It's an extremely format-warping card. If you have to either play with it or be prepared to play against it, then it's an easy ban.
I never ran POK, on personal choice. Even so, every single one of my decks felt the effect of the ban very strongly. My Chainer deck mourned its loss greatly, while several cars I had called highly (red soul) on account of their ability to kill POK breathed a sigh of relief and opened up some deck building.
The reason PoK is a problem is that it warps the whole game to Archenemy unless answered before the turn ends. For five mana, without any other real supporting cards needed.
The reason PoK is a problem is that it warps the whole game to Archenemy unless answered before the turn ends. For five mana, without any other real supporting cards needed.
Such a card should never be legal.
There're a few cards that low key do the same thing, e.g. consecrated sphinx and sire of stagnation, even PE and Panharmonicon can do similar things.
It's important to remember that it's rarely a single factor. PoK had a bunch of problems not just the archenemy one:
* centralizing effect that was often cloned or bribed
* impacted action economy by having one or more players take multiple sub-turns out of order
* generated a ton of mana
* over-emphasized certain play styles (etb creatures in particular), homogenizing those in UG as well (etb creatures are already overemphasized in EDH :P)
The archenemy problem alone is not enough and so must be cautious to not present that as the only reason.
The reason PoK is a problem is that it warps the whole game to Archenemy unless answered before the turn ends. For five mana, without any other real supporting cards needed.
Such a card should never be legal.
There're a few cards that low key do the same thing, e.g. consecrated sphinx and sire of stagnation, even PE and Panharmonicon can do similar things.
Paradox Engine and Panharmonicon do literally nothing without "other real supporting cards".
The reason PoK is a problem is that it warps the whole game to Archenemy unless answered before the turn ends. For five mana, without any other real supporting cards needed.
Such a card should never be legal.
There're a few cards that low key do the same thing, e.g. consecrated sphinx and sire of stagnation, even PE and Panharmonicon can do similar things.
Paradox Engine and Panharmonicon do literally nothing without "other real supporting cards".
If we are going to nitpick like that you might as well say PoK requires creatures and instants to do anything
I think there is truth in saying PE needs support. After all, in order to go off with it you not only need critical mass of non land mana producers, but you also need a draw engine in order to keep casting spells.
It's a pretty bland argument by itself. It needs to be quantified. A good third of the banlist requires some degree of support, from Recurring Nightmare "ways to get good creatures into your bin" to Sylvan Primordial (Ways to cast 7 mana spells pretty early or cheat it out), Tinker (cheap artifacts and then good artifacts in your deck), etc.
If the argument is "the type of support it needs is difficult enough to make it so it doesn't violate criteria XYZ regularly enough" that's another story, but that requires a lot more thought.
--
edit: With PE I obviously find the argument kind of questionable because the support cards it wants are "RAMP SPELLS" and "DRAW SPELLS" aka the backbone of EDH decks anyway.
> Implying any half way decent control deck has literally 0 creatures
> Implying any half way decent deck doesn't have more than just sol ring
Hell, just trading a late game crypt for a signet or an early signet for a Crypt/Sol Ring can be good enough, or switching a signet you don't need for a better one can be good enough. Even better if you are playing a real deck that has non-rock artifacts.
> Implying a creature that blows up pillowfort cards while thinning your deck of lands isn't good for aggro even if it's high on the curve
All of that vs... needing enough rocks and/or dorks and multiple ways to keep drawing cards.
Sure some commanders can replace the need for 'multiple ways to keep drawing cards' such as Tasigur or Thrasios, but they both need over 5 mana in rocks/dorks, and tasigur needs them to generate specific colors... Azami technically needs less, but then you'd need to have more wizards in play to lessen the chances of bricking...oh and she costs 5 mana herself so it's unlikely you're playing both on the same turn.
I'm sorry but I don't feel like any of those lines of reasoning are strong enough to engage with. I'll engage on the "setup cost" of PE in PE focused thread if you want.
1. Some decks do not play enough artifacts to even use tinker.
2. It is card disadvantage
3. It is tempo disadvantage if you don't get at least +2 mana.
Because tinker requires you to have seen an artifact to be used you could easily wind up with a dead card if your deck plays very few artifacts or even if they are all low cmc.
Calling tinker an auto include in every edh deck is absurd. Many decks would play tinker but there are many in which it would be poor to medium.
In general if you play fewer than 5 or so artifacts the odds of you simply not seeing one are high, and the odds of you not seeing one you want to spend 2 mana to turn into another one are still higher.
If this post doesn't change your mind on tinker being an autoplay in edh I am done talking to you.
-----------------------------------
In case you need a list of "any half decent deck that wouldn't play tinker"
* see the tuvasa deck in my sig. one artifact, stony silence, no tinker. it's common for enchantress decks not to have a lot of artifacts, certainly not enough to guarantee having one to sac
* Edric decks typically have 4-5 artifacts and would not play tinker solely to turn a chrome mox into null rod.
