The reason most any tutor is fine in EDH is that what is being searched for by the tutor is generally matched to the type of player who is using it. A competitive player may be aggressively digging for their combo, but a casual player is just searching up a piece of removal or a big splashy creature to play, or, generally, an answer to what their opponents are playing rather than just playing solitaire with tutors to end the game. Just because the things you would do with Tooth and Nail or Demonic Tutor would end the game quickly does not mean that I or another, more casual player, would do the same. The very fun uses of those cards for casual players are exactly why they will remain legal.
And now I get to steal an argument for my own nefarious purposes, tacking on nicely to the mention of a card in a couple other posts recently!
Why doesn't this argument apply to Braids? The people who are going to Dark Ritual or Sol Ring into Braids t2 know exactly what horrifically oppressive thing they're doing in a casual context and how it would affect the game, and they aren't nearly the only people who would run Braids. The only deck I've run Braids in while she was legal juggled all kinds of things into and out of graveyards for sweet LtB/EtB effects and value, it didn't just drop her as soon as possible to crush people's early board states into oblivion. And oh my, does it ever miss her. She was a great, easily recurrable engine to feed creatures into to reuse, and in combination with other cards, she managed opponents' board states fairly well. I have met one person, in almost eight years of playing this format, who tried to break Braids, and it honestly wasn't any worse than your typical competitive Zur build. And even if it were particularly oppressive to play her as a commander in a competitive context... so what? Doesn't the argument that casual players aren't going to be doing anything close to what competitive players would do apply here too?
Proclamation of Rebirth with Spore Frog/Kami of False Hope gives you a difficult-to-break way to fog once a turn cycle late game. I don't know what you're counting in your "fog effects," but Chronomantic Escape is a fantastic way to ease the burden on your fogging, and Seht's Tiger is both a functional fog effect most of the time and a way to save yourself from non-combat damage.
I wouldn't play too many fog-effects, just the best or most reusable ones. Spike Weaver, Knight-Captain of Eos, Constant Mists, things like that. I'd need some time and a full list to look at for many more suggestions.
Using black over blue gives you two major things things: plenty of more passive ways to kill opponents through constant fogging (Underworld Dreams, Baleful Omen, etc.), and plenty of ways to recur creatures that fog. Teneb, the Harvester can recur your foggy men, Ghave, Guru of Spores can provide more defense with tokens and support a few other secondary strategies. If you're not running Angus Mackenzie as your commander, why use blue?
I absolutely do this. Though usually it's a combination of limitations based on thematic choices, deck style choices, and how generally goofy I want to make a deck. With 100% power being a finely-tuned tier 1 deck, my decks range from about 90-95% (Melek High Tide combo) to 40-50% (Jeleva chaos/spellslinger/wizard tribal), actually pretty similar decks in a lot of regards. One just has a very focused gameplan, while the other just durdles, copies random things that look fun, and eventually kills people with Sphinx Bone Wand or Guttersnipe or something while Eye of the Storm/Possibility Storm/Knowledge Pool are out. But when choosing an appropriate deck for a game or group, the style of the deck is just as important. One of my favorite decks to pilot is Xira Arien stax (~80%) but I know there are plenty of people that don't enjoy playing against it. I've got a dozen decks I can have fun with; if it's less fun for the table to face some of them, I'd rather not inflict those decks upon them. I pack aggro decks, ramp/fatty decks, several speeds and styles of control, and my one combo deck. I also specifically exclude infinite combos and certain cards that would just win the game on their own, i.e. Cathar's Crusade in my Ghave Enchantress. Typically, if I got to untap with it, I won immediately, so I cut it. I want a good fight, and I'm happy to tailor my deck to get one.
You claim that I'm cherrypicking examples to suit my purposes, then give me the triple-Hermit Druid scenario and examples exclusive to UW prison requiring multiple pieces to lock a game down? Cool!
By the way, I wasn't ever trying to demonstrate that spot removal is better than any other card, or that it should universally be played over ramp, mana denial, draw spells, wraths, or anything else. I was presenting a system which more accurately evaluates efficiency, using spot temoval to demonstrate its more accurate depiction. An efficient card is one that does the most to achieve your goals, which I have defined, using the fewest resources. You completely ignored my argument, the purpose of which was debunking the use of a system that universally dismisses spot removal as inefficient and insists on its utility anyway.
I don't play a lot of spot removal. Most pieces I use have multiple functions, or exile, or at least are the most efficiently costed spells available, usually some combination. I run more wraths in most decks, and FAR more ways to advance my game plans. But I have only played a tiny handful of games, out of thousands, where it was not integral to disrupting an opponent's game plan. And I run a couple pieces in every deck. I don't generally run prison strategies as a personal choice, but that's neither here nor there, play whatever you think you ought to in a deck like that. But your evaluation system is flawed.
Edit: Apologies for the butchered post above. I'm trying to do this from my phone and it's awkward.
Prid3, the flaw in your argument lies in your evaluation of efficiency. You are vastly oversimplifying the math and logic that goes into Commander. In terms of strict card advantage, yes, spot removal is inefficient. In terms of making any given board state less threatening to yourself and multiple opponents at a cost only to yourself, yes, spot removal is inefficient. But there are other, admittedly less well-defined ways to evaluate efficiency that I believe provide a more accurate approximation of value.
Let's start with the assumption that the object of the game is to win, and that any given card can be evaluated in the context of your deck and the game state in terms of how much it helps you win, limits your opponents' ability to win, or prevents you from losing. Each card has some amount of potental to do one or more of these things. Playing optimally requires using any given card at the point at which that potential is highest. Now, I don't have the capacity to define this potential explicitly, or whether one can determine precisely when a card has reached maximum potental in the general case, but I think this is a reasonable model.
Say you have STP in hand in a 4-player game. An opponent T+Ns for Mike and Trike and attempts to kill the table. Here, STP has clearly reached max potential. Using it directly prevents you from losing the game. From your perspective, using removal here is necessary, but still inefficient, as two other players benefit more because they receive the same upside at less cost. I argue that benefits to other players in this case are irrelevant. If two other players don't lose right now, you can still win. If you lose right now, you can't. Preventing yourself from losing carries infinitely more weight than preventing two opponents from losing.
Let's look at a slightly less straightforward case. Say an opponent plays SA on turn one, and you play a Plains and have STP in hand. On turn 2 that opponent attacks you with SA. From your perspective, using your removal on a card that threatens three players is inefficient because two others receive the same benefit at less cost. From mine, at the moment, your capacity to lose is increased by this threat significantly more after the attack is declared. If your opponent is playing efficiently, they will continue to attack you to eliminate an opponent quickly. It is very unlikely that another creature of similar power will be played for another several turns. To preserve your life, as well as to remove an opponent's threat and prevent them from gaining life, it is optimal to remove your opponent's SA as soon as the attack is declared. Other players benefit, but that's true under a variety of circumstances. Killing a player benefits all the remaining players--would you argue that it is inefficient to use your resources to do so? More importantly, under my evaluation, you benefit significantly more that your opponents, as you are the only one being directly threatened. This is why we play spot removal. Frequently, it is either a solution to an issue that would lose you the game, or to one where it disproportionately helps prevent you from losing when compared to your opponents.
Again, not trying to explicitly define this value system, just stating that it is reasonable to assume such a system exists and illustrating simple evaluation with such a system.
Okay, regardless of how people feel about ban status, can we abandon this "8 turns to kill" fallacy? Prophet of Kruphix takes twenty turns to kill, but no one's ever used it by itself to kill a person. I play a couple aggro decks, and without a one-drop I've killed players by turn 5 and tables by turn 6 with them. If I can deal 40 by turn 5, you bet I can deal 16 a lot easier. Context is important. No one expects to play SA on turn one and just beat someone to death with it, even if it does happen sometimes, or if it crippes someone enough that they can't effectively get back into the game.
I'm seeing how Dark Petition works out in the deck. It's a little more awkward to use than BTL, but since you can BTL into it on 5, and BTL counts towards Spell Mastery, with an extra instant/sorcery in the yard (which you should easily have) you can effectively BTL for Virulent Plague out of the board, face-down Den Protector, or with a few more cards in the yard and U open, Treasure Cruise. I've had a lot of problems with tokens, and being able to reliably land a Plague will allow me to focus on the planeswalkers.
