I would consider a linear deck something like: storm, humans, affinity, burn, etron, valakut, dredge. Which make up a large portion of the top tiers.
I think that Affinity and Humans are healthy liner decks, though, since they are permanent based decks (storm used to be with having a hard time without a Electromancer and Pyromancer Ascension). Dredge and burn have a plethora of silver bullet cards and have been staples in eternal formats for a long time. I feel people are just over-exaggerating the amount of un-interactivity of Modern, especially in the current landscape.
As for difficulty, I'd rather not argue about the difficulty of decks here, but I've seen pros comment on how they are difficult decks and rather take their word for it over anecdotal evidence . The decks give off the illusion of ease sometimes since , yeah, there are some hands in Affinity for example, that just dump the hand and swing, but both decks have a lot of lines.
I'm super ambivalent. On the one hand, it's great Wizards is taking the formats seriously and identifying a need for a play design specialist in those areas. And Tom is definitely experienced in both formats. On the other hand, Tom has made some very worrying ban suggestions over the last 1-2 years and although I know play design isn't responsible for bannings, it makes me question his judgment. In one particularly heinous June 2016 article, he predicted a Nahiri ban within 6 months. He also thought AV and Sword were en route for big Modern finishes. Early this year he talked about Monastery Mentor being well-positioned in Modern, and he predicted Storm would be the top post-Miracles Legacy deck. Some big misses there for the single Modern/Legacy specialist on play design. Makes me nervous, but I hope I'm proven wrong.
I'm super ambivalent. On the one hand, it's great Wizards is taking the formats seriously and identifying a need for a play design specialist in those areas. And Tom is definitely experienced in both formats. On the other hand, Tom has made some very worrying ban suggestions over the last 1-2 years and although I know play design isn't responsible for bannings, it makes me question his judgment. In one particularly heinous June 2016 article, he predicted a Nahiri ban within 6 months. He also thought AV and Sword were en route for big Modern finishes. Early this year he talked about Monastery Mentor being well-positioned in Modern, and he predicted Storm would be the top post-Miracles Legacy deck. Some big misses there for the single Modern/Legacy specialist on play design. Makes me nervous, but I hope I'm proven wrong.
he's human though isn't he? What person can 100 percent predict anything in such large formats?
I'm super ambivalent. On the one hand, it's great Wizards is taking the formats seriously and identifying a need for a play design specialist in those areas. And Tom is definitely experienced in both formats. On the other hand, Tom has made some very worrying ban suggestions over the last 1-2 years and although I know play design isn't responsible for bannings, it makes me question his judgment. In one particularly heinous June 2016 article, he predicted a Nahiri ban within 6 months. He also thought AV and Sword were en route for big Modern finishes. Early this year he talked about Monastery Mentor being well-positioned in Modern, and he predicted Storm would be the top post-Miracles Legacy deck. Some big misses there for the single Modern/Legacy specialist on play design. Makes me nervous, but I hope I'm proven wrong.
Considering how long it takes to get an urban going that doesn't sound promising. Not to mention we may be looking at an even more depressing standard if every Modern viable card is getting filtered twice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Re: "only human" argument
It's fine to make mistakes and missteps as long as they aren't too severe and you grow from them. Ross may have done that, but some of those mistakes were pretty dang recent. Also, and this is the really worrying piece, Ross seems to be the only Modern specialist on the team. I would want to see his mistakes balanced out by other Modern notables on the group rather than make him a go-to for all things Modern in Play Design.
And maybe he's not the only one and I'm misreading the article or missing other members. That would be totally fine with me if true.
Nahiri (June 2016) and Death's Shadow (June 2017). Both suggestions were bad, Nahiri was downright laughable even at the time. These suggestions are worrisome because they are recent and were made with great confidence, litle nuance, and totally missed the mark. I want my Play Design Modern rep to be very measured and careful, not making overconfident claims for clicks/publicity, for lack of research, and/or for want of better format analysis skills.
To be clear, I have much less issue with Ross being on the team than I have issue with him being (apparently) the only Modern specialist on the team. This is due to some of his recent high-profile shortfalls. I'd like to see some checks and balances on the man who just 1.5 years ago thought Nahiri was a sure Modern ban.
Re: "only human" argument
It's fine to make mistakes and missteps as long as they aren't too severe and you grow from them. Ross may have done that, but some of those mistakes were pretty dang recent. Also, and this is the really worrying piece, Ross seems to be the only Modern specialist on the team. I would want to see his mistakes balanced out by other Modern notables on the group rather than make him a go-to for all things Modern in Play Design.
And maybe he's not the only one and I'm misreading the article or missing other members. That would be totally fine with me if true.
