Ghalta, Primal HungerGhalta, Primal Hunger | Art by Justin Gerard

I've always been baffled by this conversation of whether a player should run more removal or not.

I'm not baffled because I think the answer is easy, but quite the opposite. The answer isn't obvious, yet anyone who tells you to run more removal, irritatingly, might think so.

Considering Commander

First of all, I'm speaking about Commander. I'm not privy to the inner technical meta of other formats. Every different format has it's own meta. Additionally, for each competitive format there's a formulated meta that dictates these choices a lot better than Commander. Most people aren't playing the same six or so decks with similar configurations in Commander, making the decision a little more concrete in competitive formats.

Commander - cEDH aside - isn't a competitive format, so naturally the meta is somewhat nonexistent.

Second of all, Commander is a singleton format that has 60+ unique cards and 40, give or take five, lands. The perfect configuration of any deck isn't obvious. Being able to have four-ofs and a deck with 35+ playable cards and 25, give or take two, lands, changes things.

You get consistency. You don't have to worry about not drawing removal. It will naturally come up more often. You can also run the perfect removal over and over. You don't have to be creative about four different types of removal that work just efficiently.

Third, play pattern and intention of the player play a role in the answer of more removal or not. Certain strategies aren't comfortable or natural for certain players. Lines might pass them by.

Also, like I've said over and over in my articles, like here, players are motivated by different things in a game of Commander. As a casual format, the goal isn't always winning the most efficiently. They might be motivated about building a fun deck that "does the thing." Maybe they aren't concerned with stopping other players' game plans.

Winning

I make those points just to outline this: Motivation might be different from player to player, and some of these factors we have to consider in this next section.

Some of you are thinking, "But I want to win. If I want to win, I just need to run more removal." And again, it's not that simple. If running more removal isn't the answer, then what is? What is the alternative?

Have you tried being the threat instead? I know this is loaded; there's a million things I could mean here. I'm suggesting that player removal might be better. Winning the game before someone could stop you might be a equally valid and potentially - depending on the commander - a more valid strategy.

Let's think about this for a second. Some colors in Magic are good or bad at removal. Instead of playing bad removal, you can resort to out-valuing and pressuring players out of the game. I'll give you an example.

Power Matters

My partner runs a very oppressive, and consistent, Bracket 4 Ghalta, Primal HungerGhalta, Primal Hunger deck. It loves to draw a ton of cards in green with things like Garruk's UprisingGarruk's Uprising, Guardian ProjectGuardian Project, Tribute to the World TreeTribute to the World Tree, and Elemental BondElemental Bond. He runs creatures that have a high power-to-mana ratio, to guarantee all of those cards trigger.

Why is he drawing all these cards? So he can cast Ghalta, Primal HungerGhalta, Primal Hunger for two green pips and then play Last March of the EntsLast March of the Ents. He wants to put all these creatures in play for cheap.

He's running three pieces of removal, which in the grand scheme is nothing. He runs Kogla, the Titan ApeKogla, the Titan Ape for creature removal, Beast WithinBeast Within for versatile removal, and CankerbloomCankerbloom because it removes enchantment and artifact and has more power in its stats than a Reclamation SageReclamation Sage.

Ghalta very rarely needs to run removal. She's usually on her way to killing a player by turn six. Ghalta pushes through most removal by being resilient. My partner ramps a ton as well, as green is known to do. If someone board wipes him, he simply draws more cards and starts again, dropping a Ghalta, Stampede TyrantGhalta, Stampede Tyrant.

Removal not only doesn't work on him, it barely does much more than slow him down. He doesn't use removal himself because in his color identity there isn't very much, and there's another more viable strategy: He outvalues. Becoming the threat consistently until he wins is the goal. And trust me, it works against my control-ly and stax-y Zimone, Mystery UnravelerZimone, Mystery Unraveler deck.

There are many decks, with many combination of cards, that would be better off being the threat than using removal. So, is it really that easy to say run more removal? Aren't we trying to play any fun deck we want. If we've eliminated decks we could play because of their removal ability then we're teetering on cEDH.

Meta and competitiveness isn't the spirit of casual Commander, from what I've seen from the community.

Removal Matters

I say this, but I started this article saying that the answer to this question isn't simple. Being the problem isn't necessarily possible for decks that are less aggro. Combo decks and midrange decks might not be able to remove a player before disruption happens.

I have an oppressive, consistent, Bracket 4 Tivit, Seller of SecretsTivit, Seller of Secrets deck. It's a Blink deck that loves to draw a ton of cards in Esper with things like Tivit himself, MulldrifterMulldrifter, or Thought MonitorThought Monitor. I run cards that blink Tivit, like EphemerateEphemerate, allowing for more draw and more mana in the form of Clues and Treasures.

I draw all these cards to gain removal in the form of counterspells like An Offer You Can't RefuseAn Offer You Can't Refuse and Permission DeniedPermission Denied, and board wipes like Toxic DelugeToxic Deluge or The Eternal WandererThe Eternal Wanderer.

I can't reasonably win early. I need Tivit. Turn five is the earliest I can cast him and get value enough to blink him again. It's slow going, so removal is essential. Low cost board wipes like Toxic DelugeToxic Deluge are huge. Venser, Shaper SavantVenser, Shaper Savant-ing a Last March of the EntsLast March of the Ents might be what saves me from losing the game.

Removal in the form of counter magic is huge here in prolonging the game long enough for me to get value. Tivit has ward which makes removing him once he's out a huge blowout for most players. He tends to stick around, through removal.

Once I've stopped other players from winning long enough to play Tivit and get infinite value with blinks, then I can go about eliminating players. There are many decks, with many combination of cards, that would do better to use removal than be the threat. So isn't it just easy to keep saying "Be the threat"?

So Which Is It?

I've been ruminating on this. Ultimately, decks like my partner's Ghalta aren't that common, where very little removal is needed consistently. Even then, my partner's deck runs some removal. So some removal is good. Sometimes you need a way to be resilient and remove pieces that out-value you.

I don't think that's hard to say here, but the "more" in the phrase, "run more removal" is the tricky part.

I hate to say it, the answer is always that you need to check with your pod. Should you be running more removal? Depends on how miserable you want the games to be. If everyone plays a board wipe in a game of Commander, the games would last forever and would be unfun. Targeted removal might not eliminate enough pieces to be relevant, but timing it carefully might stop a combo or midrange player from accelerating to where they're the threat.

Some players might hate to have three of their pieces removed in a game. Maybe there's a middle ground here with the play group on each of these points.

If you don't care if your pod has a fun experience - the question is if it's the most efficient strategy - I'm still not sure. I don't know if removal is the best answer for any deck, but it might be relevant to some degree in most decks. More is the tough bit. Maybe you need more pieces that accelerate your game plan than removal, making you more of a threat.

Maybe the answer is instead of more removal we should tell players to focus more on their game plan happening.

At the very least, if we focus on our game plan, we get closer to winning. Removal just stops others, and maybe not for long. Focusing on winning might lead you to winning more often.

I thought of this a lot after reading Kristen's article titled "Commander Games Feel Fast These Days… And Here’s Why." I feel like players are moving in this direction because it's more fun. Games are more enjoyable when everyone gets to do something crazy, which is hard with constant removal.

I'd love someone to post a statistic on how often a player with more removal in their deck wins against decks that don't run them, or, on the other hand, how many Aggro decks can win against three decks that have tons of removal.

As usual, I don't have a concrete answer here, but I don't want people flippantly telling you to run more removal when you lose. It's not always the answer. Maybe I'm wrong. Let me know: I'm @Strixhavendropout on Blue Sky.

Read More: