[AGAIN] Article -- Interactivity in Type I (Yes,Trinisphere)

[rakso]

Let's try this again without the flame wars over a dead horse, hmmmm?

I was interested in asking two things with this article:

1) Wtf is interactivity in a Type I context, and is Flores right in today's article where he pooh-poohs a proposal that "interactivity" is merely a deck's ability to disrupt an opponent's tempo?

2) Answering the above wtf, htf do we apply interactivity to Type I restrictions as a reasonably objective and predictable criteria? For example, if you were Aaron Forsythe, how would you have spelled out your use of the word "interactivity" to tell people how you'd do it the next time a card is branded similarly "unfun."

Or, do you just e-mail DCI a million times now to get a card restricted, and bitch to people who can tell them at every major Type I event?

From a law student's point of view, people expect DCI to act like an impartial body, like a Supreme Court (reasoning) rather than like a political body (popularity). On the other hand, if player's aren't happy -- and I'm not sure how you prove that in Type I -- nothing beats results, right?

Anyway, read the thoughts floated in the article.



http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=9174

This wasn't actually the original article since my editor suggested that I try to conform to the existing Magic theory terminology instead of taking the law school and law journal tack of critically analyzing each concept to see if it made sense.

The original idea I wanted to float was that, in my opinion with a specific focus on Type I, interactivity is largely about tempo.

In my examples from Type I, I question whether counters are in fact interactive cards, and whether Mike's exception about Force of Will in a combo deck is really an exception.

I felt that "interactivity" may just be another word for an opponent's ability to disrupt the tempo of a deck that is set to go off before it can. This is generally seen as "playing control," since it would be pointless for a deck in this position to invest resources towards winning.

If you look at it this way and see counters as a category of cards used to maintain control whether in the early game to counter threats or in the late game to protect a win condition, the large exception doesn't look like a problematic hole in the theory anymore.

I felt that this characterization of tempo interactions captures all of Mike's Extended examples as well, such as Wasteland being foiled by Windswept Heath (also very relevant in Type I).

Finally, I felt this comes out very sharp in Type I, where everything has to win so quickly that everything seems non-interactive anyway and the concept seems to degenerate into a superfluous categorization of shades of non-interactive.

Again, this is just some thinking to float, and I e-mailed the original draft to Darren, JP, Steve M and a few other people.
[/url]

[VGB]

Re: Trinisphere

The reason that it seems uninteractive is because most of the decks that roll to turn one Trinisphere DON'T want to interact and therefore are ill-equipped when they are forced to do so.

I don't think this is necessarily true. While at their heart most decks strive to ignore the opponent as much as possible, many archetypes that have been booted by Trinisphere are highly interactive as they win via creature damage and have many spells that exclusively respond to the opponent's actions.

With that in mind, I believe that interactivity in Magic can be simply defined as responding to your opponent's actions, and/or both players having the ability to do so.

Me just talking to myself, apparently.

In summary: you can't ignore the fact that WotC is a business.  The most vital key to any business is its customers.

[rakso]

Well, maybe I'd prefer to steer discussion AWAY from Trinisphere.

What about the part of the article that discuses Flores's example that counters are inherently interactive, excepting mainly Forces of Will used in combo?

This leads to my question on whether aggro-control is in fact inherently interactive. If so, was GAT truly interactive?

On a more extreme end, some could make a case that Stompy was non-interactive. I remember D'Avanzo calling it a combo deck with creatures.

[VGB]

What about the part of the article that discuses Flores's example that counters are inherently interactive, excepting mainly Forces of Will used in combo?

I don't have premium, but I'll try to answer that question in its own context.

The goal of combo may be ultimately complete disregard of the opponent, but seeing as how combo decks are usually the most susceptible to hate, they are invariably unwillingly forced into an interactive role.

Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly about the counters being inherently interactive statement.

This leads to my question on whether aggro-control is in fact inherently interactive. If so, was GAT truly interactive?

All these questions have a very similar answer.  Wait for it...

