This thread was automatically marked as Locked.
Quote from AUTUMNTWILIGHT »Sensei Makes Me Sad as well...I like UW Miracles....
Quote from Blueberrybagel »
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.
Quote from gkourou »There are tiers into the cards that should be unbanned. I would break those cards down like this(in order):
Quote from thnkr »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.
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.
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.
Quote from thnkr »
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.
Quote from ktkenshinx »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?