So, I am curious where people stand on this card now, considering the following:
Is this card more explosive than Gaea's Cradle and Serra's Sanctum? Each card can be significantly taken advantage of for high mana, what makes TA so special it needs to be banned and the others not?
Considering Metalworker was unbanned because it required a significant amount of artifacts to be taken advantage of, doesn't the same logic apply here?
Mishra's Workshop exists in artifact heavy decks and can provide even faster ramp, so why is TA singled out on it's own?
To me, I think TA could be cut loose based on the same reasoning as Metalworker - decks that will abuse it will be heavily artifact based and that brings inherent weaknesses into the structure of the card as well.
I seriously doubt Paradox Engine is going to be ban worthy. You have to really work to make it better than "just okay".
My take as well. The card is not being added to my Daretti list because of how difficult it would be to get extreme value out of. To make it go infinite, I need to be able to continuously draw cards and cast spells to keep untapping, which is not an easy accomplishment in most decks.
You mean like the hoops that accompany T&N? Yeah, be fair to both sides of the coin, man.
The same things that stop a PHulk combo are also the same things that stop a T&N combo. Let's be real here. In one of our casual groups, we discussed some banned cards and PHulk came up. Honestly, most of us said it's too low impact to be banned in the current environment simply because Exile-like effects run rampant as well as Grave hate. So I posed the age-old question of what's worse T&N vs PHulk. It was pretty unanimous, the group would rather have T&N. Reasons being that T&N is infinitely harder to recur, it's always a late game play, and its a great way to poop out a couple sweet fatties. 2-3 guys said they'd switch to Karador/Meren more often with PHulk free, most guys said they'd pull it first via Green Sun's Zenith/Natural Order or try and bin it quickly to reanimate early to put pressure on the inevitable wipe. Exactly 4 people said "I'd rather it eat white exile removal than anything else in my deck, so to draw that removal is a win in my book". A couple other guys said it'd just make their decks more efficient, even without a loop.
But, hey, what do we know. We just play games is all.
I like hearing your real world example and how it played out, but I wonder what the result would've been if the question was "Assuming both cards share the same fate, should they be banned or unbanned?"
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.
Pretty spot on summary imo. I think the #3 point in unbanning and the #1 point of keeping it banned are the same net thing, only looking at the card from different perspectives and executions.
The important thing to keep this a civil conversation here folks is the understanding that neither position is wrong and it's a difference of opinion, not facts.
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.
It's a land, therefore there's no mana cost to play the card. Protection against it is limited, since it is a colourless source. It has an ability that can be played at instant speed, without cost or restriction, that disrupts the ability to successfully use most legendary creatures.
My question for people who think Karakas should be unbanned: why would you not run it in a W deck?
Only reason for me is the $$$ of the card, but you can say that about a lot of cards in the format. Why would you not run a Mana Crypt? Why not a Gaea's Cradle in any deck with 15+ creatures? Why not any of the high $$$ fetch lands? But okay, lets go further - I'll also go ahead and respond with why I would run it too. Quick list of reasons:
Great way to deal with Iona locks without using a spell. Same for another annoying Legendary Creatures like Gaddock Teeg, Hokori, Dust Drinker, Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger + Other Preators without feeling you skipped a turn while others didn't.
Good way to bounce any cantrip legend I have in my deck.
Similar to above, it can be used politically to help someone else out with a cantrip ability or as a way to protect someone from being killed via Voltron.
Save Commander from removal to keep casting cost down/manageable instead of always dealing with incremental tax.
But while running it and putting it into play, I also know that I just elevated my threat assessment quite high (as cryo stated in an earlier post), so I wouldn't just drop this land on T1 and be upset if I get pounded on. While I agree it shouldn't be expected for people to be perfect at threat assessing, I also believe the format shouldn't be protected from a card because it can paint targets on you. If I know an opponent's deck has Karakas in their deck, I wouldn't just gun for them and I doubt many others would too. Bouncing a legendary once/cycle (majority of the time) is not going to 'harm' the experience of Commander. In fact, it would add an element of interaction that doesn't exist normally that (imo) is a good thing for casual players to have.
I'd write a long winded response, but most of my points have been made already. The TL;DR is this:
Only can be utilized one turn cycle, without significant help to untap it.
Going to your hand is not as oppressive as tuck, but I understand the comparison and argument outlined.
The long list of 'good' removal options that exist to deal with it.
Potentially promote more interactive gameplay in the format, which I think is a current issue for many players (that there is little interactive and too much solitaire going on)
There are good and bad reasons to allow it, but I think the good justifies at least an attempt at redemption. I think giving it a shot, similar to Rofellos's original unban played out, and reassessing over the next couple of RC discussions. Maybe it would be abused and become an issue, maybe it wouldn't. I'd be willing to give it a shot to see.
I really want to quote/kuddos you for posting an awesome, well thought out post. I really find myself in tune with your description of what defines 'harm' and even your mathematical equation for it - I'm an engineer, math stuff makes me stupidly happy
I'm not saying CV not having a long execution as a point against it, I'm pointing out it's because the other combos have to compressed is the reason they are free, because the longer the process, the more interaction between the cards are involved. Even something as boring as Mike+Trike involves pinging and dies/etb triggers because of the way it functions, which opens up other paths of possibilities with each individual card that casuals want to play with, which is the reason competitive players still have access to the combo.
CV is only no worse than other game-ending resolutions in a competitive circle, because in that circle the only use for all the other cards comparable to it (Mike & Trike) is similar to CV. Likewise, in casual circles, CV is the only card that absolutely cannot be fun/memorable individually, whereas Mike, Trike, Doomsday & Enter the Infinite still have the potential to be fun/memorable individually in the most casual settings.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like Mike&Trike/Doomsday/Enter the Infinite do not have any potential to be fun/memorable in casual settings... Those are very competitive/'cut-throat' combos that when employed in a casual group leads the group to be more competitive.
Oh, but people won't do that with P-Hulk, 'cause no reason. Only T&N gets broken.
Well if you pull those two, I wonder what you're going to blink.
And if your serious argument involved Karmic Guide instead, then I'd urge you to re-read the several times of how that has been explained before, why infinite combo policing isn't a thing, why just casting P-Hulk won't get you those whereas just casting TnN does, and where the fair uses of TnN FAR outshine those of P-Hulk. But it's okay, no need to read all that when it'll have to get reposted again anyway.
Karmic guide is what I had meant. Ignoring something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ignoring the fact that Hulk will result in a loop more often than not is, well, foolish. The amount of times Hulk will result in some combo that barfs your deck onto the field will be the same amount that T&N assembles Exodia.
But, hey, I don't really need to prove anything. T&N has survived the life of the format thus far, no reason to think it'll change. I'll just continue playing it the way it should be in EDH.
I'll continue the ridiculously huge quote box brigade lol...
Anyways, so Karmic+Viscera happens, and you get another 6 CMC of creatures, what's the point? Outside of assembling the Lark+Guide combo engine, is that terrible? Really only decks with GWx scream to me as situations where we'll see 'terrible' amount of combo. If we're regulating Hulk under that circumstance and ignoring fair uses for it, why are we allowed to argue fair use for T&N? The cards can result in the same net result - puking out creatures/wins. Why is one banned and the other not?
I think I agree with this. Most of the options for TnN are fair, even if people use it in conjunction with combos more often. From the RC's philosophy point of view, the card isn't really a serious problem.
Not that this is the right thread, but then explain why 'mostly fair' is okay with T&N, but not for P.Hulk?
TL;DR: TnN is even when played "Fair" insane value, Hulk much less so, Hulk and TnN should either share fates or have Hulk unbanned and TnN banned, 2-card combos aren't evil, 1-card-drop-combo-ones are.
I wish this discussion would gain some more traction because I feel that conversation would take a much more interesting path.
I just finished a game where I discovered how ridiculous Inventors' Fair can be. I had the Fair and a few mana rocks out on the field among other things, and then something just clicked in my head. I used the Fair to tutor for Crucible of Worlds, allowing me to replay the Fair and tutor every turn. That got out of hand very quickly. On my next turn, I searched for Darksteel Forge and got it out, replayed the Fair from my graveyard, and grabbed Nev Disk on the turn after that. It was very good it was not even funny.
I mean, I think it's funny but mostly because I have a weird sense of humor based on awesome Daretti plays lol...
LOL I thought the OP was vehemently against Coalition Victory in said thread. And now he's using the same reasons (others gave for unbanning CV) on Limited Resources?
You might wanna review your opinions in that thread, now that you see the light... I hope.
Or this is satire on our argument there...
My view on this card is different than my opinion in the CV thread because this card inherently behaves poorly in multiplayer formats, not just specifically EDH. I think that alone keeps it on the banlist.
Before going into details, I'd also like to provide the ruling information/posts from the RC regarding TA:
Source: Official site, June 18, 2010
So, I am curious where people stand on this card now, considering the following:
To me, I think TA could be cut loose based on the same reasoning as Metalworker - decks that will abuse it will be heavily artifact based and that brings inherent weaknesses into the structure of the card as well.
The important thing to keep this a civil conversation here folks is the understanding that neither position is wrong and it's a difference of opinion, not facts.
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.
- Great way to deal with Iona locks without using a spell. Same for another annoying Legendary Creatures like Gaddock Teeg, Hokori, Dust Drinker, Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger + Other Preators without feeling you skipped a turn while others didn't.
- Good way to bounce any cantrip legend I have in my deck.
- Similar to above, it can be used politically to help someone else out with a cantrip ability or as a way to protect someone from being killed via Voltron.
- Save Commander from removal to keep casting cost down/manageable instead of always dealing with incremental tax.
But while running it and putting it into play, I also know that I just elevated my threat assessment quite high (as cryo stated in an earlier post), so I wouldn't just drop this land on T1 and be upset if I get pounded on. While I agree it shouldn't be expected for people to be perfect at threat assessing, I also believe the format shouldn't be protected from a card because it can paint targets on you. If I know an opponent's deck has Karakas in their deck, I wouldn't just gun for them and I doubt many others would too. Bouncing a legendary once/cycle (majority of the time) is not going to 'harm' the experience of Commander. In fact, it would add an element of interaction that doesn't exist normally that (imo) is a good thing for casual players to have.- Only can be utilized one turn cycle, without significant help to untap it.
- Going to your hand is not as oppressive as tuck, but I understand the comparison and argument outlined.
- The long list of 'good' removal options that exist to deal with it.
- Potentially promote more interactive gameplay in the format, which I think is a current issue for many players (that there is little interactive and too much solitaire going on)
There are good and bad reasons to allow it, but I think the good justifies at least an attempt at redemption. I think giving it a shot, similar to Rofellos's original unban played out, and reassessing over the next couple of RC discussions. Maybe it would be abused and become an issue, maybe it wouldn't. I'd be willing to give it a shot to see.Anyways, so Karmic+Viscera happens, and you get another 6 CMC of creatures, what's the point? Outside of assembling the Lark+Guide combo engine, is that terrible? Really only decks with GWx scream to me as situations where we'll see 'terrible' amount of combo. If we're regulating Hulk under that circumstance and ignoring fair uses for it, why are we allowed to argue fair use for T&N? The cards can result in the same net result - puking out creatures/wins. Why is one banned and the other not?
My view on this card is different than my opinion in the CV thread because this card inherently behaves poorly in multiplayer formats, not just specifically EDH. I think that alone keeps it on the banlist.