Building a Bracket 4 Deck with Gwenom, Remorseless

<a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Doom Blade" href="#" target="_blank">Doom Blade</a> | Art by <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-chippy-dugan-3459761?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_profile_view_base_contact_details%3BEWbBb4H6SHGZZ%2FfyICfZ8w%3D%3D">Chippy</a>
<h2>What "Dying" Looks Like</h2>
Magic players have always been eager to classify the strongest cards at their disposal. Whether it be today's <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis" href="#" target="_blank">Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis</a> or yesterday's <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Shivan Dragon|LEA|174" href="#" target="_blank">Shivan Dragon</a>, 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 <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="The One Ring" href="#" target="_blank">The One Ring</a> 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.
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="The One Ring|LTR|748"></div></div>
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.
<h2>When Do Cards Actually "Die"?</h2>
<a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="The One Ring" href="#" target="_blank">The One Ring</a> 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 <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Counterspell|LEA|54" href="#" target="_blank">Counterspell</a> or <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Doorkeeper Thrull" href="#" target="_blank">Doorkeeper Thrull</a> effects can meaningfully remove the threat.
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Jodah, Archmage Eternal|DOM|198"></div></div>
But this is the case for something like <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Jodah, Archmage Eternal|DOM|198" href="#" target="_blank">Jodah, Archmage Eternal</a>. 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 <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Grand Arbiter Augustin IV" href="#" target="_blank">Grand Arbiter Augustin IV</a> and <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy" href="#" target="_blank">Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy</a>, 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.
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Absolute Virtue"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Apex Devastator"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Omniscience|M13|63"></div></div>
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.
<h2>Where Removal Doesn't Work</h2>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Sephiroth, Fabled SOLDIER"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="The One Ring"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Vivi Ornitier"></div></div>
<a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Jodah, Archmage Eternal|DOM|198" href="#" target="_blank">Jodah</a> 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, <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Sephiroth, Fabled SOLDIER" href="#" target="_blank">Sephiroth, Fabled SOLDIER</a> 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 <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Cruel Edict|9ED|121" href="#" target="_blank">edict</a> effect before his controller receives an immortal <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Blood Artist|AVR|86" href="#" target="_blank">Blood Artist</a> 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, <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Vivi Ornitier" href="#" target="_blank">Vivi Ornitier</a>. 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 <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Murder|M13|101" href="#" target="_blank">Murder</a> 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 "<a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Pyretic Ritual|M11|153" href="#" target="_blank">ritualing</a>" 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 <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Vivi Ornitier" href="#" target="_blank">Vivi</a>, <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Sephiroth, Fabled SOLDIER" href="#" target="_blank">Sephiroth</a>, and <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="The One Ring" href="#" target="_blank">The One Ring</a>, 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.
<h2>Why Does This Matter?</h2>
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 <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Urza, Lord High Artificer" href="#" target="_blank">Urza, Lord High Artificer</a> 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.
<h2>How Dying to Removal Builds a Better Player</h2>
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Jace, Vryn&#039;s Prodigy"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Jace, the Mind Sculptor|WWK|31"></div></div>
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!

Commander Philosophy - How Does "Dies To Removal" Actually Work?

