Swords to plowshares is bad, and here's why

Commander (EDH) forum

Posted on June 1, 2015, 2:27 p.m. by Indigoindigo

Title got your attention? Good. I came across this article and thought it was a really good read, discussing several EDH-concepts I haven't thought about. I'm eager to hear your opinions on it, and if any competitive players disagree with any of it's points.

Lessons from EDH

RoarMaster says... #1

I guess thats what I get for trying to pull stuff from memory, what I meant was Silence the Believers instead of sever the bloodline, my bad. Volcanic Fallout or the half dozen other instant speed versions of pyroclasm.

June 2, 2015 1:54 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #2

You can make that argument if you want, but you're still ultimately failing to recognize that stopping someone from killing you is preferable to not stopping someone from killing you. Because almost all of the blanket effects that could solve multiple problems are less efficient than their single-target counterparts, and because you're in no way guaranteed to have the opportunity to kill multiple threats at once with the same spell, blanket effects are not useful for fulfilling the tactical purpose of spot removal effects.

You're discounting the other aspects of card economy by assuming that both kinds of spells ultimately fulfill the same function and that the only consideration is how many things they hit.

June 2, 2015 2:32 p.m. Edited.

RoarMaster says... #3

Epochalyptik Uhh, in no way am I saying that not stopping some one from killing me is better than stopping some one from killing me. What I may be saying is stopping one person from killing me and letting another do it instead is just as bad as not stopping either person from killing me. And yes, most multiple target spells are 'less' efficient, although thats arguable as it is situational, is Swords more efficient than Wrath when there are a dozen opposing creatures in play?

And again I will say it, the article is not about how mana efficient cards are, but about card advantage and the need to answer multiple threats in a multiplayer environment. So all this talk about how Swords is cmc 1 and wrath is cmc 4 is not the point of the article at all and using it as examples is off topic for the post.

June 2, 2015 2:55 p.m.

ChiefBell says... #4

The problem is that decent EDH decks win on T3 and T4 at instant speed. So sorcery speed removal is not going to cut it, and MOST multi target removal is going to cost too much.

June 2, 2015 3:01 p.m.

RoarMaster says... #5

The problem is that decent EDH games will have multiple people winning on T3 and T4 at instant speed. So sorcery speed and spot removal is not going to cut it, and most multi-target removal will cost as much as the combo they are using to win.

But again, we digress. This is not a topic of instant speed vs sorcery, or even CMCs. Its about card advantage and answering the multiple threats that you will face in a multiplayer environment.

June 2, 2015 3:16 p.m.

RoarMaster says... #6

Im happy to agree to disagree though :)

June 2, 2015 3:16 p.m.

sonnet666 says... #7

How about we try and do something constructive with this argument?

Since I think we can all agree that if you overload your deck with 1 for 1 removal spells you are going to fall behind:

  • How many 1 for 1 removal spell do you think a commander deck should have?

  • How many is too many?

  • When can a deck afford to have less?

  • When can a deck support more?

I'm going to start off by saying that the average deck should be running five cards like Swords to Plowshares and Oblation. Agree or disagree as you will.

June 2, 2015 3:53 p.m.

RoarMaster says... #8

Running 5 spot removal is a bit low if you are wanting to have one in your hand to remove that T2 Hermit Druid. At 10 in your deck you theoretically should have one by the time you have 10 cards in hand, about the same time they would be dropping the combo threat. So if you want to rely on having a fast answer in hand early game then Id suggest 10 or so.

June 2, 2015 4:06 p.m.

andymaul123 says... #9

I think the major disconnect between the responses to the article and the author's viewpoint is based on the assumption that, because the author has labeled certain cards as bad, those cards shouldn't be included in a deck. The reality is that being bad and being important aren't mutually exclusive. Swords to Plowshares is absolutely critical in decks that run white, imho, for the reasons stated above. That doesn't mean it isn't bad, though, especially when the context of the article is tempo and card advantage.

The main failure of this article is that it's poorly written, not that its points aren't salient. Should you exclude cards like Swords to Plowshares from your deck? Absolutely not. You should be aware, however, of the loss in both tempo and card advantage when playing it (an easy to trade to keep someone from winning, mind you).

If you read the article without a knee-jerk bias against it, you'll find its scope is tempo and card advantage - a singular element in a multi-faceted game and format.

June 2, 2015 5:20 p.m.

@RoarMaster: So basically your argument is that wipes are better because they kill more creatures? Sorry, that's not a valid argument.

spot removal wont save you from losing, just decides who you will give the game to. Mass and multi-target cards can deal with this common issue where single target removal fails.

This statement is just factually wrong. Spot removal will prevent you from losing. And, as I explained above, wipes are slow. In competitive Commander, you won't often have the luxury of waiting to drop a wipe until you can kill multiple threats. You may be forced into a position where you desperately need a solution to a single threat, and you'll then be forced to use your wipe in a 1:1 trade or may not even have an affordable option available to you.

And the fact that they're slow absolutely does factor into the discussion. If you want to have a complete discussion about card economy, you must take cost into account, and you must weigh the total resource investment against the total advantage realized. That's exactly what I was explaining on the previous page in comment #31. If you want to stick to a narrow argument about card parity, you'll ultimately fail to offer a nuanced evaluation of a card's real economy. And even card parity alone is more complex than the article makes it out to be.

The fact that spot removal doesn't provide some enduring answer to multiple threats is not a reason for it to be considered bad. It's not designed to provide such an answer, and it's not always the case that you will need such an answer. Spot removal is good because it gives you an efficient and immediate answer to a relevant threat. It fills the need for urgent tactical advantage. And in competitive Commander, you will often only need to answer very select threats in order to build enough advantage to win. It isn't required that you remove every threat; you just have to remove the ones that shut you down before you can win. Winning beats the slower threats.

Again, you're welcome to make narrow arguments, but unless you actually explore a more complicated analysis of card economy, you're just stating the obvious or even making nonsensical points, and neither is productive.

June 2, 2015 5:25 p.m.

@andymaul123: I'm willing to grant the article whatever scope the author likes. Doing so still doesn't change the fact that the article is simply wrong. It fails to offer a complete enough analysis of the few topics it does address, and it draws incorrect conclusions on that basis. You can argue all day that 1:1 trades in competitive multiplayer are actually not favorable from a numerical standpoint, but this perspective is valueless because it does nothing to address the other forms of advantage inherent in the cards' functions and in their use. Ultimately, what matters is what works, and what matters most out of what works is what works best. Card parity arguments don't give you an accurate representation of what works best, nor do they even give you an accurate representation of what works.

June 2, 2015 5:30 p.m.

June 2, 2015 6:47 p.m.

RoarMaster says... #13

Epochalyptik using only a partial piece of my quote out of context will indeed make it 'factually wrong' duh. False use of a quote is a poor choice of making a point. Did you somehow actually not realize that the above partial quote was referring to the double Hermit Druid example I gave? And in that example, that partial quote is true. Please try and steer away from twisting my words, as that is both nonsensical and not productive, as you say.

June 2, 2015 6:50 p.m.

andymaul123 says... #14

Epochalyptik You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I think you're missing the point of the article, which is to explain why some cards are better in a multi-player format by analyzing them through the lens of card advantage and tempo. This perspective isn't valueless, as some people may have never examined the game, or specific cards, in this way before.

The article isn't telling you how things should be done. It's offering an explanation why some cards work better. Since we both agree that "what matters is what works", I find value in something that offers insight as to the why of the situation.

June 2, 2015 6:52 p.m.

I understand perfectly the point of the article. I'm saying that it should not be taken as any kind of authority or even any kind of accurate representation of the competitive Commander environment, which is what it purports to provide.

Card parity is only one of many facets that must all be considered together to construct an accurate representation of the aforementioned environment. If you examine only one facet and then try to distinguish what is good in the format from what is bad in the format based on that analysis, then your results will be incorrect. The article may provide a decent explanation of the most basic principles of card parity, but it doesn't offer the complete analysis it requires in order to begin to pass judgment on what is or is not good in the format.

Now, if the examples had been less egregiously bad, then maybe the article would have more merit. For example, you could compare Consecrated Sphinx to Divination for a discussion on card parity. You could compare Damnation to Murder for a discussion on card parity. But if you argue that Swords to Plowshares and traditional counterspells—both of which are very obviously influential in the competitive Commander meta—are bad because they don't give you positive trades in card parity, then you miss the mark on what makes a card good or bad. You cannot accurately analyze whether a card is good or bad solely on the basis of its ability to trade for other cards.

June 2, 2015 7:06 p.m.

@RoarMaster: Even in context, your argument is still pretty poor. Yeah, sure. You can make the argument that mass removal is obviously better than spot removal if all you consider are scenarios in which there are always multiple threats to be answered. But what happens when one player drops a threat, you clear it, and then another player drops a threat during the following turn cycle? What happens when your sweeper is too expensive to cast, or when you invest all of your resources in casting it? Your sweeper has no advantage over spot removal in that context. Conveniently for you, you don't consider scenarios like this. You only consider cases in which the number of threats is the sole variable.

Again, the reality of competitive multiplayer Commander is one in which you have to allocate resources in a calculated way in order to win. It's not about stopping every single threat. It's about stopping the threats that matter. And in that respect, slow and expensive field wipes are vastly less effective than fast and efficient spot removal. You can't hope to have a solution for every single threat. What you must do is focus on tactical and strategic advantage so you can do what is most effective at securing victory.

Once again, you are welcome to state the obvious. But don't presume that doing so is productive.

@DERPLINGSUPREME: Your comment is not even remotely productive.

June 2, 2015 7:14 p.m.

This discussion has been closed