As much as I love Modern, the costs involved are prohibitive. The fetchlands are still obscenely expensive, and a few other cards are as well (i.e., anything that was bumped form rare to mythic for Modern Masters).
Another person mentioned the lack of cantrips in Modern, and now that I think about it, the more it makes sense. Consistency is the key to making a good deck, so tools to help consistency would make it easier to make a good deck. I have several decks that would be much stronger if they simply had more consistency.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Things WotC cares about:
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
As much as I love Modern, the costs involved are prohibitive. The fetchlands are still obscenely expensive, and a few other cards are as well (i.e., anything that was bumped form rare to mythic for Modern Masters).
Another person mentioned the lack of cantrips in Modern, and now that I think about it, the more it makes sense. Consistency is the key to making a good deck, so tools to help consistency would make it easier to make a good deck. I have several decks that would be much stronger if they simply had more consistency.
I think modern suffers from a couple of different things. Legacy players want to play Legacy (which is fine ofc) and complain about the bans that prevent them from porting their legacy decks. Standard players don't like the initial cost, even though it's much cheaper than standard in the long run since staple cards don't rotate. There's also some set of people who got mad when their pet deck was hit with the banhammer, with varying levels of justification.
I think modern is awesome. We can't all play legacy (seriously, there aren't enough cards) and even though I don't completely agree with the ban list, I think it's a healthy format.
I agree with your post. Most standard players do not even look at the long term costs of playing standard. One standard season could easily cost as much as a tier 1 modern deck. After doing the math, I realized that standard was not for me in the long run due to getting married and buying house, and eventually be having kids on the way in the near future. No rotation = long term savings. I can invest in the two decks that I have and leave it that.
Plus some modern decks can be converted into Legacy decks (cough burn, cough merfolk, etc)....
imo Modern is for a specific generation of players (myself included) who:
a)hate the limited depth of standard(if you think standard has more strategic depth than modern you obvisously haven't gotten into modern yet)
b)hate the rotation,that's right,there are some cards we just want to play and we don't care what month it is
c)have some experience with magic or are willing to study older blocks, for a new player modern is overwhelming,it's too hard to decide on a decklist when you don't know 70% of the formats cards
honestly Modern provides WotC a second chance to restart MtG as it SHOULD be
that's without lame combos that force you to play 0 mana counterspells-therefore blue- because otherwise you risk loosing the game at turn 2 as Legacy is
while it's not as lame as standard where WotC introduces a new mechanism and we all play that mechanism for the next year...
there were 2 options available for a new reasonable eternal format: reshape legacy with a massive wave of bans or start a new format with only 'fair' blocks,that's Modern best of both worlds.
ps:for those who say it;s dominated by Jund or Pod watch carefully,new blocks introduce cards that deal with those:
resolved Master of Waves is almost gg for Jund, while Anger of Gods can esily cripple Pod killing combo pieces and beaters alike,bypasses persist too,lastly the comments about lack of interactivity are plainly false: it's a format full of targeted discards,removal the occasional planeswalker, creature combat and cool interactions between cards,only counterspells are a bit lacking
Honestly, I could not have said it better myself. A, B, and C all apply for me.
I just don't think it is promoted enough at many LGS's. I really like Modern, it is my favorite format, and most of my casual games with my friends are with our modern decks.
I want to echo a previous poster's sentiments. Run fewer Modern events and promote them more. Have one FNM every month and maybe one on another day. That way everyone who is interested will put in more of an effort to show.
imo Modern is for a specific generation of players (myself included) who:
a)hate the limited depth of standard(if you think standard has more strategic depth than modern you obvisously haven't gotten into modern yet)
b)hate the rotation,that's right,there are some cards we just want to play and we don't care what month it is
c)have some experience with magic or are willing to study older blocks, for a new player modern is overwhelming,it's too hard to decide on a decklist when you don't know 70% of the formats cards
honestly Modern provides WotC a second chance to restart MtG as it SHOULD be
that's without lame combos that force you to play 0 mana counterspells-therefore blue- because otherwise you risk loosing the game at turn 2 as Legacy is
while it's not as lame as standard where WotC introduces a new mechanism and we all play that mechanism for the next year...
there were 2 options available for a new reasonable eternal format: reshape legacy with a massive wave of bans or start a new format with only 'fair' blocks,that's Modern best of both worlds.
