New Hub: Tutorless

TappedOut forum

Posted on June 21, 2019, 3:07 p.m. by KongMing

Hey there all,

I've seen lots of posts from people who don't run tutors in their pods, or in certain deck builds. Recently, I noticed a couple of my decks didn't have tutors either, and I thought it would be a fitting tag for people who are looking for good decks with no tutors.

What do people think? Good idea, or good idea that needs more refinement?

Gidgetimer says... #2

"What do people think? Good idea, or good idea that needs more refinement?"

What I think is that you need to be open to the fact that some people may think that your ideas are bad. I personally don't see the point of playing with no tutors and so have no strong feelings about a tag. I do have strong feelings about leading questions and presenting options that are not complete.

June 21, 2019 3:30 p.m.

KongMing says... #3

Geez, it was just a joke... I think people are smart and confident enough to realize they can disagree with the statement.

Trust me, I'm open to the fact that people think my ideas are bad. I'm posting on the internet, helloooooooooooo!

June 21, 2019 3:39 p.m.

Gidgetimer says... #4

Ok, you seem like an aware individual. I'm trying to think how to relate an actual survey I have seen to this without getting political, but well it is impossible. Shortly after he took office the Trump Campaign posted a "survey" on how people thought he was doing. The options were "Good" "Great" "Fantastic" and "Excellent". Some people are not open to any criticism at all. You just happened to hit a nerve with me being fed up with America's politics. Sorry.

June 21, 2019 3:53 p.m.

Metroid_Hybrid says... #5

I’d be all for it.. I specifically built my Yargle Voltron deck to not contain any Tutors (with the exception of Inventors' Fair )

A Mono-Black EDH deck without any Tutors surprises a lot of people..

June 21, 2019 7:16 p.m.

legendofa says... #6

yeaGO There are several hub suggestions that I think are viable. Is it possible for me to add hubs? Or do you control that?

June 21, 2019 8:16 p.m.

KongMing says... #7

They certainly do Metroid_Hybrid! I recently built a Naban deck without any of the Mage tutors, and it was really nice to have all the extra card slots that would normally go towards those creatures and the synergy pieces they tutor.

June 21, 2019 9:23 p.m.

legendofa says... #8

Sounds like this one has a couple of supporters. I'll add it and see how quickly it grows.

June 21, 2019 9:55 p.m.

legendofa says... #9

Can you please help with a description? It sounds like a mostly EDH hub, but I want to make sure.

"a deck, usually in the Commander format, that avoids using tutor cards in favor of more synergy cards."

Something like that?

June 21, 2019 9:58 p.m.

Consider Occam’s razor when writing these: keep it simple..

Tutorless: A Commander/EDH deck that specifically avoids using Tutors (ie Demonic Tutor , etc.)

June 21, 2019 10:39 p.m.

legendofa says... #11

Sure, but what does it use instead of tutors? If that's the only description, pretty much every mono-red EDH deck (at least, that I know of--EDH isn't my strong suit) would fall under the hub.

June 21, 2019 10:43 p.m.

KongMing says... #12

Usually, part of the implication of being tutorless is that the deck is less consistent by making it more difficult to pull off two- or three-card combos. Maybe to help include decks that have the occasional Terramorphic Expanse, but are tutorless 'in spirit' the definition could include searching specifically for combo pieces or answers.

Tutorless: A Commander/EDH deck that does not search its library for combo or synergy pieces.

June 21, 2019 10:51 p.m.

legendofa says... #13

I'll try it, and see what sort of decks get added.

"a deck in the Commander/EDH format that specifically avoids using tutors to find combos or synergistic cards." Just combining the two suggestions.

June 21, 2019 10:58 p.m.

SynergyBuild says... #14

legendofa "a deck in the Commander/EDH format that specifically avoids using tutors to find combos or synergistic cards."

So, what if your deck runs 20 tutors ( Demonic Tutor , Vampiric Tutor , Worldly Tutor , Mystical Tutor , etc.) but actively doesn't find combos or synergistic cards. Maybe the deck just keeps finding random lands or bad vanilla creatures. It wouldn't be tutorless though.

If you just use a straight: "No tutors in the deck" (or more formalized variant of that sentiment) there still is an issue.

