this land read to them:
Karakas Legendary Land (MR) T: Add W to your mana pool. T: Return a creature you don't control to it's owners hand.
Then their would be no discussion. However that is not what the land reads and yet that is how it is treated.
The fact that the card is potentially very oppressive and that at the same time it also offers these other benefits is in fact a good example of why it is probably too strong to allow in the format
That should be ignored, as it's largely irrelevant. Discussions about whether or not a card belongs in the game can't really take into account hypothetical political situations that may or may not arise in any specific game.
I must have been thinking of a different MTG multiplayer format that was a social game-like experience and how often many cards are brought up on their political usage within a given game. As that format would would more likely view that card with regard in that manner for its political usage.
The fact that the card is potentially very oppressive and that at the same time it also offers these other benefits is in fact a good example of why it is probably too strong to allow in the format
Wouldn't the opposite be more true however? That if it was nothing but oppressive that it would be worse for the format?
As what sounds better for this game? Primeval Titan or targeted Primeval Titan?
T. Primeval Titan4GG Creature - Giant (MR)
Trample
Whenever Primeval Titan enters the battlefield or attacks, you may have target player search their library for up to two land cards and put them onto the battlefield tapped, then they shuffle their library. 6/6
As where is the argument there? That the controller, in a 4-way game, is 4:4 always going to choose themselves for T.P.T? Same with Karakas. Is the argument really being made that every time the controller is only going to use it in an oppressive manner instead of the other three options given?
Yes it does get weaker. If you tap it to get rid of one commander from the board, you lack that defense for any future attacks or combos involving legendary creatures until you are able to untap it. Which Is why I said activating proactively is not necessarily the brightest idea either.
What attacks? How are your opponents sticking legendary creatures at all? Are you honestly telling me that your opponents' game plan is constantly play legends over and over until eventually some make it through? Because that is both a terrible strategy and the exact reason Karakas should remain banned.
Also how about the fact that enemy legendary creatures that are commanders with ETB abilities would actually benefit from you using your Karakas in such a manner? Like Maelstrom Wanderer? I choose to attack with him, if you bounce it back to my hand, I gain value out of future cascading effects which is not necessarily beneficial to you either.
Did you miss the part where I said player 1 and player 2 made a truce or just ignored that part?
I ignored it because it doesn't matter. The fact is you have the ability to bounce his general at will, every turn of the game for the low cost of a single mana.
Then their would be no discussion if this were the correct version of the land. However? That is not what the land reads and yet that is how it is being treated and viewed by those against its unbanning.
What? Doing something ban worthy plus something else doesn't change the fact that it's doing something ban worthy.
They make mystifying maze, kor haven, maze of ith and a whole slew of commanders with activated targeted abilities do their job and become more inherently annoying than you might have been prepared to deal with.
Well in a 4-player game, if there are 3 legendary creatures out, one for each other player than yourself, how did you bounce all 3 enemy commandres back to the hand? As this is not nearly as taxing as the command zone.
I'm not. I'm using your own point against you. As you have a strong stance about always returning commanders back to the hand if you have a Karakas in play.
I can also ignore the player who plays stax or some other oppressive deck and/or talk to them and ask them not use that deck/card like a reasonable human being in a casual setting.
Ah now you are ignoring my points again. As you only focus on the oppression side.
They make mystifying maze, kor haven, maze of ith and a whole slew of commanders with activated targeted abilities do their job and become more inherently annoying than you might have been prepared to deal with.
Sure. What's the point of this? Mazes can only be used on attacking creatures. Mystifying and Haven cost mana. None of them (permanently) remove the creature from play making them mana negative to use. Are you trying to compare those cards with Karakas? Because it's not even close.
Well in a 4-player game, if there are 3 legendary creatures out, one for each other player than yourself, how did you bounce all 3 enemy commandres back to the hand? As this is not nearly as taxing as the command zone.
I didn't have to. I played a Karakas and my opponents stopped playing legendary creatures because they're rational people.
I can also ignore the player who plays stax or some other oppressive deck and/or talk to them and ask them not use that deck/card like a reasonable human being in a casual setting.
Except stax is an entire strategy that requires specific deck construction, and often puts yourself under the same restrictions as your opponents. Karakas asks you to be a W deck. That's it.
Ah now you are ignoring my points again. As you only focus on the oppression side.
Of course I am. Nobody would care about banning Karakas if it could only bounce your stuff. But that's not what Karakas does, so we have to talk about ALL of Karakas, including the fact it turns the game into 100-card Highlander instead of EDH.