Speaking of planeswalkers, I'm also testing Clever Impersonator out of the board. While there are rare times it's dead, it's usually a fifth (read: eighth) Siege Rhino at worst. It's main purpose is to kill Chandra, as well as Ugin after wiping Siege Rhino off the board, generating a potentially game-winning swing. Also very good vs Silumgar and Ojutai.
There's a lot of mardu green in my meta, and Ojutai's Command has been fantastic there. Countering Rhino/Dark-Dwellers is a big game, returning the Jace they likely blew up early on is a big game, and picking up an extra card counts for a lot when you're getting hit with Kolaghan's Command. Playing the control game until you can get a K-Command/Den Protector loop online seems to work out.
Butcher Orgg is an old favorite of mine for making combat interesting. Deals very nicely with regeneration, shroud and hexproof, punches through defenses, and if you can boost his power, wipes boards.
Wine of Blood and Iron pairs well with Kurkesh and with Butcher Orgg. Presumably you can recur it when needed.
Sunder Bay Passage
Land [U]
~ enters the battlefield tapped. t: Add U or G to your mana pool. UG, t, Return ~ to its owner's hand: Target creature gains hexproof until end of turn. Though the imminent dangers have shifted from narrow passages and submerged debris to drifting Eldrazi monstrosities, a good guide can still provide a relatively safe journey through Sunder Bay.
It's still a good card obviously. My problem with it isn't effectiveness or power level. I don't like it because it's boring, and it draws a lot of attention. I feel like every T&N is the same. Half the time people tutor up some instant win 2-card combo with it, which is boring to me. I don't usually do that kind of thing with my decks, but I still just don't like paying 9 to grab a Witness and a Prophet, or a Karmic Guide and some way to bounce or blink it, or what have you. It's sorcery speed as well, which I list not because I think that not being instant-speed spells the card's downfall, but because it almost universally made me feel and look like an aggressor with the card, even if I used it to diffuse some other threat. I spent my turn tutoring for two creatures that I felt best moved my game plan forward. That draws a lot of attention, almost no matter what I grab. I'd rather play Chord of Calling, or GSZ, or Wargate should my colors permit it. The flexibility in cost or potential targets makes me much more inclined to run them to grab some silver bullet or set up a powerful play, and one tutored-up creature is FAR less scary than two, in my experience. The only deck I still play it in is Mayael, and there I'm just getting two more big idiots because that's what Mayael does, and it's awesome. I'm much happier playing it in a deck that's much less likely to try to do unfair things with it.
Petalgrove Fields
Land
~ enters the battlefield tapped. t: Add 1 to your mana pool. Landfall - t: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Activate this ability only if a land entered the battlefield under your control this turn.
Melek - High tide combo - 9.5
Xira Arien - Stax - 8.5
Rakdos, Lord of Riots - Massive creatures, weapons and general violence - 6.5
Jenara - Control featuring Token copy and Bounce subthemes - 8
Aurelia - Tokens and extra combat - 6.5
Triad of Fates - Blink and Reanimator - 5
Ghave - Enchantress - 7
Jeleva - Spellslinging shenaniganry - 4
Horde of Notions - 5c coolstuff - 7.5
Mazirek - Sacrifice aggro - 6
And now I get to steal an argument for my own nefarious purposes, tacking on nicely to the mention of a card in a couple other posts recently!
Why doesn't this argument apply to Braids? The people who are going to Dark Ritual or Sol Ring into Braids t2 know exactly what horrifically oppressive thing they're doing in a casual context and how it would affect the game, and they aren't nearly the only people who would run Braids. The only deck I've run Braids in while she was legal juggled all kinds of things into and out of graveyards for sweet LtB/EtB effects and value, it didn't just drop her as soon as possible to crush people's early board states into oblivion. And oh my, does it ever miss her. She was a great, easily recurrable engine to feed creatures into to reuse, and in combination with other cards, she managed opponents' board states fairly well. I have met one person, in almost eight years of playing this format, who tried to break Braids, and it honestly wasn't any worse than your typical competitive Zur build. And even if it were particularly oppressive to play her as a commander in a competitive context... so what? Doesn't the argument that casual players aren't going to be doing anything close to what competitive players would do apply here too?