Tutors search A library for a card and place it into a more accessible location ( Vampiric Tutor , Entomb , and Praetor's Grasp all apply here separate in nature than Demonic Tutor ), but under a definition such as this, Cultivate , Rampant Growth , Sakura-Tribe Elder and a lot of other cards would fall under the definition that most people wouldn't consider tutors.

If you say only tutors that search for non-basic cards would be the definition of the tutors required to be not run, then effects like Primeval Titan (while banned in commander), fetch lands, Nature's Lore , etc. get banned. At the same time as this definition is too broad, it is also too narrow, some people would argue it isn't narrow enough, as many people just don't like shuffling, which land search effects most certainly do. Effects that shuffle though don't always tutor too, Soothsaying for example.

Point is, this hub seems overly difficult to define or use.

June 22, 2019 12:29 p.m.

KongMing says... #15

I don't think we can account for all Hubs covering every kind of ill-conceived deck. If someone really makes a deck with 20 tutors and no win condition to tutor for, are they really going to look up the definition of the Hub to double-check if Tutorless technically applies? And is anyone looking for a Tutorless deck going to think that deck is tutorless? The tough part here is finding how close to "Players can't search their libraries" are we talking, or what variation of cards are okay to tutor, or what variation of cards are not okay to tutor for?

A good example of the land thing is a Lord Windgrace deck. Almost any fetch land synergizes with him as a Commander, because it puts lands in your graveyard and pulls them out of the library. In this case, even Basic lands fall under the category of being combo/synergy pieces, because it is a Lands Matter deck.

This is tricky, but I don't think the Hub is overly difficult to define, the current definition just relies more on the individual deck to determine whether the Hub is valid for the deck. A simpler solution or wording likely still exists.

June 22, 2019 2:26 p.m. Edited.

KongMing says... #16

Sorry for the pep, but I've never been one to give up just because others perceive something as difficult. (:

June 22, 2019 2:32 p.m.

TypicalTimmy says... #17

Well, ignoring the drama above, here is my thought:

It doesn't fit.

A hub is meant to draw attention to the kind of deck it is. For example, everybody knows what a burn deck is. Not everybody knows what an 8-Rack deck is.

"Tutorless" isn't exactly an archetype, nor a theme. It doesn't serve a purpose.

It's a nice and honest question, but I don't think it fits the game.

June 22, 2019 8:10 p.m.

legendofa says... #18

Okay, I'll offer this. KongMing and Metroid_Hybrid: if you can provide several convincing examples of other users' decks on this site that would be appropriate for the Tutorless hub, with the approval of the deck creators, and offer a definition that describes what the deck does do instead of what it doesn't do, then I'll keep the hub as-is. Otherwise, it will unfortunately be too narrow and obscure. I think four days would be enough time to get something together. Is that a fair offer? It seems to be a primarily EDH hub, which is not my strong suit, so right now I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. But as many people are saying it's not valid as there are saying it is, so I have to make a choice.

I have to admit, it's an odd hub that's defined by what it doesn't do more than what it does do. The only other current hub that does that is Creatureless, and that one is reasonably well established (if often gimmicky), definable, and recognizable.

June 22, 2019 10:47 p.m.

KongMing says... #19

It seems totally fair. I'll see if I can't dredge up some of the examples I've seen in the past, and see if the creators are game. Thank you!

June 23, 2019 2:51 a.m.

TypicalTimmy says... #20

KongMing brings an interesting point that I'm not sure has been established: "Almost any fetch land (...)"

I know I am taking this out of context, but there are a ton of cards that tutor without exactly being thought of as a "tutor".

Most of us think of Vampiric Tutor , Diabolic Tutor , Demonic Tutor , Enlightened Tutor , & Mystical Tutor . But these aren't the only kinds.

Lands are also tutors. Literally all Fetch lands, including Evolving Wilds and Terramorphic Expanse , not to mention cards that search for lands such as Expedition Map , Sylvan Scrying , Tempt with Discovery , Reap and Sow , etc.

Then, of course, there are artifact tutors: Fabricate , Tinker , Reshape , Artificer's Intuition , etc.

We even have creature tutors: Sylvan Tutor , Signal the Clans , Worldly Tutor , Eldritch Evolution , etc.

Heck, we even have Planar Bridge which is just an all-around basic tutor engine.

