On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how you much you agree with the following analysis. 1 means "I don't agree at all." 10 means "I agree entirely." Please explain your answer.
Resolution: Playing multiplayer Commander games without tutor effects is more fun than playing Commander games with tutor effects.
Argument: Commander games without tutor effects are less predictable, less consistent and emphasize the singleton aspect of the format. Playing without tutors discourages resource denial and stax strategies which are seen as unfun by most players. Playing without tutors also reduces the likelihood of games frequently ending in infinite combos which is a good thing.
In my experience, every time someone complains about a 'tutor' effect, the tutor is not the problem. The tutor instead highlights another problem with the player using it, or the group they are playing with, and the fault is misapplied.
Attempting to play this format without access to any form of tutor effect has universally been unfun at best.
After playing this format for years, having tutors feels really dirty. As it makes a deck more consitent however it also makes a deck more boring. Its also a sign of lazy deckbuilding if the go-to-answer for what to put in an open slot is more tutors.
However I'm not entirely against tutors either. Like a Personal Tutor and Drift of Phantasms are not exactly going to break the bank if that is all.
As a tutor is effectively a wild card as it can transform itself into what you honestly wish for. The problem occurs when people abuse tutors and rest on them like they are a crutch. Like I have brewed up cutthroat decks that are consistent and have 1/10th of the deck easily composed of just tutors. Yes I'm admitting I have used tutors as a crutch.
On the other hand its one of those problems.
"If Bobby and Susy are using tutor spells, then Jimmy should as well. If Jimmy chooses not to, he is merely hamstringing his own deck's potential."
1 - Although they can enable unfun shenanigans like infinite combos, tutors are not the problem and shouldn't be blamed if that's what someone chooses to do with them. The most unfun games I have played are games where one player has established a lock somehow and I don't have the answer I need to break it. A tutor can often get the needed card to break that lock. If you don't like certain strategies like stax and MLD do you a) ban tutors or b) discuss with your playgroup? I vote b), and a) doesn't even guarantee those things won't happen.
They enable some really dumb stuff but also provide answers to really dumb stuff. Im also interested to know what the group thought of Farseek or even Evolving Wilds. I think that any deck with more than 2 colours would be immediately less viable without any form of land tutors.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH BRGKresh the BloodbraidedBRG, A box of lands and ideas.
Modern: RG Titanshift. A deck made of cards too stupid for EDH.
Retired: Lots. More than I feel you should suffer through or I should type out.
5 I'm in a group that mostly durdles with a mix of tribal fun decks and voltron decks, but we most trend to battlecruiser edh instead of combo. I busted apart a tutor dependent deck because of mana issues and the cardlist (paradoxically), not because of tutors. I now only use land tutors to ramp, but if I was playing in a more competitve meta I would use universal tutors for sure.
Tutors for combos: 1-10 in inverse relation to current turn count. Entomb on turn 1, or Vamp Tutor into gitaxian probe into flash hulk is terrible. Tutoring for a win combo on turn 10 after the board is protracted is perfectly fine. I'd often rather just have the game over and shuffle up a new one.
Tutors for answers or goodstuff cards: 1. Never a problem.
Modern: -UBG Lantern Control-GW or RG or R Tron - G Stompy - C KCI Combo-
EDH: -UG Ezuri-UGZegana-BRMogis-WUBRGRamos-WBREdgar-URLocust God-WUBRBreya-BMacar-WUBrago-WEvra-
I don't really know how I feel about tutors. I play with about four to seven tutors in my Commander deck, depending on how you define tutor, and I haven't really played without tutors in such a long time that maybe my perspective is totally skewed. Maybe games are just more fun without tutors. With that said, when you play a ridiculous Rube Goldberg machine like I do, having some form of card selection seems really vital to me; I'm not sure I would fare all that well without tutors.
I should probably state that I generally agree with you. Card diversity does seem to go a long way towards keeping Commander fresh, and tutors certainly diminish card diversity, but... do they really? I've always held the steadfast belief that how a player uses their cards ultimately determines whether or not they're fun, and I'm not sure tutors are an exception to that. Take the following example:
You have a Demonic Tutor in your hand. You kept it in your opener alongside two land cards. Now it's turn three, and you haven't drawn another land yet. If you don't continue to make your land drops, you're liable to not do much of anything the rest of the game. Is spending your tutor to find a third land, let's say Command Tower in this case, really that unfun? I'd argue it's likely the opposite. Because you opted to find a land you needed, you're now more likely to become an actual participant in your game. Without the tutor, it's entirely possible you wouldn't have made any kind of positive impact at the table due to being being a non-player.
Now, I understand that the above example doesn't seem to illustrate how cards like Demonic Tutor are often played, but I do think it adequately explains my belief that the how, the way in which cards are played matters a lot more than what the effect of a card actually is. Some cards are more likely to promote unfun games than others, and perhaps tutors are in that boat, but that doesn't necessarily mean games of Commander would be better without them. If players choose to play tutors in such a way that promote good gameplay as opposed to poor gameplay, tutors could be a source of fun at the table.
I think the reason why tutors often get a bad rap is due to the combination of the way players typically use them and the way players build their decks. From my experience, players tend to use cards like Demonic Tutor to fetch up their deck's most powerful card, whatever that happens to be at the time. This isn't something I can fault players for; the point of the game is to win after all, and I don't think sandbagging creates good gameplay, but at the same time using tutors to find these powerful cards doesn't often create good gameplay either; certain combinations of cards are sometimes so overwhelmingly powerful that they really throttle fun at the table. That's why I think the combination of play decisions and deck design really influences how fun or unfun tutors are. If players use their tutors to find their most powerful cards (as they almost certainly should), it's only because of the way a player built their deck that any given unfun situation arose. Should a player have built their deck differently, the situation wouldn't have existed in the first place.
Therein lies the problem with tutors I think. Designing decks in such a way that tutors don't create poor gameplay when cast is hard. Really hard. I think it's something that I've been trying to do for several months now, and I'm still failing at that. That doesn't mean it isn't possible; it's just something that I wouldn't expect the casual Commander player to be able to do that well. I think that tutors which find smaller sets of cards are probably less likely to cause poor gameplay than tutors which find large sets of cards by virtue of the smaller set likely containing a smaller disparity in power between cards (the chances of a larger set of cards containing a larger disparity of power just seems more likely), so maybe that's something to take away from this whole discussion, but deck design really does seems to mandate a reason for not always tutoring the same card time after time.
I also don't mind tutors when they have more to them than just paying a cost and tutoring for X card. Transmute is an interesting ability since it's stapled onto a real card. Rune-Scarred Demon and Razaketh, the Foulblooded are big demons. etc.
I like the Zen-like experience that comes from going with the flow in a nonlinear deck. I replaced my tutors (except for my fetchland) with draw and enjoy it a lot more. Of course, my Commander deck is Lavinia of the Tenth with maximum redundancy in the blink, tax and etb tapped effects UW has to offer. I think redundancy and simplicity is the best way to avoid needing tutors. In general, I've never liked one-of effects in any of my decks, tutors or not.
I understand your sentiment, and for years never played tutors.
I would call myself a 3.
There is the obvious issue of tutoring for lands. Fetches, landcycling, cultivate, etc.. While I don't expect cultivate to be backbreaking, crop rotation can be. Where do you draw a line on what constitutes a tutor?
I think the issue isn't so much tutoring. I think there should be more effects to hurt tutors, so that people are less dependant on them. There are simply too few tutor hate cards, in too few colours. Some things, like Psychic Surgery, are only effective against some tutors.
If there were more good anti-tutor cards, people might hesitate to play as many.
But since there aren't more, I think this is something that should be policed by the playgroup.
I disagree with the conclusion, but I agree with all but the last 5 words of the argument. Of course, those last 5 words make the conclusion, which explains why I disagree.
Now, I will admit that one of my favorite decks is fun because of the high variance... but that variance comes from using my opponents' cards to win (the deck is Thada Adel theft acquisition), not from a lack of tutoring. I will also agree that ending the game the same way every time gets boring, which is part of the reason I dismantled Azusa, and why I removed the transmute cards from Rasputin.