On a more extreme end, some could make a case that Stompy was non-interactive. I remember D'Avanzo calling it a combo deck with creatures.

You can't merely analyze the interactivity of a deck as a singular entity.  It has to be judged with respect to the metagame it is a part of, as well.

Just because a deck like Stompy can run on autopilot has nothing to do with it's interactivity - which deck I consider almost universally interactive.

[Toad]

In Control-Combo decks, Mana Drain is hardly interactive. It's just a Blue Ritual that is not card disadvantage. Sometimes you just randomly Mana Drain what your opponent is casting, just because it has something higher than 2 in the top right corner. Many decks does not use Mana Drain for the countering ability only.

[VGB]

In Control-Combo decks, Mana Drain is hardly interactive. It's just a Blue Ritual that is not card disadvantage. Sometimes you just randomly Mana Drain what your opponent is casting, just because it has something higher than 2 in the top right corner. Many decks does not use Mana Drain for the countering ability only.

Yet playing Mana Drain in and of itself will never prevent the player from having performed his original action or subsequent actions.

You need to find a definition of interactive that you identify with and make it clear, because your example is extraordinarily self-contradictory if viewed from the context of my definition.

[Toad]

It is not self-contradictory. Just imagine you are playing some kind of Control-Combo deck. On turn 3, after doing nothing relevant at all during the first 2 turns, your opponent casts [card]Wall of Stone[/card]. You are obviously not playing creatures in your deck, so the Wall of Stone is hardly a threat. Yet, you will always Mana Drain it. Is that interaction? No. By Mana Draining the Wall of Stone, you are clearly taking the goldfish route.

Mana Draining a creature that will kill you is interaction, because you are taking the opponent's card into account for what they are *actually* doing. Mana Draining something totally irrelevant for the single purpose of having more mana on the following turn is not interaction. You just use the opponent's cards as mana sources, regardless of what they do.

[rakso]

@VGB:

To clarify, your definition is "they win via creature damage and have many spells that exclusively respond to the opponent's actions"?


@Toad:

That's something in addition to what I was illustrating in the article.

Another example I was trying to highlight was GAT and aggro-control. If they have their ideal game, they just counter everything of consequence and beat down.

At times, they do not really have to consider what the opponent is going to do. If you've sat on a Morphling or five Soldier tokens, etc., and held four counters in hand and yelled "Yahtzee!" you might know what I mean.


No, I haven't been able to think of a personal definition for interaction beyond "being able to disrupt your faster opponent's tempo."

[VGB]

@VGB:

To clarify, your definition is "they win via creature damage and have many spells that exclusively respond to the opponent's actions"?.

Actually, that was just a quick and dirty summary of a few of the decks that Trinsphere killed.

My definition is: "interactivity in Magic is responding to your opponent's actions, and both players having the ability to do so."

I tried defining interactivity multiple ways, and settled on this one as it as simple, flexible, and applicable, and thus far I have been comfortable with it.

[rakso]

And I think that's everyone's basic definition.

It serves well to discuss interactivity in an abstract, explanatory manner.

My point in writing the article (the original one, anyway, not the revised version that was accepted) was to wonder out loud how applicable that is when you get down to concrete situations that are not so abstract, but hardly clear.

You need something that can be applied more concretely if you're going to use interactivity as a benchmark for restriction, since you literally have to draw a line when you restrict something.

Sorry, law student mode.

[forests failed you]

I think the problem with Wizards’ decision to restrict and make changes to formats based solely on subjective and qualitative datasets, (complaints of random ‘unfuness’ and ‘unattractive game states’) is that in a sense the DCI wasn’t trying to balance the power level of the top decks in the format;  but rather, was trying to appease frustrated casual players to a point where they would feel more comfortable playing in a tournament setting.  Clearly, Trinisphere based decks did not have a stranglehold on our beloved Vintage format; however, what Trinisphere based decks did do was destroy decks played  by budget and casual players.

This isn’t to say that Control Slaver and TPS don’t also wreck these decks: the key difference is that against other tier one Vintage decks casual and budget players actually get to play their spells.  

The fact that some random scrub’s stompy or blue green madness deck has already lost the match against any powered tier one deck before game one has even started is an inevitability.  The difference is that against other decks the random aggro player’s Wild Mongrels and Rootwallas might actually get in there a few times.  For the aggro player it feels like he had a shot at winning, even though he or she really didn’t.  It is far and away more obvious to the casual player that against Stax he or she had no chance of winning the game, as said aggro player could not play spells and had no land.  

Here is where it gets all “conspiracy theorist”.  I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t actually buy Magic cards, ever.  I have everything I need to play, and anything else I want, either I trade for, or stores loan to me.  I think Wizards has finally realized over the course of the past year that it is the whining masses of bad players that actually buy a good percentage of the boxes of cards they sell; and if those players are dissatisfied with getting consistently crushed by Ravager decks in standard, or Stax decks in Vintage, then those players will lose interest and stop buying packs.  

I think a fairly strong evidence of this theory would be to look at the banning that recently happened in standard.  The focus was not to balance the existing decks in the format and create a fair build of Ravager, it was to nuke the entire archetype from existence.  Interestingly, among those cards hit were Ancient Den and Tree of Tales.  Clearly, Ancient Den is the most underpowered card to be banned EVER.  Unlike Ravager, Disciple, Seat, and Vault, I don’t believe Den had put up the numbers in Top 8’s to warrant its banning.  So why do it then?   Clearly Wizards wanted to send a message to casual players, tournament magic is safe for them to play with their Tooth and Nail decks full of big fun creatures, or elves, or “insert bad aggro deck name here”.    I believe, all of the Artifact lands, like Trinsiphere in Vintage were banned as a pseudo-apology for printing them and making such anti-casual player friendly tournament environments over the course of the last year.  

Unfortunately for tournament players like us, (and especially people who like playing with Workshops), Wizards cares much more about Timmy and his checkbook than about the fact that Vintage was as diverse and flavorful as it has ever been.

[jazzykat]

Here is where it gets all “conspiracy theorist”.  I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t actually buy Magic cards, ever.  I have everything I need to play, and anything else I want, either I trade for, or stores loan to me.  I think Wizards has finally realized over the course of the past year that it is the whining masses of bad players that actually buy a good percentage of the boxes of cards they sell; and if those players are dissatisfied with getting consistently crushed by Ravager decks in standard, or Stax decks in Vintage, then those players will lose interest and stop buying packs.  

I think you are spot on (especially since there are tons more bad players than there are good), but I don't think running a business is a conspiracy at least the part where they want to make money. People stop buying packs enmass and there is a problem for wizards. BTW I don't buy packs either, I either used to win them or bought my singles. I would bet a lot of other players who are vintage only players do not buy many packs either. I would love to see statistics on their sales figures instead of top 8's.


WRT: Interactivity. It is a cute and elusive term to let you theorists try to wrap your heads around but don't delude yourselves. The bottom line is still the bottom line: $$$.

[Shock Wave]

WRT: Interactivity. It is a cute and elusive term to let you theorists try to wrap your heads around but don't delude yourselves. The bottom line is still the bottom line: $$$.

Touché.

[dicemanx]

I know that it's common to peddle the notion that masses of budget deck wielding newbies cried and moaned to get Trinisphere restricted; however, this is a very short sighted view.  There were a lot of high caliber, competitive players who wanted Trini banished. Did they adapt to the Trini environment? Certainly. Could they remain competitive in light of the high frequency of turn 1 Trini plays? Yes. Did they not realize that there was an absence of "proof" in terms of the top-8 data that Trini was dominant? Obviously - a card doesn't have to be part of a dominant archetype to be problematic or become a candidate for restriction. Look at the DCI's track record. When was the last time that a card was axed because of such "proof" in the top-8 data? Gush is the last one that I recall in the past few years.

So then what was the issue? Quite simply, we had a solitary card that was capable of effectively winning games before you even took your turn. Does this mean that a first turn Trini always led to a win? Of course not. That is not the point. The problem is that it did do it an appreciable number of times, and this "appreciable number", even though very difficult if not impossible to quantify, surpassed an acceptable threshhold. Furthermore, the mere fact that Trinisphere forced you to run certain land configurations or forced you to limit your deck choice *if* you wanted to hedge against the card was certainly frustrating.  Even then, with 9-10 basics/fetches and artifact removal, it was still possible to lose in completely retarded fashion.

So then what, pray tell, does defining the concept of "interaction" have to do with anything? Oscar (and other Lawyers or lawyer types it seems) suggests that it is important to come up with a working definition in a step towards defining precisely this supposed "new" restriction criterion that centers around "interaction". Many have already begun illustrating via various examples that cards like Dark Ritual or Mana Drain can function similarly to Trinisphere as far as striving to eliminate "interaction". What Oscar, Smmenen, and many others that parrot the same arguments over and over fail to discuss is the fact that establishing criteria or defining terms is the easy part; the tough part is establishing the acceptable cut-offs. In fact, all of the accepted criteria have already been verbalized quite nicely by Smmenen and Ric Flair on this site, and they are the criteria that the DCI have been using all this time, even during the consideration of axing Trinisphere.

So here's a simple answer. Is Mana Drain (in certain decks) comparable to Trinisphere, in attempting to minimize "interaction"? Yes, of course it is. Aren't most, if not all, decks striving to minimize player interaction? Sure. Do I need to precisely define player "interaction" to grasp these concepts? Hardly. So then why isn't a card like Mana Drain restricted based on its ability to bring a sudden end to a game and therefore minimizing interaction? Doesn't it qualify under the same criteria as Trinisphere? Well, of course it qualifies under the same criteria. However, it seems that the consensus is that it doesn't exceed acceptable cut-offs. It doesn't function to the same *degree* as Trinisphere in eliminating "interaction". Top level players are more accepting of Drain knowing that they have a wealth of choices in combating it, as opposed to the bare minimum of FoW or 9/10 basics/fetch plan to fight Trini (with Wasteland as a distant possibility, but that merely fucks up both decks, locking them both under Trini unless the Trini player managed to drop a Mox or two first).

OK, so this begs the next question. How do we establish what acceptable cut-offs are. Here is where it becomes an exercise in futility, especially since no consensus will ever be reached. This was clearly demonstrated with the acceptable limits for Trinisphere - many felt it ludicrously exceeded acceptability, while others thought that Trini was perfectly acceptable. So therefore, should this be a worry for us in the future, this notion that without precisely defined cut-offs, the DCI is liable to make "mistakes" in its restriction decisions? No, I don't think so. Which decisions in the past, which were *mostly* based on intutive assesments of what the acceptable cut-offs were (aside from Gush), could we say were a "mistake"? What about the restriction of Burning Wish or LED for example? Was that a mistake? Did it lead to earth shattering destruction of our format? It seems to me that all of the DCI's decisions have so far either contributed to the diversity and enjoyability of T1, or at the very least have kept things fresh and interesting for us. Since T1 doesn't undergo any set rotations, perhaps it's not such a terrible thing to have the format shaken up once in a while even though there isn't a preponderance of "evidence" to lend credence to the restriction of a card.

It seems that when a change does come to the b/r list, the doomsayers come out of the woodwork and start in on the doom and gloom. The moment Trini was axed, many claimed various downstream scenarios such as a restriction cascade, the inevitable dominance of combo, or more recently the upcoming domination of Control Slaver or more generally the domination of "Mana Drain decks". Well, they might be right, or they might be wrong. That doesn't take away from the fact that Trinisphere was way too good at what it did - if the balance in the format rested on such an extreme effect (the ability to effectively end games against certain archetypes on turn 1), then this simply wasn't acceptable. The format will take care of itself; otherwise, the DCI can take care of it for us via the b/r list. If we're destined down a restriction cascade, so be it. If Mana Drain is too dominant and exceeds acceptable cut-offs, we will recognize this and strive to get it restricted. The T1 world is hardly in jeopardy. Why don't we just enjoy the ride, and see where it takes us first?