Then we get into Planeswalkers such as Nahiri, the Harbinger , Samut, the Tested , Garruk, Caller of Beasts , Tezzeret the Seeker , Sarkhan, Dragonsoul , Sarkhan Unbroken , and Liliana Vess to name a decent portion of them.

So "tutors" seem to be a lot more expansive than just the basic 1 - 4 CMC black sorcerys we are use to thinking of. To ask for an "archetype" that has none of these as well as the vast swath of unmentioned cards is actually kind of backbreaking to build. You purposely have to go out of your way to not at least consider some type of card in some kind of color(s) to assist you with. At that point, you're really building more of a challenge deck to test your skill as a deck builder, such as a "one-word tribal" or "goofy hats matter" deck.

It can be done. I'm sure there are tons and tons of decks out there that don't have a single tutor in them, but at the same time those are probably going to be mono-colored decks that have some sort of serious draw potential or so much duplication in terms of cards they select that they don't really NEED to find anything because it's probably going to be right there on top. Decks like this include: Aristocrats, Burn, Ramp, & Zoo.

At least, that's my thoughts on the matter. Either way, it's a good discussion to have as it helps set the tone on how to explore other hub ideas in the future :)

June 23, 2019 3:35 a.m.

legendofa says... #21

DarkStarStorm Last month you offered to help where you could with hub maintenance. Do you have any thoughts here?

June 23, 2019 7:13 p.m.

DarkStarStorm says... #22

I don't think that "tutorless" should be implemented as a tag. If you don't have tutors, then specify that in your deck description and use the tag "theme/gimmick", because it is not a deck archetype. Deck archetypes have payoffs for adhering to them that are exclusive to an immunity to a kind of card hate. In other words, "Not getting hurt by Ob Nixilis, Unshackled " is not an archetype payoff. If it was, then we may as well add "graveyardless" to the list of tags as well for the people who don't want to get hurt by Rest in Peace.

Secondly, deck archetypes are not arbitrary restrictions that hurt the deck overall UNLESS that restriction is "Budget" or "Casual". Let me rephrase legendofa's description of tutorless to point out how this does not define an archetype.

"a deck in the Commander/EDH format that specifically avoids using tutors to find cards it wants to draw"

June 24, 2019 2:11 p.m.

DarkStarStorm says... #23

Furthermore, "Tutorless" is such a meaningless concept for a tag. There are a lot of decks in EDH that don't run tutors because they are either not in the right colors or they just don't synergize with their gameplan. It doesn't mean that they are a "tutorless deck". They didn't try to avoid fetching for something, it is just an inherent trait of the game that some archetypes don't run tutors.

TL:DR Tutorless should not be implemented as a tag. It is not a deck archetype, but rather a deckbuilding restriction that fits into "theme/gimmick". Furthermore, many colors/archetypes fit into it accidentally.

June 24, 2019 2:23 p.m.

legendofa says... #24

KongMing It's been four days. Were you able to come up with anything?

June 28, 2019 6:24 a.m.

KongMing says... #25

Well legendofa, I was able to find a few decks that might fit the Hub, and have sent messages to their creators via TappedOut or other social media asking for approval to use their decks as examples. I am still waiting to hear back from them.

Many people here are saying Tutorless should not be a Hub because it is not a deck archetype, or is overly difficult to define because of its relativity to the deck. I looked into the other Hubs too, to see what already exists and how Tutorless fits into the greater scheme of things.

Some hubs like Aggro and Casual are completely abstract, what might be defined as Aggro to one is not necessarily the same to another. The definition of the 'Casual' Hub gives us insight into this, "a deck not intended for sanctioned tournament use." Here is a Hub that is built completely on restriction, relativity, and creator's intent, and it is on the list.

Gifts Ungiven is an entire Hub devoted to one specific tutor. In other words, if you don't have this one card in your deck, it doesn't apply to the Hub. That seems pretty restrictive to me, not to mention the fact that your entire deck is likely built around this combo. At this point, 'archetype' and 'restriction' are so intertwined you can barely tell them apart.

Some Hubs include in their definition implicit tutors, such as Silver Bullet. Tutorless is a useful Hub in this sense, because it works with other existing Hubs to help highlight decks with unique flavor.

