By your definition it sounds like no deck can be called linear because it's trying to interact in their own way
I feel that's a little insane but I'll leave it at that, your mind isn't going to change, I don't feel much need to argue why a deck like Storm isn't an interactive deck.
EDIT: Decision trees to retain significance? You mean the significance of decision making mattering in a board state of interacting---where your choice actually matters instead of simply drawing seven cards and losing by a predetermined variance on mulligan decisions?
This seems to absolutely demonstrate that you have not read the past page or two of posts Please do not straw man me, and it would be beneficial if you did read the posts so we aren't constantly repeating ourselves here.
This seems to absolutely demonstrate that you have not read the past page or two of posts Please do not straw man me, and it would be beneficial if you did read the posts so we aren't constantly repeating ourselves here.
By your theory boggles is interacting because it is trying to interact with a variable of the game state.
By preventing the opponent to be able to interact with Thier angle of interaction.
And what people on this forum mean by interaction is bolting your threat and thoughtseizing your hand.
Which to you is a self centered definition.
Jund does the same thing
Chess does the same thing.
I get where you are coming from.
I guess it's the scale and effectiveness to which it relates to the meta is what makes it frustrating to players when they have a removal deck and the opponent is on boggles. Or when someone is racing and the opponent is storming FTW.
However like I said before Thier is a fun variable in there. And I think it is what people confuse these definitions with.
In chess you can move as to limit your opponents options. But they can almost always get out of the situation with good playing. I'n magic this isn't always the case. As with a delver deck there is literally nothing you can do to beat Boggles Game 1, except hope they stumble.
And it's this difference that makes chess and mtg very different.
(bad analogy) Magic allows for players to bring a deck to play solitaire to a chess game and the poor chess player has to rely on sideboards to have a chance. This scenario happens in mtg.
And if everyone does this the game becomes more of deck choice and sideboarding than it is of skill.
Which chess does not do to that degree to the players.
Which then in turn effects the fun factor of the game.
And then people play decks to counter these unfun decks.
Which usually involves other minimally interactive and linearish decks. Which doesn't help the fun factor. And the cycle continues.
And this is why when you say storm is interactive and non linear you will cause uproar in not only this forum but pretty much anywhere.
This seems to absolutely demonstrate that you have not read the past page or two of posts Please do not straw man me, and it would be beneficial if you did read the posts so we aren't constantly repeating ourselves here.
By your theory boggles is interacting because it is trying to interact with a variable of the game state.
By preventing the opponent to be able to interact with Thier angle of interaction.
And what people on this forum mean by interaction is bolting your threat and thoughtseizing your hand.
Which to you is a self centered definition.
Jund does the same thing
Chess does the same thing.
I get where you are coming from.
I guess it's the scale and effectiveness to which it relates to the meta is what makes it frustrating to players when they have a removal deck and the opponent is on boggles. Or when someone is racing and the opponent is storming FTW.
However like I said before Thier is a fun variable in there. And I think it is what people confuse these definitions with.
In chess you can move as to limit your opponents options. But they can almost always get out of the situation with good playing. I'n magic this isn't always the case. As with a delver deck there is literally nothing you can do to beat Boggles Game 1, except hope they stumble.
And it's this difference that makes chess and mtg very different.
(bad analogy) Magic allows for players to bring a deck to play solitaire to a chess game and the poor chess player has to rely on sideboards to have a chance. This scenario happens in mtg.
And if everyone does this the game becomes more of deck choice and sideboarding than it is of skill.
Which chess does not do to that degree to the players.
Which then in turn effects the fun factor of the game.
And then people play decks to counter these unfun decks.
Which usually involves other minimally interactive and linearish decks. Which doesn't help the fun factor. And the cycle continues.
And this is why when you say storm is interactive and non linear you will cause uproar in not only this forum but pretty much anywhere.
Because most people like you like to simplify combo decks to them not caring at all about the other player or even the game state, I will simply what Magic was before the streamline of engine combo as a archetype. The was about figuring out Who's the beatdown whos the beat down. So in the simplest forms, it became all about who won the dice roll and who drew the best cards. Then came the first combo deck. A deck that didnt just feature synergistic cards, but a deck designed around 1 or 2 cards that ended the game when you had reached a certain requirement (amount of mana, storm count, etc). This changed the dynamic of the game and created the 3 cornerstone archtypes of magic: aggro, control, and combo.
It is because all three of these exist is what makes Magic so great. Just because you like beating down with creatures doesnt mean someone else likes it. Losing on turn 3 to a 20 copy grapeshot isnt fun, but that might just happen some times. The next day you might draw the perfect amount of discard in you opener to cripple the storm player so he never plays a card. However, in the majority of games where neither you or or opponent doesnt draw the nut draw, both of you will be playing around eachothers predicted lines of play, based on board state, life totals, or whatever it may be. You n=should play storm some time and see it is more than just playing solitare.
To be frank, the problem with interactivity in magic is largely a result of the core rules set with phases and how combat works. The forefathers of the game stuck with a single combat phase and unidirectional attacks and blocks as it is a simple and easy to understand system. Today, people are exposed to game systems far more early on and can handle more flexible and loose interaction systems. Wizards has tried to ape other games by introducing fight cards, but they can't easily transition to a phaseless system such as those found in Force of will and some bushi-road titles.
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!
Saying jund and storm attack from a similar angle because they deal damage to your face and try to prevent you from beating them is a bit disingenuous Imo.
I understand if that's your opinion, but solid game theory shows, with certainty, without needing to rely on opinion, that the end nodes use the same function.
