[MCD] Cheap Tutors

User avatar
Morganelefay
Posts: 87
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Netherlands

Post by Morganelefay » 4 years ago

Bit of a blanket discussion this, but I feel that the inclusion of 1-mana-conditional tutors and 2-mana instant speed somewhat conditional or sorcery speed unconditional tutors is a bit of an issue in EDH. I'm not talking hyperspecific ones (like Mercenary/Rebel tutors) or cards that can only pull up basic lands (or in fact mostly just lands) The cards I'm specifically talking about are:
Diabolic Intent being the least "problematic" card of the bunch.

The issue I often see raised is how combo - specifically, the race to combo out - can lead to an arms race. And in my opinion, the addition of cheap tutors tends to exacerbate the issue. They only lead to more linear gameplay which as far as I'm concerned is the opposite of what EDH is made for.

I'm not certain if banning the cards will be what the format needs, but I have a feeling that it'll radically make for the need of a change in deckbuilding philosophies. I'm okay with highly specific tutors, and CMC3+ tutors as they don't allow as much for "Early setup into quick combo kill" as these specific ones do. But I do feel that the impact of tutors on the format is largely negative.

However I also recognize that if you ban these, Simic becomes an even stronger color combo than it already is, as this ban would mostly hit black. Simic has the best drawpower options and thus likely would take over fully, but that's a different can of worms.
EDH Decks:

Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis - Arise, Lord Hogaak.
Grumgully, the Generous - The wonderful world of Ferngully.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw Cards Tribal.
Pir, Imaginative Rascal & Toothy, Imaginary Friend - Imaginary Superfriends.
Selvala, Explorer Returned - Taxes, Denial and Fatties.
Selvala, Heart of the Wilds - Dinos and Eldrazis, oh my.
Ayara, First of Locthwain - March of the Black Queen.
Chandra, Fire of Kaladesh - Chandra Tribal.
Golos, Tireless Pilgrim - Curious Contraptions

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6235
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

These cards fall under the "Have too many legitimate uses to be banned" heading for me. Also too many unintended consequences, too many changes, etc.

No way I would ever support this. Just way too much risk. I could see maybe banning Vampiric. But even that easily becomes a slippery slope.

jaishivajai
Posts: 34
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by jaishivajai » 4 years ago

I actually just made a semi-related post before seeing this post. Perhaps people can promise not to combo off occasionally?

I don't see banning tutors as a realistic approach. I use them without abusing them.

The solution to me seems to be discussing deck power levels with your play group. After someone combos off, maybe next game is no infinite combos allowed. Our play group has always self-policed pretty well. That is probably because we all enjoy playing different power levels of EDH decks. Encourage people to have some more casual decks they are willing to throw around. It's worked for us.

schweinefett
Posts: 114
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by schweinefett » 4 years ago

I think the solution needs to be individual playgroups self-governance. I've had tutors be a win con, and it was really boring, so I've since decided to use them as silver bullets instead. Makes games more fun! Also, I replaced my vampiric tutor with demonic consultation, because the life loss was very real, and tutoring to hand was relevant too..... and so is the whole table hootin and hollerin every time I exile the card I'm tutoring for on the top 6 of the deck! It's the only tutor I use nowadays, cuz it's all fun.

But it's not really the tutors that are problematic; it's the players use of them that makes it problematic. I wouldn't be on board with banning any of them.

TheTuna
Posts: 35
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by TheTuna » 4 years ago

I do agree that tutors feel quite problematic in that they promote extremely repetitive play, which cuts against the core of a 100-card singleton format: high variance. The presence versus absence of tutors in any given deck contributes heavily to power imbalances, as well. If I have 2-5 ways to tutor for a wincon and you've got none, that's a steep hill to climb. I'd quite like to see the top 5 or so fast tutors get banned, personally, but I understand that's very unlikely to happen.

With that said, the reason tutors are such a problem is that Wizards has printed almost no real punishment cards for them, and very little tutor hate in general. Ob Nixilis is the only card I can think of which actually punishes a player for tutoring instead of just stopping them from doing it, and even then the punishment isn't anywhere near severe enough to stop somebody from digging for a wincon. I think it'd be very healthy for the format if Wizards printed more instant-speed interaction across a variety of colors which allowed players to truly punish tutoring (perhaps by stealing the tutored card, for example, or exiling it and damaging the player equal to its CMC). If players aren't given the tools to stop an option as powerful as tutoring, it will rightly have a massive influence on the format.

So c'mon, Wizards, give us some real hosers! Somebody can tutor up a Cyclonic Rift and blow out my board if it gets out of control. We should be able to blow out tutors the same way.
Current Commander Decks
Show
Hide
Giada, Rigo, Marchesa Knights, Liesa, Shroud of Dusk, Mangara, the Diplomat, Council of Four, Djeru mono-W Superfriends, Ashnod, Flesh Mechanist, Tasha

ChazA4
Posts: 21
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by ChazA4 » 4 years ago

TheTuna wrote:
4 years ago
...

