I wanted to toss this out there to discuss here; I brought it up on the EDH forums already for Sheldon and co. to take a look at.
In a nutshell, I think Karakas deserves an un-banning consideration. Some bullet points-
Legendary and land status makes it relatively easy to deal with.
Color inclusion narrows the scope of the card
Effect isn't nearly as damaging as Riftsweeper; can be helpful in many cases
M10 combat rule changes de-power the card quite a bit
Allows for inexpensive way to deal with generals that set up too quickly (Rofellos) or win too quickly (Rafiq)
Fantastic political card
Realistically, the M10 rules changes put this card defensively on a similar level with Maze Of Ith and Kor Haven; It really only leaves the door open to CIP recursion tricks, which I feel is outside of the scope of the original banning to begin with.
OK it's not quite as bad as riftsweeper but it does make it stupidly easy to handle generals... for very cheap... Kor haven may stop general damage... but Karakas stops everything you might want to do with your general, for the cost of *zero* mana... and your opponent then has to spend mana to recast their general.
This.
I doubt Karakas was banned because people were stacking combat damage.
It was banned because it easily kept everyone else's generals off the table, and is a land, which makes it hard to answer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
Karakas is fundamentally broken in this format without its original errata. Being able to shut down each opponent's general while protecting your own, all without drawback and attached to a difficult-to-remove permanent simply isn't fair. Heck, our group continued to allow Karakas with its errata for a while, and it was still unfun and almost too powerful.
I liked it best when Karakas was still legal but unable to target a general. For a while they had it written that "generals have protection from Karakas", likewise for Riftsweeper. Its just a shame because even outside of targetting generals, despite the new M10 rules regarding damage and the stack, both were very useful cards in a number of aspects. I hope that they may revert back to an "EDH errata" for both of them. Without such an errata it is clear to see why both would be banned as both are otherwise stupidly broken.
I certainly understand the power level of the card, but I'm not convinced it ends up as strong as everyone percieves it to be.
In a 1v1 environment, Karakas ends up very unbalanced; the first player to table the card has a strong advantage over his/her opponent. In a multi-player game, though? I think the power level falls off dramatically. With multiple people at the table, there is a fantastic chance that someone else can handle a land somehow, through destruction or steal effects. Karakas can also only target one general at a time, so you have the choice of protecting your general, or targeting one other each turn - not both. This leaves the door open to interesting political interaction, and hardly cripples the whole table at any given time. In reality, it also is one of those cards that paints a large bullseye on the player controlling it, mitigating the power a bit more as well.
If this was a removal effect instead of a bounce effect, it would be a different story. The fact that it bounces a general makes it a bit easier on the targeted player as well; sliding out from under the two-mana-per-removal tax isn't the worst thing in the world.
Added to the loss of combat stack schenanigans, I feel pretty strongly that this card might be less troublesome than it looks.
My eyeball is it would be unduly strong, especially in the color of life gain helping it combat general damage. At least Kor Haven and Maze don't make you recast and suffer summoning sickness. Plus, it adds redundancy to those lands.
Plus, 1v. 1 EDH is pretty popular. I don't know that you can completely exclude that from the calculation.
Definitely too strong. Maybe with an errata it could be allowed, but as is, it is too strong.
The argument that "someone in a multiplayer game could answer it" kind of misses the point to me. I get what you're saying, but I think Sheldon & Co. have been clear that they want to avoid cards that warp games. When Karakas comes down, everyone will have to try and answer it. The game becomes about answering Karakas. This is the logic behind banning other cards, like Kukusho, and I assume Braids. They are answerable, but they just warp the game too much.
Also, with Crucible of Worlds, Life from the Loam, and the tutors to get those cards, Karakas could be pretty much unanswerable.
Even if Karakas could only affect your own legends it would be powerful. Repeatable bounce on Sharuum or a way to bounce your general in response to a wrath if pretty good, and would essentially allow players to replay their generals without the added {2} cost.
