How much tutoring is too much?

[Avacyn Believer]

I am currently facing a dilemma if to add more tutor effects to a deck where I am already searching my library almost every other turn (at least feels that way). It would arguably make the deck "better" because this would add more ways to find answers when they are needed, but I am not convinced it would make the deck better to play, or even play against.

So I am looking for your opinions and experiences to help me decide Do you ever feel like you are tutoring too much? If so, what have you done about it? What if your opponents are doing it?

Cheers

[pokken]

Yes, I 100% feel like I am tutoring too much and so I have been actively removing tutors from my decks wherever possible. The downside is that sometimes I feel like I'm spending a long time drawing cards fishing for stiff though too lol It's can be a double edged sword.

But in general I feel like if you're tutoring for a specific non-land card more than once a game it's too much. So that means ~5-8 tutors or so typically, at absolute most. Fewer the better.

If my opponents are tutoring a lot it's usually solved by playing more answers; that's not a perfect solve, but it seems to work for me. They tutor for stuff, I kill it if it's too big a threat

[TheAmericanSpirit]

I think it depends on how much you need a particular thing. I've been brewing a 5C Life from the Loam-based control deck in my head and I think I need no less than 8 other cards to directly find Loam, probably up to 12 if I count transmute cards and other cards with secondary purposes aside from finding loam. But that card is mission critical, so what choice do I have?

What are you tutoring for? If it's just a matter of increasing consistency, ask yourself if increasing redundancy will solve the issue without the shuffling hullabaloo. If you're finding one specific build-around card frequently, take a look at your deck and consider leaning farther into it to maximize the value of that card and/or building in other similar value engines.

[Gorillajay]

I believe tutors should be evaluated within the context of the particular deck. I recently wrote a primer about a Thalia and the Gitrog Monster deck that has a high density of tutors. Brewing that deck and authoring the primer allowed me to put a lot of scrutiny on how I view tutor usage in commander. Below is an excerpt from the primer about how I view them, alongside other high impact effects in commander like Combos and Fast Mana.

Hope his helps explain my thoughts on the topic

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.

[Avacyn Believer]

Thanks for the replies! Some good points were raised and I will have to spend some time evaluating it against the deck and how I want to play it.

The downside is that sometimes I feel like I'm spending a long time drawing cards fishing

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.

Hope his helps explain my thoughts on the topic

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.

[materpillar]

As a rule of thumb, if you're worried you're tutoring too much you probably are. Tutors have a tendency to streamline your game plan which can lead to more repetitive feeling games as the variance of your deck diminishes. Tutors also tend to increase your turn length which makes everyone else have less fun. That being said it is extremely deck dependent. Here are some positive experiences I have with tutors.

On one hand I have Tivadar of Thorn which plays 12 tutors (not including things that search for basic lands). That deck is trying to assemble Shields of Velis Vel + Mistveil Plains + Kithkin Healer to be able to cast Shields of Velis Vel. It is literally every tutor I can jam, so that I can tutor for a specific card and play it every turn. It's literally the most streamlined gameplan with the lowest variance I can muster. I'm doing exactly what I'm warning against but people don't mind because what I'm doing is a 4 card combo to turn Tivadar of Thorn into Ravenous Chupacabra. This is inherently a gameplan that is high on interaction with my opponent and easy to interact with. Plus it's really novel so people tend to get a kick out of it even as I'm tutoring because they're never sure what the deck is going to pop out. Urza's Saga into Runed Stalactite usually gets forgiven quickly.

In Esika the only tutors I play are Grozoth with a huge pile of 9 drops and some land tutors. Whenever I cast grozoth my turn takes forever tutoring because I'm getting like 6 cards. That being said monopolizing turn time in this way usually makes people laugh the longer my turn goes and they see the pile of 9 drops I'm tutoring just stacking higher and higher.

TLDR; if you can tutor for an extremely efficient wincondition you'll end up tutoring for it a bunch and your deck will feel very samey to play against. If you've got a handful of tutors for answers or cards that feel random you're probably fine. The higher powerlevel you go, the less wincondition are viable so the more you need tutors to find viable win conditions. Be aware of how tutors are messing with the powerlevel you want for your deck

[DirkGently]

No hard and fast answer really. Depends a lot on what you want to do with them. One question that rarely gets asked...

-What do you want the longevity of the deck to be?

Tutors make a deck more consistent. More consistent means a less varied play experience. Less varied play experiences tend to be less enjoyable over time. But, if you only plan to play the deck for a short while, that might not be a problem. Case in point, my Korlash, Heir to Blackblade grandeur deck that got mentioned in another thread - "doing the thing" basically requires a lot of tutors to happen. That means it gets boring fairly fast, but the point wasn't to create a deck that I'd play for years. I just wanted to see if I could make grandeur a viable ability in commander. It was fun to pull off a couple of times, that was all I wanted.

-What sorts of things are you finding?

If you're finding wincon pieces that win the game, that's going to become samey very fast. A 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.

But there are plenty of cool deck ideas that require certain pieces just as a starting point. Blackblade isn't a good example because once I have the combo, I'm usually a turn away from winning with massive mana. But a deck like my (extremely silly and bad) skip-all-my-own-turns Kardur, Doomscourge requires Lethal Vapors to do the thing I want to do, and there's no replacement for it, so I need to run a lot of tutors just as a starting point for the dumb thing I want to do. Things to watch out for here is how streamlined your strategy becomes. It can be a slippery slope to the first category depending on how strong the synergy is. So stay vigilant that it's really a STARTING point, and not a "usually ends the game but not always" point.

The third category of thing I can think of is more of a toolbox tutor - there's nothing specifically that you want, you just want the flexibility. Over time this can becoming linearizing as you find the best targets, but that's not necessarily a problem so long as the gameplay still stays varied...but it could potentially become an issue, so it's still worth watching out for if the deck feels stale. In general this is probably the safest use of tutors as far as your own enjoyment of the deck is concerned, but the biggest issue with this type of tutor is...

-How much time are you spending on tutors?

This is mostly an issue with toolbox tutors, which in general I think are a fun way to use tutors, but they can easily become annoying especially if you're not as familiar with the deck. Searching 80+ cards can take a lot of time, especially if you don't really know what you're looking for. This can really cut into your opponents' enjoyment of the game, so if you're using tutors in this fashion I do think it's worth paying attention to how much time you're monopolizing and cutting down on tutors to prevent that. Or, get really really familiar with the deck to the point that you can just say "I demonic tutor for (X card), cast it, pass" and then spend their turns actually finding it.

[Gorillajay]

A 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.

This. 1000% agree. I think this is a similar sentiment to what I expressed in my post.

* 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.

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.

[ISBPathfinder]

In my mind it also comes down to what the deck is doing. Tutors do add consistency and if your deck has winconditions in it, it can make the deck feel linear. That is why I just don't run wincons and grind on people's faces until they die using tutors as toolbox answers instead of wincons lol.

Tutors do suck though. Tutoring for your wincon is super lame and boring so yea if thats what you are using tutors for then you can very easily have too many. Try out Lin Sivvi, Defiant Hero at some point though. Rebels have tons of tutors but kind of no way to win with them outside of Mirror Entity which takes a lot of setup. Tutors can be annoying but I think they are less annoying when used defensively than just setting up the combo win.

[Dunharrow]

I am very vocally opposed to tutors in singleton formats. They really go against the philosophy of singleton. I keep pushing to have the 5 most played tutors / most efficient tutors banned. It would make the format so much more enjoyable, IMO. Tutoring a lot makes games repetitive, which defeats the purpose of a 100-card singleton format.
If you take your decks that are tutoring too much and cut Demonic Tutor, Mystical Tutor, Enlightened Tutor, Vampiric Tutor and a top creature tutor (maybe Call) would you replace them with tutors or other cards?
I think most people who replace them with card draw. Maybe another tutor they aren't playing but has a similar role.... like another creature tutor for example.
I think these tutors are mostly played because they are so efficient at what they do. You won't replace Demonic Tutor with Diabolic Tutor, unless you have a gimmicky deck that needs a lot of tutors to function.
And yes, if you have 8 tutors in your deck maybe you are only going to end up cutting 2-3 with the cuts I proposed, but I think that makes a world of difference in how much a table can enjoy magic.

[BaronCappuccino]

I 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.

[Cyberium]

A good way to reduce the number of tutors and/or staples... is to reduce the # of colors in your deck. One reason I'm more fond of 2-c decks these days is because that I have less staples to worry about.

[Treamayne]

A good way to reduce the number of tutors and/or staples... is to reduce the # of colors in your deck. One reason I'm more fond of 2-c decks these days is because that I have less staples to worry about.

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*).
I limit tutors by also requiring them to be on-theme. Demonic Tutor is in my Rakdos Demon deck (but only in my Rakdos Demon deck). The only tutor (if you don't count Terramorphic Expanse and friends) in my Boros Giant deck is . . . Giant Harbinger.
I'd have to count to verify, but I would guess most of my nongreen decks have 0-3 tutors (other than lands-that-find-lands) and even the green decks tend to prefer the Seek the Wilds type of ramp to reduce shuffles.

I know I am a dinosaur of a player, but I still believe in the original EDH philosophy: Table fun > efficiency > winning a game.

SPOILER

Show

Hide

From the RC EDH Philosophy - 1st paragraph:

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.

*Please see linked thread for how I define "on-type"

[Dunharrow]

I 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.

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.
Now, I don't know if you like those formats or not.
I know that when I played standard I played 3-4 decks at a time and was constantly changing them so my experience would be as varied as possible. I didn't want the same deck week after week.
I remember showing up to a Game Day with a Zurgo Helmsmasher deck (lost in the finals). I had better decks, but they weren't as fun for me.
I did win a game day once with a standard Paradox Engine deck too.

What's cool about commander is how so many people enjoy it for different reasons.

[Mookie]

I 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.

[pokken]

I 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.

Getting the best card in your deck vs. getting the best of a restricted subset of cards is significantly different behavior for sure.

