Is it just my LGS or do EDH players seem to dedicate almost no deck slots to interactive spells? I keep seeing stuff like Path to Exile being frowned upon.
In modern/legacy, almost all decks are interactive (or at the least tries to play around it) and the decks that most people complain about are ones that are hard to interact with. In EDH however, I far more often see people complain about interaction as well as complaining when losing against decks because they fail to interact with it in a meaningful way.
Does anyone else have a similar experience, and if so, why is this?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UG Arixmethes Combo UGR Wanderer UGB Tasigur Control URB Jeleva Storm RW Gisela Control
I would also say interaction is needed, otherwise it just becomes a game of who has the best ramp or who found his or her combo the fastest. In my lgs all good decks are filled with removal or counterspells, and usually plenty of both. I think it's pretty necessary in order to not lose by turn 3-4.
Just run any and every piece of interaction you want and crush most games in your lgs
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UWG Spirits
Standard UW Control RBU Midrange
Commander UBG Tasigur
Pauper GW Slivers
I would also say interaction is needed, otherwise it just becomes a game of who has the best ramp or who found his or her combo the fastest. In my lgs all good decks are filled with removal or counterspells, and usually plenty of both. I think it's pretty necessary in order to not lose by turn 3-4.
Just run any and every piece of interaction you want and crush most games in your lgs
I always run a ton of interaction in my decks and as long as I play my own decks (that I put thought into and not just put together random cards to have something to play) and although I haven't played that many games where I play my own decks, I have a very high winrate when I do (probably above 80%). The thread isn't about me, it's about what I feel other people play (and think).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UG Arixmethes Combo UGR Wanderer UGB Tasigur Control URB Jeleva Storm RW Gisela Control
Most people I play against have all sorts, its what makes the game fun. Having massive shifts of power (boardstates). Only deck I have seen, though not played against, was a Yidris storm. Combo decks are usually the ones that dont interact with others and spew out some 'I win' or another.
Decks I see are
Rhys token swarm/overrun.
Maelstrom Wanderer ramp/goodstuff (this is probably the least interactive, but it swings to win)
Mimeoplasm battlecruiser
Omnath Ramp/Landfall elementals(lightning bolts all around)
This is what makes edh fun for us, sounds like your lgs/playgroup are horrible to me. Multiplayer solitaire....dont seem right.
I do notice a lack of interaction in decks made by newer players. I think a lot of it comes down to the idea that EDH is a format in which you can cast all the cool flashy spells you can't play elsewhere, and, frankly, Swords to Plowshares or Extract are kinda boring when compared to Worldspine Wurm.
At least in the playgroups I've been in though, people generally seem to learn reasonably quickly that removal, countermagic and other forms of interaction are important parts of a deck, even if they might not run quite as much as would be optimal (and I'm guilty of that myself). Even the decks who's wincon is "uninteractive" (i.e. many combo decks) still run plenty of other interactive spells because they fully expect other people to try for such wins. Indeed, though it might seem weird, I've actually found that having some so-called "uninteractive" decks (again, in practice, those whose wincons are uninteractive) around actually promotes interactivity, because other players are forced to run cards to interact with those decks before they can win.
You can interact without having cheap instants. I play Fleshbag Marauder in more decks than Path to Exile. I think multiplayer EDH makes 1 for 1 removal worse than usual, and makes repeatable effects like Attrition and Grave Pact more desirable. Not to say you shouldn't be playing some spot removal.
I do notice a lack of interaction in decks made by newer players. I think a lot of it comes down to the idea that EDH is a format in which you can cast all the cool flashy spells you can't play elsewhere, and, frankly, Swords to Plowshares or Extract are kinda boring when compared to Worldspine Wurm.
At least in the playgroups I've been in though, people generally seem to learn reasonably quickly that removal, countermagic and other forms of interaction are important parts of a deck, even if they might not run quite as much as would be optimal (and I'm guilty of that myself). Even the decks who's wincon is "uninteractive" (i.e. many combo decks) still run plenty of other interactive spells because they fully expect other people to try for such wins. Indeed, though it might seem weird, I've actually found that having some so-called "uninteractive" decks (again, in practice, those whose wincons are uninteractive) around actually promotes interactivity, because other players are forced to run cards to interact with those decks before they can win.
