Doom BladeDoom Blade | Art by Chippy

What "Dying" Looks Like

Magic players have always been eager to classify the strongest cards at their disposal. Whether it be today's Hogaak, Arisen NecropolisHogaak, Arisen Necropolis or yesterday's Shivan DragonShivan Dragon, powerful cards always seem to draw everyone's attention both on and off the tabletop.

In an effort to classify a card's strength, some shorthanded expressions have been adopted to fast-track the conversation. This is where "dies to removal" is best expressed.

A card can be strong, sure, but if it's prone to removal or easy to counter then just how strong is the card really?

Take The One RingThe One Ring for example. Its ETB + cast effect is very powerful on its own, effectively granting its controller amnesty from everything for a whole round. As if this was not enough, it also provides significant card advantage with very little downside.

All of this is possible in every deck imaginable as well, seeing as The Ring only asks a player to invest once in order to access everything The Ring offers.

Applying the "dies to removal" critique against The Ring, it's apparent that The Ring's strongest effect, its ETB + cast trigger, can only "die" while on the stack.

Once the ability resolves, there's nothing left to interact with, as The Ring's controller has already achieved their goal in "guaranteeing" survival for another round of turns.

Even if The Ring is exiled before they're able to tap The Ring to draw a card and eventually lose one life at their upkeep, their was well spent.

The Ring cannot die while on the battlefield, as its ETB + cast trigger has already resolved at this point. It would need to die before this ability hits the stack in order for The Ring to be effectively removed.

When Do Cards Actually "Die"?

The One RingThe One Ring may literally be able to go from the battlefield to any other zone and literally be removed, but that's not what this shorthand is suggesting happens when players agree that something dies to removal.

In order for something to be removable, players must have ample time to respond to said threat and completely remove said threat. In The Ring's case, only CounterspellCounterspell or Doorkeeper ThrullDoorkeeper Thrull effects can meaningfully remove the threat.

But this is the case for something like Jodah, Archmage EternalJodah, Archmage Eternal. Opponents facing a Jodah Commander deck have ample time to respond to the threat that is Jodah's controller casting some large spell for just .

Typically, Jodah players aim to ramp into Jodah as fast as possible, then draw into enough protection for the round Jodah is resolved. Ramp and protection is notably something Jodah requires, not something that he himself enables or provides on his own.

This is something important to highlight, as established powerhouses, like Grand Arbiter Augustin IVGrand Arbiter Augustin IV and Kinnan, Bonder ProdigyKinnan, Bonder Prodigy, provide hefty resource advantages as soon as they resolve with the stack being the only place to stop their controllers' from gaining this advantage.

Jodah, on the other hand, usually needs to wait a round before his controller can spend their next turn resolving just one spell. If this is not the case, Jodah may not be resolved until much later in the game when his controller has enough resources to resolve both him and another spell, requiring at minimum nine mana to do so: for Jodah and for some big spell.

This gives Jodah's opponents plenty of time to search for answers before Jodah "does the thing", if not searching for a way to knock the Jodah player out entirely. Because Jodah requires extensive protective efforts from the deck he is commanding as well as an experienced Commander player to understand how best to play him, Jodah most certainly dies to removal.

Where Removal Doesn't Work

JodahJodah being a commander does mean that he could just be recast the next turn and therefore reintroduce the threat of large spells being resolved for cheap (as cheap as can be). However, this most likely means the Jodah player spends another turn resolving Jodah before a large threat is played.

By this time, Jodah's opponents have already gone through the effort to find answers to Jodah and are actively building their own game-winning boards. If all Jodah does is continue to be resolved and removed, the Jodah players is not going to have a pleasant experience.

Strategy is required on all participants to understand when it's best to resolve and answer a Jodah, which creates a desired and fulfilling gaming experience. Jodah actually dying to removal allows all players to enjoy the game of Commander.

This engagement is notably something missing from some of Commander's strongest cards. We only need to look at Final Fantasy to see Magic's two latest examples of unengaging Commander games.

