How Much Removal is Too Much Removal in Limited?

[@bruinfan05]

Great episode, thanks!

[@doublethomas8415]

Anyone who thinks their deck has too much removal is obviously not a true control mage.

[@maaags_]

I ran a deck with 5 dreadbores. It was epic. I dreadbored a two drop and OP thought he was safe to play bombs 😊

[@jimdiment7146]

Always great to see dovin's acuity get a mention

[@limitedlevel-ups]

I do it when I can :)

[@Glitterblossom]

Cutie Control gang

[@michaellangberg2550]

Fwiw i think the red part of terminate back in 2001 was the ability to target black creatures

[@H1LTO]

Typical chordo w

[@OysteinS]

I find that with a lot of removal and just a few threats my opponent can easily just stockpile their own, more limited removal for my bombs, rather than having to use it on a mediocre creature because of pressure. Still, I've had success just drafting a lot of removal anyway.

[@DieEnteable]

Ideally in a removal heavy (or rather threat-light) deck, the threats you do run are good vs opposing removal. Either hard to remove things like hexproof, ward or Aetherling's flicker ability; high toughness so they need to spend 2 or more of their small creature removal or 2 for 1s like multiple bodies, etb/death triggers. Or maybe some artifact or enchantment that produces value.

[@echodrummer4308]

So you're telling me 23 pieces of interaction might be a tad too much? haha :)

[@limitedlevel-ups]

Not if you’re playing 60 cards :)

[@echodrummer4308]

@@limitedlevel-ups Combo-structed? Why, I would NEVER! haha

[@HiImKvothe]

Innistrad remastered..

[@limitedlevel-ups]

You’re in luck! That’s this week’s friday episode :)

[@HiImKvothe]

@limitedlevel-ups nice

[@Pnic1193]

I don't know if I can get behind this gurmag angler slander, been drafting almost exlusively 3-4 color control decks in this format and angler has been an important way to convert cards like archeologist and butler into board presence after spending the game removing all my op's threats and going up on cardboard. A cheap 5/5 is exactly the kind of card this deck wants.

[@goldslimetps1245]

If Im a true control deck I dont concern myself with board presence, Id much rather fuel a treasure cruise with it. A vanilla threat doesnt really play with a control gameplan since it just gives opponents a clean target for the removal in their hand I think Angler has its places, but I dont consider it a control card

[@Pnic1193]

@goldslimetps1245 this is just not correct. My main concern as a control deck is making the game longer because I am inevitable and my opponent is not. Gurmag angler has been a staple of control decks in many formats because it is cheap to deploy so you do not risk losing out on tempo and it is not something your op can just ignore in most situations, so you force your opponent to slow down and deal with it, extending the game. Yes, it gets worse if you have multiple treasure cruises but treasure cruises is not the only draw spell worth playing in this format and you shouldn't base your entire strategy around the expectation that you're going to get 1 specific card, especially when there is no shortage of playable analogues to that card.

[@aviserascontent]

@@Pnic1193 that's cool if you've been finding Gurmag Angler to work well for you. It's a decent way to convert the GY into tempo. Your explanation about how control decks function (which I'd agree with) doesn't really line with up wanting Gurmag Angler though. If you've gone up card advantage and dealt with your opponents main threats, you can win with just about anything at that point. Long games mean lots of land drops too, so being hyper efficient on mana matters less mid to late game. It would be fun to play the card more if Cruelty wasn't in the format - that's such a sad face when you put all the work in and it just gets cleanly answered on the cheap.

[@Pnic1193]

@@aviserascontent I'm mostly playing it to shore up my Naya matchups where it's pretty much bigger than everything they play. Generally where that matchup goes wrong is when they curve out well or suit up a hexproof creature that you can't interact with, and in those situations having your opener be something like consider -> archeologist/butler -> angler is a huge game. Even dropping the consider and deploying an angler on turn 4 tends to be a nice play as far as stopping their momentum. I agree that it is not at it's best against other controlling decks where the game tends to be more about card advantage than board position, but you gotta respect the board against good Naya decks

[@danielmulter2143]

Why wouldn't you take Nivix Cyclops any of the many times you saw it? You had enough sorceries that I'd expect it to be fairly good in this kind of deck (and much better than any of the filler creatures you ended up playing). Also, no consideration for Pelakka Predation P3P8? Isn't a discard spell the kind of thing that a removal-heavy deck might really want, in order to better answer cards that aren't answered cleanly by 1-for-1 removal?

[@goldslimetps1245]

Nivix Cyclops is a very very bad card if youre not chaining spells. Having a bunch of sorceries to incidentally turn it on sometimes does not make it playable, you need to really mean it. Its for a deck with stormchaser mages and prowess threats and cheap card draw/cantrips like witches mark and consider that let you turn it into an actual threat. Outside of that its just a very bad statline. Its similar to fiery inscription in LTR where RB often had a ton of instants and sorceries, but not the card velocity of a UR deck to make it work

[@zweis]

Nivix is one of the most likely cards you'll see last pick since it's a bonus for being in izzit not a reason.

[@DieEnteable]

I personally really like predation in Grixis control/mindrange, so that would have been my pick, too. I wouldn't play cyclops unless you are base UR, here the U was a splash and not even guaranteed. It also blocks very poorly, having only 1 power, unless you have tons of cheap instants (which Alex did not).

[@mcbescheiden725]

There is No too much removal

[@francescocarelli6090]

there is too much hexproof