What do you think about this argument? When, if ever, is it appropriate? Whenever a new creature comes out, the easiest bet to make is that someone will say that it dies to removal. When they do, everyone else jumps on them for bringing it up. However, the argument is not completely useless.
Lotus Cobra is one good example of this. With everyone fantasizing about turn 3 Violent Ultimatums, the fact that it won't always stick was kind of thrown by the wayside. Sure, it's still good, comboing with gush and fastbond to its heart's content in formats where that's legal, but it isn't the card that enables the deck to function at a normal pace, but when it sticks it shoves it into overdrive.
When I looked at the gatherer page for tarmogoyf, the thing that jumped at me was that this argument had been brought up. Sure, it dies to swords to plowshares and go for the throat, but look at this: If you cast tarmogoyf and they kill it with go for the throat, you broke even on mana and cards. If they swords it, you went down 1 mana, but up some life, and you still break even on cards. However, if your opponent has neither, you get an undercosted beater that mucks around being a big problem until they can find one.
The difference between tarmogoyf and... let's say elesh norn, grand cenobyte dying to removal is the difference between being pushed back 0 or 1 mana, and sometimes even getting ahead on it, and being pushed back 5 or 6 mana. Unless they do nothing else with their turn, they got a giant advantage. If I can neutralize your whole turn and then land my own threat, I am most likely closer to being ahead.
That's my view on the issue. When do you guys think is a relevant time for this argument, if any, and why?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
L-1 Judge
It's kind of another moment when we throw our hands up and go "DAMMIT universe, why you gotta always make me look bad in front of everyone?".
Honestly, the mana issue is only relevant if you could have spent it on something else. If you're both in topdeck mode and your opponent Doom Blades your Terra Stomper, you still might come out even. While mana/card advantage are good theories, they have to be used sensibly.
Honestly, though, there's something to be said when we had a million threads *****ing about how Baneslayer Angel wins the game when it comes out. It was quite fun watching competitive players have to adapt to the idea that casting a big creature could actually win a game. Afterall, it would be "unplayable" at 4WW.
"dies to removal" is an easy, lazy criticism to make in most circumstances, and only rarely is it relevant.
the reason for this is simple......
let's say your average metagame has a fairly high occurrence of artifacts (more than the average).... people will inevitably start maindecking some amount of artifact removal in response to this trend. in addition, this removal is likely to commonly be the same card (or selection of cards), from deck to deck. removal tends to be easy to distinguish, in terms of what's currently best and worst.
now if you were to use a card which was immune to this commonly used removal, you would be at a distinct advantage.
so having resistance to removal is clearly better than normal, in terms of advantage.
but the opposite isn't true.
the vast majority of cards don't have that immunity. they just do what they do. dying to removal isn't worse than the norm, it is the norm.
stating that something "dies to removal" is effectively stating that it's on par with almost every other card in magic.
now, in serious competitive Magic, there is obviously the need to find and use the best cards, in the best combinations. you want to be at a constant advantage, and having immunity to commonly used removal is a good way of gaining this advantage. but if you look at tournament decks throughout all of magic history, you'll still see that resistance to removal is still a rarity among maindecked cards. i.e. it's not a huge factor in what makes cards usable or unusable
the simple truth is this: every card ever slung died to some kind of removal. it's how Magic works. every strategy needs its counterpoint. creatures die. what makes a creature good or bad is how effective they can be in the meantime or even when they are removed. sometimes it's enough just to be a decent creature that your opponent has to answer, or quickly lose the game. "dying to removal" is perfectly normal, not disadvantageous........ being a rubbish creature - now that's disadvantageous.
It's a useful argument insomuch as it pertains to the creatures vs removal in the current meta.
For example when lightning bolt came back. Creatures that were really expensive that had less than 4 toughness didn't get to see play. Also we see this occurring with go for the throat vs doom blade vs dismember. All are good removal spells, but each has a slight advantage over the others in niche scenarios.
All in all most times it's creatures vs removal. How efficient are the creatures versus the removal that's being played?
"Dies to removal" is too often used as a lazy argument by a lot of players who want to up their post count and assert their opinion until a pro breaks a card where after suddenly removal isn't a problem and they can copy the idea. It can be a valid point, given the proper context, but too many people use it as an easy way out of debating the merits of a creature in a discussion or because in reality they just don't know. There is plenty of aggro and creatures in the current Standard, yet if you listened to how many people said everything dies to removal, you'd think every competitive deck would run zero creatures. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if there were people that claimed Stoneforge Mystic was bad because it dies to removal back during Worldwake's Rumor Season.
It really depends on what the creature is going to be used for.
If you are basing your whole strategy on it then yes it dieing to removal is relevant.
If it's just a body then it dieing isn't.
I would agree. If it's a lynchpin part of your strategy, it could be a relevant criticism, but even then, "it dies to removal" isn't the be all end all, as if the effect is powerful enough, you'll be more than happy to still run it.
Heck, if it's just a body that you're intending to throw around and smash into things, "Draws removal" could be a very good ability to have, so that something that may be more vital to your deck gets passed over.
I think the more important thing is that just because Tarmogoyf, baneslayer angel, or whatever all die to removal DOES NOT mean that the opponent 100% has a removal in hand.
Also, people seem to use it as a justification for running cheaper cards ex. Uril, the Miststalker vs. Baneslayer Angel
I think when the format was inundated with cards like Bloodbraid Elf, Sprouting Thrinax, Mulldrifter, and Kitchen Finks it held more weight. Now it's basically Stoneforge and Titans that don't get the "dies to removal" beat, but about everything else does so it's more the norm.
The question isnt does it die to removal, its how much removal does it die to?
does it die to heavily used direct damage (bolt)
does it die to "target non black" removal (doom blade)
does it die to "target artifact" removal (shatter)
does it die to "destroy target permanent" removal? (vindicate)
does it die to sweepers? (Wrath of God)
If it dies to all of these, and does effect the immediate board, or isnt a instant threat at any time of the game (goyf), then it can be said "dies to removal"
Vault Skirge is a good example of a creature that can nullity an entire deck of its removal, its black and its an artifact, taking away up to 8 pieces of removal (doom blade and go for), and who wants to bolt a Vault Skirge anyways? beast within? trade a 1/1 for a 3/3?
Dies to removal is a valid argument most of the time. If you are not getting CA from your creature, then it can usually be handled effectively with removal.
There are two situations to be considered-they have the removal and use it, or they do not use a spell on it, most likely because they do not have it in their hands.
Tarmogoyf does in fact die to removal, but if they do not have it, you are swinging in on turn three for a considerable amount of damage and every turn thereafter, getting stronger as the game goes on. If he is removed, you wasted your second turn or two mana.
Terra Stomper does in fact die to removal, but you are swinging in with a big dude on turn 7 if they do not have it, but set back and entire 6 mana if they do. You are having more of your mana, and an arguably more critical turn wasted by running it into removal.
Primeval Titan dies to removal, but nets you at least two cards before he gets killed.
The whole dies to removal argument should be used to curb rampant Magical Christmasland thinking when a new creature is spoiled. People seem to only think about the best situation, and not consider the times when their fatty is killed by a two mana black spell. They just give examples of stuff that would just never happen like having a huge threat go unanswered for turns at a time.
Stuff where the argument is less valid are the Titans and other cards that generate CA, or OTOH cards that are so small that people have trouble pulling the trigger, eg Birds of Paradise, Vampire Lacerator.
Finally, there are creatures that are resistant to removal! Shroud, Hexproof, Indestructable, Bloodghast, being black or artifact, etc. give creature some form of built in protection.
I guess the conclusion is that a creature with no protection from removal that will not affect the game much until multiple turns have passed may not be the best choice for a deck, since, you know, it dies to removal.
The thing about creatures that cost five or six mana, is that on the turn you cast them, you're hopefully just tapping out for them and playing them on curve.
If you're opponent can remove it (let's call it two mana) and then play a threat, then you're probably not winning this game unless your now-dead creature did something. That is the nebulous concept of "tempo" that everyone talks about.
If your now-dead creature was an inferno titan and ate their 3/3 or jace, then... you've passed the removal test. You're that much less likely to be losing the game, because your 5-6 drop did something before it got taken out with a two mana spell.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
It's basically a matter of investment vs survivability. If you need Lotus Cobra to win, then losing to bolt is pretty bad. If Tarmogoyf is just one of your win cons and killing him doesn't really effect your game plan, it isn't a big deal. Good finishers are almost always resistant to removal because you a relying on them, while aggressive creatures are usually more about overloading the other player's removal.