Nahiri (June 2016) and Death's Shadow (June 2017). Both suggestions were bad, Nahiri was downright laughable even at the time. These suggestions are worrisome because they are recent and were made with great confidence, litle nuance, and totally missed the mark. I want my Play Design Modern rep to be very measured and careful, not making overconfident claims for clicks/publicity, for lack of research, and/or for want of better format analysis skills.
To be clear, I have much less issue with Ross being on the team than I have issue with him being (apparently) the only Modern specialist on the team. This is due to some of his recent high-profile shortfalls. I'd like to see some checks and balances on the man who just 1.5 years ago thought Nahiri was a sure Modern ban.
I think he will have others in on the decision with him to police mad decisions. Overall a specialist is better than none Imo.
Glad to see wizards shelled out the cash to make this happen.
@hansolo, I would highly disagree that Burn is a linear deck. The same with Valakut and Etron. They may seem linear, but I can show that they are not.
The way that we can easily classify linear decks is that it only attacks from one angle. What led me to see it this way is that I've been piloting Lantern for going on 5 years now, and Lantern is one deck that is fantastic at shutting down linear decks. If one single card can shut them down, then that single card has shut down their linear gameplan. We can take Burn as an example.
The reason why Burn was once such a difficult matchup for Lantern is that a single Bridge doesn't shut Burn down. They can then go straight to the face with the burn spells. A single Leyline, likewise, doesn't shut down Burn for Lantern, because the creatures can still get through. Burn was able to attack from multiple lanes. Yes, it's still life total, but there are very few decks that do not attack life total. If we classify all decks that attack life total as linear, then we're probably oversimplifying things.
Thus, if we look at Affinity, we can see that even it has some alternate gameplan. It's one of Lantern's easier matchups, as it is much easier to slow them down to a crawl with Pithing Needles or Ensnaring Bridge. They do still often have Galvanic Blast, however, so it's still not pure linear.
Valakut isn't all-in on Valakut. They can win via Valakut triggers, which can be stopped by Leylines and the like, but then they still have Primeval Titan. They operate very much like Burn, in that they can go creatures or burn to the face, but they just use different cards to accomplish those plans.
Etron is much like Affinity, in that they can still use cards like Walking Ballista and Endbringer to bypass Bridge, but again, Needles are king at shutting that out. They don't have access to the Galvanic Blasts like Affinity does, but they do have access to Karn Liberated and, sometimes, Ugin.
Dredge is pretty linear, going mostly for all-in creatures, but they have access to Conflagrate once a Bridge hits. Thus, they are slighly more linear than Affinity, as when a Bridge hits game one, they have fewer outs to it.
Humans is linear in the way they attack, but they are very good at disruption while attacking. Once a Bridge hits (assuming it can hit), they are stuck resorting to the awfully slow clock of Noble Hierarch. Thus, they're more like a Hatebears Affinity variant.
Storm, again, can attack both face and with creatures. It is, again, much like Burn or Valakut in this example.
@hansolo, I would highly disagree that Burn is a linear deck. The same with Valakut and Etron. They may seem linear, but I can show that they are not.
The way that we can easily classify linear decks is that it only attacks from one angle. What led me to see it this way is that I've been piloting Lantern for going on 5 years now, and Lantern is one deck that is fantastic at shutting down linear decks. If one single card can shut them down, then that single card has shut down their linear gameplan. We can take Burn as an example.
The reason why Burn was once such a difficult matchup for Lantern is that a single Bridge doesn't shut Burn down. They can then go straight to the face with the burn spells. A single Leyline, likewise, doesn't shut down Burn for Lantern, because the creatures can still get through. Burn was able to attack from multiple lanes. Yes, it's still life total, but there are very few decks that do not attack life total. If we classify all decks that attack life total as linear, then we're probably oversimplifying things.
Thus, if we look at Affinity, we can see that even it has some alternate gameplan. It's one of Lantern's easier matchups, as it is much easier to slow them down to a crawl with Pithing Needles or Ensnaring Bridge. They do still often have Galvanic Blast, however, so it's still not pure linear.
Valakut isn't all-in on Valakut. They can win via Valakut triggers, which can be stopped by Leylines and the like, but then they still have Primeval Titan. They operate very much like Burn, in that they can go creatures or burn to the face, but they just use different cards to accomplish those plans.
Etron is much like Affinity, in that they can still use cards like Walking Ballista and Endbringer to bypass Bridge, but again, Needles are king at shutting that out. They don't have access to the Galvanic Blasts like Affinity does, but they do have access to Karn Liberated and, sometimes, Ugin.
