Having played Titanshift on and off for the past 2+ years, my personal experience is that it is slightly unfavoured against Amulet, which is usually 1 turn faster.
That's pretty much exactly how I have it too. I feel like Titanshift is slightly more consistent, so that often makes up for being a whole turn (or more) slower.
If ever a time for Blue Moon to finally get there, a meta with Amulet is probably it.
Probably would be. Blue Moon to Amulet is probably about the same as Twin was to Bloom. (you can cheese out wins by sheer speed and power, but the average game is not going your way)
The issue is that there's never going to be many players playing Amulet and even if there was, you could probably beat them because of their play mistakes, lol.
*My first week playing Amulet after not playing Bloom Titan for quite a while, I made many play mistakes, the worst being not paying for a Pact of Negation (losing that match 1-2), but still went 3-1 at FNM. This was a week after Michael Mapson got 2nd to Matt Nass at a Grand Prix. It's a powerful deck! Eleven Titans...4 Prime Time, 4 Summoner's Pact, and 3 Tolaria West.
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)
If you're trying to play a fair deck in Modern, you are choosing to actively put yourself at disadvantage in many of the games you play.
On your best hands, you don't die and have a chance to win.
On their best hands, they simply win.
If you're playing a fair deck, you're making a bet that your opponents deck will lose to itself enough of the time to make your fair plan worthwhile.
That's why I love Terminus in UW Control. It's the one card that turns that theory on its head. Sometimes they'll have their best hand, and you'll be a luck-sack and topdeck a Terminus to save you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
If you look at the overall meta, then yeah there is probably more "unfair" or degenerate combo decks running around. However, I don't think that if you compare one specific combo deck to a fair deck, you can say with certainty that you will have the better chance at top 8ing a tournament if you are on the unfair deck rather than the fair deck.
Humans, Jund, Spirits, Mardu Pyro and Deaths Shadow decks to a lesser extent are all fair decks that do reasonably well. Aggro decks, which fall under "linear" but not really degenerate or unfair, would include Affinity, Hardened Scales, and Burn.
As for control decks, UW Control has proven to be a top tier deck still without a doubt. Jeskai is still decent part of the metagame. Prison decks like Grixis Whir has been showing up very well latley, showing that it is a main stay when it comes to control archetype.
Imo green fair decks should be the only ones complaining, not blue
If you're trying to play a fair deck in Modern, you are choosing to actively put yourself at disadvantage in many of the games you play.
On your best hands, you don't die and have a chance to win.
On their best hands, they simply win.
If you're playing a fair deck, you're making a bet that your opponents deck will lose to itself enough of the time to make your fair plan worthwhile.
How do you define a "fair" deck? I find that few people in this thread or in Modern generally can even agree on this definition. The closest functional definition I've seen comes from David Ernenwein's old "Fair Deck" article (http://modernnexus.com/beginners-guide-fair-decks/), in which he describes it as: "My definition of fair is playing by the rules of Magic: one land drop and one card per turn, pay the mana cost of your spells, etc." This isn't a bad definition, but like David says in his own article, it has some shortcomings. For instance, as he himself notes, we often see memes like "Magic as Garfield intended" thrown around. But that refers to the man who deliberately put Black Lotus, Moxes, Dark Ritual, and other nonsense in the first set. This suggests to me that fair Magic can't just be about the "one land/mana" paradigm, as there are plenty of eminently fair decks that try to get ahead on mana. The classic example would just be fair midrange decks running Llanowar Elves for a boost; that card's inclusion hardly makes a deck like Standard's Golgari Midrange "unfair."
Fair Magic is also probably not about one spell per turn, as there are many fair decks capable of casting more than that. Same with drawing multiple cards per turn or using undercosted effects. Classic Jund can do all those things in a single turn: Turn 3 draw with Bob, cast IoK/TS, follow up with a two mana 5/6. But no one is calling Jund unfair to my knowledge. All of this points to the problematic definitions we often see in this forum, Reddit, Twitch, articles, and LGS discourse. I won't accept that we have to stick with a "know it when I see it" definition, as this often just devolves into personal bias.