Let's stop for a moment and ask ourselves, why are there Hubs on the site? Why do we add more? There are many reasons, but I think 'convenience for users' is a big one. I have seen many posts and decks about people who play in tutorless pods (especially now that I've done this research), and I believe keeping the Hub will help them find more options for themselves in the future.

What needs to be more clearly defined is the definition of Hub. How and where is it defined? yeaGO said in 2011, "Its a place for centralizing common deck archetypes..." Given that a deck archetype is often a collection of restrictions relative to the form of the deck, and given Tutorless is a common deck restriction expressed by many users, it is suitable to say that 'Tutorless' should be a Hub for the convenience of these and other users.

June 28, 2019 2:15 p.m.

legendofa says... #26

Which deck of yours specifically are you looking to get the Tutorless hub for?

June 28, 2019 5:24 p.m.

KongMing says... #27

Mine? Wizard101, the Naban Commander deck. It is already labeled with the Hub. I didn't really think about it until I started looking at the other Naban options on the site and seeing how ubiquitous Trophy/Trinket Mages are with him, and moreover how central those cards are for bringing online game-winning combos and synergies. That's when I decided it might be good to highlight the deck as Tutorless, so people in tutorless pods or with tutorless tiers in their pod can find a Trophy Mage-less version of the Naban deck more easily.

My Tajic Soldier deck also technically qualifies, but tutors aren't a key part of 90% of Tajic decks (despite the power of Sunforger ) so I won't bother wasting a Hub slot on that deck by categorizing it as tutorless.

June 28, 2019 5:31 p.m.

KongMing says... #28

Probably should have included a link, sorry.

Wizard101 | FREE Download | Play Now!

Commander / EDH KongMing


June 28, 2019 5:32 p.m.

legendofa says... #29

tcgslayer Lionblaze87 kwahlderwal I'm tagging you here to get your opinion on the Tutorless hub. Your decks, plus one from KongMing (who suggested it), are the only ones in this hub. How would you define the hub, and is it worth keeping? I've gotten multiple responses that it is poorly defined, narrow, or non-archetypal. Any input? I'm trying to give this hub every available chance, but I'm still unable to find a clear and concise definition for it, and I'm leaning toward closing it.

July 8, 2019 3:23 p.m.

KongMing says... #30

Could we also get your opinion MagicalHacker? You did get back to me and mention some of your decks were good to use as examples of the Hub.

July 8, 2019 5:06 p.m.

MagicalHacker says... #31

The only opinion I can offer at this point is this:

I and many players like playing unnerfed decks. Taking a specific commander and seeing exactly how successful we can make that deck. As it currently stands, there are not enough Stranglehold effects being played in commander to warrant a feasible optimization strategy leading to playing no tutors. I will still be an advocate for such cards, but until then, I will begrudgingly play tutors in order to keep up.

July 8, 2019 5:20 p.m.

tcgslayer says... #32

Personally I like the tutorless hub because it's simply the easiest way to find tutorless decks. I know that redundant, but I also know that a lot of players (myself included) like making budget decks, and I know there is a budget hub as well, but tutorless helps people find ways around needing to use tutors, as no good general tutor cards are really cheap. It is rather poorly defined and I don't have any good suggestions to help that, but I still think it's useful.

July 9, 2019 5:27 p.m.

KongMing says... #33

Couldn't the most general definition work?

Tutorless - a deckbuild in which the player does not search their library.

July 9, 2019 7:27 p.m.

legendofa says... #34

KongMing: I'm concerned that the current definition is a bit too broad--it covers a lot of burn decks, weenie decks, dredge decks, and other decks that have no special incentive to run tutors, and that doesn't seem to be the point of the hub. Is this incorrect?

July 9, 2019 9:51 p.m.

legendofa says... #35

Maybe "a deck that does not use tutors for budget or parity reasons."

July 9, 2019 9:54 p.m.

KongMing says... #36

I like parity legendofa, because it covers the idea of balance in a playgroup, which seems to be a primary motivator in people playing tutorless.

July 9, 2019 10:33 p.m.

DarkStarStorm says... #37

Again, tutorless is not a deck archetype; it instead fits the definition of an alternative format. There is no archetype payoff for not including tutors and instead it is an arbitrary deckbuilding restriction not unlike Tiny Leaders or Penny Dreadful.

The precedent set by making "tutorless" a deck tag is that "graveyardless", "exileless", "removalless", "boardwipeless" have perfectly legitimate grounds for inclusion. In all honesty, Creatureless should not be a tag on this site. To cover this request, I suggest that "Theme/Gimmick" be changed to "Theme/Restriction". Gimmick comes with a negative connotation and is also redundant with Theme. If "Tutorless" grows in popularity, for whatever reason, then it would become a format and not a deck tag.

July 10, 2019 2:45 p.m.

DarkStarStorm says... #38

legendofa A deck that doesn't include a certain card for sake of budget should just use the existing tag, "Budget". This is such a nonsensical request that you are within your right to refuse.

July 10, 2019 2:55 p.m.

KongMing says... #39

It's not always for the sake of budget. It's sometimes for playgroup reasons. This is in line with other existing hubs, and user-friendliness and catering to all types of users is a goal of the site. Making it a format makes sense too, but would keep the user from properly categorizing it as EDH, Oathbreaker, etc.

What are the negative repercussions/consequences/implications of leaving the hub?

July 10, 2019 10:02 p.m.

KongMing says... #40

Continuing research, Metroid_Hybrid recently added the Tutorless hub to the deck Lieutenant Yar-Kul. He said this in the description concerning the exclusion of tutors:

This decision was two-fold..

a) It would be boring.. Because over time, as I test & develop the deck, it would have invariably devolved into the 1-dimensional strategy of: Tutor for Sword of X & Y. (I instead opted for explosive card draw and raw, consistent value)..

b) It would’ve been far more expensive to build.. Therefore, this precluded me altogether from feeling obligated to invest huge sums of money into things like Imperial Seal   (et al.) and foil copies of the entire “Sword of X & Y” cycle(s)..

DarkStarStorm has claimed multiple times that excluding tutors does not make a deck archetype in and of itself, and that the consistency it can give is merely corollary to other successful archetypes.

I disagree, and I think Metroid discerns the truth here. Is consistency a gimmick? Of course not. Tutors can either add or remove consistency based on the style of deck they are included in. Tutors can also severely increase the dollar value of a deck, even a deck that would not be considered 'Budget' to begin with.

As MagicalHacker said, people want to play with unnerfed decks. Since there aren't enough Stranglehold-type abilities for a lot of decks to be consistent shutting down tutors, that leaves two (maybe more) options: Either make the deck so consistent that it doesn't need tutors, or include tutors to supplement consistency. When you choose to make a deck tutorless, is not a matter of changing its format, it is a matter of picking between archetypical consistency options.

Tutorless it is a deck archetype that eschews tutors in favor of more consistent, usually $ cheaper, options. Just like many pods have Budget restrictions on some deck tiers, some do the same with tutors. Budget is a hub, not a format. Why would tutorless be?

July 13, 2019 2:41 p.m. Edited.

DarkStarStorm says... #42

"Is consistency a gimmick?"

I also said that "theme/gimmick" needs to be changed to "theme/restriction". Gimmick carries a connotation and is redundant with "theme". Please don't put words in my mouth.

"Tutors can also severely increase the dollar value of a deck, even a deck that would not be considered 'Budget' to begin with."

If I have a $2000 deck and I exclude tutors so that it doesn't become $3500, that is a budget decision. At that point it is a competitive deck on a budget, since compared to competitive decks it is cheap. Legacy Reanimator is a prime example of this. Your own definition of a budget is not the universal definition of such. Budget Vintage decks are still thousands of dollars, and yet they fit within the budget category.

"Budget is a hub, not a format. Why would tutorless be?"

Budget is a hub because it is an overarching decision attributed to a deck, which I guess tutorless can also be. The issue with tutorless is, as I have said, that it sets the precedent for "exileless", "instantless", "graveyardless", ect. It adds clutter to the list of hubs that can easily be covered by "Theme/Restriction". It is, again, not an archetype. The precedent it sets also allows "Ladies Facing Left", "Chair Tribal", or "Five-Drop Tribal" to be perfectly legitimate inclusions.

"When you choose to make a deck tutorless, is not a matter of changing its format, it is a matter of picking between archetypical consistency options."