<a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Craterhoof Behemoth|avr|172" href="#" target="_blank">Craterhoof Behemoth</a> | Art by <a href="https://www.rahnart.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Chris Rhan</a>
The last "few" additions to the <a href="https://edhrec.com/top/game-changers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Game Changers list</a> back in April continues to drive players to question the strength of cards that they play with and against.
The first 40 Game Changers left many feeling more was necessary, especially with some cards being extremely similar in power and playstyles, and yet only some were Game Changers and others weren't. With today's 61 Game Changers, many players approve of this current list and are eager to use it, at least until next year when the earliest possibility for a Bracket System update is promised.
At the same time, many others feel that current Game Changers aren't enough and that the Commander Format Panel (CFP) should've been stricter with what's considered a Game Changer, particularly with cards that outright win the game on the spot or the moment they're engaged with.
For this discussion, I'll call these cards "Game Winners," as that's what they've been introduced to me as.
This isn't something the CFP has designed or some official list, rather a loose catch-all term for some cards, like <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Craterhoof Behemoth" href="#" target="_blank">Craterhoof Behemoth</a>, that are associated with winning games the moment they're resolved.
I agree that these "Game Winners" are an important aspect that the CFP should review, however I also believe that a card does not require Game Changing status for its Game Winning tendencies alone.
<h2>Game Winner? I Hardly Know Her</h2>
As mentioned before, Game Winners is a loose term used to describe cards that, well, win games. It describes strong cards that only are present to end games, with <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Craterhoof Behemoth" href="#" target="_blank">Craterhoof Behemoth</a> being a prominent example. Craterhoof is the premier example of a single card being resolved and winning the game that turn, sometimes even the same phase or step.
Craterhoof is very rarely played just for value and is instead played explicitly to end games. The CFP, as Gavin Verhey explains, has considered Craterhoof as a possible Game Changer due to its innate playstyle and some of the Magic community pushing for Game Changing status. This is due to Craterhoof prematurely ending games when paired with certain cards like <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Natural Order" href="#" target="_blank">Natural Order</a> that provide early, easy access to a Game Winner.
However, this is the fault of cards like Natural Order that enable Craterhoof to be exploited prematurely, not the fault of Craterhoof.
Verhey explains that "it is certainly true that this card can end games. However, for an eight-mana green creature, it is acceptable to end the game this way. While cheating it out early by way of something like Natural Order is a problem, a long-game Craterhoof is something we believe is acceptable."
Without cards that actively seek to exploit these Game Winners, then cards like Craterhoof aren't problematic and therefore not worth categorizing as Game Changers.
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Aetherflux Reservoir"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Blightsteel Colossus"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Torment of Hailfire"></div></div>
Now, it is possible for a card that wins games to be a Game Changer. <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Expropriate" href="#" target="_blank">Expropriate</a>, <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Ad Nauseam" href="#" target="_blank">Ad Nauseam</a>, <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Thassa&#039;s Oracle" href="#" target="_blank">Thassa&#039;s Oracle</a>, <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Underworld Breach" href="#" target="_blank">Underworld Breach</a>, and other Game Changers are considered Game Changers due partially to their tendency to win the game on the spot, but that's only a piece to the Game Changer puzzle.
Not one Game Changer is called such due to its ability to end a game. I hope that explaining why Craterhoof ought not to be a Game Changer will reveal that there are multiple factors contributing to a card earning Game Changer status, not just its ability to win a game.
<h2>Kill On Sight ≠ Game Changer</h2>
So, what are some things that separate Game Winners from Game Changers? How are cards like <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Craterhoof Behemoth" href="#" target="_blank">Craterhoof Behemoth</a> so different from things like <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Bolas&#039;s Citadel" href="#" target="_blank">Bolas&#039;s Citadel</a>?
Firstly, the CFP has to draw a line at some point between how strong a card is and how many hoops players must jump through to exploit the card beyond Brackets' 1-2 intentions.
In other words, the CFP tries to define when a card is too easily broken. In cases like <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Expropriate" href="#" target="_blank">Expropriate</a>, the card is simply too oppressive to be cohesive for Brackets 1-2. As Verhey explains in his article introducing Brackets Beta, "While it is expensive, the combination of take a turn alongside taking three permanents (provided none of them give you extra turns) is strong enough to end some games on the spot."
Expropriate is a prime example of a Game Winner being too strong on its own and thus requiring Game Changing status.
This is different from Game Changers like <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Tergrid, God of Fright" href="#" target="_blank">Tergrid, God of Fright</a>. On her own, Tergrid is a powerful card that can occasionally steal someone's <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Evolving Wilds" href="#" target="_blank">Evolving Wilds</a> or hinder an opponent's <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Gravecrawler" href="#" target="_blank">Gravecrawler</a> shenanigans, but it's how Tergrid is played that earns her Game Changing status.
Nobody's incidentally running Tergrid for the occasional anti-wheel tech. Just review which cards are some of the most synergetic with Tergrid.
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Oppression"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Rankle, Master of Pranks"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Smallpox"></div></div>
Tergrid is intentionally commanding a deck that insists on running mass sacrifice, mass discard synergies. As if these playstyles weren't unfun enough, Tergrid then turns every opponent's deck against themselves and ends the game swiftly, often sooner than their opponents could have ever dreamed of achieving themselves.
How Tergrid is played is a significant reason for her to remain a Game Changer.
While Craterhoof may be powerful, it's only because its owner has built a sufficiently large board that enables Craterhoof to become lethal. Craterhoof on its own is fairly underwhelming, which is starkly different from cards like <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Bolas&#039;s Citadel" href="#" target="_blank">Bolas&#039;s Citadel</a>. The Citadel does not ask much in order to warp a game.
As Verhey explains, it provides "overwhelming resource advantage for [its] mana value and tends to cause a player to snowball with the game." Similar to players seeking to exploit Tergrid, its effect on games only grows when its owner can run simple top-deck manipulation effects, whether through scrying, surveilling, or the Citadel's best friend <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Sensei&#039;s Divining Top" href="#" target="_blank">Sensei&#039;s Divining Top</a>.
Bolas's Citadel is arguably doing more than Craterhoof to a game, as well as for a cheaper investment.
<h2>How Many Craterhoofs Does It Take to Win a Commander Game?</h2>
What does it realistically take to win with Craterhoof? It seems Bolas's Citadel and Tergrid require very little to win a game, so where does Craterhoof stand? We should start by looking at Craterhoof in a vacuum. To wipe everyone out simultaneously, Craterhoof requires 10 creatures to be present before it enters (ETBs for us oldies), amassing 136 power in total.
Accruing 10 creatures before Craterhoof is already an undertaking, which is further hindered when accounting for the opponents' boards.
Even if the opponents' life totals are under 40, their boards will include a wide variety of blockers and combat tricks that will inevitably slow down Craterhoof to some extent. Where Bolas's Citadel and Tergrid are heavily focused on what their owners are capable of, Craterhoof is fairly dependent on what its opposition possesses.
Now, it's important to recognize that Game Winners like Craterhoof are often not played on their own, just as I have described Tergrid as being heavily exploited. Players running Craterhoof are definitely seeking to quickly amass (<a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Dreadhorde Invasion" href="#" target="_blank">not that kind</a>) a board presence that often also ramps into Craterhoof.
Some of Craterhoof's most common commanders are linked with go-wide creature strategies to get Craterhoof online as soon as possible
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Chatterfang, Squirrel General"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Lathril, Blade of the Elves"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Raggadragga, Goreguts Boss"></div></div>
However, as Verhey explains with cards like <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Natural Order" href="#" target="_blank">Natural Order</a>, Craterhoof's ability to end games prematurely is a result of other cards and playstyles. Craterhoof does not enable any of these strategies until the final turn of the game, which is the intent behind Craterhoof's design anyways.
A single eight-mana creature should be able to win the game if its owner plays it right.
Craterhoof is no <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Expropriate" href="#" target="_blank">Expropriate</a> that only asks its owner to resolve it in order to effectively end a game, nor is it like <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Tergrid, God of Fright" href="#" target="_blank">Tergrid</a> or <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Bolas&#039;s Citadel" href="#" target="_blank">Bolas&#039;s Citadel</a>, which are exploitable at the slightest touch. Craterhoof enables its owner to win the game only when its owner has taken the necessary steps to do so.
A player needs to recognize when it's most appropriate to build their board and threaten a lethal combat step when facing three opponents actively preventing such an outcome. If a player tries to win with Craterhoof too soon, their board will be wiped.
Without all of the creatures that enabled Craterhoof, the player cannot recover soon enough to threaten Craterhoof again, sometimes knocking their win out of reach entirely.
<h2>When Game Winners Don't Win the Game</h2>
Craterhoof is a popular talking point for Game Winners, but is far from the only example. <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Aetherflux Reservoir" href="#" target="_blank">Aetherflux Reservoir</a> requires a player to storm off in a single turn, meaning that their game has been spent leading up to Reservoir resolving and being lethal.
Just like Craterhoof requires a substantial board presence, Reservoir players are most likely running cost-reduction effects or other ways of increasing the limit of spells they can cast in a single turn.
If just one of these pieces were to be interacted with, Reservoir is not longer lethal, thus meaning the other three players are able to deal with an emerging archenemy situation. Same with <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Enter the Infinite" href="#" target="_blank">Enter the Infinite</a>, <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Torment of Hailfire" href="#" target="_blank">Torment of Hailfire</a>, and many other "Game Winning" cards. It doesn't take too much interaction to prevent these cards from winning the game.
<div class="edhrecp__cards"><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Anzrag&#039;s Rampage"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Damnation"></div><div class="edhrecp__card-container" name="Silence"></div></div>
In the end, cards like Craterhoof require a player to funnel most, if not all of their resources into it in order to be threatening. If this wasn't enough of a reason to bar these cards from Game Changing status, these cards are able to be interacted with fairly easily. One board-wipe, one <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Vandalblast" href="#" target="_blank">Vandalblast</a>, one <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Counterspell" href="#" target="_blank">Counterspell</a> is all that's required to ultimately stop a Game Winner from winning the game.
I will admit that this touches upon the often overused/misrepresented argument "X dies to removal," but there's a clear distinction between claiming a Craterhoof's board dying to a <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Supreme Verdict" href="#" target="_blank">Supreme Verdict</a> is enough bar Game Changing status and a <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Urza, Lord High Artificer" href="#" target="_blank">Urza, Lord High Artificer</a> being susceptible to every <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Murder" href="#" target="_blank">Murder</a> under the sun not being enough to remove its Game Changing status. Another distinction for another time.
I ultimately believe that once a single spell starts costing around 8+ mana, then winning the game becomes a possibility for its effects. <a class="edhrecp__link-a" content="Coalition Victory" href="#" target="_blank">Coalition Victory</a> is my go-to example, and I have every expectation that it will eventually be delisted from a Game Changer.
But what do you think? Are there some cards that I overlooked? Are most, if not all "Game Winners" ultimately Game Changers? There's plenty left on the table and I have every intention of discussing these nuances further.
Tune in next time to continue this deep dive in the Bracket system and more Commander Philosophy!

game changer

Building a Bracket 4 Deck with Gwenom, Remorseless

Commander Philosophy - How Does "Dies To Removal" Actually Work?

Commander Philosophy - Game Winners vs. Game Changers

Commander Bracket System Updates and Unbans - April 2025