If you only define midrange decks and nearly entirely instant speed decks as interactive, then of course Modern won't seem interactive to you. You brush off other forms of interaction as "incidental" or "accidental", but I don't see why there should be some form of "correct" interaction. The entire point of interaction is to clear the way for you to win regardless of what that win condition is, be it early game small bodies, mid game bigger bodies, or late game closers. No deck interacts for the sake of interacting, so to imply that reactive control or Jund is real interaction and yet other decks' interaction is somehow not also comes off as disingenuous. Honestly, by your definition of what's interactive and what's not, even Jund can be defined as non-interactive; it's a deck with a linear game plan (drop big, efficient creatures and swing) using interaction to prevent opponents from interacting with those creatures (strip them of their best ways of stopping you with discard effects, clean up with kill spells and let your creatures do the rest).cfusionpm wrote: ↑1 year agoUsing incidentally, or accidentally interactive elements in order to advance your own game plan, without needing to take further consideration of what your opponent is doing is not something I consider highly interactive. I guess if we nit pick things, anything can be interactive. But most of this "interaction" serves to either further a relatively linear game plan, prevent opponents from interacting with that relatively linear game plan, remove obstacles of that relatively linear game plan, or prison-lock opponents through static effects.
I feel that calling Modern "highly interactive" is incredibly disingenuous and greatly misrepresents what is happening in the format. Though, fully distorting what "interactive" means to the point where you could conceivably defend things like 4x Chalice, Karn+Lattice (plus Bridge/Cage/etc) as interactive, you could definitely say Modern is "interactive." I just do not agree with that definition whatsoever.
The original assertion was "decks like Jund" and that absolutely is not the case in Modern.
I also wouldn't say that Modern is "highly interactive", but I can't agree with your view of what makes a deck interactive when you've created a dichotomy of "real" interaction and "fake" interaction