[forests failed you]

Trinisphere's restriction was frustrating because Stax, as a deck, clearly wasn't in a position to dominate anything.  It had unfavorable match ups against the two best decks in the format.  Any TPS or Slaver player, who wasn't complete shit, could usually beat Stax just based on the pure amount of powerful hate cards in the format.  Although, being on the play, casting turn one Trinisphere, and having it resolve was a possibility for the Stax player; the reality of it was that it didn't happen very often.  

The fact turn Trinisphere followed by Smokestack or Crucible and Strip Mine could happen just evens out the fact that Tendrils can WIN THE GAME on the first turn if an opponent doesn't have force of will or a Sphere.   I fail to see how there is any difference in the level of player interaction.  As Rasko pointed out, this theory is also applicable to Mana Drain based decks.  

The clearest way that I can present this argument is through a scenario.  Sometimes I attend a casual Vintage tournament at a hobby store, where there is a fairly diverse crowd of players.  There are some good ones with power, and some are Timmy's who just like to play with their duel lands and random old cards.  The first two times I played there I won playing Keeper, (this was last summer) and every body was fine with it.  We got some beers afterwards and I gave people advice about how they could improve their decks and it was a merry good fun time.  The next time I played I won playing Stax; and people were pissed.  They weren’t pissed because they lost, but rather they were upset because of the manner in which they lost.  It is really annoying for people to not be able to play any spells while their opponent just sits there waiting to top deck a kill condition.  I learned two things a) don't test Stax against scrubs because they get pissed, b) to Timmy players, being dominated by Keeper feels a lot different than being dominated by Stax.  If I hadn't promised never to play Stax at that tournament again many of the casual players threatened to never come back.  

This is where my earlier argument was coming from; the DCI isn't stupid and they see how people feel about this kind of stuff, and I'm sure that the scenario I have described happened at LOTS of hobby shops all over the place.   However, in a fully powered competitive Vintage environment, as far as interactivity goes, as long as Stax doesn't have the play and resolve Trinisphere threat, the Stax match up is usually the most interactive match up in the game, in my opinion.  Stax is trying to tie up resources and the other deck is trying to break out of it.  Its fun.  And I'm not saying that because I play Stax,, because I don't, but I appreciate anybody who did have the balls to do it in this field full of hate.  

The main problem I see is that the DCI restricted a card that wasn't dominating on the tournament scene because it wasn't fun and/or didn't encourage interaction;  That might be fine and dandy for kitchen table restriction lists, but I'd like something more substantial from the DCI before the all but invalidate an entire archetype.  The point is: good powered decks compete and kick the shit out of Stax and its Trinispheres all day long.  The Vintage card pool is big enough and diverse enough that for the most part it should be able to police itself, and only once a specific deck has proven to be dominant in the format should the DCI take action.  If Timmy wants to play with his Wild Mongrels he should take them to the local 1.5 tournament, where they might actually be good; because whether he gets locked out by Stax, Slaver locked, or Tendrilsed for 24 budget casual isn't going to win anyway.  I think that Rasko is right on target asking how, now that the DCI has opened the can of worms of "unfun" or "uninteractive" how they plan on measuring this purely abstract part of the game, when they are determining which cards to restrict based on  "interactivity" or "unfunness."  I am of the opinion that this is not a good criterion for making major changes to a MTG format.  However, interactivity may very well be the point of ridiculousness where casual players just refuse to play anymore and threaten to quit buying cards, which is exactly what Ravager did in constructed and Stax did at my local hobby shop.

[VGB]

I think that Rasko is right on target asking how, now that the DCI has opened the can of worms of "unfun" or "uninteractive" how they plan on measuring this purely abstract part of the game, when they are determining which cards to restrict based on  "interactivity" or "unfunness."  I am of the opinion that this is not a good criterion for making major changes to a MTG format.  However, interactivity may very well be the point of ridiculousness where casual players just refuse to play anymore and threaten to quit buying cards, which is exactly what Ravager did in constructed and Stax did at my local hobby shop.

You sound like you're saying Trinisphere's restriction originally opened the can of worms.

Are you forgetting about Burning Wish/LED?  Just because people can look back at these cards and go "derf, they're broken, OBV OBV" doesn't change the fact that Long wasn't distorting tournaments when they were restricted.

[forests failed you]

No, I am well aware of the whole long situation.  However, the key difference is that Long.dec would have dominated, and that was clearly the case with Stax. Clearly, Long was the number one deck in the format at the time, and the DCI chose to do emergency restrictions because it was obvious there was no other deck that could compete with it.  I'm okay with that, and I was okay with the restriction of Mind's Desire before it ever saw play.  However, Trinisphere effected the metagame, and then the Metagame adapted to deal with it to the point where in my opinion I would have been extremely hard pressed to say Stax was tier one.

I don't mind the DCI knocking busted decks back onto the level with the other decks in the format.  However, I think the DCI does a disservice to all of us, the Vintage tournament players, who have invested (let's face it) thousands of dollars to play this format when they restrict a key component of a deck that isn't even one of the top 2 decks in the format.  Trinisphere's restriction doesn't really change anything, or open up the metagame at all, it just invalidates the Workshop archetype, which was the closest thing to aggro of the format.

[rakso]

What Oscar, Smmenen, and many others that parrot the same arguments over and over fail to discuss is the fact that establishing criteria or defining terms is the easy part; the tough part is establishing the acceptable cut-offs.

YOU try defining the legal difference between pornography and art.

Note that the legal difference is not a product of consensus. In most cases, somewhat clear legal criteria are presented. In others, well, it's damn clear (ex. model is below 18).

[Shock Wave]

YOU try defining the legal difference between pornography and art.  

That's precisely why these discussions are quite pointless. You're seeking answers to issues that are of a subjective nature. As such, it makes sense that the DCI always has the final word (seeing as how it is their money at stake) and does not need to justify their decisions with rationale that is to your or my liking.

[ROLAND]

I Just Skimmed over some of the replies in this post.  I must agree with Rakso.  I think the DCI did open up a can of worms.

They have no clear way to define how restriction of certain cards will be handled.  In many of these forums with discussion of this topic alot of people complained!  In my opinion, alot more tournament players with power complained than kids at the local shop.  It was these players with money invested in high priced cards that forced the issue of restriction with trinisphere.   Because they were frustrated with the fact that they had paid so much money for cards that could be nullified by the average kid at the card shop or an unpowered player.

 I don't play with a lot of power and loved this fact about trinisphere.  I played a nether Void deck for fun that ran 4 trinisphere, it gave me adequate time to get set up.

In my opinion, they also weighed the facts. Alot more people like decks that run workshop, mana drain, and force of will-  control slaver.  Stax isn't as popular so they were ok with weakening the deck.

As far as interactive and unfun. The best and worst parts of the game are being able to shut down your opponent. T1 uses the most powerful cards and broken plays are going to happen.  T1 players boast about skill, so spend some time working around trinisphere. It's not unstoppable!

Lastly, from an administrative standpoint. They messed up big time. They let the players bully them into restricting a card.  In their position they should have a set criteria clearly defined (and visible for all players to read) that states the steps leading up to restriction. If players know the process and the card meets all criteria. Then restirict it.  It has to be clear cut and straight across the board.  Opinion or complaints should have no place in the process.

These are just some thoughts. Take them for what they are worth. They aren't meant to be taken personally. I'm just trying to contribute to the thread.

Thanks,
Roland

[jazzykat]

WRT: dicemanx and shockwave. I am with you guys on most issues so I just won't quote dicemanx's post here which elegantly states what I feel as well.

[rakso]

Do note that this isn't just about restriction. We have yet to come up with an application of interactivity that satisfies Type I players, and I'm not fully satisfied with the concept in general as is.

[Conan_barberarn]

I agree with dicemanx and Shock-Wave in all that they've said and I belive that almost all people here in Sweden agree with them as well.

@Trini dominance:
I know that Sweden has a smaller meta than the US but we still have a big enough meta to count for something. In Sweden, Stax has dominated the scene for a long time. People have been packing about half their sideboard with hate aimed at STAX for a long time and they still dominated top8s. Someone said it very clear: You can't hate a 1st turn resolved 3sphere! If opponent go ritual + broken stuff it allways includes restricted cards (Meandeck Tendrils excepted) and often more than one play. Even if you face a 1st turn necro there are outs left. With trini, if it got FoWed, they would still only have lost a single card where you would loose 2. If it resolved, you could only PRAY that they didn't have a smokestack to follow up with. I know this has been dragged before so I'll stop now.

/Gustav

[Moxlotus]

With trini, if it got FoWed, they would still only have lost a single card where you would loose 2.

That point has no relevance.  If you opponent casts ANYTHING and you force it, they will have lost one card where you lose 2.

[LUPO]

The interactivity issue is an interesting one.  I do not think that a consensus can be reached as to what it means and if it is a good thing or a bad thing for type one.  

When speaking about interaction, is the goal to make the attack phase more important so that creatures interact and kill with the players playing the board and not each other?  I dont think so.  If that was the case then we could all just go play Onslaught Block Constructed.  

I think that when many people talk about interaction, they are really speaking about what a lot of people call the good old days of magci, when things were a lot less powerful and games really did swing back and fourth and both players could always get some shots in.  I do not think I will get much disagreement when I say that this form of interaction no longer exists and will never come back.  There are thousands and thousands of cards for us to work with, and the play and deck building prowess of the type one community has grown exponentially.  Decks are so good that one punch is often enough for the knockout, and that is the goal.  The point of building a competative deck is to be able to beat your opponent regardless of what he does or plays, win under any and all circumstances.  This goal is inherently NOT interactive and encourages players to devise ways to interact LESS.  There is obviously no ultimate deck in the game, but in theory it would be a deck that kills on turn 1 100% of the time and can protect itself from an opponents turn one kill if it is on the draw.  And as we all get better at the game and it continues to grow, we will get closer and closer to that goal.

Magic is a game was interactive and is still at a certain level, but when you are at the highest and most powerful, which is top tier competative type one, you goal is to no interact, because then you will always win.  Be it with tendril and cantrips, welders and workshops, or oaths and angels the goal of every deck is to make the opponent irrelevant, do broken things, and then win, not do things, let the opponent do things and then hope for the best.

[rakso]

When speaking about interaction, is the goal to make the attack phase more important so that creatures interact and kill with the players playing the board and not each other?  I dont think so.  If that was the case then we could all just go play Onslaught Block Constructed.  

Doubt it.

Flores and Clair began talking about interaction in the context of a combo-filled Extended.

Years ago, Eric Taylor made a similar discussion about combo being the best deck all other things equal, and the winner there is the controllish combo that can fight other combo decks and still go off.

[Conan_barberarn]

With trini, if it got FoWed, they would still only have lost a single card where you would loose 2.

That point has no relevance.  If you opponent casts ANYTHING and you force it, they will have lost one card where you lose 2.

Not if I FoW a necro cast of a ritual.

No card that can be played through the mana from only one land should warrant a FoW unless it's restricted or it's a hatecard aimed at my deck (i.e Tormod's if I play dragon etc.).

/Gustav

[Marton]

With trini, if it got FoWed, they would still only have lost a single card where you would loose 2.

That point has no relevance.  If you opponent casts ANYTHING and you force it, they will have lost one card where you lose 2.

Not if I FoW a necro cast of a ritual.

No card that can be played through the mana from only one land should warrant a FoW unless it's restricted or it's a hatecard aimed at my deck (i.e Tormod's if I play dragon etc.).

/Gustav

You probably missed out goblin welder, goblin lackey and possibly duress. Also, you should consider FOW a dark ritual because your opponent can follow it with duress and then play his moxes/lotus/stuff depending on what he sees.

[Freelancer]

With trini, if it got FoWed, they would still only have lost a single card where you would loose 2.

That point has no relevance.  If you opponent casts ANYTHING and you force it, they will have lost one card where you lose 2.

Not if I FoW a necro cast of a ritual.

No card that can be played through the mana from only one land should warrant a FoW unless it's restricted or it's a hatecard aimed at my deck (i.e Tormod's if I play dragon etc.).

/Gustav

To follow up on this; If you force of will something you will never gain card advantage (note i'm talking about true card advantage), since the ritual is used to gain mana and at the point you cast force of will it's always -1 card for them, and -2 cards for you netting a +1 card advantage for them...That they used a dark ritual to cast that particular spell is off no relevance to force of will...


(Forcing a force of will is card pariety, and there are a number off cards that require you to discard some amount off cards but these are generally considered 'unplayable'. For the sake off the argument I'll stick to 'never gain card advantage' claus)

[Dozer]

We have yet to come up with an application of interactivity that satisfies Type I players, and I'm not fully satisfied with the concept in general as is.

A note of caution first: I am not immersed in the whole interactivity debate, e.g. others have more background information than I do.

However, here is a possible definition of interactivity that might fit with Vintage:
"Interactivity is the number of options and cards that a deck and/or player has which involve the opponent or his/her cards. The more options, the higher is the interactivity." Following this, Stompy is a highly non-interactive deck, as the about the only thing that involves the opponent is attacking. Likewise, Meandeck Tendrils is extremely non-interactive, the only thing that involves the opponent being Tendrils itself. Draw-7 has a higher degree of interactivity, with the main component of the deck (the draw-7s) being interactive as they involve the opponent, who draws cards as well. A Control deck is generally highly interactive, as most of its spells directly pertain to the opponent: counters, removal, hand disruption all involve the opponent or his cards.

Also, certain cards are more interactive than others. Intuition is interactive, because your opponent has to do something (even if you don't really give him a choice by offering 3 AKs). Gifts Ungiven and Fact or Fiction represent the highest level of interactivity, as the opponent is not only involved here (like when you counter his spell), but even has to make an active decision. Intuition for three different cards means an increase in interactivity for that particular card.

That gives two criteria to measure interactivity: a. The absolute number of interactive spells in a deck (quantity); b. The level of interactivity of the individual cards (quality).

I do not like tying interactivity to tempo, because that gives additional complexity by requiring a definition of "tempo" first. You will find that a card that does not interact with your opponent has far less impact on tempo than others. Tempo in Vintage is extremely hard to measure, as so many things are going on as hidden information. A player drawing 3 off Ancestral has probably gained a lot of tempo. If a player tutors for a card, he may have put himself in a position to win next turn, creating something like a "virtual tempo swing" which only he is aware of, while giving the impression of having lost tempo by spending mana for tutoring.

Stretching out to make every action of the game actually influence tempo, and calling that "interactive", is an effort to replace one word (tempo) with another (interactivity) without giving each of the two a distinctive meaning. Such is the nature of Magic that every decision has an influence on the game in one way or other. Interactivity is more narrow than that, I believe, and I have outlined the definition above.

A tempo change is not necessarily interactive. Example: Sacrificing lands to a Zuran Orb does not involve an opponent or his cards, but it does create a tempo swing that may well change the game. If you want to call that an interactive play or situation, then defining interactivity becomes impossible, since everything has some kind of impact on the game and becomes "interactive" at that point. So, I say keep "interaction" narrowly defined to make it possible to work with the term.

Taking my proposed definition, Trinisphere is an interactive card - it directly affects an opponent. But, and that's where it gets funny, it prevents all interactivity on the other side. That's why it is so bad: It simply stops further interactivity for a limited time. It thus is both a non-interactive and an interactive card, which might well be a reason for restriction, since it is the only one of that kind I can think of right now. Feel free to tell me if there are more cards like this, that are both interactive and non-interactive depending on from where you watch it.

Also, feel free to criticise, since I am not claiming the ultimate wisdom here.

Dozer