The other ones would be preordain and DTT. I mostly am just curious about DTT and see what it would do in the format. We all know it died due to Treasure Cruise but its still a really good card regardless. As far as Preordain, it would certainly be played heavily but most decks would replace opts or serum visions and that isnt really that big of a change to the format.
I said the same thing about Dig Through Time, but I had several people here on MTGS offer links that showed that Dig was heavily played in RUG Scapeshift and the fear was that Dig would be the "next best (too good) thing." They also figured it would slot into UR Delver as Cruise was banned. I know for a fact that RUG Scapeshift WAS indeed super good during that time. It just got overshadowed by better decks, like UR Delver, Rhino Pod, and Amulet Bloom.
I wish I had those links right now to show. But then again, this is a different time and meta. I actually believe that Dig Through Time would be fine in the current Modern. You don't have to convince me of much. I personally feel that 5-10 cards would be okay in today's Modern, depending on how you define "okay."
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
There are tiers into the cards that should be unbanned. I would break those cards down like this(in order):
While I mostly agree with those tiers there's a few points I would contend.
1. Birthing Pod. Pod is value rich but low on interaction. We have other decks in the meta right now that generate similar levels of value and they're merely respectable choices. Pod would no doubt be a strong deck, but I don't think it would do anything too broken in todays field. It is essentially the slightly bigger strategy of decks like Pyromancer and Hollow One, playing in a similar space of being hard to strongly interact with and having highly recursive board states. You're right that the deck would have some new cards like Renegade Rallier, but I would counter that other decks in the format have gained cards like Kolaghan's Command, Fatal Push, and Gurmag Angler that interact well at aggressive mana costs. The deck would need testing for sure given it's history, but it's worth keeping in mind that the deck also has some very bad matchups that are still competitors in the format, and that it's main surge in power came from it's predators being removed.
2. Splinter Twin. Twin would also be fine today. Others have already made long cases for and against this card so I'll just leave it at that.
3. Umezawa's Jitte. This card is in no way safe.
I agree with you on the tier 3 cards. Dig Through Time is probably not ok. While it's true that it got very little time in Modern sharing just 3 months with Treasure Cruise, where it was pushed out of the format. It did sit in Legacy for 6 additional months until it also eventually had to go. That's not absolute proof that it's too good for Modern but it is one good indicator.
So, I've tried many times to have a healthy conversation about why the current use of the terms "interactive" and "linear" are misguided, but I think I came up with an analogy that might help change that (at least for "interactive").
Let's say that we're all at a boxing match. We have Boxer A and Boxer B. The bell rings, Boxer A proceeds to beat the crap out of Boxer B. Boxer B just stands there and takes it, gets KO'd.
Who was being "uninteractive"?
example isnt applicable. in a two person finite zero sum game its assumed each person is making decisions to benefit themselves at the expense of the other. boxer b choosing to lose means it isnt a game.
youd be better served just outlining what you believe the appropriate definitions of those terms as they apply to mtg rather than trying to lead people to discover the finer points of game theory on their own.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
@AUTUMNTWILIGHT, in all of those cases, the analogy still holds.
In the first, it's much like Boxer A is simply dodging the most devastating of the opp's blows while maintaining the ability to strike.
In the second, Boxer B is simply able to withstand heavy blows while winding up for a haymaker.
In the third, Boxer A is landing consistent, fast, and relatively hard hits, specifically having trained to do so, while the opp may not have had the required training to compete on that level.
In the fourth, Boxer B is much like the second, in which they're winding up for multiple haymakers.
In every single case, the Boxers do not want to allow the opponent to interact on their own respective terms. Just like in every single competitive game, including Magic. The problem is that when people are put into the position of the Boxer who's just getting smashed, they get upset. Well, yeah, they just got smashed, that's life.