What? That is such a non-statement. If I don't run tutors of COURSE I'm going to be running synergistic cards in their place. I'm not going to be running nonsynergistic cards or leaving the slot empty. That's a factual statement about Magic the Gathering and conscious thought, not a deck archetype.

July 13, 2019 3:06 p.m.

KongMing says... #43

Sorry SynergyBuild, they must have changed the deck since I took note of it. I see they have also removed the tutorless hub, but not changed their deck description?

July 13, 2019 3:23 p.m.

I removed the hub itself from my Yargle deck because Inventors' Fair & Expedition Map are, indeed, technically “Tutors” (the rest of the cards listed by SynergyBuild only fetch basic lands, but I rather not dive into the hair-splitting semantics of that)..

The rational, as KongMing quoted from the “Notable Exclusions” section of my deck description, still stands..

I originally jumped into the discussion because it spoke to the paradox of building a Mono-Black EDH deck, without any real budget restriction, not running any of the “usual suspects” that people would suggest ( Demonic Tutor , Vampiric Tutor , Grim Tutor , etc.)

And DarkStarStorm.. Your line of reasoning has me believe that you’re a reasonably intelligent person who loves being a contrarian just for the sake of being a contrarian.. (I’m frequently guilty of this myself)

July 13, 2019 9:44 p.m.

KongMing says... #45

Regarding DarkStarStorm, I partially agree. I don't think they're being contrarian for it's own sake right now, though.

Over the last couple of months, DarkStarStorm has done a lot to help improve the Hub systems. We all owe them a bit a thanks for that, actually. But I think they've allowed themselves to get too close with the site tags, and are taking other people's suggestions to add them very personally.

Check out this forum: DarkStarStorm defends their own idea and Hubs with the same logic I do Tutorless, and thankfully even includes responses from they and others that reveal the speciousness of their own logic here.

For example, their remark "Is it really so bad if there are redundant 'Aura Hexproof' and Bogles tags? No it's not. It's waaay better than Izzet Phoenix players having to tag their deck as 'Storm!'", sounds a lot like my argument of, "Is it really so bad if Tutorless is an archetype instead of a Hub? No it's not. It's waaay better than not being able to tag your deck as 'Commander.'"

I'd rather not go into the specifics of refuting each one of DarkStarStorm's invalid points individually, as they do it themselves in that thread. I'll just let interested parties do their own research, and come to their own conclusions.

July 14, 2019 12:40 p.m. Edited.

DarkStarStorm says... #46

Metroid_HybridKongMing Please don't resort to ad hominem. Making assumptions about someone's personality and using them to try and undermine that person's opinion is not a staple of mature discussions. Please afford me the respect I am due just as I afford you the respect you are due. I am making a valid points and I am not taking any of this personally.

Ultimately, I was invited to lend my voice to a discussion of the addition of a new tag. For reasons I have stated, I disagree with the addition of the tutorless tag. However, the decision to add that tag does not fall to me, nor do we all need to be in agreement for it to be added or revoked. The decision falls to legendofa. Will I be upset if it is added? Of course not; why should I be? If anything, I'll be happy that a conclusion was reached after thorough discussion.

July 15, 2019 12:20 a.m.

KongMing says... #47

I'm not undermining your logic or opinion. You did that yourself.

July 15, 2019 11:17 a.m. Edited.

legendofa says... #48

At the end of this week, unless it shows significant growth, I'm going to close the Tutorless hub. It's been active for three weeks, and I'll let it finish a fourth. In that time, it's gotten attached to six decks or maybe a small handful more, and currently is attached to only four. Other hubs added at the same time, such as Snow and Lands, have significantly more decks listed.

The hub might simply be somewhat ahead of its time. As it stands now, it just isn't performing--as KongMing said in the original post, it's a "good idea that needs more refinement." I'll be open to reconsideration in the future, if a Tutorless wave comes through, but as of July 19th, my decision will be final.

July 15, 2019 12:27 p.m.

DarkStarStorm says... #49

legendofa In the meantime, can you change "Theme/Gimmick" to "Theme/Restriction"?

July 16, 2019 1:58 a.m. Edited.

KongMing says... #50

Okay, sounds fair legendofa. Thank you for your consideration everyone!

July 16, 2019 1:30 p.m.

Please login to comment