Dredge is pretty linear, going mostly for all-in creatures, but they have access to Conflagrate once a Bridge hits. Thus, they are slighly more linear than Affinity, as when a Bridge hits game one, they have fewer outs to it.
Humans is linear in the way they attack, but they are very good at disruption while attacking. Once a Bridge hits (assuming it can hit), they are stuck resorting to the awfully slow clock of Noble Hierarch. Thus, they're more like a Hatebears Affinity variant.
Storm, again, can attack both face and with creatures. It is, again, much like Burn or Valakut in this example.
Having “options” doesn’t magically turn a deck into a “non-linear” deck.
Burn is linear. Its optimal game-plan is to aim all burn spells at your face until it hits 20. Just because a Burn pilot is able to block with a Goblin Guide, or has the ability to transform into a crummy control deck by aiming all burn at their opponents’ creatures doesn’t suddenly make it a non-linear deck. It "interacts" because an opponent has forced them to.
Storm is linear. Just because once in a blue moon it can turn a Goblin Electromancer sideways for the kill, doesn’t negate the fact that its primary game plan is to cast Grapeshot at your face. It WANTS to execute a linear game plan as well. Again, Storm only interacts when an opponent forces them to play an interactive game.
The problem with the word “linear” is that there is a bit of gray area when it comes to defining that term. Every deck has to interact sometimes… does that make every deck a non-linear deck? I'd say no. Decks that have a primary game plan that involves ignoring what your opponent is trying to do while racing to a win would be considered a linear deck.
Cards that have discard, removal and counterspells are looking to interact from the start. Those are the non-linear decks.
I don't know if you read the line in my signature, but to bring direct attention to it:
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Burn does so by, most times, attempting to race the opponent's deck, winning before the opponent can interact in a meaningful way. That doesn't make it linear, it just makes it fast. To say that Burn is linear because it's faster than some other decks doesn't do it, or the game, justice. Decks that have discard, removal (not counting burn removal here, I suppose?) and counters aren't looking to interact from the start. They are looking to prevent the opponent from being able to interact in a meaningful way - just like every single other competitive deck in existence. This is a core concept we can see from an understanding of expectiminimax theory. I don't know if you've looked into that at all, but I would highly suggest anyone who hasn't to do so. Any deck that cannot race to limit the opponent's ability to interact will simply lose, because basically they are letting the opponent goldfish them. Some decks race to limit interaction by not allowing the opponent the time (turns) necessary to do so. Others do so by removing key spells from the opponent's hands (discard), or removing the creatures in play that might block their own (creature removal), or by countering any possible interaction (with or without an active clock of their own in play).
Linear isn't a term that is wholly defined by speed, but by angles of attack. It's about choices.
I don't know if you read the line in my signature, but to bring direct attention to it:
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Burn does so by, most times, attempting to race the opponent's deck, winning before the opponent can interact in a meaningful way. That doesn't make it linear, it just makes it fast. To say that Burn is linear because it's faster than some other decks doesn't do it, or the game, justice. Decks that have discard, removal (not counting burn removal here, I suppose?) and counters aren't looking to interact from the start. They are looking to prevent the opponent from being able to interact in a meaningful way - just like every single other competitive deck in existence. This is a core concept we can see from an understanding of expectiminimax theory. I don't know if you've looked into that at all, but I would highly suggest anyone who hasn't to do so. Any deck that cannot race to limit the opponent's ability to interact will simply lose, because basically they are letting the opponent goldfish them. Some decks race to limit interaction by not allowing the opponent the time (turns) necessary to do so. Others do so by removing key spells from the opponent's hands (discard), or removing the creatures in play that might block their own (creature removal), or by countering any possible interaction (with or without an active clock of their own in play).
Linear isn't a term that is wholly defined by speed, but by angles of attack. It's about choices.
winning before the opponent can interact and/or playing a deck with few angles is exactly what linear means.
But By "your" definition storm isn't linear aswell. Nor is dredge.
It's easy to say a format has little linearity when you view it that way.
But unfortunately you cannot shape a definition to support your own argument as you please.
I'm defining the term "linear" as it is defined via game theory itself, in "lines of play". Storm and Dredge attempt to use the same operating mechanics, but the winning conditions are not exactly the same. It seems that by "linear", you are referring to the operating mechanics of the deck (the storm mechanic, or the dredge mechanic) rather than the individual lines of play and game-winning choices. Thus, it seems that you are shaping the term, outside the definition of it's game theory definition, to support your own argument as you please.
EDIT: I realize I should probably clarify some of my statements. When I say "lines of play", I'm talking winning strategies and tactics, or, the decision trees and their associated angles of attack to achieve a winning gamestate. We can take Storm as an example, since it can be both very linear and nonlinear, depending on how it is built. If the Storm player is relying wholly on Grapeshot, and has zero Empty the Warrens, nor any other card or set of cards that will be the final payoff of the mechanic by which the deck operates, then we can rather easily classify it as linear. We should probably note that, while playing and attacking with Baral and Goblin Electromancers is possible, it is not at all likely enough for consideration. However, if the Storm player has built their deck with both Grapeshot and Empty the Warrens, or some other additional payoff cards, then it has now opened up multiple lines of attack. Thus, if the Grapeshot is just not feasible (due to hexproof), then they still have another line that offers an alternate angle of attack, in using Empty the Warrens in an attempt to minimize the effectiveness of any protection the opponent might have (the number of blocking creatures is typically minimized to be meaningless using Empty the Warrens).
I realize that, according to MTGGoldfish statistics, only 48% of document Storm decks also run Empty the Warrens, I personally favor running a single copy just for this purpose. We can see the importance of diversifying lines of play (angles of attack for achieving a winning condition) in the replay in which the Humans player beat Storm in game one with a single Meddling Mage naming Grapeshot.
I'm defining the term "linear" as it is defined via game theory itself, in "lines of play". Storm and Dredge attempt to use the same operating mechanics, but the winning conditions are not exactly the same. It seems that by "linear", you are referring to the operating mechanics of the deck (the storm mechanic, or the dredge mechanic) rather than the individual lines of play and game-winning choices. Thus, it seems that you are shaping the term, outside the definition of it's game theory definition, to support your own argument as you please.
Burn is most definately a linear dominated deck. Even though it has a couple non linear options. It's game plan is to go face and win as fast as possible without much interaction. Usually when it's forced to interact its either slowed down or it loses.
By your own definition nothing in modern is linear. And I guess we'll just disagree with each other and leave it at that.
I edited my post just before yours to clarify my statement, and I think it might help us ensure that we're on the same page. I hope to be able to agree on the terms, as they are defined by game theory, to ensure the conversation is as productive as possible.
I edited my post just before yours to clarify my statement, and I think it might help us ensure that we're on the same page. I hope to be able to agree on the terms, as they are defined by game theory, to ensure the conversation is as productive as possible.
but that's like calling burn an interactive deck because it runs Leyline of punishment in the sideboard to fight life gain.
Regardless of its angles to prevent the opponent in stopping Thier strategy,they are still, at the core, playing a goldfish game of solitaire mostly.
Whereas a deck like say, death shadow, almost every turn plays a disruption spell and removal to screw up your game plan, every step of the way. While having then to play a win condition or 2 or 3 to close out the game. With shadow decks at the core being highly interactive tempo decks. You can see a big difference between a linear deck and a non linear deck when you see it this way.
Not at all. If I recall, we were discussing the definition of the term "linear", as defined by game theory. Are we now moving on to defining the term "interaction" and/or "interactive"? Have we agreed to the definition of the word linear and moved on?
As for the definition of "interaction", or "interactive", that brings us back to expectiminimax theory. According to expectiminimax, the likely best solution to the game problem is to prioritize minimizing the opponent's meaningful choices while maximizing our own, with regards to the chance involved from individual choices. In other words, every deck works best when it is allowed to goldfish. They prioritize attempting to not allow the opponent the opportunity to interact. Of course, this is painfully obvious. I've written a brief couple of essays about the terms "interaction" and "interactive", which you can find in my signature as well. However, I feel that it's probably best to try to stick to finding some common ground on at least one term before wandering off into others, or else we may just end up talking past eachother and accomplishing no meaningful conversation at all.
Not at all. If I recall, we were discussing the definition of the term "linear", as defined by game theory. Are we now moving on to defining the term "interaction" and/or "interactive"? Have we agreed to the definition of the word linear and moved on?
As for the definition of "interaction", or "interactive", that brings us back to expectiminimax theory. According to expectiminimax, the likely best solution to the game problem is to prioritize minimizing the opponent's meaningful choices while maximizing our own, with regards to the chance involved from individual choices. In other words, every deck works best when it is allowed to goldfish. They prioritize attempting to not allow the opponent the opportunity to interact. Of course, this is painfully obvious. I've written a brief couple of essays about the terms "interaction" and "interactive", which you can find in my signature as well. However, I feel that it's probably best to try to stick to finding some common ground on at least one term before wandering off into others, or else we may just end up talking past eachother and accomplishing no meaningful conversation at all.
I thought it was generally agreed on in this forum what linear means.
It would seem that the definition of linear, according to that article, conflicts with the definition assigned by actual game theory. Am I correct to infer that you prefer the non-game theory definition, then? I would personally prefer the definition given to it in the most scientific and mathematic sense. Is there some credential that Jordan Boisvert has, or some justification for their preferred definition, that makes it more correct than the actual science of game theory? Calling oneself a theorist and actually using game theory are two very different things Or, maybe Jordan Boisvert is just completely unaware that the term "linear" already has a definition in the realm of game theory, and has simply accepted a popular definition from forum posts from random users?
It would seem that the definition of linear, according to that article, conflicts with the definition assigned by actual game theory. Am I correct to infer that you prefer the non-game theory definition, then? I would personally prefer the definition given to it in the most scientific and mathematic sense. Is there some credential that Jordan Boisvert has, or some justification for their preferred definition, that makes it more correct than the actual science of game theory? Calling oneself a theorist and actually using game theory are two very different things Or, maybe Jordan Boisvert is just completely unaware that the term "linear" already has a definition in the realm of game theory, and has simply accepted a popular definition from forum posts from random users?
It's not "my" definition, but the definition assigned by the science of game theory that I prefer. It would be presumptuous of me to decide my own definition, I agree. I rather defer to the experts (actual scientists of game theory) for my preferred definition. On the other hand, it would be very presumptuous of me (or anyone) to prefer to use some self-serving definition in order to support their preferred argument.
Did you look up expectiminimax and the definition of the term "linear" before resorting to the one commonly accepted by some people in these forums, by any chance?
It's not "my" definition, but the definition assigned by the science of game theory that I prefer. It would be presumptuous of me to decide my own definition, I agree. I rather defer to the experts (actual scientists of game theory) for my preferred definition. On the other hand, it would be very presumptuous of me (or anyone) to prefer to use some self-serving definition in order to support their preferred argument.
Did you look up expectiminimax and the definition of the term "linear" before resorting to the one commonly accepted by some people in these forums, by any chance?
when people/pros use the term linear in mtg they generally mean a similiar thing.
I think I understand where you're coming from. I apologize if it feels like I'm being a stickler for terms here. My worry is that if we cannot agree to a strict and accurate definition of terms, then no meaningful conversation can be hand. The reason that I prefer a very strict, scientific definition is that I've noticed a good deal of arguments made about the game, to include particular formats, made on personal definitions as a person sees fit, to support their personal feelings and opinions. For example, I've seen people call Lantern non-interactive, although by strict definition of the term in the scientific sense, it is probably the most interactive deck in the Modern format. That's just the most erroneous case, but this is definitely not the only case of such a misuse of the terms in their strict definitions.
I am even wary to defer to "pro" Magic players, as it is my observation that most articles boil down to clickbait for page hits and to attract consumers. I understand that many "pros" have accomplished impressive feats of regularly placing in tournaments, but this assumes correlation and causation - How do we know that it's not largely due to those pros having more opportunity and access to necessary cards and funds rather than skill? I'm not saying skill isn't involved, but that could very well be insignificant compared to opportunity. The truth is that we don't know for sure which is most important.
My methods for considering whether I feel confident in a person's ability to evaluate concepts within the game is by their methods, rather than their status. If an article comes out from a "pro" or an authority figure, and it's light on the details on the science or math involved in supporting claims within, then it's much easier for me to dismiss it. In other words, "Non-basic, empirical claims which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". I have confidence in those who can support their arguments with evidence, be it in logical standing (without appealing to fallacies) or mathematical reasoning, rather than someone whose name is commonly known.
I understand if you and I simply cannot agree to use the strict definitions of the words that I prefer, from the scientific analysis of games and strategies and tactics involved. However, I'm afraid that those definitions not based in science and evidence might then be too manipulative to be used for effective conversation.
But to Squibble over terminology is a waste of time when you know what is meant by the use of the word linear in this forum.
And for the sake of technical argument I will call linearity; decks with minimal interaction. Which win by mostly goldfishing and or racing.
To give my 2 cents, I agree with this. Decks with minimal interaction should be called linear. Now Burn is a curious case, but it's not important if Bogles is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way by playing hexproof creatures. It's still linear as heck. Burn though is able to play cards like Searing Blaze, Destructive Revelry, Lightning Bolt, Path To Exile, Relic of Progenitus and it takes the pseudo-control role in some games(see: vs Affinity). Lantern is also a curious case. It's not a linear deck, it interacts in every way a deck can interact with the opponent. But going down the road, it is trying to make the other person incapable of making any play at all, instead of focusing to not let them actually resolve or destroy/exile the stuff they want to after they try to.
But if we want to be honest, decks like RG Valakut, Hexproof Bogles or Ad Nauseam or Cheeri0s or Dredge or so much more decks in modern are linear decks.
Hansolo is right; to Squibble over terminology is a waste of time when you know what is meant by the use of the word linear in this forum. It is not effective, it is not meaningful, it is not productive. if we made a poll on this forum about this subject, 99% of people would disagree with thnkr's weird(at best) definitions.
I understand if you agree with them. However, there are a few technicalities here. First, Lantern doesn't necessarily attempt to prevent the opponent from making any plays at all - It attempts to make all available options irrelevant. Which, again, is the primary purpose of every single competitive deck in existence. It simply does it in a different manner. There are two methods for doing this. First, by reducing the number of options (like using discard spells or removal). Second, by making it so that available options are meaningless. Every deck does some mixture of these two things to win. That is exactly what expectiminimax is all about, and why understanding it is so important if one wants to really understand the core concept on which Magic and other games like it.
Second, again, this "definition" of linear that you seem to prefer is one that fits your opinion, rather one that is based in strict scientific rigor. The problem with that is that anyone who prefers to describe those same decks as non-linear can simply say "nuh-uh", without any basis for the claim, since your claim is likewise not based in a clearly defined statement that can be tested.
Third, taking a poll and assuming that the majority would disagree with me is nothing more than an appeal to the bandwagon fallacy. Is that truly the depth of discussion here?
I would consider a linear deck something like: storm, humans, affinity, burn, etron, valakut, dredge. Which make up a large portion of the top tiers.
I think that Affinity and Humans are healthy liner decks, though, since they are permanent based decks (storm used to be with having a hard time without a Electromancer and Pyromancer Ascension). Dredge and burn have a plethora of silver bullet cards and have been staples in eternal formats for a long time. I feel people are just over-exaggerating the amount of un-interactivity of Modern, especially in the current landscape.
As for difficulty, I'd rather not argue about the difficulty of decks here, but I've seen pros comment on how they are difficult decks and rather take their word for it over anecdotal evidence . The decks give off the illusion of ease sometimes since , yeah, there are some hands in Affinity for example, that just dump the hand and swing, but both decks have a lot of lines.
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/play-design/player-play-designer-2017-12-01
I'm super ambivalent. On the one hand, it's great Wizards is taking the formats seriously and identifying a need for a play design specialist in those areas. And Tom is definitely experienced in both formats. On the other hand, Tom has made some very worrying ban suggestions over the last 1-2 years and although I know play design isn't responsible for bannings, it makes me question his judgment. In one particularly heinous June 2016 article, he predicted a Nahiri ban within 6 months. He also thought AV and Sword were en route for big Modern finishes. Early this year he talked about Monastery Mentor being well-positioned in Modern, and he predicted Storm would be the top post-Miracles Legacy deck. Some big misses there for the single Modern/Legacy specialist on play design. Makes me nervous, but I hope I'm proven wrong.
Considering how long it takes to get an urban going that doesn't sound promising. Not to mention we may be looking at an even more depressing standard if every Modern viable card is getting filtered twice.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
It's fine to make mistakes and missteps as long as they aren't too severe and you grow from them. Ross may have done that, but some of those mistakes were pretty dang recent. Also, and this is the really worrying piece, Ross seems to be the only Modern specialist on the team. I would want to see his mistakes balanced out by other Modern notables on the group rather than make him a go-to for all things Modern in Play Design.
And maybe he's not the only one and I'm misreading the article or missing other members. That would be totally fine with me if true.
Nahiri (June 2016) and Death's Shadow (June 2017). Both suggestions were bad, Nahiri was downright laughable even at the time. These suggestions are worrisome because they are recent and were made with great confidence, litle nuance, and totally missed the mark. I want my Play Design Modern rep to be very measured and careful, not making overconfident claims for clicks/publicity, for lack of research, and/or for want of better format analysis skills.
To be clear, I have much less issue with Ross being on the team than I have issue with him being (apparently) the only Modern specialist on the team. This is due to some of his recent high-profile shortfalls. I'd like to see some checks and balances on the man who just 1.5 years ago thought Nahiri was a sure Modern ban.
Glad to see wizards shelled out the cash to make this happen.
Hi Tom Ross, nice to meet you.
The way that we can easily classify linear decks is that it only attacks from one angle. What led me to see it this way is that I've been piloting Lantern for going on 5 years now, and Lantern is one deck that is fantastic at shutting down linear decks. If one single card can shut them down, then that single card has shut down their linear gameplan. We can take Burn as an example.
The reason why Burn was once such a difficult matchup for Lantern is that a single Bridge doesn't shut Burn down. They can then go straight to the face with the burn spells. A single Leyline, likewise, doesn't shut down Burn for Lantern, because the creatures can still get through. Burn was able to attack from multiple lanes. Yes, it's still life total, but there are very few decks that do not attack life total. If we classify all decks that attack life total as linear, then we're probably oversimplifying things.
Thus, if we look at Affinity, we can see that even it has some alternate gameplan. It's one of Lantern's easier matchups, as it is much easier to slow them down to a crawl with Pithing Needles or Ensnaring Bridge. They do still often have Galvanic Blast, however, so it's still not pure linear.
Valakut isn't all-in on Valakut. They can win via Valakut triggers, which can be stopped by Leylines and the like, but then they still have Primeval Titan. They operate very much like Burn, in that they can go creatures or burn to the face, but they just use different cards to accomplish those plans.
Etron is much like Affinity, in that they can still use cards like Walking Ballista and Endbringer to bypass Bridge, but again, Needles are king at shutting that out. They don't have access to the Galvanic Blasts like Affinity does, but they do have access to Karn Liberated and, sometimes, Ugin.
Dredge is pretty linear, going mostly for all-in creatures, but they have access to Conflagrate once a Bridge hits. Thus, they are slighly more linear than Affinity, as when a Bridge hits game one, they have fewer outs to it.
Humans is linear in the way they attack, but they are very good at disruption while attacking. Once a Bridge hits (assuming it can hit), they are stuck resorting to the awfully slow clock of Noble Hierarch. Thus, they're more like a Hatebears Affinity variant.
Storm, again, can attack both face and with creatures. It is, again, much like Burn or Valakut in this example.
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
Having “options” doesn’t magically turn a deck into a “non-linear” deck.
Burn is linear. Its optimal game-plan is to aim all burn spells at your face until it hits 20. Just because a Burn pilot is able to block with a Goblin Guide, or has the ability to transform into a crummy control deck by aiming all burn at their opponents’ creatures doesn’t suddenly make it a non-linear deck. It "interacts" because an opponent has forced them to.
Storm is linear. Just because once in a blue moon it can turn a Goblin Electromancer sideways for the kill, doesn’t negate the fact that its primary game plan is to cast Grapeshot at your face. It WANTS to execute a linear game plan as well. Again, Storm only interacts when an opponent forces them to play an interactive game.
The problem with the word “linear” is that there is a bit of gray area when it comes to defining that term. Every deck has to interact sometimes… does that make every deck a non-linear deck? I'd say no. Decks that have a primary game plan that involves ignoring what your opponent is trying to do while racing to a win would be considered a linear deck.
Cards that have discard, removal and counterspells are looking to interact from the start. Those are the non-linear decks.
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Burn does so by, most times, attempting to race the opponent's deck, winning before the opponent can interact in a meaningful way. That doesn't make it linear, it just makes it fast. To say that Burn is linear because it's faster than some other decks doesn't do it, or the game, justice. Decks that have discard, removal (not counting burn removal here, I suppose?) and counters aren't looking to interact from the start. They are looking to prevent the opponent from being able to interact in a meaningful way - just like every single other competitive deck in existence. This is a core concept we can see from an understanding of expectiminimax theory. I don't know if you've looked into that at all, but I would highly suggest anyone who hasn't to do so. Any deck that cannot race to limit the opponent's ability to interact will simply lose, because basically they are letting the opponent goldfish them. Some decks race to limit interaction by not allowing the opponent the time (turns) necessary to do so. Others do so by removing key spells from the opponent's hands (discard), or removing the creatures in play that might block their own (creature removal), or by countering any possible interaction (with or without an active clock of their own in play).
Linear isn't a term that is wholly defined by speed, but by angles of attack. It's about choices.
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
But By "your" definition storm isn't linear aswell. Nor is dredge.
It's easy to say a format has little linearity when you view it that way.
But unfortunately you cannot shape a definition to support your own argument as you please.
EDIT: I realize I should probably clarify some of my statements. When I say "lines of play", I'm talking winning strategies and tactics, or, the decision trees and their associated angles of attack to achieve a winning gamestate. We can take Storm as an example, since it can be both very linear and nonlinear, depending on how it is built. If the Storm player is relying wholly on Grapeshot, and has zero Empty the Warrens, nor any other card or set of cards that will be the final payoff of the mechanic by which the deck operates, then we can rather easily classify it as linear. We should probably note that, while playing and attacking with Baral and Goblin Electromancers is possible, it is not at all likely enough for consideration. However, if the Storm player has built their deck with both Grapeshot and Empty the Warrens, or some other additional payoff cards, then it has now opened up multiple lines of attack. Thus, if the Grapeshot is just not feasible (due to hexproof), then they still have another line that offers an alternate angle of attack, in using Empty the Warrens in an attempt to minimize the effectiveness of any protection the opponent might have (the number of blocking creatures is typically minimized to be meaningless using Empty the Warrens).