That said I will never get mad at Gamble as a second copy of Life from the Loam

[Avacyn Believer]

Finally been able to catch up with the replies. Thanks for the input everyone. I started this with one deck in mind, but it got me thinking about other decks too

There seems to be some common approaches - tutor for a specific combo, a toolbox approach, and don't take too much time searching or know what you are searching for.

To be more specific why this question even came up, I've recently realized I could fit Sunforger into my Avacyn deck with few swaps, which would then give me a path to tutor for Instant spells which the deck is not able to do now. My concern is that it is easy to tutor for Equipment, and I am concerned that my games could turn into always searching for the Sunforger. But given the responses, I am leaning towards trying it out because it would add more toolbox utility, than a linear wincon path. The Instant spells in the deck are either draw or interaction. Which is why I even started to consider the swaps, allowing me to have a path to search for answers when needed rather than just fishing and hoping.

Only problem I have trying to test it by myself is that searching for interaction spells requires opponents lol will have to actually get the cards and try it with my mates.

You'd have to ask my opponents of course, but I would say I am quick to tutor for the things I want because I know the deck well, so by the time I cast a tutor I already know what I want. My other decks only have few non-land tutors, mainly because I don't buy them often, if at all. The few I have came in bundles or from boosters. Like my only copy of Demonic Tutor is from the first box I bought; Divine vs Demonic.

@Dunharrow - I see your point, but not sure I agree. In my opinion tutoring is what allows some archetypes and/or colours to be viable competition at high-end casual games, maybe even allow them to push into cEDH. I am finding myself more in agreement with others, especially about always tutoring for the same combo win (which also has an exception if that win is something novel, and not just generic I-win good cards).

@Cyberium - I already build majority of my decks from the collection of cards I own, staples don't concern me much Though funnily enough I am finding myself building more 3 colours than my usual 2 colours.

I know I am a dinosaur of a player, but I still believe in the original EDH philosophy: Table fun > efficiency > winning a game.

Guess we can be dinosaurs together then When I describe Commander to people, I like to say it's like a drinking game, the point is to participate and have fun, not winning.

@Mookie - I am in a similar position, especially with decks that weren't much fun to play against. Most recently I've taken apart my mono-red Etali, Primal Storm because while it worked well and was fun for me, not so much for my opponents. I've turned it into Heiko Yamazaki, the General , trying something completely different with mono-red than chaos, and it's fun.

[Avz]

I just recently relistened to Legendary Creatures episode on tutors, and it had me thinking about all of this. A lot of good points have been made, how long you want to keep the deck together, how powerful you want the deck to be, what play patterns are you interested in having during games. I have two decks that I've had together for years which I have been slowly pulling tutors out of, and only recently I've decided to just pull all non-land tutors out of the deck. It has absolutely made them less effective at winning, but it's also increased the different ways I win. I plan on keeping the decks together indefinitely so I'm happy to sacrifice some win percentage for what I find to be a more fun and interesting play experience.

@Avacyn Believer For tutoring for Sunforger specifically, I think that seems pretty reasonable, just as long as you're ok with always seeing the same pieces of interaction every game. I image what would happen is you tutor for Sunforger, then after that you're basically always tutoring for the best pieces of removal, protection, card draw, etc, that is available. So you'll probably end up playing the same cards most of the time. So you might not have linear wincon, but you will still have some repetitiveness in gameplay.

[Avacyn Believer]

So you'll probably end up playing the same cards most of the time. So you might not have linear wincon, but you will still have some repetitiveness in gameplay.

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.

[yeti1069]

I, too, have been de-tutoring many of my decks. Part of that is to lower power level, and part is to increase variance/fun. I generally try to keep a couple of tutors in each deck, but with a similar reduction in combos within the decks, the tutors are a little more open. That said, sometimes tutors are predominately in there as a second copy of an important card. For example, my Captain N'ghathrod deck almost always uses Demonic Tutor for Rhystic Study, while it uses Scheming Symmetry based on the situation (and to trick unwary players into sending a valuable card to their yard when I mill them).

On the topic of Sunforger, I think it depends a lot on how the deck functions. I run it in Queen Marchesa, and will say that, while it is certainly the strongest card in the deck, I don't tutor for it all the time--it's expensive to use (8 mana to cast, equip, and activate), and becomes a lightning rod for removal, so casting it without being able to equip and activate it usually means you just lost tempo and value. Then in terms of the actual use, I have a fair spread of targets for different situations, so there is variance there, too (ie., Arcbond as a board wipe or finisher, Comeuppance as a board wipe/fog, Boros Charm as a protection piece of finisher, etc...).

[Avacyn Believer]

I am starting to think you could graph the use of tutors on a curve that goes up and then down, like when you start playing you think they are great so you add more and more, till you realize it's more fun to play without them so you play less and less Seems to be the natural progression of many Commander players it would seem.

At this time, before having a chance to play it out, I am thinking the Sunforger will find use in the mid, or likely end game, where my opponents found or done something to stall the initial attack and I need an answer to break through. This is the deck's current main weakness I'd say... that the answers are in there, but I rely on card draw to try find them, so it is matter of chance alone to have them when needed. Which, I guess case could be made, makes for more creative games, but I am curious if Sunforger will improve that, or make the deck play worse.