So I am looking for your opinions and experiences to help me decide
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/1-smile-fb.png)
Cheers
One of the key principals in building this deck was a high amount of tutors to create consistency in executing our game plan. Because of that, I specifically opted to not include ANY infinite combos or fast mana.
Multiple tutors + efficient 2/3 combos create scenarios in which there are a few different things to consider:
* In an established meta/pod the pure existence of a chance to combo in ones deck creates a higher threat profile for that player. (I touch on this a bit in the above ***"Tips, Tricks, and Politics"*** section.) I would rather avoid that extra attention in this deck as the commander itself can already put a bit of a target on you.
* When you play tutors and have an efficient combo in the deck you sometimes find yourself in a situation similar to this. "I could just get this and try to instant win, but it's pretty early in the game and If I win like that it it may feel bad to do so for me and my opponents". At that point your option is to just instead make the "less optimal" play which also feels bad as a pilot of the deck. I hate discovering this predicament in the middle of a game, and would rather just avoid that conundrum all together via my deck building.
* Playing a higher density of tutors WITHOUT combos allows you to utilize them more tool-boxy style. This, to me is more rewarding style of play. Should I get a board wipe? Value Engine? Win Con? Targeted removal? I never have to feel bad about getting whatever i'm getting because I didn't get that exact "combo piece" that I need to win.
I have nothing against combos, I have plenty of decks that win in such a way I just didn't want it to be a part of THIS particular deck, specifically because of the density of tutors I am playing.
Usually, when I am considering playing tutors + combos in the same deck I try to make sure that I wouldn't "feel bad" about tutoring for and executing the best available combo in the deck at any point in the game. "Feeling bad" for myself and my opponents is evaluated in the context at which I am trying to execute said combo. If it's a high powered deck meant to play against other high powered decks or cEDH, then I don't mind using a tutor to find the 2nd combo piece. In a lower powered pod I also may be ok utilizing a tutor. However, I would feel better about using it to find that 4th combo piece for a more convoluted combo since It requires more pieces and has a broader surface for interaction for my opponents, because of this I also don't mind tutoring to find it. In addition to tutor density, other common questions I ask myself about combos when considering adding them to the deck are:
* How many cards are involved?
* Are one of the cards in the command zone?
* Do they have to just resolve or do they have to resolve and then do something else? (Attack, activate, etc)
* How much mana do they cost? How much mana individually? How much together? (One turn)
* How much mana do I have available to me at a certain point in the game to execute this? (Fast Mana)
These questions also help me zero in on avoiding that "feel bad" situation I described above. If the context in which I want to play the deck, and the speed + ease of access for a particular tutor + combo line of play don't match up as I desire, I will try to build or tune the deck in a way to avoid it. Outside of that, I will also simply play combos without tutors (or very linear, very few tutors), or tutors without combos (this deck).
Fast mana is significantly game warping for many reasons for both for myself and my opponents. I won't go into much more detail other then that as I'm sure the topic has already been discussed to death. All I will say is that I myself reserve fast mana for decks that I only intend to play against other decks that ALSO include fast a mana. Call it cEDH, call it whatever you want but that is where I myself draw the line when deck building and selecting a deck for a game within my pod.
Overall, I think that this level of introspection on my each of decks has allowed me to have a more rewarding experience when piloting them, Additionally, I believe it creates a more enjoyable experience for my opponents as well. Win. Win.
I can relate to this. The deck works how I want it to work but it doesn't really have tutors for interactive spells, so in games where nobody has an answer on hand, it can be bit awkward as we all try to fish for something.
It really does, thanks! I will have to read that primer in full when I have more time. The tool-box style is what I would be aiming for if I do add more tutors, I've already decided not to have any "I win" combos in the deck so I do find that evaluation relatable.