Commander games without tutor effects are less predictable, less consistent and emphasize the singleton aspect of the format.
This is undeniably true.
Playing without tutors discourages resource denial and stax strategies which are seen as unfun by most players.
It is less clearly true that tutors can encourage these strategies, but it is true that many players dislike them.
Playing without tutors also reduces the likelihood of games frequently ending in infinite combos...
Also clearly ture, and follows from the first sentence about reduced consistency.
...which is a good thing.
And here lies the problem with the argument. I disagree that avoiding infinite combos is necessarily a good thing, and that disagreement invalidates the conclusion. While I do have some decks without infinite combos (off the top of my head, I have no infinites in Soraya bird/soldier tribal, Wrexial sea monster tribal, Teeg hatebears, or Narset pillowfort), but I've got 29 decks to pull from, and even my decks without infinites generally have some potentially backbreaking synergies (for some simple examples from the previously listed decks, Lieutenant Kirtar+Emeria, Void Winnower+Nullstone Gargoyle, masses of hatebears in general, and Words of Wind especially paired with something like Delaying Shield).
At the same time, I think it's a good thing to be able to say "this game has been going for an hour, now I combo off and we can get a second game in before everybody has to go home".
My favorite thing about EDH is the huge, singleton nature of the decks, which reminds me of the toolbox-type decks I played in the past. As such, Birthing Pod, Wild Research, Zur the Enchanter, etc are some of my favorite cards in the format because they allow me to play a large amount of silly "silver bullet" hate cards to neuter my opposition, whatever it may be.
My father is possibly the worst handyman on the planet, but he always emphasized the importance of coming prepared with the right tools and having those tools at my disposal every game is immensely satisfying. Without tutors, I might as well have thrown all my tools in a hefty bag and be forced grab things at random, which is more frustrating than fun. That being said, I can't say I enjoy tutor chains that just repeat themselves. Tooth and Nail for X and Y creature combo every game isn't really fun in my book, but to each their own.
TL;DR, ETC: IMO tutors are like free speech; better to allow nearly everything (even stuff you hate) than infringe on individuals' personal freedoms arbitrarily and subjectively. I, for one, would probably quit the format if such a resolution was formally passed (not that anyone would or should care).
6 - It is a little more enjoyable to have the inconsistency and see all the different cards.
1 - Blue is strong enough. Hitting tutors makes blue WAYYYYYY more powerful by neutering all the other colors. Green is probably the hardest hit by this considering their ramp would be hurt by this.
Overall, tutors are part of the balance of the game. You could cut them out but no.... I dont want to feel like I need to play every deck as a blue deck. Draw is just as powerful as tutor and cutting out core elements of every color but blue seems harsh. I play a lot of white in what I play and cutting out the Equipment / Aura / enchantment tutors from them would really hurt. I play a defensive toolbox rebels deck as well which that would essentially have to throw away.
@OP User - I notice all of your decks in your sig fall into simic based colors (aka the best colors). Try playing some mono white, mono red, or boros. It will solve this problem
Tutoring for ramp/lands is simply something that let's you actually play the game and is somewhat of a necessity. The rest is really meta dependent though, as in a more competitive environment you simply will need tutors to survive let alone win. Furthermore, it does help getting in a few quick games as well.
I'm more a casual player myself and I generally don't have issues on cutting back on some of the tutors. It lets me play other fun cards, save a bit of money as the better tutor simply are more expensive and also make up for more varied games. That said, having some tutors to either grab some removal or bring an end to a long winding game isn't necessarily a bad thing either.
I think there are a couple of areas where this gets a bit grey.
Firstly there's a big difference between demonic Tutor and Razaketh the Foulblooded - there are other reasonably valid reasons for playing Raz, and DT serves no other purpose whatsoever. The same could be said for Eye of Ugin vs something like Expedition Map - I run the Eye in Kozi simply for cost reduction, I don't think I've actually cracked it for a tutor yet, whereas I run the map in the same deck and again, it serves no other purpose. I see the value in playing the variants that have multiple areas of value, but I'm much less likely to play the straight tutor.