I would say a fair deck is any deck that is not breaking parity in some way so no infinite engines, no a hundred to zero (20 to 0 in magic) combos, no cheating your creatures out early in terms of numbers and/or power. The later one is a bit tricky to define but Hollow One applies and using a mana dork to get one out a turn early does not.
If you're trying to play a fair deck in Modern, you are choosing to actively put yourself at disadvantage in many of the games you play.
On your best hands, you don't die and have a chance to win.
On their best hands, they simply win.
If you're playing a fair deck, you're making a bet that your opponents deck will lose to itself enough of the time to make your fair plan worthwhile.
How do you define a "fair" deck? I find that few people in this thread or in Modern generally can even agree on this definition. The closest functional definition I've seen comes from David Ernenwein's old "Fair Deck" article (http://modernnexus.com/beginners-guide-fair-decks/), in which he describes it as: "My definition of fair is playing by the rules of Magic: one land drop and one card per turn, pay the mana cost of your spells, etc." This isn't a bad definition, but like David says in his own article, it has some shortcomings. For instance, as he himself notes, we often see memes like "Magic as Garfield intended" thrown around. But that refers to the man who deliberately put Black Lotus, Moxes, Dark Ritual, and other nonsense in the first set. This suggests to me that fair Magic can't just be about the "one land/mana" paradigm, as there are plenty of eminently fair decks that try to get ahead on mana. The classic example would just be fair midrange decks running Llanowar Elves for a boost; that card's inclusion hardly makes a deck like Standard's Golgari Midrange "unfair."
Fair Magic is also probably not about one spell per turn, as there are many fair decks capable of casting more than that. Same with drawing multiple cards per turn or using undercosted effects. Classic Jund can do all those things in a single turn: Turn 3 draw with Bob, cast IoK/TS, follow up with a two mana 5/6. But no one is calling Jund unfair to my knowledge. All of this points to the problematic definitions we often see in this forum, Reddit, Twitch, articles, and LGS discourse. I won't accept that we have to stick with a "know it when I see it" definition, as this often just devolves into personal bias.
Some interesting paradigms here would be
1) Is Modern Grixis Shadow a fair deck?
2) Is Legacy RUG Delver a fair deck?
3) Was Vintage Blue Whit Mentor a fair deck?
This is to say, that you have to think the format you are into.
Also, there are some decks that push this theory a lot. Terminus, as wraith suggested is not a fair play.
All that said, if you want to be correct, you have to assign points, like Sheridan did in the past, to determine how much fair a deck is. It's not black & white, most decks are unfair up to a degree in non rotating formats. The point is to what extent is that. In Standard, there are decks that are totally fair though.
I did points for interactivity and I think that method is still a good one for distinguishing interactivity and interactive decks along a spectrum. This is a lot harder with fairness because I'm not sure what I'm measuring.
I dont think 'fair' exists really in Modern/Legacy/Vintage (lol) and even in Standard its the cards or decks which can cheat on resources that will pull ahead.
I think 'are you getting free cards/mana' is about the only way to really define 'unfair', but I dont really like the definitions we have been able to come up with before.
Interactive/Non-Interactive doesnt really stick either because some people actually think Creatures are 'interactive'.
I dont think 'fair' exists really in Modern/Legacy/Vintage (lol) and even in Standard its the cards or decks which can cheat on resources that will pull ahead.
I think 'are you getting free cards/mana' is about the only way to really define 'unfair', but I dont really like the definitions we have been able to come up with before.
Interactive/Non-Interactive doesnt really stick either because some people actually think Creatures are 'interactive'.
Creatures are proactive interaction, sure. Creature combat is interaction. You can interact without first saying "in response to."
I dont think 'fair' exists really in Modern/Legacy/Vintage (lol) and even in Standard its the cards or decks which can cheat on resources that will pull ahead.
I think 'are you getting free cards/mana' is about the only way to really define 'unfair', but I dont really like the definitions we have been able to come up with before.
Interactive/Non-Interactive doesnt really stick either because some people actually think Creatures are 'interactive'.
Creatures are proactive interaction, sure. Creature combat is interaction. You can interact without first saying "in response to."
Sure, thats certainly how some feel. Thats not 'interaction' as far as how I personally define it. Discard, Counters, and Removal, are what I am talking about, not permanent based Prison, and CERTAINLY not 'I turn my creature sideways'.
I think if fairness of a deck in MtG were quantified it would involve it's degree of synergy with itself. Most fair would be a deck with zero synergy while infinite synergy would be infinite combo or essentially infinite combo.
So Storm is very synergistic with itself all the cards work together to execute a particular game plan while UW control is less so. That's not to say UW has no synergy since snap+low cost spells is synergy or jace+terminus. But storm needs ALL the cards to synergize with all the OTHER cards.
It seems very unlikely there exists are very powerful but non synergistic deck. However, you can have a "low" synergy deck with high power level which would be a "high tier fair deck."
And in the spirit of this thread: There were 12 copies of Prime TIME in the top 4 of the last big event. THIS CARD IS THE REAL DEAL PLEASE BAN. #primetimeWinter
I dont think 'fair' exists really in Modern/Legacy/Vintage (lol) and even in Standard its the cards or decks which can cheat on resources that will pull ahead.
I think 'are you getting free cards/mana' is about the only way to really define 'unfair', but I dont really like the definitions we have been able to come up with before.
Interactive/Non-Interactive doesnt really stick either because some people actually think Creatures are 'interactive'.
Creatures are proactive interaction, sure. Creature combat is interaction. You can interact without first saying "in response to."
Sure, thats certainly how some feel. Thats not 'interaction' as far as how I personally define it. Discard, Counters, and Removal, are what I am talking about, not permanent based Prison, and CERTAINLY not 'I turn my creature sideways'.
Thats just me though.
That's exactly what I am talking about. This kind of reasoning is faulty. Playing a Reflector Mage to bounce your Tarmogoyf is interaction. Blocking, assigning damage is interaction.
@KTK, how many points did you assign for combat interaction?
Yes, playing a creature with a stapled on Unsummon, is certainly interactive. Playing that Goyf and turning it sideways, is certainly not, to me.
Fair vs unfair is very easy to define. What I am doing is fair. What the opponent is doing is unfair.
Even the terms themselves are condescending. This deck is fair, it's playing by the rules. That deck is unfair, it's playing against the rules, it's cheating.
Enjoy that opinion gkourou. I'll never consider attacking and blocking as interactive magic.
Someone got a link to that image from I think Thero's Standard with the two Green decks and a literal pile of cards on the table? Thats not 'interactive magic'.
Again though, enjoy your opinion on it, you wont convince me to accept it though.
I mean for peak absurdity you are essentially saying that Bogles with Main Deck Leyline is 'interactive magic'. Please...
I'm not kidding when I say you'll never convince me, that attacking/blocking is Interaction. Feel free to post up more examples, but it wont change anything.
Its not even an 'agree to disagree', I dont care. Creature combat is not what I call interactive magic. Its the mundane, boring, 'we are playing limited now' version of Magic, and I wont ever agree with you on this.
I'm not kidding when I say you'll never convince me, that attacking/blocking is Interaction. Feel free to post up more examples, but it wont change anything.
Its not even an 'agree to disagree', I dont care. Creature combat is not what I call interactive magic. Its the mundane, boring, 'we are playing limited now' version of Magic, and I wont ever agree with you on this.
Well damn...I don't know if I've ever seen such a display of negativity towards any facet of Magic, let alone one as fundamental as creature combat. It's your opinion, and I'm not gonna try to change it; I'm just a bit shocked by it. I have a soft spot for combat tricks, so to see someone dismiss that aspect of the game as boring and mundane stings a little.
I'm not kidding when I say you'll never convince me, that attacking/blocking is Interaction. Feel free to post up more examples, but it wont change anything.
Its not even an 'agree to disagree', I dont care. Creature combat is not what I call interactive magic. Its the mundane, boring, 'we are playing limited now' version of Magic, and I wont ever agree with you on this.
Boring and not interacting don't have anything to do with each other. This is one instance where your bias is clouding your judgement. You are free to think however you like but I certainly would not bring it up here because it dilutes the good points you do make. It's so ridiculously clear that attacking and blocking is a form of interaction that any statement you claim to make to the contrary is just your personal preference coming through in your words.
I'm more interested in describing "fair". It is an interesting concept because I believe we all have an idea of what we mean when we say it, but it is an extremely difficult thing to define as we have seen here. If we can't even agree on what a theoretical "fair" or "unfair" deck means (and I don't mean examples of decks but rather criteria that separates them) then we have no hope of applying the label to actual decks that lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
Fighting for board state is interaction. Key word here is "fighting." Bogels isn't interactive because you dont fight thier creature since it cant be killed and usually has some sort of protection. Combo decks like storm give up all board states, but they interact on the stack.
A deck like GW Value Town fights on one axis (battlefield) just as much as storm fights on another (the stack). Saying one way or the other is "unhealthy" is the wrong way to look at it in my opinion. Stack fighting is just as important to the game of magic as the battlefield
lol folks, its fine. I'm 100% biased against Creature based game states, have no care at all for the combat phase unless its to simply swing in with a 7/8 Awoken Horror or tempo someone down with Clique or Savage Snapcaster Beats (thx again tronix) and if I could just finish the game with an infinite number of Pestermites, I would be more than happy to not have to touch the combat phase.
I'm openly aware of my bias here, and you can all call it interactive if you like, but it will never be my definition when I'm talking about interaction, right, wrong or indifferent.
I'm simply saying you can call it interaction but I'll never be convinced as such. Combat Tricks are not even included in what I'm ignoring, but the simple mechanism of Attack/Block, when it can be executed by a creature you cannot even interact with (Bogle) to ME, cannot be called interactive magic.
I'm not asking you to accept my view, I'm just saying I wont accept Creature Combat as interaction, in my definition.
@idSurge Do you know it's possible to post, discuss and debate the issue without constantly being condescending and dismissive about a style of Magic that you personally dislike?
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
I'm not dismissing anyone's view. They can even like it, just dont tell me because a Bogle can block, its interactive. thinkr I believe posted months ago a definition that interaction is either implementing, or preventing ones opponent from implementing a plan. Interacting with a strategy more so than the game state or stack.
Thats fine too, but not what I call interaction. gkourou flat out tells me my opinion is wrong, and tries for some reason to convince me of that view. I openly declare my position and why taken to the extreme (bogles) that view of creature based 'interaction' falls flat to me.
I dont mean offense to anyone who loves creature based game states, prison, or anything of the sort. Hell you can even be a Tron player and think you are playing 'fair' magic if you want or that (as I have seen in Twitch Chat) Tron is a 'Control' deck. I wont believe you or agree, but feel free!
TBH I can't give 2 hoots about what gkourou says, I think he's full of it most of the time anyway trying to nickel and dime people with semantics.
I just find it tiresome that you see the need to remind the thread that you think creature-based magic is beneath you by making condescending remarks like "Its the mundane, boring, 'we are playing limited now' version of Magic" every so often.
At the end of the day, a cluttered board state isn't really that much different from 2 control mages playing land-go and hoarding counter spells in their hands until someone finally decides to go for a play.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
At the end of the day, a cluttered board state isn't really that much different from 2 control mages playing land-go and hoarding counter spells in their hands until someone finally decides to go for a play.
I can see that perspective, and apologize if I was offensive in my statement. I've been on tilt for a few weeks post-op and shouldnt let my 'real life' snark invade the thread all the time.
(I won a Sealed event on Arena with BG creatures, thats the source for the Limited comment, but regardless its uncalled for.)
I agree with the definition of unfair as something that can be described by "cheating on...". As it is not cheating on actual rules, everyone can have different opinions on what is included. It's also very meta-dependent. llanowar elves (into steel leaf champion) in standard is cheaty, in modern, not so much.
There are clear cases, other more muddy. Lands producing more than one mana? Unfair, it cheats on mana-production. Delving into Gurmag Angler? Cheating on mana cost. Cycling a street wraith? Cheats on mana cost. Tarmogoyf used to be very cheaty, now its P/T to mana cost ratio is almost the norm for playable beat sticks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Spirits
That's pretty much exactly how I have it too. I feel like Titanshift is slightly more consistent, so that often makes up for being a whole turn (or more) slower.
Probably would be. Blue Moon to Amulet is probably about the same as Twin was to Bloom. (you can cheese out wins by sheer speed and power, but the average game is not going your way)
The issue is that there's never going to be many players playing Amulet and even if there was, you could probably beat them because of their play mistakes, lol.
*My first week playing Amulet after not playing Bloom Titan for quite a while, I made many play mistakes, the worst being not paying for a Pact of Negation (losing that match 1-2), but still went 3-1 at FNM. This was a week after Michael Mapson got 2nd to Matt Nass at a Grand Prix. It's a powerful deck! Eleven Titans...4 Prime Time, 4 Summoner's Pact, and 3 Tolaria West.
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)UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Humans, Jund, Spirits, Mardu Pyro and Deaths Shadow decks to a lesser extent are all fair decks that do reasonably well. Aggro decks, which fall under "linear" but not really degenerate or unfair, would include Affinity, Hardened Scales, and Burn.
As for control decks, UW Control has proven to be a top tier deck still without a doubt. Jeskai is still decent part of the metagame. Prison decks like Grixis Whir has been showing up very well latley, showing that it is a main stay when it comes to control archetype.
Imo green fair decks should be the only ones complaining, not blue
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
How do you define a "fair" deck? I find that few people in this thread or in Modern generally can even agree on this definition. The closest functional definition I've seen comes from David Ernenwein's old "Fair Deck" article (http://modernnexus.com/beginners-guide-fair-decks/), in which he describes it as: "My definition of fair is playing by the rules of Magic: one land drop and one card per turn, pay the mana cost of your spells, etc." This isn't a bad definition, but like David says in his own article, it has some shortcomings. For instance, as he himself notes, we often see memes like "Magic as Garfield intended" thrown around. But that refers to the man who deliberately put Black Lotus, Moxes, Dark Ritual, and other nonsense in the first set. This suggests to me that fair Magic can't just be about the "one land/mana" paradigm, as there are plenty of eminently fair decks that try to get ahead on mana. The classic example would just be fair midrange decks running Llanowar Elves for a boost; that card's inclusion hardly makes a deck like Standard's Golgari Midrange "unfair."
Fair Magic is also probably not about one spell per turn, as there are many fair decks capable of casting more than that. Same with drawing multiple cards per turn or using undercosted effects. Classic Jund can do all those things in a single turn: Turn 3 draw with Bob, cast IoK/TS, follow up with a two mana 5/6. But no one is calling Jund unfair to my knowledge. All of this points to the problematic definitions we often see in this forum, Reddit, Twitch, articles, and LGS discourse. I won't accept that we have to stick with a "know it when I see it" definition, as this often just devolves into personal bias.
I did points for interactivity and I think that method is still a good one for distinguishing interactivity and interactive decks along a spectrum. This is a lot harder with fairness because I'm not sure what I'm measuring.
I think 'are you getting free cards/mana' is about the only way to really define 'unfair', but I dont really like the definitions we have been able to come up with before.
Interactive/Non-Interactive doesnt really stick either because some people actually think Creatures are 'interactive'.
Spirits
Creatures are proactive interaction, sure. Creature combat is interaction. You can interact without first saying "in response to."
Sure, thats certainly how some feel. Thats not 'interaction' as far as how I personally define it. Discard, Counters, and Removal, are what I am talking about, not permanent based Prison, and CERTAINLY not 'I turn my creature sideways'.
Thats just me though.
Spirits
So Storm is very synergistic with itself all the cards work together to execute a particular game plan while UW control is less so. That's not to say UW has no synergy since snap+low cost spells is synergy or jace+terminus. But storm needs ALL the cards to synergize with all the OTHER cards.
It seems very unlikely there exists are very powerful but non synergistic deck. However, you can have a "low" synergy deck with high power level which would be a "high tier fair deck."
