So...why is it that with every spoiler ever
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on July 3, 2014, 8:11 p.m. by Drathen
People just go: ''Bleh, dies to removal''
YES, IT DIES TO REMOVAL, AND?
If we are going to judge that way, then there is like 5 playable cards per block that should see play...
Unforgivn_II says... #4
I mean, instants and sorceries don't die to removal. And thus, Control wins. Or at least, it has been recently. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here.
Good cards are efficient. When your 7 drop is dying to a 2 drop removal spell, leaving no impact on the board, it just isn't an exciting card. The exciting ones provide some sort of immediate impact, so that in the event that said card is dealt with, you're not entirely losing out on your investment. That, or they dont die to removal, justifying their usage.
Also, when a card may not make an immediate impact or dodge removal, it can be undercosted. Desecration Demon is a great example. Dies to most removal (outside of burn), yet it is so aggressive that the opponent can rarely afford to let it stay.
Simply saying "dies to removal" is just a lazy way of saying that the card is good if unanswered. (If the card is not good, well, no one is talking about it). However, in competitive MTG, assuming that something will simply go unanswered is just wrong
July 3, 2014 8:33 p.m.
You know what else dies to removal??? YOUR MOM!!!!!
Don't feed the trolls man...
July 3, 2014 8:34 p.m.
trentfaris242 says... #6
@GoldGhost012, Supreme Verdict is brought up in most spoiler threads this set.
"I wouldn't waste a counter on that. I'd just let it resolve and Supreme Verdict ." This has been said many times now.
That's not to say removal SHOULDN'T be a factor. I mean, take Indulgent Tormentor, for example. He has 3 toughness as a big drop. That's an appropriate time to list removal as a weakness.
However, saying something like "Nissa's ult sucks. Just Supreme Verdict ." (I'm paraphrasing, but this was actually said in that thread) is not OK.
July 3, 2014 8:59 p.m.
GoldGhost012 says... #7
I just tend to ignore those because most of the time, it's not relevant to my opinions about the card.
July 3, 2014 9:05 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #8
Where as referencing removal in regards to the new jace is acceptable since he has no significant impact on the board, the only reason to play him is the hope he'd last long enough to go ultimate. So dies to removal argument works in this case.
July 3, 2014 9:05 p.m.
Nigeltastic says... #11
Sometimes they're (semi) legitimate concerns, AKA wrathing your lands after Nissa, but usually I just assume people are trolling or really dumb.
July 3, 2014 9:07 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #12
It's only a big deal if you needed the land for mana post nissa ult.
July 3, 2014 9:26 p.m.
trentfaris242 says... #13
Exactly what Schuesseled said. Ya, it can happen and it sucks when it does but it's not an automatic loss and certainly doesn't make her suck. Everything in this game can be dealt with. That's what makes it so awesome.
July 3, 2014 9:29 p.m.
According to legend in the Roman Republic when a general achieved great victory he would parade through Rome with a slave at his ear whispering, "You are just a man." Or something like that. I'm probably mis-remembering things.
Anyway, that is what I see "Dies to removal" as now.
July 3, 2014 10:47 p.m.
Because when you pay 6 mana for a creature and it dies to a 2 mana Doom Blade what the opponent has basically just don't is cast Time Walk . That's why people get so bothered about things like that.
However if you cast a creature for 2 mana and it dies to a 2 mana killspells them you've lost virtually nothing.
It's basic resource understanding. A fundamental part of magic. Dies to removal is a valid argument when you consider high cost creatures.
July 4, 2014 11:26 a.m.
trentfaris242 says... #17
@ChiefBell I agree with your statement, but what we have on this site is people who say "X 2 or 3 drop sucks because Supreme Verdict " or some other removal that costs more to play than the spell itself.
GoldGhost012 says... #2
Actually, I haven't seen that too often with these recent spoilers.
July 3, 2014 8:18 p.m.