I wouldn't play too many fog-effects, just the best or most reusable ones. Spike Weaver, Knight-Captain of Eos, Constant Mists, things like that. I'd need some time and a full list to look at for many more suggestions.
Using black over blue gives you two major things things: plenty of more passive ways to kill opponents through constant fogging (Underworld Dreams, Baleful Omen, etc.), and plenty of ways to recur creatures that fog. Teneb, the Harvester can recur your foggy men, Ghave, Guru of Spores can provide more defense with tokens and support a few other secondary strategies. If you're not running Angus Mackenzie as your commander, why use blue?
By the way, I wasn't ever trying to demonstrate that spot removal is better than any other card, or that it should universally be played over ramp, mana denial, draw spells, wraths, or anything else. I was presenting a system which more accurately evaluates efficiency, using spot temoval to demonstrate its more accurate depiction. An efficient card is one that does the most to achieve your goals, which I have defined, using the fewest resources. You completely ignored my argument, the purpose of which was debunking the use of a system that universally dismisses spot removal as inefficient and insists on its utility anyway.
I don't play a lot of spot removal. Most pieces I use have multiple functions, or exile, or at least are the most efficiently costed spells available, usually some combination. I run more wraths in most decks, and FAR more ways to advance my game plans. But I have only played a tiny handful of games, out of thousands, where it was not integral to disrupting an opponent's game plan. And I run a couple pieces in every deck. I don't generally run prison strategies as a personal choice, but that's neither here nor there, play whatever you think you ought to in a deck like that. But your evaluation system is flawed.
Edit: Apologies for the butchered post above. I'm trying to do this from my phone and it's awkward.
Let's start with the assumption that the object of the game is to win, and that any given card can be evaluated in the context of your deck and the game state in terms of how much it helps you win, limits your opponents' ability to win, or prevents you from losing. Each card has some amount of potental to do one or more of these things. Playing optimally requires using any given card at the point at which that potential is highest. Now, I don't have the capacity to define this potential explicitly, or whether one can determine precisely when a card has reached maximum potental in the general case, but I think this is a reasonable model.
Say you have STP in hand in a 4-player game. An opponent T+Ns for Mike and Trike and attempts to kill the table. Here, STP has clearly reached max potential. Using it directly prevents you from losing the game. From your perspective, using removal here is necessary, but still inefficient, as two other players benefit more because they receive the same upside at less cost. I argue that benefits to other players in this case are irrelevant. If two other players don't lose right now, you can still win. If you lose right now, you can't. Preventing yourself from losing carries infinitely more weight than preventing two opponents from losing.
Let's look at a slightly less straightforward case. Say an opponent plays SA on turn one, and you play a Plains and have STP in hand. On turn 2 that opponent attacks you with SA. From your perspective, using your removal on a card that threatens three players is inefficient because two others receive the same benefit at less cost. From mine, at the moment, your capacity to lose is increased by this threat significantly more after the attack is declared. If your opponent is playing efficiently, they will continue to attack you to eliminate an opponent quickly. It is very unlikely that another creature of similar power will be played for another several turns. To preserve your life, as well as to remove an opponent's threat and prevent them from gaining life, it is optimal to remove your opponent's SA as soon as the attack is declared. Other players benefit, but that's true under a variety of circumstances. Killing a player benefits all the remaining players--would you argue that it is inefficient to use your resources to do so? More importantly, under my evaluation, you benefit significantly more that your opponents, as you are the only one being directly threatened. This is why we play spot removal. Frequently, it is either a solution to an issue that would lose you the game, or to one where it disproportionately helps prevent you from losing when compared to your opponents.
Again, not trying to explicitly define this value system, just stating that it is reasonable to assume such a system exists and illustrating simple evaluation with such a system.
At any rate, here's my list. I've had moderate success, and I'm still learning and trying out new tech. This deck is crazy and tons of fun.