Secondly, there's a big difference between consistency and predictability. I love a deck that doesn't do what you expect it to, has different avenues to victory, or is unpredictable in the ways that games turn out. I DON'T love a deck that requires one to a few cards in order to get off the ground at all - partly that gives an indication that it's poorly built,or you've put all of your eggs in one basket, or it's a deck that enables the use of tutors. In this instance, I'd prefer to adjust to go for the first - synergy is cheaper to build monetarily, and gets the grey matter working more, as you have to really use some forethought and planning to achieve the advantage you want from your deck (In my opinion - not hating on tutor users, it's a personal thing, I totally respect people who use them I just choose not to in most cases).
All this being said, in this particular Likert scale I'd put myself at 6.5. I see the value in tutors, but I'm much more likely to use soft tutors or pseudo-tutors and achieve synergy to the best of my deckbuilding abilities than use hard tutors. There's far more variability and it's totally possible to achieve consistent advantage without them.
I think most players do not have problem with basic land tutors (Rampant Growth, Cultivate, etc.), or even non basic mana producing lands (using a Polluted Delta to find a Hallowed Fountain). That being said, it can be annoying playing against a 5 color deck, but because of the mana base, the deck can somehow consistently cast Liliana of the Veil or Counterspell on turn 2.
People say that tutors allow people to search for answers to get out of difficult situations, but many of these incredibly difficult situations are much more likely to happen when tutors are involved. Oppressive stax and resource decks generally run tutors because they need specific pieces to be effective, they also run few win conditions to tutors ensures that they run into them every game.
I think most players do not have problem with basic land tutors (Rampant Growth, Cultivate, etc.), or even non basic mana producing lands (using a Polluted Delta to find a Hallowed Fountain). That being said, it can be annoying playing against a 5 color deck, but because of the mana base, the deck can somehow consistently cast Liliana of the Veil or Counterspell on turn 2.
People say that tutors allow people to search for answers to get out of difficult situations, but many of these incredibly difficult situations are much more likely to happen when tutors are involved. Oppressive stax and resource decks generally run tutors because they need specific pieces to be effective, they also run few win conditions to tutors ensures that they run into them every game.
Honestly I feel like perhaps you might want to sit down and have a discussion with your meta as to what tactics are being used and if they should be doing them. Many metas frown on infinite combo / stasis / MLD tactics. My other suggestion is to shift to a more control / responsive style of play. Mike and Trike is a combo thats actually fairly easy to disrupt and if Mikaeus is his commander then the rest of his deck is going to feel a little clunky after you instant speed grave hate him.
I hate to really suggest this but the problem actually sounds like its a matter of what type of effects your meta is using and how they are playing than an issue with tutors.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
In my group we have 2 main flavors of decks: shuffle tribal and casual. Shuffle tribal typically shuffles their deck once per turn, and adds a significant amount of time to an average game where other players are just waiting. If the player is experienced with the deck, it can be fast, but it takes a certain amount of time to search an 80+ card deck, shuffle properly, present for cut etc.
Casual decks typically only shuffle once every 3 or so turns, and they typically know exactly what they are looking for, which cuts down on waiting time.
I tend to stay in the casual category, mostly because I like the variance. This doesn't mean I don't play powerful decks, they just aren't as consistent. I do have one shuffle tribal anti-meta deck that I bring out against tier-1 decks, but typically leave it out of casual games.
In the end, I don't mind tutors, I just don't tend to play then.
3 I can see how people think it's unfair, and it does tend to put combo (and by extension control as the rock to combo's scissors) at the center of the metagame, and does bad things to aggro and midrange, but I also know that you do want the game to end eventually.
