Go for the Throat

Legality

Format Legality
Tiny Leaders Legal
Noble Legal
Leviathan Legal
Magic Duels Legal
Canadian Highlander Legal
Vintage Legal
Modern Legal
Vanguard Legal
Legacy Legal
Archenemy Legal
Planechase Legal
1v1 Commander Legal
Duel Commander Legal
Oathbreaker Legal
Unformat Legal
Casual Legal
Commander / EDH Legal

Printings View all

Set Rarity
Commander 2017 (C17) Uncommon
Mirrodin Besieged (MBS) Uncommon
Mirrodin Besieged: Mirran (MBM) Uncommon
Promo Set (000) Uncommon

Combos Browse all

Go for the Throat

Instant

Destroy target nonartifact creature.

Go for the Throat Discussion

WhattheDeck on [[Primer]] Gonti - Night Market Shenanigans

4 hours ago

Awesome decklist! Only minor tweak I might make is to take out Go for the Throat and put in Tragic Slip .

Looks like tons of fun!

smurfs1234 on New Player: Mono-Black Vampire Help

1 week ago

@Spiderhead Don't really have a reason, just have all mono black vampires :/

@jconeil1988 I initially started with an aggro similar to the one you have on your profile, but I found that after a few turns I would have an empty hand. I decided to try to shift to midrange by adding some more control and draw cards ( Go for the Throat / Victim of Night / Sign in Blood ), and higher mana cost creatures ( Bloodline Keeper  Flip / Vampire Nocturnus / Twilight Prophet and maybe the ones in the sideboard). Is it still too much of an aggro?

blakesmach1 on Mono B Control

1 week ago

I think it’s a very good deck and I hope it plays well for you but why victim of night? If you switched it for Go for the Throat or something similar it could hit a lot more creatures especially if you’re playing another mono-black or black deck and it costs the same. Also I agree with the cutting some fatal push arguments. I ran a play set but have now cut it down to 2x in my mono-black deck because I wasn’t removing anything I controled So it was good if I had it opener but lost a lot of value later in the game against larger creatures where it becomes a dead draw for me

blakesmach1 on Shadow's Confidant/// Mono-Black Death's Shadow

1 week ago

Why not run Go for the Throat instead of Cast Down same cmc and Go for the Throat can also hit legendary creatures

lagotripha on "Modern" "Energy"

1 week ago

Nimbus Swimmer always feels a little weak to me. I always assess by looking at how a card feels to draw in the first three turns. Drawing a low cost spell later in the game is usually ok, but making sure those first few turns put you in a good spot is essential.

I'm just flicking through the simic stuff since I've tended to only do stuff like Cloudfin Raptor / Experiment One with it. Hydroid Krasis looks promising when the set rotates and it gets cheap, which will let you replace glimmer of genius.

Right now, think what I'd do would be add three Gyre Sage and two thrummingbird, cutting a climb, a hungering, two forests and a swamp. I'd also consider cutting Go for the Throat and running Beast Within instead, since I like the extra versatility with my 2 drop slot already taken/ ramping me to play it.

I'd also look at Everflowing Chalice and Astral Cornucopia while upping the proliferate count- Tezzeret's Gambit does a reasonable impression of Glimmer of Genius in most cases, and getting lots of mana to pump into hydras is good feeling.

Thats my thoughts though, and my deckbuilding is far from perfect. Testing is the most important thing. Hit playtest, draw a few hands, change some things then try again. Its how you get a deck that feels good to play.

pskinn01 on Why Utter End, and cards ...

3 weeks ago

Your opinions are noted.

I would like to point out edhrec takes into account the 90% who don't play cEDH. And by looking at your other "X is a bad spell" threads points to the fact you play mostly in the 10% who do cEDH. I have decks that do both. So I understand the major difference in which cards are playable.

I agree Cancel is bad considering the number of 1, 2 cmc counter spells that are not cost prohibitive, unless you are already using those in a control heavy deck.

Doom Blade / Go for the Throat are also to restrictive in many metas as artifact/black creature can be seen in most casual ones and many cEDH games.

Hero's Downfall is better than Ruinous Path due to instant speed. I'd rather have instant speed in any game I'm playing. The higher costing ability is irrelevant most games.

The charms are played for their flexibility. But the more competitive the meta, the less the felxibity of the card justifies the 3 colored mana.

Yes, Dreadbore is worse than Terminate . And they all hit walkers, which is relevant in many metas, but not many in cEDH ones.

But Anguished Unmaking is better than Utter End in either casual or cEDH, as I gladly pay 3 life to use it at instant speed. And hitting any permanent and exiling it is more than worth the cost, unless in cEDH where stopping a combo, in turns 2-5 are things that need to be done. I used to play food chain prossh, and I'm building tazri, which will have only 15 cards above 2 cmc (and I don't proxy at all, my lgs does not allow them to be played in the store).

But from cEDH stand point (which is where I'm assuming you play most), most things that are not played in legacy are not good enough to be considered for a deck. And most metas are not that competitive, nor do they wish to be. A lot of groups don't like combo or stax, which is what most tend to become the more cooperative you become. That's not to say that a less competitive player shouldn't play more cost efficient spells, but in casual games that usually go much longer in general, the higher cost spells with fexlibilty might be better choices in the decks.

TypicalTimmy on Why Utter End, and cards ...

3 weeks ago

I'm just going to say it, and if it makes me a target or a bad person I'm fine with it.

SynergyBuild, do you like any cards? You are literally saying any card that costs more than 1 cmc is terrible, unless it's a 2 cmc spell that has a as part of it's casting cost.

It seems to me that you want to maximize value from your mana base, and as such look for cards with the fewest color restrictions possible.

What I am wondering is if you realize that the added colors or generic mana give the spells more power behind them? Sure, not all spells are designed as well. There are plenty out there that cost way too much for what they do, or they have colors that make it harder to cast and there are spells that do the same thing for less.

Yes, there are always other options. But I question your reasoning behind this all?

Just because you personally don't like these cards does not mean they are "bad" cards. As Boza said, they are insurance. Maybe you are playing a Golgari deck or something and your opponent brings out something like Panharmonicon and you don't want it to go off. Boom. Putrefy is suddenly looking quite good. Yes, there are obviously better cards in the same guild: Broken Bond , Crumble , Gleeful Sabotage , Naturalize , and Nature's Claim are all fine examples.

But some of those are Sorcery spells! They are so much worse! They are garbage! Ew!

Yeah, well, you want a list of cards or not? There you go.

But part of building a deck is also finding cards that can do multiple things. Putrefy can remove creatures as well.

Likewise, there are Go for the Throat , Doom Blade , Bone Splinters , Smother , Fatal Push , Walk the Plank , and Dismember all work wonderfully for creature spot removal.

But do you know what these don't do? Remove artifacts.

I'd rather have cards like Putrefy , Assassin's Trophy , and Abrupt Decay in a Golgari deck that can remove multiple types of threats, rather than hope I can top-deck in time to remove what is currently sitting on the field.

TypicalTimmy on Why Utter End, and cards ...

3 weeks ago

I'm just going to say it, and if it makes me a target or a bad person I'm fine with it.

SynergyBuild, do you like any cards? You are literally saying any card that costs more than 1 cmc is terrible, unless it's a 2 cmc spell that has a as part of it's casting cost.

It seems to me that you want to maximize value from your mana base, and as such look for cards with the fewest color restrictions possible.

What I am wondering is if you realize that the added colors or generic mana give the spells more power behind them? Sure, not all spells are designed as well. There are plenty out there that cost way too much for what they do, or they have colors that make it harder to cast and there are spells that do the same thing for less.

Yes, there are always other options. But I question your reasoning behind this all?

Just because you personally don't like these cards does not mean they are "bad" cards. As Boza said, they are insurance. Maybe you are playing a Golgari deck or something and your opponent brings out something like Panharmonicon and you don't want it to go off. Boom. Putrefy is suddenly looking quite good. Yes, there are obviously better cards in the same guild: Broken Bond , Crumble , Gleeful Sabotage , Naturalize , and Nature's Claim are all fine examples.

But some of those are Sorcery spells! They are so much worse! They are garbage! Ew!

Yeah, well, you want a list of cards or not? There you go.

But part of building a deck is also finding cards that can do multiple things. Putrefy can remove creatures as well.

Likewise, there are Go for the Throat , Doom Blade , Bone Splinters , Smother , Fatal Push , Walk the Plank , and Dismember all work wonderfully for creature spot removal.

But do you know what these don't do? Remove artifacts.

I'd rather have cards like Putrefy , Assassin's Trophy , and Abrupt Decay in a Golgari deck that can remove multiple types of threats, rather than hope I can top-deck in time to remove what is currently sitting on the field.

Load more

Go for the Throat occurrence in decks from the last year

Modern:

All decks: 0.06%

Commander / EDH:

All decks: 0.04%

Black: 0.48%

Golgari: 0.09%

Rakdos: 0.24%