I am going to assume that you have never played Vintage. Every tutor is a copy of your best cards.
I have played in tournaments in 2008 where I have cast:
Dark ritual - Dark Ritual - Dark ritual - demonic tutor for YawgWill - Cast YawgWill - do it again from the graveyard to then find and cast Tendrills of Agony as the 10th spell and win.
Demonic Tutor for Lotus or Time Vaul or Flash or Gifts Ungiven - which ends up being a Demonic Tutor for 6 cards because one pile is to get YawgWill + Recoup + Lotus + Dark Ritual. No matter what they give you, you win.
I played and won a mox ruby in a 30 man event with mono black null rod agro. Leyline of the void, duress, Hymn to tourach, hypnotic spector, phyrexian negator, dark confidant, wasteland, stripmine, sink hole, amd a suite of Demonic Tutor, Vampiric, Imperial Seal, YawgWill, one tendrils, 4 rituals, Mox Jet and a pile of swamps. The main plan was to play resource denial and finish hard. Open the game with leyline, Turn 1 ritual into duress and Demonic tutor for null rod, then win through attrition.
The lists and examples go on and on.
That colorless and a black makes a difference when you can fetch an underground sea, cast a mana crypt or off color mox (red/green/white) and tutor up a combo card or force of will or whatever is strong.
But in Commander? Ome reason why I am "burnt out" on the format is how leniar my decks become with tutors.
Personal tutor for merchant scroll, maybe cast a can trip to draw it; merchant scroll for Intuition; Intuition into a game winning pile, of which there are many.
I was thinking to myself: How good or useless is any given commander if it is not trying to combo?
I love Breya and how we got an esper commander with red which can use Goblin Welder, Deretti, Scrap Mastry, Shaali and all of those fun cards. I live the idea of looting and rummaging through my deck on the cheap and then reanimating artifacts. However, I must explain each time I play with new people that it is a red esper artifact goodstuff deck and not a fast 4 color combo with cheap tutors.
If I play Mizzix, only combo is viable. I do not buy into the Earthquake game plan and relying on X spells and Mizzix surviving. Without tutors, it is trash. With it, it is versitile and strong. Not cEDH strong, but it can defend itself and has many play lines to end games with different synergystic combos... but strugles without a boat load of obvious tutors.
The list goes on and on as well. I found many decks I love leaned on tutors to carry tye deck to victory in games it would have otherwise had no business winning if tutors were cut from the deck. That is why I began to question if the concepts were even good, or if I was just leaning on a powerful game mechanic - tutors - in a game and format designed around variance and the mistery of the draw.
Vintage is really different now. 2008 is a long time ago in MTG time. Demonic Tutor is definitely played in non-combo decks. While it's a copy of your best card, the "best" card changes from turn to turn and game to game. I play my Lands.dec (link) with a heavy tutor suite. And even with a heavy-hitter like Ad Nauseam in my 99, I tutor for answers or engine pieces just as often.
You sound burnt out but it's not because of tutors. I suspect there are several other culprits, especially if you're going to look at every single deck based on it's combo potential or theoretical power-level (i.e. "tier). When you do that, of course, there is no reason to play certain decks or build certain ways. After all, very few things are worth doing when you get to play Black Lotus or Ancestral Recall. Same things happen in EDH also. And you know what, bans don't really fix anything. Restrict Ancestral, and there's still Treasure Cruise and enough facsimiles to make Blue the best color.
In your ISBpathfinder Edgar deck, forget any discussion about tutors->Necro...aren't you glossing over the fact that Edgar Markov is just a stupidly designed magic card? I can't imagine a worse deck to play if you feel "jaded." There is basically no other way to build Edgar than to jam vampires. Only difference is that the good deck builders found out way earlier that crappy, cheap vampires were best. Even the bad deck builders have found that by now since they've been thoroughly creamed by enough good Edgar players by now (Edgar is ridiculously popular according to EDHrec). Yeah, Markov and most CMDR-set legendaries are garbage for the format. Just don't play Edgar Markov.
If combo and infinite loops are the only way to reliably win in your meta, that's not a problem tutor-bans will fix. Like I said in another thread, if Joe's mono black deck wins by DT into Exsanguinate/Torment of Hailfire or Tim's etb Bant deck always goes for Craterhoof, what good does a tutor ban do? Isn't he still going to win with the same card in every game that goes long?
I think for some Breya players, it's only fun because it's Esper + Red. Some players don't really care to infinite loop everyone else out each game. But since it's the only option, they run it. I know vintage players long for a place where Goblin Welder can dominate once more. You mentioned all of the fun cards. Well, aren't tutors just access to your fun cards? I say tutors just enable fun. Fun isn't necessarily game ending. The corollary of course is that being able to actually play your spells is fun and that mana enables fun. I believe both. Get that notion of tutors bans out of here.
If you propose that tutors enable a weak/poor strategy but otherwise potentially fun strategy (e.g. Mizzix) to exist, how exactly is that a negative? Especially since you're also saying that a tutor-enabled "has many play lines" and "different synergistic combos?" I'd say that my lands.dec deck is otherwise extremely weak besides its tutors. I don't play any fast mana, have no stack interaction/instant speed removal (since it's completely lands based), and doesn't play enough permanents/card draw that I can ever snowball value. But that I play 5 colors and can tutor for lands that act as spells or engines that allow me to use lands is what makes my deck good.
If a tutor for a single card, can turn a game around where you are otherwise dead-to-rights, maybe that card and the tutor should be discussed together?
I say that match-ups and the multiple odd-interactions and truly-unique board states possible in EDH are what really drive variance in commander games. I mean, the card that people most build their decks around is already tutor'd out each and every single game. A blanket tutor-ban isn't going to make games more fun just because.
I know that a thoughtful, reflective deck builder can put together something to get them out of a funk. Blaming certain cards is just too easy. But if someone or group is stuck playing the infinite loop/instant win game or won't let go over always playing the same high power'd cards, then games can seem same-ish.
Yeah, Macabre's Demonic Tutor = Rampant Growth shouldn't be taken seriously. Both power-level and effect are massively different. No green ramp spell approaches DT's power. And Rampant Growth isn't good for much besides loot fodder in the late game (but this can be said of other good cards as well), whereas DT is someone I'm happy to draw at any time in any game (but this can be said of other good cards as well). However, I must bring up that green land ramp = consistency. And that can mean repetitive as well. I mean, some of the same people who complain about tutors being repetitive for some reason refuse to acknowledge that T2 ramp, T3 ramp, T4 ramp, T5 Maelstrom Wanderer, T6 Maelstrom Wanderer, T7 Maelstrom Wanderer is also repetitive and enabled with green land ramp.
It's pointless to have a singleton restriction if your deck can contain some wildcards (great analogy)that for 1-2 mana can be everything else. If you need to tutor that bad, you still have diabolic tutor
I don't think tutors violate the singleton nature of the format because it's not as if you can tutor for another copy of the same card.
About the "singleton restriction" of the format, do you feel the same about Relentless Rats?
Do not put tutors that search for spells and tutors that search for basic lands together in the same group.
If you want to complain about ramp, complain about ramp, but they are separate discussions.
I agree that those are two separate things.
However, one of the complaints about tutors is that they make the game more consistently the same. So other than power-level, some people complain about tutors making games feel the same. It's an easy parallel for people to make since ramping lands consistently also makes games feel the same and land ramp is literally searching your deck for specific cards. So I guess that's why it's brought up so often together.
But I'm sure the OP meant to just discuss Demonic Tutor and the like.
Tutors are just basically wild cards which I find unfun in all games not just Magic. It seems they've been printing more tutor hate of late. I just hope they continue to print more playable tutor hate, then the problem will fix itself as tutoring will not be a sure thing.
I suppose that split cards are kinda like wildcards too...so I don't necessarily agree that tutors are exactly wildcards, but I understand.
100% there definitely does need to be more search-hate.
Green ramp spells have minimal impact on the game, at least in comparison to other tutors. You aren’t tutoring up a game winning/saving answer with Rampant Growth.
Green land ramp/tutoring is one of the biggest parts of EDH though.
Great experiment. Now, instead of banning tutors, try banning the cards that player in your group tutor for over and over again. And then have fun.
If you have a solid play group, doing both of these on separate occasions would be worth your while. See which games are actually more varied.
I find breaking up people from playing the same win-conditions over and over again leads to much more varied games. Take away tutors for Craterhoof Behemoth and guess what? Craterhoof still ends up winning the same amount of games.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Vintage is really different now. 2008 is a long time ago in MTG time. Demonic Tutor is definitely played in non-combo decks. While it's a copy of your best card, the "best" card changes from turn to turn and game to game. I play my Lands.dec (link) with a heavy tutor suite. And even with a heavy-hitter like Ad Nauseam in my 99, I tutor for answers or engine pieces just as often.
You sound burnt out but it's not because of tutors. I suspect there are several other culprits, especially if you're going to look at every single deck based on it's combo potential or theoretical power-level (i.e. "tier). When you do that, of course, there is no reason to play certain decks or build certain ways. After all, very few things are worth doing when you get to play Black Lotus or Ancestral Recall. Same things happen in EDH also. And you know what, bans don't really fix anything. Restrict Ancestral, and there's still Treasure Cruise and enough facsimiles to make Blue the best color.
