Tutors. Problem or not?
The Kitchen Table forum
Posted on May 28, 2019, 11 a.m. by hecubus333
My playgroup is pushing a ban on Tutors. I know just how powerful they are, but I don't feel they are the problem.
We primarily play EDH 1v1, and Commander, now sprinkling in some Oathbreaker.
I feel that specific cards that can be exploiuted are the true issue at hand. Tutors can get utility answers, and while powerful, aren't a spell, or as they state "another copy of a spell". All they do is dig, or increase the odds of being able to get the spell you want.
Usually this is in a utile fashion, but even in times where someone plays a combo deck, they're not casting tutor and winning. They still need to get the card they want, and resolve it with their combo.
They argue that only Blue can counter this, but what about all the other colors removals? For instance, I don't play heavy Blue. But if someone needs a Triskellion or Mikaeus online to resolve an unlimited combo, it would be my responsibility to be keen on what is happening, and either pop a Damnation, or murder type spell to remove one of the combo pieces before the stack resolves.
Sure, these pieces can be more easily assembled if your deck is full of tutors, but are just as lethal without them. Red has answers, White has answers, and even green can Krosan Grip, or force fight a problematic creature before the combo resolves.
I mostly play aggro, non-combo decks. I regularly play one of these same guys who runs Geist of Saint Trafy with a Jitte and Steel the Godhead. This is such an OP Commander even without those spells. I've never once advocated to ban Geist. I accept the tough challenge and do my best. But in my eyes, I'd ban Geist, looong befoer I'd consider banning the tutors.
WotC tried this already from late 2015 through late 2017, and came to the overall thought that tutors are indeed NOT the problem. People were still exploiting Diving Top, Food Chain, etc..
What are your thoughts on this as a community? Do you think I'm off ymy rocker, and that tutors SHOULD be banned? Or do you think I'm correct, and there is more of an issue with specific exploits and maybe even a culture among individual playgroups, where maybe one guy is a little abusive with infinite combos, to the point where games seem un-fun or non-interactive? In the latter case, I'd say it's just a matter of talking it out rather than banning tutors to try to stop them.
Please share your thoughts!
@SynergyBuild Those aren't really equal - It'd be more like banning a specific creature type than all of creatures that being said...
@hecubus333 - I think that it all depends on the group. The group needs to decide what's best for it. My group is really competitive, so tutors are acceptable and plaid often. If I were to go with another group, they could be more casual, so for me, the understanding would be that I play a less competitive deck. I don't think it's a bad thing to have a wide range of competitiveness within the format, so I'd say leave as is and let each group decide.
I will say though, I can see a case for getting rid of tutors. It almost feels like it goes against the spirit of the 100 card singleton format, when you make everything super consistent.
May 28, 2019 11:50 a.m.
Tutors are an important part of EDH, as they enable Combo as a viable strategy. It is decidedly unfair to Combo players to ban tutors in a singleton format, as it renders their preferred playstyle borderline untenable.
To go off on a bit of a tangential rant, there are only a handful of viable tutors in the game, and Wizards is extremely reluctant to reprint them. None of the viable tutors are on the Reserve List, so there's no issues with reprinting them--other than Wizards' internal decision to make tutors cost so much mana as to render them useless. Given the rise of Commander's popularity, I feel Wizards needs to look at their current tutor policy and reevaluate.
This is not a healthy decision for the game, as Wizards has artificially created a situation where singleton combo decks are not budget friendly. Rendering one of the three game archetypes (combo-control-aggro) out of reach of many kitchen table players is an issue Wizards really should address.
May 28, 2019 12:14 p.m.
hecubus333 says... #5
So far I agree with cdkime's sentiments.
However, Nemesis really struck a bell when saying that tutors go against the essence of Singleton by adding consistency where there should be none.
I guess it's all opinion, but as long as they're legal in MTGO or French 1v1, I plan to fight tooth and nail to keep them in.
May 28, 2019 1:12 p.m.
KiLlEr10312 says... #6
I figure that the main issue with Tutor cards is that a deck that can run a lot of them usually play very samey. They are designed to dig for combo pieces/important responses.
Should they be banned however? Absolutely not. If a playgroup is having trouble, then they might not be running enough interaction. If they've played against the combo deck that knows which combo pieces can win the game super quickly, then they know where the archenemy of the table lies.
Also for that combo player, if the entire deck is designed around just that combo and nothing else, it crumbles real easy if the table gets rid of key pieces. Even your average breakfast hulk deck has more than a single way to win.
In short, use political dynamics to your advantage and form alliances if need be. EDH is built for this kind of thing.
May 28, 2019 1:48 p.m.
Sarkhan420X says... #7
in terms of calculating your odds of getting the cards you need, tutors actually can be considered additional copies of your spells.
removal spells don't always work, especially sorcery speed cards like the Damnation you mentioned. in many cases, the cards being used for the combo can have their effects activated at instant speed in response to your removal, and the combo will go off anyway.
that being said, i still think tutors are fair.
May 28, 2019 4:04 p.m.
hecubus333 says... #8
Good reply Sarkhan420X.
That's pretty much how I feel. I recognize the power, but don't find them unfair. You're giving up other slots for tutors, and still need to cast them like any other spell. It's not exactly the same as having a second copy, as you'd need to obtain and then still pay any additional needed costs to fire off a combo or use that tutored removal spell if instant speed.
But while it makes the odds of getting any card you want/need better, it's not quite a second copy. Could it be considered one when planning consistency during brew phases? Sure. But I feel like there's still a clear difference between let's say an Ad Nauseum and a Vampiric Tutor, and just having a second Ad Nauseum.
That's my main reasoning. Vamp throws it on top of library, and needs to wait a turn or have a draw effect set up. They take more work than just having an additional copy in most cases. I see why it is a hot topic, but I also see why WotC unbanned them after testing a ban on them.
I dunno. I'd love to see data based meta impacts of them on Singleton.
May 28, 2019 5:14 p.m.
Sarkhan420X says... #9
in terms of drawing the card you really need, there really is no functional difference between the vampiric tutor versus a second ad nauseam. regardless of which you draw, you'll have the ad nauseam.
May 28, 2019 5:21 p.m.
Sarkhan420X says... #10
vampiric tutor is also a bad example to illustrate your point since it doesn't add the card directly to your hand, whereas other tutors would
May 28, 2019 5:23 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #11
The ability to find cards from your library in a singleton format allows strategy to play a part in the strategy card game that is MtG. Otherwise you are drawing randomly from a stack of 100 unique cards and have to adapt to what you get instead of being able to plan a strategy.
Anyone who ever uses the phrase "goes against the spirit of xxxxxx" is simply trying to marginalize an aspect of the game that they are not 100% comfortable with so that they do not feel bad about trying to prescribe how others are allowed to play. Combo is not "against the spirit of casual" and consistency is not "against the spirit of singleton". If a playgroup wants to ban tutors because everyone likes high variance and reactive gameplay, more power to them. But the notion that it is somehow "better" or "purer" is laughable.
On to the function that tutors play. Most (heavy emphasis on "most") tutors are functionally another copy of every card in your library, or every card with some specific quality in your library (I don't feel like making this qualification every time, so let's assume from now on that everyone understands that not all tutors are black tutors and most have some specified quality). They allow you to get the card and set up interaction within the next turn. This can be viewed as purely increased consistency for combo, but I think that is missing a huge part of what makes tutors good.
Let's assume a Gruul aggro deck that has most of its interaction on creatures. A second Reclamation Sage only deals with enchantments a second Inferno Titan only deals with utility creatures. A copy of Chord of Calling allows you to deal with either, at instant speed, with convoke, for a 3 mana premium. The number of available lines and game complexity skyrockets when you have a tutor. The fact that it is not just a second copy of A card in your library, but EVERY card in your library is where the true strength of tutors comes from.
Now that I have built tutors up, let's talk about how they differ from just being a second card of every card in the deck. The first way is apparent from the fact that I have been saying "library" up until now and just said "deck". The library is a game zone. If during the course of a game the one instance of a card allowed in the deck leaves that zone, most tutors can't give you access to it.
Tutors also require set-up to be used reactively most of the time. If you are wanting to tutor for an answer, you usually have to anticipate what you are going to need it for since the vast majority of tutors are sorcery speed or don't put the card immediately in a usable zone.
TL;DR:
Tutors are a great part of EDH and add strategy and complexity. It is not my place to tell your playgroup how to run, but it is your place to stand up for how you would like to play. Bring up to your playgroup that tutors can be an interesting part of the game and that no matter the combo, there is usually a place to interact at instant speed or a time when you can anticipate the combo and prevent it at sorcery speed.
May 28, 2019 8:35 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #12
Keeping power levels similar is a whole different topic than tutors or combo. If someone gets a hard lock go ahead and scoop immediately, they won the game. If someone consistently hard locks before you can do anything, there is a power level disparity that needs addressed.
May 28, 2019 9:21 p.m.
Dredge4life says... #13
Agree with Gidgetimer. Tutors are a valuable part of the game, and are necessary to give Combo a chance to compete. If the group is having a hard time dealing with a tutor-pile to search up a specific combo, that’s a problem with the group, not the combo player. If there’s a discrepancy between power level of decks, that’s another issue entirely. Eliminating tutors will do nothing to change that.
May 28, 2019 11:25 p.m.
I agree with the thoughts here, but I disagree with the conclusion - what is a necessary part of the game is for each individual play group to decide. If the playgroup decides that tutors aren't for them, then that's not a necessary part of the game for that play group. This is the social contract you agree to when you play with a play group.
@Gidgetimer - "Anyone who ever uses the phrase "goes against the spirit of xxxxxx" is simply trying to marginalize an aspect of the game that they are not 100% comfortable with so that they do not feel bad about trying to prescribe how others are allowed to play." First, as I mentioned, I play extremely competitive decks that run tutors to enable consistency with the combos and tools within the deck - I have no issue with running tutors at all. Your broad generalization shows that you didn't bother reading my whole comment, where in the end I said "so I'd say leave as is and let each group decide." All this is to say, my post indicates that I am both 100% comfortable with using tutors and other people using tutors and I am literally doing the opposite of telling people how to play the game, I'm saying you and your group decide how you should play the game.
May 29, 2019 9:59 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #15
Believe it or not, it wasn't directed at you and I did read your whole comment. I could have done a better job representing what I was trying to say, obviously since you thought it was directed at you. I should have said "Uses goes against ... as a reason to prevent others from playing how they like..."
May 29, 2019 2:38 p.m.
I agree that tutors are an extremely powerful card, even more so in singleton, essentially allowing you to play any card in your deck for some additional mana in a sense. Should they be banned? Not quite.
While tutors are certainly powerful it does not break any deck and make it unbeatable. Literally every color in magic has access to some kind of tutor. So it’s not like only certain decks can use them and it’s unfair to other decks.
Now, the power of tutors, I feel like, increases the more there are in a deck. 1-2 tutors is fine but as you add more and more tutors in one deck the consistency and power increases a lot more. You have the ability to find the perfect card for any situation, as many times as you have tutors.
So I think the answer isn’t to ban tutors but to restrict the maximum amount of tutors one deck can have, regardless of what type of card the tutor can fetch. I feel like the magic number for tutors would be 3, that way you have a decent chance of pulling one in a game but can’t reliably get multiple in your average game of commander.
May 30, 2019 8:12 a.m.
In most cases I've found in a singleton format something that will really help a playgroup sort of average out their power levels to get a more even playing field is to aim for a close to the same average cmc of your decks, it is by far the biggest indicator of a deck's power level. Most CEDH lists are stupid low cmc, rarely is the average above 3, so if the playgroup wants a nice long game they could instead make a rule to get the average to 4 or even 5 if they like trying all the clunky "commander" cards.
Another thing could be to just decide the turn order/seating based on who has the least tutors (include all "search your library" cards for this) then going up as there is advantage in going first.
Both of these are ideas that don't straight up ban someone's favorite cards to play with and brings a playgroup more together in the deckbuilding puzzle aspect of the game, which often simply discussing deckbuilding with others helps teach eachother on how to better build decks overall letting you bring a better game experience.
SynergyBuild says... #2
Tutors are good, but tons are absolute trash, like every other card in the game.
Some creatures are really broken, so should we ban all creatures? No, that'd be stupid.
May 28, 2019 11:17 a.m.