With that said, the reason tutors are such a problem is that Wizards has printed almost no real punishment cards for them, and very little tutor hate in general. Ob Nixilis is the only card I can think of which actually punishes a player for tutoring instead of just stopping them from doing it, and even then the punishment isn't anywhere near severe enough to stop somebody from digging for a wincon. I think it'd be very healthy for the format if Wizards printed more instant-speed interaction across a variety of colors which allowed players to truly punish tutoring (perhaps by stealing the tutored card, for example, or exiling it and damaging the player equal to its CMC). If players aren't given the tools to stop an option as powerful as tutoring, it will rightly have a massive influence on the format.

So c'mon, Wizards, give us some real hosers! Somebody can tutor up a Cyclonic Rift and blow out my board if it gets out of control. We should be able to blow out tutors the same way.
Emphasis mine

Just off the top of my head, there's Leonin Arbiter and Stranglehold. Stranglehold does the full stop you want obviously, and while Arbiter may seem like another 'eh', it CAN stop someone from casting their wincon that turn(just like Propaganda and its ilk can stop an alpha strike attack). I would like to see if there are any others, but I have yet to find the right combination of words that will let me search Gatherer efficiently.

onering
Posts: 1223
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 4 years ago

Check for things that include the words search and library. Shadow of Doubt is a cantrip that stops it once, Aven Mindcensor restricts you to the top 4 cards, there's a few others.

umtiger
Posts: 394
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by umtiger » 4 years ago

Not to completely derail the issue, but don't land-searching ramp tutors (e.g. Cultivate) do the same thing that you're accusing the 1-2 cmc tutors of also doing?

1.) Arms race, turns EDH into resource accumulation game rather than a resource management game
2.) Makes games linear (i.e. early game is nothing but ramp every game)
3.) Limiting variance, since every player is virtually assured of reaching X-mana, every game just a battle of haymakers

Banning cards is a road we should avoid.

MRHblue
Posts: 102
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

umtiger wrote:
4 years ago
Not to completely derail the issue, but don't land-searching ramp tutors (e.g. Cultivate) do the same thing that you're accusing the 1-2 cmc tutors of also doing?

1.) Arms race, turns EDH into resource accumulation game rather than a resource management game
2.) Makes games linear (i.e. early game is nothing but ramp every game)
3.) Limiting variance, since every player is virtually assured of reaching X-mana, every game just a battle of haymakers
Not at all, and you posted why there at the end"battle of haymakers" is definitely not linear.
Banning cards is a road we should avoid.
When possible. Sometimes things get to a point where bans make the game better.

umtiger
Posts: 394
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by umtiger » 4 years ago

MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
Not at all, and you posted why there at the end"battle of haymakers" is definitely not linear.
I'm not sure that is the case.

If you ask me, land ramp makes the games play out very similarly each time and just as much as tutors do. When every game is just ramp into ramp into haymaker. The game is linear. Just because the haymaker is a card with a different name some games doesn't make the game feel really different.

For instance, if you're able to ramp into Maelstrom Wanderer every single game. Does it actually feel like a varied game just because of cascade? I think it'd be nice for me and my mono-White Sram deck to be able to Enlightened Tutor into a Curse of Exhaustion for these types of games.

MRHblue
Posts: 102
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

umtiger wrote:
4 years ago
For instance, if you're able to ramp into Maelstrom Wanderer every single game. Does it actually feel like a varied game just because of cascade?
Yes. Cascade is literally random. It could be a Great Whale, could be a Signet. Different threats could lead to different answer etc. Thats part of the thing with battlecruisers, have answers or get smashed.
I think it'd be nice for me and my mono-White Sram deck to be able to Enlightened Tutor into a Curse of Exhaustion for these types of games.
Understandable, but Heliod's Pilgrim works too, and isnt nearly as busted.

User avatar
Dunharrow
Posts: 1821
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Montreal

Post by Dunharrow » 4 years ago

There are a million tutors.
I am in favour of banning the best ones - a list similar to the one you made.

Tutors make games more repetitious. This is undesirable in a singleton format.
I believe cheap tutors are basically auto-includes unless someone makes a conscious decision not to play them.
But if you are stuck playing more expensive and more restrictive tutors, they are no longer auto-includes. Then you only play them when they are part of your gameplan.

There is no precedence, but I think they can make a new criteria of 'makes games repetitious', which imo should be a consideration for singleton. They already see extensive play.

Even if you are not tutoring for combo.... like, you are playing against Maelstrom Wanderer, you should be tutoring one of the many effects that hose him. It makes games more reptitious.
If you are playing against a graveyard deck, you should tutor graveyard hate.
It makes games repetitious and makes your singleton deck consistent at thwarting your opponents.

When you have a lot of tutors, it also lets you dedicate fewer spots to things like win conditions, wraths, etc - because you can easily tutor for the effect when you need it.

Banning the best tutors won't stop tutoring. It will just reduce the number of tutors and make decks less consistent. I really feel we need to reduce the amount available. I believe there is a critical mass of tutors that allow players to basically play the same game over and over again - and that we are firmly across that threshold.