As mentioned in my last article, Sephiroth, Fabled SOLDIERSephiroth, Fabled SOLDIER is very difficult to interact with, if not impossible at times. Essentially, players only have two or three moments they can interact with Sephiroth before he achieves his "ultimate."

Players can either counter Sephiroth on the stack or remove him before he transforms. If Sephiroth is allowed to resolve, his controller only needs to resolve one edictedict effect before his controller receives an immortal Blood ArtistBlood Artist emblem. If a player manages to remove Sephiroth before he transforms, his low mana investment of incentivizes players to just recast him from the command zone (or simply resurrect him from the grave if he's not too expensive to recast/part of the 99).

Final Fantasy's other big "doesn't die to removal" card is, of course, Vivi OrnitierVivi Ornitier. As is the running theme, Vivi must either not be allowed to resolve or he must be disabled before "doing the thing" as there are no other points of interaction for stopping him.

In fact, it may not be enough to try and MurderMurder Vivi after he resolves, as the Commander deck he pilots will mostly consist of instants and sorceries to quickly inflate his power before activating him with the intention of "ritualingritualing" into a large storm count, if not some string of spells that combo into winning the game. In other words, unless Vivi or his wincon(s) actually die to removal, there's no preventing Vivi from running away with the game.

For ViviVivi, SephirothSephiroth, and The One RingThe One Ring, removal only works in very specific instances and arguably requires knowledge before the game begins for a player to adequately remove these threats. But even still, these cards are so cheap to resolve and do not ask much from a deck to be included in it that they can ultimately "die" multiple times before truly being removed. Thus, these cards do not die to removal.

Why Does This Matter?

These are just three current instances of the "dies to removal" argument demonstrating how these cards fail to promote an engaging game of Commander.

While this is not the only metric that can be used, nor does it mean that these cards absolutely cannot generate a fun or healthy Commander game, it's an important lesson to learn that many fun Commander games, if not Magic games as a whole, are derived from players being able to meaningfully interact with each other to prevent their opponents from winning and increasing the odds of their deck achieving victory.

A card not dying to removal is but one aspect players should take into account when evaluating the strengths of their cards. The fewer points of interaction your opponents have access to, the stronger your deck will be.

But as we are Commander players and we often search for a more casual experience, it's often necessary to intentionally allow our decks to have weak points for the sake of increasing how enjoyable the games we play are for everyone involved. To do otherwise and aim to only build the strongest deck possible without social consideration would be to build a Bracket 4-5 deck.

Powerful decks can certainly be fun, and higher Bracket games can often allow players to engage in deep strategies and political discussions, but this is only possible if it's what the other players want.

If I were to optimize all of my threats to be extremely durable, consistent, repeatable, etc., as possible, then players looking to engage in a social game of Commander would most likely be very disappointed when I reveal, say, a Bracket 4 Urza, Lord High ArtificerUrza, Lord High Artificer artifacts stax deck. "Dies to removal" is a tool I should have used in order to determine what kind of game I wanted to play and where the most satisfying game could take place.

How Dying to Removal Builds a Better Player

I hope that this analysis of what "dying to removal" entails helps you become a better player. Magic is a complex game, and Commander makes no effort to make it any easier to quantify.

Just as the Bracket system aims to help players find more compelling games, I wish for this discussion to better equip you to find opponents who seek to play a similar Commander game as you do.

Remember to always talk it out with your opponents during Rule 0! It never hurts to ask what the intentions behind a deck are or to explain what your intentions are, and if for whatever reason someone does get upset, well... perhaps it's for the best.

"Dying to removal" is not a filter that's to be used against your opponents, rather a means of self-diagnosing where your deck and your intentions with a deck rest.

How do you feel about something dying to removal? Do you think that this explanation was to broad or generous? What are some other ways you could gauge a deck's intentions?

I hope that this article serves as a helpful starting point for determining what actually does and does not die to removal, but I'd love to hear from you if there's something missing or if I've started yelling at the clouds. Tune in next time to continue this deep dive in the Bracket system and more Commander Philosophy!