I haven't seen the second part apply to EDH the way it's true to other formats. People seem to frown upon combo rather than build answers to them. I agree that complaining about a deck being uninteractive just means your deck is uninteractive. I also see more experienced players fall into building decks that doesn't run a lot of interaction and instead just pushing their own gameplan with pretty much every card.
That being said, I'd love to push the meta towards more interaction by playing decks forcing players to interact with me, but the reaction I'd get would most likely be to have to swap deck.
You can interact without having cheap instants. I play Fleshbag Marauder in more decks than Path to Exile. I think multiplayer EDH makes 1 for 1 removal worse than usual, and makes repeatable effects like Attrition and Grave Pact more desirable. Not to say you shouldn't be playing some spot removal.
I (almost) always run those cards (Beast, Path, Counter, Nature's, Abrupt) when I'm in the correct colors. And I disagree, I think Path is better because you can stop creature-based combo's with it as well as costing yourself far less resources which allows you to proceed with your own gameplan as well as being at instant speed which means you can hold it up until you absolutely have to use it. In grindy midrange games where everything is about maximizing your resources, Grave Pact is better but far from every game plays out like that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UG Arixmethes Combo UGR Wanderer UGB Tasigur Control URB Jeleva Storm RW Gisela Control
I haven't seen the second part apply to EDH the way it's true to other formats. People seem to frown upon combo rather than build answers to them. I agree that complaining about a deck being uninteractive just means your deck is uninteractive. I also see more experienced players fall into building decks that doesn't run a lot of interaction and instead just pushing their own gameplan with pretty much every card.
That being said, I'd love to push the meta towards more interaction by playing decks forcing players to interact with me, but the reaction I'd get would most likely be to have to swap deck.
I think it's helped that, in both the groups I've played EDH in, the core of the group have all run a good amount of removal and countermagic, so we only had to shift the attitudes of anyone who joined us, rather than being me trying to change the playstyle of the whole group. The latter is not an easy thing to do. If you are going to try, I'd suggest taking it slowly, running a bit more interaction in your decks while adding a few more cards that really need answering rather that going full on solitaire combo.
The other thing of course, is to actually try discussing it with the other people you play with.
I do notice a lack of interaction in decks made by newer players. I think a lot of it comes down to the idea that EDH is a format in which you can cast all the cool flashy spells you can't play elsewhere, and, frankly, Swords to Plowshares or Extract are kinda boring when compared to Worldspine Wurm.
That's not unique to Commander in any way, though. Most new players don't put enough removal in their decks. (Or enough land, but that's for another discussion.)
Another thing I've noticed is new players sometimes sacrificing utility for synergy. Like, I don't care if you're playing tokens, I'd run Maelstrom Pulse, Putrefy, Beast Within, and Hero's Downfall before Death Mutation because three mana is a lot less than 8, three of those are instants, and all of them can hit more. Actually, if you want card advantage, I'd run Shriekmaw and Bone Shredder first, too, even though "hit more" doesn't apply and they aren't instants, just because they're so much cheaper.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
There is definitely a pretty common misconception that targeted removal is bad in Commander, especially among newer players. This couldn't be further from the truth however, especially the more competitive the group is. Personally, I never build a deck without at least 10+ targeted removal cards. Though a lot of the time, these cards can have overlapping effects, such as Reclamation Sage which can destroy artifacts/enchantments, but then can also be a body, is more easily tutorable, and feeds sacrifice outlets, etc.
Is it just my LGS or do EDH players seem to dedicate almost no deck slots to interactive spells? I keep seeing stuff like Path to Exile being frowned upon.
In modern/legacy, almost all decks are interactive (or at the least tries to play around it) and the decks that most people complain about are ones that are hard to interact with. In EDH however, I far more often see people complain about interaction as well as complaining when losing against decks because they fail to interact with it in a meaningful way.
Does anyone else have a similar experience, and if so, why is this?
My group drifted toward the all-action/no-answer metagame for a while. There was no specific cause it just happened that decks got more focused over time and utility cards kept getting trimmed. More and more games became race to your win-con which can get stale. About a year ago I made a concerted effort to boost the utility cards in each deck. Basically i swapped out 5 thematic cards per deck for stuff like beast within chaos warp and swords to plow. Individually the decks were not much different but at a group level the amount of interactivity increased dramatically.
New players do often overlook boring answers but i have found they can bring stuff you never see coming to the game.
I can not recommend playing Lightning Bolt enough. That card answers many problems for 1 mana at instant speed.
Back to OP's question, I do not believe that EDH is the least interactive format. Its very nature is to include more players, which definitely increases interactivity. The more players at the game, the more opportunities each has to interact.
If you are wondering about playgroups devolving into "who can combo out first," typically stax/control decks will stomp all over glass-cannon combo. And the meta will shift back.
Honestly, a single stax deck at a table will make the game much more interactive, as they tend to affect every stage of the game.
The big reason cards such as bolt or path isn't played as much most probably lies in the fact that it is card disadvantage. You trade one for your cards for one of the opponents cards and then you get two other players both being up a card on you. It is also why I prefer boardwipes over spotremoval.
You still usually need some number of 1 for 1 spotremoval in your deck since you losing some fractions of a card is less important when staring down a Consecrated Sphinx or a Blightsteel Colossus.
A lot of the interactivity in an EDH game also occurs even before cards are played. You can pit people against eachother, look less threatening than you are and lots of other things that usually fall under the "politics" part of interactions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
I think its a little give and take. So on one end of the spectrum, good cheap spot removal will keep you from losing the game. On the other hand it has to be the correct type of removal for the situation to work. What I am talking about here is that you can have Naturalize / Swords to Plowshares and still get curb stomped by Craterhoof Behemoth with little you can do about it.
Also, you have to weigh in your perceived and passive defenses vs your instant speed answers. If you have no active defenses you might have your defenses checked every time. Something small like Ghostly Prison though will make them at least commit to attacking you before you use spot removal not to mention control the numbers they can attack with.
The only real issue I have with cheap spot removal is that it only keeps you alive. You still need to push to proactively win the game as well. In general I can see arguments to push for more wincons and faster but its also important to not die on the spot to your opponents wincons.
To sum things up, spot removal is great when you have the right type at the right time. Most spot removal has some sort of limitation though and the trick is making it as broad in use as possible to hopefully clutch save you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
I'd like to think that it's possible to play cards that are both thematic and work as answers. Most of the time, and of course depending on your 'theme' ...and how much you value sticking to it absolutely. Though sometimes you just need a raw counterspell, bolt or path.
I'm not sure how to get a whole playgroup to play more answers though - for me it was just waking up and realizing 'yeah, I really need to able to do *something* to the other side of the table too'.
Overall, I do think EDH is plenty interactive though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
X Hope of Ghirapur Swordpile W Ghosty Blinky Anafenza U Nezahal- Big, Blue and HERE! B Gonti Can Afford It R Etali, Primal 'Whatjusthappened?' G Polukranos Wants More Mana WU The Exalted Vizier Temmet WB Home, Athreos WR Basandra, Recursive Aggression WG Karametra, Momma of Lands UB Wrexial Eats Your Brains UR Arjun, the Mad Flame UG The Fable of Prime Speaker BR Hellbent, Malfegor Style BG Jarad, Death is Served RG Running Thromok WUB Varina and ALL the Zombies WUBYennett, the Odd Pain-Train WUR Zedruu the Furyhearted WUG Arcades' Strategy, Shmategy, Sausage and Spam WBR A Case of Mathas' Persistent F*ckery WBRLicia's League of Legendary Lifegain Layabouts WBG The Karador Advantage PackageWRG Gahiji Rattlesnake Collection UBR Jeleva... does... things UBG Damia's Just Deserts URG Yasova's Has More Power Than Sense BRG Wasitora, Bad Kitty WUBRBreya, Eggs, Breya'd Eggs WUBG Tymna and Kydele, Extended Borrowing WURG Kynaios and Tiro, Landfall Impersonations WBRG Saskia Pet Card EnchantressUBRG Yidris of the Chi-Ting Corporation WUBRG Tazri's Amazing Allies
I think it's helped that, in both the groups I've played EDH in, the core of the group have all run a good amount of removal and countermagic, so we only had to shift the attitudes of anyone who joined us, rather than being me trying to change the playstyle of the whole group. The latter is not an easy thing to do. If you are going to try, I'd suggest taking it slowly, running a bit more interaction in your decks while adding a few more cards that really need answering rather that going full on solitaire combo.
I'd love if I could push people towards playing more interactive magic by playing things that require answers, but I'm not sure how to do that. In modern just beating people is enough for them to at least think of adapting, but in EDH people seem reluctant to play cheap interaction over cards that proceed their own gameplan. It's like people overly fixate on one thing instead of making a well-rounded deck, this feels especially true for people with many decks.
The other thing of course, is to actually try discussing it with the other people you play with.
I play with a lot of different people. In my "core" playgroup it's fine (there I also can push the meta towards being more heavy on interaction), but when playing elsewhere games can be very uninteractive.
I can not recommend playing Lightning Bolt enough. That card answers many problems for 1 mana at instant speed.
Back to OP's question, I do not believe that EDH is the least interactive format. Its very nature is to include more players, which definitely increases interactivity. The more players at the game, the more opportunities each has to interact.
If you are wondering about playgroups devolving into "who can combo out first," typically stax/control decks will stomp all over glass-cannon combo. And the meta will shift back.
Honestly, a single stax deck at a table will make the game much more interactive, as they tend to affect every stage of the game.
Anyways, my $.02
I run lightning bolt sometimes. It's not an autoinclude, but I like it in UR decks, for example. And people complain a lot when I play something somewhat related to stax. When people gang up on you despite not being the strategic move, you know they hate what you're doing. It's not that it's much fast combo either in my meta, it's mostly consisting of Gx goodstuff decks that don't run Beast Within or other cards like it. Some people are way worse than other in this regard however. Fast combo would completely destroy almost everyone, and I was debating to bring my combo deck to a local tournament just to prove a point, but I ended up getting sick so it didn't matter.
Also, more opportunity to interact doesn't equal more interaction.
The big reason cards such as bolt or path isn't played as much most probably lies in the fact that it is card disadvantage. You trade one for your cards for one of the opponents cards and then you get two other players both being up a card on you. It is also why I prefer boardwipes over spotremoval.
You still usually need some number of 1 for 1 spotremoval in your deck since you losing some fractions of a card is less important when staring down a Consecrated Sphinx or a Blightsteel Colossus.
A lot of the interactivity in an EDH game also occurs even before cards are played. You can pit people against eachother, look less threatening than you are and lots of other things that usually fall under the "politics" part of interactions.
Bolt or Path might be card disadvantage, but it's tempo advantage. They wasted their turn playing something that needed to be dealt with, you dealt with it by spending a fraction of that mana while I can still use the rest to proceed with my own gameplan. It usually doesn't out that well, but you get the point.
I think its a little give and take. So on one end of the spectrum, good cheap spot removal will keep you from losing the game. On the other hand it has to be the correct type of removal for the situation to work. What I am talking about here is that you can have Naturalize / Swords to Plowshares and still get curb stomped by Craterhoof Behemoth with little you can do about it.
Also, you have to weigh in your perceived and passive defenses vs your instant speed answers. If you have no active defenses you might have your defenses checked every time. Something small like Ghostly Prison though will make them at least commit to attacking you before you use spot removal not to mention control the numbers they can attack with.
The only real issue I have with cheap spot removal is that it only keeps you alive. You still need to push to proactively win the game as well. In general I can see arguments to push for more wincons and faster but its also important to not die on the spot to your opponents wincons.