I know many people who would argue that Legacy/EDH (especially EDH) are what magic is "ment to be" Their are several decks in Legacy that run no blue at all! and rouge decks can pull off wins, because the meta is just that big. I would bet Tier 2 and 1.5 Legacy decks have FAR better win rates than teir 2 modern decks. In Legacy its not so much a deck has lost power but more a deck has fallen out of favor. In truth EDH is where fun magic is at, total and competently new game experience each game with massive selection and verity of decks to play/play against.
Modern is my favorite format. But because I mostly play online with MWS and Cocatrice. Some of the reasons for modern to have such a hard time getting popular currently.
- I totally agree with the guy saying the problem is decks doing what they want to do and ignoring the opponent. Living Death, Bogle, Infect, Tron, UWX control, burn, Splinter Twin, Birthing Pod... are all tier 1-2 decks
- It packs the legacy core green-black pack, (Goyf, Death Rite Shaman, Abrupt Decay, Ooze, liliveil, thoughtseize...) and the other colors doen´t provide the other tools to face it, hence the BGX hegemony. It will probably be a little helped in the long run.
- Price. It's been mentioned a lot already
- Power level. Sadly there is a list of maybe 30 overpowered and overpriced cards that you NEED to choose among in order to have any actual chance. Affording the best cards counts more than playing well or coming up with new strategies. (This affects pretty much all formats since mythic cards came by, but modern is more affected imo)
- People just won't mind changing formats unless they are somehow driven to it. Probably more people with come to modern everytime standard rotates, but it might take a while
imo Modern is for a specific generation of players (myself included) who:
a)hate the limited depth of standard(if you think standard has more strategic depth than modern you obvisously haven't gotten into modern yet)
b)hate the rotation,that's right,there are some cards we just want to play and we don't care what month it is
c)have some experience with magic or are willing to study older blocks, for a new player modern is overwhelming,it's too hard to decide on a decklist when you don't know 70% of the formats cards
honestly Modern provides WotC a second chance to restart MtG as it SHOULD be
that's without lame combos that force you to play 0 mana counterspells-therefore blue- because otherwise you risk loosing the game at turn 2 as Legacy is
while it's not as lame as standard where WotC introduces a new mechanism and we all play that mechanism for the next year...
there were 2 options available for a new reasonable eternal format: reshape legacy with a massive wave of bans or start a new format with only 'fair' blocks,that's Modern best of both worlds.
ps:for those who say it;s dominated by Jund or Pod watch carefully,new blocks introduce cards that deal with those:
resolved Master of Waves is almost gg for Jund, while Anger of Gods can esily cripple Pod killing combo pieces and beaters alike,bypasses persist too,lastly the comments about lack of interactivity are plainly false: it's a format full of targeted discards,removal the occasional planeswalker, creature combat and cool interactions between cards,only counterspells are a bit lacking
If modern was what magic was meant to be, I'm kind of glad they stuffed it up. Legacy on its worst day is more balanced and diverse than modern has ever been. There's no deck that needs to be hit with the ban-hammer in legacy, and unlike modern's list, the legacy one has been shrinking. Not to mention, your theory regarding blue isn't exactly correct either; Jund was one of the strongest decks in the format at the start of the year, and elves and D&T have been two of the strongest decks over the last 3-4 months. TNN will change that by pushing the format further into blue, but in this case it's because of a stupid creature that should never have been printed, rather than free counterspells. The free counters actually aren't that big of a deal.
If modern was what magic was meant to be, I'm kind of glad they stuffed it up. Legacy on its worst day is more balanced and diverse than modern has ever been. There's no deck that needs to be hit with the ban-hammer in legacy, and unlike modern's list, the legacy one has been shrinking. Not to mention, your theory regarding blue isn't exactly correct either; Jund was one of the strongest decks in the format at the start of the year, and elves and D&T have been two of the strongest decks over the last 3-4 months. TNN will change that by pushing the format further into blue, but in this case it's because of a stupid creature that should never have been printed, rather than free counterspells. The free counters actually aren't that big of a deal.
Yet with everything you have mentioned, which most I agree with, some will never like Legacy or be able to afford Legacy. To some, a format has to be something different then Legacy to be appealing. It seems die hard Legacy players just cant wrap their collective heads around that.
I think modern suffers from a couple of different things. Legacy players want to play Legacy (which is fine ofc) and complain about the bans that prevent them from porting their legacy decks. Standard players don't like the initial cost, even though it's much cheaper than standard in the long run since staple cards don't rotate. There's also some set of people who got mad when their pet deck was hit with the banhammer, with varying levels of justification.
I think modern is awesome. We can't all play legacy (seriously, there aren't enough cards) and even though I don't completely agree with the ban list, I think it's a healthy format.
Yet with everything you have mentioned, which most I agree with, some will never like Legacy or be able to afford Legacy. To some, a format has to be something different then Legacy to be appealing. It seems die hard Legacy players just cant wrap their collective heads around that.
I agree with this completely. I feel like all Legacy players feel their format is the be all end all format that's better than other formats.
What's fun really depends on the player. The power level is a little too high for me in legacy. I don't like free counterspells. I don't like SnT. Modern has its problems, for sure, but let's keep in mind the future of the format depends largely on what WotC does with bans, reprints, and further endorsement of Modern.
One other thing, I think people are over blowing this non-interactive thing.
Our LGS has standard every night night of the week. They won't push modern because they dont have prize support (no more modern masters to give as prizes). Only 5-6 people are nagging them for modern so they dont really care.
of course when you distill legacy up to tier 1 decks it becomes not fun for everyone. its the same for modern, except modern's tier 1 lacks the diversity of legacy's tier 1. and modern's tier 2 decks lacks the ability to win of legacy's tier 2 decks. this is coming from a person who doesn't even play legacy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I speak in sarcasm because calling people ******* ******** is not allowed.
A lot of people who want to play eternal formats, who started playing the game years ago will already have legacy decks and will be hostile to modern
This is honestly Modern's biggest issue. It's a good format, but it endures a lot of hostility from people who have large "investments" in formats that Wizards seeks to eventually replace with Modern.
I think the issue is largely that, as a format, Modern is still very young. Are you a very long time player? Then something like legacy is more likely to appeal to you because it reflects your collection. Newer to the game? Standard is most readily picked up because those are the cards you see everywhere you go. However, over the next several years I feel like Standard players are the most likely to become modern players as collections expand and blocks are rotated out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Your body is not a temple, it's an amusement park. Enjoy the ride.”
― Anthony Bourdain, Kitchen Confidential
I will always firmly stand by the belief that Magic is a game first and a collectable second.
One other thing, I think people are over blowing this non-interactive thing.
I agree.. I dunno, sometimes it feels like I'm playing totally different games than others here, I feel like I have interesting decisions and interactivity the entire game. (I play kiki pod), and very often if I lose it's because I made a small mistake myself..
Maybe it depends what deck you end up playing with or against.
I do have decks like living end and Grisel reanimator, the latter which is not very interactive for sure, but it's not too common either.
I've only played a few tournaments (GPTs, local events, random opponents etc, no major events yet), but still, I like the format so far, and I know I'm not the only one.
Maybe it's just because pod is such awesome fun to play?:D (I started modern because I missed pod from standard: )
One other thing, I think people are over blowing this non-interactive thing.
You want the honest truth?
There are 7 out of 11 decks in the Proven section of this forum built to be uninteractive or to win despite interaction. Burn, Tron, Twin, Pod, Pod, Scapeshift, and Affinity are all designed to be decks that an opponent cannot easily interact with so they win.
Burn hurls damage spells at the face in order to quickly and efficiently reduce their opponents life total to zero. There is little interaction at all. I'll lift this quote directly from the primer.
The goal of Burn is to bring the opponent's life total from 20 down to 0. Burn generally doesn't care about the boardstate, except as a clock for how long you have to burn down the opponent. Burn doesn't care about drawing cards, although if the opponent wants to give us cards we won't complain.
Wow that sounds really interactive and fun!
The whole point of tron is to go over your opponents head and cast things the opponent can't deal with. Tron is designed to just not care what your opponent is doing and slam down early Karn or Eldrazi and win that way.
There are many different ways to build Twin decks, but in general you want to assemble the combo and win. If you look over the most recent postings in the banned list thread, people point out it hasnt done extremely well because it can be interacted with more so than other decks. It is still a deck that attempts to goldfish and not care what its opponent is doing.
Both pod decks are built to win inifnetly and be resilient to whatever the opponent is doing. If the opponent isn't interacting with them, they win turn 4 from an infinite combo, if the opponent is, theyre built to be resilient and difficult to stop from going off.
Scapeshift is litterally only a deck because its difficult to deal with the combo. Simply put, there are not many ways one can interact with Scapeshift Valakut, they don't exist in the game, and so its a resilient deck because you cannot easily interact with it.
Affinity wants to win before the opponent has a chance to interact. It's designed to be explosive and avoid / ignore the opponents completely.
------
So lets get rid of this idea that just because you often use creatures in modern you are being interactive. A majority of the top decks in modern are built specifically to limit how much an opponent can interact with them. If you go to established you see even more decks designed to limit interaction. Bogles, Living End, Griselbrand Reanimator, Restore Balance, Mill. These are all designed to not be interactive because they are more powerful that way. Each deck doesn't give a **** what it's opponent is doing as long as it isn't keeping them from winning on turn 4 or so.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: UWUW TronUW
Legacy: WDeath N TaxesW CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
You want the honest truth?
There are 7 out of 11 decks in the Proven section of this forum built to be uninteractive or to win despite interaction. Burn, Tron, Twin, Pod, Pod, Scapeshift, and Affinity are all designed to be decks that an opponent cannot easily interact with so they win.
Well.... NO. Both pod decks routinely have to produce answers for threats and hate before they can win, often tutoring for them. Twin is interactive with its burn, bounce, tap, counters, sometimes even discard. Affinity is just aggro, since when aggro not interactive? Tron may be the only one what is more difficult to interact with, the rest have creatures in them.
Sure enough, each of these has a streamlined game plan. They will not just suddenly start interacting with YOUR deck and board, unless it threatens them or hose their plan (AKA interacts with them). And frankly if it does not, it means their kung-fu is just better.
Well.... NO. Both pod decks routinely have to produce answers for threats and hate before they can win, often tutoring for them. Twin is interactive with its burn, bounce, tap, counters, sometimes even discard. Affinity is just aggro, since when aggro not interactive? Tron may be the only one what is more difficult to interact with, the rest have creatures in them.
Sure enough, each of these has a streamlined game plan. They will not just suddenly start interacting with YOUR deck and board, unless it threatens them or hose their plan (AKA interacts with them). And frankly if it does not, it means their kung-fu is just better.
Having creatures in it =\= being an interactive deck.
The decks I listed were specifically designed to be something that the opponent cannot interact with or something that's resilient enough that it rarely matters what the opponent does. Twin is the only one I'm iffy on but there are so many ways to build twin that it can easily be uninteractive.
You make my point for me in your second paragraph. These decks are powerful but they're uninteractive on purpose and that's because it makes them better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: UWUW TronUW
Legacy: WDeath N TaxesW CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
I will concede that Tron, the main deck I play, is one of the more non-interactive decks in the format, but believe me when "not caring" is the easiest way to lose with the deck. Cantripping a relic right away instead of keeping it on the board, cracking a sphere for a sylvan scrying to complete Tron instead of clasming a board, tutoring for a GQ to blow up a manland instead of casting Karn, etc. The easiest way to lose with a deck in Modern is to "not care".
For this same reason, tempo twin is played instead of all-in twin. Judging from the last GP, it's a pretty good call.
There are 7 out of 11 decks in the Proven section of this forum built to be uninteractive or to win despite interaction. Burn, Tron, Twin, Pod, Pod, Scapeshift, and Affinity are all designed to be decks that an opponent cannot easily interact with so they win.
Taking a quick perusal in the Legacy section, I see the exact same thing.
[Designing a deck] ...that an opponent cannot easily interact with so they can win... is how the game is played on a competitive level.
Most top tier decks in Legacy all play U for Force of Will, so they can "interactively" deny you your action, all the while trying to get their stuff going. (Except Elves!, but isn't that just Merfolk or green Affinity? lol)
Seems like the normal definition of interaction to a Legacy player is:
play a spell
FoW!
play a spell
Fow!
... ad infinitum...
Is that interaction? I dunno.
Every deck in Modern seems to want to add Goyf to it.
Every deck in Legacy seems to want to add FoW to it.
I'm not seeing the difference.
Personally, my one and only Legacy deck is TES, and I like it fine. Not super interactive, but it gets the job done.
Not sure what I'm arguing about here, other than I think both formats are fun, so just quit your *****in and get back to shuffling.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
currently playing Modern: U tron WG boggles EDH: GW saffi ericksdotter
Having creatures in it =\= being an interactive deck.
Most of the times it does. You get to play them (counters), they catch removal and wipes, they swing and block, they get equipment and combat tricks. This is the basic interactions in magic.
The only two decks that came close to being non-interactive in the format were eggs and storm. They literally had no board presence or ways to interact with opponent until they comboed off. This is not the case with any other deck in the format.
Another person mentioned the lack of cantrips in Modern, and now that I think about it, the more it makes sense. Consistency is the key to making a good deck, so tools to help consistency would make it easier to make a good deck. I have several decks that would be much stronger if they simply had more consistency.
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
Modern decks are not cost prohibitive in my opinion, when compared to Legacy. Checkout this link from the mother-ship:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/rc/260
Most decks are under $30
I agree with your post. Most standard players do not even look at the long term costs of playing standard. One standard season could easily cost as much as a tier 1 modern deck. After doing the math, I realized that standard was not for me in the long run due to getting married and buying house, and eventually be having kids on the way in the near future. No rotation = long term savings. I can invest in the two decks that I have and leave it that.
Plus some modern decks can be converted into Legacy decks (cough burn, cough merfolk, etc)....
Honestly, I could not have said it better myself. A, B, and C all apply for me.
Ux Whirza
Rb Goblins
Legacy
U Urza Stompy
Duel Commander
Sai, Master Thopterist
I know many people who would argue that Legacy/EDH (especially EDH) are what magic is "ment to be" Their are several decks in Legacy that run no blue at all! and rouge decks can pull off wins, because the meta is just that big. I would bet Tier 2 and 1.5 Legacy decks have FAR better win rates than teir 2 modern decks. In Legacy its not so much a deck has lost power but more a deck has fallen out of favor. In truth EDH is where fun magic is at, total and competently new game experience each game with massive selection and verity of decks to play/play against.
- I totally agree with the guy saying the problem is decks doing what they want to do and ignoring the opponent. Living Death, Bogle, Infect, Tron, UWX control, burn, Splinter Twin, Birthing Pod... are all tier 1-2 decks
- It packs the legacy core green-black pack, (Goyf, Death Rite Shaman, Abrupt Decay, Ooze, liliveil, thoughtseize...) and the other colors doen´t provide the other tools to face it, hence the BGX hegemony. It will probably be a little helped in the long run.
- Price. It's been mentioned a lot already
- Power level. Sadly there is a list of maybe 30 overpowered and overpriced cards that you NEED to choose among in order to have any actual chance. Affording the best cards counts more than playing well or coming up with new strategies. (This affects pretty much all formats since mythic cards came by, but modern is more affected imo)
- People just won't mind changing formats unless they are somehow driven to it. Probably more people with come to modern everytime standard rotates, but it might take a while
- The banlist could be a little improved
If modern was what magic was meant to be, I'm kind of glad they stuffed it up. Legacy on its worst day is more balanced and diverse than modern has ever been. There's no deck that needs to be hit with the ban-hammer in legacy, and unlike modern's list, the legacy one has been shrinking. Not to mention, your theory regarding blue isn't exactly correct either; Jund was one of the strongest decks in the format at the start of the year, and elves and D&T have been two of the strongest decks over the last 3-4 months. TNN will change that by pushing the format further into blue, but in this case it's because of a stupid creature that should never have been printed, rather than free counterspells. The free counters actually aren't that big of a deal.
Yet with everything you have mentioned, which most I agree with, some will never like Legacy or be able to afford Legacy. To some, a format has to be something different then Legacy to be appealing. It seems die hard Legacy players just cant wrap their collective heads around that.
big +1
Cardsphere MTG Draft Simulator
Cardsphere Blog - Original Content
I agree with this completely. I feel like all Legacy players feel their format is the be all end all format that's better than other formats.
What's fun really depends on the player. The power level is a little too high for me in legacy. I don't like free counterspells. I don't like SnT. Modern has its problems, for sure, but let's keep in mind the future of the format depends largely on what WotC does with bans, reprints, and further endorsement of Modern.
One other thing, I think people are over blowing this non-interactive thing.
This is honestly Modern's biggest issue. It's a good format, but it endures a lot of hostility from people who have large "investments" in formats that Wizards seeks to eventually replace with Modern.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
― Anthony Bourdain, Kitchen Confidential
I will always firmly stand by the belief that Magic is a game first and a collectable second.
I agree.. I dunno, sometimes it feels like I'm playing totally different games than others here, I feel like I have interesting decisions and interactivity the entire game. (I play kiki pod), and very often if I lose it's because I made a small mistake myself..
Maybe it depends what deck you end up playing with or against.
I do have decks like living end and Grisel reanimator, the latter which is not very interactive for sure, but it's not too common either.
I've only played a few tournaments (GPTs, local events, random opponents etc, no major events yet), but still, I like the format so far, and I know I'm not the only one.
Maybe it's just because pod is such awesome fun to play?:D (I started modern because I missed pod from standard: )
You want the honest truth?
There are 7 out of 11 decks in the Proven section of this forum built to be uninteractive or to win despite interaction. Burn, Tron, Twin, Pod, Pod, Scapeshift, and Affinity are all designed to be decks that an opponent cannot easily interact with so they win.
Burn hurls damage spells at the face in order to quickly and efficiently reduce their opponents life total to zero. There is little interaction at all. I'll lift this quote directly from the primer.
Wow that sounds really interactive and fun!
The whole point of tron is to go over your opponents head and cast things the opponent can't deal with. Tron is designed to just not care what your opponent is doing and slam down early Karn or Eldrazi and win that way.
There are many different ways to build Twin decks, but in general you want to assemble the combo and win. If you look over the most recent postings in the banned list thread, people point out it hasnt done extremely well because it can be interacted with more so than other decks. It is still a deck that attempts to goldfish and not care what its opponent is doing.
Both pod decks are built to win inifnetly and be resilient to whatever the opponent is doing. If the opponent isn't interacting with them, they win turn 4 from an infinite combo, if the opponent is, theyre built to be resilient and difficult to stop from going off.
Scapeshift is litterally only a deck because its difficult to deal with the combo. Simply put, there are not many ways one can interact with Scapeshift Valakut, they don't exist in the game, and so its a resilient deck because you cannot easily interact with it.
Affinity wants to win before the opponent has a chance to interact. It's designed to be explosive and avoid / ignore the opponents completely.
------
So lets get rid of this idea that just because you often use creatures in modern you are being interactive. A majority of the top decks in modern are built specifically to limit how much an opponent can interact with them. If you go to established you see even more decks designed to limit interaction. Bogles, Living End, Griselbrand Reanimator, Restore Balance, Mill. These are all designed to not be interactive because they are more powerful that way. Each deck doesn't give a **** what it's opponent is doing as long as it isn't keeping them from winning on turn 4 or so.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
Well.... NO. Both pod decks routinely have to produce answers for threats and hate before they can win, often tutoring for them. Twin is interactive with its burn, bounce, tap, counters, sometimes even discard. Affinity is just aggro, since when aggro not interactive? Tron may be the only one what is more difficult to interact with, the rest have creatures in them.
Sure enough, each of these has a streamlined game plan. They will not just suddenly start interacting with YOUR deck and board, unless it threatens them or hose their plan (AKA interacts with them). And frankly if it does not, it means their kung-fu is just better.
Cardsphere MTG Draft Simulator
Cardsphere Blog - Original Content
Having creatures in it =\= being an interactive deck.
The decks I listed were specifically designed to be something that the opponent cannot interact with or something that's resilient enough that it rarely matters what the opponent does. Twin is the only one I'm iffy on but there are so many ways to build twin that it can easily be uninteractive.
You make my point for me in your second paragraph. These decks are powerful but they're uninteractive on purpose and that's because it makes them better.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
For this same reason, tempo twin is played instead of all-in twin. Judging from the last GP, it's a pretty good call.
Taking a quick perusal in the Legacy section, I see the exact same thing.
[Designing a deck] ...that an opponent cannot easily interact with so they can win... is how the game is played on a competitive level.
Most top tier decks in Legacy all play U for Force of Will, so they can "interactively" deny you your action, all the while trying to get their stuff going. (Except Elves!, but isn't that just Merfolk or green Affinity? lol)
Seems like the normal definition of interaction to a Legacy player is:
play a spell
FoW!
play a spell
Fow!
... ad infinitum...
Is that interaction? I dunno.
Every deck in Modern seems to want to add Goyf to it.
Every deck in Legacy seems to want to add FoW to it.
I'm not seeing the difference.
Personally, my one and only Legacy deck is TES, and I like it fine. Not super interactive, but it gets the job done.
Not sure what I'm arguing about here, other than I think both formats are fun, so just quit your *****in and get back to shuffling.
Modern: U tron WG boggles
EDH: GW saffi ericksdotter
Most of the times it does. You get to play them (counters), they catch removal and wipes, they swing and block, they get equipment and combat tricks. This is the basic interactions in magic.
The only two decks that came close to being non-interactive in the format were eggs and storm. They literally had no board presence or ways to interact with opponent until they comboed off. This is not the case with any other deck in the format.
Cardsphere MTG Draft Simulator
Cardsphere Blog - Original Content