Quote from Ebline »If we pretend for a moment that we understand the difference between human conversation and a mathematical proof, this disingenuous-seeming argument falls apart pretty quickly.
For "any deck in their colors" take "the overwhelming majority of decks reasonable/viable to play in a large random selection of different metas in their colors," rather than arguing as though the other party is an arbitrarily strict debate club drone and not a human being using the typical subjective and ambiguous manner of a normal conversation. When you acknowledge this, it's clear that your counterarguments are the niche cases, not the other way around. Building this argument on the black-and-white technicality of "all" comes across as an abuse of the framing, as though you expect the argument to be presented as an equation and not an opinion or perspective from a living person.
Quote from Pokken »
If you think "any deck in their colors" means "almost any deck in their colors" and that I should assume this, well, I have a sleeve playable black lotus to sell you. Sorry, almost sleeve playable.
I would jam Sylvan Primordial, PoK, Tinker, and Recurring Nightmare into any deck in their colors, support or no.
I wouldn't (and don't) jam PE into every single deck.
Quote from Pokken »If that's what you meant that's fine. But it doesn't really have any bearing on the argument which is why I did not interpret it that way.
The argument was that most cards, even most bannable cards, require some degree of support from their deck in order to become an issue.
the only ones that have basically no deckbuilding requirements (other than straight up garbage like panoptic mirror which I am not going to discuss):
Mox Ancestral Recall Time Walk Karakas
It's obvious that Tinker requires less synergy (play a few rocks and a few strong artifacts) than Prophet of Kruphix (play critical mass of creatures or instants and defense for the most fragile card type) and more synergy than Mox Ruby. So clearly there is a spectrum.
Quote from Sheldon »You're the reason we can't have nice things.
Quote from Pokken »Sorry, I thought I was leading back there with the 'support' discussion which is that PoK requires less support than most cards and less than some others on the ban list already.
One could make a pretty strong argument that Balance and Tolarian Academy require more deckbuilding support than PoK, and these are among the more serious offenders on the banlist.
Quote from An"she »The issue is just simply how much mana you actually have than appear to.
Say you only have five lands with PoK out in a four player game. You basically have equivalent of 20 lands worth of mana that is broken in increments of 5 across 4 turns. Have a Llanowar Elf out alongside PoK? Equivalent of 24 lands of mana in increments of 6 across 4 turns. Everyone else might be at 4-7 lands with 0-3 mana rocks, but they aren't multiplying their mana based on how many players exist within the game while also vomiting the creatures from their hand during every player's turn unless they are also running PoK.
Quote from LouCypher »Can't leave you guys alone for a few months or y'all start to talk about unbanning PoK again...
Quote from Sheldon »Quote from LouCypher »Can't leave you guys alone for a few months or y'all start to talk about unbanning PoK again...
Have no worries. PoK is staying where it is.
Quote from Macabre »One of my local friends used to comment about every other week about his desires for us to allow an unban of PoK. Then spoilers started for RA and we saw Prime Speaker Vannifar. He hasn't asked or commented about PoK since.