Sensitivity to mana costs
Removals are cards that neutralize the opponent’s creatures in different ways: destroying them, removing them from the game, paralyzing them (for example, Pacifism), etc.
Removals are less sensitive to their mana cost than creatures. This is because it is often better to wait and cast them in the later stages of the game, and at these stages the player benefits from the ability to produce a large amount of mana anyway. Why wait before casting removals? Removals are primarily intended to deal with creatures that give the opponent a significant advantage on the battlefield. Hence, it is often preferable to wait and avoid casting them on the first creature the opponent places on the battlefield. It should be noted that quality creatures tend to cost more mana and therefore often appear in more advanced stages of the game. In order to clarify the relative insensitivity of removals to their mana cost we will use a simple example. Let’s look at two cards: Incinerate and Essence Drain. Basically, the effect of the two spells is quite similar. The ability to gain 3 life is a bit better than the inability to prevent the damage, but in terms of effect the two cards are fairly balanced. Now, even though the second spell costs 3 mana more than the first and has a similar effect, it is still considered attractive in a limited environment. If we make the comparison to creatures, there is no way that a creature costing 3 mana more than a creature of equal strength will be considered a playable creature. This example clarifies the relative insensitivity of removals to their cost in mana compared to creatures.
So different yet very alike
Removals under the MES test
Removals are an exceptional case regarding the MES test. They do not abide by the MES rule. This is because their costs in mana are usually significantly smaller than the cost of the cards with which they trade. For example, a removal costing 2 mana, such as Pacifism or Counterspell, may sometimes paralyze a spell that costs much more. An even more extreme case of such a trend is Mass removals. They can exchange themselves for spells whose accumulated mana cost is many times higher than their own. Accordingly, a deck loaded with removals may maintain parity with the opponent even if the latter has gained a considerable advantage in MES.
Cost of removals in cards
Removals, being able to reliably eliminate an opponent’s card in return for ‘wasting’ it, are highly desirable in a limited environment. This rule applies as long as the removal is able to eliminate a wide group of creatures alone (we will deal with this later). Mass removals, which are able to exchange themselves for a large number of the opponent’s cards (a positive balance of cards in favor of the player using them) are even more attractive and will be considered in most cases as bombs. Conversely, removals that require the sacrifice of a card or more as a condition for their use will be much less attractive. Here, the type of removal that requires sacrifice is of great importance: the question of whether it is sorcery or instant may have a great influence on the way we evaluate it. Take as an example a removal that requires the sacrifice of a creature when it is cast. If it is a sorcery, then we will have to give up 2 cards for 1 of the opponent’s cards (sometimes this pays off, but usually it does not). If it is instant, by contrast, we can wait for the right circumstances that will allow the exchange of the two cards with two of the opponent’s. For example, when the opponent targets this creature with a removal of its own. In such a case, the creature’s sacrifice will not count as a cost since it made its way to the graveyard anyway.
Removals under the stability test
Just like creatures, removals are also characterized by high stability as a group. This is no wonder: the prevalence of creatures in a limited environment provides a considerable number of targets for these types of cards. Only rarely do players regret a removal they hold in their hand. The opposite is true―a good player is aware of the great value of these cards and will not rush to use their removals but will wait for the right target at the right time. In fact, the removals play exactly the role that the creatures play: they enable players to gain an advantage on the battlefield or offset the opponent’s advantage. The difference is that they do it in a negative way (preventing the opponent from having creatures). In a certain respect, removals can be considered even more stable than creatures. The reason for this is that a creature is often unable to handle specific problems that require a solution, such as an evasive creature, a creature with a powerful ability, etc., while removals, in addition to contributing to the balance of creatures on the table, can handle those specific problems. This makes removals the most stable group in limited and explains why players tend to value them more than any other group of cards.
The frequency and flexibility test is also relevant in estimating the value of removals. They are indeed stable as a group, but as individual cards we can identify significant differences between them in terms of their position on the time/action mode axes.
Frequency test
A removal will score high on this test if it is able to eliminate a wide variety of creatures. The emphasis here is the elimination, that is, the complete neutralization of the creatures and not the fact that they are a possible target for the removal. Hill Giant, for example, will not be included in the group of creatures that Shock can eliminate. This point is important, as will become clear later. If so, the frequency of removal ultimate usage can only be determined in relation to a specific environment. Shock will have a high activation frequency in an environment with many small creatures or those characterized by low toughness.
flexibility test
The flexibility test can be divided into two:
Assistance capability: There are many situations in which a removal is not able to eliminate a certain creature by itself, but it may assist in its elimination together with other means. Such a removal is defined as flexible because even when the conditions for its optimal operation (the elimination of the creature without the use of additional means) are not met, it will still be usable. We’ll use the example of Shock hitting the Hill Giant again. The Shock is not able to eliminate the Giant by itself, but it causes 2 points of damage which, when added to another measure (for example a 1/1 creature that blocks the Giant), helps to eliminate it. The variety of creatures that Shock can eliminate by itself is quite limited, but it can almost always help eliminate other creatures. An opposite example is Terror. This card can eliminate any non-black or non-Artifact creature. The frequency of its ultimate use is of course high (it can eliminate a wide group of creatures on its own). However, it cannot make any contribution to eliminating creatures that it is unable to eliminate by itself (for example, a black creature). Summing up, removals that can assist in the elimination of creatures that they are unable to handle themselves will be more flexible than removals unable to provide such assistance.
Flexibility in function: The flexibility of a removal is also assessed by its ability to perform additional functions beyond the elimination of creatures. Certain removals (usually red or black) can reduce the opponent’s life points and thus also serve as a finisher. Shock is an example of such a removal. There are removals that can destroy additional permanents besides creatures, and this gives them greater flexibility. Removals that can be cast at instant speed may serve as combat tricks.
Four types of removals
Removals can be divided into 4 groups:
High Flexibility | Low Flexibility | |
High Frequency | Category I | Category II |
Low Frequency | Category III | Category IV |
Chart 5: Types of removals
- High frequency/High flexibility: These are very stable removals. Char is a good example of such an elimination. It inflicts 4 damage on a creature and therefore can single-handedly eliminate a fairly wide group of creatures. It is also able to assist in the elimination of creatures with a toughness higher than 4. In addition, it can target the opponent’s life points and serve as a finisher instead of its function as a removal.
- High frequency/Low flexibility: These removals are capable of eliminating a wide range of creatures, but their usefulness is limited to this group. Terror and Smother are two removals that belong to the above category. This category is usually typical of black spells.
- Low frequency/High flexibility: Removals of this group are able to eliminate a limited variety of creatures by themselves, but they can help eliminate additional creatures and/or have additional functions. A representative of this group is Shock. Red eliminations tend to fall into this category.
- Low frequency/Low flexibility: removals of this group are quite situational. This does not mean that they are useless: in certain situations they are very good. However, these situations are not so common, so in most cases they will rest on the Sideboard. Slay is a good example of such a card. The card is able to eliminate only green creatures (in addition to drawing a card!) and is therefore situational in terms of the frequency of its activation and flexibility (eliminates only green creatures; is unable to do anything except eliminate green creatures).
Conditionality: Some removals can be very effective, scoring high in the frequency test, but still may be fragile because they become obsolete under certain conditions. Blue and white aura removals, such as Pacifism or Claustrophobia, belong to that category. They are very effective yet give the opponent a chance to get rid of them. Green removals, such as Ram Through, belong to this category as well. They are effective only when you have a big creature on the battlefield.
They are all so precious!