And of course I want banned as a commander back so that commanders who tutor can be taken out of the command zone.
The New World fell not to a sword but to a meme

MRHblue
Posts: 102
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

Dunharrow wrote:
4 years ago
And of course I want banned as a commander back so that commanders who tutor can be taken out of the command zone.
You want to ban Godo, Bandit Warlord as a Commander?

umtiger
Posts: 394
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by umtiger » 4 years ago

Dunharrow wrote:
4 years ago
Banning the best tutors won't stop tutoring. It will just reduce the number of tutors and make decks less consistent. I really feel we need to reduce the amount available. I believe there is a critical mass of tutors that allow players to basically play the same game over and over again - and that we are firmly across that threshold.
Banning good tutors does stop tutoring because the bad tutors are not worth playing. For example, Diabolic Tutor is just not worth including even in a low-power level deck.

And when you're only left with stuff like Open the Armory, then decks just become more pushed towards linear, glass-cannon type decks just to use the tutors. My Sram deck uses Open the Armory, but it pretty much goes all out in one direction and consistently plays the same every game (i.e. T2 Sram, T3 cast 3 auras).

Games with good, powerful tutors can play differently because not every tutor cast is for a game-ending combo.

I mean...
MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
Cascade is literally random. It could be a Great Whale, could be a Signet. Different threats could lead to different answer etc. Thats part of the thing with battlecruisers, have answers or get smashed.
I think it'd be nice for me and my mono-White Sram deck to be able to Enlightened Tutor into a Curse of Exhaustion for these types of games.
Understandable, but Heliod's Pilgrim works too, and isnt nearly as busted.
If someone is going to say that Maelstrom Wanderer(s) every single game is different, then I'm also going to have to argue that games with tutors can still play differently. If cascades are different each game, players can also tutor for different cards each game.

Yes, Maelstrom Wanderer's cascade is literally random. But what exactly does a Maelstrom Wanderer deck do differently each game? How else does the game plan deviate beyond ramp into ramp into cast commander?

G/x decks being able to routinely land ramp every game is what makes games play the same. That's the thing about G/x battlecruiser decks. Their plans are the same each and every game.

MRHblue
Posts: 102
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

umtiger wrote:
4 years ago
Banning good tutors does stop tutoring because the bad tutors are not worth playing. For example, Diabolic Tutor is just not worth including even in a low-power level deck.
Of course it is, if its the best no condition tutor. That just slows games down a little, makes the board development more meaningful.
If someone is going to say that Maelstrom Wanderer(s) every single game is different, then I'm also going to have to argue that games with tutors can still play differently. If cascades are different each game, players can also tutor for different cards each game.

Yes, Maelstrom Wanderer's cascade is literally random. But what exactly does a Maelstrom Wanderer deck do differently each game? How else does the game plan deviate beyond ramp into ramp into cast commander?

G/x decks being able to routinely land ramp every game is what makes games play the same. That's the thing about G/x battlecruiser decks. Their plans are the same each and every game.
Yes games with lots of tutors can be different, but generally are not. To say tutoring for the same cards every time is the same as ramping to different threats every game based on what you drew or cascaded into, we have to agree to disagree.

User avatar
Dunharrow
Posts: 1821
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Montreal

Post by Dunharrow » 4 years ago

MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
Dunharrow wrote:
4 years ago
And of course I want banned as a commander back so that commanders who tutor can be taken out of the command zone.
You want to ban Godo, Bandit Warlord as a Commander?
I was thinking Sidisi, Undead Vizier. Godo is kinda silly with Helm of the Host though.
umtiger wrote:
4 years ago
Dunharrow wrote:
4 years ago
Banning the best tutors won't stop tutoring. It will just reduce the number of tutors and make decks less consistent. I really feel we need to reduce the amount available. I believe there is a critical mass of tutors that allow players to basically play the same game over and over again - and that we are firmly across that threshold.
Banning good tutors does stop tutoring because the bad tutors are not worth playing. For example, Diabolic Tutor is just not worth including even in a low-power level deck.

And when you're only left with stuff like Open the Armory, then decks just become more pushed towards linear, glass-cannon type decks just to use the tutors. My Sram deck uses Open the Armory, but it pretty much goes all out in one direction and consistently plays the same every game (i.e. T2 Sram, T3 cast 3 auras).

Games with good, powerful tutors can play differently because not every tutor cast is for a game-ending combo.

I mean...
MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
Cascade is literally random. It could be a Great Whale, could be a Signet. Different threats could lead to different answer etc. Thats part of the thing with battlecruisers, have answers or get smashed.
I think it'd be nice for me and my mono-White Sram deck to be able to Enlightened Tutor into a Curse of Exhaustion for these types of games.
Understandable, but Heliod's Pilgrim works too, and isnt nearly as busted.
If someone is going to say that Maelstrom Wanderer(s) every single game is different, then I'm also going to have to argue that games with tutors can still play differently. If cascades are different each game, players can also tutor for different cards each game.