But then to say that the other boxer "isn't interactive" seems absurd. Yes, they were. They were much more interactive than us, evidently. Are we to be upset because they didn't allow us to block a punch? Or that they didn't care to block any of ours, because our punches were relatively weak or insignificant? Or that we feel entitled to having our opponents be required to block our punches and/or allow us to block theirs, rather than using dodges and/or strategically absorbing blows?
It gets even sillier when we start seeing the terms "fair". Could you imagine watching a boxing match in which the loser claims the winner wasn't "playing fair", even when the winner strictly followed the rules of the game? That's something I would expect out of one of my children before they reached the age of five.
EDIT:
example isnt applicable. in a two person finite zero sum game its assumed each person is making decisions to benefit themselves at the expense of the other. boxer b choosing to lose means it isnt a game.
youd be better served just outlining what you believe the appropriate definitions of those terms as they apply to mtg rather than trying to lead people to discover the finer points of game theory on their own.
I never said that Boxer B is choosing to lose. They simply were not prepared to compete on the same level as Boxer A, whether through inadequate training (choice of deck or cards in deck), etc. And, I have tried, multiple times.
Bogles is effectively Boxer B being told "you can't block punches from Boxer A's right hand, UNLESS you brought a drink bottle with the pepsi logo on it, if you did, you can block".
An "un-interactive" deck in modern is the equivalent of someone who goes in with effectively the same plan every game "left hook, right hook, double jab cut, uppercut" and hopes the opponent can't answer them. You don't care what they're doing, or where they are positioned in the ring, you just know if you land most of those hits, you win!
As for "interactive", it's having the ability to deflect/block those punches (but needing to draw them at the right time), or trying to manoeuvre your opponent so they're in the corner and unable to move whilst you finish them off.
then you are just describing the current state, these discussions are how that might be changed with an altered card pool. you can shape those terms to fit the current paradigm, but the point is that some believe the game experience is enriched when there are multiple avenues to compete 'on the same level'. it isnt about entitlement, but about making the game more dynamic.
to expand upon the boxing theme. boxing as a sport is much more interesting because infighting with aggression and power and outfighting with speed and counter punches are vastly different approaches but one isnt objectively better than the other.
calling a combo trying to kill the opponent before they can mount a response is technically interaction, but its pretty clear that isnt what people are talking about.
likewise if everyone here grasps what you mean by calling a deck proactive, then jumping in and saying 'well every deck is proactively employing their gameplan' amounts to nothing.
Bogles is effectively Boxer B being told "you can't block punches from Boxer A's right hand, UNLESS you brought a drink bottle with the pepsi logo on it, if you did, you can block".
Kind of. Some decks can just as easily shut down Bogles as Bogles can shut down other decks. Bogles is extremely linear, in that nearly all of its' decision trees rely off of attacking the opponent as early, often, and for as much, as possible. That's one of the reasons it's so easy for Lantern to beat it. It's linear characteristic is easily "lined out" by Ensnaring Bridge.
An "un-interactive" deck in modern is the equivalent of someone who goes in with effectively the same plan every game "left hook, right hook, double jab cut, uppercut" and hopes the opponent can't answer them. You don't care what they're doing, or where they are positioned in the ring, you just know if you land most of those hits, you win!
I think you are conflating the terms "un-interactive" with "linear" here, in which case the decision trees are extremely linear. Just as every single competitive deck is designed to limit the amount and significance of an opp's interaction, they are also designed to reduce variance as much as possible, to be as consistent as possible. Thus, branches on the inherent decision trees of those decks are very similar and non-diverse in nature.
As for "interactive", it's having the ability to deflect/block those punches (but needing to draw them at the right time), or trying to manoeuvre your opponent so they're in the corner and unable to move whilst you finish them off.
Exactly. And again, since every single competitive deck is designed to limit the amount and significance of an opp's interaction, we do not want to allow the opp to be able to deflect/block punches, as often as we can manage it. In other words, a competitive deck is built to make the opponent's deck as uninteractive as possible.
@tronix,
calling a combo trying to kill the opponent before they can mount a response is technically interaction, but its pretty clear that isnt what people are talking about.
I agree, that's not what people mean when they use the term interaction, but that's because people are using a grossly misguided definition of the term, often due to an emotional response to losing a certain way, feeling entitled to playing a certain way, or feeling entitled to forcing others to play a certain way, rather than attempting to come to understand the game on a deeper level.
So what word would you use to describe these decks? Its not enough to just say the term is wrong propose some counter terms and definitions for decks like Bogles.
As someone who trains, and play's 'interactive' (as traditionally defined as Blue Decks) this analogy has me on fulllllllll post workout tilt.
EDIT: And btw I'd describe it like this.
Boxer A: Could very be a complete and utter hack, utterly without skill just throwing bombs, and one lands.
Boxer B: Could very well be a top tier talent, a generational one, who got caught out by a scrub throwing a lucky punch.
'Punchers chance' is a thing, if one is tough enough.
That said, its...not a good analogy to me, but I did just finish a work out, and I need some food so my brain may not be at 100%...
I would say interactive is best described as any deck that their general game 1 would involve wanting to directly respond to or hinder a midrange deck. Be it through Inquisition to take stuff proactively, Bolt or Path to kill Goyf, or creatures that will expect to block. Tron would be interactive because it is directly removing opposing cards from board or hand. Burn is interactive because Bolt and Skullcrack and even the creatures can be used to slow an opponent as needed. Storm would not be in the first game, but would become interactive if they side in cards that slow their own plan to directly combat the other deck.
And it's also matchup dependant. Against Dredge, Burn is usually just trying to go fast, it's rarely directly fighting what Dredge is trying to do. Tron is interactive if the opponent has permanents that need to be wiped away, or cards in hand NEED to go. Against Storm, Tron isn't interactive game 1.
Sloppy layout, but is it maybe acceptable?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
I think interaction, means "i am casting cards with the only intent being from slowing you down and removing your hand, board, stack, or graveyard'.
Bogles, is not interaction.
Tron, has some interaction.
Jund, is interaction.
UWR, is the definition of interaction.
Infect, is not interaction.
Hollow One, is not interaction.
Dredge, is not interaction.
UW, is interaction.
Burn, is interaction
Humans, has some interaction, between Meddling, and Freesail or whatever its called.
I mean its like calling ETron 'interactive' because it has Thoughtknot. I give that a solid 'meh'.
I agree, that's not what people mean when they use the term interaction, but that's because people are using a grossly misguided definition of the term, often due to an emotional response to losing a certain way, feeling entitled to playing a certain way, or feeling entitled to forcing others to play a certain way, rather than attempting to come to understand the game on a deeper level.
yeah we get it. if you arent doing everything you can to win then you cant complain about losing. /rollseyes
if you dont think the format can be improved and are happy exploring its depths as is, well then good for you. others think it can be improved and its got nothing to do with entitlement; especially in the face of examples where better balance was achieved. not to mention wizards making deliberate attempts to change things. they must feel entitled too.
maybe the guy complaining about standard these last 2 years is just whining and his eyes are closed to the truth. or you know...the format was just garbage.
if you want to go on a campaign about semantics then that is your prerogative, but from what ive seen on this forum and other places no one is misunderstanding anything when using terms like proactive, reactive, linear, nonlinear, interactive, non interactive, fair, or unfair to categorize decks. that is good enough for me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I agree, that's not what people mean when they use the term interaction, but that's because people are using a grossly misguided definition of the term, often due to an emotional response to losing a certain way, feeling entitled to playing a certain way, or feeling entitled to forcing others to play a certain way, rather than attempting to come to understand the game on a deeper level.
This is quality bait btw, are you sure you are not a blue mage?
It has nothing to do with an emotional response, and it CERTAINLY has nothing to do with feeling entitled to forcing others to play a certain way.
It has everything to do with UWR wanting to interact with your spells and creatures, and Bogles wanting to do nothing of the sort. Blanking interaction, is not 'interaction' in the colloquial sense of the term, as it pertains to Magic. In ANY circle, store, community, or pairing, I have EVER been a part of.
If my LGS had a meta like that GP, I would LOVE to play Cheerios. That deck is one of the quickest decks in a no-interaction meta. I'm just really scared of interaction when I play that deck. It's tough to overcome just a little bit. Outside of that, the only thing holding it back is drawing the 2nd land or the Puresteel Paladin/Sram. I think I was 8-4 with that deck (3-1, 3-1, and 2-2) before shelving it.
But as we know, the meta is always going to have those players that are looking to interact. Also, perhaps the pendulum may swing back towards decks like this? I'm not saying it will be 2 Jund and 1 UWR in the top 8, but maybe more interactive decks in the top 32 than in Hartford. (I feel badly for my friend running UW Turns in that meta, even if Daniel Wong with a more interactive UB Turns got top 16 I think.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
This conversation about interactiveness is much more interesting and unexplored than the tired ban and unban circle. I want to revisit an earlier analysis I made about evaluating interactivity based on cards targeting and interacting with opposing decks. A card like Bolt would get 3 points on this scale (1 each for targeting players, walkers, and creatures). Decay would get 4 for all the permanent types it can hit. Creatures would get points based on ability to attack, block, and any other interaction modes built in (e.g. Lavamancer). I think if you evaluated cards and decks on that axis you would have a pretty solid system to start quantifying interactivity.
I tried this before with solid first results, but ran into issues evaluating decks like Burn with tons of targeting options. Any ideas on this approach or approaches of your own?
well the top8 was ugly, but combined with 9-16 it wasnt too bad. im still surprised tron had a mediocre showing. i get the ebb and flow thing, but still.
jeskai control made top 32, so there is that. still not sure why they stopped at top 16, probably some error i guess.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
This conversation about interactiveness is much more interesting and unexplored than the tired ban and unban circle. I want to revisit an earlier analysis I made about evaluating interactivity based on cards targeting and interacting with opposing decks. A card like Bolt would get 3 points on this scale (1 each for targeting players, walkers, and creatures). Decay would get 4 for all the permanent types it can hit. Creatures would get points based on ability to attack, block, and any other interaction modes built in (e.g. Lavamancer). I think if you evaluated cards and decks on that axis you would have a pretty solid system to start quantifying interactivity.
I tried this before with solid first results, but ran into issues evaluating decks like Burn with tons of targeting options. Any ideas on this approach or approaches of your own?
It would be pretty hard to do so. Most matchups are honestly determined by "who's the beatdown?" and when to switch roles. Outside of that, it's just beating each other in the face until you're black and blue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Someone with cards who do very little in terms of deliberately interacting with an opponents hand or board are what I classify as un-interactive, if burn was all Lava Spike rather than lightning bolt which can (and does) hit creatures, i'd call it un-interactive.
Decks like bogles, hollow one, dredge, amulet, living end, grishoalbrand and infect are all very uninteractive decks, they do their thing and basically go "if you can't answer this, I win"
humans, tron, titan shift (bolt & anger/sun) and storm (remand) have SOME interaction
Affinity & burn vary a lot, sometimes they don't care, other times it's very interactive
GBx, jeskai, D&T, Deaths shadow, mardu pyro, ponza, company decks, a lot of these care about what your opponent is doing
I think interaction, means "i am casting cards with the only intent being from slowing you down and removing your hand, board, stack, or graveyard'.
Bogles, is not interaction.
Tron, has some interaction.
Jund, is interaction.
UWR, is the definition of interaction.
Infect, is not interaction.
Hollow One, is not interaction.
Dredge, is not interaction.
UW, is interaction.
Burn, is interaction
Humans, has some interaction, between Meddling, and Freesail or whatever its called.
I mean its like calling ETron 'interactive' because it has Thoughtknot. I give that a solid 'meh'.
I'd classify E-Tron as reasonably un-interactive, apart from dismember, warping wail and all is dust there's not much there. TKS is kinda interactive, but yeah, solid "meh"
You probably need some kind of correction for hyperlinearity -- e.g. if a card does exactly the same thing as another card in the deck apply diminishing returns to them. Bogles and burn and infect could lose some points for this -- something like for each playset of the same effect reduce points by 33%.
There's a kind of maxim about modern that for a deck to be good it either needs to play:
Powerful cards (jund)
Identical cards (burn)
Cards that find really powerful cards (ad nauseum, storm, Tron)
If a deck is playing all the same card or all cards that focus on finding its cards it's probably not exceptionally interactive despite the targeting.
The inherent issue with interactive vs non-interactive or linear vs non-linear is that we have no definition to go by. What makes a card interactive and to what degree does a deck need to be built to qualify as interactive? Thought Knot Seer is interaction, but how many cards does a deck need to be interactive 10, 15, 20?
The inherent issue with interactive vs non-interactive or linear vs non-linear is that we have no definition to go by. What makes a card interactive and to what degree does a deck need to be built to qualify as interactive? Thought Knot Seer is interaction, but how many cards does a deck need to be interactive 10, 15, 20?
It's just a spectrum. If we had all the decks graded and lined up, we could just talk about them comparatively and even break them out into brackets.
As for a legend of deck scores and grades, I have to dig through all my spreadsheets to see if one exists.
The inherent issue with interactive vs non-interactive or linear vs non-linear is that we have no definition to go by. What makes a card interactive and to what degree does a deck need to be built to qualify as interactive? Thought Knot Seer is interaction, but how many cards does a deck need to be interactive 10, 15, 20?
I'd say anything that has at a playset of a card that does something to an opponents hand and/or board, with a total of at least 10 cards, so if it has removal, counter spells, discard or wraths. MOST planeswalkers that see play do at least one of those things as well.
This conversation about interactiveness is much more interesting and unexplored than the tired ban and unban circle. I want to revisit an earlier analysis I made about evaluating interactivity based on cards targeting and interacting with opposing decks. A card like Bolt would get 3 points on this scale (1 each for targeting players, walkers, and creatures). Decay would get 4 for all the permanent types it can hit. Creatures would get points based on ability to attack, block, and any other interaction modes built in (e.g. Lavamancer). I think if you evaluated cards and decks on that axis you would have a pretty solid system to start quantifying interactivity.
I tried this before with solid first results, but ran into issues evaluating decks like Burn with tons of targeting options. Any ideas on this approach or approaches of your own?
I'm not sure I understand your method here. Could you walk us through something like a counterspell or discard spell?
This conversation about interactiveness is much more interesting and unexplored than the tired ban and unban circle. I want to revisit an earlier analysis I made about evaluating interactivity based on cards targeting and interacting with opposing decks. A card like Bolt would get 3 points on this scale (1 each for targeting players, walkers, and creatures). Decay would get 4 for all the permanent types it can hit. Creatures would get points based on ability to attack, block, and any other interaction modes built in (e.g. Lavamancer). I think if you evaluated cards and decks on that axis you would have a pretty solid system to start quantifying interactivity.
I tried this before with solid first results, but ran into issues evaluating decks like Burn with tons of targeting options. Any ideas on this approach or approaches of your own?
I'm not sure I understand your method here. Could you walk us through something like a counterspell or discard spell?
A card gets N points for every element of the opponent's gamestate it can target or affect (i.e. interact with). So a card like Pyretic Ritual gets 0 points because it purely contributes to your gameplan. Same with Gifts Ungiven because it only effects your resources, despite targeting an opponent.
Push gets 1 point because it can target and destroy creatures. Bolt gets 3 because it targets players, walkers, and creatures. Death's Shadow gets 3 points because it can attack players and walkers and also block creatures. Ooze gets 4 points becauae it does everything Shadow can do plus target cards in a GY.
So a list of 4 Bolt, 3 Push, and 3 Ooze gets 27 points. A list of 4 DRit, 4 PyRit, and 4 Gifts gets 0 points.
There are lots of ways to change the scoring system to reflect different nuances of interaction. But I'm confident if we can agree and improve on such a system, we would reach an acceptable, accurate, and largely objective measure of interactivity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I said the same thing about Dig Through Time, but I had several people here on MTGS offer links that showed that Dig was heavily played in RUG Scapeshift and the fear was that Dig would be the "next best (too good) thing." They also figured it would slot into UR Delver as Cruise was banned. I know for a fact that RUG Scapeshift WAS indeed super good during that time. It just got overshadowed by better decks, like UR Delver, Rhino Pod, and Amulet Bloom.
I wish I had those links right now to show. But then again, this is a different time and meta. I actually believe that Dig Through Time would be fine in the current Modern. You don't have to convince me of much. I personally feel that 5-10 cards would be okay in today's Modern, depending on how you define "okay."
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)While I mostly agree with those tiers there's a few points I would contend.
1. Birthing Pod. Pod is value rich but low on interaction. We have other decks in the meta right now that generate similar levels of value and they're merely respectable choices. Pod would no doubt be a strong deck, but I don't think it would do anything too broken in todays field. It is essentially the slightly bigger strategy of decks like Pyromancer and Hollow One, playing in a similar space of being hard to strongly interact with and having highly recursive board states. You're right that the deck would have some new cards like Renegade Rallier, but I would counter that other decks in the format have gained cards like Kolaghan's Command, Fatal Push, and Gurmag Angler that interact well at aggressive mana costs. The deck would need testing for sure given it's history, but it's worth keeping in mind that the deck also has some very bad matchups that are still competitors in the format, and that it's main surge in power came from it's predators being removed.
2. Splinter Twin. Twin would also be fine today. Others have already made long cases for and against this card so I'll just leave it at that.
3. Umezawa's Jitte. This card is in no way safe.
I agree with you on the tier 3 cards. Dig Through Time is probably not ok. While it's true that it got very little time in Modern sharing just 3 months with Treasure Cruise, where it was pushed out of the format. It did sit in Legacy for 6 additional months until it also eventually had to go. That's not absolute proof that it's too good for Modern but it is one good indicator.
example isnt applicable. in a two person finite zero sum game its assumed each person is making decisions to benefit themselves at the expense of the other. boxer b choosing to lose means it isnt a game.
youd be better served just outlining what you believe the appropriate definitions of those terms as they apply to mtg rather than trying to lead people to discover the finer points of game theory on their own.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)In the first, it's much like Boxer A is simply dodging the most devastating of the opp's blows while maintaining the ability to strike.
In the second, Boxer B is simply able to withstand heavy blows while winding up for a haymaker.
In the third, Boxer A is landing consistent, fast, and relatively hard hits, specifically having trained to do so, while the opp may not have had the required training to compete on that level.
In the fourth, Boxer B is much like the second, in which they're winding up for multiple haymakers.
In every single case, the Boxers do not want to allow the opponent to interact on their own respective terms. Just like in every single competitive game, including Magic. The problem is that when people are put into the position of the Boxer who's just getting smashed, they get upset. Well, yeah, they just got smashed, that's life.
But then to say that the other boxer "isn't interactive" seems absurd. Yes, they were. They were much more interactive than us, evidently. Are we to be upset because they didn't allow us to block a punch? Or that they didn't care to block any of ours, because our punches were relatively weak or insignificant? Or that we feel entitled to having our opponents be required to block our punches and/or allow us to block theirs, rather than using dodges and/or strategically absorbing blows?
It gets even sillier when we start seeing the terms "fair". Could you imagine watching a boxing match in which the loser claims the winner wasn't "playing fair", even when the winner strictly followed the rules of the game? That's something I would expect out of one of my children before they reached the age of five.
EDIT:
I never said that Boxer B is choosing to lose. They simply were not prepared to compete on the same level as Boxer A, whether through inadequate training (choice of deck or cards in deck), etc. And, I have tried, multiple times.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
An "un-interactive" deck in modern is the equivalent of someone who goes in with effectively the same plan every game "left hook, right hook, double jab cut, uppercut" and hopes the opponent can't answer them. You don't care what they're doing, or where they are positioned in the ring, you just know if you land most of those hits, you win!
As for "interactive", it's having the ability to deflect/block those punches (but needing to draw them at the right time), or trying to manoeuvre your opponent so they're in the corner and unable to move whilst you finish them off.
to expand upon the boxing theme. boxing as a sport is much more interesting because infighting with aggression and power and outfighting with speed and counter punches are vastly different approaches but one isnt objectively better than the other.
calling a combo trying to kill the opponent before they can mount a response is technically interaction, but its pretty clear that isnt what people are talking about.
likewise if everyone here grasps what you mean by calling a deck proactive, then jumping in and saying 'well every deck is proactively employing their gameplan' amounts to nothing.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Kind of. Some decks can just as easily shut down Bogles as Bogles can shut down other decks. Bogles is extremely linear, in that nearly all of its' decision trees rely off of attacking the opponent as early, often, and for as much, as possible. That's one of the reasons it's so easy for Lantern to beat it. It's linear characteristic is easily "lined out" by Ensnaring Bridge.
I think you are conflating the terms "un-interactive" with "linear" here, in which case the decision trees are extremely linear. Just as every single competitive deck is designed to limit the amount and significance of an opp's interaction, they are also designed to reduce variance as much as possible, to be as consistent as possible. Thus, branches on the inherent decision trees of those decks are very similar and non-diverse in nature.
Exactly. And again, since every single competitive deck is designed to limit the amount and significance of an opp's interaction, we do not want to allow the opp to be able to deflect/block punches, as often as we can manage it. In other words, a competitive deck is built to make the opponent's deck as uninteractive as possible.
@tronix,
I agree, that's not what people mean when they use the term interaction, but that's because people are using a grossly misguided definition of the term, often due to an emotional response to losing a certain way, feeling entitled to playing a certain way, or feeling entitled to forcing others to play a certain way, rather than attempting to come to understand the game on a deeper level.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
EDIT: And btw I'd describe it like this.
Boxer A: Could very be a complete and utter hack, utterly without skill just throwing bombs, and one lands.
Boxer B: Could very well be a top tier talent, a generational one, who got caught out by a scrub throwing a lucky punch.
'Punchers chance' is a thing, if one is tough enough.
That said, its...not a good analogy to me, but I did just finish a work out, and I need some food so my brain may not be at 100%...
Spirits
And it's also matchup dependant. Against Dredge, Burn is usually just trying to go fast, it's rarely directly fighting what Dredge is trying to do. Tron is interactive if the opponent has permanents that need to be wiped away, or cards in hand NEED to go. Against Storm, Tron isn't interactive game 1.
Sloppy layout, but is it maybe acceptable?
Bogles, is not interaction.
Tron, has some interaction.
Jund, is interaction.
UWR, is the definition of interaction.
Infect, is not interaction.
Hollow One, is not interaction.
Dredge, is not interaction.
UW, is interaction.
Burn, is interaction
Humans, has some interaction, between Meddling, and Freesail or whatever its called.
I mean its like calling ETron 'interactive' because it has Thoughtknot. I give that a solid 'meh'.
Spirits
yeah we get it. if you arent doing everything you can to win then you cant complain about losing. /rollseyes
if you dont think the format can be improved and are happy exploring its depths as is, well then good for you. others think it can be improved and its got nothing to do with entitlement; especially in the face of examples where better balance was achieved. not to mention wizards making deliberate attempts to change things. they must feel entitled too.
maybe the guy complaining about standard these last 2 years is just whining and his eyes are closed to the truth. or you know...the format was just garbage.
if you want to go on a campaign about semantics then that is your prerogative, but from what ive seen on this forum and other places no one is misunderstanding anything when using terms like proactive, reactive, linear, nonlinear, interactive, non interactive, fair, or unfair to categorize decks. that is good enough for me.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)This is quality bait btw, are you sure you are not a blue mage?
