In Bolas's ClutchesIn Bolas's Clutches | Art by Zack Stella

Welcome back to How to Be New, a series for people who either always do or always don't pay the one, but either way they're pretty sure they're doing it wrong.

But this week, we have a guest to guide us through! The wonderful Mike Carrozza of Am I the Bolas? is here to talk with me about something that's been bubbling up in me for a long time. As I've now just celebrated my one year anniversary of playing Commander, a question has grown so loud that I can't ignore it: Why haven't I seen anybody play a discard deck?

This simple question unearthed a rich vein of conversation with Mike that I've transcribed below:

Removal: It Isn't Just For Defense Anymore!

RM: I wanted to talk to you because I've been playing for almost exactly a year now and there are certain archetypes of decks that I don't see people build decks around. And I'm curious for your thoughts on if there are any taboo archetypes around the Commander table.

In particular, I want to talk with you about decks where removal is the win condition.

Mike: Yeah, ok. I'm listening.

RM: So, to start with a story, there's a deck I built a while back when I was experimenting in Bracket 1. I made a mono-black card draw deck and the commander was The Speed DemonThe Speed Demon so every turn I was hurting myself and drawing cards.

Mike: Nice. Yeah, fun.

RM: I even put in dumb cards that didn't really fit but I just wanted to play. Like Butch DeLoria, Tunnel SnakeButch DeLoria, Tunnel Snake, which isn't a good card, but I love Fallout, so he goes in.

Mike: Hell yeah.

[I then go on to describe to Mike my Bracket 1 Exodia deck, which you can read all about here]

Mike: Oh, well that's fun!

RM: Yeah! The deck was fun, and good, and vibes. All was well. But then I looked up good mono-black card draw commanders, because The Speed Demon didn't quite feel right thematically. And I thought about ritual sacrifice to a dark god. And I came across Massacre Girl, Known KillerMassacre Girl, Known Killer.

Mike: Oh boy.

RM: Yeah. And I went through my collection and tossed everything that had -X/-X into the deck.

Mike (clearly apprehensive): Mmmhmm.

RM: And then I ran it and the vibes were different.

Mike: Yeah. And was it presented as a Bracket 1 vibes deck as well?

RM: Yes. I definitely under-presented it. I don't think people were running their weakest stuff against it, but I also think many Bracket 2 or even Bracket 3 decks I've played against would've struggled against it.

I've since brought it back to how it used to be in an effort to get it back to how it used to feel. But it did get me thinking. I know there are a lot of commanders people could run where removal is the point of the deck, but I've never actually seen anybody else run one before. So, let me ask, what is the Bolas rating on that deck archetype?

Mike: Ok. Well, it's really difficult to say because, personally, when I think of this kind of deck, I think automatically Archenemy. Because you're counterplaying against the card type that Magic as a whole relies on, and that's creatures.

And to get value out of it like that, it's easy for you to run away with the game. And that's why you would have to be in an environment where people trusted each other's intentions to even be able to test it out knowing that it will ruffle some feathers. So to me, there's a degree of embracing villainy on some scale.

However, I never actually thought about it this way, but I have a similar deck, my Sevinne, the ChronoclasmSevinne, the Chronoclasm / Brash TaunterBrash Taunter deck that runs a bunch of damage-based board wipes, but that's how I win. And there's some counterplay because I do need a bit of a board built up. And something important here is, when you're building a deck like this, when you use that removal, how far away is your endgame? How redundant are these pieces? How is this going to work to actually end the game and put me out of my misery?

RM: Yeah. Right.

Mike: And for the other players, they'll need their resources both to play their deck and remove other threats. So if your deck only really needs the removal part of that, you're sort of starting out one step ahead of the game. It's super oppressive. It's wild.

RM: Yeah. And I know that was a little busted because I know I didn't need to get other cards on the board to enact that win condition, and Magic isn't really designed around that. But there are certainly other commanders where you truly only need to remove and then basically just swing. Sephiroth, Planet's HeirSephiroth, Planet's Heir comes to mind for that.

Also, really quick to just go back to it, after one year of playing Commander, I think Brash TaunterBrash Taunter is maybe my favorite Magic card.

Mike: Yeah, dude. It's a really good one. It's really fun, it's really goofy, the story it tells is so good. It's a really attractive and evocative card. If I had to name a top 50 cards, it would definitely be on that list for sure.

RM: So, to realign ourselves a little bit, first I want to talk about resources. Because there's a similar thing where I've never seen someone run a discard-based Commander deck despite the fact that I think there are a ton of very interesting discard-based commanders.

Mike: Well, I will say, there are a ton of discard Commander decks. They tend to be either flavor of the week or very competitively tuned. But they are there.

I remember Rachel Weeks on the Command Zone about a year ago where they talked about decks they didn't like to play against. And discard decks were Rachel's pick. Because the idea is that you don't really get to play Magic.

RM: Yeah. I mean, that's sort of it.

Mike: Not just the removal of agency, but also not considering each other's time. It's very easy to slow down the game to the point that it's over-long.

RM: Yes. Like, a lot is made of land destruction, which just the mention of those words make my hair stand on end. But this provides the same effect.

Mike: Yeah. It's effectively land destruction, but it's hand destruction.

RM: *laughing* Hand destruction. So good. Absolutely.

What Is a Villainous Strategy?

RM: So, I also wanted to talk to you about sort of an expansion on this topic. So, I have my The ValeyardThe Valeyard deck, which you've played against. And that deck has been accused of being villainous.

Mike: Well, he's literally a villain, and in villain colors.

RM: Right. The next words out of my mouth were going to be, "And I wouldn't call anybody wrong for thinking that." Especially after the game I played the other day where I did put ExpropriateExpropriate back in.

But, the real question I have for you is: What is the line between a villainous deck or a villainous tactic, and one that is ok? Because all Commander decks are built to snowball and do something crazy and insurmountable. What is the line between a villainous deck and one that is ok?

Mike: A villainous deck is one that strips your opponents of hope.

RM: *laughing* Yeah, no, that makes sense.

Mike: It's hope removal. You wring the hope out of your opponent. It can be fun to be in a game where, if you top deck the right card, you can turn the whole thing around. But if the writing is on the wall no matter what you draw... Like, if I'm in a game where there's a Dictate of ErebosDictate of Erebos thing going on, and I draw a creature, my question isn't "Can I afford to cast this?" Instead, it's "Can I afford to lose this? Should I just keep this in my hand in case some random thing happens?" You lose not just your ability but your willingness to even fight back.

There's even a resentment that can grow. Because hopelessness pointed at a person can become resentment of that person. And then the air over the whole table is soured because you're ruining my good time. And it's very different from "I'm in a tough situation, but if I draw my outs I can see some paths forward." It's more like "Nothing I do will even matter and it's all your fault."

RM: It sort of takes it away from the technical definition of a game.

Mike: Now that's an observation.

RM: It's almost like in Space Jam where the aliens chain up Michael Jordan to make him lose basketball games against tourists. It's a horrible pre-determined outcome that you can't escape and can't bring about faster. You are fully stuck in a losing situation.

Mike: I can't believe you perfectly summarized and encapsulated that with Space Jam.

RM: If you had watched that movie as much as I have, you'd hope it would come in handy from time to time.

How To Be a New Villain

RM: Ok, so if the first piece of advice is "Don't build these decks," then, for the people who skip right past that, how do you pilot one of these decks if you do actually build it?

Mike: So, first of all, I actually don't want to endorse the message to not build these decks.

RM: Oh, ok. Go on.

Mike: But if you're going to build it, you need to really know what the available counterplays to this deck are. And you need to think hard about whether you want to go full bore on this strategy, or leave some areas of daylight for your opponents. Because you'll need to know this deck inside and out and be making sure that you and your opponents are all having a good time while you play it. Or else you could find this being the last game you play with these people.

And if you don't care and you just want to piss people off, you're probably not reading this article.

RM: That's fair.

Mike: So I wouldn't say don't build it. What I would say is to be caring to your opponent. Make this effort to create the deck, learn the deck, and pilot the deck well enough to make this work. And when you're doing those things, do them with your opponent's experience in mind. Especially for discard. Because you're not doing things to their board, you're sort of doing them to the player. You're skipping over where battle is supposed to happen and hitting them in their house.

RM: Yeah. It almost breaks the fourth wall. That sort of thing can easily take a game from being a fight on the table to a fight above it.

Mike: And if you're doing that, make sure there are moments of relief. If you're building this deck, put yourself in their shoes. Think about how you would beat it. And leave room for that.

RM: Are there any other archetypes of deck besides discard that you think players should be this careful with?

Mike: StaxStax.

[New Player Definition: A "Stax" deck is centered around tying up its opponents' resources, usually by requiring mana taxes on permanents, sacrificing lands, and any number of other effects to disrupt an opponent's ability to play spells and keep permanents on the board.]

RM: Oh man, this is actually one where I would point to advice #1 and say "don't build this deck."

Mike: Maybe it's just because I'm older, but there is something fun about playing against the occasional Stax deck. It can really make things interesting in a frustrating way, which means that it almost feels more rewarding when you overcome it.

RM: Which I think is, in part, an argument for any villainous deck. When you come into a game expecting to be the villain, and when I'm playing a deck like that, I'm happy to be targeted and to be thwarted. It's almost like being a DM in Dungeons & Dragons. You celebrate your players when they whomp you in the same way.

Mike: Yes! Exactly.

RM: But man, it's just that Stax really is so brutal. I mean, talk about grinding a game to a halt.

Mike: But all of these decks are Stax, when you think about it! Discard is Stax of the hand. Removal is Stax for creatures. And Stax is Stax for, well, I guess for your patience.