Theories require assumptions. If your "solid game theory" lumps jund and storm together, then you either made false assumptions, or your end nodes are too inclusive. It'd be like trying to compare countries and saying "welp, all are on Earth so they are pretty much the same." Sure, in some context this theory is true, but you missed the entire point of the exercise when coming to that conclusion.
@Thnkr -- I just wanted to say I find what you say very interesting and helpful. Personally using game theory and some deeper thinking to explore magic in more quantitative terms is fascinating, provocative, and far more engaging to me than anything else. For example, trying to fine deeper patterns of what makes a deck work and operate and evaluate from that point of view, instead of just what I prefer or "like" magic to be, seems to lead to greater discovery and a greater appreciation of the game itself (and why its such a good game). This also helps bridge magic to other disciplines in life and helps grow our ability to think critically. Keep up the good work--I'm reading all the posts and taking it into account. I think more will come to appreciate it. Would love to see you write some more articles on the topic, even citing some game theory references from elsewhere. Would DEFINITELY read it.
As some people have pointed out, it definitely is helpful for all of us to explore our core, personal reasons for liking or disliking a deck and knowing how or why we like to play magic. That axis (our "fun axis") is different for many of us, and our personal reason is not wrong or right. If we are personally aware of why we like or dislike magic, then we can engage with others more meaningfully. For example, if what makes me like magic is casting spells back and forth in a nice, mid-range, jund-like mirror, that is okay and fine. We should be aware of our intention, though. So then when we criticize a deck BECAUSE it doesn't do that, we can understand and express that thats just how we want to play magic. That is what is fun for us. And that is the sheer genius of the designers of MTG--appealing and creating a game that is malleable and accessible by a wide variety of individuals with different goals and aims. We get into trouble though when we expect someone who has a different goal or interest in magic to have our same goal, and criticize them for not being on the same page, instead of just understanding where they are coming from. E.G. I like to play spikey control mirrors, but my friend really enjoys casual, long 4 player commander where everyone is doing what they'd like in a very relaxed way--Neither of us are right or wrong, we have different definitions of what is fun, but we shouldn't try to force the other to agree with our way or change into our way.
What Thnkr I think is pointing out is the common complaint "it is not interactive" seems more just that we don't like to play magic in the way some of those decks play, not that they are truly non-interactive (because they interact pre-emptively or by controlling what we can and can't do, by adjusting what cards are played).
This seems to absolutely demonstrate that you have not read the past page or two of posts Please do not straw man me, and it would be beneficial if you did read the posts so we aren't constantly repeating ourselves here.
By your theory boggles is interacting because it is trying to interact with a variable of the game state.
By preventing the opponent to be able to interact with Thier angle of interaction.
And what people on this forum mean by interaction is bolting your threat and thoughtseizing your hand.
Which to you is a self centered definition.
Jund does the same thing
Chess does the same thing.
I get where you are coming from.
I guess it's the scale and effectiveness to which it relates to the meta is what makes it frustrating to players when they have a removal deck and the opponent is on boggles. Or when someone is racing and the opponent is storming FTW.
However like I said before Thier is a fun variable in there. And I think it is what people confuse these definitions with.
In chess you can move as to limit your opponents options. But they can almost always get out of the situation with good playing. I'n magic this isn't always the case. As with a delver deck there is literally nothing you can do to beat Boggles Game 1, except hope they stumble.
And it's this difference that makes chess and mtg very different.
(bad analogy) Magic allows for players to bring a deck to play solitaire to a chess game and the poor chess player has to rely on sideboards to have a chance. This scenario happens in mtg.
And if everyone does this the game becomes more of deck choice and sideboarding than it is of skill.
Which chess does not do to that degree to the players.
Which then in turn effects the fun factor of the game.
And then people play decks to counter these unfun decks.
Which usually involves other minimally interactive and linearish decks. Which doesn't help the fun factor. And the cycle continues.
And this is why when you say storm is interactive and non linear you will cause uproar in not only this forum but pretty much anywhere.
Because most people like you like to simplify combo decks to them not caring at all about the other player or even the game state, I will simply what Magic was before the streamline of engine combo as a archetype. The was about figuring out Who's the beatdown whos the beat down. So in the simplest forms, it became all about who won the dice roll and who drew the best cards. Then came the first combo deck. A deck that didnt just feature synergistic cards, but a deck designed around 1 or 2 cards that ended the game when you had reached a certain requirement (amount of mana, storm count, etc). This changed the dynamic of the game and created the 3 cornerstone archtypes of magic: aggro, control, and combo.
It is because all three of these exist is what makes Magic so great. Just because you like beating down with creatures doesnt mean someone else likes it. Losing on turn 3 to a 20 copy grapeshot isnt fun, but that might just happen some times. The next day you might draw the perfect amount of discard in you opener to cripple the storm player so he never plays a card. However, in the majority of games where neither you or or opponent doesnt draw the nut draw, both of you will be playing around eachothers predicted lines of play, based on board state, life totals, or whatever it may be. You n=should play storm some time and see it is more than just playing solitare.
It's pretty clear you haven't been reading the past couple pages. Or else you would understand that I personally have no problem in storm but rather how I see both sides of the argument. but instead you get all defensive of your pet deck.
Given the system limitations wotc has to deal with I'm surprised that interactive decks even exist in Modern competition.
I've said it before, competitive magic is about going for the throat. There is no time or point to worrying about interacting with the opponents field or spells unless doing so actively furthers your board state. There aren't a lot of opportunities in modern where slowing the advancement of an opponents board is better than advancing ones own, and now with more etb creatures we've now gone to just advancing the board while coincidentally interacting with the opponent.
While combo decks like storm are by their nature not interactive, I can't say something like reflector mage or meddling mage is much better with how those ultimately function. Wotc can't print a spell strong enough to beat the value gained from some of these creatures, really.
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!
Storm rarely cares about the board state, it just wants to play 20 spells that your opponent can't really do much about and win, or vomit out 12 goblins at the end of their turn 2 or 3...
This Monday, I was on the draw for game 1, and kept a reasonable hand in the dark, I got to lay down 2 lands and on my opponents turn 3 he hit me for over 20 damage with the grapeshot+remand combo. Come on, man, you can write down all your eloquent scientific writing but that's what people mean by linear.
Maybe we should just have a scaling system. There's also been some really absurd arguments on reddit where people said that Affinity boards in spell pierce and thoughtseize postboard and is therefore an interactive deck
It's a stretch...
Yes, interacting with a variable of the gamestate is...interaction. I'm guessing you didn't read prior comments, but I suppose I'll explain again. The issue with how you are defining interaction is that it is a self-centered definition. You are defining interaction in such a way as to assume that you are entitled to having the opponent interact on an axis that you prefer. If you actually understand the basic game theory concept that we've been talking about, then you'll see that this is exactly what a competitive deck is designed not to do. If we interact on our opponents' terms, then we are allowing the branches of their decision trees to retain significance.
It doesn't matter what some majority, or even number, of MtG players "mean" by linear or interaction. Simply because a group of people believe a certain way does not make it true or accurate - that is called the bandwagon fallacy.
I appreciate your addition of game theory into the discussion (it's truly interesting), but at points you're missing the forest for the trees as if you're caught up in semantics. When you say something like "Storm is linear when it only plays Grapeshot, but it becomes non-linear with the addition of Empty the Warrens", that's borderline pedantic. Although that may be the technical definition in game theory, that's an unnecessary focus. There's no point debating whether we're choosing the right Greek word for 'love' if we can choose an alternative phrasing within the right context and move the discussion forward with a common understanding of what is meant.
Several people have conceptualized the idea of "linearity" as it pertains to this discussion. One rough version would be that "linearity" is the degree to which a deck's play pattern changes according to an opponent's plays, as compared to a baseline goldfish match. There are three places you can interact with your opponent, beyond their life total -- the board, their hand, and the stack. Depending on the volume and intensity of a deck's cards that interact in those ways, it falls somewhere along a spectrum of "linearity". Yes, all decks interact in some way; they have to, by definition, otherwise the game would never end. But no, they do not interact equally. That's not a matter of bias for or against it, simply an observation of play patterns that follows both wide anecdotal evidence and even cursory analysis much less what KTK has proposed.
I think it's good to challenge current perception, and as an econ major back in the day I always enjoy adding game theory to a discussion.
I mean storm is very beatable, between burn, humans, jeskai flash, and grixis shadow. And those are just the tiered decks. The format is definitely evolving, and I like where it is now. The modern pro tour is looking more and more exciting. Not sure I love seeing three 8racks in the SCG top 8 though...stupid 8rack!
Several people have conceptualized the idea of "linearity" as it pertains to this discussion. One rough version would be that "linearity" is the degree to which a deck's play pattern changes according to an opponent's plays, as compared to a baseline goldfish match. There are three places you can interact with your opponent, beyond their life total -- the board, their hand, and the stack. Depending on the volume and intensity of a deck's cards that interact in those ways, it falls somewhere along a spectrum of "linearity". Yes, all decks interact in some way; they have to, by definition, otherwise the game would never end. But no, they do not interact equally. That's not a matter of bias for or against it, simply an observation of play patterns that follows both wide anecdotal evidence and even cursory analysis much less what KTK has proposed.
I really like this bolded bit (emphasis added) as an entry-point for talking about interactivity. Here's how I might expand on and quantify this, evaluating every card on the following dimensions (1 point for each).
Interacts with opponent's life total (attacking counts)
Interacts with your life total
Interacts with planeswalker loyality
Interacts with opposing creatures (combat/blocking)
Interacts with opposing creatures (abilities)
Interacts with your creatures (abilities)
Interacts with the stack
Interacts with opponent's hand
Interacts with your hand
Interacts with your deck
Interacts with your opponent's deck
Requires a choice (one point for each choice)
Interacts with your graveyard
Interacts with opponent's graveyard
Interacts with your non-creature permanents (one point for each permanent type)
Interacts with opponent's non-creature permanents (one point for each permanent type)
Interacts with opponent's exile zone
Interacts with your exile zone
Ability/spell "targets" (+1 point for each target available)
What am I missing here? I think this is an even better refinement to previous methods.
Wasteland Strangler would like to remind you that you can also interact with an opponent's exile zone, which is surprisingly relevant in some pairings.
Wasteland Strangler would like to remind you that you can also interact with an opponent's exile zone, which is surprisingly relevant in some pairings.
Added! That is definitely relevant. I'll also mention I'm not coding/scoring tutoring cards as this is an interactivity measure, not a linearity measure.
At least the last few pages has been fairly interesting. Linearity and interactivity tend to get thrown around in ways I never quite made sense to me. Sometimes it is pretty obvious, but other times it seems pretty murky and yet people toss these words around like it is an insult (usually an "interactive" deck / player looking down on a "linear" player). Admittedly I tend to gravitate towards combo based decks, but I remember a particular PPTQ match where a Jund player got very salty with me because my deck was the better discard deck that day (I was playing a combo / control type of deck). Was my deck more interactive? No. But it certainly wasn't as linear as other versions or how that particular player would characterize it a he scooped up his belongings.
Point being fairly linear decks can be incredibly complex to play and the only true non-interactive matches in MTG I've ever played are matches like Boggles vs Grishoalbrand. Those particular matches are the least "fun" for me personally and the only time where I've ever felt like it is a 2 ships passing in the night type of situation.
So, I had a pretty decent night with 5C Shadow at my FNM and played Storm. He made 11 Goblins on his turn 3 with me on the draw. I had staticaster in my opener so him going all in really backfired---but seriously, that deck is so broken and I can't wait until it's abused in the pro tour and eats a well deserved ban.
Last week I lost on my turn 2 to a game 1 grapeshot for over 20 damage, and game 3 he produced like 12 goblins on his turn 3 on the play. I was on Eldrazi and had a nut hand for turn 2 thought-knot and ratchet bomb which is the only reason I didn't lose on the spot. I whittled him down and he topdecked PIF to win that week.
Seriously, this deck is incredibly degenerate and I don't see how it survives in February, I'm seeing players of all skills levels do really broken things with the deck.
Yes, I absolutely crushed the Storm player tonight but witnessing this was absolutely insane, it's been consistent by different players.
Had I not had 3x discard game 1 I'm pretty sure the Storm player had the game on his turn 3.
So, I had a pretty decent night with 5C Shadow at my FNM and played Storm. He made 11 Goblins on his turn 3 with me on the draw. I had staticaster in my opener so him going all in really backfired---but seriously, that deck is so broken and I can't wait until it's abused in the pro tour and eats a well deserved ban.
Last week I lost on my turn 2 to a game 1 grapeshot for over 20 damage, and game 3 he produced like 12 goblins on his turn 3 on the play. I was on Eldrazi and had a nut hand for turn 2 thought-knot and ratchet bomb which is the only reason I didn't lose on the spot. I whittled him down and he topdecked PIF to win that week.
Seriously, this deck is incredibly degenerate and I don't see how it survives in February, I'm seeing players of all skills levels do really broken things with the deck.
Yes, I absolutely crushed the Storm player tonight but witnessing this was absolutely insane, it's been consistent by different players.
Had I not had 3x discard game 1 I'm pretty sure the Storm player had the game on his turn 3.
This post is a meme right? *Playing Death's Shadow* "I'm playing a 1 mana 10/10 but storm is a broken deck. Drew a single sideboard card so I won". *Cast turn 2 TKS* "Wow I'd have lost pretty hard if I didn't play a turn 2 4/4 with thoughtseize attached off double ancient tomb. Drew a sideboard card and still lost in a grindy game, that's pretty unfair".
Just recognize that you're doing powerful things also but you clearly prefer them to storm. You can't win every game, but that doesn't make a strategy bannable. Well, unless you're playing GDS versus storm, then you'll win every game.
So, I had a pretty decent night with 5C Shadow at my FNM and played Storm. He made 11 Goblins on his turn 3 with me on the draw. I had staticaster in my opener so him going all in really backfired---but seriously, that deck is so broken and I can't wait until it's abused in the pro tour and eats a well deserved ban.
Last week I lost on my turn 2 to a game 1 grapeshot for over 20 damage, and game 3 he produced like 12 goblins on his turn 3 on the play. I was on Eldrazi and had a nut hand for turn 2 thought-knot and ratchet bomb which is the only reason I didn't lose on the spot. I whittled him down and he topdecked PIF to win that week.
Seriously, this deck is incredibly degenerate and I don't see how it survives in February, I'm seeing players of all skills levels do really broken things with the deck.
Yes, I absolutely crushed the Storm player tonight but witnessing this was absolutely insane, it's been consistent by different players.
Had I not had 3x discard game 1 I'm pretty sure the Storm player had the game on his turn 3.
Hmmm I think that posts like this represent a step backwards in our conversation. We were just having a wonderful discussion about how to quantify one of the most debated concepts in this thread. This just seems like one of the usual kneejerk complaints to a bad, personal experience. Sure, I understand that we've also done some more rigorous digging with Storm and maybe this informs that digging, but I feel it's more of a frustrated vent than a constructive addition to our understanding of Modern. It's also framed very questionably. I've looked at about 250 Storm games now and have literally zero instances of a Turn 2 win, so it feels like this might further undermine the post's credibility.
Don't get me wrong: I generally agree with Ari Lax's article earlier today about how there are secretly a few best decks in Modern. GK and I have talked about this in the thread before (those secret best decks being ETron, GDS, and Storm). But I feel there are more constructive ways we can investigate that issue without just venting about a bad experience with an opposing deck. Goodness knows we've seen enough of that with people wanting SSG, Moon, Chalice, Leyline, Dispel, and other bizarre cards banned because of a bad experience they've had.
Sheridan, I'm seeing a lot of this in person and mtgo. It's true I definitely don't have your awesome data compilation, nor do I eloquently frame my posts like some of the regulars here (let's be honest here, I usually post in bullet format), but my gut checks about modern have been pretty spot on the past few years, a little off sometimes on the specific card that needs to be banned but a general good prediction. I've only been blind-sighted by the Twin ban. It did definitely take me some time before deciding on Shadow decks. I think the error margin on Shadow is ultimately what keeps the archetype safe in modern, since I really think it borders on being a legacy deck.
It's not a knee-jerk reaction, I've felt this way for a few months now, I think sometime around when Jessup lost to Kazu in the semi-finals of that Open. I actually have a very solid record against the deck but that's because of the nature of decks I play---but I'm still finding this deck problematic even when I beat it. I do want to make it clear it isn't really a vent, it's a problem deck I've come to identify.
I do think Ari Lax is correct about his article today, it's cool to have those wacky decks but the format will be a little exposed when people find these top decks (not that I mean anything negative when I say exposed).
I've always thought people complaining about SSG, Moon, Chalice, Leylines were silly and salty complains. I do think SSG could see a ban one day if a tier 1 deck can consistently break it. That time isn't here now nor does it even deserve a consideration right now.
So, I had a pretty decent night with 5C Shadow at my FNM and played Storm. He made 11 Goblins on his turn 3 with me on the draw. I had staticaster in my opener so him going all in really backfired---but seriously, that deck is so broken and I can't wait until it's abused in the pro tour and eats a well deserved ban.
Last week I lost on my turn 2 to a game 1 grapeshot for over 20 damage, and game 3 he produced like 12 goblins on his turn 3 on the play. I was on Eldrazi and had a nut hand for turn 2 thought-knot and ratchet bomb which is the only reason I didn't lose on the spot. I whittled him down and he topdecked PIF to win that week.
Seriously, this deck is incredibly degenerate and I don't see how it survives in February, I'm seeing players of all skills levels do really broken things with the deck.
Yes, I absolutely crushed the Storm player tonight but witnessing this was absolutely insane, it's been consistent by different players.
Had I not had 3x discard game 1 I'm pretty sure the Storm player had the game on his turn 3.
This post is a meme right? *Playing Death's Shadow* "I'm playing a 1 mana 10/10 but storm is a broken deck. Drew a single sideboard card so I won". *Cast turn 2 TKS* "Wow I'd have lost pretty hard if I didn't play a turn 2 4/4 with thoughtseize attached off double ancient tomb. Drew a sideboard card and still lost in a grindy game, that's pretty unfair".
Just recognize that you're doing powerful things also but you clearly prefer them to storm. You can't win every game, but that doesn't make a strategy bannable. Well, unless you're playing GDS versus storm, then you'll win every game.
Eldrazi does absolutely broken things sometimes. I was definitely surprised that a hand with turn 2 thought-knot that curved into smashers wasn't enough to win, since most decks fold to that broken sequencing.
GDS is still a fair deck, I mean, we've gotten to the point where it's really difficult to play fair in modern that a 1 mana 10/10 is what you need, along with Jeskai Geist. Abzan had a good showing during the triple GP weekend, but overall I think Abzan has been a lukewarm to sub-par deck this year. The only fair decks that have really yielded good results this year are Jeskai and Shadow decks.
I do find it outrageous that BBE is still a banned card in modern.
I think it is pretty clear modern is in one of its best places in its history right now. Even control decks are finally gaining traction with Opt and search for azcanta atm.
Thoughtseize is moderns version force of will it holds the format together, as far as I am concerned there should always be a tier 1 thoughtseize deck in modern. As long as not every deck is a thoughtseize deck we are good.
All of the secret best decks in modern have really clear weaknesses and ways to attack them, that at least this time are not too narrow. Deathshadow kills itself, eldrazi tron is all colourless (limited in answer cards), storm is accelerated by creatures, requires the graveyard most of the time and has to use most of its deck as part of its combo (limited in sideboard options). It is similar to the way affinity has been in modern its whole existance without ever taking a big ban hit. A good deck with boardly answered weaknesses.
@ktkenshinx, As I was using the definition of interaction as any interaction with a variable in the gamestate, there's quite a bit of variables possible for consideration. It seems like that might be what you're also looking at here, although some of them seem combined for me. For example, it is possible to interact with the variables "power of creature x", "toughness of creature x", "ability of creature x" individually, but you have them lumped into "Interacts with opposing creatures (abilities)" and "Interacts with your creatures (abilities)". The reason why I shied away from listing off all of the variables is exactly this dilemma - There's quite a few variables to consider.
It does bring up an interesting observation that I've had about some variables. It seems that when there is a variable that only one playar can effectively interact with, it creates an issue for the game. Two examples are infect damage and energy counters. While it's possible to interact with infect damage using Leeches or Melira, Sylvok Outcast, the mechanic was designed (according to WotC) to be different than a life total by their later refusal to print cards that allows for the removal of infect counters on players. The only other card that I can think of that allows a player to interact with either of these is Solemnity, but that still does not allow for removal, and only inhibits further interaction.
The reason that I find this relevant to the conversation is that, by the nature of design (in not printing enough cards for allowing both players to interact with these two variables), the branches on decision trees involving decks that focus on these variables are designed in such a way as to abuse a variable that the opponent cannot effectively have branches on its own decision tree to combat the manipulation of these variables.
EDIT: I should add that there is another mechanic that is very similar: hexproof. However, there are still ways to manipulate the existence of a creature on the battlefield when the creature has hexproof (mass board wipes). This mechanic does greatly reduce the number of branches available on many decision trees, however. True-Name Nemesis is a very extreme version of this mechanic
Of course, there are cards that equally prohibit the changing or the significance of some set of variables. Examples of these cards include Chalice of the Void, Blood Moon, and Ensnaring Bridge. We often see that decks can be built that use this "blanket effect" on both players, but they are built in such a way as to make that effect only significantly crippling for the opponent.
So, I had a pretty decent night with 5C Shadow at my FNM and played Storm. He made 11 Goblins on his turn 3 with me on the draw. I had staticaster in my opener so him going all in really backfired---but seriously, that deck is so broken and I can't wait until it's abused in the pro tour and eats a well deserved ban.
Last week I lost on my turn 2 to a game 1 grapeshot for over 20 damage, and game 3 he produced like 12 goblins on his turn 3 on the play. I was on Eldrazi and had a nut hand for turn 2 thought-knot and ratchet bomb which is the only reason I didn't lose on the spot. I whittled him down and he topdecked PIF to win that week.
Seriously, this deck is incredibly degenerate and I don't see how it survives in February, I'm seeing players of all skills levels do really broken things with the deck.
Yes, I absolutely crushed the Storm player tonight but witnessing this was absolutely insane, it's been consistent by different players.
Had I not had 3x discard game 1 I'm pretty sure the Storm player had the game on his turn 3.
Hmmm I think that posts like this represent a step backwards in our conversation. We were just having a wonderful discussion about how to quantify one of the most debated concepts in this thread. This just seems like one of the usual kneejerk complaints to a bad, personal experience. Sure, I understand that we've also done some more rigorous digging with Storm and maybe this informs that digging, but I feel it's more of a frustrated vent than a constructive addition to our understanding of Modern. It's also framed very questionably. I've looked at about 250 Storm games now and have literally zero instances of a Turn 2 win, so it feels like this might further undermine the post's credibility.
Don't get me wrong: I generally agree with Ari Lax's article earlier today about how there are secretly a few best decks in Modern. GK and I have talked about this in the thread before (those secret best decks being ETron, GDS, and Storm). But I feel there are more constructive ways we can investigate that issue without just venting about a bad experience with an opposing deck. Goodness knows we've seen enough of that with people wanting SSG, Moon, Chalice, Leyline, Dispel, and other bizarre cards banned because of a bad experience they've had.
He said he lost on HIS turn 2. Meaning the storm player was on turn 3. The turn 3 kill is a necessary 7 exact cards for the Storm player and no interaction from the opponent.
At this point in time, saying storm can't be adapted to is unreasonable. By comparison, during Eldrazi winter people tried to fight back with Moon and Lantern control and Bridge and still got crushed. Now storm is being pushed out by strategies that previously were not strong enough for a Tron modern - Jeskai, 8rack, Humans. These things crush Storm so comically that you begin to wonder how Storm is even Tier 1.
All it took was time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Storm has a critical role in the meta (I mean it wouldn't HAVE to be storm, but that's the deck doing it now). First, it is keeping in check ramp. Anyone who hates Tron or Valakut decks should be happy it exists to fight those two. Second, it falls prey to the old disruption + clock thing, so if you like jeskai flash and grixis shadow being around playing fair, one big reason is they do pretty well against storm.
Perhaps complaints about it being able to win even against bad matchups is more a reminder that the "it's all luck in getting the right matchups" negativity around modern is a bit misguided. Being a 2:1 dog means you still win sometimes...
Storm has a critical role in the meta (I mean it wouldn't HAVE to be storm, but that's the deck doing it now). First, it is keeping in check ramp. Anyone who hates Tron or Valakut decks should be happy it exists to fight those two. Second, it falls prey to the old disruption + clock thing, so if you like jeskai flash and grixis shadow being around playing fair, one big reason is they do pretty well against storm.
Perhaps complaints about it being able to win even against bad matchups is more a reminder that the "it's all luck in getting the right matchups" negativity around modern is a bit misguided. Being a 2:1 dog means you still win sometimes...
Yesssss you said it. Tron is gone from my LGS, I've never been happier. People have to actually play magic now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I feel that's a little insane but I'll leave it at that, your mind isn't going to change, I don't feel much need to argue why a deck like Storm isn't an interactive deck.
EDIT: Decision trees to retain significance? You mean the significance of decision making mattering in a board state of interacting---where your choice actually matters instead of simply drawing seven cards and losing by a predetermined variance on mulligan decisions?
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
By your theory boggles is interacting because it is trying to interact with a variable of the game state.
By preventing the opponent to be able to interact with Thier angle of interaction.
And what people on this forum mean by interaction is bolting your threat and thoughtseizing your hand.
Which to you is a self centered definition.
Jund does the same thing
Chess does the same thing.
I get where you are coming from.
I guess it's the scale and effectiveness to which it relates to the meta is what makes it frustrating to players when they have a removal deck and the opponent is on boggles. Or when someone is racing and the opponent is storming FTW.
However like I said before Thier is a fun variable in there. And I think it is what people confuse these definitions with.
In chess you can move as to limit your opponents options. But they can almost always get out of the situation with good playing. I'n magic this isn't always the case. As with a delver deck there is literally nothing you can do to beat Boggles Game 1, except hope they stumble.
And it's this difference that makes chess and mtg very different.
(bad analogy) Magic allows for players to bring a deck to play solitaire to a chess game and the poor chess player has to rely on sideboards to have a chance. This scenario happens in mtg.
And if everyone does this the game becomes more of deck choice and sideboarding than it is of skill.
Which chess does not do to that degree to the players.
Which then in turn effects the fun factor of the game.
And then people play decks to counter these unfun decks.
Which usually involves other minimally interactive and linearish decks. Which doesn't help the fun factor. And the cycle continues.
And this is why when you say storm is interactive and non linear you will cause uproar in not only this forum but pretty much anywhere.
