Totally non-bias opinions only ;) how would cEDH react to banning the top tutors?

[Dunharrow]

I have long maintained that tutors go against the spirit of singleton, and if I had it my way I would ban the strongest tutors in the format.

I think the more people are tutoring, the more casual metas creep into stronger metas. It is easier to win out of nowhere. It is easier to put combos in the 99.

In my opinion, banning the top tutors would help keep casual metas, casual.


But what would happen to cEDH? Would it shift from tutor to card draw? Would it play worse tutors? Would the format revolt and splinter into having its own banlist?
Let's say, for argument's sake, the RC banned Demonic Tutor, Enlightened Tutor, Mystical Tutor, Vampiric Tutor and Gamble (I am not sure what the 5th best tutor is lol)

What would happen to cEDH? I have mostly steered away from playing cEDH. I just don't enjoy it. As such, I have no idea what would happen.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

That's a hell of a thing to speculate.

My guess is they'd turn to the next most efficient draw/filtering or more specific and costly tutors.

@benjameenbear you're our resident expert. What do you think?

[pokken]

They'd play more cantrips an card draw most likely.

[3drinks]

You'd see a major shift to u and little use for b outside of a splash.

[pokken]

You'd see a major shift to u and little use for b outside of a splash.

Although black would still be pretty good for tainted pact/demonic consultation

[EonAon]

Personally Id like you to do a list of what you think the main ones are. I mean demonic and vampiric yes got that, but there are tutors in all the colors. Which are the top 10 to 15 you think need nuked? Creating a list of the cards you think are the biggest problem helps define the response

[Sinis]

Honestly: Don't care.

I really don't care how cEDH reacts. They got their Flash ban, and now everything is perfectly balanced as some vocal tiny minority insisted for as long as Flash was legal..

Second: This format is not for competitive play. It's obvious at first blush. If you solve the format, good for you, you win. Now go home.

[Hermes_]

should post in the Cedh reddit and watch the fire

[pokken]

Bit more on this:

Generally speaking I only like to think about CEDH in the context of EDH when I'm thinking about how CEDH tech bleeds into casual play and causes bad experiences. One example is starting to see more Demonic Consultation combos in casual play. I really hate the power level and lack of interactivity of those combos and I hate that CEDH is normalizing them.

Tutors do kind of line up with that. tutoring for combo pieces is problematic and also boring.

I tend to really enjoy tutors like Entomb and Recruiter of the Guard that take a bit of deckbuilding sacrifices to make good.

I think that I would get on board with banning Vampiric Tutor. It's really just too powerful for the format in my opinion. It's legitimately arguable that Demonic Tutor is better, but I think black deserves one actually good tutor since most of the other ones become questionable. And since it's one of the huge selling points of the color. I think if you banned both then Mystical Tutor would need to go as well.

I would hate to see Enlightened Tutor go since it's really one of the only universally good white cards in the entire format.

[Sinis]

Generally speaking I only like to think about CEDH in the context of EDH when I'm thinking about how CEDH tech bleeds into casual play and causes bad experiences. One example is starting to see more Demonic Consultation combos in casual play. I really hate the power level and lack of interactivity of those combos and I hate that CEDH is normalizing them.

Have a discussion with people about what kind of game you want to play. Decline to play against these people if they include Consult/Oracle lines.

Treat it the same way you'd treat someone playing Armageddon (assuming you don't like Armageddon in your games).

[Dunharrow]

Thanks for the feedback.

@EonAon I don't have a list. For me it is more about numbers. Ban the top 3 tutors, or the top 5, or even the top 10. I think there is a spot in there somewhere where commander play improves. People talk about 'banning tutors' but we all know that makes no sense. How can you lump Cultivate with Demonic Tutor ?

I don't think tutors are a problem. I think the amount of good tutors is the problem. There are so many 1 and 2 mana tutors that make decks super consistent. Paying 3 mana to tutor your combo card is a huge tempo loss and many would not even bother.
So if you cut the top 5ish tutors from commander, I don't think people slot in the next 5 best tutors unless they have a specific card in the 99 that they need most games.
The result is that there is less tutoring and games play out less repetitively.


I just made this thread to gauge how the people familiar with cEDH would view it. Seems like the consensus is people would just move to blue draw more. I don't think this would be a bad thing for cEDH.

[pokken]

Have a discussion with people about what kind of game you want to play. Decline to play against these people if they include Consult/Oracle lines.

Treat it the same way you'd treat someone playing Armageddon (assuming you don't like Armageddon in your games).

I really don't want to have to have this exhaustive dialog every time I play games about all the things or people do or don't like. It's tedious and not really super practical in larger playgroups. There're probably 40 people in my broader 'group' and they all play with each other.

The RC has historically done a really good job of fostering a balanced broader metagame of commander by popping things like primordial, POK, primetime, Paradox engine, etc. I'd like to see them continue doing this.

They seem to have mostly given up on these 'problematic casual omnipresence' bans since the outcry by CEDH and high powered players over Paradox Engine as far as I can tell, and I find it a bit disheartening. These every year or two bans of oppressive auto-includes were great for the health of the format in my opinion.

In short, not everyone plays in tailored metas and not everyone wants to have a detailed philosophical discussion with a list of all the stuff they don't like - I *like* playing free range commander with stuff that surprises me. I just think the RC can do a bit better job sculpting that community than they have been.

I just made this thread to gauge how the people familiar with cEDH would view it. Seems like the consensus is people would just move to blue draw more. I don't think this would be a bad thing for cEDH.

So I tried to give some more serious thought to this and I think the impact to CEDH of something as simple as "move to more blue draw" is probably not really thinking about it honestly.

There are quite a few non-blue decks in CEDH and most of them are black based and depend pretty heavily on those tutors to function. Decks like gitrog and farm get a LOT worse.

Making blue better in CEDH is probably a death sentence for the format long term. Blue is already the best color by a lot and basically everyone would have to play the blue cantrip and draw suite for consistency. If you banned Enlightened Tutor you probably kill all the W and RW decks as well, so I would think really hard about that

If every deck in the format starts with :

• opt
• brainstorm
• ponder
• preordain
• serum visions
• impulse
• mystic remora
• rhystic study

The game will be pretty damn samey pretty damn fast.

[Sinis]

I really don't want to have to have this exhaustive dialog every time I play games about all the things or people do or don't like. It's tedious and not really super practical in larger playgroups. There're probably 40 people in my broader 'group' and they all play with each other.

I think your playgroup is too large. Mine is like, 6 people, and we tend to have 4-player games.

We are all in very close agreement about what we want to play, and something will crop up in our discord every month or so; last time it was about perhaps allowing Primeval Titan, and before that, maybe soft-banning Avacyn, Angel of Hope. We don't do it 'every game', but, we definitely talk.

The RC has historically done a really good job of fostering a balanced broader metagame of commander by popping things like primordial, POK, primetime, Paradox engine, etc. I'd like to see them continue doing this.

Agree.

They seem to have mostly given up on these 'problematic casual omnipresence' bans since the outcry by CEDH and high powered players over Paradox Engine as far as I can tell, and I find it a bit disheartening. These every year or two bans of oppressive auto-includes were great for the health of the format in my opinion.

I think they're slow on this because they want a ban list as short as possible, not because they're stuck on Paradox Engine backlash.

The real problem for the RC right now is that cards are being released at an incredible rate, and that means there might be more 'hits' for the potential ban list every year, but it is unlikely that the ban list will ever get shorter. So, there's this inevitability problem where the ban list is going to be intolerably long, at some point in the future. So, they delay and only ban the most egregious cards.

In short, not everyone plays in tailored metas and not everyone wants to have a detailed philosophical discussion with a list of all the stuff they don't like - I *like* playing free range commander with stuff that surprises me. I just think the RC can do a bit better job sculpting that community than they have been.

Eh. 'Free range commander' includes Consult/Oracle. I've played Consult before Oracle/Lab man were printed (I replaced a swamp in a monoblack deck; at worst, I can tutor a swamp, at best, maybe I spin the wheel for an answer or threat or just lose the game).

