I had this realization when I read how people are pooping on Mindclaw Shaman in another thread. "it can miss" "not consistent enough" "underpowered" and the like.
If I wanted a deck that played out the same way over and over again, I'd get into one of the 60-card formats.
I don't want this to be a declaration of how this 'should' be played. I know what I value and I know that my values don't need to be everyone's values.
What I do want is to hear from those who have that other perspective. I dearly love it when my deck surprises me. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Again, that's who I am.
Please, tell me why it is less enjoyable to you to have high variation in your games and plays. I seek perspective and understanding.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have 15 EDH decks...sorta kills the 'I only need one of a card' aspect of the format.
I went and started a Commander/EDH blog! Come see it at http://wordofcommander.blogspot.com/ and it includes all 15 of my custom super-art generals!
If you're more into the finance section of the game, I write on Fridays for MTGPrice.com.
I had this realization when I read how people are pooping on Mindclaw Shaman in another thread. "it can miss" "not consistent enough" "underpowered" and the like.
If I wanted a deck that played out the same way over and over again, I'd get into one of the 60-card formats.
I don't want this to be a declaration of how this 'should' be played. I know what I value and I know that my values don't need to be everyone's values.
What I do want is to hear from those who have that other perspective. I dearly love it when my deck surprises me. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Again, that's who I am.
Please, tell me why it is less enjoyable to you to have high variation in your games and plays. I seek perspective and understanding.
I kinda agree with you. Especially on the 60 card riff, lol.
There's a difference between like, a couple to a few of Demonic/Vampiric Tutor effects in a deck, and like, Captain Sissy-Pants. I'm fine with the former.
But, you must admit that Red and White have it rough because they don't have enough of a consistent game plan like the other colors.
tl;dr - I agree, but there needs to be some consistency in your deck, and in all colors really (which R/W kinda lack ATM).
I suppose it's just my nature that I like to have an answer for any given situation. The ability to "toolbox" and go get a specific card that I need for the situation at hand is perhaps one of the most satisfying elements of playing EDH for me, to the degree that I can do it well. To the degree that I can't do it well, it is one of the most frustrating elements of EDH to me.
As one of the ones decrying Mindclaw Shaman as too random, a random element is fun. Red just already has that in spades, and I've spent quite a bit of time trying to minimize that in my mono-R, hence my evaluation of Shaman.
Outside of situations like that, it depends. It's sometimes nice to be able to build around weird effects. I've run a Shirei/Lifeline Savra build before that would never have worked without many, many tutors. A few tutors are generally nice because they do give you additional options. More specifically, they give you additional responses. If you can tutor out a wrath when you need it, you can get away with running fewer wraths. If you never encounter the situation where you need to find a wrath, it can be anything else. I think that the issue many people have with that arises when "anything else" is the same card or combo every time.
On the whole, I'd rather build around themes and have cards support that theme in various ways. You still get the random element that keeps things interesting, but you also get some measure of consistency in decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
I like a mixture of both. I like my decks to be consistent, but I don't want them playing out the exact same way every game. I don't have a problem with running a crapload of tutors in mono black because there are various factors that determine how I approach each game. Things like cards in opening hand, what I'm playing against and what the current board state look like all effect what I end up tutoring for. I also have a fairly tuned Mayael list that I love to play because of that slight bit of inconsistency that comes with her ability. There's usually a few good laughs when I whiff.
I too don't like tutors (outside land fetching). I have a couple of decks that run a couple, but for the most part, I don't run any. I prefer to counteract the random draws by drawing more cards.
It does get tiring of people tutoring for a win card all the time, but ultimately, to each their own.
I don't think you can judge someone's value of randomness from their perspective on Mindclaw Shaman. It's really unfair to make the assumption that players who rag on Mindclaw Shaman don't value variation. Consistency and variation aren't mutually exclusive. I'd argue that spells that always connect offer more variation than spells that whiff and are underpowered do. Interactive cards that connect every time interact with opponents in a far greater variety of scenarios.
I don't think you can judge someone's value of randomness from their perspective on Mindclaw Shaman. It's really unfair to make the assumption that players who rag on Mindclaw Shaman don't value variation. Consistency and variation aren't mutually exclusive. I'd argue that spells that always connect offer more variation than spells that whiff and are underpowered do. Interactive cards that connect every time interact with opponents in a far greater variety of scenarios.
I don't think the OP was. I think he simply became curious after this subject arose.