DirkGently wrote: ↑1 year agoA lot of people will attempt to circumvent this problem by choosing not to tutor for their combo pieces if it's too early in the game, their opponents are playing weaker decks, etc. Imo this is the most condescending %$#%$#% ever and I will not tolerate it. If you don't think it's fun to combo quickly, that's fine, but don't build the deck so that it can do that. If I beat your deck, I want to beat your deck for reals, not because you were pulling your punches like I'm a fragile child. If you're tutoring for the same wincon every time, just own it - but anticipate that this is the most linear and most likely use of tutors for making your deck unfun to play with or against imo.
Gorillajay wrote: ↑1 year ago* When you play tutors and have an efficient combo in the deck you sometimes find yourself in a situation similar to this. "I could just get this and try to instant win, but it's pretty early in the game and If I win like that it it may feel bad to do so for me and my opponents". At that point your option is to just instead make the "less optimal" play which also feels bad as a pilot of the deck. I hate discovering this predicament in the middle of a game, and would rather just avoid that conundrum all together via my deck building.
Gorillajay wrote: ↑1 year agoUsually, when I am considering playing tutors + combos in the same deck I try to make sure that I wouldn't "feel bad" about tutoring for and executing the best available combo in the deck at any point in the game. "Feeling bad" for myself and my opponents is evaluated in the context at which I am trying to execute said combo. If it's a high powered deck meant to play against other high powered decks or cEDH, then I don't mind using a tutor to find the 2nd combo piece. In a lower powered pod I also may be ok utilizing a tutor. However, I would feel better about using it to find that 4th combo piece for a more convoluted combo since It requires more pieces and has a broader surface for interaction for my opponents, because of this I also don't mind tutoring to find it.
Another way to reduce staples is to lean hard on theme. For example, 90% of my decks are Tribal EDH (not in the new, incorrect usage of the "tribal" term - in the original "this deck is only <creature type> and at least 30% of that type" definition*).
Commander is for fun. It's a socially interactive, multiplayer Magic: the Gathering format full of wild interactions and epic plays, specifically designed as an alternative to tournament Magic. As is fitting for a format in which you choose an avatar to lead your forces into battle, Commander focuses on a resonant experience. Each game is a journey the players share, relying on a social contract in which each player is considerate of the experiences of everyone involved–this promotes player interaction, inter-game variance, a variety of play styles, and a positive communal atmosphere. At the end of an ideal Commander game, someone will have won, but all participants will have had the opportunity to express themselves through their deck building and game play.
So to me you sound like someone who would enjoy 60 card formats with 4 copies of each card. Your deck does the same thing, more or less, every game.BaronCappuccino wrote: ↑1 year agoI always want my decks to do the same thing every time. Redundancy, draw and tutors are the only ways I know of to accomplish this. I prioritise the three in that order. My current deck manages just fine off redundancy and draw. I think I like it better that way. You never know when you'll discover a new trick you didn't know your deck was capable of, and you never will if you have the ability to tutor for what you know. I've always envied players who can reliably win with open ended decks finding their zen and using whatever tools the deck hands them. Me, my Magic career is a graveyard of one-use, linear, sucker-punch decks. I don't particularly like it. The less tutors the better for me.
Getting the best card in your deck vs. getting the best of a restricted subset of cards is significantly different behavior for sure.Mookie wrote: ↑1 year agoI think @DirkGently's question about deck longevity helps explain my feelings about tutors. My lineup of decks is generally pretty stable - I rarely build new decks or take my existing decks apart. As a result, I generally try to make my decks as high-variance as possible.... and one of the ways I do that is by cutting cards and play patterns I find myself relying on too often. I'm willing to play toolbox tutors like Trinket Mage, Treasure Mage, and Woodland Bellower because they usually play differently from game to game. However, I find that when I include cards like Demonic Tutor and Gamble, they tend to fetch the same thing over and over, despite theoretically having a wider array of possible targets.
Guess we can be dinosaurs together then
Fair point. I can't say for sure if it'll bother me, but at this time I want to say not because the deck is already very limited on interaction spells (used to have none), so if I do use them, they are always the same ones anyway. It is a curious thing to think about, for me, as I never thought I'd have to.