Consult isn't the problem. It's people who want to win with Consult/Oracle, rather than have a game that's interesting (interesting to you or me, that is; there's no accounting for taste).

However, I don't believe you can hold the position that you like 'free range commander' while disliking things that exist in 'free range commander'. Playing in a group that's curated what kind of wins we find acceptable doesn't preclude interesting experiences or being surprised.

[pokken]

I think your playgroup is too large. Mine is like, 6 people, and we tend to have 4-player games.

I think the community really needs to question the assumption that everyone should be in small curated playgroups a bit more. It's not the norm anymore and it shouldn't be the assumed playstyle.

Further, I do have power level discussions and that's the norm - what power're we playing at? But the experience decks create within a power bracket is influenced by what's on the banlist and what the sort of zeitgeist of commander is at the time.

However, I don't believe you can hold the position that you like 'free range commander' while disliking things that exist in 'free range commander'.

I'm not sure what this means at all. Are you saying it's somehow logically inconsistent to like something but not like the direction it's going?

The drift of CEDH tech into EDH en masse is a pretty new thing, and is being exacerbated by super high powered cards being unchecked (Thassa's Oracle, Dockside Extortionist, Hullbreacher).

[WizardMN]

I think your playgroup is too large. Mine is like, 6 people, and we tend to have 4-player games.

I think the community really needs to question the assumption that everyone should be in small curated playgroups a bit more. It's not the norm anymore and it shouldn't be the assumed playstyle.

I agree with this pretty heavily. My local group consists of about 5 other people at best. And it becomes tiresome. The meta becomes so inbred that it becomes tough to evaluate one's decks on a more general level and instead everything is based on specific opposing decks. And then every week as I try to play different decks (I have 9 built but can generally only get 3-5 games in a night) I am just playing against the same decks. I can control the variety in my decks but there becomes little variety in opposing decks because my group tends to max out at 3 decks each. I wish my group was larger where I could play with more "strangers" and I am already looking into a new shop that opened that hopefully has a bigger EDH community.

This is one of the biggest reasons I like MTGO. I get to actually play against a wide variety of decks and I get to see cool new builds. And having pre-game discussions online or with bigger groups just isn't feasible.

This is just to say that having a small group isn't something that should be a goal or even assumed. Especially in the context of discussions. Yes, it makes things easier to make sure everyone is on the same page. There is no denying that. But there are enough benefits to a larger group as it is and "Rule 0" becomes less applicable in those cases. It just shouldn't be a crutch to "solve" potential problems.

[Sinis]

I'm not sure what this means at all. Are you saying it's somehow logically inconsistent to like something but not like the direction it's going?

The drift of CEDH tech into EDH en masse is a pretty new thing, and is being exacerbated by super high powered cards being unchecked (Thassa's Oracle, Dockside Extortionist, Hullbreacher).

Okay, I realize that I might be hijacking this thread, so I'll leave it at this: The RC cannot curate the ban list to make the casual experience appeal to exactly me, or exactly you.

Even if you ban Consult, there will be another bugbear waiting exactly the same way Consult was the bugbear waiting behind Flash. After a Consult ban, my best guess is that it'll be Tainted Pact. Then it'll be Inverter of Truth, or Doomsday|WTH piles. I said this would happen a year ago.

There is always going to be some next best way to win that will leave a sour taste in a casual player's mouth. IMO, the problem was banning Flash. We could have just let the format remain 'solved', and then people could either decide to play T&T Flash Hulk, or not play instant wins at all. It would have sent a message about the culture of the game we play, and that if you want to win, your options are already well-trod territory. Now we have this half-measure, because someone decided to make a banlist decision based on competitive play, and now people are buying into the idea that if it's legal it's fun.

[pokken]

Even if you ban Consult, there will be another bugbear waiting exactly the same way Consult was the bugbear waiting behind Flash. After a Consult ban, my best guess is that it'll be Tainted Pact. Then it'll be Inverter of Truth, or Doomsday piles. I said this would happen a year ago.