Because most people like you like to simplify combo decks to them not caring at all about the other player or even the game state, I will simply what Magic was before the streamline of engine combo as a archetype. The was about figuring out Who's the beatdown whos the beat down. So in the simplest forms, it became all about who won the dice roll and who drew the best cards. Then came the first combo deck. A deck that didnt just feature synergistic cards, but a deck designed around 1 or 2 cards that ended the game when you had reached a certain requirement (amount of mana, storm count, etc). This changed the dynamic of the game and created the 3 cornerstone archtypes of magic: aggro, control, and combo.
It is because all three of these exist is what makes Magic so great. Just because you like beating down with creatures doesnt mean someone else likes it. Losing on turn 3 to a 20 copy grapeshot isnt fun, but that might just happen some times. The next day you might draw the perfect amount of discard in you opener to cripple the storm player so he never plays a card. However, in the majority of games where neither you or or opponent doesnt draw the nut draw, both of you will be playing around eachothers predicted lines of play, based on board state, life totals, or whatever it may be. You n=should play storm some time and see it is more than just playing solitare.
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
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!
Theories require assumptions. If your "solid game theory" lumps jund and storm together, then you either made false assumptions, or your end nodes are too inclusive. It'd be like trying to compare countries and saying "welp, all are on Earth so they are pretty much the same." Sure, in some context this theory is true, but you missed the entire point of the exercise when coming to that conclusion.
As some people have pointed out, it definitely is helpful for all of us to explore our core, personal reasons for liking or disliking a deck and knowing how or why we like to play magic. That axis (our "fun axis") is different for many of us, and our personal reason is not wrong or right. If we are personally aware of why we like or dislike magic, then we can engage with others more meaningfully. For example, if what makes me like magic is casting spells back and forth in a nice, mid-range, jund-like mirror, that is okay and fine. We should be aware of our intention, though. So then when we criticize a deck BECAUSE it doesn't do that, we can understand and express that thats just how we want to play magic. That is what is fun for us. And that is the sheer genius of the designers of MTG--appealing and creating a game that is malleable and accessible by a wide variety of individuals with different goals and aims. We get into trouble though when we expect someone who has a different goal or interest in magic to have our same goal, and criticize them for not being on the same page, instead of just understanding where they are coming from. E.G. I like to play spikey control mirrors, but my friend really enjoys casual, long 4 player commander where everyone is doing what they'd like in a very relaxed way--Neither of us are right or wrong, we have different definitions of what is fun, but we shouldn't try to force the other to agree with our way or change into our way.
What Thnkr I think is pointing out is the common complaint "it is not interactive" seems more just that we don't like to play magic in the way some of those decks play, not that they are truly non-interactive (because they interact pre-emptively or by controlling what we can and can't do, by adjusting what cards are played).
I've said it before, competitive magic is about going for the throat. There is no time or point to worrying about interacting with the opponents field or spells unless doing so actively furthers your board state. There aren't a lot of opportunities in modern where slowing the advancement of an opponents board is better than advancing ones own, and now with more etb creatures we've now gone to just advancing the board while coincidentally interacting with the opponent.
While combo decks like storm are by their nature not interactive, I can't say something like reflector mage or meddling mage is much better with how those ultimately function. Wotc can't print a spell strong enough to beat the value gained from some of these creatures, really.
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!
Several people have conceptualized the idea of "linearity" as it pertains to this discussion. One rough version would be that "linearity" is the degree to which a deck's play pattern changes according to an opponent's plays, as compared to a baseline goldfish match. There are three places you can interact with your opponent, beyond their life total -- the board, their hand, and the stack. Depending on the volume and intensity of a deck's cards that interact in those ways, it falls somewhere along a spectrum of "linearity". Yes, all decks interact in some way; they have to, by definition, otherwise the game would never end. But no, they do not interact equally. That's not a matter of bias for or against it, simply an observation of play patterns that follows both wide anecdotal evidence and even cursory analysis much less what KTK has proposed.
I mean storm is very beatable, between burn, humans, jeskai flash, and grixis shadow. And those are just the tiered decks. The format is definitely evolving, and I like where it is now. The modern pro tour is looking more and more exciting. Not sure I love seeing three 8racks in the SCG top 8 though...stupid 8rack!
I really like this bolded bit (emphasis added) as an entry-point for talking about interactivity. Here's how I might expand on and quantify this, evaluating every card on the following dimensions (1 point for each).
Added! That is definitely relevant. I'll also mention I'm not coding/scoring tutoring cards as this is an interactivity measure, not a linearity measure.
Point being fairly linear decks can be incredibly complex to play and the only true non-interactive matches in MTG I've ever played are matches like Boggles vs Grishoalbrand. Those particular matches are the least "fun" for me personally and the only time where I've ever felt like it is a 2 ships passing in the night type of situation.
Last week I lost on my turn 2 to a game 1 grapeshot for over 20 damage, and game 3 he produced like 12 goblins on his turn 3 on the play. I was on Eldrazi and had a nut hand for turn 2 thought-knot and ratchet bomb which is the only reason I didn't lose on the spot. I whittled him down and he topdecked PIF to win that week.
Seriously, this deck is incredibly degenerate and I don't see how it survives in February, I'm seeing players of all skills levels do really broken things with the deck.
Yes, I absolutely crushed the Storm player tonight but witnessing this was absolutely insane, it's been consistent by different players.
Had I not had 3x discard game 1 I'm pretty sure the Storm player had the game on his turn 3.
This post is a meme right? *Playing Death's Shadow* "I'm playing a 1 mana 10/10 but storm is a broken deck. Drew a single sideboard card so I won". *Cast turn 2 TKS* "Wow I'd have lost pretty hard if I didn't play a turn 2 4/4 with thoughtseize attached off double ancient tomb. Drew a sideboard card and still lost in a grindy game, that's pretty unfair".