Outside of situations like that, it depends. It's sometimes nice to be able to build around weird effects. I've run a Shirei/Lifeline Savra build before that would never have worked without many, many tutors. A few tutors are generally nice because they do give you additional options. More specifically, they give you additional responses. If you can tutor out a wrath when you need it, you can get away with running fewer wraths. If you never encounter the situation where you need to find a wrath, it can be anything else. I think that the issue many people have with that arises when "anything else" is the same card or combo every time.
What Weebo said. I like having options, both in deckbuilding and in gameplay, and if a game turns into "draw seven cards and hope it gets there" then I will quickly lose interest. And like Weebo said, tutors let you play single-card strategies and archetypes that just wouldn't be viable otherwise.
Outside of a dedicated combo deck, tutors and card draw can actually add variance to your game (in a sense) by functioning as modal spells in disguise. A hand of Wrath of God, Counterspell, and Oblation will probably play the same way game-to-game, but a hand of Austere Command, Cryptic Command, and Bant Charm can be something totally different each time. That's how I view tutors in "fair" decks.
It comes down to what you want out of a game. If you play competitively or even casually in a cutthroat environment, you are more likely to favor tutors and overall consistency. Casual players are more likely to favor randomness.
Tutor power and consistency make an EDH deck stronger. Being able to pull up your combo pieces or find the answer you need at the time you need it is an awesome advantage and it leads to some solid in-game performances.
Randomness is done more for flavor than power. Typically, an element of randomness in a deck is the sign of a Timmy. I'm not saying that randomness is inferior to consistency in terms of enjoyment because that's an opinion-based determination and not one that anybody can generalize, but the former is not a good way to optimize a deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epochalyptik from http://tappedout.net/ EDH isn't about what you play, it's about who you play with.
That thread is skewed because it very quickly started with the message "Mindclaw Shaman is now a red staple", so people weren't even necessarily saying he was bad, just arguing the points to refute that he's become a staple.
As for randomness in general I think its great. When people tutor turn after turn for probably the same cards as they did last game, and the same cards they will next game, I wonder if Groundhog's Day was their favorite movie. Randomness makes it difficult for a specific player to plan for you, it makes it difficult for your meta to adjust to your decks, and it keeps the game interesting.
It's a singleton format and some people seem to use every ounce of effort when deckbuilding to combat that... which is fine if thats fun for you. But I just play 60 card decks with 4 of's when I'm in the mood for that.
I think there are two main ways people think about being a deck being consistent.
One, would be for a combo deck, or really just any player/deck that wants to play the same way every game. Tutoring for combo pieces or enabler cards for your main strategy all the time will cause a lot of your games to turn out the same way (if everything goes according to your plan) and will get boring fast. When you look at it this way, consistency is very bad for the format, imo.
The other way (the way I think about consistency when building my decks) is the ability to have the right answer when you need it. Staring a Blightsteel Colossus in the face ready to take you out next turn? Pondering or Demonic Tutoring to get a Swords to Plowshares from your deck seems pretty good in that situation.
The nature of this format has randomness built in, and being able to deal with your opponents threats consistently means that your deck is built well and makes for exciting games of magic. The problem is when you become consistent on the aggressive and start ending games quickly and the same way every time.
It is at that point that I think you start falling under the area of "breaking" cards
I suppose I should have been more precise in what I'm looking for.
I know my viewpoint isn't always shared, and I respect that. I'm deliberate in my choices for watering down the power level of a deck, because I don't want to be doing the same broken things over and over.
It would not be hard to take out Zenith and Wave so that Surge would get my whole deck...and that would be boring to me. I am indeed a Timmy/Johnny kind of player.
What I like about Mindclaw is that I can (sometimes) do things not normally available to this deck. If it misses, oh well. Time to do other awesome things!
All of the statements about finding an answer are true, though. It feels pretty darn good to use Fauna Shaman to grab Duplicant, to answer that damned Iona.
I suppose I want it both ways?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have 15 EDH decks...sorta kills the 'I only need one of a card' aspect of the format.
I went and started a Commander/EDH blog! Come see it at http://wordofcommander.blogspot.com/ and it includes all 15 of my custom super-art generals!
If you're more into the finance section of the game, I write on Fridays for MTGPrice.com.
But instead I'm experimenting with draw 7s and looting effects for added variance. I'm not sure whether I'll keep it that way....it's really hard to leave tutors out when they are particularly thematic.
And i think its commonly understood that tutors are less enjoyable for the rest of the table, and I've become obsessed with building decks that are fun to play with/against.
I suppose it's just my nature that I like to have an answer for any given situation. The ability to "toolbox" and go get a specific card that I need for the situation at hand is perhaps one of the most satisfying elements of playing EDH for me, to the degree that I can do it well. To the degree that I can't do it well, it is one of the most frustrating elements of EDH to me.
I'm inclined to agree, thats why Momir Vig, Simic Visionary is my favorite general. I have notice however, that he only gets played about 1/4 of the time. In my deck, everything in my hand seems good almost all the time.
I also play in a very small playgroup where only one other player actually improves decks and spends (some) money, so the quality of decks is rather lacking compared to others.
Actually now that I think about it, I got quite a few "randomness" type cards in my deck. One of my favorites is Thicket Elemental. Although I would say he's less random than Mindclaw Shaman in that you still are guaranteed a creature, you still don't know what you are going to get. But like Mindclaw Shaman, I find it very fun to play.
I've found it isn't tutors that remove the randomness so much as having a single win-con, or at least one that is significantly better than all others.
My Savra deck has a ton of tutors, but because I've worked to put in a large number of pretty equally viable win conditions, games still stay fresh.
My opponent's don't cringe even when I Tooth and Nail, since there are so many possibilities that they have no idea what I'm going for.
It's only when tutors are used solely to find the same thing every game that it gets boring.
What I like about Mindclaw is that I can (sometimes) do things not normally available to this deck. If it misses, oh well. Time to do other awesome things!
I agree with this sentiment and with a lot of what you're saying. I build my decks to win, but I want them to win in cool and different ways. If I play 5 games and win in 5 completely different ways, then the deck build is a success. Playing over and over just to setup the same wincon/combo gets old.
Ever since the new planchase came out, I've wanted to build a B/U Ninja deck just to use Silent-Blade Oni to give me that same random ability of the Shaman. There's something about beating someone with their own spell or finding some crazy synergy with one of mine when comboed with something I couldn't normally play that just brings a huge smile to my face!
Added with edit: That being said, tutoring up what you need from the tool box helps you utilize the different interactions in the deck to pull off different kinds of wins the same as it will let someone else access there single degenerate combo... It's all about the person using the tutor.
I can't play black for this reason. I hate the idea of always having access to any card in my deck. I can handle a Gamble here or a Mystical Tutor there, but black is just too consistent for me and I hate that. I need to have some randomness. I need that whole concept of "what card am I going to draw next?". Without it, I'd rather just be playing Settlers of Catan or something (which I like). That is about as pseudo-random as a black deck to me, but at least it doesn't pretend to be a card game.
Remember there are two types of consistency. Same game-play and same game-plan. With the former you're talking about tutors, the deck casts the same spell each game. Same game-plan consistency would be using cards that have similar effects. Like running five or six sac outlets for a death trigger heavy deck. Both increase consistency but people only seem to have an issue with the first kind.
I've found it isn't tutors that remove the randomness so much as having a single win-con, or at least one that is significantly better than all others.
My Savra deck has a ton of tutors, but because I've worked to put in a large number of pretty equally viable win conditions, games still stay fresh.
My opponent's don't cringe even when I Tooth and Nail, since there are so many possibilities that they have no idea what I'm going for.
It's only when tutors are used solely to find the same thing every game that it gets boring.
This is my take on the issue of tutors. I'm cool with tutors that provide one access to a toolbox of cards (sort of how one uses Sunforger), or which otherwise let you find answers when you really need one, but I find it boring when someone predictably tutors for the same thing game after game or to pull together the same combo game after game.
I'm currently building a deck that is more focused on the general than is usual for me, so I anticipate tutoring for things like Swiftfoot Boots and Darksteel Plate to try to keep the general in play as long as possible. The general in this case isn't so much a win condition so much as as he serves to enable other win conditions.
I also agree that tutors are a lot less tedious if you build decks with multiple possible wincons and use the tutor to find the last piece you need for whatever wincon has developed during the course of the game. I already try to build in a couple different wincons most of the time anyhow.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I had this realization when I read how people are pooping on Mindclaw Shaman in another thread. "it can miss" "not consistent enough" "underpowered" and the like.
If I wanted a deck that played out the same way over and over again, I'd get into one of the 60-card formats.
I don't want this to be a declaration of how this 'should' be played. I know what I value and I know that my values don't need to be everyone's values.
What I do want is to hear from those who have that other perspective. I dearly love it when my deck surprises me. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Again, that's who I am.
Please, tell me why it is less enjoyable to you to have high variation in your games and plays. I seek perspective and understanding.
I went and started a Commander/EDH blog! Come see it at http://wordofcommander.blogspot.com/ and it includes all 15 of my custom super-art generals!
If you're more into the finance section of the game, I write on Fridays for MTGPrice.com.
I kinda agree with you. Especially on the 60 card riff, lol.
There's a difference between like, a couple to a few of Demonic/Vampiric Tutor effects in a deck, and like, Captain Sissy-Pants. I'm fine with the former.
But, you must admit that Red and White have it rough because they don't have enough of a consistent game plan like the other colors.
tl;dr - I agree, but there needs to be some consistency in your deck, and in all colors really (which R/W kinda lack ATM).
--- Meren of Clan Nel Toth --- Jhoira of the Ghitu --- Prime Speaker Zegana ---
--- Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief --- Ghoulcaller Gisa --- Akroma, Angel of Fury --- Titania, Protector of Argoth ---
R.I.P. Sundering Titan (6/20/12) and Braids, Cabal Minion (9/12/14)
Outside of situations like that, it depends. It's sometimes nice to be able to build around weird effects. I've run a Shirei/Lifeline Savra build before that would never have worked without many, many tutors. A few tutors are generally nice because they do give you additional options. More specifically, they give you additional responses. If you can tutor out a wrath when you need it, you can get away with running fewer wraths. If you never encounter the situation where you need to find a wrath, it can be anything else. I think that the issue many people have with that arises when "anything else" is the same card or combo every time.
On the whole, I'd rather build around themes and have cards support that theme in various ways. You still get the random element that keeps things interesting, but you also get some measure of consistency in decks.
It does get tiring of people tutoring for a win card all the time, but ultimately, to each their own.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Glissa, the Traitor, Ulasht, the Hate Seed, The Mimeoplasm
I don't think the OP was. I think he simply became curious after this subject arose.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
What Weebo said. I like having options, both in deckbuilding and in gameplay, and if a game turns into "draw seven cards and hope it gets there" then I will quickly lose interest. And like Weebo said, tutors let you play single-card strategies and archetypes that just wouldn't be viable otherwise.
Outside of a dedicated combo deck, tutors and card draw can actually add variance to your game (in a sense) by functioning as modal spells in disguise. A hand of Wrath of God, Counterspell, and Oblation will probably play the same way game-to-game, but a hand of Austere Command, Cryptic Command, and Bant Charm can be something totally different each time. That's how I view tutors in "fair" decks.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Tutor power and consistency make an EDH deck stronger. Being able to pull up your combo pieces or find the answer you need at the time you need it is an awesome advantage and it leads to some solid in-game performances.
Randomness is done more for flavor than power. Typically, an element of randomness in a deck is the sign of a Timmy. I'm not saying that randomness is inferior to consistency in terms of enjoyment because that's an opinion-based determination and not one that anybody can generalize, but the former is not a good way to optimize a deck.
EDH isn't about what you play, it's about who you play with.
[EDH]
BUG Combo/Control:
BUG Dominus - Dreamcrusher Edition GUB
As for randomness in general I think its great. When people tutor turn after turn for probably the same cards as they did last game, and the same cards they will next game, I wonder if Groundhog's Day was their favorite movie. Randomness makes it difficult for a specific player to plan for you, it makes it difficult for your meta to adjust to your decks, and it keeps the game interesting.
It's a singleton format and some people seem to use every ounce of effort when deckbuilding to combat that... which is fine if thats fun for you. But I just play 60 card decks with 4 of's when I'm in the mood for that.
One, would be for a combo deck, or really just any player/deck that wants to play the same way every game. Tutoring for combo pieces or enabler cards for your main strategy all the time will cause a lot of your games to turn out the same way (if everything goes according to your plan) and will get boring fast. When you look at it this way, consistency is very bad for the format, imo.
The other way (the way I think about consistency when building my decks) is the ability to have the right answer when you need it. Staring a Blightsteel Colossus in the face ready to take you out next turn? Pondering or Demonic Tutoring to get a Swords to Plowshares from your deck seems pretty good in that situation.
The nature of this format has randomness built in, and being able to deal with your opponents threats consistently means that your deck is built well and makes for exciting games of magic. The problem is when you become consistent on the aggressive and start ending games quickly and the same way every time.
It is at that point that I think you start falling under the area of "breaking" cards
I know my viewpoint isn't always shared, and I respect that. I'm deliberate in my choices for watering down the power level of a deck, because I don't want to be doing the same broken things over and over.
Case in point: I have a Jund deck with six non-creature spells. Three of those are enchantments. That leaves Primal Surge, Green Sun's Zenith, and Genesis Wave.
It would not be hard to take out Zenith and Wave so that Surge would get my whole deck...and that would be boring to me. I am indeed a Timmy/Johnny kind of player.
What I like about Mindclaw is that I can (sometimes) do things not normally available to this deck. If it misses, oh well. Time to do other awesome things!
All of the statements about finding an answer are true, though. It feels pretty darn good to use Fauna Shaman to grab Duplicant, to answer that damned Iona.
I suppose I want it both ways?
I went and started a Commander/EDH blog! Come see it at http://wordofcommander.blogspot.com/ and it includes all 15 of my custom super-art generals!
If you're more into the finance section of the game, I write on Fridays for MTGPrice.com.
I started thinking of it when I decided to shift my horde of notions deck to a more classic reanimator strategy. My impulse was to reach for:
But instead I'm experimenting with draw 7s and looting effects for added variance. I'm not sure whether I'll keep it that way....it's really hard to leave tutors out when they are particularly thematic.
And i think its commonly understood that tutors are less enjoyable for the rest of the table, and I've become obsessed with building decks that are fun to play with/against.
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
I'm inclined to agree, thats why Momir Vig, Simic Visionary is my favorite general. I have notice however, that he only gets played about 1/4 of the time. In my deck, everything in my hand seems good almost all the time.
I also play in a very small playgroup where only one other player actually improves decks and spends (some) money, so the quality of decks is rather lacking compared to others.
Did this with my Damia deck; took out all infi combos and all tutors.
I've mentioned the 'tutoring basic land' test my friends and I did, and while that was interesting...it also wasn't.
And like the man said, getting the right card for a given situation is so frequently awesome that I can't seem to stop!
I went and started a Commander/EDH blog! Come see it at http://wordofcommander.blogspot.com/ and it includes all 15 of my custom super-art generals!
If you're more into the finance section of the game, I write on Fridays for MTGPrice.com.
My Savra deck has a ton of tutors, but because I've worked to put in a large number of pretty equally viable win conditions, games still stay fresh.
My opponent's don't cringe even when I Tooth and Nail, since there are so many possibilities that they have no idea what I'm going for.
It's only when tutors are used solely to find the same thing every game that it gets boring.
EDH Decks
BGGlissa, the TraitorGB
URTibor and LumiaRU
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticBUW
UBSygg, River CutthroatBU
RGXenagos, God of RevelsGR
UGVorel of the Hull CladeGU
GBSavra, Queen of the GolgariBG
URGMaelstrom WandererGRU
I agree with this sentiment and with a lot of what you're saying. I build my decks to win, but I want them to win in cool and different ways. If I play 5 games and win in 5 completely different ways, then the deck build is a success. Playing over and over just to setup the same wincon/combo gets old.
Ever since the new planchase came out, I've wanted to build a B/U Ninja deck just to use Silent-Blade Oni to give me that same random ability of the Shaman. There's something about beating someone with their own spell or finding some crazy synergy with one of mine when comboed with something I couldn't normally play that just brings a huge smile to my face!
Added with edit: That being said, tutoring up what you need from the tool box helps you utilize the different interactions in the deck to pull off different kinds of wins the same as it will let someone else access there single degenerate combo... It's all about the person using the tutor.
EDH Decks:
GGG Omnath, the Sultan of Stomp GGG
BB Marrow-Gnawer... Or... Rats! Foiled again! BB
BB The Army of Evil (Necromancy for fun and profit) BB
RW Gisela, Blade of Goldnight, and her Samurai Army WR
UB Vela the Night-Clad... Ninjas be Sneaky and Stuff, Yo!!!1! BU
BGU Vorash, the Hunter... Voltron Vorash' Viciously Violent Victory UGB
BBB Ghoulcaller Gisa and the Return of the Night of Living Dead Part XIII BBB
WUBRG Sliver Overlord... Because Having Friends is Completely Overrated GRBUW
XXXXX Kozilek, Butcher of Youth or This is Vintage EDH... Get Off My Damn Lawn! XXXXX
You cannot make time, you can only take time. If you never take time, how can you ever have time?
:symu::symr: Melek WheelStorm
:symw::symg: Trostani Enchantress (updated 6/5)
:symg::symr::symu: Unexpected Results.dec
Thada Adel Stax WIP
This is my take on the issue of tutors. I'm cool with tutors that provide one access to a toolbox of cards (sort of how one uses Sunforger), or which otherwise let you find answers when you really need one, but I find it boring when someone predictably tutors for the same thing game after game or to pull together the same combo game after game.
I'm currently building a deck that is more focused on the general than is usual for me, so I anticipate tutoring for things like Swiftfoot Boots and Darksteel Plate to try to keep the general in play as long as possible. The general in this case isn't so much a win condition so much as as he serves to enable other win conditions.
I also agree that tutors are a lot less tedious if you build decks with multiple possible wincons and use the tutor to find the last piece you need for whatever wincon has developed during the course of the game. I already try to build in a couple different wincons most of the time anyhow.