Also how about the fact that enemy legendary creatures that are commanders with ETB abilities would actually benefit from you using your Karakas in such a manner? Like Maelstrom Wanderer? I choose to attack with him, if you bounce it back to my hand, I gain value out of future cascading effects which is not necessarily beneficial to you either.
You'd be doing that anyway. Like Impossible said, you have an active Karakas. Why shouldn't you be proactive about bouncing/replaying your Derevi, Empyrial Tactician or Hazezon Tamar or General Tazri or any other Legendary creature with a beneficial ETB/cast effect, Commander or not?
"Whoops, a wrath effect. Better bounce and replay Archangel Avacyn."
"Aw, my hand's a bit small. Better bounce Kozilek and get that sweet cast trigger."
"Hey, that spell's not very nice. Time to replay Venser, Shaper Savant."
"Mangara of Corondor says no."
Well a Karakas that is never tapped is better than one that is tapped when on the defense against potential attackers and serves the same purpose as a haven or maze. Also the mana costs in the later stages of the game become quite insignificant unless the controller of said lands has very few.
Why would I stop? If I have enough mana to cast my commander and other things I am not really concerned with your Karakas. More so if I have a way to flash in my just recently bounced commander during your turn.
And yet all the stories on the Commander boards about how about someone got snubbed or focused down for playing such a deck don't stop coming.
Also and most often are the poster children for Stax play. Linvala, Keeper of Silence stax decks would love a Karakas for their needs of bouncing enemy creatures. While for instance an Archangel Avacyn wants that same land for entirely different purposes.
People would also not care about unbanning Karakas if it only bounced your opponent's stuff.
@Mercury01: Well what Impossible was focusing on was bouncing your opponent's creatures. You are focusing on bouncing your own in response to something an opponent did. Different view points.
People would also not care about unbanning Karakas if it only bounced your opponent's stuff.
I'm ignoring everything else at this point. It's pretty clear you understand how oppressive Karakas is but you're just playing devils advocate because it can potentially be used to do rather mundane things like save your own creatures. That's absurd and you know it. Black Lotus casting a Gray Ogre doesn't make it any less fundamentally broken. Karakas, merely by being in play, fundamentally alters the game in a way that is antithetical to the goals of the format.
People would also not care about unbanning Karakas if it only bounced your opponent's stuff.
I'm ignoring everything else at this point. It's pretty clear you understand how oppressive Karakas is but you're just playing devils advocate because it can potentially be used to do rather mundane things like save your own creatures. That's absurd and you know it. Black Lotus casting a Gray Ogre doesn't make it any less fundamentally broken. Karakas, merely by being in play, fundamentally alters the game in a way that is antithetical to the goals of the format.
I invoke the law of Tooth and Nail. In that it has potential for abuse and equal potential to be fairly used. The people who would abuse it would have done so anyway and the other players should be given the chance to decide for themselves in a more friendly and casual environment.
Those for unbanningKarakas
#1) It benefits underplayed and currently played commanders
#2) It has a good amount of answers to it that are not inherently land destruction.
#3) It has fair potential.
Those against unbanningKarakas
#1) It will be used mostly to bounce opponent's creatures and lock them out of the game.
#2) A good amount of answers to it are land destruction.
#3) It makes for annoying gameplay.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not to crap on your point, but after the first sentence it doesn't matter anymore. Competitive play is not utilized to evaluate cards for the banlist.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
Doesn't matter? Even a mildly decent white deck will abuse Karakas.... and the point;
"Karakas in a Legend based format of EDH should remain banned." .... your competitive quip actually highlights this point... it will be a nightmare in social games and very little fun for those being targeted.
I think a better way to express what VashBismark is saying is that your scenario is the exception rather than the norm. A Captain Sisay deck is going to naturally abuse a card like Karakas much easier than any random deck with a white color identity. There is no doubt that Karakas will be a good card in any deck, but I'm struggling to think of many situations where it would be broken.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I think of how much I would love to play it, and then I think about how annoying it would be to encounter and my immediate feeling is that its too dangerous. Sure there are answers but it reminds me a little of Primeval Titan in that I feel like a lot of games would be fought over getting and keeping it in play. I dont feel it would "break" the game so much as create highly undesirable game states for those who dont build and play to a higher level. I feel it would tax the more casual players in a way I dont feel is all that healthy.
The biggest problem in my mind is the lack of opportunity cost to it. Its a land that comes in untapped and it taps for colored mana. There is no downsize in running it is the problem I have. I am someone who owns a Tabernacle and it is a land that does not produce mana as well as hating on niche strategies instead of the format as a whole. The amount of hate and lack of opportunity cost that comes with Karakas are what concern me.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
This is a very good point. And ISBPathfinder makes some other excellent ones. In a competitive setting, Karakas might be okay, (I don't play that way, but when I think of the combo-rific stuff the competitive players I've watched do, I can't think of much of it that Karakas would even touch), but I think in the sorts of games the format was designed to encourage, it could easily make for fairly miserable games.
To give an example of Axotyl's point, consider cards that aren't broken, but which can lead to miserable game states pretty easily. Grave Pact or Dictate of Erebos are good examples. Of themselves, these cards are not too oppressive, but I'm sure many of you have ended up in situations where you are in a game against a deck built around using sacrifice and Grave Pact effects to keep opponents' boards creature-free. Maybe an Ayli or Meren deck, or a Karador deck like one in my meta in which Grave Pact often is protected behind layers of effects like Privileged Position, Fountain Watch, Karmic Justice and Martyr's Bond. There are much worse things that can happen in a typical Commander game, and most competitive games wouldn't even worry about (or probably play) any of those cards, but in a more typical commander game, stuff like that can feel very oppressive and just plain shut out some people. Voltron players are especially vulnerable, but players of other sorts of general-centric decks can also be pretty much stopped cold by that sort of strategy.
Now consider Karakas, which can screw over those same players a lot more easily, and all on its own. I'm all about running answers and about checks and balances, and I still fail to see how this card would make for more memorable or interesting games, especially at the more typical Commander table.
There are two sides to every coin and Karakas should also be viewed for how it can help its controller with their own creatures as its not just for bouncing enemy creatures.
Also I feel this bears mentioning, Karakas is weaker in multiplayer. In 1v1 it makes sense why its banned and these arguments for how it can feasibly lock out an opponent's commander. Yet in multiplayer, a Karakas that is by itself is weaker as for each additional player, its value diminishes. Using it proactively may not always be the smart decision and instead should be kept untapped in case of attacks and serve as a deterrence in its untapped presence. As then it also serves a similar purpose to Maze of Ith or Kor Haven or Mystifying Maze. It would also require the same sort of cards as the haven or mazes, Arcane Lighthouse and Glaring Spotlight.
It also has helpful political capability. Say you and a second player in a multiplayer game form a truce. Your buddy's commander is going to be negatively affected by a third player but you save their creature instead. By using your Karakas to help the second player, you use it as a political tool. As its not necessarily a tool to oppress others with, but for them to gain favor for you with as EDH/Commander is a social game.
Karakas actually has four purposes:
1) Oppression.
2) Political leverage.
3) (ETB/LTB) effects.
4) Saving your own creatures.
I noticed a large body of talk about being against unbanning Karakas has only really regarded the first point, oppression. It was as if this land read to them:
Then their would be no discussion if this were the correct version of the land. However? That is not what the land reads and yet that is how it is being treated and viewed by those against its unbanning.
I don't really desire for it to be unbanned or remain banned, as I merely want a consistent and regimented banlist that makes sense to the average EDH/Commander player. But I feel I needed to play devil's advocate because of the narrow views on display.
That should be ignored, as it's largely irrelevant. Discussions about whether or not a card belongs in the game can't really take into account hypothetical political situations that may or may not arise in any specific game.
The fact that the card is potentially very oppressive and that at the same time it also offers these other benefits is in fact a good example of why it is probably too strong to allow in the format
Wouldn't the opposite be more true however? That if it was nothing but oppressive that it would be worse for the format?
As what sounds better for this game? Primeval Titan or targeted Primeval Titan?
As where is the argument there? That the controller, in a 4-way game, is 4:4 always going to choose themselves for T.P.T? Same with Karakas. Is the argument really being made that every time the controller is only going to use it in an oppressive manner instead of the other three options given?
You'd be doing that anyway. Like Impossible said, you have an active Karakas. Why shouldn't you be proactive about bouncing/replaying your Derevi, Empyrial Tactician or Hazezon Tamar or General Tazri or any other Legendary creature with a beneficial ETB/cast effect, Commander or not?
"Whoops, a wrath effect. Better bounce and replay Archangel Avacyn."
"Aw, my hand's a bit small. Better bounce Kozilek and get that sweet cast trigger."
"Hey, that spell's not very nice. Time to replay Venser, Shaper Savant."
"Mangara of Corondor says no."
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Those for unbanning Karakas
#1) It benefits underplayed and currently played commanders
#2) It has a good amount of answers to it that are not inherently land destruction.
#3) It has fair potential.
Those against unbanning Karakas
#1) It will be used mostly to bounce opponent's creatures and lock them out of the game.
#2) A good amount of answers to it are land destruction.
#3) It makes for annoying gameplay.