Just recognize that you're doing powerful things also but you clearly prefer them to storm. You can't win every game, but that doesn't make a strategy bannable. Well, unless you're playing GDS versus storm, then you'll win every game.
Hmmm I think that posts like this represent a step backwards in our conversation. We were just having a wonderful discussion about how to quantify one of the most debated concepts in this thread. This just seems like one of the usual kneejerk complaints to a bad, personal experience. Sure, I understand that we've also done some more rigorous digging with Storm and maybe this informs that digging, but I feel it's more of a frustrated vent than a constructive addition to our understanding of Modern. It's also framed very questionably. I've looked at about 250 Storm games now and have literally zero instances of a Turn 2 win, so it feels like this might further undermine the post's credibility.
Don't get me wrong: I generally agree with Ari Lax's article earlier today about how there are secretly a few best decks in Modern. GK and I have talked about this in the thread before (those secret best decks being ETron, GDS, and Storm). But I feel there are more constructive ways we can investigate that issue without just venting about a bad experience with an opposing deck. Goodness knows we've seen enough of that with people wanting SSG, Moon, Chalice, Leyline, Dispel, and other bizarre cards banned because of a bad experience they've had.
It's not a knee-jerk reaction, I've felt this way for a few months now, I think sometime around when Jessup lost to Kazu in the semi-finals of that Open. I actually have a very solid record against the deck but that's because of the nature of decks I play---but I'm still finding this deck problematic even when I beat it. I do want to make it clear it isn't really a vent, it's a problem deck I've come to identify.
I do think Ari Lax is correct about his article today, it's cool to have those wacky decks but the format will be a little exposed when people find these top decks (not that I mean anything negative when I say exposed).
I've always thought people complaining about SSG, Moon, Chalice, Leylines were silly and salty complains. I do think SSG could see a ban one day if a tier 1 deck can consistently break it. That time isn't here now nor does it even deserve a consideration right now.
Eldrazi does absolutely broken things sometimes. I was definitely surprised that a hand with turn 2 thought-knot that curved into smashers wasn't enough to win, since most decks fold to that broken sequencing.
GDS is still a fair deck, I mean, we've gotten to the point where it's really difficult to play fair in modern that a 1 mana 10/10 is what you need, along with Jeskai Geist. Abzan had a good showing during the triple GP weekend, but overall I think Abzan has been a lukewarm to sub-par deck this year. The only fair decks that have really yielded good results this year are Jeskai and Shadow decks.
I do find it outrageous that BBE is still a banned card in modern.
Thoughtseize is moderns version force of will it holds the format together, as far as I am concerned there should always be a tier 1 thoughtseize deck in modern. As long as not every deck is a thoughtseize deck we are good.
All of the secret best decks in modern have really clear weaknesses and ways to attack them, that at least this time are not too narrow. Deathshadow kills itself, eldrazi tron is all colourless (limited in answer cards), storm is accelerated by creatures, requires the graveyard most of the time and has to use most of its deck as part of its combo (limited in sideboard options). It is similar to the way affinity has been in modern its whole existance without ever taking a big ban hit. A good deck with boardly answered weaknesses.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
It does bring up an interesting observation that I've had about some variables. It seems that when there is a variable that only one playar can effectively interact with, it creates an issue for the game. Two examples are infect damage and energy counters. While it's possible to interact with infect damage using Leeches or Melira, Sylvok Outcast, the mechanic was designed (according to WotC) to be different than a life total by their later refusal to print cards that allows for the removal of infect counters on players. The only other card that I can think of that allows a player to interact with either of these is Solemnity, but that still does not allow for removal, and only inhibits further interaction.
The reason that I find this relevant to the conversation is that, by the nature of design (in not printing enough cards for allowing both players to interact with these two variables), the branches on decision trees involving decks that focus on these variables are designed in such a way as to abuse a variable that the opponent cannot effectively have branches on its own decision tree to combat the manipulation of these variables.
EDIT: I should add that there is another mechanic that is very similar: hexproof. However, there are still ways to manipulate the existence of a creature on the battlefield when the creature has hexproof (mass board wipes). This mechanic does greatly reduce the number of branches available on many decision trees, however. True-Name Nemesis is a very extreme version of this mechanic
Of course, there are cards that equally prohibit the changing or the significance of some set of variables. Examples of these cards include Chalice of the Void, Blood Moon, and Ensnaring Bridge. We often see that decks can be built that use this "blanket effect" on both players, but they are built in such a way as to make that effect only significantly crippling for the opponent.
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
He said he lost on HIS turn 2. Meaning the storm player was on turn 3. The turn 3 kill is a necessary 7 exact cards for the Storm player and no interaction from the opponent.
At this point in time, saying storm can't be adapted to is unreasonable. By comparison, during Eldrazi winter people tried to fight back with Moon and Lantern control and Bridge and still got crushed. Now storm is being pushed out by strategies that previously were not strong enough for a Tron modern - Jeskai, 8rack, Humans. These things crush Storm so comically that you begin to wonder how Storm is even Tier 1.
All it took was time.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Perhaps complaints about it being able to win even against bad matchups is more a reminder that the "it's all luck in getting the right matchups" negativity around modern is a bit misguided. Being a 2:1 dog means you still win sometimes...
Yesssss you said it. Tron is gone from my LGS, I've never been happier. People have to actually play magic now.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR