Post by ThatDamnPipsqueak on Sept 19, 2018 1:02:30 GMT
Some experiences are universal:
Someone shows off a hideously broken card. Maybe it's a gilded lotus that costs 1 mana, maybe it's a 5/5 for 3 with trample, haste, and fight a creature on etb, maybe it's an en enchantment that is an asymmetrical stasis. You begin to tell them that this effect is undercosted, overpowered, or just plain shouldn't be printed. They roll their eyes, shrug, and bring up a simple defense: "Well, it dies to removal"
A lot of people in custom magic design circles are sick to death of the "Dies to Removal" argument (DtR for future reference), and for good reason. Just because something has the ability to die to removal doesn't mean that it always. And even if your opponent always manages to have an answer in hand when you play your threat, threats that must be answered are very dangerous from a design standpoint. Decks have finite amounts of removal, and chaining must answer threats will eventually leave your opponent with none left. Not to mention, if your opponent spends all the time on the defense, without being able to develop their board, you end up generating advantage that way as well. So no, Billy, your 1G creature that has power equal to your library and toughness equal to that number plus one isn't balanced, even though it dies to removal.
Then again, if you read the post title, you might guess that there's a "But" coming. Conjuring up another example that is likely universal:
Someone shows you a five mana creature with a super cool effect stapled to it, spoiled in the newest set: "At the beginning of your upkeep, create a 3/3 green elemental creature token for each land you control." They excitedly talk about how the card fits perfectly into their Omnath, Locus of Rage commander deck, and suggest that it could even see play in standard or modern! But you look at the P/T box, and unfortunately, it's a 2/2. Sorry kid, "It dies to removal"
This is less prevalent in custom communities, and more prevalent in competitive ones, where new players bring up cards that are great in casual environments as potential contenders in other formats. And the shoe is on the other foot here: there's basically nothing that makes a 5 mana 2/2 with no immediate board impact modern playable. It doesn't matter if the upkeep trigger reads something close to "you win the game" (well, if it literally was "you win the game", it would probably see play), a 5 mana creature that dies to Lightning Bolt is going to be hard pressed to find a place in a format as fast and as efficient as Modern (Look at how hard of a time Jace the Mindsculptor is having).
I think that in custom magic circles, DtR is misused. It's used as an excuse to print undercosted threats, or as a reason to make game distorting artifacts and enchantments. But that doesn't mean the argument itself is bad. The fundamental difference between our hideous goyf knockoff and our silly lands matter creature both dying to Go For The Throat is that one of them only costed two mana, and the other costed five. In essence, something dying or not dying to removal is a lot less important than how tempo-efficiently it trades with removal.
This means a few things:
First, you cannot make the DtR argument for things that are incredibly cheap (cheaper to or comparable in cost to the removal of the format) or for things that generate a big tempo advantage. A bear that bounces an opponent's land effectively generates you a mana, so even though it dies to shock, it's still even on tempo, and thus DtR doesn't really apply here.
Second, you cannot dismiss the DtR argument for things that are incredibly expensive. A six mana creature that you have to untap with, that dies to Doom Blade, Go For the Throat, and so on, is actually not that dangerous as far as magic design goes. In most games, especially multiplayer ones, if you are able to defend a permanent of that cost for a full turn cycle, you deserve to get a large advantage out of it. After all, you devoted more resources to it than someone devoted to their Goblin Rabblemaster.
Third, it is incredibly important to make sure that your high cost, high impact creatures actually die to removal. Most of us have seen people sticking hexproof and indestructible on their custom cards for no reason other than their desire to make their pet cards win more games. But although that's the more obvious incarnation of people removal-proofing their creature, it's not the only one. Creatures with super powerful ETB effects, or that generate card advantage when your opponent tries to remove them, or with haste, or any number of other things that allow them to push through tremendous advantage before your opponent has a window to answer them, don't effectively "die to removal", even if you can kill them with a single spell.
Removal is a fundamental part of magic design, and the thing that stops the game from degenerating into "who has a bigger creature or boardstate" (hint, white and green win that competition nine times out of ten). Understanding how removal interacts with creatures, and when someone killing your creature hurts versus when you can shrug it off, is critical to becoming better designers and better players.
Let me know if this type of theory piece was at all interesting, I had a lot of fun writing it. Also feel free to question any of the things I said here. I'm happy to clarify any of these points or answer any questions (or engage in debate if people fundamentally disagree with me).
Someone shows off a hideously broken card. Maybe it's a gilded lotus that costs 1 mana, maybe it's a 5/5 for 3 with trample, haste, and fight a creature on etb, maybe it's an en enchantment that is an asymmetrical stasis. You begin to tell them that this effect is undercosted, overpowered, or just plain shouldn't be printed. They roll their eyes, shrug, and bring up a simple defense: "Well, it dies to removal"
A lot of people in custom magic design circles are sick to death of the "Dies to Removal" argument (DtR for future reference), and for good reason. Just because something has the ability to die to removal doesn't mean that it always. And even if your opponent always manages to have an answer in hand when you play your threat, threats that must be answered are very dangerous from a design standpoint. Decks have finite amounts of removal, and chaining must answer threats will eventually leave your opponent with none left. Not to mention, if your opponent spends all the time on the defense, without being able to develop their board, you end up generating advantage that way as well. So no, Billy, your 1G creature that has power equal to your library and toughness equal to that number plus one isn't balanced, even though it dies to removal.
Then again, if you read the post title, you might guess that there's a "But" coming. Conjuring up another example that is likely universal:
Someone shows you a five mana creature with a super cool effect stapled to it, spoiled in the newest set: "At the beginning of your upkeep, create a 3/3 green elemental creature token for each land you control." They excitedly talk about how the card fits perfectly into their Omnath, Locus of Rage commander deck, and suggest that it could even see play in standard or modern! But you look at the P/T box, and unfortunately, it's a 2/2. Sorry kid, "It dies to removal"
This is less prevalent in custom communities, and more prevalent in competitive ones, where new players bring up cards that are great in casual environments as potential contenders in other formats. And the shoe is on the other foot here: there's basically nothing that makes a 5 mana 2/2 with no immediate board impact modern playable. It doesn't matter if the upkeep trigger reads something close to "you win the game" (well, if it literally was "you win the game", it would probably see play), a 5 mana creature that dies to Lightning Bolt is going to be hard pressed to find a place in a format as fast and as efficient as Modern (Look at how hard of a time Jace the Mindsculptor is having).
I think that in custom magic circles, DtR is misused. It's used as an excuse to print undercosted threats, or as a reason to make game distorting artifacts and enchantments. But that doesn't mean the argument itself is bad. The fundamental difference between our hideous goyf knockoff and our silly lands matter creature both dying to Go For The Throat is that one of them only costed two mana, and the other costed five. In essence, something dying or not dying to removal is a lot less important than how tempo-efficiently it trades with removal.
If this was a TED talk or if I was being paid by the word, I would stop here to explain what tempo is in detail. However, I'm doing this for free, so instead I'm going to suggest that you look it up.
The TL;DR is that Magic is about exchanging resources with your opponent, and if you give up 1 card and 2 mana to answer something they spend 1 card and 5 mana on, you're effectively ahead "3 mana", and can spend the rest of your turn doing things with that mana.
The TL;DR is that Magic is about exchanging resources with your opponent, and if you give up 1 card and 2 mana to answer something they spend 1 card and 5 mana on, you're effectively ahead "3 mana", and can spend the rest of your turn doing things with that mana.
First, you cannot make the DtR argument for things that are incredibly cheap (cheaper to or comparable in cost to the removal of the format) or for things that generate a big tempo advantage. A bear that bounces an opponent's land effectively generates you a mana, so even though it dies to shock, it's still even on tempo, and thus DtR doesn't really apply here.
Second, you cannot dismiss the DtR argument for things that are incredibly expensive. A six mana creature that you have to untap with, that dies to Doom Blade, Go For the Throat, and so on, is actually not that dangerous as far as magic design goes. In most games, especially multiplayer ones, if you are able to defend a permanent of that cost for a full turn cycle, you deserve to get a large advantage out of it. After all, you devoted more resources to it than someone devoted to their Goblin Rabblemaster.
Third, it is incredibly important to make sure that your high cost, high impact creatures actually die to removal. Most of us have seen people sticking hexproof and indestructible on their custom cards for no reason other than their desire to make their pet cards win more games. But although that's the more obvious incarnation of people removal-proofing their creature, it's not the only one. Creatures with super powerful ETB effects, or that generate card advantage when your opponent tries to remove them, or with haste, or any number of other things that allow them to push through tremendous advantage before your opponent has a window to answer them, don't effectively "die to removal", even if you can kill them with a single spell.
Removal is a fundamental part of magic design, and the thing that stops the game from degenerating into "who has a bigger creature or boardstate" (hint, white and green win that competition nine times out of ten). Understanding how removal interacts with creatures, and when someone killing your creature hurts versus when you can shrug it off, is critical to becoming better designers and better players.
Let me know if this type of theory piece was at all interesting, I had a lot of fun writing it. Also feel free to question any of the things I said here. I'm happy to clarify any of these points or answer any questions (or engage in debate if people fundamentally disagree with me).