In your ISBpathfinder Edgar deck, forget any discussion about tutors->Necro...aren't you glossing over the fact that Edgar Markov is just a stupidly designed magic card? I can't imagine a worse deck to play if you feel "jaded." There is basically no other way to build Edgar than to jam vampires. Only difference is that the good deck builders found out way earlier that crappy, cheap vampires were best. Even the bad deck builders have found that by now since they've been thoroughly creamed by enough good Edgar players by now (Edgar is ridiculously popular according to EDHrec). Yeah, Markov and most CMDR-set legendaries are garbage for the format. Just don't play Edgar Markov.
If combo and infinite loops are the only way to reliably win in your meta, that's not a problem tutor-bans will fix. Like I said in another thread, if Joe's mono black deck wins by DT into Exsanguinate/Torment of Hailfire or Tim's etb Bant deck always goes for Craterhoof, what good does a tutor ban do? Isn't he still going to win with the same card in every game that goes long?
I think for some Breya players, it's only fun because it's Esper + Red. Some players don't really care to infinite loop everyone else out each game. But since it's the only option, they run it. I know vintage players long for a place where Goblin Welder can dominate once more. You mentioned all of the fun cards. Well, aren't tutors just access to your fun cards? I say tutors just enable fun. Fun isn't necessarily game ending. The corollary of course is that being able to actually play your spells is fun and that mana enables fun. I believe both. Get that notion of tutors bans out of here.
If you propose that tutors enable a weak/poor strategy but otherwise potentially fun strategy (e.g. Mizzix) to exist, how exactly is that a negative? Especially since you're also saying that a tutor-enabled "has many play lines" and "different synergistic combos?" I'd say that my lands.dec deck is otherwise extremely weak besides its tutors. I don't play any fast mana, have no stack interaction/instant speed removal (since it's completely lands based), and doesn't play enough permanents/card draw that I can ever snowball value. But that I play 5 colors and can tutor for lands that act as spells or engines that allow me to use lands is what makes my deck good.
If a tutor for a single card, can turn a game around where you are otherwise dead-to-rights, maybe that card and the tutor should be discussed together?
I say that match-ups and the multiple odd-interactions and truly-unique board states possible in EDH are what really drive variance in commander games. I mean, the card that people most build their decks around is already tutor'd out each and every single game. A blanket tutor-ban isn't going to make games more fun just because.
I know that a thoughtful, reflective deck builder can put together something to get them out of a funk. Blaming certain cards is just too easy. But if someone or group is stuck playing the infinite loop/instant win game or won't let go over always playing the same high power'd cards, then games can seem same-ish.
Yeah, Macabre's Demonic Tutor = Rampant Growth shouldn't be taken seriously. Both power-level and effect are massively different. No green ramp spell approaches DT's power. And Rampant Growth isn't good for much besides loot fodder in the late game (but this can be said of other good cards as well), whereas DT is someone I'm happy to draw at any time in any game (but this can be said of other good cards as well). However, I must bring up that green land ramp = consistency. And that can mean repetitive as well. I mean, some of the same people who complain about tutors being repetitive for some reason refuse to acknowledge that T2 ramp, T3 ramp, T4 ramp, T5 Maelstrom Wanderer, T6 Maelstrom Wanderer, T7 Maelstrom Wanderer is also repetitive and enabled with green land ramp.
I don't think tutors violate the singleton nature of the format because it's not as if you can tutor for another copy of the same card.
About the "singleton restriction" of the format, do you feel the same about Relentless Rats?
I agree that those are two separate things.
However, one of the complaints about tutors is that they make the game more consistently the same. So other than power-level, some people complain about tutors making games feel the same. It's an easy parallel for people to make since ramping lands consistently also makes games feel the same and land ramp is literally searching your deck for specific cards. So I guess that's why it's brought up so often together.
But I'm sure the OP meant to just discuss Demonic Tutor and the like.
I suppose that split cards are kinda like wildcards too...so I don't necessarily agree that tutors are exactly wildcards, but I understand.
100% there definitely does need to be more search-hate.
Green land ramp/tutoring is one of the biggest parts of EDH though.
Great experiment. Now, instead of banning tutors, try banning the cards that player in your group tutor for over and over again. And then have fun.
If you have a solid play group, doing both of these on separate occasions would be worth your while. See which games are actually more varied.
I find breaking up people from playing the same win-conditions over and over again leads to much more varied games. Take away tutors for Craterhoof Behemoth and guess what? Craterhoof still ends up winning the same amount of games.