And in the spirit of this thread: There were 12 copies of Prime TIME in the top 4 of the last big event. THIS CARD IS THE REAL DEAL PLEASE BAN. #primetimeWinter
Yes, playing a creature with a stapled on Unsummon, is certainly interactive. Playing that Goyf and turning it sideways, is certainly not, to me.
Spirits
Even the terms themselves are condescending. This deck is fair, it's playing by the rules. That deck is unfair, it's playing against the rules, it's cheating.
Someone got a link to that image from I think Thero's Standard with the two Green decks and a literal pile of cards on the table? Thats not 'interactive magic'.
Again though, enjoy your opinion on it, you wont convince me to accept it though.
I mean for peak absurdity you are essentially saying that Bogles with Main Deck Leyline is 'interactive magic'. Please...
Spirits
Its not even an 'agree to disagree', I dont care. Creature combat is not what I call interactive magic. Its the mundane, boring, 'we are playing limited now' version of Magic, and I wont ever agree with you on this.
Spirits
Well damn...I don't know if I've ever seen such a display of negativity towards any facet of Magic, let alone one as fundamental as creature combat. It's your opinion, and I'm not gonna try to change it; I'm just a bit shocked by it. I have a soft spot for combat tricks, so to see someone dismiss that aspect of the game as boring and mundane stings a little.
Boring and not interacting don't have anything to do with each other. This is one instance where your bias is clouding your judgement. You are free to think however you like but I certainly would not bring it up here because it dilutes the good points you do make. It's so ridiculously clear that attacking and blocking is a form of interaction that any statement you claim to make to the contrary is just your personal preference coming through in your words.
I'm more interested in describing "fair". It is an interesting concept because I believe we all have an idea of what we mean when we say it, but it is an extremely difficult thing to define as we have seen here. If we can't even agree on what a theoretical "fair" or "unfair" deck means (and I don't mean examples of decks but rather criteria that separates them) then we have no hope of applying the label to actual decks that lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
A deck like GW Value Town fights on one axis (battlefield) just as much as storm fights on another (the stack). Saying one way or the other is "unhealthy" is the wrong way to look at it in my opinion. Stack fighting is just as important to the game of magic as the battlefield
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
I'm openly aware of my bias here, and you can all call it interactive if you like, but it will never be my definition when I'm talking about interaction, right, wrong or indifferent.
I'm simply saying you can call it interaction but I'll never be convinced as such. Combat Tricks are not even included in what I'm ignoring, but the simple mechanism of Attack/Block, when it can be executed by a creature you cannot even interact with (Bogle) to ME, cannot be called interactive magic.
I'm not asking you to accept my view, I'm just saying I wont accept Creature Combat as interaction, in my definition.
Spirits
Thats fine too, but not what I call interaction. gkourou flat out tells me my opinion is wrong, and tries for some reason to convince me of that view. I openly declare my position and why taken to the extreme (bogles) that view of creature based 'interaction' falls flat to me.
I dont mean offense to anyone who loves creature based game states, prison, or anything of the sort. Hell you can even be a Tron player and think you are playing 'fair' magic if you want or that (as I have seen in Twitch Chat) Tron is a 'Control' deck. I wont believe you or agree, but feel free!
Apologies to anyone offended.
Spirits
I just find it tiresome that you see the need to remind the thread that you think creature-based magic is beneath you by making condescending remarks like "Its the mundane, boring, 'we are playing limited now' version of Magic" every so often.
At the end of the day, a cluttered board state isn't really that much different from 2 control mages playing land-go and hoarding counter spells in their hands until someone finally decides to go for a play.
I can see that perspective, and apologize if I was offensive in my statement. I've been on tilt for a few weeks post-op and shouldnt let my 'real life' snark invade the thread all the time.
(I won a Sealed event on Arena with BG creatures, thats the source for the Limited comment, but regardless its uncalled for.)
Spirits
There are clear cases, other more muddy. Lands producing more than one mana? Unfair, it cheats on mana-production. Delving into Gurmag Angler? Cheating on mana cost. Cycling a street wraith? Cheats on mana cost. Tarmogoyf used to be very cheaty, now its P/T to mana cost ratio is almost the norm for playable beat sticks.