It's basically a matter of investment vs survivability. If you need Lotus Cobra to win, then losing to bolt is pretty bad. If Tarmogoyf is just one of your win cons and killing him doesn't really effect your game plan, it isn't a big deal. Good finishers are almost always resistant to removal because you a relying on them, while aggressive creatures are usually more about overloading the other player's removal.
That's not lotus cobra's inherent fault as a creature. That's the deck designer's fault.
Lotus cobra becomes good in decks where the following are true.
-Your 4 drops are good on turn three OR turn four
-You can do things with your mana if you do get the nut draw
-You're actually happy to have a 2/1 for 2
It's no surprise that lotus cobra suddenly seemed good when people started trying it out in aggro/combo decks with good four drops.
Context is important. The final goal in magic is to have a deck that wins, and ignoring a deck's entire plan because your creature "doesn't die to removal" is why so many people's thrun decks went 0-3 at the Pro Tour.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
That's not lotus cobra's inherent fault as a creature. That's the deck designer's fault.
I think that was his point, and it's a good one.
Lotus cobra becomes good in decks where the following are true.
-Your 4 drops are good on turn three OR turn four
-You can do things with your mana if you do get the nut draw
-You're actually happy to have a 2/1 for 2
It's no surprise that lotus cobra suddenly seemed good when people started trying it out in aggro/combo decks with good four drops.
Very true. You need to be able to win with or without it, and with it when the rest of your plan doesn't line up.
Context is important. The final goal in magic is to have a deck that wins, and ignoring a deck's entire plan because your creature "doesn't die to removal" is why so many people's thrun decks went 0-3 at the Pro Tour.
Also a good point. I never saw any decks like these because I'm not really playing formats where he's relevant right now, but if you can only run 4 of the card that makes your deck work, or if you build a deck around a card that doesn't want a deck built around it, you're doing something wrong.
One thing I've noticed is that, by the arguments I'm gathering, Dark Confidant kind of gets shafted. Why would you want a 2/1 when you can have a 3/4 or a 4/5? If he's your only draw engine, your draw engine is pretty vulnerable. If he gets killed before your next upkeep, he didn't do anything. If he ends up not doing much on your upkeeps, you're not getting much more than a 2/1 for 2, which, as I previously stated, is pretty subpar. Am I reading these arguments incorrectly? Or are they, like physics, just not complete?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
L-1 Judge
It's kind of another moment when we throw our hands up and go "DAMMIT universe, why you gotta always make me look bad in front of everyone?".
One thing I've noticed is that, by the arguments I'm gathering, Dark Confidant kind of gets shafted. Why would you want a 2/1 when you can have a 3/4 or a 4/5? If he's your only draw engine, your draw engine is pretty vulnerable. If he gets killed before your next upkeep, he didn't do anything. If he ends up not doing much on your upkeeps, you're not getting much more than a 2/1 for 2, which, as I previously stated, is pretty subpar. Am I reading these arguments incorrectly? Or are they, like physics, just not complete?
[CARD]
Dark Confidant[/CARD] is a lot like Lotus Cobra in formats and decks where they are good. If you use them as a 4-of as a main deck engine with no way to tutor them then them dying to removal is bad (and by deck engine I mean your deck doesn't win unless you get that card out). Those two cards however tend to be used (at least by competent builders) as cards that make the deck they are in function better when they are out but not completely suck if they aren't. Then the dying to removal argument doesn't matter as much. You're happy to invest 2 mana in the chance at making your plan work better. If your enabler catches removal it's removal that isn't pointed at your wincon. The issue comes when you have all-in wincons that die to removal and no way of stopping that removal.
With the Goyf example it's why Goyf dying to removal in a 8 creature deck is a lot more relevant than Goyf dying to removal in a 16-24 creature deck.
It's a valid argument. It's not made as a valid point in a lot of cases. But it is always worth keeping in mind when evaluating new creatures with abilities and/or wincon creatures. What happens when this creature gets removed the turn after I play it? How much have I invested in it? Will I lose because of how far I've been put behind?
Lotus Cobra is one good example of this. With everyone fantasizing about turn 3 Violent Ultimatums, the fact that it won't always stick was kind of thrown by the wayside. Sure, it's still good, comboing with gush and fastbond to its heart's content in formats where that's legal, but it isn't the card that enables the deck to function at a normal pace, but when it sticks it shoves it into overdrive.
When I looked at the gatherer page for tarmogoyf, the thing that jumped at me was that this argument had been brought up. Sure, it dies to swords to plowshares and go for the throat, but look at this: If you cast tarmogoyf and they kill it with go for the throat, you broke even on mana and cards. If they swords it, you went down 1 mana, but up some life, and you still break even on cards. However, if your opponent has neither, you get an undercosted beater that mucks around being a big problem until they can find one.
The difference between tarmogoyf and... let's say elesh norn, grand cenobyte dying to removal is the difference between being pushed back 0 or 1 mana, and sometimes even getting ahead on it, and being pushed back 5 or 6 mana. Unless they do nothing else with their turn, they got a giant advantage. If I can neutralize your whole turn and then land my own threat, I am most likely closer to being ahead.
That's my view on the issue. When do you guys think is a relevant time for this argument, if any, and why?
Honestly, though, there's something to be said when we had a million threads *****ing about how Baneslayer Angel wins the game when it comes out. It was quite fun watching competitive players have to adapt to the idea that casting a big creature could actually win a game. Afterall, it would be "unplayable" at 4WW.
If you are basing your whole strategy on it then yes it dieing to removal is relevant.
If it's just a body then it dieing isn't.
the reason for this is simple......
let's say your average metagame has a fairly high occurrence of artifacts (more than the average).... people will inevitably start maindecking some amount of artifact removal in response to this trend. in addition, this removal is likely to commonly be the same card (or selection of cards), from deck to deck. removal tends to be easy to distinguish, in terms of what's currently best and worst.
now if you were to use a card which was immune to this commonly used removal, you would be at a distinct advantage.
so having resistance to removal is clearly better than normal, in terms of advantage.
but the opposite isn't true.
the vast majority of cards don't have that immunity. they just do what they do. dying to removal isn't worse than the norm, it is the norm.
stating that something "dies to removal" is effectively stating that it's on par with almost every other card in magic.
now, in serious competitive Magic, there is obviously the need to find and use the best cards, in the best combinations. you want to be at a constant advantage, and having immunity to commonly used removal is a good way of gaining this advantage. but if you look at tournament decks throughout all of magic history, you'll still see that resistance to removal is still a rarity among maindecked cards. i.e. it's not a huge factor in what makes cards usable or unusable
the simple truth is this: every card ever slung died to some kind of removal. it's how Magic works. every strategy needs its counterpoint. creatures die. what makes a creature good or bad is how effective they can be in the meantime or even when they are removed. sometimes it's enough just to be a decent creature that your opponent has to answer, or quickly lose the game. "dying to removal" is perfectly normal, not disadvantageous........ being a rubbish creature - now that's disadvantageous.
For example when lightning bolt came back. Creatures that were really expensive that had less than 4 toughness didn't get to see play. Also we see this occurring with go for the throat vs doom blade vs dismember. All are good removal spells, but each has a slight advantage over the others in niche scenarios.
All in all most times it's creatures vs removal. How efficient are the creatures versus the removal that's being played?
Thanks to Rivenor @ //forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=329663"/"> Miraculous Recovery for the Sig!
(Also known as Xenphire)
I would agree. If it's a lynchpin part of your strategy, it could be a relevant criticism, but even then, "it dies to removal" isn't the be all end all, as if the effect is powerful enough, you'll be more than happy to still run it.
Heck, if it's just a body that you're intending to throw around and smash into things, "Draws removal" could be a very good ability to have, so that something that may be more vital to your deck gets passed over.
Also, people seem to use it as a justification for running cheaper cards ex. Uril, the Miststalker vs. Baneslayer Angel
WUBEsper-Blade
EDH: Savra, Queen of the GolgariBG
does it die to heavily used direct damage (bolt)
does it die to "target non black" removal (doom blade)
does it die to "target artifact" removal (shatter)
does it die to "destroy target permanent" removal? (vindicate)
does it die to sweepers? (Wrath of God)
If it dies to all of these, and does effect the immediate board, or isnt a instant threat at any time of the game (goyf), then it can be said "dies to removal"
Vault Skirge is a good example of a creature that can nullity an entire deck of its removal, its black and its an artifact, taking away up to 8 pieces of removal (doom blade and go for), and who wants to bolt a Vault Skirge anyways? beast within? trade a 1/1 for a 3/3?
There are two situations to be considered-they have the removal and use it, or they do not use a spell on it, most likely because they do not have it in their hands.
Tarmogoyf does in fact die to removal, but if they do not have it, you are swinging in on turn three for a considerable amount of damage and every turn thereafter, getting stronger as the game goes on. If he is removed, you wasted your second turn or two mana.
Terra Stomper does in fact die to removal, but you are swinging in with a big dude on turn 7 if they do not have it, but set back and entire 6 mana if they do. You are having more of your mana, and an arguably more critical turn wasted by running it into removal.
Primeval Titan dies to removal, but nets you at least two cards before he gets killed.
The whole dies to removal argument should be used to curb rampant Magical Christmasland thinking when a new creature is spoiled. People seem to only think about the best situation, and not consider the times when their fatty is killed by a two mana black spell. They just give examples of stuff that would just never happen like having a huge threat go unanswered for turns at a time.
Stuff where the argument is less valid are the Titans and other cards that generate CA, or OTOH cards that are so small that people have trouble pulling the trigger, eg Birds of Paradise, Vampire Lacerator.
Finally, there are creatures that are resistant to removal! Shroud, Hexproof, Indestructable, Bloodghast, being black or artifact, etc. give creature some form of built in protection.
I guess the conclusion is that a creature with no protection from removal that will not affect the game much until multiple turns have passed may not be the best choice for a deck, since, you know, it dies to removal.
Turn 2 Two Goblin Guide
If you're opponent can remove it (let's call it two mana) and then play a threat, then you're probably not winning this game unless your now-dead creature did something. That is the nebulous concept of "tempo" that everyone talks about.
If your now-dead creature was an inferno titan and ate their 3/3 or jace, then... you've passed the removal test. You're that much less likely to be losing the game, because your 5-6 drop did something before it got taken out with a two mana spell.
That's not lotus cobra's inherent fault as a creature. That's the deck designer's fault.
Lotus cobra becomes good in decks where the following are true.
-Your 4 drops are good on turn three OR turn four
-You can do things with your mana if you do get the nut draw
-You're actually happy to have a 2/1 for 2
It's no surprise that lotus cobra suddenly seemed good when people started trying it out in aggro/combo decks with good four drops.
Context is important. The final goal in magic is to have a deck that wins, and ignoring a deck's entire plan because your creature "doesn't die to removal" is why so many people's thrun decks went 0-3 at the Pro Tour.
I think that was his point, and it's a good one.
Very true. You need to be able to win with or without it, and with it when the rest of your plan doesn't line up.
Also a good point. I never saw any decks like these because I'm not really playing formats where he's relevant right now, but if you can only run 4 of the card that makes your deck work, or if you build a deck around a card that doesn't want a deck built around it, you're doing something wrong.
One thing I've noticed is that, by the arguments I'm gathering, Dark Confidant kind of gets shafted. Why would you want a 2/1 when you can have a 3/4 or a 4/5? If he's your only draw engine, your draw engine is pretty vulnerable. If he gets killed before your next upkeep, he didn't do anything. If he ends up not doing much on your upkeeps, you're not getting much more than a 2/1 for 2, which, as I previously stated, is pretty subpar. Am I reading these arguments incorrectly? Or are they, like physics, just not complete?
[CARD]
Dark Confidant[/CARD] is a lot like Lotus Cobra in formats and decks where they are good. If you use them as a 4-of as a main deck engine with no way to tutor them then them dying to removal is bad (and by deck engine I mean your deck doesn't win unless you get that card out). Those two cards however tend to be used (at least by competent builders) as cards that make the deck they are in function better when they are out but not completely suck if they aren't. Then the dying to removal argument doesn't matter as much. You're happy to invest 2 mana in the chance at making your plan work better. If your enabler catches removal it's removal that isn't pointed at your wincon. The issue comes when you have all-in wincons that die to removal and no way of stopping that removal.
With the Goyf example it's why Goyf dying to removal in a 8 creature deck is a lot more relevant than Goyf dying to removal in a 16-24 creature deck.
It's a valid argument. It's not made as a valid point in a lot of cases. But it is always worth keeping in mind when evaluating new creatures with abilities and/or wincon creatures. What happens when this creature gets removed the turn after I play it? How much have I invested in it? Will I lose because of how far I've been put behind?
Every creature dies to SOME removal. It's just a matter of whether or not your opponent has said removal.
Akuma will wreck you.