The argument that "someone in a multiplayer game could answer it" kind of misses the point to me. I get what you're saying, but I think Sheldon & Co. have been clear that they want to avoid cards that warp games. When Karakas comes down, everyone will have to try and answer it. The game becomes about answering Karakas. This is the logic behind banning other cards, like Kukusho, and I assume Braids. They are answerable, but they just warp the game too much.
The problem with this statement is that Karakas isn't nearly as big of a threat because it has a narrow focus - one target per turn. Kokusho hits everyone at the table when it leaves; Braids forces each player to sacrifice a permanent each turn. It's an automatic threat to everyone each turn.
Karakas isn't nearly in the same boat. If I'm playing Progenitus out, I don't care about Karakas. If I can get Greaves on my general, I don't care. If my general isn't in play, I don't care. This is just scratching the surface.
Also, with Crucible of Worlds, Life from the Loam, and the tutors to get those cards, Karakas could be pretty much unanswerable.
I will concede this, but the other side of this coin is that powering out Karakas and keeping it in play still doesn't actually win you the game 99% of the time. You still need a game plan that you can execute.
Even if Karakas could only affect your own legends it would be powerful. Repeatable bounce on Sharuum or a way to bounce your general in response to a wrath if pretty good, and would essentially allow players to replay their generals without the added {2} cost.
Absolutely. I'll readily admit that I would *love* to drop this into my Sharuum build. That's still not a guarantee of a win, though; you still need to assemble a winning game state. And the 2-mana replay cost goes both ways; If you're getting pounded on by an opposing general, using Karakas defensively will impart that same bonus on your opponent.
I know it seems over-powered at first glance, but I would challenge everyone to take a closer look at what it really does in this format. I think it ends up less of a threat than most people think it is, and may end up adding some flavor to the game. Just because it sits on a banned list doesn't mean it's automatically busted in practice. (Look at the hype surrounding the un-banning of Rofellos as a general...tons of people screaming about the sky falling, and in reality, there doesn't seem to be any unbalancing at all by the inclusion.)
And the 2-mana replay cost goes both ways; If you're getting pounded on by an opposing general, using Karakas defensively will impart that same bonus on your opponent.
This is a "bonus" for very, very few decks. Sharuum is the only one I can think of, and Sharuum doesn't really attack anyways.
I know you just really, really want to put Karakas into your Sharuum deck. I'd like that too, but I have to admit that Karakas is extremely overpowered in EDH. Imagine playing against a Rofellos deck--if you have turn 1 Karakas, Rofellos is most likely never even going to be usable. Entirely shutting most generals down with just a land is far too strong. Karakas has other uses that are good too, and perhaps not overpowered, but it's just too good against most opposing generals.
Due to the nature of the format, I can't think of a single card that deserves to be banned more than Karakas.
When I first built my decks I wasn't really clear on all the rules so I used it with no errata and I can honestly say I don't ever want to play that way again. Not that the card is broken, it is just extremely frustrating to deal with, similar to something like Kokusho.
1) The way you keep talking about Karakas you make it seem like you are making your arguments based on theory alone, and I think that you must be. Having played with (and against) Karakas both pre and post errata, and subsequently without it, I can assure you that Karakas is very very good. What is it about 1 target per sequence of turns that is not impressive to you? At worst Karakas is a significantly less expensive Capsize (with buyback) for generals without the mana investment. Not only can it cripple an opponent's game plan in both single and multiplayer games, but it can be a valuable saving grace for your own general. Keep in mind, not everyone will have their generals in play simultaneously, and Karakas just makes this scenario even more unlikely. Big Jim is right, more often than not, when Karakas used to hit the board, the game quickly became "get rid of that land as quickly as possible" rather than pushing your deck's agenda. I will agree that Karakas adds a lot of flavor to the EDH environment but it would have to be unbanned with the errata in place. To your credit, Karakas is no Braids (at least when it hit on or before turn 3)...but there is little that could match Braids' potency to begin with. Braids had it coming, really.
2) Rofellos is, as was promised, one of the best generals in the format, hands down. Not to mention he just got a significant power boost by the banning of Braids. Really, there are only a handful of generals that can handle Rofellos with any measure of consistency that I have seen. Perhaps Rofellos is not the best card to liken this too. But I digress, that is another discussion altogether.