It has nothing to do with an emotional response, and it CERTAINLY has nothing to do with feeling entitled to forcing others to play a certain way.
It has everything to do with UWR wanting to interact with your spells and creatures, and Bogles wanting to do nothing of the sort. Blanking interaction, is not 'interaction' in the colloquial sense of the term, as it pertains to Magic. In ANY circle, store, community, or pairing, I have EVER been a part of.
I'll get right on that 'deeper level' though.
Spirits
But as we know, the meta is always going to have those players that are looking to interact. Also, perhaps the pendulum may swing back towards decks like this? I'm not saying it will be 2 Jund and 1 UWR in the top 8, but maybe more interactive decks in the top 32 than in Hartford. (I feel badly for my friend running UW Turns in that meta, even if Daniel Wong with a more interactive UB Turns got top 16 I think.)
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)I tried this before with solid first results, but ran into issues evaluating decks like Burn with tons of targeting options. Any ideas on this approach or approaches of your own?
jeskai control made top 32, so there is that. still not sure why they stopped at top 16, probably some error i guess.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Do you have a full legend?
Spirits
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Someone with cards who do very little in terms of deliberately interacting with an opponents hand or board are what I classify as un-interactive, if burn was all Lava Spike rather than lightning bolt which can (and does) hit creatures, i'd call it un-interactive.
Decks like bogles, hollow one, dredge, amulet, living end, grishoalbrand and infect are all very uninteractive decks, they do their thing and basically go "if you can't answer this, I win"
humans, tron, titan shift (bolt & anger/sun) and storm (remand) have SOME interaction
Affinity & burn vary a lot, sometimes they don't care, other times it's very interactive
GBx, jeskai, D&T, Deaths shadow, mardu pyro, ponza, company decks, a lot of these care about what your opponent is doing
I'd classify E-Tron as reasonably un-interactive, apart from dismember, warping wail and all is dust there's not much there. TKS is kinda interactive, but yeah, solid "meh"
There's a kind of maxim about modern that for a deck to be good it either needs to play:
Powerful cards (jund)
Identical cards (burn)
Cards that find really powerful cards (ad nauseum, storm, Tron)
If a deck is playing all the same card or all cards that focus on finding its cards it's probably not exceptionally interactive despite the targeting.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
It's just a spectrum. If we had all the decks graded and lined up, we could just talk about them comparatively and even break them out into brackets.
As for a legend of deck scores and grades, I have to dig through all my spreadsheets to see if one exists.
I'd say anything that has at a playset of a card that does something to an opponents hand and/or board, with a total of at least 10 cards, so if it has removal, counter spells, discard or wraths. MOST planeswalkers that see play do at least one of those things as well.
I'm not sure I understand your method here. Could you walk us through something like a counterspell or discard spell?
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
A card gets N points for every element of the opponent's gamestate it can target or affect (i.e. interact with). So a card like Pyretic Ritual gets 0 points because it purely contributes to your gameplan. Same with Gifts Ungiven because it only effects your resources, despite targeting an opponent.
Push gets 1 point because it can target and destroy creatures. Bolt gets 3 because it targets players, walkers, and creatures. Death's Shadow gets 3 points because it can attack players and walkers and also block creatures. Ooze gets 4 points becauae it does everything Shadow can do plus target cards in a GY.
So a list of 4 Bolt, 3 Push, and 3 Ooze gets 27 points. A list of 4 DRit, 4 PyRit, and 4 Gifts gets 0 points.
There are lots of ways to change the scoring system to reflect different nuances of interaction. But I'm confident if we can agree and improve on such a system, we would reach an acceptable, accurate, and largely objective measure of interactivity.