K, I'm getting tired to writing it all out. But seriously?
I think the issue here is that people who make these claims have a self-centered approach to what "interaction" should mean. It is not the opponents' responsibility to build a deck so that we can interact how we feel we should be allowed to. We are only as entitled to as much interaction as we've built into our decks. If the opponent doesn't interact how we want them to, then such is life. They're still interacting.
On that note, I've said this multiple times, and it's disappointing that this basic concept hasn't already been understood as such, but every single competitive deck in existence is built to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way. Sometimes that means using "taxing" effects, or cards that punish linear gameplans (Ensnaring Bridge) or characteristics (Blood Moon/Chalice of the Void) that another deck might have, or just working so fast that the opp doesn't get a chance to interact in a meaningful way.
If we decide to play a linear deck, then we run the risk of losing to a card that punishes us. If we decide to play a deck that gets greedy with the manabase, or with tempo, then we run the risk of losing to cards that punish us. If we decide to play a deck that has no significant disruption or interaction on the first 3-4 turns, then we run the risk of losing to a faster deck.
But to go straight to hyperbole and say that "there is no interaction" is obstinate, at best.
Take out the SB cards and redo the list. I'm sure it will be pretty enlightening. Decks are basically trying to goldfish their opponents in game 1. After SB, it gets more complicated than that.
I'll admit, that is a well thought out, good post.
However, half these things are more proactive, prison-lock elements. If I said, "Lantern interacts by dropping a bridge and dramatically dropping tempo".
So many of these are sideboard cards as well.
Are you going to justify interaction being, "meddling mage named grapeshot and interacted with the Storm player"? He didn't interact, he was proactively disrupting the opponent by denying play. The finals of the first game literally ended in one minute (not that I felt sorry for Storm).
I've played a little Merfolk, it's not an interactive deck at heart. It may interact sometimes, but all it's trying to do is drop a spreading seas so that it DOESN'T have to interact with you. The counters are mainly for minimal disruption against combo decks, and the few dismembers and relics it may not even see are for fair/graveyard decks. You're referencing Kira as interactive, but again, that card is there specifically because it doesn't want to be interacted with. If I drop a card down that says, "pay 10 mana to attack player" is this going to be called interactive, or tempo disruption?
How many Scoozes are ran? Or Fiend Hunters? What about it's paths, which are usually in the side? Pharika isn't really played. Again, Sensor is a prison element, proactive disruption.
Nearly all of the infect cards you listed are one sided interactions, it's interacting so that it can't be interacted with. Seeing an infect player navigate against removal is fun, but it's proactively trying not to be interacted with, and I feel you're confusing this concept. It's really common we barely see dismember from infect. If we see nature's claim, it's typically because it's something so crippling infect is locked into a prison effect. Again, you listed a bunch of sideboard pieces
Affinity is interactive in that it doesn't want to interact. The flying bodies doesn't want you to block. Etched Champion is ran because you can't typically touch it. You know what happens when you interact with Affinity? It loses. Affinity's most cripping card? Stony Silence. Sure, Affinity runs 4x Galvanic blast. Do you know why it's there? It's typically there for combo-like creatures half the time. Playing 2x thoughtseize in the side and 1x counter in the side is really stretching this as interactive. Affinity can't afford to dilute it's deck too much. It's very, very minimal interactions.
BW Eldrazi is pretty interactive, especially with the flicker combos.
It's a good post, but you're really stretching it with calling these interactions, half those cards are sideboard pieces or cards not even seeing typically in a lot of games.
These decks are advancing the board, with minimal disruption, and beating face. They aren't complete solitaire decks, but they're very much trying to stop what you're doing so it can just hit for enough to win.
We aren't seeing players concerned with the other persons board, they're just looking to be proactive and hit you in the face.
Thank you. Yes, my favorite deck in all formats is the pinnacle of interactive.
@Colt - I know. That's what I used to tell people when I played Griselbrand. My best defense vs. decks like Infect and Affinity was honestly just winning on turn 2 or 3. That's mostly how I beat them, at least before board. Some Affinity games after board actually became pretty long and interactive. I hard cast Griselbrand the most often vs. Affinity, at 3 times.
Hard casted the same Griselbrand 3 times against Meerfolk once and finished the game with a hardcast Worldspine Wurm thanks to Manamorphose and the old green splash for Revival...
That was a match I never want to play again...
Greetings,
Kathal
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What I play or have:
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
so i suppose the sensible thing is to accept that there's a sliding scale of interactivity,
...
that make sense? I don't think it's helpful for anyone to just go black/white "this is interactive and that isn't". It's a logical fallacy.
This is the only right answer, and it's not close. How can we argue what qualifies as interaction when it's a scale?
On one side, you have Linear, and on the other, Interactive. Literally every deck and card in this game fits on the line that is between those points. It's all perception. I wouldn't call Infect and Burn Interactive decks (their primary game plan is to kill quickly), but they definitely run interaction. If you aren't actively trying to slow down the opponent, you are not playing an "Interactive" deck. That doesn't mean you can't interact! Especially if your game plan changes (when Burn isn't the beatdown, spells get pointed at creatures).
Linear decks tend to be less Interactive and run less interaction in favour of being able to close games quickly. A Griselbrand player will call Humans Interactive, while a Jund player will say it is linear.
It is a fact that there is interaction in those decks that made top 8. It is entirely relative if they are Interactive. I'd say some are, but clearly there are many perspectives in this thread.
On a side note, that Humans deck actually looks so cool. It has a Hatebears sort of "Fish" feel to it, while also being able to come out of the gate really fast. It seems like it could suffer from inconsistency and drawing the "wrong half of the deck" though.
People have a very warped view on what interaction is here. Interaction does not have to be an Instant or Sorcery to be considered interaction. Take the Merfolk vs Humans semi-final game. There were lots of creature ETB effects that modified the game state and made the game dynamic. Furthermore, when you have cards like Aether Vial, the impact of each individual creature in your hand becomes akin to that of an instant spell, whether it's mass pump with lords, flashing in extra blockers like a damage spell, or using creature ETB effects at instant speed. With Aether Vial, almost every creature in one's deck is some form of interaction.
To call a deck like Death and Taxes one with minimal interaction is laughable. Aside from some beater slots like Blade Splicer, most every other spell in the deck can interacts with the opponent in some way.
Not only that, but creature vs creature Magic is inherently more interactive than interaction on the stack. There are a lot more decision trees in terms of blocks/attacks than there are to put a spell on the stack in this format.
The problem with Modern is that the decision-trees are pretty small for a lot of decks which means the skill ceiling is lower and it isn't as interesting to watch as say Legacy or even Standard right now. Watching Jund vs Twin or UWR vs Pod was a lot more entertaining and generally the better player tended to win. That's not really the case in today's modern. Also, there are too many MU's that are disproportionate which also makes for less fun and less entertaining to watch. When a lot of MU's in the format tend to be 70/30 variety, it really diminishes the format. A lot of that has to do with an imbalanced meta where important archetypes like Control are pretty non-existent (as evidenced by meta share, and SB space that other decks in the format use for control which is extremely minimal). It's just not interesting. The Modern PT is going to suck so bad. Keep on parroting "diversity" uber alles though instead of quality of matches and significance of skill in-game.
I 100% agree with this. Going to even an fnm and getting beat by people who misplay 4-8 times a game is very tilting. It happens because those players just know to grab the fastest winning deck and hope it makes up for their poor play. I know they stated that modern won’t change until after the pt but I can’t believe with decent players there now they haven’t talked to some of them about modern and how the pt will look. They’re likely hoping (IMO) that some team takes enough time to break the format again and things will get shaken up that way so they don’t have to deal with it. There is a reason that pros don’t like modern and it’s because how good of a magic player you are often doesn’t matter. Lsv will probably just luck it up again and top 8 though so that’s cool.
The Modern PT is going to suck so bad. Keep on parroting "diversity" uber alles though instead of quality of matches and significance of skill in-game.
for real though, diversity brings with it the quality of matches you're talking about. in a narrow metagame you get a narrow range of matches on camera and when playing in a tournament. In a diverse meta, there's more (and different) interactive and interesting decks to see and play against.
you can find it interesting or not, that's completely subjective and your unassailable opinion, so i respect it. But! diversity is what we want, because that's the undeniable root of bringing all the different archetypes to the table, such as control, combo, aggro, midrange etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
The Modern PT is going to suck so bad. Keep on parroting "diversity" uber alles though instead of quality of matches and significance of skill in-game.
for real though, diversity brings with it the quality of matches you're talking about. in a narrow metagame you get a narrow range of matches on camera and when playing in a tournament. In a diverse meta, there's more (and different) interactive and interesting decks to see and play against.
you can find it interesting or not, that's completely subjective and your unassailable opinion, so i respect it. But! diversity is what we want, because that's the undeniable root of bringing all the different archetypes to the table, such as control, combo, aggro, midrange etc.
It's not even us "parroting diversity," it's the company solely responsible for the literal State of the Meta. Willfully ignoring that the current Modern looks exactly how Wizards has told us for years they strived for it to strikes me as self-serving and ignorant. We're "parroting diversity" because we read their articles, know what they want, and are realistic, no matter our own preferences (although yes, many of us actually do favor diverse metagames, which is why Wizards clings to this goal so steadfastly in the first place: Modern was created in part to sate this player desire, as no other constructed format exists that does so).
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Modern will always favor the mindset of deflection rather than answering what an opponent is doing because in a match where two players have stakes they are fighting for the intuitive approach is to go for the throat.
If people want a more Aikido type experience that requires a different mind set than that promoted by the competitive format.
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!
It reached the finals in 3 recent SCG opens, winning 2 of them.
We know wizards regrets printing storm much like how they regret dredge.
Now they should probably just ban Grapeshot instead of beating around the bush and banning more cantrips and rituals.
Reason being: if a grapeshot-based deck is ever viable, it makes for a miserable play experience for the opponent.
That Humans deck looks honestly pretty sweet. I'm not super optimistic, but if it turned out the real deal it could, as someone pointed out, set the metagame cycle into motion once again. The cycle being broken for months is one of the main reasons the format has felt so stale for long, so this could be great news.
I'm cautiously optimistic as well. Anecdotally, I've noticed that my opponents in MTGO leagues have steadily become more aggro at the expense of the volume of ETron/Scapeshift match-ups. That could turn the wheel, so to speak. Hopefully that Top 8 is the result of a trend, not just a flash in the pan.
The Modern PT is going to suck so bad. Keep on parroting "diversity" uber alles though instead of quality of matches and significance of skill in-game.
for real though, diversity brings with it the quality of matches you're talking about. in a narrow metagame you get a narrow range of matches on camera and when playing in a tournament. In a diverse meta, there's more (and different) interactive and interesting decks to see and play against.
you can find it interesting or not, that's completely subjective and your unassailable opinion, so i respect it. But! diversity is what we want, because that's the undeniable root of bringing all the different archetypes to the table, such as control, combo, aggro, midrange etc.
It's not even us "parroting diversity," it's the company solely responsible for the literal State of the Meta. Willfully ignoring that the current Modern looks exactly how Wizards has told us for years they strived for it to strikes me as self-serving and ignorant. We're "parroting diversity" because we read their articles, know what they want, and are realistic, no matter our own preferences (although yes, many of us actually do favor diverse metagames, which is why Wizards clings to this goal so steadfastly in the first place: Modern was created in part to sate this player desire, as no other constructed format exists that does so).
Still, the current Modern format isn't even what it's supposed to be by Wizards own Standards:
Modern should:
Be a fun way to play Magic (first, and easy to forget, but very important!)
Lots of people saying it's super unfun and miserable to play, in official big articles, in here, in reddit, in casual FNM's, or elsewhere.
Have a diverse top-tier metagame featuring over a dozen archetypes
The current best decks(Etron, Storm, Titanshift, Affinity and Grixis Shadow) may be different decks, but the strategy is the same. Besides GDS, all of those decks have a common denominator: Kill as fast as possible, before the opponent kills me, ignoring what the opponent is trying to do.
Having decks like that is a must for the format and healthy. The problem begins when the Tier 1 is being consisted mostly of those decks.
Not be dominated by fast, non-interactive decks
We are on the verge of having a format that's being dominated by uninteractive decks again(not turn 3 violators, even if we have one Turn 3, non interactive deck in our rankings- Storm). Having Infect and Twin banned and allowing such a deck to exist in Modern is pure hypocrisy, especially when the deck is super consistent with 12 great cantrips as well.
Have as small a banned list as possible that accomplishes all the previous goals
To have such a super strong and uninteractive meta, while cards like Stoneforge Mystic, Bloodbraid Elf and Splinter Twin are rotting in the Banlist with no reason at all, or with minimal reason, seems like a joke. Especially since those kind of cards could make Modern more interactive again.
So you think that adding those three cards will change the decks used to become more interactive, or do you believe those cards will enable decks that must be answered? Also, does a deck that must be answered really make things more interactive? There are cards like stony silence that don't really interact as much as change the rules of the match, thereby making it less interactive.
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!
So you think that adding those three cards will change the decks used to become more interactive, or do you believe those cards will enable decks that must be answered? Also, does a deck that must be answered really make things more interactive? There are cards like stony silence that don't really interact as much as change the rules of the match, thereby making it less interactive. [/quote]
I'm not as sure on SFM, but BBE and twin I think it's a yes to both questions. Jund and twin both ran lots of interaction and they both required interaction to beat imo. Twin is a much better example of this with remands, bolts and tap effects and if you had no interaction twin would kill you, but nobody would say jund was not interactive. They are both interactive decks that promote interaction from your opponent. Blood moon or stony silence qualify as interaction to me, but I can see how they might not to other people.
It reached the finals in 3 recent SCG opens, winning 2 of them.
We know wizards regrets printing storm much like how they regret dredge.
Now they should probably just ban Grapeshot instead of beating around the bush and banning more cantrips and rituals.
Reason being: if a grapeshot-based deck is ever viable, it makes for a miserable play experience for the opponent.
I sincerely hope they do not ban storm. All you need is creature removal to win. They win on turn 3 if you don't interact. That seems like a low enough barrier of entry to me.
Storm SHOULD be the boogey man, it always has been. I'm gonna hope wotc doesn't have its head in the sand and storm won't be banned. It's so easily hated out by basic interaction (of all colors even) that maybe the format will become more interactive as a result. Also, coming from legacy, I love playing against storm.
Also, diversity is overrated. Just look at chess. Great game and basically zero diversity.
One thing I'm noting with the Cincinnati SCG finals there are a lot of decks with Aether Vial. I think I know why. People are afraid of Etron and one of its silver bullets, Chalice. One of these on the board keeps one or two drop creatures viable. Between that and Cavern of Souls Chalice may have a weakness.
That said if this is a beginning of a trend counterspells maybe in trouble.
That's actually the exact misunderstanding that I'm talking about. Yes, Grishoalbrand is very interactive. The problem is that humans are, in many cases, self-centered when they come to define things. You, and those who think like you do, assume that since Grishoalbrand doesn't interact in ways that you prefer for it to interact, it therefore must not be an interactive deck.
Strictly speaking, there is next to zero actual player-to-player interaction. In every case, each player is simply interacting with the gamestate, not the opponent. Grishoalbrand is very interactive in the sense that it is attempting to interact with the gamestate to a much greater degree than the opponent can, before the opponent can.
The reason that you may not realize how interactive Grishoalbrand is is because you only define interaction as making gamestate changes that you can equally change. Some decks can interact to the same degree that Grishoalbrand can, as fast as Grishoalbrand can.
Have you considered looking at how decks interact with the gamestate, rather than only defining interaction based on a definition that centers on you and your feelings?
That's actually the exact misunderstanding that I'm talking about. Yes, Grishoalbrand is very interactive. The problem is that humans are, in many cases, self-centered when they come to define things. You, and those who think like you do, assume that since Grishoalbrand doesn't interact in ways that you prefer for it to interact, it therefore must not be an interactive deck.
Strictly speaking, there is next to zero actual player-to-player interaction. In every case, each player is simply interacting with the gamestate, not the opponent. Grishoalbrand is very interactive in the sense that it is attempting to interact with the gamestate to a much greater degree than the opponent can, before the opponent can.
The reason that you may not realize how interactive Grishoalbrand is is because you only define interaction as making gamestate changes that you can equally change. Some decks can interact to the same degree that Grishoalbrand can, as fast as Grishoalbrand can.
Have you considered looking at how decks interact with the gamestate, rather than only defining interaction based on a definition that centers on you and your feelings?
Can you elaborate more on this?
Are you defining interaction as "changing the game state" ? If so, how do you define game state? I imagine it includes everything in the game, so both hands, libraries, graveyards, the battlefield, etc. So, by this definition, interaction includes anything that draws cards, puts cards onto the battlefield, or basically moves cards between zones?
That sounds more like "advancing your game plan."
I would define interaction as "anything that interacts (poor word, but alas. Anyone with a better verb is welcome to contribute) with the opponent's game plan."
What ways of "player-to-player" interaction are there? I imagine most people think of interacting with the opponent as interacting with what the opponent is doing. Attacking their hand, removing creatures, countering spells, blocking creatures, exiling graveyards, etc.
That's actually the exact misunderstanding that I'm talking about. Yes, Grishoalbrand is very interactive. The problem is that humans are, in many cases, self-centered when they come to define things. You, and those who think like you do, assume that since Grishoalbrand doesn't interact in ways that you prefer for it to interact, it therefore must not be an interactive deck.
Strictly speaking, there is next to zero actual player-to-player interaction. In every case, each player is simply interacting with the gamestate, not the opponent. Grishoalbrand is very interactive in the sense that it is attempting to interact with the gamestate to a much greater degree than the opponent can, before the opponent can.
The reason that you may not realize how interactive Grishoalbrand is is because you only define interaction as making gamestate changes that you can equally change. Some decks can interact to the same degree that Grishoalbrand can, as fast as Grishoalbrand can.
Have you considered looking at how decks interact with the gamestate, rather than only defining interaction based on a definition that centers on you and your feelings?
By your logic everything is interactive.
Play a creature? You interact with the board state
Play a land? You interact with the board state
Do nothing? You interact with the board state
Do you play the game? You interact with the board state
Interaction is not defined by just playing the game though.
I would define interaction as "anything that interacts (poor word, but alas. Anyone with a better verb is welcome to contribute) with the opponent's game plan."
Both change the game state. People get confused when it comes to cards like Moon and Chalice, which are not uninteractive cards, but in fact "interact so efficiently with [opponents] that [they] can seem uninteractive to onlookers." On the other side of the coin, plays like turn two Reality Smasher "proact" so effectively that it's difficult for opponents to keep up with a similar level of proaction (i.e. race) or successfully interact.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
That's not interaction, that is just action. You obviously know the term 'glass cannon' think of it like a physical cannon. You are trying to roll it into place, fire, and destroy the opponent. But it's automated, there are no creatures rolling it, and if it's targeted by an attack that would try to prevent it from firing, or be a viable threat before it is loaded, or shoot the cannonball out of the air, or catch it, or that can weather one shot, you lose.
Interactive would be caring strongly about what the other player is doing, trying to do something about their measures or countermeasures. You open fire on their threats, or defend yourself directly. Or anything else. What the Empire did to Aalderaan, building the Death Star, driving it over there and blowing them up, there was no interaction, but it was still an interactive construct because at Yavin 4, it had starfighters and cannons, and afterwards, there were bombers to play cleanup. It's on both players to interact, but does GSB even HAVE main deck ways to do anything about opposition aside from 'gotta go fast'?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
One thing I'm noting with the Cincinnati SCG finals there are a lot of decks with Aether Vial. I think I know why. People are afraid of Etron and one of its silver bullets, Chalice. One of these on the board keeps one or two drop creatures viable. Between that and Cavern of Souls Chalice may have a weakness.
That said if this is a beginning of a trend counterspells maybe in trouble.
Might be the point where we start moving to pithing needle out of the side for vial decks. Who knows.
It's not even us "parroting diversity," it's the company solely responsible for the literal State of the Meta. Willfully ignoring that the current Modern looks exactly how Wizards has told us for years they strived for it to strikes me as self-serving and ignorant. We're "parroting diversity" because we read their articles, know what they want, and are realistic, no matter our own preferences (although yes, many of us actually do favor diverse metagames, which is why Wizards clings to this goal so steadfastly in the first place: Modern was created in part to sate this player desire, as no other constructed format exists that does so).
I think we need to find out if Modern players prefer 20 viable decks at 5% each that are all forms of Aggro or 4 viable decks that are Aggro, Combo, Midrange, aaaaand Control all at 25%.
I think that is a huge question that Wizards needs to ask themselves. Now, if they have come to the conclusion that the 1st one is preferable and brings more revenue, then I think we're at a good spot for them. I just feel and I could certainly be mistaken, that many players believe Modern to be currently stale. I myself, am pretty bored with it, although I am going to try a few new decks, so hopefully it changes for me at least!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
One thing I'm noting with the Cincinnati SCG finals there are a lot of decks with Aether Vial. I think I know why. People are afraid of Etron and one of its silver bullets, Chalice. One of these on the board keeps one or two drop creatures viable. Between that and Cavern of Souls Chalice may have a weakness.
That said if this is a beginning of a trend counterspells maybe in trouble.
One of the reasons I brought up the exact point earlier.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
That's actually the exact misunderstanding that I'm talking about. Yes, Grishoalbrand is very interactive. The problem is that humans are, in many cases, self-centered when they come to define things. You, and those who think like you do, assume that since Grishoalbrand doesn't interact in ways that you prefer for it to interact, it therefore must not be an interactive deck.
Strictly speaking, there is next to zero actual player-to-player interaction. In every case, each player is simply interacting with the gamestate, not the opponent. Grishoalbrand is very interactive in the sense that it is attempting to interact with the gamestate to a much greater degree than the opponent can, before the opponent can.
The reason that you may not realize how interactive Grishoalbrand is is because you only define interaction as making gamestate changes that you can equally change. Some decks can interact to the same degree that Grishoalbrand can, as fast as Grishoalbrand can.
Have you considered looking at how decks interact with the gamestate, rather than only defining interaction based on a definition that centers on you and your feelings?
By your logic everything is interactive.
Play a creature? You interact with the board state
Play a land? You interact with the board state Do nothing? You interact with the board state
Do you play the game? You interact with the board state
Interaction is not defined by just playing the game though.
When you say "do nothing", are meaning that we are making no changing actions to the gamestate? If so, then no, that is not interaction, because no change has happened to the gamestate.
An example I like to use is chess. If it's near the end of the game, and I (for some reason) have a knight on h8, and my opponent positions their bishop on e8 or h5, have they interacted with me? Their move directly prevents me from being able to use my knight effectively, and they've definitely changed the boardstate. Is it fair for me to then complain that they're "not interacting with me"? How seriously would you take my complaint?
Or, if I choose to use an opening of 1.a4, 2.a5, while my opponent advances and takes control of the center very quickly, developing their pieces, and castles their king on the kingside, should I then be right to complain that my opponent isn't interacting with my preferred opening in a fair way? Would the word "self-entitled" be adequate to describe my behavior? Would you consider me an advanced chess player?
I'll admit, that is a well thought out, good post.
However, half these things are more proactive, prison-lock elements. If I said, "Lantern interacts by dropping a bridge and dramatically dropping tempo".
So many of these are sideboard cards as well.
Are you going to justify interaction being, "meddling mage named grapeshot and interacted with the Storm player"? He didn't interact, he was proactively disrupting the opponent by denying play. The finals of the first game literally ended in one minute (not that I felt sorry for Storm).
I've played a little Merfolk, it's not an interactive deck at heart. It may interact sometimes, but all it's trying to do is drop a spreading seas so that it DOESN'T have to interact with you. The counters are mainly for minimal disruption against combo decks, and the few dismembers and relics it may not even see are for fair/graveyard decks. You're referencing Kira as interactive, but again, that card is there specifically because it doesn't want to be interacted with. If I drop a card down that says, "pay 10 mana to attack player" is this going to be called interactive, or tempo disruption?
How many Scoozes are ran? Or Fiend Hunters? What about it's paths, which are usually in the side? Pharika isn't really played. Again, Sensor is a prison element, proactive disruption.
Nearly all of the infect cards you listed are one sided interactions, it's interacting so that it can't be interacted with. Seeing an infect player navigate against removal is fun, but it's proactively trying not to be interacted with, and I feel you're confusing this concept. It's really common we barely see dismember from infect. If we see nature's claim, it's typically because it's something so crippling infect is locked into a prison effect. Again, you listed a bunch of sideboard pieces
Affinity is interactive in that it doesn't want to interact. The flying bodies doesn't want you to block. Etched Champion is ran because you can't typically touch it. You know what happens when you interact with Affinity? It loses. Affinity's most cripping card? Stony Silence. Sure, Affinity runs 4x Galvanic blast. Do you know why it's there? It's typically there for combo-like creatures half the time. Playing 2x thoughtseize in the side and 1x counter in the side is really stretching this as interactive. Affinity can't afford to dilute it's deck too much. It's very, very minimal interactions.
BW Eldrazi is pretty interactive, especially with the flicker combos.
It's a good post, but you're really stretching it with calling these interactions, half those cards are sideboard pieces or cards not even seeing typically in a lot of games.
These decks are advancing the board, with minimal disruption, and beating face. They aren't complete solitaire decks, but they're very much trying to stop what you're doing so it can just hit for enough to win.
We aren't seeing players concerned with the other persons board, they're just looking to be proactive and hit you in the face.
Hard casted the same Griselbrand 3 times against Meerfolk once and finished the game with a hardcast Worldspine Wurm thanks to Manamorphose and the old green splash for Revival...
That was a match I never want to play again...
Greetings,
Kathal
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
This is the only right answer, and it's not close. How can we argue what qualifies as interaction when it's a scale?
On one side, you have Linear, and on the other, Interactive. Literally every deck and card in this game fits on the line that is between those points. It's all perception. I wouldn't call Infect and Burn Interactive decks (their primary game plan is to kill quickly), but they definitely run interaction. If you aren't actively trying to slow down the opponent, you are not playing an "Interactive" deck. That doesn't mean you can't interact! Especially if your game plan changes (when Burn isn't the beatdown, spells get pointed at creatures).
Linear decks tend to be less Interactive and run less interaction in favour of being able to close games quickly. A Griselbrand player will call Humans Interactive, while a Jund player will say it is linear.
It is a fact that there is interaction in those decks that made top 8. It is entirely relative if they are Interactive. I'd say some are, but clearly there are many perspectives in this thread.
On a side note, that Humans deck actually looks so cool. It has a Hatebears sort of "Fish" feel to it, while also being able to come out of the gate really fast. It seems like it could suffer from inconsistency and drawing the "wrong half of the deck" though.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
To call a deck like Death and Taxes one with minimal interaction is laughable. Aside from some beater slots like Blade Splicer, most every other spell in the deck can interacts with the opponent in some way.
Not only that, but creature vs creature Magic is inherently more interactive than interaction on the stack. There are a lot more decision trees in terms of blocks/attacks than there are to put a spell on the stack in this format.
I 100% agree with this. Going to even an fnm and getting beat by people who misplay 4-8 times a game is very tilting. It happens because those players just know to grab the fastest winning deck and hope it makes up for their poor play. I know they stated that modern won’t change until after the pt but I can’t believe with decent players there now they haven’t talked to some of them about modern and how the pt will look. They’re likely hoping (IMO) that some team takes enough time to break the format again and things will get shaken up that way so they don’t have to deal with it. There is a reason that pros don’t like modern and it’s because how good of a magic player you are often doesn’t matter. Lsv will probably just luck it up again and top 8 though so that’s cool.
for real though, diversity brings with it the quality of matches you're talking about. in a narrow metagame you get a narrow range of matches on camera and when playing in a tournament. In a diverse meta, there's more (and different) interactive and interesting decks to see and play against.
you can find it interesting or not, that's completely subjective and your unassailable opinion, so i respect it. But! diversity is what we want, because that's the undeniable root of bringing all the different archetypes to the table, such as control, combo, aggro, midrange etc.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
If people want a more Aikido type experience that requires a different mind set than that promoted by the competitive format.
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 reached the finals in 3 recent SCG opens, winning 2 of them.
We know wizards regrets printing storm much like how they regret dredge.
Now they should probably just ban Grapeshot instead of beating around the bush and banning more cantrips and rituals.
Reason being: if a grapeshot-based deck is ever viable, it makes for a miserable play experience for the opponent.
I'm cautiously optimistic as well. Anecdotally, I've noticed that my opponents in MTGO leagues have steadily become more aggro at the expense of the volume of ETron/Scapeshift match-ups. That could turn the wheel, so to speak. Hopefully that Top 8 is the result of a trend, not just a flash in the pan.
So you think that adding those three cards will change the decks used to become more interactive, or do you believe those cards will enable decks that must be answered? Also, does a deck that must be answered really make things more interactive? There are cards like stony silence that don't really interact as much as change the rules of the match, thereby making it less interactive.
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!
I'm not as sure on SFM, but BBE and twin I think it's a yes to both questions. Jund and twin both ran lots of interaction and they both required interaction to beat imo. Twin is a much better example of this with remands, bolts and tap effects and if you had no interaction twin would kill you, but nobody would say jund was not interactive. They are both interactive decks that promote interaction from your opponent. Blood moon or stony silence qualify as interaction to me, but I can see how they might not to other people.
I sincerely hope they do not ban storm. All you need is creature removal to win. They win on turn 3 if you don't interact. That seems like a low enough barrier of entry to me.
Storm SHOULD be the boogey man, it always has been. I'm gonna hope wotc doesn't have its head in the sand and storm won't be banned. It's so easily hated out by basic interaction (of all colors even) that maybe the format will become more interactive as a result. Also, coming from legacy, I love playing against storm.
Also, diversity is overrated. Just look at chess. Great game and basically zero diversity.
That said if this is a beginning of a trend counterspells maybe in trouble.
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane Studios for the sigpic.
Spider-Man Mafia 3 (Off-Site: NGA)
Metroid Mafia (Off-Site: Mafia Universe)
That's actually the exact misunderstanding that I'm talking about. Yes, Grishoalbrand is very interactive. The problem is that humans are, in many cases, self-centered when they come to define things. You, and those who think like you do, assume that since Grishoalbrand doesn't interact in ways that you prefer for it to interact, it therefore must not be an interactive deck.
Strictly speaking, there is next to zero actual player-to-player interaction. In every case, each player is simply interacting with the gamestate, not the opponent. Grishoalbrand is very interactive in the sense that it is attempting to interact with the gamestate to a much greater degree than the opponent can, before the opponent can.
The reason that you may not realize how interactive Grishoalbrand is is because you only define interaction as making gamestate changes that you can equally change. Some decks can interact to the same degree that Grishoalbrand can, as fast as Grishoalbrand can.
Have you considered looking at how decks interact with the gamestate, rather than only defining interaction based on a definition that centers on you and your feelings?
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
Can you elaborate more on this?
Are you defining interaction as "changing the game state" ? If so, how do you define game state? I imagine it includes everything in the game, so both hands, libraries, graveyards, the battlefield, etc. So, by this definition, interaction includes anything that draws cards, puts cards onto the battlefield, or basically moves cards between zones?
That sounds more like "advancing your game plan."
I would define interaction as "anything that interacts (poor word, but alas. Anyone with a better verb is welcome to contribute) with the opponent's game plan."
What ways of "player-to-player" interaction are there? I imagine most people think of interacting with the opponent as interacting with what the opponent is doing. Attacking their hand, removing creatures, countering spells, blocking creatures, exiling graveyards, etc.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
Play a creature? You interact with the board state
Play a land? You interact with the board state
Do nothing? You interact with the board state
Do you play the game? You interact with the board state
Interaction is not defined by just playing the game though.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
Interaction = disrupting opponent's gameplan
Proaction = advancing own gameplan
Both change the game state. People get confused when it comes to cards like Moon and Chalice, which are not uninteractive cards, but in fact "interact so efficiently with [opponents] that [they] can seem uninteractive to onlookers." On the other side of the coin, plays like turn two Reality Smasher "proact" so effectively that it's difficult for opponents to keep up with a similar level of proaction (i.e. race) or successfully interact.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Interactive would be caring strongly about what the other player is doing, trying to do something about their measures or countermeasures. You open fire on their threats, or defend yourself directly. Or anything else. What the Empire did to Aalderaan, building the Death Star, driving it over there and blowing them up, there was no interaction, but it was still an interactive construct because at Yavin 4, it had starfighters and cannons, and afterwards, there were bombers to play cleanup. It's on both players to interact, but does GSB even HAVE main deck ways to do anything about opposition aside from 'gotta go fast'?
Might be the point where we start moving to pithing needle out of the side for vial decks. Who knows.
I think we need to find out if Modern players prefer 20 viable decks at 5% each that are all forms of Aggro or 4 viable decks that are Aggro, Combo, Midrange, aaaaand Control all at 25%.
I think that is a huge question that Wizards needs to ask themselves. Now, if they have come to the conclusion that the 1st one is preferable and brings more revenue, then I think we're at a good spot for them. I just feel and I could certainly be mistaken, that many players believe Modern to be currently stale. I myself, am pretty bored with it, although I am going to try a few new decks, so hopefully it changes for me at least!
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)One of the reasons I brought up the exact point earlier.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
When you say "do nothing", are meaning that we are making no changing actions to the gamestate? If so, then no, that is not interaction, because no change has happened to the gamestate.
An example I like to use is chess. If it's near the end of the game, and I (for some reason) have a knight on h8, and my opponent positions their bishop on e8 or h5, have they interacted with me? Their move directly prevents me from being able to use my knight effectively, and they've definitely changed the boardstate. Is it fair for me to then complain that they're "not interacting with me"? How seriously would you take my complaint?
Or, if I choose to use an opening of 1.a4, 2.a5, while my opponent advances and takes control of the center very quickly, developing their pieces, and castles their king on the kingside, should I then be right to complain that my opponent isn't interacting with my preferred opening in a fair way? Would the word "self-entitled" be adequate to describe my behavior? Would you consider me an advanced chess player?
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