Is T1 Interactive

[Smmenen]

Here is a segment that I really liked, but just didn't fit into my article well.  Rather than just delete it, I thought I'd post it here for thoughts.  

Keep in mind, It will make more sense whem my article on Temp comes out.

Conclusion: Is Type One interactive?

Interaction in magic basically happens in two ways.  The first is through combat.  The second happens through reactive disruption: countermagic, spot removal, land destruction, etc.  

The first is pretty much eliminated because of the fact that 20 life is a lot.  Using creatures to eek out wins over many turns of combat is inefficient and ineffectual.  The second is primarily relegated to that class of decks that are “disruptiveâ€? – that run Wastelands, Swords to Plowshares, Nevinerrials Disk, Daze, and the like.  In other words, most of the Aggro-Control decks, and a few of the Control decks.   Most decks do use Force of Will, so that minimum level of countermagic is omnipresent.  But beyond that, most decks try as their sole goal to avoid opponent interaction.

And it makes sense.  Think about it: what player wants their opponent to do anything at all?  Wouldn’t it just be better if they got mana stalled and did absolutely nothing while you crossed the finish line?  Absolutely.  Prison, Combo, Aggro, and most of the best Control decks in the format try and completely avoid opponent interaction and go straight for the jugular.  Prison wants to lock the opponent completely down so they can’t do anything, or, alternatively, use Mindslaver or Sundering Titan to make sure that they can’t.  Combo just wants to win immediately.  Aggro decks like Food Chain and MaskNaught really prefer that you do nothing while they goldfish, and Control decks like Tog only use Mana Drain as a tempo card to get a mana boost and aren’t really that concerned about the quality of your spell so long as it costs more mana rather than less.  

So whenever anyone claims that Type One is non-interactive, try to put in perspective what they are trying to say: they are either revealing a bias toward disruptive style decks, or, they aren’t completely aware of what they are saying.  

If they are saying they want more combat interaction, well that doesn’t make a lot of sense because that really only happens to any large degree when Aggro and Aggro Control decks play off.  Aggro mirrors, Aggro-Control Mirrors, and Aggro v. Aggro control matches aren’t the norm.  Most of this, as I said, is because 20 life is quite a bit.  Asking for more combat is basically like asking for the Moxen to leave the format – that is the only way that the format would slow down enough for combat to become more common.

Alternatively, these people just want to play their control decks.  Control mirrors are interactive, but mostly in terms of countermagic and mana denial.  Any person who is calling for more interactivity is really calling for a return of the dominance of control decks.  Supposing for the moment that this would happen – the interactivity in the format would become effectively meaningless because anytime that control is good, mono blue is a powerful strategy.  And there is nothing more annoying than playing against a deck that counters every spell you play and locks you down with Back to Basics and Ophidians.  Sure that’s interactive, but its about as fun as being comboed out on turn one by Academy.  At least against the Combo deck the game ends quickly instead of having the false hope that you might be able to pull it out.

Next time you hear someone say that Type One is insufficiently interactive, be suspicious about their claim.  

Yet Type One players have a real bias toward reactive control.  This is, in part, a legacy of “The Deck.â€?  Weissman’s shadow still hangs over the format even if the lessons of card advantage and ancestor to his archetype are largely considered obsolete.  People really enjoy playing control because they grew up on The Deck.  Oscar Tan’s articles also brought many people into Type One and so there is that to contend with.  But wishing for interactivity isn’t realistic and would be essentially harmful.  A tempo based format abhors real interaction where both players are exercising a full range of options.

[Jacob Orlove]

A tempo based format abhors real interaction where both players are exercising a full range of options.

I would argue that tempo is inherently based on interaction--you can't have tempo in a vacuum. I'm not calling for more interactivity in T1, beccause it's already there.

[Smmenen]

Oh, it's by definition interactive.  But, what I mean will be clear in my article, Tempo abhors it when your opponent does what they want.  To that extent, it tries to control the range of decisions a player may make by restricting those options.  That restriction happens by cards like Null Rod, Wastland, Force of Will, Spiketail, Standstill, etc - all cards which are interactive to the extent they affect the opponent, but with the sole purpose of reducing that player's ability to pursue their tactical and strategic goals.  In other words, Tempo interacts UPON your opponent, not with them .

[Matt]

Actually, not only would I like more combat, I DO want the moxen to leave the format. Every criticism about them is true, primarily the fact that they're just too easy to include in a deck - I once doubted WotC's decision to never have a restricted list in any other format and only resort to "banned or not-banned", but I'm a total convert.

[rozetta]

Those are solid conclusions and a very good way to explain the format. Excellent!  It is true that we'll never go back to the old days of 5ccontrol dominance again. Funny, because that thought might have saddened me a year or two ago but not anymore. I like an environment where mono-blue cannot exist.

I think the power levels of the power cards have shifted again. A few years ago, Ancestral Recall was obviously more powerful than the moxes, but I'd tend to think that it's rank has decreased. Recently, I've not found it to have such a game-swinging effect at all. It used to be practically GG if the opponent resolved Ancestral, but nowadays, I've been less inclined to even try and fight over it, and I've seen it pitched to FoW on occasions. In this respect, Black Lotus is currently more powerful than ever.

[Phantom Tape Worm]

I don't think I ever really understood what was meant by the concept of "interactivity" in any of these "good decks prevent the opponent from interacting with you" discussions.

Now, perhaps I have a bias.  It is my opinion that the most successful decks in type 1 are the ones that are prepared to interact, be it through a utility based cunning wish sideboard, or heavy "disruptive" (interactive?) elements maindeck, etc.

Interacting with your opponent, as I think of it, is to impact him in some way that changes the board position/game state.  Unless your strategy is so robust and so quick that it can always play the role of the aggressor effectively (no unrestricted deck can achieve this), it behooves you to prepare for interaction in this format.

I honestly think this crazy notion "type 1 is about not interacting with your opponent" is the product of people who do not play in enough tournaments.  Most matches go to time.  Most turns are packed with tons of tough decisions and plays that dramatically impact the game state/board position.  It is truly a rarity that anyone loses/wins a match before their opponent does something relavent to interfere with the plan.  And let's not even begin to go into the human side of the game.  You know, auras of power and whatnot  

It's funny because even deck selection is interactive, ie. metagaming.  I really have no idea how anyone can make the claim that the best decks are not interactive.  Interaction really IS the game.  And when it ceases, as it did with long.dec, WotC steps in ands corrals the trouble maker.

[CopperLeaf]

And there is nothing more annoying than playing against a deck that counters every spell you play and locks you down with Back to Basics and Ophidians. Sure that’s interactive, but its about as fun as being comboed out on turn one by Academy. At least against the Combo deck the game ends quickly instead of having the false hope that you might be able to pull it out.

I would definately agree with this one.

I think the format is very interactive.  In the real world combo decks dont always go off like theyre supposed to, and a lot of games go to time.

[Toad]

Type One interactions : "No no no !! Sac first, then tap".

Ol' good times...

[Hi-Val]

I've mentioned this before, but I think that there are two kinds of tempo: interactive and non-interactive. Rakso and Tait could get into a pissing match about how they're really card advantage, etc, but here's my Q&D explanations:

Interactive: This is a card that costs you resources but will probably screw your opponent over far more than you. It does not always work, but when it works, the effect is twofold: allowing you to continue while stunting the opponent. Flagship cards for this are Strip Mine and Spiketail Hatchling, both pretty useless in the lategame, but pivotal when played early.

Non-Interactive: These cards only advance you in theoretical game state, putting you a turn or two ahead of where you're supposed to be. Examples are Time Walk and Moxes, both putting you a turn or more ahead of where you should be, although having no effect on the opponent.

Opinions?

[thorme]

Think about it: what player wants their opponent to do anything at all?

Clearly you have an opinion...but I think that your question warrants more thought.  

I think that the answer depends entirely on your Spike/Timmy/Johnny makeup, and the venue (casual game, FNM, power tournament).  In a casual game, ALL players want their opponent to do something.  My reasoning...if they did not want that, they would simply play solitaire and not bother with 1 on 1 magic.  Add prizes in the mix in a power tournament, and the answers start differing.


The question "Is Type 1 Interactive?" has been ably discussed above, and I agree with most of what has been posted.  I think the far more interesting question though is "How Interactive should Type 1 be?".

I will leave with a parting thought that betrays my feelings on the matter.  IMHO, Limited is the most interactive of all Magic formats.  Care to guess about the popularity of Limited compared to Type 1?

[Triple_S]

Ultimately, if a game if non-interactive it will cease to be fun the vast majority of the people who play it.  If it ceases to be fun, attendence at tournaments declines and the movement of product slows.  When this happens, games/formats die.  Therefore I would argue that non-interactiveness=death knell for t1.

[Jacob Orlove]

And there is nothing more annoying than playing against a deck that counters every spell you play and locks you down with Back to Basics and Ophidians. Sure that’s interactive, but its about as fun as being comboed out on turn one by Academy. At least against the Combo deck the game ends quickly instead of having the false hope that you might be able to pull it out.

I disagree here. Fast combo is far more annoying and far less fun. Think about it: when mono-blue was dominant, people worked on decks to beat it (U/R stacker, etc). When Academy was dominant, people quit the game. I think that's solid evidence that mono-blue is not the most annoying deck possible.

It's like Triple_S said--noninteractivity = death of the format. That's why we have a B/R list.

[Azhrei]

In a purely competitive sense, it is the job of the players to continually seek to eliminate interaction, and the job of the DCI to stop us from succeeding. From a strictly competitive sense, the "best deck" is one that wins on the first turn 100% of the time-- clearly the only deck worth playing if available, and clearly unhealthy for the format.

Actually, this gets back to something I've been doing some research on called "game theory" which has to do with economic models and math that is beyond me, but the human side makes perfect sense.  It's an imperfect analogy, but a decent one.

Basically, an experiment runs like this:

I give Johnny 10 one dollar bills. Johnny can give any number of them to Timmy,  and Timmy can decide to either agree to the split, or reject it. If Timmy agrees, they both keep their share. If Timmy rejects it, neither keeps anything.

Johnny will generally offer something close to a 50-50 split because he wants Timmy to agree to the split so they both get money.

Johnny and Timmy are typical people in this situation, and react as the average person would. Timmy will usually accept a split close to even and reject anything less for having felt slighted or out of spite.

Game theory dictates that the ONLY way to split the pile is for Johnny to offer Timmy one dollar, and Timmy must accept it. Logically, one dollar is better than none, so for Timmy to reject a profitable offer makes no sense at all-- but often will happen in real life.

Spike always offers one dollar because Spike doesn't take the feelings of Timmy into account, because Spike is either a computer or an autistic, two of the only beings to operate correctly according to game theory because they are purely logical and ignore the random aspects of humanity. Spike doesn't use or understand things like spite or hurt feelings.

I think a lot of these discussions degenerate into one of three viewpoints:

Timmy says "I want a fair split too, so give me close to half or no one gets anything." If Timmy gets too many bad offers, he leaves and stops playing, even though one dollar is better than zero. Timmy is replacable.
Johnny says "Here, have four dollars. I get more, but you'll let me keep it." Johnny ends up mad when Spike ends up with more money, even though Johnny was nicer.
Spike says " Here's a dollar, and if you don't take it you're irrational. If you reject my offer, neither of us gets anything."

Spike always wins because he only ends up with no money if everyone rejects his offers, but then they get nothing either.

Magically speaking, Timmy says: "Creatures are great. Ban or restrict things until creatures are good again." Timmy can come and go and no one misses him unless he disappears altogether because thy game takes two.
Johnny says: "Some creatures are great. They add a nice supplement to the strategy aspect of playing, which is where I beat Timmy-- I use better creatures or superior control, and just stay a step ahead the whole game, but Timmy gets to think that he's got a chance to come out ahead."
Spike says: "Goblin Welder and Psychatog are great. Tournaments are great too, and my offer to Timmy is that he gets to play in tournaments, and I get to win them. Take your dollar and be happy, because it's better than nothing."

Spike always wins because Spike isn't concerned with how other people feel. Spike is pure logic, and Timmy is pure emotion.  Spike can't lose because the worst he can do is tie, and if the game ties too often and Timmy and Johnny leave, Spike moves on to something else.

Of course, no one else likes to play with Spike because then they end up far behind.

Basically, as I see it, it is the role of Spike to repeatedly try to not offer a split at all,, and for the DCI to continually make sure that he does. Johnny and Timmy are basically warm bodies since the DCI rulings have no impact on them outside of what kind of an offer they get from Spike.

If Spike were to leave, Johnny and Timmy might be happier, but then correct strategy would disappear. If Johnny and Timmy leave, strategy becomes flawless but it's harder and harder to find people to play the game in terms of population. Spike will always play as long as there is another Spike because one dollar is better than zero.

You all need each other unless you're willing to switch to a different game, so get over it and get used to it.

[Matt]

You all need each other unless you're willing to switch to a different game, so get over it and get used to it.

On the contrary...

If Spike were to leave, Johnny and Timmy might be happier, but then correct strategy would disappear.

...it sounds like Johnny and Timmy don't need Spike at all.

[Ric_Flair]

So when I approach a statement someone makes that I want to analyze I always see there being two (maybe three) options:  first is the micro criticism, take what they say, parse it really carefully, and see if what they say makes sense inside the rubric they created for you; second is the macro criticism, that is, point out the flaws in the system as a whole or point out the flaws in the premises that they used.  I think that the second is generally a more effective approach at refuting an argument, but often less productive.  So here goes with the first approach (in large part because I agree with Matt's macro criticism):

First, Steve you seem to assert that there are only two types of interaction: aggro creature fights and disruption battles.  Second, you seem to assume that neither of these is actually taking place right now in Vintage.  Taking the system as it is, and your thoughts as you defined them, I think that both statements are either only partially true or totally wrong.  I will address the second point first because it is a more easily refutable point.  Plus, my thoughts on the first issue are more inchoate and wandering right now.  

So there are no creature fights.  Yeah...that is true.  Unless we are talking about crazy (read: bad) metas, there is not a whole lot of people at Vintage events asking if damages is on the stack.  But the second part, well I am just not convinced.  First, while most decks have a game plan that is largely independent of opponents and works best when opponents are ignored, that is the IDEAL game plan.  FCG may want to use one of Vegeta's optimized stacks to run roughshod over an opponent, but often times it is a "slow" game of attack much like the pre-FCG Goblin Lackey decks in Extended.  Tog often attacks a few times, Angels and Soldiers make some running slashes at opponents, and hell I have even been whittled away by Goblin Welders.  So in a real world environment (even in a top meta) there is more interaction than in the theory world.  Second, lets look a Phil's numbers from April:  

Excluding mana producers the top restricted cards are:

39 Ancestral Recall
35 Time Walk
30 Strip Mine (not primarily a mana producer)
26 Demonic Tutor
23 Library of Alexandria (not primarily a mana producer)
22 Mystical Tutor
24 Yawgmoth's Will
19 Fact or Fiction
19 Vampiric Tutor
12 Mind Twist
10 Balance
10 Tinker

So of the restricted cards with 10 or more appearances in April #3, #10, #11 are interactive cards.  That is they directly interrupt an opponent's plan.  I think that the sample may not be representative for two reasons: first, in excluding mana sources I am excluding card that are designed to reduce interaction by allowing combos to flourish, cards like Mana Vault; second, I am looking at only restricted cards, which, almost by definition are non-interactive (because interactive cards are generally less exploitably powerful).  I think these two things cancel each other out, but even then this is not a great way to make my point, so lets look at the unrestricted cards in April, going down to 30 appearances (without mana sources, they are all benign sources here, duals and fetchs).  Here they are:

136 Force of Will
104 Brainstorm
102 Wasteland
83 Mana Drain
73 Red Elemental Blast
51 Cunning Wish
45 Chalice of the Void
44 Accumulated Knowledge
42 Duress
42 Fire/Ice
42 Rack and Ruin
36 Goblin Welder
35 Null Rod
34 Tormod's Crypt
33 Misdirection
32 Naturalize
30 Stifle

So on this list there are only 4 cards that are non-interactive: Brainstorm, Accumulated Knowledge, Cunning Wish, and Goblin Welder.  Every other card requires interaction or opponent cards to be useful at all.  I would even go so far as to say that Welder and Wish are somewhat interactive.  Thus, looking at things as a whole, if April is representative of the cards being used, I think your first point is half wrong.  There is no creature combat per se, but there is clearly an ABUNDANCE of interactive cards being used.  In fact the vast majority of cards are interactive.

As for the first point about interactivity being either creature combat or disruption exclusively, I am not sure.  What is a card like Standstill?  It isn't purely either.  It is not card draw because it requires an opponent to do something in order to work optimally.  What about a card like Root Maze?  It is different than Null Rod because no deck can work around it fully, but it is not spot removal disruption.  I think that these two cards are just a small sample of a host of cards that are interactive in other ways that your two part definition fails to include.  Cunning Wish is another card in this camp.  Unlike Demonic Tutor and Burning Wish, Cunning Wish is usually used as a solution tool box and thus not really a noninteractive card.  See I think that initially Wizards thought that tutors would be okay because they would function like Cunning Wish instead of like Demonic Tutor.  A card that is the toolbox solution is a permissible and fair use of tutoring.  A card that is a "get me my pieces" card is not.  I am sure there are other examples, but the bifuracted definition of interactivity is clearly not all encompassing, so I think that the first statement is clearly wrong.  

I like the ideas, I just think that some parts of the game are very complicated, probably beyond our abilities to analyze without some "bioinformatics" caliber math, at which point I think I would lose interest.  Tempo is the penultimate representative of this issue in Magic.   I think your ideas may be right on the tempo issue, but there are some sizable holes in your interactivity argument.

PS: Phil thanks for the numbers, yet again.    

[Smmenen]

I can't really get into it right now (what with an Evidence final this friday), but you have my assertions down wrong.

I'm asserting that there are two forms of interaction and that there is little to none of one, and sufficient amount of the other.  The point I was making is that T1 can't be more interactive than it currently is (which I beleive is enough).  

I'm not asserting that T1 isn't interactive, I'm claiming that people who call for more interaction aren't making a call that is healthy for the format.

The bulk of my article is about Tempo - like I said in my reply to the first reply in this thread - T1 is heavily interactive, but not in the way that I think more interactive "purists" would prefer.  

The interaction in the format is not wide open interaction where both decks are excercising their options - it is very limited and bitter - it takes place early in the game, and is a fight to keep your opponent down, not to fight them with all your resources.  It is small brutal skirmishes, not an massive assemblege of all your armies into one giant battle.

Why?  Becuase the interaction in the format is tempo and disruption oriented.  It is interaction to keep your opponent out of the game.  Wasteland, Null Rod, Chalice of the Void - all are interactive certainly, but they happen at a stage in the game where you are trying to keep your opponent down and out just long enough for you to capitalize.  This goes to my article - which I think you'll enjoy - but I do beleive the format is interactive, only becuase decks must be.  But it is certainly true that the primary extent of interaction is not to "answer threats" but to stunt their game.  One of the most highly interactive decks is Fish.  But Fish is also one of the most brutal at shutting you out of the game.  

To that extent I agree with Darren.  But don't think I'm saying the format isn't interactive - I'm just making a comment about people who call for more interactivity.  The segment didn't really fit in my article at all - which is why I posted it here.

[Ric_Flair]

Well, I am sorry I misstated your premise. With the further clarification, I still agree in part and disagree in part.  There is interaction...we all agree with that.  And it is not creature combat....again we all agree.  But your definition of the other sort of interaction is vague at best.  What does it mean to "control an opponent"?  Counterspells obviously do that and so does spot removal, but some of the more interesting cards in the format are not counterspells or spot removal.  And yes there are lock pieces that control an opponent as well, but I still think that cards like Root Maze and Standstill do not fit into the rubric of Interaction = Creature Combat or Counter/Spot Removal/Lock pieces.  One of the great parts of the game is that certain cards and uses of cards resist analysis.  What is a card like Wonder (when not used as a creature)?  Is it interactive?  I would be useless if your opponent did not have creatures but it hinders interactivity....

Good luck with the Evidence exam.  It comes down to three things:  character evidence, impeachment, and hearsay.  If you can get those things down you will be fine.  If you need some study aids, let me know I have a ton of evidence stuff (charts and the like).  Oh and the stupid best evidence rule, once you get it, though it is easy.  Evidence is one of my favorite subjects.  It is the THE MOST IMPORTANT class in law school.  Everyone praticing law needs to be at least aware of some portion of Evidence law.  Plus it is the seen on TV sexy part of the law.

[Smmenen]

My outline is almost completed.  My tempo article is up so you can check it out - hopefuly my view will be clearer after you read it.

[Azhrei]

You all need each other unless you're willing to switch to a different game, so get over it and get used to it.

On the contrary...

If Spike were to leave, Johnny and Timmy might be happier, but then correct strategy would disappear.

...it sounds like Johnny and Timmy don't need Spike at all.

Only discussing tournaments, period. Johnny and Timmy don't need tournaments at all, but Spike does. Once there is a *reason* to win, i.e. a prize, Spike comes back. There are no Spikes at the kitchen table, but there are no Timmys in the top eight either.

Magic is mostly for Timmy, but it's Spike that got the DCI and the Pro Tour going. If you don't need Spike, you don't need a B/R list and surprise, you're playing casual Magic and not a format.

Spike is who gives Magic legitimacy. I know people who used to make fun of it until they discovered that you could win thousands of dollars by playing it. Timmy buys the cards, but Spike is who Magic is built around. WotC needs both equally, which is why they print Big Creatures!!!! but also sponsor a Pro Tour where Big Creatures are generally unplayable..