Yes, Maelstrom Wanderer's cascade is literally random. But what exactly does a Maelstrom Wanderer deck do differently each game? How else does the game plan deviate beyond ramp into ramp into cast commander?

G/x decks being able to routinely land ramp every game is what makes games play the same. That's the thing about G/x battlecruiser decks. Their plans are the same each and every game.
People play Dark Petition, Diabolic Revelation, and other tutors.
I have decks that are A+B+C decks. I need to use tutors to get the required piece of my contraption. I would use bad tutors if that was all that was available.

My issue is more that my Marchesa, The Black Rose deck benefits too much from tutors and I need to make sure not to play them. There are too many game-ending combos in the deck, too many hate cards that ruin strategies.... Like... I want games to play out differently.

Your Sram Argument makes no sense. Restricting tutors means people will only play them in decks where they make sense. That is the positive, but you paint it like a negative.

Also, I play MW, and you make no sense. My deck is about 1/3 ramp, and it shows when I cascade into more ramp. Ramping into MW is not the same as tutoring. Sure, you can tutor for a random card, but you're not. You are tutoring for a card that will help you win. Sure, toolbox decks exist. But in my Karador deck I am either tutoring a card that wrecks my opponents or a combo piece. I am not tutoring randomly. And that deck is consistent. So much so that I had to stop playing it. Ramping into your general is not a repetitive strategy... because you are playing commander and you always have access to your commander.
Tutoring for Isochron Scepter is repetitive. There are decks that only need one win condition because they can tutor it when they are in a position to win. The rest of the deck can be stax or countermagic.

If you want to win the same way every game, play a format that allows 4 copies of cards. If you want every game to be different, play singleton.
Tutors in singleton makes it feel like it isn't singleton - because each tutor is like an extra copy of a bunch of cards in your deck.
The New World fell not to a sword but to a meme

Whiffypenguin
Posts: 11
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: philladelphia
Contact:

Post by Whiffypenguin » 4 years ago

I would riot if my tutors were all banned. Look. The social contract exists for a reason. I don't need every deck I have to run tutors. In fact most don't. Butttttttttt for varied game play among archetypes and power levels I want the option to run all the good tutors.

Plus. Where do you draw the line? Like demonic tutor sure. What about all 3 mirage tutors? There more limited. What about imperial seal. It's slow.

It's too dirty to ban some. Stick to the contract.

On ramping into ramping into battle cruisers.
Tutoring is the same thing. The maelstrom wander player is spending a ton of TUTORS TUTORING up lands from there deck so they can play an accelerated threat. Often the commander which the deck is likely to be built around.

Playing demonic tutor to find your answer card is different how? Did the tutor player spend the first few turns ramping? Are they suppose to be punished for maxing out on consistency but the ramp player who always has 5 mana on turn 3 is allowed the same consistency?

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 1127
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by motleyslayer » 4 years ago

I have a few copies of demonic tutor and vampiric tutor that I picked up before they were horribly expensive (maybe 5-6 years ago or so). Now due to their costs I only really play them in decks that I want to be really good and don't care if other decks have really good tutors. That's also because I've built most EDH decks since then to be lower power level

umtiger
Posts: 394
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by umtiger » 4 years ago

Dunharrow wrote:
4 years ago
Your Sram Argument makes no sense. Restricting tutors means people will only play them in decks where they make sense. That is the positive, but you paint it like a negative.

Also, I play MW, and you make no sense. My deck is about 1/3 ramp, and it shows when I cascade into more ramp. Ramping into MW is not the same as tutoring. Sure, you can tutor for a random card, but you're not. You are tutoring for a card that will help you win. Sure, toolbox decks exist. But in my Karador deck I am either tutoring a card that wrecks my opponents or a combo piece. I am not tutoring randomly. And that deck is consistent. So much so that I had to stop playing it. Ramping into your general is not a repetitive strategy... because you are playing commander and you always have access to your commander.
Tutoring for Isochron Scepter is repetitive. There are decks that only need one win condition because they can tutor it when they are in a position to win. The rest of the deck can be stax or countermagic.
So you suggest banning tutors will force people into playing more varied games. But you want to leave weak tutors like Open the Armory. My point is that you might as well also ban Open the Armory at that point. If you leave tutors like Open the Armory → people tend to only play them in the appropriate decks (positive in your mind). But, the "appropriate" decks that exist to use those types of tutors are actually very linear (negative in your mind).

However, I'd posit that while my Sram deck plays very similarly each time, it isn't because of tutors. It's just how I built it to maximize Sram's design. If I take the 1 Enlightened Tutor and 1 Open the Armory out, Sram still plays the same but just lower in power level.

I'd argue that's the same for your Marchesa deck as well. You want to blame tutors for your games being not varied, when in reality it's because you choose to build your deck a certain way with game ending infinite loops.

There's some cognitive dissonance going on here where you feel...
A). Tutoring for Isochron Scepter + Dramatic Reversal every game is repetitive
but somehow think that...
B.) Going all out into ramping Maelstrom Wanderer every game T4-5 is not equally repetitive.

My point isn't that land ramp = tutors. That's a stupid position to take and one that I didn't make.

My point is that land ramp also makes for repetitive games. Are you going to say that mono-G Tron in modern is not repetitive? I mean, sometimes they settle for T4 Urza-tron and not on T3. Sure, they might T4 Ugin instead of T3 Karn. But it's the same each game → play high-cmc card, sell out 100%, and hope to get Urza-tron online.

Ramping into an expensive general isn't necessarily a repetitive strategy (maybe your general is just a 6 cmc dragon and you'd like to see it at least a few times). But let's not kid ourselves about MW. Sure, you will cascade, cascade into different spells each game. Every game is just ramp into MW and more ramp into MW. 1/3 of your deck says you're playing repetitive deck.

How about Narset, Enlightened Master? I mean you cast random spells each time. I guess that makes it not repetitive? I suppose it's the same with Etali, Primal Storm?

I just think tutors' effects of factoring into repetitive games are overblown. When an entire host of other factors are left completely unchecked, especially land-based ramp.

User avatar
Dunharrow
Posts: 1821
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Montreal

Post by Dunharrow » 4 years ago

umtiger wrote:
4 years ago
So you suggest banning tutors will force people into playing more varied games. But you want to leave weak tutors like Open the Armory. My point is that you might as well also ban Open the Armory at that point. If you leave tutors like Open the Armory → people tend to only play them in the appropriate decks (positive in your mind). But, the "appropriate" decks that exist to use those types of tutors are actually very linear (negative in your mind).

However, I'd posit that while my Sram deck plays very similarly each time, it isn't because of tutors. It's just how I built it to maximize Sram's design. If I take the 1 Enlightened Tutor and 1 Open the Armory out, Sram still plays the same but just lower in power level.
If you are playing Open the Armory in mono-white, you are probably playing Enlightened tutor. Banning ET reduces the overall number of tutors you have access to. Therefore, more variance. I am not saying we should ban all tutors, just the most ubiquitous ones. It seems like you are suggesting that by only leaving restrictive tutors people will only play linear decks, but that is definitely not the case. If you are playing a linear deck you may have tutors that specifically help your deck but you are already weakened by playing a linear deck.
I'd argue that's the same for your Marchesa deck as well. You want to blame tutors for your games being not varied, when in reality it's because you choose to build your deck a certain way with game ending infinite loops.
Just... No. If I draw into Mikaeus, the Unhallowed, I know that if I draw into one of the two cards with persist in my deck I can go infinite. But the odds of me drawing those cards naturally is very low. If I play tutors, the odds are dramatically increased. The deck is mostly value, but there are a few interactions that go infinite. They do not come up often at all though. I actually cannot remember a game where I went infinite. I want to Play Mikaeus and cards with Persist because they synergize with my general, not because I want to go infinite.
There's some cognitive dissonance going on here where you feel...
A). Tutoring for Isochron Scepter + Dramatic Reversal every game is repetitive
but somehow think that...
B.) Going all out into ramping Maelstrom Wanderer every game T4-5 is not equally repetitive.

My point isn't that land ramp = tutors. That's a stupid position to take and one that I didn't make.

My point is that land ramp also makes for repetitive games. Are you going to say that mono-G Tron in modern is not repetitive? I mean, sometimes they settle for T4 Urza-tron and not on T3. Sure, they might T4 Ugin instead of T3 Karn. But it's the same each game → play high-cmc card, sell out 100%, and hope to get Urza-tron online.

Ramping into an expensive general isn't necessarily a repetitive strategy (maybe your general is just a 6 cmc dragon and you'd like to see it at least a few times). But let's not kid ourselves about MW. Sure, you will cascade, cascade into different spells each game. Every game is just ramp into MW and more ramp into MW. 1/3 of your deck says you're playing repetitive deck.
Ramp lets you play spells earlier. It is not leading to the same game over and over again. Casting my general early cannot be conceived as 'repetitive style of play' because most people try to cast their generals every game. There is also a very real downside to ramping, in that when you are in the late game ramp is a dead draw. Every time I play MW it is a different game. Sure, my # 1 strategy is to cast MW as early as possible, but that's because the deck is built around him. My Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim deck wants to cast the general on turn 2 or 3 every game. The whole deck is built around sacrificing my creatures. Are you going to say this is a 'repetitive deck'? It is a deck built around the general and if you dislike that then you are in the wrong format.
I think you are willfully obfuscating the difference between 'high density of tutors make games play out the same all the time' and 'casting your general as fast as possible makes the games repetitive'. My argument is based around the fact that tutors 'cheat' the nature of singleton and a high density of tutors leads to the same strategies being deployed game after game. Ramping into your general by playing redundant pieces of ramp is not really the same. It is not close to the same. cEDH is full of tutors and plays more ramp than my MW deck because the decks just want to have as much mana as possible on turn 3 and then win the game by tutoring for the winning combo. Ramp enables, but tutors make the game repetitive.
Honestly though, if you wanted to cut fast mana I would be okay with that. I just do not think it violates the nature of the singleton format, which is the argument I am making against tutors.
How about Narset, Enlightened Master? I mean you cast random spells each time. I guess that makes it not repetitive? I suppose it's the same with Etali, Primal Storm?
Yes. This is correct. These effects are random. The fact that there are so many redundant effects in magic that Narset can essentially take infinite turns does not in some way make tutoring more okay. Narset is boring and doesn't see a lot of play, but if she did, she could be banned for similar reasons as Leovold - just too easy to break and no incentive to do anything else. If Maelstrom wanderer had a way to chain together 15 extra turns like Narset, it would be a different story. Narset can trigger every turn with no set-up. MW needs to be build in a way to enable you to recast it over and over again.
I just think tutors' effects of factoring into repetitive games are overblown. When an entire host of other factors are left completely unchecked, especially land-based ramp.
Ramping into your general is not a repetitive style of play. If I cast MW on turn 8 every game, it would be worse, but the deck would be more consistent. Ramp has a drawback, and that is poor topdecks.
The good tutors have no drawbacks. They have such low mana costs that they are always good. Whether it is tutoring for mana early in the game or tutoring for win conditions or interaction or card draw, they are always good. There is no question about whether or not they should be played in every deck. I think that they are too ubiquitous and I do not like tutors being ubiquitous in a singleton format.

I feel like you like tutors because it is a card that lets you wrath the board if you need a wrath, disenchant if you need to break an artifact/enchantment, win the game if you are in a winning position, etc... to you, this is a high number of options and games are not repetitive because of it.
To me, having such a high number of tutors means that if I am ahead, you will tutor something to put me behind. And if you are ahead, the game is over.
I prefer to have games where you have more variance.

I like having decks that have high synergy and only go infinite if I am super lucky/way ahead and have an engine that gets me all the pieces.
I don't like tutors in these decks because the right answer is usually to get the missing combo piece and end the game. Sun Titan is amazing in Karador decks. It lets you do so much. But if I have a tutor, I guess I should get Saffi Eriksdotter. If I don't, I am destroying the integrity of the game, because I could have won but decided not to.

Your argument is that I should not have Saffi in the same deck as Sun Titan. But these cards synergize so well with Karador decks. Tutors are the thing that breaks them.
The New World fell not to a sword but to a meme

Whiffypenguin
Posts: 11
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: philladelphia
Contact:

Post by Whiffypenguin » 4 years ago

umtiger wrote:
4 years ago
Dunharrow wrote:
4 years ago
Your Sram Argument makes no sense. Restricting tutors means people will only play them in decks where they make sense. That is the positive, but you paint it like a negative.

Also, I play MW, and you make no sense. My deck is about 1/3 ramp, and it shows when I cascade into more ramp. Ramping into MW is not the same as tutoring. Sure, you can tutor for a random card, but you're not. You are tutoring for a card that will help you win. Sure, toolbox decks exist. But in my Karador deck I am either tutoring a card that wrecks my opponents or a combo piece. I am not tutoring randomly. And that deck is consistent. So much so that I had to stop playing it. Ramping into your general is not a repetitive strategy... because you are playing commander and you always have access to your commander.
Tutoring for Isochron Scepter is repetitive. There are decks that only need one win condition because they can tutor it when they are in a position to win. The rest of the deck can be stax or countermagic.
So you suggest banning tutors will force people into playing more varied games. But you want to leave weak tutors like Open the Armory. My point is that you might as well also ban Open the Armory at that point. If you leave tutors like Open the Armory → people tend to only play them in the appropriate decks (positive in your mind). But, the "appropriate" decks that exist to use those types of tutors are actually very linear (negative in your mind).

However, I'd posit that while my Sram deck plays very similarly each time, it isn't because of tutors. It's just how I built it to maximize Sram's design. If I take the 1 Enlightened Tutor and 1 Open the Armory out, Sram still plays the same but just lower in power level.

I'd argue that's the same for your Marchesa deck as well. You want to blame tutors for your games being not varied, when in reality it's because you choose to build your deck a certain way with game ending infinite loops.

There's some cognitive dissonance going on here where you feel...
A). Tutoring for Isochron Scepter + Dramatic Reversal every game is repetitive
but somehow think that...
B.) Going all out into ramping Maelstrom Wanderer every game T4-5 is not equally repetitive.

My point isn't that land ramp = tutors. That's a stupid position to take and one that I didn't make.

My point is that land ramp also makes for repetitive games. Are you going to say that mono-G Tron in modern is not repetitive? I mean, sometimes they settle for T4 Urza-tron and not on T3. Sure, they might T4 Ugin instead of T3 Karn. But it's the same each game → play high-cmc card, sell out 100%, and hope to get Urza-tron online.

Ramping into an expensive general isn't necessarily a repetitive strategy (maybe your general is just a 6 cmc dragon and you'd like to see it at least a few times). But let's not kid ourselves about MW. Sure, you will cascade, cascade into different spells each game. Every game is just ramp into MW and more ramp into MW. 1/3 of your deck says you're playing repetitive deck.

How about Narset, Enlightened Master? I mean you cast random spells each time. I guess that makes it not repetitive? I suppose it's the same with Etali, Primal Storm?

I just think tutors' effects of factoring into repetitive games are overblown. When an entire host of other factors are left completely unchecked, especially land-based ramp.
Maybe the problem though isn't running tutors, but running infinite combo engines. Why do you even need mikeaus the unhallowed? You could cut your infinite combo engines, and use your tutors to find answers to game states.

I can't really take your argument seriously because if you were for real about making games less repitive you would kill your infinite combos. After all, even in a singleton 100 card deck, isn't it all the same win when you resolve your combo?

Granted you can win with out the combo, so just take it out! Then you will have more varied game play because you won't have the crutch of infinite.

Random internet strangers 2 cents.

MRHblue
Posts: 102
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

umtiger wrote:
4 years ago
So you suggest banning tutors will force people into playing more varied games. But you want to leave weak tutors like Open the Armory. My point is that you might as well also ban Open the Armory at that point. If you leave tutors like Open the Armory → people tend to only play them in the appropriate decks (positive in your mind). But, the "appropriate" decks that exist to use those types of tutors are actually very linear (negative in your mind).
That is literally a slippery slope argument .
Whiffypenguin wrote:
4 years ago
Playing demonic tutor to find your answer card is different how? Did the tutor player spend the first few turns ramping? Are they suppose to be punished for maxing out on consistency but the ramp player who always has 5 mana on turn 3 is allowed the same consistency?
Thats not a punishment for answer, just a speed issue. But yes the point is to diversify, or reduce consistency. Even in tutored answers, that is desirable

umtiger
Posts: 394
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by umtiger » 4 years ago

Dunharrow wrote:
4 years ago
A.)... but you are already weakened by playing a linear deck.

B.) But the odds of me drawing those cards naturally is very low... I want to play Mikaeus and with Persist because they synergize with my general, not because I want to go infinite.

C.)Ramp lets you play spells earlier. It is not leading to the same game over and over again. There is also a very real downside to ramping, in that when you are in the late game ramp is a dead draw. Every time I play MW it is a different game.

D.) I think you are willfully obfuscating the difference between 'high density of tutors make games play out the same all the time' and 'casting your general as fast as possible makes the games repetitive'. My argument is based around the fact that tutors 'cheat' the nature of singleton and a high density of tutors leads to the same strategies being deployed game after game...Ramp enables, but tutors make the game repetitive.

E.)Narset is boring and doesn't see a lot of play, but if she did, she could be banned… Maelstrom wanderer had a way to chain together 15 extra turns like Narset, it would be a different story. Narset can trigger every turn with no set-up. MW needs to be build in a way to enable you to recast it over and over again.

F.)the deck would be more consistent. Ramp has a drawback, and that is poor topdecks. The good tutors have no drawbacks. They have such low mana costs that they are always good. Whether it is tutoring for mana early in the game or tutoring for win conditions or interaction or card draw, they are always good. There is no question about whether or not they should be played in every deck. I think that they are too ubiquitous and I do not like tutors being ubiquitous in a singleton format.

G.) Your argument is that I should not have Saffi in the same deck as Sun Titan. But these cards synergize so well with Karador decks. Tutors are the thing that breaks them.
A.) Linear decks are not "weak." Case in point, almost every Tier 1 modern deck is linear, consistent, and strong. Sram deck is linear, but I'm certain that abusing Serra's Sanctum and being able to Aetherflux multiple times a game is strong.

B.) Mikaeus synergizes with your deck BECAUSE it goes infinite. If you play Mikaeus, you're accepting that it is one of the best cards and that it wins the game for you with the same loops each game it's present and not dealt with. Whether you tutor for him or not, that's he's in your deck is what makes the games end predictably. Feel free to take him out if you want games to end in varied ways.

C.) The design of MW mitigates land ramp being a dead draw. The absence of MLD means you will probably accumulate many lands throughout a game and be able to repeatedly re-cast MW. That's the game plan of every single MW deck I have ever seen (other than the food chain ones). How exactly does your MW deck play out other than ramp into ramp, cast MW? You state that your deck is 1/3 ramp but insist that your deck has various lines of play. Cascading into different cards doesn't mean your gameplan ever deviates.

D.) I agree that tutoring lets you get the same card. But I disagree that it violates the "nature of singleton." "Nature of singleton" is just an arbitrary term like "spirit of EDH." Good luck nailing it down. Do clones also violate this principle of the format? Ramp definitely enables repetitive games. Ask any good deck builder and they will say that good manabase + ramp + card draw allow you to do the same thing each game more than having a tutor in your 99.

E.) Narset, boring? Well, I think MW is boring. Narset can trigger without setup?...well MW doesn't need "setup" either. Heck, it will trigger even if I remove it. Oh, and that land-ramp that you keep insisting is a dead draw? It comes in handy when you re-buy MW over and over again.

F.) Land ramp is also ubiquitous in EDH. Want your deck to be consistent, play land ramp not just tutors.

G.) My argument isn't that you should cut Saffi or Sun Titan. I don't like to ban cards or tell people what to play. But your stance that tutors are what break Saffi + Sun Titan just doesn't hold. Those two cards synergize regardless of tutors. If you include 2 card combos that infinitely loop to win you the game on the spot, that's what ends your games the same way again and again...don't blame the tutors.

Banning tutors will not add variance to the game to the degree you're hoping for. Especially since you choose to ignore other factors that also drive games to be repetitive.

User avatar
Dunharrow
Posts: 1821
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Montreal

Post by Dunharrow » 4 years ago

Whiffypenguin wrote:
4 years ago
umtiger wrote:
4 years ago
Dunharrow wrote:
4 years ago
Your Sram Argument makes no sense. Restricting tutors means people will only play them in decks where they make sense. That is the positive, but you paint it like a negative.

Also, I play MW, and you make no sense. My deck is about 1/3 ramp, and it shows when I cascade into more ramp. Ramping into MW is not the same as tutoring. Sure, you can tutor for a random card, but you're not. You are tutoring for a card that will help you win. Sure, toolbox decks exist. But in my Karador deck I am either tutoring a card that wrecks my opponents or a combo piece. I am not tutoring randomly. And that deck is consistent. So much so that I had to stop playing it. Ramping into your general is not a repetitive strategy... because you are playing commander and you always have access to your commander.
Tutoring for Isochron Scepter is repetitive. There are decks that only need one win condition because they can tutor it when they are in a position to win. The rest of the deck can be stax or countermagic.
So you suggest banning tutors will force people into playing more varied games. But you want to leave weak tutors like Open the Armory. My point is that you might as well also ban Open the Armory at that point. If you leave tutors like Open the Armory → people tend to only play them in the appropriate decks (positive in your mind). But, the "appropriate" decks that exist to use those types of tutors are actually very linear (negative in your mind).

However, I'd posit that while my Sram deck plays very similarly each time, it isn't because of tutors. It's just how I built it to maximize Sram's design. If I take the 1 Enlightened Tutor and 1 Open the Armory out, Sram still plays the same but just lower in power level.

I'd argue that's the same for your Marchesa deck as well. You want to blame tutors for your games being not varied, when in reality it's because you choose to build your deck a certain way with game ending infinite loops.

There's some cognitive dissonance going on here where you feel...
A). Tutoring for Isochron Scepter + Dramatic Reversal every game is repetitive
but somehow think that...
B.) Going all out into ramping Maelstrom Wanderer every game T4-5 is not equally repetitive.

My point isn't that land ramp = tutors. That's a stupid position to take and one that I didn't make.

My point is that land ramp also makes for repetitive games. Are you going to say that mono-G Tron in modern is not repetitive? I mean, sometimes they settle for T4 Urza-tron and not on T3. Sure, they might T4 Ugin instead of T3 Karn. But it's the same each game → play high-cmc card, sell out 100%, and hope to get Urza-tron online.

Ramping into an expensive general isn't necessarily a repetitive strategy (maybe your general is just a 6 cmc dragon and you'd like to see it at least a few times). But let's not kid ourselves about MW. Sure, you will cascade, cascade into different spells each game. Every game is just ramp into MW and more ramp into MW. 1/3 of your deck says you're playing repetitive deck.

How about Narset, Enlightened Master? I mean you cast random spells each time. I guess that makes it not repetitive? I suppose it's the same with Etali, Primal Storm?

I just think tutors' effects of factoring into repetitive games are overblown. When an entire host of other factors are left completely unchecked, especially land-based ramp.
Maybe the problem though isn't running tutors, but running infinite combo engines. Why do you even need mikeaus the unhallowed? You could cut your infinite combo engines, and use your tutors to find answers to game states.

I can't really take your argument seriously because if you were for real about making games less repitive you would kill your infinite combos. After all, even in a singleton 100 card deck, isn't it all the same win when you resolve your combo?

Granted you can win with out the combo, so just take it out! Then you will have more varied game play because you won't have the crutch of infinite.

Random internet strangers 2 cents.
I think you were replying to me, but replied to the wrong post... and my post that explained this exactly.

Mikaeus is amazing with my general, Marchesa, the Black Rose.
So are creatures with persist.
I have never gotten them both out in a game, but if I play a bunch of tutors then it is clearly the best line.
My Marchesa deck never goes infinite. It just grinds people out. I do not want to stop playing cards that combo together when I am playing them for deck synergy purposes. I never play cards solely for a combo. I hate that.
The New World fell not to a sword but to a meme

User avatar
RxPhantom
Fully Vaxxed, Baby!
Posts: 1511
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Southern Maryland

Post by RxPhantom » 4 years ago

I don't really want a whole swath of cards added to the banlist. Invoke Rule 0 if this is a recurring problem for you, but I don't see cheap tutors as a real problem. I do wonder how people can enjoy games/decks in which they just tutor for their combo pieces over and over. That sounds like a drag.
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 2/18/22 (Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty)

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Rules and Philosophy”