[Official] State of Modern Thread (B&R 07/13/2020)

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1178
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
So you want a game with instant, and creatures, and activated abilities and nothing else.
That (and the rest of this post) is not at all what I said. Those effects are all fine, they're just not interaction, based on the definition of interaction as outlined in my previous post.

Aazadan
Posts: 547
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

TheAnnihilator wrote:
1 year ago
Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago

Does this apply to static abilities that require no further thought or input once on the board? Such as Chalice of the Void, Ensnaring Bridge, Stony Silence, Rest in Peace, or Blood Moon? Among others?

Edit: what about the slew of WAR planeswalkers with static text? Is T3feri interactive? Narset? Ashiok? Karn?
Cards that interact with your opponents resources in some way are well... interaction. Resources being life, mana, board state, and hand (or cards available from outside the hand).

By definition those cards are interacting with your opponent. Ideally however interaction should go back and forth with play and counter play. This incidentally, is why WotC favors creatures so heavily. Because all colors get creatures and creatures generally have options in combining blockers to kill something in a worst case scenario.

Note that in the examples you gave, not all decks can easily take out a Blood Moon. Planeswalkers are a little easier in that creatures directly interact with them opposed to say artifacts and enchantments.
A card that changes game rules in a blanket statement and prevents your opponent from playing is not interactive, it's preventative. Preventing opposing gameplay and responding to opposing gameplay are different things.

Stone Rain is interactive. Blood Moon Is not.

Counterspell is interactive, Chalice of the Void is not.

Disenchant is interactive, Stony Silence is not.

Fatal Push is interactive, Ensnaring Bridge is not.

I'm not saying prison cards are bad or should be banned, in fact I think that prison cards can be useful tools. That said, saying the above cards are not interactive is not hypocritical.
It's called being proactive rather than reactive. Being proactive is definitely interaction. Furthermore, answering it forces interaction from the opponent. With Blood Moon you're countering it, bouncing it, destroying it, or building a mana base and then fetching to ignore it.

Interaction doesn't come only from instants, nor should it.

User avatar
TheAnnihilator
Posts: 222
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: US
Contact:

Post by TheAnnihilator » 1 year ago

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
TheAnnihilator wrote:
1 year ago
Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago


Cards that interact with your opponents resources in some way are well... interaction. Resources being life, mana, board state, and hand (or cards available from outside the hand).

By definition those cards are interacting with your opponent. Ideally however interaction should go back and forth with play and counter play. This incidentally, is why WotC favors creatures so heavily. Because all colors get creatures and creatures generally have options in combining blockers to kill something in a worst case scenario.

Note that in the examples you gave, not all decks can easily take out a Blood Moon. Planeswalkers are a little easier in that creatures directly interact with them opposed to say artifacts and enchantments.
A card that changes game rules in a blanket statement and prevents your opponent from playing is not interactive, it's preventative. Preventing opposing gameplay and responding to opposing gameplay are different things.

Stone Rain is interactive. Blood Moon Is not.

Counterspell is interactive, Chalice of the Void is not.

Disenchant is interactive, Stony Silence is not.

Fatal Push is interactive, Ensnaring Bridge is not.

I'm not saying prison cards are bad or should be banned, in fact I think that prison cards can be useful tools. That said, saying the above cards are not interactive is not hypocritical.
It's called being proactive rather than reactive. Being proactive is definitely interaction. Furthermore, answering it forces interaction from the opponent. With Blood Moon you're countering it, bouncing it, destroying it, or building a mana base and then fetching to ignore it.

Interaction doesn't come only from instants, nor should it.
No, Thoughtseize is proactive interaction. Playing a proactive lock piece is not interaction, it's actually presenting a threat. Answering a lock piece is interaction, sure. The fact the threat is in play or on the stack preempts the answer. Nothing preempts a Chalice of the Void. You play it when it fits on your curve.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1178
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
TheAnnihilator wrote:
1 year ago
Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago


Cards that interact with your opponents resources in some way are well... interaction. Resources being life, mana, board state, and hand (or cards available from outside the hand).

By definition those cards are interacting with your opponent. Ideally however interaction should go back and forth with play and counter play. This incidentally, is why WotC favors creatures so heavily. Because all colors get creatures and creatures generally have options in combining blockers to kill something in a worst case scenario.

Note that in the examples you gave, not all decks can easily take out a Blood Moon. Planeswalkers are a little easier in that creatures directly interact with them opposed to say artifacts and enchantments.
A card that changes game rules in a blanket statement and prevents your opponent from playing is not interactive, it's preventative. Preventing opposing gameplay and responding to opposing gameplay are different things.

Stone Rain is interactive. Blood Moon Is not.

Counterspell is interactive, Chalice of the Void is not.

Disenchant is interactive, Stony Silence is not.

Fatal Push is interactive, Ensnaring Bridge is not.

I'm not saying prison cards are bad or should be banned, in fact I think that prison cards can be useful tools. That said, saying the above cards are not interactive is not hypocritical.
It's called being proactive rather than reactive. Being proactive is definitely interaction. Furthermore, answering it forces interaction from the opponent. With Blood Moon you're countering it, bouncing it, destroying it, or building a mana base and then fetching to ignore it.

Interaction doesn't come only from instants, nor should it.
For the third time, interaction has nothing to do with whether or not a card is an instant, and everything to do with whether you are taking an action to do something towards your opponent or their stuff. A card like Stony Silence is not interaction because you are never making a decision on which artifacts to shut off. It just happens. At no point do your decisions matter with regard to shutting off artifacts once it's in play. You are taking no further actions with it. So by definition, it cannot be "interaction."

Aazadan
Posts: 547
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
For the third time, interaction has nothing to do with whether or not a card is an instant, and everything to do with whether you are taking an action to do something towards your opponent or their stuff. A card like Stony Silence is not interaction because you are never making a decision on which artifacts to shut off. It just happens. At no point do your decisions matter with regard to shutting off artifacts once it's in play. You are taking no further actions with it. So by definition, it cannot be "interaction."
So you're saying that Null Rod and Collector Ouphe, and their widespread play in Legacy as a way to deal with artifact mana, is not interacting with what the opponent is trying to do? That Stony Silence is not a way of interacting with an opponent trying to combo with Thopter/Sword? That Leyline of the Void is not interacting with Dredge?

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1178
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
For the third time, interaction has nothing to do with whether or not a card is an instant, and everything to do with whether you are taking an action to do something towards your opponent or their stuff. A card like Stony Silence is not interaction because you are never making a decision on which artifacts to shut off. It just happens. At no point do your decisions matter with regard to shutting off artifacts once it's in play. You are taking no further actions with it. So by definition, it cannot be "interaction."
So you're saying that Null Rod and Collector Ouphe, and their widespread play in Legacy as a way to deal with artifact mana, is not interacting with what the opponent is trying to do? That Stony Silence is not a way of interacting with an opponent trying to combo with Thopter/Sword? That Leyline of the Void is not interacting with Dredge?
Again, we're just arguing the semantics of the word "interactive." A word which literally means "between" (inter) and "to act upon something" (action).

Yes, I am absolutely saying that those are not interaction. Using the best possible word would be prison or lock piece. Because it does not act upon anything, it prevents actions from happening.

If someone is running Null Rod or Ouphe or Stony, at no point are they acting once the spell resolves. And because they are not acting in between, it literally cannot be interaction. It's all semantics. But if you want to argue the spirit of it, just use a different word or phrase. If this seems petty or pedantic, it is. But as a teacher, the definitions and use of words are important to me.

"Stopping someone from doing something" could be interaction, but it doesn't have to be. Let's look at some examples:

1) I Thoughtseize you. I see a card I don't want to deal with it and make you discard it. I take the action of casting the card. And I take the action of selecting a card from your hand. This is interaction.

2) I cast Stony Silence on an empty board. I have taken the action of casting the card, but take no further actions with the card. It sits there. My opponent then casts Engineered Explosives, but cannot activate it. What action was taken between EE being cast and its ability being stopped? At which point did I act? This is not interaction.

User avatar
Ed06288
Posts: 169
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Ed06288 » 1 year ago

I guess prison cards aren't interaction but I don't really mind them. Usually decks like jund can pick apart cards like ensnaring bridge and chalice of the void. I like trying to find ways to break the lock. Sometimes you just lose on the spot though and you have to accept that.

People are saying there is a ban announcement around the corner. What day is that and what do we think is gonna happen?

th33l3x
Posts: 89
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by th33l3x » 1 year ago

Here is the problem with this argument: If you continue it ad infinitum, the conclusion is that basically everything except card draw, ramp, maybe life gain and a few other things rhat actually dont impact opp at all, are interactive.

Now lets be honest: this is absolutely not what people mean when they talk about "interactive magic", or at least not what most people mean.

As I understand it, interaction referrs more to a game pattern than specific effects. Cards that 1) smash face (see "two shipspassing in the night) or try winning in some other way (combo pieces/ramp/cantrips etc, as well as 2) cards that try to keep you alive with blanket permission statements are, imo, not what people generally mean with interaction. And a scientific/philosophical definition of the word seems nonsensical^^

Edit: I had a discussion with a Titan player about Aether Gust and Sanctuary, because he complained those 2 cards make it extremely hard for him to resolve a titan. This was my innitial argument:

"I have a question how you actually view Aether Gust vis a vis Mystic Sanctuary: Historically, Titan decks have just crushed control decks because you could transmute for Cavern of Souls (or just have it naturally), cast an uncounterable Titan and there was literally nothing opp could do. In principle, I think Aether Gust provides a valuable answer to impossible-to-answer plays. Gust is also a great answer to stuff like opp escaping an Uro, or a Wrenn approaching ult, or a resolved Blood Moon. I very much think modern is much better off with a card that can answer things like that. It's only a temporary answer, but an insanely flexible one.

I really think that the underlying problem with both Gust and Sanctuary, is them, kind of by chance, slotting perfectly into the best, and also most-played archetype in the format, UGx Control. Sanctuary just has tons of synergy with Astrolabe (which makes it easier to fetch for basics and turn on Sanctuary), Uro (which makes land drops and can draw you into the card you put back with sanctuary) etc.

Imagine for a second UGx wasn't a deck. Just didn't exist. No Uro, No Coatl, no Astrolabe. Would anybody even mention Mystic Sanctuary as a problematic card? I don't think so. It would still slot in a lot of blue decks (UR Delver, Esper, Grixis, UW Control), but it would be completely fine there.

I feel like people just aren't used to blue decks actually having a consistent game plan in modern^^ Everybody is fine with burn winning on T3-4 every game, GTron having 7 mana on turn 3 half their games, and on turn 4 virtually every time. And yes, also Titan decks casting turn 4 titan (although I admit that deck has a lot more going on than just ramping into Titan). Amulet Titan gets to cast their Titans 1-2 turns earlier with Castle Garenbrig and run a functional 8 copies (10 with Tolaria) of Titan. Why shouldn't a blue deck get a land that a puts spell on top of their library on turn 4 at the very earliest?

I guess everybody views it from their favourite deck's perspective, but imo you can't argue that Sanctuary is a fundamentally unfair card compared to what many other decks or individual cards in modern are doing."

thoughts?

User avatar
Ym1r
Posts: 153
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Ym1r » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Anything you are not making conscious and active decisions about is not interaction to me. Consciously putting in your deck, and casting Chalice of the Void *might* barely count as "interaction" as it is a choice you make in deck design, gameplay stages, and casting value. Once its in play though, it is no longer "interaction." You are not making any conscious decisions about whether or not to counter things. You are not acting or reacting. It is a static ability that sits there and continues to do its job with no further input. It is literally the opposite of "interaction," which is: "an action which is influenced by other actions."
I think a lot of problems in this particular discussion is that cfusionpm's definition is just too loose.
You are saying that anything you are not making conscious and actice decisions about it not interaction. However, this is just way too broad.
In a game of magic you are making conscious and active decisions all the time that also often don't have to do with how cards work. Your opponent tapping out and as a result you casting a draw spell is a conscious and active decision. Card draw (also according to your definition) is not interaction but, casted as a result of your opponent tapping out does qualify it.
Cards that exists in zones might or might not be "interactive" given their function in these zones but that also doesn't qualify the cards. A counterspell in hand with 2 mana up is "interactive" but a counterspell in the GY is not.
Casting a T3feri on T3 is an interactive actions, his static ability is non-interactive, but his -3 is. Even his +1 is if you hold mana to cast a sorcery at your opponents turn. So where does that leave us? Is it interactive or not? All of the things happened consciously and actively in relation to the actions of the opponent.

As such, I don't think the definition you presented in the first sentence works because it is just too broad. KtK has given definitions and measures of interaction in the past and I think it is a much more solid starting point than "if it is a consious and active decision in is interaction".
Counter, draw a card.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 592
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
2 Taxing your spells, creatures, attacks or abilities
...
7 Turning your creatures or abilities of walkers, enchantments off
Does this apply to static abilities that require no further thought or input once on the board? Such as Chalice of the Void, Ensnaring Bridge, Stony Silence, Rest in Peace, or Blood Moon? Among others?

Edit: what about the slew of WAR planeswalkers with static text? Is T3feri interactive? Narset? Ashiok? Karn?
Cards that interact with your opponents resources in some way are well... interaction. Resources being life, mana, board state, and hand (or cards available from outside the hand).

By definition those cards are interacting with your opponent. Ideally however interaction should go back and forth with play and counter play. This incidentally, is why WotC favors creatures so heavily. Because all colors get creatures and creatures generally have options in combining blockers to kill something in a worst case scenario.

Note that in the examples you gave, not all decks can easily take out a Blood Moon. Planeswalkers are a little easier in that creatures directly interact with them opposed to say artifacts and enchantments.
I am glad you see those static card as interaction. Your comments on Blood Moon are true, but worth noting that Modern players do not respect Blood Moon, and never have, right from the off. In the early days of Modern there were a lot of aggro decks with red base that could deal or function at 60 percent under one, and a lot of Vial decks, both could effectively ignore it. Other decks ran birds. Since then I have seen people fetch awfully- going for >2 colours T2 vs a t1 mountain, which is the equivalent of playing a slow grixis deck and leading with bolt to the face. Again, this just never happens in Legacy- every deck has access to Wasteland- you fetch the dual equivalent of 2 shocks, you keel over to Moon, 100 percent of players would say you deserved it (obviously that is not the case with the resolved t1 Moon, but that is not happening in Modern). Deck construction and play should be a bit more conservative in Modern, but people get used to "fetching what I need" rather than "fetching on what you could have", which sort of sums up Modern. Moon provides a decent answer to Amulet, especially when combined with Damping Sphere from the board. In an ideal world, if Modern had better selection, when people look like being on an Amulet deck, their opponent would be able to rustle up a Moon, and the Amulet play rustle up an answer. Modern being Modern, it gets reduced to "do you have X"/"Do you have answer to X" and a number of turns can elapse where one player does nothing whilst the game runs away, or on the other side they are destroyed in a couple of mins by the Amulet deck. Walkers are definitely easier to interact with in Modern.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 592
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
For the third time, interaction has nothing to do with whether or not a card is an instant, and everything to do with whether you are taking an action to do something towards your opponent or their stuff. A card like Stony Silence is not interaction because you are never making a decision on which artifacts to shut off. It just happens. At no point do your decisions matter with regard to shutting off artifacts once it's in play. You are taking no further actions with it. So by definition, it cannot be "interaction."
So you're saying that Null Rod and Collector Ouphe, and their widespread play in Legacy as a way to deal with artifact mana, is not interacting with what the opponent is trying to do? That Stony Silence is not a way of interacting with an opponent trying to combo with Thopter/Sword? That Leyline of the Void is not interacting with Dredge?
Again, we're just arguing the semantics of the word "interactive." A word which literally means "between" (inter) and "to act upon something" (action).

Yes, I am absolutely saying that those are not interaction. Using the best possible word would be prison or lock piece. Because it does not act upon anything, it prevents actions from happening.

If someone is running Null Rod or Ouphe or Stony, at no point are they acting once the spell resolves. And because they are not acting in between, it literally cannot be interaction. It's all semantics. But if you want to argue the spirit of it, just use a different word or phrase. If this seems petty or pedantic, it is. But as a teacher, the definitions and use of words are important to me.

"Stopping someone from doing something" could be interaction, but it doesn't have to be. Let's look at some examples:

1) I Thoughtseize you. I see a card I don't want to deal with it and make you discard it. I take the action of casting the card. And I take the action of selecting a card from your hand. This is interaction.

2) I cast Stony Silence on an empty board. I have taken the action of casting the card, but take no further actions with the card. It sits there. My opponent then casts Engineered Explosives, but cannot activate it. What action was taken between EE being cast and its ability being stopped? At which point did I act? This is not interaction.
Why is the opponent casting EE if they are not going to use it, unless they are planning to later? They clearly cast EE for a reason. Therefore it will become relevant, otherwise it is better to keep it in hand. If they are expecting it to become relevant, then at some point it will interact, by becoming activated.

User avatar
pierreb
Posts: 278
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Up North

Post by pierreb » 1 year ago

Seems this debates comes back from times to times.

Everyone has their own preferred definition of the word interaction and the debates mostly end-up between different interpretations of the word.

Still, that one can use a card name and the word interact in the same sentence is hardly a convincing argument of interaction. When I read that blood moon is interactive because the opponent needs to interact with it to remove it, we're getting in silly territory. Saying that a card interact with a game plan is not a very convincing argument that it is an interactive card.

If one would accept such extended definition of interaction, then every single card would be interactive. Meaning the word itself loses any usefulness in categorizing cards.

My feeling is that if you were to poll average MtG players, interaction would come down to a card affecting one or more cards or quantity when played [1] or when activated [2].

There is nothing wrong into believing that continuous effects are interacting with other cards. That's a correct sentence that describes what it does. You are strictly making perfect sense. It's just not a very useful definition.

[1] [2] I'm using the word play and activated very loosely and not according to their Mtg definitions. A card that has an effect when cycled is being "played" for example. A creature attacking is being "activated".

User avatar
TheAnnihilator
Posts: 222
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: US
Contact:

Post by TheAnnihilator » 1 year ago

Ym1r wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Anything you are not making conscious and active decisions about is not interaction to me. Consciously putting in your deck, and casting Chalice of the Void *might* barely count as "interaction" as it is a choice you make in deck design, gameplay stages, and casting value. Once its in play though, it is no longer "interaction." You are not making any conscious decisions about whether or not to counter things. You are not acting or reacting. It is a static ability that sits there and continues to do its job with no further input. It is literally the opposite of "interaction," which is: "an action which is influenced by other actions."
I think a lot of problems in this particular discussion is that cfusionpm's definition is just too loose.
You are saying that anything you are not making conscious and actice decisions about it not interaction. However, this is just way too broad.
In a game of magic you are making conscious and active decisions all the time that also often don't have to do with how cards work. Your opponent tapping out and as a result you casting a draw spell is a conscious and active decision. Card draw (also according to your definition) is not interaction but, casted as a result of your opponent tapping out does qualify it.
Cards that exists in zones might or might not be "interactive" given their function in these zones but that also doesn't qualify the cards. A counterspell in hand with 2 mana up is "interactive" but a counterspell in the GY is not.
Casting a T3feri on T3 is an interactive actions, his static ability is non-interactive, but his -3 is. Even his +1 is if you hold mana to cast a sorcery at your opponents turn. So where does that leave us? Is it interactive or not? All of the things happened consciously and actively in relation to the actions of the opponent.

As such, I don't think the definition you presented in the first sentence works because it is just too broad. KtK has given definitions and measures of interaction in the past and I think it is a much more solid starting point than "if it is a consious and active decision in is interaction".
I see where you're coming from, as there are a lot of cards that skirt the line, but I have to disagree that interaction is defined by conscious decision. Like you said, literally any card, including a land, can require conscious decision to play. The Storm player makes many conscious decisions in their kill turn, but that's hardly interactive imo. I would agree with you, draw spells are strictly NOT interactive. That's why you favor interacting with the opponent over casting draw spells, generally, or you essentially lose to tempo loss. I think T3f is a case of function. His -3 is interaction if it targets an opponent's permanent, and not interactive otherwise (just to draw, targeting your astrolabe, etc.). His static is certainly the antithesis of interaction, as most people would likely agree.

Just because a card has an effect on cards in play or yet to be in play does not mean it is an inherently interactive card. All cards have some sort of effect — a Goyf represents a clock, a Goblin Electromancer theeatens a combo, a Sphere of safety discourages attacks, and a RiP nukes graveyards. This quality is the definition of a threat — a card that has a relevant effect on the game (and generally requires an answer). Of course, the level of the threat is variable, since even a simple Bolt can be threatening if you're at 3 life.

Like CFP said, the defining characteristic of cards that are interactive is that they are counterplay themselves (i.e. reactionary, either preemptively or responsively) and promote further gameplay. An Ensnaring Bridge does not promote gameplay. It, rather, requires an answer or otherwise give the controller a huge advantage. It is very essentially a threat.
Last edited by TheAnnihilator 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 2121
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 1 year ago

TheAnnihilator wrote:
1 year ago
A card that changes game rules in a blanket statement and prevents your opponent from playing is not interactive, it's preventative. Preventing opposing gameplay and responding to opposing gameplay are different things.

Stone Rain is interactive. Blood Moon Is not.

Counterspell is interactive, Chalice of the Void is not.

Disenchant is interactive, Stony Silence is not.

Fatal Push is interactive, Ensnaring Bridge is not.


I'm not saying prison cards are bad or should be banned, in fact I think that prison cards can be useful tools. That said, saying the above cards are not interactive is not hypocritical.
bolded part.

that is what I believe in as well. Fighting on the stack.. trying to bolt or path an infect creature,. while an opponent respond with blossom or vine to save it, it's interaction. If I simply lay down a blood moon on ponza, it's not interactive.

anyway, I don't hate prison cards. One of my favorite modern decks, Ponza, has moon in the main. A friend also use three main deck chalice in his Eldrazi Tron.
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // OE 2016 // POF 2018
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

User avatar
TheAnnihilator
Posts: 222
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: US
Contact:

Post by TheAnnihilator » 1 year ago

th33l3x wrote:
1 year ago
Endless Verbal Blurb
Show
Here is the problem with this argument: If you continue it ad infinitum, the conclusion is that basically everything except card draw, ramp, maybe life gain and a few other things rhat actually dont impact opp at all, are interactive.

Now lets be honest: this is absolutely not what people mean when they talk about "interactive magic", or at least not what most people mean.

As I understand it, interaction referrs more to a game pattern than specific effects. Cards that 1) smash face (see "two shipspassing in the night) or try winning in some other way (combo pieces/ramp/cantrips etc, as well as 2) cards that try to keep you alive with blanket permission statements are, imo, not what people generally mean with interaction. And a scientific/philosophical definition of the word seems nonsensical^^

Edit: I had a discussion with a Titan player about Aether Gust and Sanctuary, because he complained those 2 cards make it extremely hard for him to resolve a titan. This was my innitial argument:

"I have a question how you actually view Aether Gust vis a vis Mystic Sanctuary: Historically, Titan decks have just crushed control decks because you could transmute for Cavern of Souls (or just have it naturally), cast an uncounterable Titan and there was literally nothing opp could do. In principle, I think Aether Gust provides a valuable answer to impossible-to-answer plays. Gust is also a great answer to stuff like opp escaping an Uro, or a Wrenn approaching ult, or a resolved Blood Moon. I very much think modern is much better off with a card that can answer things like that. It's only a temporary answer, but an insanely flexible one.

I really think that the underlying problem with both Gust and Sanctuary, is them, kind of by chance, slotting perfectly into the best, and also most-played archetype in the format, UGx Control. Sanctuary just has tons of synergy with Astrolabe (which makes it easier to fetch for basics and turn on Sanctuary), Uro (which makes land drops and can draw you into the card you put back with sanctuary) etc.

Imagine for a second UGx wasn't a deck. Just didn't exist. No Uro, No Coatl, no Astrolabe. Would anybody even mention Mystic Sanctuary as a problematic card? I don't think so. It would still slot in a lot of blue decks (UR Delver, Esper, Grixis, UW Control), but it would be completely fine there.

I feel like people just aren't used to blue decks actually having a consistent game plan in modern^^ Everybody is fine with burn winning on T3-4 every game, GTron having 7 mana on turn 3 half their games, and on turn 4 virtually every time. And yes, also Titan decks casting turn 4 titan (although I admit that deck has a lot more going on than just ramping into Titan). Amulet Titan gets to cast their Titans 1-2 turns earlier with Castle Garenbrig and run a functional 8 copies (10 with Tolaria) of Titan. Why shouldn't a blue deck get a land that a puts spell on top of their library on turn 4 at the very earliest?

I guess everybody views it from their favourite deck's perspective, but imo you can't argue that Sanctuary is a fundamentally unfair card compared to what many other decks or individual cards in modern are doing."

thoughts?
As a blue player myself, I have the subtle feeling that Santuary is too good. Even without Labe, and even in the case that Coatl never existed, it's not too difficult to manage to draw a single card cheaply. Opt and Serum Visions have seen play before without Sanctuary, for example.

As for the Cavern vs. Gust arguement, after playing both sides, I understand both sides exactly. Amulet Titan players are imo disadvantaged against UWx control, and previously the match relied solely on Cavern to be winnable, given that the Control player played optimally. Now with Gust, the matchup is unbelievably bad. However, as a control player as well, I hate that either Gust or Cavern have to exist in the first place. But Titan would have been historically unfavorable vs control had the mistake of Cavern never been made, so I think that Gust just flips the matchup the way it should have been. It does suck tho, as I now play mainly Amulet. ':/
Last edited by TheAnnihilator 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1178
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago


So you're saying that Null Rod and Collector Ouphe, and their widespread play in Legacy as a way to deal with artifact mana, is not interacting with what the opponent is trying to do? That Stony Silence is not a way of interacting with an opponent trying to combo with Thopter/Sword? That Leyline of the Void is not interacting with Dredge?
Again, we're just arguing the semantics of the word "interactive." A word which literally means "between" (inter) and "to act upon something" (action).

Yes, I am absolutely saying that those are not interaction. Using the best possible word would be prison or lock piece. Because it does not act upon anything, it prevents actions from happening.

If someone is running Null Rod or Ouphe or Stony, at no point are they acting once the spell resolves. And because they are not acting in between, it literally cannot be interaction. It's all semantics. But if you want to argue the spirit of it, just use a different word or phrase. If this seems petty or pedantic, it is. But as a teacher, the definitions and use of words are important to me.

"Stopping someone from doing something" could be interaction, but it doesn't have to be. Let's look at some examples:

1) I Thoughtseize you. I see a card I don't want to deal with it and make you discard it. I take the action of casting the card. And I take the action of selecting a card from your hand. This is interaction.

2) I cast Stony Silence on an empty board. I have taken the action of casting the card, but take no further actions with the card. It sits there. My opponent then casts Engineered Explosives, but cannot activate it. What action was taken between EE being cast and its ability being stopped? At which point did I act? This is not interaction.
Why is the opponent casting EE if they are not going to use it, unless they are planning to later? They clearly cast EE for a reason. Therefore it will become relevant, otherwise it is better to keep it in hand. If they are expecting it to become relevant, then at some point it will interact, by becoming activated.
Why is that in any way relevant to whether or not Stony is interaction? What action is being taken to shut off the EE?

Edit: to avoid getting caught up in specifics, let's assume that they want to cycle a 0 cost artifact, or perhaps simply benefit from having artifacts in play. Or maybe they cast an Astrolabe for the card. What the artifact does is irrelevant. Stony is not interacting because it's controller is not taking any action to turn off these artifacts.

In another perspective: if you play Chalice of the Void, at what point do you choose to put the counter-that-spell trigger on the stack?

The difference between interaction and not interaction depends entirely on conscious decisions and actions you take in response to, or in acknowledgement of the opponent. If an effect does not require further input or decisions or actions, then it is not interaction. Or at least that element (like static text on PWs) is not interaction.

And because my mind simply can't let this go, let's look at one more example. This time a hypothetical extreme. We'll compare Chalice of the Void to a fictional version of Glen Elendra Archmage in which her activated ability is instead of , and she has Solemnity, or some similar effect to re-use her effect infinitely.

Special Glen counters everything within its restriction (non-creature), and can do so infinitely. Every time a non-creature spell is put in the stack, I actively choose to pay and activate her ability to counter the spell. I am acting and choosing. I have agency to decide which spells I counter and which I do not. I am interacting with my opponent.

Chalice counters everything within its restriction (CMC), and can do so infinitely. What's different is that, rather than having a choice, every CMC spell that is put in the stack is automatically countered without further input on my end. I do not choose to counter it (or not), it simply happens. It is autonomous and requires no further decisions or actions. I am not interacting with my opponent.

So there's a simple question to decide if something is interaction: If I "F6" and walk away from the table, will its effect still happen? If yes, that effect is not interaction.

I've repeated this about half a dozen times now, so I can only assume people are either not reading what I say, or simply refuse to accept the dictionary definition of the word interaction. Either way, have at it. This is a silly and fun academic discussion to kill time before tomorrow's B&R, but ultimately accomplishes nothing. ✌️

Aazadan
Posts: 547
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

Ed06288 wrote:
1 year ago
I guess prison cards aren't interaction but I don't really mind them. Usually decks like jund can pick apart cards like ensnaring bridge and chalice of the void. I like trying to find ways to break the lock. Sometimes you just lose on the spot though and you have to accept that.

People are saying there is a ban announcement around the corner. What day is that and what do we think is gonna happen?
It's always on Monday. Uro and/or Astrolabe most likely. I'm hoping for Astrolabe over Uro.

Aazadan
Posts: 547
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

pierreb wrote:
1 year ago
When I read that blood moon is interactive because the opponent needs to interact with it to remove it, we're getting in silly territory.
I disagree, and here's why. You don't interact with Blood Moon by removing it. Certainly you can, but the best way to beat the card is to make it not matter. The threat of Blood Moon weighed against the color requirements in your hand mean that from T1 (especially in sideboard games if the opponent is unknown) you can interact with it by playing around it. Playing around things so that they don't matter is just as much a form of interaction as a counterspell.

Stony Silence is less interactive, as there's not really any playing around it. Either you're an artifact deck that it hoses or you're not. Most decks however do have options to stop or mitigate Blood Moon, if the player chooses to take those actions outside of simply countering or destroying it.

But even in the case of Stony Silence it's not somehow less interactive than an instant that takes out the artifact. It's just very mana efficient at stopping multiple artifacts. Think about Stony Silence vs Ancient Grudge. Which leads to more back and forth gameplay? Grudge takes out the artifact and then it's gone. Stony SIlence stops them, but can itself be removed, bringing the artifacts back into mattering, and then the protection of Stony Silence or attempting to find another to recast leads to a further back and forth of the relevant board state.
The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
that is what I believe in as well. Fighting on the stack.. trying to bolt or path an infect creature,. while an opponent respond with blossom or vine to save it, it's interaction. If I simply lay down a blood moon on ponza, it's not interactive.
Creatures are themselves interactive though, because before you even get to the situation where the pump/protection spell matters, you've already ceded that they were able to attack or block freely. And your own attacks to speed up your clock, vs keeping back defenders for the opponent swinging is just as much interacting in preventing getting poison counters and thus losing as that Lightning Bolt is.

User avatar
TheAnnihilator
Posts: 222
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: US
Contact:

Post by TheAnnihilator » 1 year ago

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
pierreb wrote:
1 year ago
When I read that blood moon is interactive because the opponent needs to interact with it to remove it, we're getting in silly territory.
I disagree, and here's why. You don't interact with Blood Moon by removing it. Certainly you can, but the best way to beat the card is to make it not matter. The threat of Blood Moon weighed against the color requirements in your hand mean that from T1 (especially in sideboard games if the opponent is unknown) you can interact with it by playing around it. Playing around things so that they don't matter is just as much a form of interaction as a counterspell.

Stony Silence is less interactive, as there's not really any playing around it. Either you're an artifact deck that it hoses or you're not. Most decks however do have options to stop or mitigate Blood Moon, if the player chooses to take those actions outside of simply countering or destroying it.
I don't like this take. In the Blood Moon example, the person doing the game playing is still only the opponent, as they have to change their game actions to lessen the threat of the Moon. This isn't interaction, imo, this is just playing to your outs. Is playing a nonartifact deck to dodge Stony Silence "interaction"? I highly doubt it.
But even in the case of Stony Silence it's not somehow less interactive than an instant that takes out the artifact. It's just very mana efficient at stopping multiple artifacts. Think about Stony Silence vs Ancient Grudge. Which leads to more back and forth gameplay? Grudge takes out the artifact and then it's gone. Stony SIlence stops them, but can itself be removed, bringing the artifacts back into mattering, and then the protection of Stony Silence or attempting to find another to recast leads to a further back and forth of the relevant board state.
Grudge absolutely is more back and forth gameplay, as it leaves the door open for more artifacts to come down and continue to influence the game. Stony only serves to shut down gameplay, specifically artifacts. Furthermore, there are artifacts that you probably wouldn't even target with Grudge, like an Astrolabe for example. Stony leaves no such decision, because it isn't really interactive — it's a prison card.
The Fluff wrote:
1 year ago
that is what I believe in as well. Fighting on the stack.. trying to bolt or path an infect creature,. while an opponent respond with blossom or vine to save it, it's interaction. If I simply lay down a blood moon on ponza, it's not interactive.
Creatures are themselves interactive though, because before you even get to the situation where the pump/protection spell matters, you've already ceded that they were able to attack or block freely. And your own attacks to speed up your clock, vs keeping back defenders for the opponent swinging is just as much interacting in preventing getting poison counters and thus losing as that Lightning Bolt is.
Creatures are generally nothing more than threats, except for cases like Kitesail Freebooter, Glen Elendra Archmage, Reflector Mage, etc. speeding up you clock does not require an opp. You can clock a goldfish and nothing changes. I will concede that blocking in combat is interaction, but only if your opponent plays creatures as well of course.

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 592
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago

Again, we're just arguing the semantics of the word "interactive." A word which literally means "between" (inter) and "to act upon something" (action).

Yes, I am absolutely saying that those are not interaction. Using the best possible word would be prison or lock piece. Because it does not act upon anything, it prevents actions from happening.

If someone is running Null Rod or Ouphe or Stony, at no point are they acting once the spell resolves. And because they are not acting in between, it literally cannot be interaction. It's all semantics. But if you want to argue the spirit of it, just use a different word or phrase. If this seems petty or pedantic, it is. But as a teacher, the definitions and use of words are important to me.

"Stopping someone from doing something" could be interaction, but it doesn't have to be. Let's look at some examples:

1) I Thoughtseize you. I see a card I don't want to deal with it and make you discard it. I take the action of casting the card. And I take the action of selecting a card from your hand. This is interaction.

2) I cast Stony Silence on an empty board. I have taken the action of casting the card, but take no further actions with the card. It sits there. My opponent then casts Engineered Explosives, but cannot activate it. What action was taken between EE being cast and its ability being stopped? At which point did I act? This is not interaction.
Why is the opponent casting EE if they are not going to use it, unless they are planning to later? They clearly cast EE for a reason. Therefore it will become relevant, otherwise it is better to keep it in hand. If they are expecting it to become relevant, then at some point it will interact, by becoming activated.
Why is that in any way relevant to whether or not Stony is interaction? What action is being taken to shut off the EE?

Edit: to avoid getting caught up in specifics, let's assume that they want to cycle a 0 cost artifact, or perhaps simply benefit from having artifacts in play. Or maybe they cast an Astrolabe for the card. What the artifact does is irrelevant. Stony is not interacting because it's controller is not taking any action to turn off these artifacts.

In another perspective: if you play Chalice of the Void, at what point do you choose to put the counter-that-spell trigger on the stack?

The difference between interaction and not interaction depends entirely on conscious decisions and actions you take in response to, or in acknowledgement of the opponent. If an effect does not require further input or decisions or actions, then it is not interaction. Or at least that element (like static text on PWs) is not interaction.

And because my mind simply can't let this go, let's look at one more example. This time a hypothetical extreme. We'll compare Chalice of the Void to a fictional version of Glen Elendra Archmage in which her activated ability is instead of , and she has Solemnity, or some similar effect to re-use her effect infinitely.

Special Glen counters everything within its restriction (non-creature), and can do so infinitely. Every time a non-creature spell is put in the stack, I actively choose to pay and activate her ability to counter the spell. I am acting and choosing. I have agency to decide which spells I counter and which I do not. I am interacting with my opponent.

Chalice counters everything within its restriction (CMC), and can do so infinitely. What's different is that, rather than having a choice, every CMC spell that is put in the stack is automatically countered without further input on my end. I do not choose to counter it (or not), it simply happens. It is autonomous and requires no further decisions or actions. I am not interacting with my opponent.

So there's a simple question to decide if something is interaction: If I "F6" and walk away from the table, will its effect still happen? If yes, that effect is not interaction.

I've repeated this about half a dozen times now, so I can only assume people are either not reading what I say, or simply refuse to accept the dictionary definition of the word interaction. Either way, have at it. This is a silly and fun academic discussion to kill time before tomorrow's B&R, but ultimately accomplishes nothing. ✌️
You see interaction as between players.
It is not. It is between pieces on the board or on the stack.
A blood moon interacts continually with a non basic, the chalice with the spell, the stony silence with the EE.
Oh, and as you should know Chalice does NOT automatically counter at REL comp. The opponent plays into it and the controller needs to remember to trigger or the spell is cast, and the owner of the chalice can chose to forget, if it is to their advantage (but not for their own spells, which will rapidly get them to a DQ).

Your definition, is, like all of your posts, seen through the eyes of the game you want to play- R/U twin, on the stack, with no hate cards for your combo. "pithing needle= bad mtg, Twin= fair and reasonable".

User avatar
drmarkb
Posts: 592
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by drmarkb » 1 year ago

Aazadan wrote:
1 year ago
Ed06288 wrote:
1 year ago
I guess prison cards aren't interaction but I don't really mind them. Usually decks like jund can pick apart cards like ensnaring bridge and chalice of the void. I like trying to find ways to break the lock. Sometimes you just lose on the spot though and you have to accept that.

People are saying there is a ban announcement around the corner. What day is that and what do we think is gonna happen?
It's always on Monday. Uro and/or Astrolabe most likely. I'm hoping for Astrolabe over Uro.
I am hoping for Uro- but I am selfish- I want some for Legacy, and don't want to pay the current price. In terms of game play it does not matter to me, I don't think Modern needs a ban- it needs to have a mission statement so that we don't all sit here wanting to play such vastly different MTG.
I want people who put their entire decks full of artifacts to die to Stony Silence. Someone else wants to play Pod. Someone else Twin. Someone else never wants them to darken their door. Someone wants to end the UG menace. Someone else ban Tron. Someone else wants Modern to be more like Pioneer, someone else Legacy. Bans, at this point won't help. Nor unbans. A vision is needed.

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1178
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago
cfusionpm wrote:
1 year ago
drmarkb wrote:
1 year ago


Why is the opponent casting EE if they are not going to use it, unless they are planning to later? They clearly cast EE for a reason. Therefore it will become relevant, otherwise it is better to keep it in hand. If they are expecting it to become relevant, then at some point it will interact, by becoming activated.
Why is that in any way relevant to whether or not Stony is interaction? What action is being taken to shut off the EE?

Edit: to avoid getting caught up in specifics, let's assume that they want to cycle a 0 cost artifact, or perhaps simply benefit from having artifacts in play. Or maybe they cast an Astrolabe for the card. What the artifact does is irrelevant. Stony is not interacting because it's controller is not taking any action to turn off these artifacts.

In another perspective: if you play Chalice of the Void, at what point do you choose to put the counter-that-spell trigger on the stack?

The difference between interaction and not interaction depends entirely on conscious decisions and actions you take in response to, or in acknowledgement of the opponent. If an effect does not require further input or decisions or actions, then it is not interaction. Or at least that element (like static text on PWs) is not interaction.

And because my mind simply can't let this go, let's look at one more example. This time a hypothetical extreme. We'll compare Chalice of the Void to a fictional version of Glen Elendra Archmage in which her activated ability is instead of , and she has Solemnity, or some similar effect to re-use her effect infinitely.

Special Glen counters everything within its restriction (non-creature), and can do so infinitely. Every time a non-creature spell is put in the stack, I actively choose to pay and activate her ability to counter the spell. I am acting and choosing. I have agency to decide which spells I counter and which I do not. I am interacting with my opponent.

Chalice counters everything within its restriction (CMC), and can do so infinitely. What's different is that, rather than having a choice, every CMC spell that is put in the stack is automatically countered without further input on my end. I do not choose to counter it (or not), it simply happens. It is autonomous and requires no further decisions or actions. I am not interacting with my opponent.

So there's a simple question to decide if something is interaction: If I "F6" and walk away from the table, will its effect still happen? If yes, that effect is not interaction.

I've repeated this about half a dozen times now, so I can only assume people are either not reading what I say, or simply refuse to accept the dictionary definition of the word interaction. Either way, have at it. This is a silly and fun academic discussion to kill time before tomorrow's B&R, but ultimately accomplishes nothing. ✌️
You see interaction as between players.
It is not. It is between pieces on the board or on the stack.
A blood moon interacts continually with a non basic, the chalice with the spell, the stony silence with the EE.
Oh, and as you should know Chalice does NOT automatically counter at REL comp. The opponent plays into it and the controller needs to remember to trigger or the spell is cast, and the owner of the chalice can chose to forget, if it is to their advantage (but not for their own spells, which will rapidly get them to a DQ).

Your definition, is, like all of your posts, seen through the eyes of the game you want to play- R/U twin, on the stack, with no hate cards for your combo. "pithing needle= bad mtg, Twin= fair and reasonable".
You seem to function on the assumption that passively preventing an action is the same as taking an action. I do not. And I do not feel any further productive discussion around this topic can continue unless that difference is reconciled. I based my definition on the literal dictionary definition of interaction, and have yet to be shown any convincing reason to believe otherwise.

You are also falsely, and repeatedly conflating "not interaction" with "bad" and either misunderstanding or misrepresenting my point. I will not be replying further on this topic, other than to refer people to my numerous previous posts.
Last edited by cfusionpm 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

Aazadan
Posts: 547
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 1 year ago

TheAnnihilator wrote:
1 year ago
I don't like this take. In the Blood Moon example, the person doing the game playing is still only the opponent, as they have to change their game actions to lessen the threat of the Moon. This isn't interaction, imo, this is just playing to your outs. Is playing a nonartifact deck to dodge Stony Silence "interaction"? I highly doubt it.
Which is acknowledging your opponent and playing a game in such a way to minimize their cards, that very much is interaction. You make choices to reduce their ability to play the game they want to play. Just as they make those choices to use Blood Moon to stop you from playing the game you want to play. Not all prison is interactive, but Blood Moon certainly is.
Grudge absolutely is more back and forth gameplay, as it leaves the door open for more artifacts to come down and continue to influence the game. Stony only serves to shut down gameplay, specifically artifacts. Furthermore, there are artifacts that you probably wouldn't even target with Grudge, like an Astrolabe for example. Stony leaves no such decision, because it isn't really interactive — it's a prison card.
Grudge clears the board. Removal is interactive sure, but once something is gone, it's gone. It's not like say Stony Silence where things can be effectively removed but then brought back. Think to a clogged board state with creatures, when neither player can make an attack that progresses their game plan, the board state is effectively removed for the time being. Once a removal spell, combat trick, or so on changes that, all of those cards again become relevant.
Creatures are generally nothing more than threats, except for cases like Kitesail Freebooter, Glen Elendra Archmage, Reflector Mage, etc. speeding up you clock does not require an opp. You can clock a goldfish and nothing changes. I will concede that blocking in combat is interaction, but only if your opponent plays creatures as well of course.
Threats are interactive though if there's a way to actually interact with them. Very few creatures are not interactive. Which again, is why WotC pushes them so hard. Since every color gets creatures, all colors can interact. It's essentially an admission of theirs that the color pie as originally designed is unsustainable with artifacts, enchantments, and so on. WAR PW's are enchantments that all colors can answer. All colors can deal with creatures. Creature+effect is within all colors pie to deal with in some way.

User avatar
FoodChainGoblins
Level 47
Posts: 862
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Riverside

Post by FoodChainGoblins » 1 year ago

I hope that we can agree that there is some gray area whereas interaction is concerned. There is stack interaction, with Instants or even Sorceries to prevent the opponent from doing something or stop them from stopping YOU from doing something Then there is preemptive interaction like Chalice of the Void or Blood Moon, things done to make it harder for your opponent to "do what they want to do."
Standard - Will pick up what's good when paper starts
Pre Modern - Do not own anymore
Pioneer - DEAD
Modern - Amulet Titan, Elementals, Trollementals, BR Asmo/Goryo's, Yawmoth Chord
Legacy - No more cards, will rebuy Sneak Show when I can
Limited - Will start when paper starts
Commander - Nope

User avatar
cfusionpm
With that on the stack...
Posts: 1178
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Post by cfusionpm » 1 year ago

FoodChainGoblins wrote:
1 year ago
I hope that we can agree that there is some gray area whereas interaction is concerned. There is stack interaction, with Instants or even Sorceries to prevent the opponent from doing something or stop them from stopping YOU from doing something Then there is preemptive interaction like Chalice of the Void or Blood Moon, things done to make it harder for your opponent to "do what they want to do."
To put is as succinctly as possible: Shutting a door in front of someone is interaction. Locking a door and walking away is not.

That's not at all to say that it's not a completely valid thing you can do. It's just not interaction. It's specifically a lack of interaction.

Either way I will be happy to not have to discuss this any further after 8am tomorrow morning. :party: I know Twin isn't getting unbanned, because WOTC just simply hates the card, but I will be doing a very big happy dance if by some miracle it is.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”