Plus, if I'm in red (but not green) I can just cast Stranglehold (which doubles as Narset and Sage of Hours hate). If I'm in white, Aven Mindcensor. If I'm in black, Ob Nixilis, Unshackled can help, but if you're tutoring up a wincon, he's pretty worthless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I think most players do not have problem with basic land tutors (Rampant Growth, Cultivate, etc.), or even non basic mana producing lands (using a Polluted Delta to find a Hallowed Fountain). That being said, it can be annoying playing against a 5 color deck, but because of the mana base, the deck can somehow consistently cast Liliana of the Veil or Counterspell on turn 2.
People say that tutors allow people to search for answers to get out of difficult situations, but many of these incredibly difficult situations are much more likely to happen when tutors are involved. Oppressive stax and resource decks generally run tutors because they need specific pieces to be effective, they also run few win conditions to tutors ensures that they run into them every game.
Mike and Trike is a combo thats actually fairly easy to disrupt and if Mikaeus is his commander then the rest of his deck is going to feel a little clunky after you instant speed grave hate him.
I hate to really suggest this but the problem actually sounds like its a matter of what type of effects your meta is using and how they are playing than an issue with tutors.
A lot of players do not like the idea of automatically losing if they tap out for one turn. Mike and Trike is already degenerate, but it's much less fun when a player constantly tutors for Trike every game in a deck that has 100 unique cards.
Eye of Ugin is one of my least favorite cards because it encourages players to play land destruction that often gets used on mana producing lands without extra abilities, however it is necessary to run, because other wise the player that every game uses Crop Rotation/Expedition Map and proceeds to win every game with the same one or two Eldrazi is tiresome.
If tutors were less common or not used in games, aggro and midrange strategies would be more successful. It's fine if you want to run a combo that flat out wins the game, but spending every game searching for two cards that win you the game rather than interacting with your opponents in a singleton format with 100 cards is not fun in my opinion. I don't think Stax is fun (most players don't) and Stax would be far less oppressive if there were no tutors.
I built a whole deck without any tutors because I got tired of always shuffling so much. I wanted a no-shuffle option and I now I have it. The variety that comes from lacking tutors is a side benefit.
It's often nice to minimize or avoid tutors in more casual decks, but I wouldn't want them gone form the format entirely.
You remove titors you may as well remove fetch lands. Or ramp. Really tuors are not bad. Yes you will find one problematic person but the more comletative group you have the higher the need for tutors. Plus when some tutos mlre often than not ot will force some to tutor something else.removal or counters are often tuored fr when someone grabs concecrated sphinx from a dt.
On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how you much you agree with the following analysis. 1 means "I don't agree at all." 10 means "I agree entirely." Please explain your answer.
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
In my experience, every time someone complains about a 'tutor' effect, the tutor is not the problem. The tutor instead highlights another problem with the player using it, or the group they are playing with, and the fault is misapplied.
Attempting to play this format without access to any form of tutor effect has universally been unfun at best.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
After playing this format for years, having tutors feels really dirty. As it makes a deck more consitent however it also makes a deck more boring. Its also a sign of lazy deckbuilding if the go-to-answer for what to put in an open slot is more tutors.
However I'm not entirely against tutors either. Like a Personal Tutor and Drift of Phantasms are not exactly going to break the bank if that is all.
As a tutor is effectively a wild card as it can transform itself into what you honestly wish for. The problem occurs when people abuse tutors and rest on them like they are a crutch. Like I have brewed up cutthroat decks that are consistent and have 1/10th of the deck easily composed of just tutors. Yes I'm admitting I have used tutors as a crutch.
On the other hand its one of those problems.
"If Bobby and Susy are using tutor spells, then Jimmy should as well. If Jimmy chooses not to, he is merely hamstringing his own deck's potential."
They enable some really dumb stuff but also provide answers to really dumb stuff. Im also interested to know what the group thought of Farseek or even Evolving Wilds. I think that any deck with more than 2 colours would be immediately less viable without any form of land tutors.
BRGKresh the BloodbraidedBRG, A box of lands and ideas.
Modern:
RG Titanshift. A deck made of cards too stupid for EDH.
Retired: Lots. More than I feel you should suffer through or I should type out.
Tutors for answers or goodstuff cards: 1. Never a problem.
EDH: -UG Ezuri-UGZegana-BRMogis-WUBRGRamos-WBREdgar-URLocust God-WUBRBreya-BMacar-WUBrago-WEvra-
I don't really know how I feel about tutors. I play with about four to seven tutors in my Commander deck, depending on how you define tutor, and I haven't really played without tutors in such a long time that maybe my perspective is totally skewed. Maybe games are just more fun without tutors. With that said, when you play a ridiculous Rube Goldberg machine like I do, having some form of card selection seems really vital to me; I'm not sure I would fare all that well without tutors.
I should probably state that I generally agree with you. Card diversity does seem to go a long way towards keeping Commander fresh, and tutors certainly diminish card diversity, but... do they really? I've always held the steadfast belief that how a player uses their cards ultimately determines whether or not they're fun, and I'm not sure tutors are an exception to that. Take the following example:
You have a Demonic Tutor in your hand. You kept it in your opener alongside two land cards. Now it's turn three, and you haven't drawn another land yet. If you don't continue to make your land drops, you're liable to not do much of anything the rest of the game. Is spending your tutor to find a third land, let's say Command Tower in this case, really that unfun? I'd argue it's likely the opposite. Because you opted to find a land you needed, you're now more likely to become an actual participant in your game. Without the tutor, it's entirely possible you wouldn't have made any kind of positive impact at the table due to being being a non-player.
Now, I understand that the above example doesn't seem to illustrate how cards like Demonic Tutor are often played, but I do think it adequately explains my belief that the how, the way in which cards are played matters a lot more than what the effect of a card actually is. Some cards are more likely to promote unfun games than others, and perhaps tutors are in that boat, but that doesn't necessarily mean games of Commander would be better without them. If players choose to play tutors in such a way that promote good gameplay as opposed to poor gameplay, tutors could be a source of fun at the table.
I think the reason why tutors often get a bad rap is due to the combination of the way players typically use them and the way players build their decks. From my experience, players tend to use cards like Demonic Tutor to fetch up their deck's most powerful card, whatever that happens to be at the time. This isn't something I can fault players for; the point of the game is to win after all, and I don't think sandbagging creates good gameplay, but at the same time using tutors to find these powerful cards doesn't often create good gameplay either; certain combinations of cards are sometimes so overwhelmingly powerful that they really throttle fun at the table. That's why I think the combination of play decisions and deck design really influences how fun or unfun tutors are. If players use their tutors to find their most powerful cards (as they almost certainly should), it's only because of the way a player built their deck that any given unfun situation arose. Should a player have built their deck differently, the situation wouldn't have existed in the first place.
Therein lies the problem with tutors I think. Designing decks in such a way that tutors don't create poor gameplay when cast is hard. Really hard. I think it's something that I've been trying to do for several months now, and I'm still failing at that. That doesn't mean it isn't possible; it's just something that I wouldn't expect the casual Commander player to be able to do that well. I think that tutors which find smaller sets of cards are probably less likely to cause poor gameplay than tutors which find large sets of cards by virtue of the smaller set likely containing a smaller disparity in power between cards (the chances of a larger set of cards containing a larger disparity of power just seems more likely), so maybe that's something to take away from this whole discussion, but deck design really does seems to mandate a reason for not always tutoring the same card time after time.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I don't have a problem with Evolving Wilds or Rampant Growth.
I also don't mind tutors when they have more to them than just paying a cost and tutoring for X card. Transmute is an interesting ability since it's stapled onto a real card. Rune-Scarred Demon and Razaketh, the Foulblooded are big demons. etc.
I would call myself a 3.
There is the obvious issue of tutoring for lands. Fetches, landcycling, cultivate, etc.. While I don't expect cultivate to be backbreaking, crop rotation can be. Where do you draw a line on what constitutes a tutor?
I think the issue isn't so much tutoring. I think there should be more effects to hurt tutors, so that people are less dependant on them. There are simply too few tutor hate cards, in too few colours. Some things, like Psychic Surgery, are only effective against some tutors.
If there were more good anti-tutor cards, people might hesitate to play as many.
But since there aren't more, I think this is something that should be policed by the playgroup.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
I disagree with the conclusion, but I agree with all but the last 5 words of the argument. Of course, those last 5 words make the conclusion, which explains why I disagree.
Now, I will admit that one of my favorite decks is fun because of the high variance... but that variance comes from using my opponents' cards to win (the deck is Thada Adel
theftacquisition), not from a lack of tutoring. I will also agree that ending the game the same way every time gets boring, which is part of the reason I dismantled Azusa, and why I removed the transmute cards from Rasputin.This is undeniably true.
It is less clearly true that tutors can encourage these strategies, but it is true that many players dislike them.
Also clearly ture, and follows from the first sentence about reduced consistency.
And here lies the problem with the argument. I disagree that avoiding infinite combos is necessarily a good thing, and that disagreement invalidates the conclusion. While I do have some decks without infinite combos (off the top of my head, I have no infinites in Soraya bird/soldier tribal, Wrexial sea monster tribal, Teeg hatebears, or Narset pillowfort), but I've got 29 decks to pull from, and even my decks without infinites generally have some potentially backbreaking synergies (for some simple examples from the previously listed decks, Lieutenant Kirtar+Emeria, Void Winnower+Nullstone Gargoyle, masses of hatebears in general, and Words of Wind especially paired with something like Delaying Shield).
At the same time, I think it's a good thing to be able to say "this game has been going for an hour, now I combo off and we can get a second game in before everybody has to go home".
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
My favorite thing about EDH is the huge, singleton nature of the decks, which reminds me of the toolbox-type decks I played in the past. As such, Birthing Pod, Wild Research, Zur the Enchanter, etc are some of my favorite cards in the format because they allow me to play a large amount of silly "silver bullet" hate cards to neuter my opposition, whatever it may be.
My father is possibly the worst handyman on the planet, but he always emphasized the importance of coming prepared with the right tools and having those tools at my disposal every game is immensely satisfying. Without tutors, I might as well have thrown all my tools in a hefty bag and be forced grab things at random, which is more frustrating than fun. That being said, I can't say I enjoy tutor chains that just repeat themselves. Tooth and Nail for X and Y creature combo every game isn't really fun in my book, but to each their own.
TL;DR, ETC: IMO tutors are like free speech; better to allow nearly everything (even stuff you hate) than infringe on individuals' personal freedoms arbitrarily and subjectively. I, for one, would probably quit the format if such a resolution was formally passed (not that anyone would or should care).
6 - It is a little more enjoyable to have the inconsistency and see all the different cards.
1 - Blue is strong enough. Hitting tutors makes blue WAYYYYYY more powerful by neutering all the other colors. Green is probably the hardest hit by this considering their ramp would be hurt by this.
Overall, tutors are part of the balance of the game. You could cut them out but no.... I dont want to feel like I need to play every deck as a blue deck. Draw is just as powerful as tutor and cutting out core elements of every color but blue seems harsh. I play a lot of white in what I play and cutting out the Equipment / Aura / enchantment tutors from them would really hurt. I play a defensive toolbox rebels deck as well which that would essentially have to throw away.
@OP User - I notice all of your decks in your sig fall into simic based colors (aka the best colors). Try playing some mono white, mono red, or boros. It will solve this problem
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Tutoring for ramp/lands is simply something that let's you actually play the game and is somewhat of a necessity. The rest is really meta dependent though, as in a more competitive environment you simply will need tutors to survive let alone win. Furthermore, it does help getting in a few quick games as well.
I'm more a casual player myself and I generally don't have issues on cutting back on some of the tutors. It lets me play other fun cards, save a bit of money as the better tutor simply are more expensive and also make up for more varied games. That said, having some tutors to either grab some removal or bring an end to a long winding game isn't necessarily a bad thing either.
Firstly there's a big difference between demonic Tutor and Razaketh the Foulblooded - there are other reasonably valid reasons for playing Raz, and DT serves no other purpose whatsoever. The same could be said for Eye of Ugin vs something like Expedition Map - I run the Eye in Kozi simply for cost reduction, I don't think I've actually cracked it for a tutor yet, whereas I run the map in the same deck and again, it serves no other purpose. I see the value in playing the variants that have multiple areas of value, but I'm much less likely to play the straight tutor.
Secondly, there's a big difference between consistency and predictability. I love a deck that doesn't do what you expect it to, has different avenues to victory, or is unpredictable in the ways that games turn out. I DON'T love a deck that requires one to a few cards in order to get off the ground at all - partly that gives an indication that it's poorly built,or you've put all of your eggs in one basket, or it's a deck that enables the use of tutors. In this instance, I'd prefer to adjust to go for the first - synergy is cheaper to build monetarily, and gets the grey matter working more, as you have to really use some forethought and planning to achieve the advantage you want from your deck (In my opinion - not hating on tutor users, it's a personal thing, I totally respect people who use them I just choose not to in most cases).
All this being said, in this particular Likert scale I'd put myself at 6.5. I see the value in tutors, but I'm much more likely to use soft tutors or pseudo-tutors and achieve synergy to the best of my deckbuilding abilities than use hard tutors. There's far more variability and it's totally possible to achieve consistent advantage without them.
I think what is unfun to play against is a commander deck led by Mikaeus the Unhallowed that uses Demonic Tutor/Vampiric Tutor/Beseech the Queen every game to tutor for Triskelion and win the game via infinite combo.
People say that tutors allow people to search for answers to get out of difficult situations, but many of these incredibly difficult situations are much more likely to happen when tutors are involved. Oppressive stax and resource decks generally run tutors because they need specific pieces to be effective, they also run few win conditions to tutors ensures that they run into them every game.
It's annoying to play against turn 1 Enlightened Tutor for Sol Ring.
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
Honestly I feel like perhaps you might want to sit down and have a discussion with your meta as to what tactics are being used and if they should be doing them. Many metas frown on infinite combo / stasis / MLD tactics. My other suggestion is to shift to a more control / responsive style of play. Mike and Trike is a combo thats actually fairly easy to disrupt and if Mikaeus is his commander then the rest of his deck is going to feel a little clunky after you instant speed grave hate him.
I hate to really suggest this but the problem actually sounds like its a matter of what type of effects your meta is using and how they are playing than an issue with tutors.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Casual decks typically only shuffle once every 3 or so turns, and they typically know exactly what they are looking for, which cuts down on waiting time.
I tend to stay in the casual category, mostly because I like the variance. This doesn't mean I don't play powerful decks, they just aren't as consistent. I do have one shuffle tribal anti-meta deck that I bring out against tier-1 decks, but typically leave it out of casual games.
In the end, I don't mind tutors, I just don't tend to play then.
Plus, if I'm in red (but not green) I can just cast Stranglehold (which doubles as Narset and Sage of Hours hate). If I'm in white, Aven Mindcensor. If I'm in black, Ob Nixilis, Unshackled can help, but if you're tutoring up a wincon, he's pretty worthless.
On phasing:
A lot of players do not like the idea of automatically losing if they tap out for one turn. Mike and Trike is already degenerate, but it's much less fun when a player constantly tutors for Trike every game in a deck that has 100 unique cards.
Eye of Ugin is one of my least favorite cards because it encourages players to play land destruction that often gets used on mana producing lands without extra abilities, however it is necessary to run, because other wise the player that every game uses Crop Rotation/Expedition Map and proceeds to win every game with the same one or two Eldrazi is tiresome.
If tutors were less common or not used in games, aggro and midrange strategies would be more successful. It's fine if you want to run a combo that flat out wins the game, but spending every game searching for two cards that win you the game rather than interacting with your opponents in a singleton format with 100 cards is not fun in my opinion. I don't think Stax is fun (most players don't) and Stax would be far less oppressive if there were no tutors.
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
I built a whole deck without any tutors because I got tired of always shuffling so much. I wanted a no-shuffle option and I now I have it. The variety that comes from lacking tutors is a side benefit.
It's often nice to minimize or avoid tutors in more casual decks, but I wouldn't want them gone form the format entirely.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist