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.
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.