I realize that, according to MTGGoldfish statistics, only 48% of document Storm decks also run Empty the Warrens, I personally favor running a single copy just for this purpose. We can see the importance of diversifying lines of play (angles of attack for achieving a winning condition) in the replay in which the Humans player beat Storm in game one with a single Meddling Mage naming Grapeshot.
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
Burn is most definately a linear dominated deck. Even though it has a couple non linear options. It's game plan is to go face and win as fast as possible without much interaction. Usually when it's forced to interact its either slowed down or it loses.
By your own definition nothing in modern is linear. And I guess we'll just disagree with each other and leave it at that.
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
Regardless of its angles to prevent the opponent in stopping Thier strategy,they are still, at the core, playing a goldfish game of solitaire mostly.
Whereas a deck like say, death shadow, almost every turn plays a disruption spell and removal to screw up your game plan, every step of the way. While having then to play a win condition or 2 or 3 to close out the game. With shadow decks at the core being highly interactive tempo decks. You can see a big difference between a linear deck and a non linear deck when you see it this way.
As for the definition of "interaction", or "interactive", that brings us back to expectiminimax theory. According to expectiminimax, the likely best solution to the game problem is to prioritize minimizing the opponent's meaningful choices while maximizing our own, with regards to the chance involved from individual choices. In other words, every deck works best when it is allowed to goldfish. They prioritize attempting to not allow the opponent the opportunity to interact. Of course, this is painfully obvious. I've written a brief couple of essays about the terms "interaction" and "interactive", which you can find in my signature as well. However, I feel that it's probably best to try to stick to finding some common ground on at least one term before wandering off into others, or else we may just end up talking past eachother and accomplishing no meaningful conversation at all.
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
http://modernnexus.com/fogs-sake-beating-linear-decks/
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
And Jordan's misinformed?
Sounds pretty presumptuous of you.
Did you look up expectiminimax and the definition of the term "linear" before resorting to the one commonly accepted by some people in these forums, by any chance?
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
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/level-one/linear-strategies-2014-12-29
Maybe by a technical mathematical term it's not exactly correct and I see where you are coming from.
But to Squibble over terminology is a waste of time when you know what is meant by the use of the word linear in this forum.
And for the sake of technical argument I will call linearity; decks with minimal interaction. Which win by mostly goldfishing and or racing.
I am even wary to defer to "pro" Magic players, as it is my observation that most articles boil down to clickbait for page hits and to attract consumers. I understand that many "pros" have accomplished impressive feats of regularly placing in tournaments, but this assumes correlation and causation - How do we know that it's not largely due to those pros having more opportunity and access to necessary cards and funds rather than skill? I'm not saying skill isn't involved, but that could very well be insignificant compared to opportunity. The truth is that we don't know for sure which is most important.
My methods for considering whether I feel confident in a person's ability to evaluate concepts within the game is by their methods, rather than their status. If an article comes out from a "pro" or an authority figure, and it's light on the details on the science or math involved in supporting claims within, then it's much easier for me to dismiss it. In other words, "Non-basic, empirical claims which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". I have confidence in those who can support their arguments with evidence, be it in logical standing (without appealing to fallacies) or mathematical reasoning, rather than someone whose name is commonly known.
I understand if you and I simply cannot agree to use the strict definitions of the words that I prefer, from the scientific analysis of games and strategies and tactics involved. However, I'm afraid that those definitions not based in science and evidence might then be too manipulative to be used for effective conversation.
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
I understand if you agree with them. However, there are a few technicalities here. First, Lantern doesn't necessarily attempt to prevent the opponent from making any plays at all - It attempts to make all available options irrelevant. Which, again, is the primary purpose of every single competitive deck in existence. It simply does it in a different manner. There are two methods for doing this. First, by reducing the number of options (like using discard spells or removal). Second, by making it so that available options are meaningless. Every deck does some mixture of these two things to win. That is exactly what expectiminimax is all about, and why understanding it is so important if one wants to really understand the core concept on which Magic and other games like it.
Second, again, this "definition" of linear that you seem to prefer is one that fits your opinion, rather one that is based in strict scientific rigor. The problem with that is that anyone who prefers to describe those same decks as non-linear can simply say "nuh-uh", without any basis for the claim, since your claim is likewise not based in a clearly defined statement that can be tested.
Third, taking a poll and assuming that the majority would disagree with me is nothing more than an appeal to the bandwagon fallacy. Is that truly the depth of discussion here?
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