To sum things up, spot removal is great when you have the right type at the right time. Most spot removal has some sort of limitation though and the trick is making it as broad in use as possible to hopefully clutch save you.
Yes, that's why it should be as cheap (and broad) as possible, so that you can use it while still proceeding your own gameplan.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UG Arixmethes Combo UGR Wanderer UGB Tasigur Control URB Jeleva Storm RW Gisela Control
If your group frowns upon path then that just means they're only interested in seeing their deck do its thing. Tell them to go play solitair and get yourself a new group.
meh, like 5 years ago my meta was much more oriented around whatever do whatever you want i'm just going to combo. indeed the first time i ever went the very first thing i was asked was 'how many combos does your deck run?'. more and more people started to combo. no answers, just more combo. slowly some people started putting in interactive cards to stop combo from running rampant. some of the people who were more focused on goldfishing a win would even rage when that clutch krosan grip hit their combo piece. those that wanted to not interact with people have stopped coming, some even going so far as to still call us a bunch of hypercompetitive try hards. those that jam things like lightning bolt into their decks just to pop kiki-jikki? they've shown up almost every single week, and have made for far more memorable games than the people who just go OOPS I WIN.
i'm not really sure where i was going with this long winded story. now i just feel like an old man.
i guess the point here is: **** em, run ***** that stops em.
Interaction in the sense of spot removal and counterspells is standard where I play. Obviously, people don't always draw their answers, but if anything I think I experience the OMG-my-stuff-keeps-dying games more than the why-doesn't-anybody-have-removal?!? games.
EDH is equal parts doing your stuff and trying to stop other people from doing theirs. Imo, part of the social contract is interacting with the board (read: destroying other people's things based on threat assessment). Players with no interaction aren't holding up their end of the bargain.
You've obviously never played a 3 versus 1 game. I've taken some beatings because I've won the first game, and its all out stop them from doing anything.
I've had one game where we made one opponent literally have no permanents in play at about turn 8, just using 1 for 1 spot removal, including their lands. It wasn't a fair game, but it was hilarious.
Degenerate decks won't interact that much, except for stopping you from stopping them. So it just depends if there is somebody(ies) who is brave enough to run disruption to stop games from going stupid quick.
Yeah i think it is just the play group at your LGS. I cant Imagine what would happen if the decks at mine began to be less interactive. Have you talked to any of the people about it? If not it may be time to so that you can revitilize the meta somehow.
One kind of deck that might help shift perception is a deck of all answers-packaged-as-threats. A general like Karador, Ghost Chieftain can easily run a deck composed of hatecards (Thalia, Heretic Cathar, Sigarda, Host of Herons, Linvala, Keeper of Silence, that kind of stuff) and problem-removal cards (Noxious Gearhulk, Massacre Wurm, Ashen Rider, Duplicant, etc) all while making those very cards into grindy threats themselves. This especially works in metas that have devolved into "Just pump out big stuff and smash them against each other" decks. In more combo-y metas, a simple staxy/control build will work better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In modern/legacy, almost all decks are interactive (or at the least tries to play around it) and the decks that most people complain about are ones that are hard to interact with. In EDH however, I far more often see people complain about interaction as well as complaining when losing against decks because they fail to interact with it in a meaningful way.
Does anyone else have a similar experience, and if so, why is this?
UGR Wanderer
UGB Tasigur Control
URB Jeleva Storm
RW Gisela Control
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
If you dont use them, why dont you start and see if it makes a difference.
https://archidekt.com/user/71716
Just run any and every piece of interaction you want and crush most games in your lgs
UWG Spirits
Standard
UW Control
RBU Midrange
Commander
UBG Tasigur
Pauper
GW Slivers
I always run a ton of interaction in my decks and as long as I play my own decks (that I put thought into and not just put together random cards to have something to play) and although I haven't played that many games where I play my own decks, I have a very high winrate when I do (probably above 80%). The thread isn't about me, it's about what I feel other people play (and think).