4 Jace, Vryn's Prodigy
4 Siege Rhino
2 Den Protector
2 Nissa, Vastwood Seer
1 Dragonmaster Outcast
Spells:
3 Bring to Light
1 Dark Petition
3 Silkwrap
3 Abzan Charm
2 Treasure Cruise
2 Ojutai's Command
2 Utter End
2 Duress
1 Languish
1 Planar Outburst
1 Kolaghan's Command
2 Prairie Stream
1 Canopy Vista
1 Sunken Hollow
1 Cinder Glade
1 Smoldering Marsh
2 Forest
2 Swamp
1 Plains
1 Island
4 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
3 Wooded Foothills
2 Bloodstained Mire
1 Windswept Heath
3 Hallowed Moonlight
2 Negate
2 Surge of Righteousness
1 Den Protector
1 Silkwrap
1 Dragonlord Ojutai
1 Silumgar's Command
1 Clever Impersonator
1 Infinite Obliteration
1 Crumble to Dust
1 Virulent Plague
I'm seeing how Dark Petition works out in the deck. It's a little more awkward to use than BTL, but since you can BTL into it on 5, and BTL counts towards Spell Mastery, with an extra instant/sorcery in the yard (which you should easily have) you can effectively BTL for Virulent Plague out of the board, face-down Den Protector, or with a few more cards in the yard and U open, Treasure Cruise. I've had a lot of problems with tokens, and being able to reliably land a Plague will allow me to focus on the planeswalkers.
Speaking of planeswalkers, I'm also testing Clever Impersonator out of the board. While there are rare times it's dead, it's usually a fifth (read: eighth) Siege Rhino at worst. It's main purpose is to kill Chandra, as well as Ugin after wiping Siege Rhino off the board, generating a potentially game-winning swing. Also very good vs Silumgar and Ojutai.
There's a lot of mardu green in my meta, and Ojutai's Command has been fantastic there. Countering Rhino/Dark-Dwellers is a big game, returning the Jace they likely blew up early on is a big game, and picking up an extra card counts for a lot when you're getting hit with Kolaghan's Command. Playing the control game until you can get a K-Command/Den Protector loop online seems to work out.
Wine of Blood and Iron pairs well with Kurkesh and with Butcher Orgg. Presumably you can recur it when needed.
Land [U]
~ enters the battlefield tapped.
t: Add U or G to your mana pool.
UG, t, Return ~ to its owner's hand: Target creature gains hexproof until end of turn.
Though the imminent dangers have shifted from narrow passages and submerged debris to drifting Eldrazi monstrosities, a good guide can still provide a relatively safe journey through Sunder Bay.
It's still a good card obviously. My problem with it isn't effectiveness or power level. I don't like it because it's boring, and it draws a lot of attention. I feel like every T&N is the same. Half the time people tutor up some instant win 2-card combo with it, which is boring to me. I don't usually do that kind of thing with my decks, but I still just don't like paying 9 to grab a Witness and a Prophet, or a Karmic Guide and some way to bounce or blink it, or what have you. It's sorcery speed as well, which I list not because I think that not being instant-speed spells the card's downfall, but because it almost universally made me feel and look like an aggressor with the card, even if I used it to diffuse some other threat. I spent my turn tutoring for two creatures that I felt best moved my game plan forward. That draws a lot of attention, almost no matter what I grab. I'd rather play Chord of Calling, or GSZ, or Wargate should my colors permit it. The flexibility in cost or potential targets makes me much more inclined to run them to grab some silver bullet or set up a powerful play, and one tutored-up creature is FAR less scary than two, in my experience. The only deck I still play it in is Mayael, and there I'm just getting two more big idiots because that's what Mayael does, and it's awesome. I'm much happier playing it in a deck that's much less likely to try to do unfair things with it.
Sold. New Desert Twister is strictly better than any similar-functioning card in monogreen/colorless because its art features a sharknado.
Land
~ enters the battlefield tapped.
t: Add 1 to your mana pool.
Landfall - t: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Activate this ability only if a land entered the battlefield under your control this turn.