I know you just really, really want to put Karakas into your Sharuum deck. I'd like that too, but I have to admit that Karakas is extremely overpowered in EDH.
Khymera, I'm irritated that you can manage to take my entire proposition and assume that it really is nothing but a thinly-veiled scheme to boost the power of one of my decks. You always come off as a very intelligent player, so this seems a bit petty.
I won't have this argument in two places either.
Quote from Miscalcul8edRisk »
1) The way you keep talking about Karakas you make it seem like you are making your arguments based on theory alone, and I think that you must be. Having played with (and against) Karakas both pre and post errata, and subsequently without it, I can assure you that Karakas is very very good.
Agreed; and my position is based on testing it. It is undoubtedly strong. But it doesn;t come off as any more powerful than some of the heavy hitters that draw hate in the format already. It can do broken things, but in my experience, it never sticks around long, and is an incredibly political card, which makes things interesting. It seems to usually end up defensively protecting a general, and rarely does it become a dedicated single general hoser; It certainly could, but in practice, it doesn't seem to do that. Some battles usually arise over it, some retribution usually comes down on someone for playing it, and things move on.
Quote from Miscalcul8edRisk »
2) 2) Rofellos is, as was promised, one of the best generals in the format, hands down. Not to mention he just got a significant power boost by the banning of Braids. Really, there are only a handful of generals that can handle Rofellos with any measure of consistency that I have seen.
Fair enough. In practice, Karakas also seems to be a good answer to him.
==>DJ
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I wanted to toss this out there to discuss here; I brought it up on the EDH forums already for Sheldon and co. to take a look at.
In a nutshell, I think Karakas deserves an un-banning consideration. Some bullet points-
Thoughts?
--->DJ
This.
I doubt Karakas was banned because people were stacking combat damage.
It was banned because it easily kept everyone else's generals off the table, and is a land, which makes it hard to answer.
Twitter
...beat me to it InsuranceMan
Current EDH Decks:
G Multani, Maro-Sorcerer
B Xiahou Dun, the One-Eyed
GU Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
In a 1v1 environment, Karakas ends up very unbalanced; the first player to table the card has a strong advantage over his/her opponent. In a multi-player game, though? I think the power level falls off dramatically. With multiple people at the table, there is a fantastic chance that someone else can handle a land somehow, through destruction or steal effects. Karakas can also only target one general at a time, so you have the choice of protecting your general, or targeting one other each turn - not both. This leaves the door open to interesting political interaction, and hardly cripples the whole table at any given time. In reality, it also is one of those cards that paints a large bullseye on the player controlling it, mitigating the power a bit more as well.
If this was a removal effect instead of a bounce effect, it would be a different story. The fact that it bounces a general makes it a bit easier on the targeted player as well; sliding out from under the two-mana-per-removal tax isn't the worst thing in the world.
Added to the loss of combat stack schenanigans, I feel pretty strongly that this card might be less troublesome than it looks.
--->DJ
My eyeball is it would be unduly strong, especially in the color of life gain helping it combat general damage. At least Kor Haven and Maze don't make you recast and suffer summoning sickness. Plus, it adds redundancy to those lands.
Plus, 1v. 1 EDH is pretty popular. I don't know that you can completely exclude that from the calculation.
The argument that "someone in a multiplayer game could answer it" kind of misses the point to me. I get what you're saying, but I think Sheldon & Co. have been clear that they want to avoid cards that warp games. When Karakas comes down, everyone will have to try and answer it. The game becomes about answering Karakas. This is the logic behind banning other cards, like Kukusho, and I assume Braids. They are answerable, but they just warp the game too much.
Also, with Crucible of Worlds, Life from the Loam, and the tutors to get those cards, Karakas could be pretty much unanswerable.
Even if Karakas could only affect your own legends it would be powerful. Repeatable bounce on Sharuum or a way to bounce your general in response to a wrath if pretty good, and would essentially allow players to replay their generals without the added {2} cost.
The problem with this statement is that Karakas isn't nearly as big of a threat because it has a narrow focus - one target per turn. Kokusho hits everyone at the table when it leaves; Braids forces each player to sacrifice a permanent each turn. It's an automatic threat to everyone each turn.
Karakas isn't nearly in the same boat. If I'm playing Progenitus out, I don't care about Karakas. If I can get Greaves on my general, I don't care. If my general isn't in play, I don't care. This is just scratching the surface.
I will concede this, but the other side of this coin is that powering out Karakas and keeping it in play still doesn't actually win you the game 99% of the time. You still need a game plan that you can execute.
Absolutely. I'll readily admit that I would *love* to drop this into my Sharuum build. That's still not a guarantee of a win, though; you still need to assemble a winning game state. And the 2-mana replay cost goes both ways; If you're getting pounded on by an opposing general, using Karakas defensively will impart that same bonus on your opponent.
I know it seems over-powered at first glance, but I would challenge everyone to take a closer look at what it really does in this format. I think it ends up less of a threat than most people think it is, and may end up adding some flavor to the game. Just because it sits on a banned list doesn't mean it's automatically busted in practice. (Look at the hype surrounding the un-banning of Rofellos as a general...tons of people screaming about the sky falling, and in reality, there doesn't seem to be any unbalancing at all by the inclusion.)
--->DJ
This is a "bonus" for very, very few decks. Sharuum is the only one I can think of, and Sharuum doesn't really attack anyways.
I know you just really, really want to put Karakas into your Sharuum deck. I'd like that too, but I have to admit that Karakas is extremely overpowered in EDH. Imagine playing against a Rofellos deck--if you have turn 1 Karakas, Rofellos is most likely never even going to be usable. Entirely shutting most generals down with just a land is far too strong. Karakas has other uses that are good too, and perhaps not overpowered, but it's just too good against most opposing generals.
Due to the nature of the format, I can't think of a single card that deserves to be banned more than Karakas.
1) The way you keep talking about Karakas you make it seem like you are making your arguments based on theory alone, and I think that you must be. Having played with (and against) Karakas both pre and post errata, and subsequently without it, I can assure you that Karakas is very very good. What is it about 1 target per sequence of turns that is not impressive to you? At worst Karakas is a significantly less expensive Capsize (with buyback) for generals without the mana investment. Not only can it cripple an opponent's game plan in both single and multiplayer games, but it can be a valuable saving grace for your own general. Keep in mind, not everyone will have their generals in play simultaneously, and Karakas just makes this scenario even more unlikely. Big Jim is right, more often than not, when Karakas used to hit the board, the game quickly became "get rid of that land as quickly as possible" rather than pushing your deck's agenda. I will agree that Karakas adds a lot of flavor to the EDH environment but it would have to be unbanned with the errata in place. To your credit, Karakas is no Braids (at least when it hit on or before turn 3)...but there is little that could match Braids' potency to begin with. Braids had it coming, really.
2) Rofellos is, as was promised, one of the best generals in the format, hands down. Not to mention he just got a significant power boost by the banning of Braids. Really, there are only a handful of generals that can handle Rofellos with any measure of consistency that I have seen. Perhaps Rofellos is not the best card to liken this too. But I digress, that is another discussion altogether.
Current EDH Decks:
G Multani, Maro-Sorcerer
B Xiahou Dun, the One-Eyed
GU Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Khymera, I'm irritated that you can manage to take my entire proposition and assume that it really is nothing but a thinly-veiled scheme to boost the power of one of my decks. You always come off as a very intelligent player, so this seems a bit petty.
I won't have this argument in two places either.
Agreed; and my position is based on testing it. It is undoubtedly strong. But it doesn;t come off as any more powerful than some of the heavy hitters that draw hate in the format already. It can do broken things, but in my experience, it never sticks around long, and is an incredibly political card, which makes things interesting. It seems to usually end up defensively protecting a general, and rarely does it become a dedicated single general hoser; It certainly could, but in practice, it doesn't seem to do that. Some battles usually arise over it, some retribution usually comes down on someone for playing it, and things move on.
Fair enough. In practice, Karakas also seems to be a good answer to him.
==>DJ