Card/Deck Format defining crap removal

[GiftsForgiven]

Bounces are interesting, because you have additional 'levers' with which to balance that kind of removal, such as ETB effects.

To be honest, I think that from the general cube construction standpoint, this thread is kind of backwards. I'd focus on the creatures in your given cube first, then craft the removal to specifically fit them- not the other way around.

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

But doesn't a study like this give an opportunity to match threats with answers in a way that creates the desired style of games?

 

[GiftsForgiven]

But doesn't a study like this give an opportunity to match threats with answers in a way that creates the desired style of games?

Imo it's -much- easier to match removal to threats than it is to do the opposite. Removal is almost never proactive, and does not form the 'core' of what your cube is trying to do (usually.) The issue with starting with the removal is that you can't match threats/removal at a 1:1 ratio. It's like building a tower of blocks, but instead of adding blocks to the top you try to lift up the tower and jam another block at the base every time.

It just seems a little backwards to me. I dunno.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Imo it's -much- easier to match removal to threats than it is to do the opposite. Removal is almost never proactive, and does not form the 'core' of what your cube is trying to do (usually.) The issue with starting with the removal is that you can't match threats/removal at a 1:1 ratio. It's like building a tower of blocks, but instead of adding blocks to the top you try to lift up the tower and jam another block at the base every time.

It just seems a little backwards to me. I dunno.

Kind of an example of this. I run these three spells




They were originally added to support: sacrifice decks, spells matter decks, and counters. However, no one actually drafts around spot removal, so 90% of the time they are just 3cc instant speed burn spells with damage riders.

The cards are fine, and the cube isn't collapsing because of their inclusion, but they would be much more interesting if they had been defined by where they couldn't go, or couldn't interact with. They just don't have the power to shape drafts, so most of the time they are three very samey feeling removal pieces. I should probably just cut two of them.

 

[ahadabans]

I really like the exile burn spells because they are usually sorcery (making friendly aura mechanics a bit better), and the exile clause in a world of so much resilience to standard death triggers is really powerful.



Those are probably the best three?

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I really like the exile burn spells because they are usually sorcery (making friendly aura mechanics a bit better), and the exile clause in a world of so much resilience to standard death triggers is really powerful.



Those are probably the best three?

Those are the exact three I now run

 

[GiftsForgiven]

"crap" red removal that I currently run:



I actually recently cut Nahiri's Wrath, but had a specific request to put it back in, so in it stays. U/R Fatty-cheat and Artifact-Cheat are very real decks, and I like how flexible it is. It's not quite as efficient as firestorm, but it synergizes better with what decks I have.

Also, once I had a guy use this to dump his entire hand except for Balance T2. That was cool.

Slagstorm is there due to the prevelancy of Planeswalkers in my cube. I wouldn't say that there is an overabundance, but the ones that do exist are very strong. It's nice to have a sweeper that can also dome an opponent's JTMS out of the game when needed. It's surprisingly flexible.

The other removal I run is bog-standard efficiency-based removal, like bolt/chain lightning etc.

Edit: I keep forgetting to note that my cube is very very strong. What's crap in my cube probably isn't for most riptide cubes.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I really like the exile burn spells because they are usually sorcery (making friendly aura mechanics a bit better), and the exile clause in a world of so much resilience to standard death triggers is really powerful.



Those are probably the best three?

I actually like these quite a bit less if you are running:



really anti-climatic

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

Imo it's -much- easier to match removal to threats than it is to do the opposite. Removal is almost never proactive, and does not form the 'core' of what your cube is trying to do (usually.) The issue with starting with the removal is that you can't match threats/removal at a 1:1 ratio. It's like building a tower of blocks, but instead of adding blocks to the top you try to lift up the tower and jam another block at the base every time.

It just seems a little backwards to me. I dunno.

I agree with you absolutely. My point was that you can decide what your threats are going to be, and then a thread like this can help you get ideas for pairing those threats with removal. I'm not suggesting you start out with the removal, just that it's nice to know what your options are.

 

[GiftsForgiven]

I agree with you absolutely, my point was that you can put together some nice themes and sets of creatures that form your threats and then a thread like this can help you get ideas for pairing those threats with removal. I'm not suggesting you start out with the removal, just that it's nice to know what your options are.

Oh. Yes. I am fool. Carry on; carry on.

 

[CML]

I definitely agree with this line of thinking. Cost is about balancing. That's development, and is used to make sure a format runs smoothly. Restrictions or flexibility/power tradeoffs are design, and that's how you can help make the format richer. (Not a black/white distinction, obvs)

One of my all-time favorite pieces of removal is a great marriage of the concepts

It's a great, dense decision point at any phase of a game, and it's cost is balanced by mana development and cube CMC. Love it.

i am a horrible and very stinky airbnb guest and sir, that card isn't crap removal!

 

[CML]

I actually like these quite a bit less if you are running:



really anti-climatic

horrible and very stinking

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

horrible and very stinking

No reason to shitpost when you can present a reasoning to why you think a certain way, thus making for further discussion. Laboratory Maniac can open up for certain styles of combo decks in the environments that allow it, and seeing as we're an open and welcoming forum with many different styles of cube, no reason to just shun it. I'm also biased because I like the card.

I actually like these quite a bit less if you are running:



really anti-climatic

Isn't this a very good example (albeit maybe heavy handed) of matching your removal to your creatures?

If you want labman decks to work, you need to be able to play maniac and have him take a hit and find a way to recur him. If he's exiled the deck just falls flat on its nose, so because it is kind of a durdly card, you need to give it some breathing room.

If you instead play a ton of gravecrawlers and other kinds of recurring threats that are more along the traditional redzone-axis then you probably want to give a way to interact with that, so the exiling removal becomes necessary and even something you should try to meet a certain quota (so that each player has the chance of getting at least one such removal card).

 

[Aston]

You could just wait until you're ready to play Lab Maniac and draw from empty library all in one, and as all the removal is sorcery speed exiling stuff there's nothing your opponent can do?

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

You could just wait until you're ready to play Lab Maniac and draw from empty library all in one, and as all the removal is sorcery speed exiling stuff there's nothing your opponent can do?

It still happens :/

Sometimes things playout less than ideal with that deck, and you might be forced to cast it a little early.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I don't know why it would be anti-climatic. Isn't this just a case of your opponent having a clean answer? Much like graveyard exiling effects are good against reanimator? Or lifegain effects against an aggro deck that is trying to push through the last few points of damage?

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I don't know why it would be anti-climatic. Isn't this just a case of your opponent having a clean answer? Much like graveyard exiling effects are good against reanimator? Or lifegain effects against an aggro deck that is trying to push through the last few points of damage?

The build up to those turns is really exciting, and the labman player usually has a few tricks up their sleeve to pull it off via reanimation, or layering cantrips in response to removal. With instant speed removal their is a tension where oppo might want to try to EOT blast labman so the labman player loses to their own strategy: its really exciting stuff.

Pillar exiling lab man is like cutting to the end of the movie /yawn.

 

[Chriskool]

Thinking about exploring dark removal as a means for green to interact with utility creatures. Bonus: look at this art!

 

[genericco]

DansGame

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

Thinking about exploring dark removal as a means for green to interact with utility creatures.

Doesn't fight spells lend themselves pretty good for this?

 

[Fulcrum]

Doesn't fight spells lend themselves pretty good for this?

I like the line of using Clear Shot to remove a utility creature and then attacking.

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

I like the line of using Clear Shot to remove a utility creature and then attacking.

Feels like a much more green way of doing it than giving them direct damage spells.