UGR Wanderer
UGB Tasigur Control
URB Jeleva Storm
RW Gisela Control
Decks I see are
Rhys token swarm/overrun.
Maelstrom Wanderer ramp/goodstuff (this is probably the least interactive, but it swings to win)
Mimeoplasm battlecruiser
Omnath Ramp/Landfall elementals(lightning bolts all around)
This is what makes edh fun for us, sounds like your lgs/playgroup are horrible to me. Multiplayer solitaire....dont seem right.
At least in the playgroups I've been in though, people generally seem to learn reasonably quickly that removal, countermagic and other forms of interaction are important parts of a deck, even if they might not run quite as much as would be optimal (and I'm guilty of that myself). Even the decks who's wincon is "uninteractive" (i.e. many combo decks) still run plenty of other interactive spells because they fully expect other people to try for such wins. Indeed, though it might seem weird, I've actually found that having some so-called "uninteractive" decks (again, in practice, those whose wincons are uninteractive) around actually promotes interactivity, because other players are forced to run cards to interact with those decks before they can win.
I also play Beast Within over Path to Exile.
Even in a combo heavy format, Counterspell and Nature's Claim and Abrupt Decay are all card that should be played.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
I haven't seen the second part apply to EDH the way it's true to other formats. People seem to frown upon combo rather than build answers to them. I agree that complaining about a deck being uninteractive just means your deck is uninteractive. I also see more experienced players fall into building decks that doesn't run a lot of interaction and instead just pushing their own gameplan with pretty much every card.
That being said, I'd love to push the meta towards more interaction by playing decks forcing players to interact with me, but the reaction I'd get would most likely be to have to swap deck.
I (almost) always run those cards (Beast, Path, Counter, Nature's, Abrupt) when I'm in the correct colors. And I disagree, I think Path is better because you can stop creature-based combo's with it as well as costing yourself far less resources which allows you to proceed with your own gameplan as well as being at instant speed which means you can hold it up until you absolutely have to use it. In grindy midrange games where everything is about maximizing your resources, Grave Pact is better but far from every game plays out like that.
UGR Wanderer
UGB Tasigur Control
URB Jeleva Storm
RW Gisela Control
I think it's helped that, in both the groups I've played EDH in, the core of the group have all run a good amount of removal and countermagic, so we only had to shift the attitudes of anyone who joined us, rather than being me trying to change the playstyle of the whole group. The latter is not an easy thing to do. If you are going to try, I'd suggest taking it slowly, running a bit more interaction in your decks while adding a few more cards that really need answering rather that going full on solitaire combo.
The other thing of course, is to actually try discussing it with the other people you play with.
That's not unique to Commander in any way, though. Most new players don't put enough removal in their decks. (Or enough land, but that's for another discussion.)
Another thing I've noticed is new players sometimes sacrificing utility for synergy. Like, I don't care if you're playing tokens, I'd run Maelstrom Pulse, Putrefy, Beast Within, and Hero's Downfall before Death Mutation because three mana is a lot less than 8, three of those are instants, and all of them can hit more. Actually, if you want card advantage, I'd run Shriekmaw and Bone Shredder first, too, even though "hit more" doesn't apply and they aren't instants, just because they're so much cheaper.
On phasing:
My group drifted toward the all-action/no-answer metagame for a while. There was no specific cause it just happened that decks got more focused over time and utility cards kept getting trimmed. More and more games became race to your win-con which can get stale. About a year ago I made a concerted effort to boost the utility cards in each deck. Basically i swapped out 5 thematic cards per deck for stuff like beast within chaos warp and swords to plow. Individually the decks were not much different but at a group level the amount of interactivity increased dramatically.
New players do often overlook boring answers but i have found they can bring stuff you never see coming to the game.
In Progress
GBIshkanah, Grafwidow ~ BWGRTymna the Weaver & Tana, the Bloodsower ~ UGRashmi, Eternities Crafter ~ RGAtarka, World Render
Back to OP's question, I do not believe that EDH is the least interactive format. Its very nature is to include more players, which definitely increases interactivity. The more players at the game, the more opportunities each has to interact.
If you are wondering about playgroups devolving into "who can combo out first," typically stax/control decks will stomp all over glass-cannon combo. And the meta will shift back.
Honestly, a single stax deck at a table will make the game much more interactive, as they tend to affect every stage of the game.
Anyways, my $.02
You still usually need some number of 1 for 1 spotremoval in your deck since you losing some fractions of a card is less important when staring down a Consecrated Sphinx or a Blightsteel Colossus.
A lot of the interactivity in an EDH game also occurs even before cards are played. You can pit people against eachother, look less threatening than you are and lots of other things that usually fall under the "politics" part of interactions.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Also, you have to weigh in your perceived and passive defenses vs your instant speed answers. If you have no active defenses you might have your defenses checked every time. Something small like Ghostly Prison though will make them at least commit to attacking you before you use spot removal not to mention control the numbers they can attack with.
The only real issue I have with cheap spot removal is that it only keeps you alive. You still need to push to proactively win the game as well. In general I can see arguments to push for more wincons and faster but its also important to not die on the spot to your opponents wincons.
To sum things up, spot removal is great when you have the right type at the right time. Most spot removal has some sort of limitation though and the trick is making it as broad in use as possible to hopefully clutch save you.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
I'm not sure how to get a whole playgroup to play more answers though - for me it was just waking up and realizing 'yeah, I really need to able to do *something* to the other side of the table too'.
Overall, I do think EDH is plenty interactive though.
I'd love if I could push people towards playing more interactive magic by playing things that require answers, but I'm not sure how to do that. In modern just beating people is enough for them to at least think of adapting, but in EDH people seem reluctant to play cheap interaction over cards that proceed their own gameplan. It's like people overly fixate on one thing instead of making a well-rounded deck, this feels especially true for people with many decks.
I play with a lot of different people. In my "core" playgroup it's fine (there I also can push the meta towards being more heavy on interaction), but when playing elsewhere games can be very uninteractive.
I run lightning bolt sometimes. It's not an autoinclude, but I like it in UR decks, for example. And people complain a lot when I play something somewhat related to stax. When people gang up on you despite not being the strategic move, you know they hate what you're doing. It's not that it's much fast combo either in my meta, it's mostly consisting of Gx goodstuff decks that don't run Beast Within or other cards like it. Some people are way worse than other in this regard however. Fast combo would completely destroy almost everyone, and I was debating to bring my combo deck to a local tournament just to prove a point, but I ended up getting sick so it didn't matter.
Also, more opportunity to interact doesn't equal more interaction.
Bolt or Path might be card disadvantage, but it's tempo advantage. They wasted their turn playing something that needed to be dealt with, you dealt with it by spending a fraction of that mana while I can still use the rest to proceed with my own gameplan. It usually doesn't out that well, but you get the point.
Yes, that's why it should be as cheap (and broad) as possible, so that you can use it while still proceeding your own gameplan.
UGR Wanderer
UGB Tasigur Control
URB Jeleva Storm
RW Gisela Control
i'm not really sure where i was going with this long winded story. now i just feel like an old man.
i guess the point here is: **** em, run ***** that stops em.
EDH:
G[cEDH] Selvala, Heart of the StormG
URW[cEDH] Narset, the Last AirmericanURW
GWUSt. Jenara, the ArchangelGWU
UBGrimgrin, Chaos MarineUB
GOmnath, Mana BaronG
URWNarset, Justice League AmericaURW
GWUBAtraxa, Countess of CountersGWUB
GWUEstrid, Enbantress PrimeGWU
I've had one game where we made one opponent literally have no permanents in play at about turn 8, just using 1 for 1 spot removal, including their lands. It wasn't a fair game, but it was hilarious.
Degenerate decks won't interact that much, except for stopping you from stopping them. So it just depends if there is somebody(ies) who is brave enough to run disruption to stop games from going stupid quick.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.