I don't think consult is at the level of bannable yet in casual play it was just an example of something that is becoming more acceptable based on its CEDH appeal. I wouldn't advocate for bans on any of those cards as of yet, though I do think Thassa's Oracle is approaching closer to the territory than Consult/Pact.

Hullbreacher/Wheels happened much faster and are more casually omnipresent, and more in tune with a potential ban. Wheels have always been super popular with casual players and the payoffs were much worse than Hullbreacher in casual play. Hullbreacher is crossover tech that is aided in being normalized by being wildly popular in CEDH *and* by Hullbreacher being a crossover card - it's good in every type of EDH just about.

[3drinks]

You'd see a major shift to u and little use for b outside of a splash.

Although black would still be pretty good for tainted pact/demonic consultation

Hence, the splash. Your win con is pretty good when you only need B.

[pokken]

Hence, the splash. Your win con is pretty good when you only need

We're forgetting Peer into the Abyss, Necropotence and Ad Nauseam which would proooobably still be good enough to enable some powerful black decks, they just would need to lean harder on blue.

[3drinks]

I think the community really needs to question the assumption that everyone should be in small curated playgroups a bit more. It's not the norm anymore and it shouldn't be the assumed playstyle.

I know I don't have a curated group. It's whomever happened to show up to the LGS that day, and inevitably this means there's always that one try hard player that pubstomps a table with Kess, or Urza, or or or.......and then has the "oops I'm sorry lolz" as if they actually meant it.

No, the real problem isn't knowing these decks exist, it's the general naivety to what they represent and foolish assumptions that "maybe they can play fair". We saw it on the last Game Knights where Jimmy and the one girl didn't really meaningfully interact with the Tasigur player when it was clear at every point in the game, that deck was the threat. "Well I don't want to make this person feel bad" is the prevailing sentiment across tables and the End Game™....while this is quite clearly at odds with the players doing such actions as described prior. It's not a banlist problem, it's a player problem. On both sides of the equation.

[UnNamed1]

I have long maintained that tutors go against the spirit of singleton, and if I had it my way I would ban the strongest tutors in the format.

I think the more people are tutoring, the more casual metas creep into stronger metas. It is easier to win out of nowhere. It is easier to put combos in the 99.

In my opinion, banning the top tutors would help keep casual metas, casual.


But what would happen to cEDH? Would it shift from tutor to card draw? Would it play worse tutors? Would the format revolt and splinter into having its own banlist?
Let's say, for argument's sake, the RC banned Demonic Tutor, Enlightened Tutor, Mystical Tutor, Vampiric Tutor and Gamble (I am not sure what the 5th best tutor is lol)

What would happen to cEDH? I have mostly steered away from playing cEDH. I just don't enjoy it. As such, I have no idea what would happen.

I'm going to always disagree on tutor bans. Tutor's aren't your problem, the way people use them are. In my more casual decks, tutors typically find me some way to draw cards or ramp. In my cEDH decks, tutors find me wins as fast as possible.

I'm going to say this as an outside perspective and leave it here.... You need to have a discussion with your playgroup on power.

In regards to cEDH, I believe the format would shift to a slightly slower more focused on drawing cards/turbo naus decks. It would largely stay the same, with a greater draw/card filter emphasis. I have plenty of wins in cEDH without using tutors, because the way the decks are built and card quality in the decks make no sacrifices. Sure, tutors make it "easier" but thats where the saying of "dont counter the tutor, counter what they tutor for" comes from. Personally, as a Najeela player, I can move more towards stax, and just killing people with Najeela activations. I don't need to tutor when my win is in the CZ.

Finally, I want to say my thoughts on your (and probably many players) avoidance of cEDH. I was there, I wanted the long games of commander. Once I started playing cEDH i realized, those games take just as long but there is a LOT more going on. cEDH is played on the stack, casual is played on the board. In all reality, very few games are actually won turn 3 or before in cEDH, but there will be ATTEMPTS. It's extremely fast paced and you have to have much more game knowledge, but you still game the same overall time spent playing the game.

[benjameenbear]

@TheAmericanSpirit
I'm flattered you think I'm the cEDH expert, lol.

I think the cEDH meta would simply shift to different, "worse" tutors. Grim Tutor & Diabolic Intent would become more omnipresent as would Intuition and Survival of the Fittest and Spellseeker. I think it would be an interesting experiment to see, as I suspect that the average curves of cEDH decks would go up by .5-.75 CMC (which is a HUGE deal) and the tempo of games would be a little slower but marginally so.

Otherwise it would still be business as usual, just with a different set of tutors. Unless all tutors were banned, the same cEDH strategies would remain and the same interactions would occur, just maybe a turn slower. I don't think they'd revolt and splinter off into their own format, though the shift towards virtual tabletop gaming makes that a viable theoretical option now. And I don't think that cantrip appearances would be too much higher than normal because there are plenty of other tutor options that are worse than the top 5 tutors mentioned in the OP.

Oh, and Blue would be absolutely dominant (probably). Long live Islands!

As a sidebar, I think it would be WAY more relevant to ban the forbidden tutors Tainted Pact and Demonic Consultation. I got my copy of Pact when it was $15ish; it's now a $90 card on some sites and enables the most ubiquitous combo in cEDH currently. This price spike is a reflection of its power and omnipresence in cEDH and should warrant a closer look by the RC & CAG, personally. You can still mill out your library out and win with ThOracle's trigger, but the forbidden tutors makes it too easy. Frankly, I see that interaction bordering towards Flash levels of ubiquity without affecting the casual meta too much.

@UnNamed1 I totally agree with your sentiment! I personally have always enjoyed stack interaction and exploiting this tendency in cEDH to dominate a game.

[Cyberium]

I have long maintained that tutors go against the spirit of singleton, and if I had it my way I would ban the strongest tutors in the format.

I think the more people are tutoring, the more casual metas creep into stronger metas. It is easier to win out of nowhere. It is easier to put combos in the 99.

In my opinion, banning the top tutors would help keep casual metas, casual.


But what would happen to cEDH? Would it shift from tutor to card draw? Would it play worse tutors? Would the format revolt and splinter into having its own banlist?
Let's say, for argument's sake, the RC banned Demonic Tutor, Enlightened Tutor, Mystical Tutor, Vampiric Tutor and Gamble (I am not sure what the 5th best tutor is lol)

What would happen to cEDH? I have mostly steered away from playing cEDH. I just don't enjoy it. As such, I have no idea what would happen.

They will be pissed. cEDH players believe that 100-card singleton ought to share almost the same consistency of a 60-card deck with 4-ofs.

While I understand why cEDH players enjoy such pace, it's becoming increasingly common for casual players to utilize a lot of tutors as well. I don't mind seeing the rule committee banning Demonic Tutor and all the instant tutors.

[capitacommunist]

I would not be against banning tutors per se as they lead to slower gameplay and higher consistency, and therefore less variety in games and a greater tendency to focus on (infinite) combos.
That said, the problem with banning tutors is that the impact on the format is very lopsided as the two best colors in the format rely on tutors the least. If any tutors are banned it will probably be Demonic Tutor and Vampiric Tutor first, followed by Mystical Tutor, Gamble, Enlightened Tutor and Survival of the Fittest. Black will suffer quite a lot, as most of its other tutors are unplayable. Blue has the highest card quality of any color, so it would not majorly impact the color. Although Survival is quite unique, green has a wealth of efficient creature tutors to use. Red and white would however lose some of their best (irreplaceable cards) in the format.

[BounceBurnBuff]

There is already a format taylor-made by prominent cEDH content creators that has tutors banned, along with fast mana amongst other things, called Conquest. Life total is lower, commander damage is lower, Planeswalkers can be your commander too.

Turns out, it just becomes the same race to early combo, only with extra steps. I did find watching Nahiri, Storm of Stone storming off with a Skullclamp pretty amusing for the first time however. Aggro can exist as the efforts to lower damage thresholds imply, but by and large its still combo nonsense. Pretty funny to see Pako & Haldan get effectively banned in it however.