* many spellslinger decks in green don't play enough artifacts for tinker (some riku builds, for ex.)--they want spells they can for sure copy, not mana rocks
-----------------------------------
And in case you need some flailing at the hypergeometric calculator:
* If you play 5 artifacts the odds of seeing one in the first 5 turns are roughly 48% (so half the time)
* The probability of seeing one or more artifacts AND Tinker are about 5% give or take
So putting Tinker in your deck with 5 or fewer artifacts is playing for a 1/20 shot to turn one of your mana rocks into a solemn simulacrum at the cost of a card. This is bad magic unless you have something really critical to play.
Now, it is probably correct that ~100% of CEDH decks would run tinker because they tend to run more mana rocks, and a tinker package would probably be standard (e.g. play 10 rocks, tinker, and some kind of payoff).
How much of a bribe does it take for you / the RC to hate blue
Good to hear about your thoughts on the matter at the very least. It does give some insight as to where it stands these days.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
I smell the blood of Paradox Engine
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
So then what color do you hate?
And not a single tear was shed.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Hate is not an RC value.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
If you're talking actual Duel Commander, then yes, DC maintains their own list.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
ummmm...dozens of currently legal cards meet this criteria
Such a card should never be legal.
There're a few cards that low key do the same thing, e.g. consecrated sphinx and sire of stagnation, even PE and Panharmonicon can do similar things.
It's important to remember that it's rarely a single factor. PoK had a bunch of problems not just the archenemy one:
* centralizing effect that was often cloned or bribed
* impacted action economy by having one or more players take multiple sub-turns out of order
* generated a ton of mana
* over-emphasized certain play styles (etb creatures in particular), homogenizing those in UG as well (etb creatures are already overemphasized in EDH :P)
The archenemy problem alone is not enough and so must be cautious to not present that as the only reason.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
If we are going to nitpick like that you might as well say PoK requires creatures and instants to do anything
I heard Black lotus sucks without supporting cards
like what're you going to do with that mana with no spells?
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
If the argument is "the type of support it needs is difficult enough to make it so it doesn't violate criteria XYZ regularly enough" that's another story, but that requires a lot more thought.
--
edit: With PE I obviously find the argument kind of questionable because the support cards it wants are "RAMP SPELLS" and "DRAW SPELLS" aka the backbone of EDH decks anyway.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I wouldn't (and don't) jam PE into every single deck.
Put tinker into a deck with only sol ring as an artifact? Or two rocks and a solemn?
Put sylvan primordial into a low ramp aggro deck?
They definitely reach problematic casual omnipresence...but they still require support.
It's how much support and what type.
Pok was creatures or instants - very low bar for support.
Sylvan primordial was green deck with some ramp or reanimation. Low bar again with commonly played support.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
> Implying any half way decent deck doesn't have more than just sol ring
Hell, just trading a late game crypt for a signet or an early signet for a Crypt/Sol Ring can be good enough, or switching a signet you don't need for a better one can be good enough. Even better if you are playing a real deck that has non-rock artifacts.
> Implying a creature that blows up pillowfort cards while thinning your deck of lands isn't good for aggro even if it's high on the curve
All of that vs... needing enough rocks and/or dorks and multiple ways to keep drawing cards.
Sure some commanders can replace the need for 'multiple ways to keep drawing cards' such as Tasigur or Thrasios, but they both need over 5 mana in rocks/dorks, and tasigur needs them to generate specific colors... Azami technically needs less, but then you'd need to have more wizards in play to lessen the chances of bricking...oh and she costs 5 mana herself so it's unlikely you're playing both on the same turn.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Yeah, because that reasoning was 100% solid, lol.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
1. Some decks do not play enough artifacts to even use tinker.
2. It is card disadvantage
3. It is tempo disadvantage if you don't get at least +2 mana.
Because tinker requires you to have seen an artifact to be used you could easily wind up with a dead card if your deck plays very few artifacts or even if they are all low cmc.
Calling tinker an auto include in every edh deck is absurd. Many decks would play tinker but there are many in which it would be poor to medium.
In general if you play fewer than 5 or so artifacts the odds of you simply not seeing one are high, and the odds of you not seeing one you want to spend 2 mana to turn into another one are still higher.
If this post doesn't change your mind on tinker being an autoplay in edh I am done talking to you.
-----------------------------------
In case you need a list of "any half decent deck that wouldn't play tinker"
* see the tuvasa deck in my sig. one artifact, stony silence, no tinker. it's common for enchantress decks not to have a lot of artifacts, certainly not enough to guarantee having one to sac
* Edric decks typically have 4-5 artifacts and would not play tinker solely to turn a chrome mox into null rod.
* many spellslinger decks in green don't play enough artifacts for tinker (some riku builds, for ex.)--they want spells they can for sure copy, not mana rocks
-----------------------------------
And in case you need some flailing at the hypergeometric calculator:
* If you play 5 artifacts the odds of seeing one in the first 5 turns are roughly 48% (so half the time)
* The probability of seeing one or more artifacts AND Tinker are about 5% give or take
So putting Tinker in your deck with 5 or fewer artifacts is playing for a 1/20 shot to turn one of your mana rocks into a solemn simulacrum at the cost of a card. This is bad magic unless you have something really critical to play.
Now, it is probably correct that ~100% of CEDH decks would run tinker because they tend to run more mana rocks, and a tinker package would probably be standard (e.g. play 10 rocks, tinker, and some kind of payoff).
But it's not an autoinclude. Not even close.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall