If you have a top tier commander. So cEDH, which is irrelevant to the banlist.
I haven't even voted in this poll since I don't think fast mana or tutors are an issue in Commander. As I stated in an earlier post (not the one you responded to (see previous page)), I think the main issue is decks of varying power level playing versus each other and pilots with poor threat assessment. I've played cEDH and games were very fun, very swingy and lasted a long time more times than not. I was mainly responding to the fact some seem to think tutors are stronger or worse for Commander than fast mana. One of the common points those who think tutors are stronger or worse seem to put forward is they are stronger because fast mana can do nothing with the variance in Commander. My counterpoint is there is no variance with your Commander as you 'always' (barring stealing and such niche tactics) have it available via the command zone, so with fast mana you can always ramp into it, whereas a single tutor is often less powerful on its own and more balanced versus other players with similar mana availability who all have the goal of winning themselves. Granted if variance is the thing you hate most, then yes, I guess tutors would be the thing you hate more, but I don't think tutors are stronger than fast mana. So really by saying tutors are worse I think those people with that view are in effect saying 'I love variance, tutors kill variance'. They aren't really saying tutors are stronger or less fair.
I don't tend to have a problem with either of them but that is probably just down to I play in a pretty regular group at a store and the matches all can go from races to grinds at a drop of a hat and the winner varies a whole bunch.
If you have a top tier commander. So cEDH, which is irrelevant to the banlist.
The style of Commander you play doesn't also limit your choices of Commander so I don't understand this statement. Elf's follow up post also expands on this but Fast mana is the best in Commander because no matter what you have a Commander, and if you are playing a well made commander deck of any power level having your commander in play faster generally means your deck is working better.
The game ending that early doesn't affect anyone else and the odds on assembling most of everything in that thread in a singleton format are so astronomical that they are just cool possibilities mostly and not a real planned for outcome of any deck.
In reality we usually exaggerate the effects of both on the format, but if we're observing on some sort of "technical" level, my opinion is that fast mana is generally more damaging than tutors. I might be more biased towards tutors because I find them to be an important linchpin for a 75% deck, the tool of making it capable of at least surviving cEDH yet not breaking casual games as long as the user knows how to utilize it (and is inspired thematically in the casual sense to utilize it the casual way as well), but I also believe the reasons that this bias stems from has applications to the question in this thread.
Tutors can be used to answer tutors a whole lot more directly than fast mana can be used to counter fast mana. I meant the sentence in a more general direction, where you can tutor for a answer against a threat that has been tutored for (or fast-mana'ed into), but fast mana inherently doesn't counter opposing fast mana (nor does it counter tutors), mainly because most answers (or at least, the better ones) don't cost a boatload of mana to begin with. Sure, we could enter an endless debate by citing plenty of specific examples (and I won't deny those exist), but I still stand by that generally speaking, fast mana is more liable to creating problems than solving them, while tutors are flexible enough to be both problem or solution, and whether it is against opposing tutors or fast mana.
Let's just put it in an scenario that a cEDH player has access to both - bluntly put you are more likely to have an answer to the cEDH player's first threat/combo if you had a tutor rather than fast mana. Sure occasionally the tutor might still fail you (because of a lack of mana, but by then the opponent probably had christmasland considering tutors+removal/counters don't cost much and fast combos usually lack additional protection outside christmasland cases), but the chances of the tutor failing you are much lower than the chances your fast mana would fail you.
As someone who strives to build 75% decks, let's just say the removal of tutors will immediately force me to make a decision for each deck to head towards the extremities of either end, but the removal of fast mana would actually pull both ends of the spectrum towards the 75%.
Both, I dislike more tutors more because ridiculize the idea of top decking*, but the truth is that it depends on the power level of the decks you're playing against. The guys of command zone popularize the idea of 5 levels of play and that a low power level deck shouldn't play against a high powered deck
I don't tend to have a problem with either of them but that is probably just down to I play in a pretty regular group at a store and the matches all can go from races to grinds at a drop of a hat and the winner varies a whole bunch.
If you have a top tier commander. So cEDH, which is irrelevant to the banlist.
The style of Commander you play doesn't also limit your choices of Commander so I don't understand this statement. Elf's follow up post also expands on this but Fast mana is the best in Commander because no matter what you have a Commander, and if you are playing a well made commander deck of any power level having your commander in play faster generally means your deck is working better.
If you aren't building those commanders competitively, then they aren't going to just win off of fast Mana like master is describing. Choosing to play Azami doesn't mean you are going to build a competitive deck, true, but if you're playing Azami and a turn 1 Sol ring means you are going to win, then you are almost certainly playing a competitive build.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I vote tutors. Tutors make turns too long. I don't mind fast mana as much because it is quick and simple. Play Sol Ring, pass. Play Signet, pass. As opposed to crack fetch, tutor for a land. Cultivate, tutor for more lands. And I think w/o fast mana, green would be even more powerful and other colors would suffer because they cannot tutor for lands and put them into play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I have seen the true path. I will not warm myself by the fire—I will become the flame."
—Lim-Dûl, the Necromancer
I don't tend to have a problem with either of them but that is probably just down to I play in a pretty regular group at a store and the matches all can go from races to grinds at a drop of a hat and the winner varies a whole bunch.
If you have a top tier commander. So cEDH, which is irrelevant to the banlist.
The style of Commander you play doesn't also limit your choices of Commander so I don't understand this statement. Elf's follow up post also expands on this but Fast mana is the best in Commander because no matter what you have a Commander, and if you are playing a well made commander deck of any power level having your commander in play faster generally means your deck is working better.
If you aren't building those commanders competitively, then they aren't going to just win off of fast Mana like master is describing. Choosing to play Azami doesn't mean you are going to build a competitive deck, true, but if you're playing Azami and a turn 1 Sol ring means you are going to win, then you are almost certainly playing a competitive build.
We aren't saying you are going to win.
We are saying those cards are like snowballs of value rolling down a hill and eventually that amount of added value to any deck that early in the game overwhelms the opponents attempting to deal with making it so statistically the deck that has gained the most value over the game will win the game.
In your Azami deck example what you are describing is the different between turn 5 Azami or turn 3 Azami and that represents quite a lot more value.
Just for the record, I think tutors are more toxic than fast mana. But both can be dealt with.
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!
That said, neither are bad in the hands of a player who builds casually and plays competitively, which is the spirit of EDH. Tutors can lend to that harmlessly, since I almost always use mine to go for an Oath of Jace, or Thassa or some silly Jace themed instant/sorcery when I tutor for example. But fast mana tends to have one true purpose, and that's to accelerate into an early win. Both can be fine, arguably, in the hands of a player with the right mindset for EDH. So I'd say players are the determining factor here, not individual card functions. Tutors are harmless for someone who didn't build a deck with the intention of early win combos to go off.
I don't tend to have a problem with either of them but that is probably just down to I play in a pretty regular group at a store and the matches all can go from races to grinds at a drop of a hat and the winner varies a whole bunch.
If you have a top tier commander. So cEDH, which is irrelevant to the banlist.
The style of Commander you play doesn't also limit your choices of Commander so I don't understand this statement. Elf's follow up post also expands on this but Fast mana is the best in Commander because no matter what you have a Commander, and if you are playing a well made commander deck of any power level having your commander in play faster generally means your deck is working better.
If you aren't building those commanders competitively, then they aren't going to just win off of fast Mana like master is describing. Choosing to play Azami doesn't mean you are going to build a competitive deck, true, but if you're playing Azami and a turn 1 Sol ring means you are going to win, then you are almost certainly playing a competitive build.
We aren't saying you are going to win.
We are saying those cards are like snowballs of value rolling down a hill and eventually that amount of added value to any deck that early in the game overwhelms the opponents attempting to deal with making it so statistically the deck that has gained the most value over the game will win the game.
In your Azami deck example what you are describing is the different between turn 5 Azami or turn 3 Azami and that represents quite a lot more value.
Maybe you should try reading the posts in the conversation. He said "yeah, you pretty much win" then talked about cEDH level decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I don't tend to have a problem with either of them but that is probably just down to I play in a pretty regular group at a store and the matches all can go from races to grinds at a drop of a hat and the winner varies a whole bunch.
If you have a top tier commander. So cEDH, which is irrelevant to the banlist.
The style of Commander you play doesn't also limit your choices of Commander so I don't understand this statement. Elf's follow up post also expands on this but Fast mana is the best in Commander because no matter what you have a Commander, and if you are playing a well made commander deck of any power level having your commander in play faster generally means your deck is working better.
If you aren't building those commanders competitively, then they aren't going to just win off of fast Mana like master is describing. Choosing to play Azami doesn't mean you are going to build a competitive deck, true, but if you're playing Azami and a turn 1 Sol ring means you are going to win, then you are almost certainly playing a competitive build.
We aren't saying you are going to win.
We are saying those cards are like snowballs of value rolling down a hill and eventually that amount of added value to any deck that early in the game overwhelms the opponents attempting to deal with making it so statistically the deck that has gained the most value over the game will win the game.
In your Azami deck example what you are describing is the different between turn 5 Azami or turn 3 Azami and that represents quite a lot more value.
Maybe you should try reading the posts in the conversation. He said "yeah, you pretty much win" then talked about cEDH level decks.
Sorry if that may have been hyperbole. I was trying to respond in a similar manner to how the 'tutors are worse' people are responding.
And I focused on cEDH Commanders (not cEDH decks), because those are the main engines in and of themselves, so ramping into them early is a massive advantage. Early fast ramping into a voltron commander can also kill very quickly.
Like I said though, I think the main issue is varying power levels between decks when they play. I don't think the issue is fast mana or tutors, but if I was forced to say which was stronger I believe fast mana is stronger for multiple reasons, many of which have already been stated in this thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
Tutors keep your decks/strategies on rails. If you get the God-hand with the above mentioned rocks, and have nothing to play you're sitting around while the table deals with you. You also have more invested in the board state, and have more to lose when someone Vandalblasts you and then you have a further feel bad. Don't get me wrong, I run both, but playing heavier tutors just gives you access to your entire deck and allows you to essentially solve any problem (assuming you're not playing mono black).
What hurts more however is the mixture of fast mana and tutors. Having redundancy in both categories allows for faster and more consistent gameplay from the deck being piloted. As the more mana you have the more action you can take. The faster you can take these actions, the quicker the results. Which creates smaller windows for disruption.
If they aren't benefiting off of fast mana or have very little, they are obtaining their results more slowly in order to close a game. A slower paced deck also causes higher chances of disruption from opponents because of the window being expanded.
honestly, we are talking about fast tutors, not any tutor. I bet no one is complaining about diabolic tutor. vampiric tutor, on the other hand...
You'd be surprised then. Have had times where running any of the slower tutors can be viewed just as bad as running the faster ones especially if luck with fast mana is involved. Even a Rhystic Tutor has gotten me the occasional flak when put in a 50% deck, not even 75%. Some players I have chatted with just outright disliked tutors in general and don't run them at all. As the gentleman's agreement is like the text from a holy scripture, its got many interpretations on what is "right" and "wrong".
honestly, we are talking about fast tutors, not any tutor. I bet no one is complaining about diabolic tutor. vampiric tutor, on the other hand...
Outside of the most competitive Commander decks, I honestly think the more expensive tutors don't play that much differently from the inexpensive ones. There tends to be somewhere between one and four cards that are best in a player's deck for any given situation, and tutors just routinely find those same cards. From a gameplay perspective, that tends to be undesirable, and the slow tutors aren't really different in that regard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
When it comes to fast vs slow tutors, the cmc matters a lot. It matters that you can cheaply cast the tutor so you have Mana to cast your answer spell immediately, or so you can immediately cast your bomb without waiting to untap. Obviously, if you have 8 Mana an use diabolic to tutor a 4 drop you can do it, but that's both two turns slower than demonic and you have no Mana left for a counter or protection.
I mean, this debate sort of sucks because we don't have data for it, so anecdotal is really all we have to go on, and people experience different results, and certain experiences look larger. It feels really bad to lose to someone god handing with fast Mana, but I think people forget the times that the guy who gets turn 1 Sol ring loses. Since I've started actually noting it when I play, I've noticed that while the guy who drops aol ring turn 1 is more likely to win, they still probably won't, meaning their win about a third of the time (4 player matches online). Obviously it's not a huge sample size, and doesn't take into account deck quality, but it's less than I'd have imagined (I was thinking 50 percent, which is still much lower than the hyperbolic "you turn 1 Sol ring you win" argument). Tutors are the same way. You'll remember when Diabolic and the weaker tutors work because they help you win, but you'll be less likely to remember when you have to wait a couple turns because they cost more, if doing so doesn't make you lose immediately (you'll probably remember losing because you dont have enough to cast diabolic then wrath the same turn though).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
honestly, we are talking about fast tutors, not any tutor. I bet no one is complaining about diabolic tutor. vampiric tutor, on the other hand...
I'm aware, when I said "heavier tutors", I was referring to the volume of them in your deck not the mana cost. Notwithstanding a tutor takes variance out of a variance heavy format.
what really hurts the meta are people who don't prepare for fast mana or tutors, then blame them for repeated losses. all too often i see people complain about fast mana and then find out they run zero artifact removal, or they complain about tutors but run none themselves, or worse, don't run ways to deal with the things tutored for.
sol ring is a lot less scary on turn 1 if you can deal with it
Seems like you could answer this question from many perspectives. From the perspective of winning as many games as possible and playing one of my own decks, I think I'd almost always rather have a turn 1 Vampiric Tutor rather than a turn 1 Sol Ring.
Sure, ramp begets more ramp and some games have that snowball effect. But I've built decks without Sol Ring that don't miss it. I couldn't say that about any of those same decks and tutors. From a deck building perspective, cutting Sol Ring/Mana Crypt and getting to play 2 more cards doesn't lead to games that play drastically differently. Playing with the pre-cons shows you just how much turn 1 Sol Ring isn't that big of a deal. Fast mana makes games fun more often than not. No one wants to play this game on curve, no matter how fair you're playing. Besides, enough games with turn 1 Sol Ring do not end with that player winning. Fast mana doesn't nearly mean the same anymore because threats are massively undercosted anyways.
One new thing that they don't print though is massively undercosted tutors. Cutting Mystical/Enlightened/Vampiric Tutor/Entomb/Demonic Tutor/Merchant Scroll/etc. would make my decks play drastically differently. Tutors are much better draws in every other phase of the game, sometimes even on turn 1 they are better.
I'm not in favor of banning any addition card (another discussion but casual format should mean people get to play with their cards). Just my input that from the perspective of winning games, tutoring has more consistently lead to wins than Sol Ring/Mana Crypt. And why not? You could even tutor for mana. But most of the times tutoring for cards that lead to more cards is better than getting mana. Being able to build a deck that can reliably tutor to reliably access a certain card in the 99 affects my deck building more than the opportunity of including Sol Ring/Mana Crypt.
However, this entire poll is kind of a false dilemma. The overwhelming factor in EDH deck building and game play is 40 starting life. Not fast mana, not cheap tutors.
what really hurts the meta are people who don't prepare for fast mana or tutors, then blame them for repeated losses. all too often i see people complain about fast mana and then find out they run zero artifact removal, or they complain about tutors but run none themselves, or worse, don't run ways to deal with the things tutored for.
sol ring is a lot less scary on turn 1 if you can deal with it
The thing is that there are no answers to fast mana or tutors. As soon as you resolve a Sol ring you tap it immediately for mana. You've essentially got your value out of it. Outside specific counterspells there are very few answers.
Everyone focuses on the disaster scenario of a god-hand with fast mana openers. Yes, those games are incredibly unfair, but they are also occasional. Focusing on the best-case scenario ignores that fast mana is a terrible late-game draw. You're losing something by running it because it means you're not running a late-game card in that slot.
But cheap tutors are always good, because they are always the best and most appropriate card in your deck for the current situation. There's zero opportunity cost to run them and no effective hate against them. And no, a one-of copy of Mindcensor or Stranglehold is not effective hate so much as an occasional inconvenience; the tutors are cheaper than any of the hate, more numerous, and more widely applicable so that you're not hurting yourself by running a bunch of them. That's like saying Ancestral Recall is fine because Omen Machine exists.
I haven't even voted in this poll since I don't think fast mana or tutors are an issue in Commander. As I stated in an earlier post (not the one you responded to (see previous page)), I think the main issue is decks of varying power level playing versus each other and pilots with poor threat assessment. I've played cEDH and games were very fun, very swingy and lasted a long time more times than not. I was mainly responding to the fact some seem to think tutors are stronger or worse for Commander than fast mana. One of the common points those who think tutors are stronger or worse seem to put forward is they are stronger because fast mana can do nothing with the variance in Commander. My counterpoint is there is no variance with your Commander as you 'always' (barring stealing and such niche tactics) have it available via the command zone, so with fast mana you can always ramp into it, whereas a single tutor is often less powerful on its own and more balanced versus other players with similar mana availability who all have the goal of winning themselves. Granted if variance is the thing you hate most, then yes, I guess tutors would be the thing you hate more, but I don't think tutors are stronger than fast mana. So really by saying tutors are worse I think those people with that view are in effect saying 'I love variance, tutors kill variance'. They aren't really saying tutors are stronger or less fair.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
The style of Commander you play doesn't also limit your choices of Commander so I don't understand this statement. Elf's follow up post also expands on this but Fast mana is the best in Commander because no matter what you have a Commander, and if you are playing a well made commander deck of any power level having your commander in play faster generally means your deck is working better.
The game ending that early doesn't affect anyone else and the odds on assembling most of everything in that thread in a singleton format are so astronomical that they are just cool possibilities mostly and not a real planned for outcome of any deck.
Tutors can be used to answer tutors a whole lot more directly than fast mana can be used to counter fast mana. I meant the sentence in a more general direction, where you can tutor for a answer against a threat that has been tutored for (or fast-mana'ed into), but fast mana inherently doesn't counter opposing fast mana (nor does it counter tutors), mainly because most answers (or at least, the better ones) don't cost a boatload of mana to begin with. Sure, we could enter an endless debate by citing plenty of specific examples (and I won't deny those exist), but I still stand by that generally speaking, fast mana is more liable to creating problems than solving them, while tutors are flexible enough to be both problem or solution, and whether it is against opposing tutors or fast mana.
Let's just put it in an scenario that a cEDH player has access to both - bluntly put you are more likely to have an answer to the cEDH player's first threat/combo if you had a tutor rather than fast mana. Sure occasionally the tutor might still fail you (because of a lack of mana, but by then the opponent probably had christmasland considering tutors+removal/counters don't cost much and fast combos usually lack additional protection outside christmasland cases), but the chances of the tutor failing you are much lower than the chances your fast mana would fail you.
As someone who strives to build 75% decks, let's just say the removal of tutors will immediately force me to make a decision for each deck to head towards the extremities of either end, but the removal of fast mana would actually pull both ends of the spectrum towards the 75%.
If you aren't building those commanders competitively, then they aren't going to just win off of fast Mana like master is describing. Choosing to play Azami doesn't mean you are going to build a competitive deck, true, but if you're playing Azami and a turn 1 Sol ring means you are going to win, then you are almost certainly playing a competitive build.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
—Lim-Dûl, the Necromancer
We aren't saying you are going to win.
We are saying those cards are like snowballs of value rolling down a hill and eventually that amount of added value to any deck that early in the game overwhelms the opponents attempting to deal with making it so statistically the deck that has gained the most value over the game will win the game.
In your Azami deck example what you are describing is the different between turn 5 Azami or turn 3 Azami and that represents quite a lot more value.
On phasing:
That said, neither are bad in the hands of a player who builds casually and plays competitively, which is the spirit of EDH. Tutors can lend to that harmlessly, since I almost always use mine to go for an Oath of Jace, or Thassa or some silly Jace themed instant/sorcery when I tutor for example. But fast mana tends to have one true purpose, and that's to accelerate into an early win. Both can be fine, arguably, in the hands of a player with the right mindset for EDH. So I'd say players are the determining factor here, not individual card functions. Tutors are harmless for someone who didn't build a deck with the intention of early win combos to go off.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
Maybe you should try reading the posts in the conversation. He said "yeah, you pretty much win" then talked about cEDH level decks.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Sorry if that may have been hyperbole. I was trying to respond in a similar manner to how the 'tutors are worse' people are responding.
And I focused on cEDH Commanders (not cEDH decks), because those are the main engines in and of themselves, so ramping into them early is a massive advantage. Early fast ramping into a voltron commander can also kill very quickly.
Like I said though, I think the main issue is varying power levels between decks when they play. I don't think the issue is fast mana or tutors, but if I was forced to say which was stronger I believe fast mana is stronger for multiple reasons, many of which have already been stated in this thread.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar
What hurts more however is the mixture of fast mana and tutors. Having redundancy in both categories allows for faster and more consistent gameplay from the deck being piloted. As the more mana you have the more action you can take. The faster you can take these actions, the quicker the results. Which creates smaller windows for disruption.
If they aren't benefiting off of fast mana or have very little, they are obtaining their results more slowly in order to close a game. A slower paced deck also causes higher chances of disruption from opponents because of the window being expanded.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
WIth that being said they both tend to feed into each other and over use of either is what truly hurts the game.
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.
I mean, this debate sort of sucks because we don't have data for it, so anecdotal is really all we have to go on, and people experience different results, and certain experiences look larger. It feels really bad to lose to someone god handing with fast Mana, but I think people forget the times that the guy who gets turn 1 Sol ring loses. Since I've started actually noting it when I play, I've noticed that while the guy who drops aol ring turn 1 is more likely to win, they still probably won't, meaning their win about a third of the time (4 player matches online). Obviously it's not a huge sample size, and doesn't take into account deck quality, but it's less than I'd have imagined (I was thinking 50 percent, which is still much lower than the hyperbolic "you turn 1 Sol ring you win" argument). Tutors are the same way. You'll remember when Diabolic and the weaker tutors work because they help you win, but you'll be less likely to remember when you have to wait a couple turns because they cost more, if doing so doesn't make you lose immediately (you'll probably remember losing because you dont have enough to cast diabolic then wrath the same turn though).
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar
what really hurts the meta are people who don't prepare for fast mana or tutors, then blame them for repeated losses. all too often i see people complain about fast mana and then find out they run zero artifact removal, or they complain about tutors but run none themselves, or worse, don't run ways to deal with the things tutored for.
sol ring is a lot less scary on turn 1 if you can deal with it
Sure, ramp begets more ramp and some games have that snowball effect. But I've built decks without Sol Ring that don't miss it. I couldn't say that about any of those same decks and tutors. From a deck building perspective, cutting Sol Ring/Mana Crypt and getting to play 2 more cards doesn't lead to games that play drastically differently. Playing with the pre-cons shows you just how much turn 1 Sol Ring isn't that big of a deal. Fast mana makes games fun more often than not. No one wants to play this game on curve, no matter how fair you're playing. Besides, enough games with turn 1 Sol Ring do not end with that player winning. Fast mana doesn't nearly mean the same anymore because threats are massively undercosted anyways.
One new thing that they don't print though is massively undercosted tutors. Cutting Mystical/Enlightened/Vampiric Tutor/Entomb/Demonic Tutor/Merchant Scroll/etc. would make my decks play drastically differently. Tutors are much better draws in every other phase of the game, sometimes even on turn 1 they are better.
I'm not in favor of banning any addition card (another discussion but casual format should mean people get to play with their cards). Just my input that from the perspective of winning games, tutoring has more consistently lead to wins than Sol Ring/Mana Crypt. And why not? You could even tutor for mana. But most of the times tutoring for cards that lead to more cards is better than getting mana. Being able to build a deck that can reliably tutor to reliably access a certain card in the 99 affects my deck building more than the opportunity of including Sol Ring/Mana Crypt.
However, this entire poll is kind of a false dilemma. The overwhelming factor in EDH deck building and game play is 40 starting life. Not fast mana, not cheap tutors.
The thing is that there are no answers to fast mana or tutors. As soon as you resolve a Sol ring you tap it immediately for mana. You've essentially got your value out of it. Outside specific counterspells there are very few answers.
Everyone focuses on the disaster scenario of a god-hand with fast mana openers. Yes, those games are incredibly unfair, but they are also occasional. Focusing on the best-case scenario ignores that fast mana is a terrible late-game draw. You're losing something by running it because it means you're not running a late-game card in that slot.
But cheap tutors are always good, because they are always the best and most appropriate card in your deck for the current situation. There's zero opportunity cost to run them and no effective hate against them. And no, a one-of copy of Mindcensor or Stranglehold is not effective hate so much as an occasional inconvenience; the tutors are cheaper than any of the hate, more numerous, and more widely applicable so that you're not hurting yourself by running a bunch of them. That's like saying Ancestral Recall is fine because Omen Machine exists.
- Rabid Wombat