[Theory] Active vs. Reactive

[MTGFan]

This is a theory that arose out of the discussion I had in the “Fish Strategy” thread with some posters. I asked myself: what is the most effective way to articulate the impression that some cards give me of being mostly defensive, or reactive, without eschewing accuracy and correctness in the terminology that I use?

Mike Flores is famous for proposing the “beatdown” vs. “control” dichotomy in his article “Who’s the Beatdown?” I found this theory to be quite adequate when describing the particular role a deck, and the pilot of that deck, will play during the course of a game, but inadequate in describing individual cards and their effects upon the game. Beatdown theory is far more match-specific and deck-specific than it is card-specific.  I found myself yearning for a way to analyze card interactions in a more deck-agnostic manner.

After some theorizing, I decided upon using the terms “active” and “reactive” to describe individual cards in the game. I came to the conclusion that this particular dichotomy can definitely be established, and correctly applied to the discussion of the properties of Magic cards, despite claims made by some people regarding the meaninglessness of such terms. However, proper care must be taken to define these properties with respect to the rules of the game.

Firstly, it is necessary to define a few key terms before establishing any other definitions:

- The “raw game state” is the state of the game as set forth by the rules of the game of Magic prior to the playing of the game. The raw game state is comprised of life totals, deck sizes, hand sizes, the various steps and phases which constitute each player’s turn, the mechanics of the turn, and so on and so forth. This game state can be modified during the course of a typical game by interactions within that game, but its basic tenets never change from game to game if we assume a static rule set for the purposes of discussion. (Obviously Wizards of the Coast changes the basic rules from time to time, but the basic structure of the game mostly remains the same year in and year out.)

- An “entity” is defined as a permanent, ability, or spell in the game of Magic. It is anything in the game that is introduced during the course of that game which is not specifically established as a part of the previously defined “raw game state”. Any and all instants and sorceries, creatures, enchantments, artifacts, lands, tokens, activated and triggered abilities, however, constitute the sum total of the entities in the game.

- The “role” an entity plays in the game refers to its position within the game at a given moment: that is, an entity’s current interaction (or lack thereof), at that moment, with the rest of the game which is comprised of the raw game state and any other entities that may have been introduced into the game since its start. An entity may not occupy more than one role at a time. The role an entity plays in the game will be superfluous unless that role exists as a link in the chain of causality that leads to a victory in that game. What this means is that to be considered for the purposes of discussion, the role an entity is playing must somehow contribute to the eventual victory. For example: Lightning Bolt can just as easily destroy one of your creatures, but that line of play, typically, does nothing to effect a victory (unless you are killing a creature in response to some other spell of your opponent’s, but then it is dependent upon the spell your opponent is playing, and thus is still playing a reactive role), so we say that a Bolt played this way would be totally ineffective and thus not considered for a discussion of its particular role.

Next, I will define two important terms using the aforementioned definitions:

A “reactive” role can be defined as a role played by an entity that is dependent upon the existence of an entity, or entities, under the opponent’s present, past, or future control.

An “active” role can be defined as a role played by an entity that is not dependent upon the existence of an entity, or entities, under the opponent’s present, past, or future control.

All cards used in the game, at any one time during a match, if they are playing some kind of role at that time and not simply sitting inert, must be playing either an active or a reactive role, by definition, but cannot play both roles at the same time.

Furthermore, many cards can be said to play only reactive roles in any game in which they are involved. That is, these particular cards can never be effective in any way, and will remain inert throughout the course of the game, if that game lacks the existence of certain specific entities under the opponent’s control delineated by the text of that card. These cards can be identified as fundamentally “reactive cards”. They not only play reactive roles very often during the course of most games, but they also are selected solely for their ability to play those reactive roles. Similarly, some cards can be said to play only active roles, and thus are identified as fundamentally “active cards”.

There is nothing that precludes a card from playing both reactive and active roles in a given game, as long as those roles are being played at different points in the course of the game.

Here are some examples:

- Lightning Bolt is a card that can play both reactive and active roles in the course of a game: it can be used to subtract 3 points of life from your opponent’s life total, or it can be used to kill a creature under your opponent’s control. However, most players who select Lightning Bolt for their burn decks, for instance, will probably end up using it actively, and thus Lightning Bolt can be determined to be a hybrid card that is primarily active.

- Both Lava Spike and Thunderclap are variations of Lightning Bolt with two different stipulations. Lava Spike requires its target to be a player, and Thunderclap requires its target to be a creature. Because a creature in the game is an entity, and for the Thunderclap to make some contribution to your eventual victory it will typically answer some threatening (either active or reactive – it can kill both an Jackal Pup and a Wall of Wood, for instance) creature under your opponent’s control, the Thunderclap will exclusively play reactive roles in games in which it is involved, and thus can be definitively determined to be a reactive card. Because the opposing player is not an entity, and Lava Spike can only target a player, it will never interact with any entities under the opponent’s control and thus will exclusively play active roles, and thus is a definitively active variation of Lightning Bolt.

- Counterspell is the prototypical reactive card. For it to affect the game, it can only target an entity already introduced to the game: a spell on the stack. In 99% of situations this will be a spell under an opponent’s control. 1% of those situations will be bizarre corner cases in which you may need to counter one of your own spells, say, to build storm count. Thus, apart from this rare instance, we can say with confidence that Counterspell is a definitively reactive card.

- Trinisphere is Stephen Menendian's favorite “pedagogical trope” when he discusses Magic theory. He enjoys using this example because he believes that it eludes easy categorization. Because it clearly depends upon certain types of cards to be played by the opponent to affect the game, but can also enter the game before any of these cards are even played, its true purpose on either the offense or defense would confuse the would-be analyst. But through the lens of my theory its purpose can be easily discerned. What is Trinisphere but a lock component that punishes a certain property of a set of cards played by the opponent? Trinisphere punishes shallow mana curves: namely, low casting cost cards. Its effectiveness in contributing to a victory fully depends on the existence of low casting cost cards in the opponent’s employ. Thus, it is purely reactive. It is a blank card with no value if the opponent’s mana curve is sufficiently heavy. Simply because Trinisphere anticipates these properties and preemptively responds to such a strategy does not change the fact that is purely reactive according to my definitions. You can claim that it is reactive in a “proactive” manner.

- Most creatures, by their very nature, are capable of playing both active and reactive roles during the course of a match: they can both block and attack during the combat step. Certain creatures such as Walls are prohibited from attacking, and thus are purely reactive until some action removes their Defender status and allows them to be potentially active. Other creatures such as Ball Lightning and Ashenmoor Gouger contain provisions that prevent them from ever blocking, and thus can only be used in an active manner unless, obviously, altered by other actions in the game.

- Most creatures are selected for their ability to fulfill active roles: vanilla beaters such as Tarmogoyf are usually selected for their ability to attack and not block, especially in Vintage where creature-based strategies will be frequently pitted against non-creature-based strategies. Thus we can claim that most creatures without disruptive abilities will be primarily “active” with the ability to occasionally be used reactively through the combat step.

- There is a subset of creatures with disruptive abilities not related to their ability to engage in combat. Cards such as Meddling Mage and Glen-Elendra Archmage have distinctively reactive abilities attached to the bodies of creatures which can attack and block. But it is never in doubt as to why they are being played by a particular deck – their strong reactive abilities are most important, and their bodies are almost incidental. If Meddling Mage was merely an enchantment with the same text, it would be purely reactive, but because of its 2/2 body it is a mostly reactive (selected by players primarily for its disruptive reactive ablity) with a secondary active consideration as a generic creature and all that being a creature entails (the aforementioned ability of all creatures to play active and reactive roles during the combat phase). If we were to select these cards primarily for their active natures as generic creatures, they would be woefully underpowered and overcosted choices as such: 4 mana flying 2/2s and 2 mana multicolored vanilla 2/2s. Thus they are primarily reactive hybrids.

One of the most important principles that arises out of this theory is that the strongest active cards of a particular Magic metagame define that metagame. Why is this? It is because the effectiveness of the strongest active entities in the game is only limited by the rules of the game. That is, there are no other limiting factors for active cards but other active cards and rules that outline the manner in which these cards can function.  The strongest of these active cards are obviously not limited by any other active cards, and thus are determined to be effective only by the rules. Similarly, the reactive cards of any particular format are determined effective by the existence of the active cards of that format. Whether or not Trinisphere is playable in a format is directly dependent upon the prevalence of highly effective low mana-cost active cards, just as Trinisphere itself is dependent on the existence of those same cards in a single game.

To better understand this principle, consider the following examples:

- Tarmogoyf is the most efficiently costed active creature-based threat in the game. Unless they print an even cheaper or more powerful version of this card, it will remain so in every Magic format. Thus it sets the precedent for the combat realm of the metagame in every format in which it is legal. Its dominance and format-defining nature is not dependent upon any other factor except for the continued existence of the combat step, and the absence of even cheaper and more powerful versions of itself.

- Swords to Plowshares is the most efficiently costed reactive answer to creature-based threats in the game. That is, for one white mana, it unconditionally removes a creature from the game.  This is the baseline for reactive cards of this nature. However, its effectiveness in the game as a whole is dependent on other entities in the game: namely, creatures themselves. If you were to play in a metagame consisting almost entirely of combo and control, playing StP would be a rather silly idea. Despite its dominance among that class of reactive answers, it is entirely useless in that particular metagame. Its effectiveness is directly tied to other entities in the game. The strongest active cards in the game define its effectiveness. If those strongest active cards are creatures, StP is powerful and effective. If they are not, it is rarely worth playing in the main portion of your deck.

Now you may be saying: well, isn’t Tarmogoyf also defined by the existence of combo and control in the metagame? You are correct: if the strongest active combo cards are far quicker and better than Tarmogoyf, there is no much need to play him. But in this case a weaker active threat (creature) is being ushered out by a stronger active threat (combo) in this definition of the metagame/format. The powerful combo entities define that particular environment and demand the use of reactive anti-combo answers such as Trinisphere and Force of Will instead of Swords to Plowshares. And if you wanted to play creatures in your deck, regardless of powerful combo options available, Tarmogoyf is nevertheless the best creature available to you and still the definition of creature-based threats in that environment. Of course, if creature-based strategies such as Tarmogoyf are indeed the most popular and effective strategies in the format, we can conclude that by defining the format as such, they demand the use of solid reactive answers to creatures, namely, cards like StP.

So what is the value of defining these terms? I believe that one of the most important things for players to agree on is the language they use to discuss the game and elements within the game. Definitively categorizing cards will help us better understand the dynamics of the game and its components. Arriving at a consensus for language used by players fosters more cogent and lucid commentary on card choices and deck choices. Understanding that Fish strategies primarily select their cards for their reactive properties, for instance, will lead to an acknowledgement of its dependence, as a deck, upon the active players in its particular metagame. This theory also explains the popular conception of the “hate” deck in player’s minds and the implications of its reactionary strategy, and its weakness as a dependent player in metagames. All of these are reasons to adopt this theory as “natural law” of the Magic world.

Comments? Suggestions?

[pierce]

My critique is simple: at what level do we add context? for example, you have assumptions such as:
tinisphere is a reactive card by nature, that it needs the opponent to play things that cost less than 3.
and
"Most creatures are selected for their ability to fulfill active roles: vanilla beaters such as Tarmogoyf are usually selected for their ability to attack and not block, especially in Vintage where creature-based strategies will be frequently pitted against non-creature-based strategies"

When I say context, I mean a real life vintage touranment. Why talk theory about possibilities without considering the tangible ones? I contend that at any vintage event you go do, less than two players will have a large amount of spells (say, 10) that cost more than three without help from a mishra's workshop. Considering the abusive amount of tempo generated from Trnisphere at an average vintage tournament, cast off a workshop, it seems fair to consider it as a threat. There is a certain predictability in what you will play against that makes the argument of "but if only hurts cards that cost less than three" arbitrary at best, absurd at worst.

Looking at the second statement, you assume that tarmogoyf is built as an attacker. that extra point of toughness makes for an even better blocker. I have been thwarted multiple times this year in vintage by how well that guy is on both fronts. This was due to the numerous creature versus creature matches I played, which included half my rounds at worlds. It seems pointless to label any creature as just an 'attacker' or 'blocker' without constraints in design that limit it as such (ball lightning, any wall/defender). Within context of a aggro heavy tournament, I would want tarmogoyfs to in the creature on creature fights due to his aggresive and defensive capabilities.

[zeus-online]

Oh no, not again...

Whats the point? Even if we split all magic cards up in those 2 piles of active and reactive, how does this help me play the game, or build a deck?

And how can you say that the best "active" cards is more definitive of the format then the "reactive"
I assure you that Force of will and Mana drain have defined vintage for years, and more so then the other cards. And they're clearly what you call "reactive"

I will not post again in this discussion though, since it's probably going to be another 4-pagers of nothingness.

[CowWithHat]

When I say context, I mean a real life vintage touranment. Why talk theory about possibilities without considering the tangible ones? I contend that at any vintage event you go do, less than two players will have a large amount of spells (say, 10) that cost more than three without help from a mishra's workshop. Considering the abusive amount of tempo generated from Trnisphere at an average vintage tournament, cast off a workshop, it seems fair to consider it as a threat. There is a certain predictability in what you will play against that makes the argument of "but if only hurts cards that cost less than three" arbitrary at best, absurd at worst.

I don't think you make an argument against his theory here.  He does not say that reactive cards are not threatening.  Defining trinisphere as threatening has no bearing on the theory of active or reactive.  

Trinisphere acts as a dampening tool against decks that revolve around cards that cost three or less.  Contending that every deck in the format wants to do this doesn't actually change the fact that it is purely reactive.  Trinisphere never preformed in Standard because the cards that defined the format weren't that threatened by a trinishphere by the time it resolved.

A deck does not actually win games unless it plays cards that actively cause an end to a game.  Trinishpere is not one of these.  In any tournament, including worlds, no deck can even win a game unless it plays something or does something that actually kills the other guy.  Trinisphere cannot do this.  Therefore, it is never active, if my understanding of this theory is sound.  Trinisphere is playable in the format because it does something disruptive to a highly played vintage strategy, that of casting spells that cost less then 3 (that is an understatement of course).

Looking at the second statement, you assume that tarmogoyf is built as an attacker. that extra point of toughness makes for an even better blocker. I have been thwarted multiple times this year in vintage by how well that guy is on both fronts. This was due to the numerous creature versus creature matches I played, which included half my rounds at worlds. It seems pointless to label any creature as just an 'attacker' or 'blocker' without constraints in design that limit it as such (ball lightning, any wall/defender). Within context of a aggro heavy tournament, I would want tarmogoyfs to in the creature on creature fights due to his aggresive and defensive capabilities.

It is true that tarmogofy can be placed in a deck as a reactive tool.  This writer is suggesting that that is not generally the purpose of goyf in a deck list.  I agree with him on this point.  Even if you don't agree, I don't believe that specific example actually fights against the theory of active or reactive card roles.  If you are playing goyf in a deck where he plays both reactive and active roles that does not actually mean anything in terms of the theory.  At some points the card is active.  At other points the card is reactive.  His explanation for cards like this seemed reasonable to me.  A card can play only one of those roles at any given moment.

My personal point of contention comes from cards such as sadistic sacrament and jester's cap.  They interact with both the "raw game state" and the opposing entities. Consider a case where I am playing a build of TPS with only sphinx and tendrils as cards that have the potential to kill an opponent.  Should you cast either of those spells this theory seems to break down.  The card you play is playing the role of an active spell because it will lead to me decking myself first in this game.  That same card is, at the same moment, reactively removing the future possibilities for my deck.

edit:
I have recently re-examined this situation and realized how foolish this is.  The strength of these cards is completely dependent on the opponent.  The fact that they can guarantee victory in some conditions is completely based upon the opponent's strategy and cards.  This situation is textbook reactive role playing and I was just unable to wrap my mind around reactive role playing guaranteeing wins because it is so rare.
end edit:

I dissent with zues' opinion that this theory is irrelevant.  I believe putting cards in categories, as this theory does, will help me personally have a lens with which to view which cards are best in certain decks.  When deciding whether or not to play Bazaar of Baghdad in a Stax list, I see that that the card is active unconditionally.  Because of this I can make an assessment of whether or not my specific list can afford to play any cards that cost a land drop and provide no reactive potential in my slow control deck.  It also provides a solid and accessible definition to a a term that often gets people emotionally charged.

Even if this theory is irrelevant to many people that does not mean it has no value.  I personally would like to refer to cards that interact with opponents cards and strategies.  I would also like to refer to cards that do not do this.  It would be nice if the community agreed on safe, non-vague, terms that can express this without a 4 page flame-war.

[Based]

Trinisphere punishes shallow mana curves: namely, low casting cost cards. Its effectiveness in contributing to a victory fully depends on the existence of low casting cost cards in the opponent’s employ. Thus, it is purely reactive. It is a blank card with no value if the opponent’s mana curve is sufficiently heavy.

What if we knew that Vintage decks uniformly rely on shallow mana curves (and on 0-mana artifacts to drive the curve)?  Can your classification account for this?  Wouldn't it be fair to say "vs. every deck except maybe stax, Trinisphere will be active?"

Counterspell is the prototypical reactive card. For it to affect the game, it can only target an entity already introduced to the game: a spell on the stack. In 99% of situations this will be a spell under an opponent’s control. 1% of those situations will be bizarre corner cases in which you may need to counter one of your own spells, say, to build storm count. Thus, apart from this rare instance, we can say with confidence that Counterspell is a definitively reactive card.

(Ignore Ichorid for a moment.)  FoW reacts to every other non-land card in the game.  That's why it shapes the format so heavily.  You're right that every decent deck plays some kind of threat; taking that for granted, FoW is dependent on a necessary entity.

I found myself yearning for a way to analyze card interactions in a more deck-agnostic manner...Arriving at a consensus for language used by players fosters more cogent and lucid commentary on card choices and deck choices.

Can you give a non-Fish example of this? 

[hitman]

Wouldn't it be fair to say "vs. every deck except maybe stax, Trinisphere will be active?"

Exactly.  The broader point that MTGFan was missing in the other forum was that every single card could be classified as active or reactive given any given gamestate.  He's ignoring context in specific games for some arbitrary definitions that don't matter.  The only use in defining things as active or reactive is to describe what a player is trying to do in a specific point in time in a specific gamestate.  You can't objectively define cards as active or reactive because every single card can be used both reactively and actively.

[CowWithHat]

What if we knew that Vintage decks uniformly rely on shallow mana curves (and on 0-mana artifacts to drive the curve)?  Can your classification account for this?  Wouldn't it be fair to say "vs. every deck except maybe stax, Trinisphere will be active?"

edit: i said active in the first sentence initially, that is 100% backwards
The definition of reactive, by this theory, is cards that interact with opposing entities.  Trinisphere interacts with opposing entities.  Trinisphere never does anything beyond its interaction with opposing entities.  Trinisphere is never active.  To the question you posed, I'd say no, Trinisphere is not active against anything ever.  The benefit of using such terminology is that you can make statements about reactive strategies and card roles without vagueness in your language.

(Ignore Ichorid for a moment.)  FoW reacts to every other non-land card in the game.  That's why it shapes the format so heavily.  You're right that every decent deck plays some kind of threat; taking that for granted, FoW is dependent on a necessary entity.

Cards that play a reactive role are often better then cards that play an active role when they get to fight against their specific target entities.  This is reasonable because reactive cards are conditional by their very definition.  The fact that Force of Will is reactive against an almost universal strategy suggests that it is a powerful reactive tool.  Because people take the power of Force of Will into account when making a deck it does its own share of format warping.  The format remains defined, however, by its active cards.  

Every deck must play a way to win.  Any card that actually wins must play an active role.  Force of Will cannot play an active role.  The format is defined first by what people are using to win.  Reactive cards are useless in a vacuum.  Force of Will isn't that good against a format that is defined by dredge.  It is good in a format where the decks that preform best are fish, stax, and artifact combo based strategies.

Can you give a non-Fish example of this?  

I don't know if he can.  I think I can give a couple of examples.

When deciding whether or not to include Bazaar in Stax it can be valuable to note that it is never reactive in a deck based on reactive roles.  A good question to ask yourself when making this decision is "Is the power that my build gets out of bazaar enough to warrant running this card that cannot play a reactive role?"

Consider a situation where you arrive at a tournament with a TPS list that has no sideboard options for a no mana version of dredge.  Further consider that you play against that deck and lose game one.  When sideboarding for game two it is probably best to see if there are cards like hurkyl's recall or rebuild in your board which can play an active role in winning.  This is reasonable because the cards that play reactively in most TPS maindecks aren't strong against the dredge deck's active strategy and it would be best if they could be removed for cards that at least do something.

To go a little more vague, if you find a build of your pet deck is performing poorly this theory can help tell you where you need to shore things up.  If what is killing you consistently is reactive shut down cards like null rod and sphere effects you have many options.  You could try to make the deck more powerful actively in the hopes of killing an opponent before they have access to these cards.  That seems foolish because these cards are often available on turn one.  The best way to combat this is probably to add cards that can fight against these effects.  Selecting cards that play the reactive role of dealing with these shut down permanents is probably the best way to deal with the situation.    If you cannot find room for these cards without weakening your active strategy too much perhaps this deck can't be viable against a metagame where these shutdown cards are big players.

[nhk]

This categorization is almost completely useless.  It is possible to split cards up into two piles unambiguously with your definitions, but it's also possible to split cards up based on the first letter of the card name.

Active cards, while not dependent on the existence of other cards in your opponent's deck, are generally still dependent on other cards NOT being in your opponent's deck.

Thus, from a game theoretic standpoint, the inclusion of an active card in your deck vs. a reactive card depends on exactly the same analysis - what you expect to face.

Including a win condition when it is weak to a certain "reactive" card that is commonly played is clearly a mistake, just like including a reactive card when nobody is playing the threats it reacts to.

Consider the following card:

Broken Win Condition
Instant
Broken Win Condition deals 20 damage to target player.

One might argue that this card is strong and worth splashing red for.  However, suppose the following card also exists:

Broken Blue Spell
Instant
Broken Blue Spell is Blue.
Counter target spell an opponent controls if it is red.  Draw four cards.

Broken Blue Spell is a reactive card.  It is as reactive as Force of Will.  Your opponent must play a spell for you to cast it.

Everyone in your metagame will run Broken Blue Spell, even Ichorid.  Broken Win Condition is much weaker as a result.  But I thought it was active, right?  It doesn't depend on the existence of other cards in the metagame...

What we have here is a reactive card shaping the metagame.  Broken Win Condition starts to feel very conditional.  It reads, "You win the game if an opponent doesn't have Broken Blue Spell in hand."  The existence of reactive cards that answer them, in fact, makes all active spells just as conditional and dependent as the reactive cards.  Well, what card is it dependent on your opponent playing or running?  The answer, of course, is "any card other than Broken Blue Spell".  This is no more convoluted than Force of Will being dependent on your opponent running "any spell".  There is only a superficial difference between the two categories of active and reactive.

I'd also like to point out that even active cards are dependent on mana.  This seems like a stupid point, but when you consider how mana acceleration warps the format, it starts to seem important to consider.  The strongest active cards differ depending on how fast mana is available.  Would TPS run Yawgmoth's Bargain if Dark Ritual was banned?

[MTGFan]

What if we knew that Vintage decks uniformly rely on shallow mana curves (and on 0-mana artifacts to drive the curve)?  Can your classification account for this?  Wouldn't it be fair to say "vs. every deck except maybe stax, Trinisphere will be active?"

What would be fair to say is: "in this particular Vintage metagame, vs. every deck except maybe stax, Trinisphere is highly effective".

Again, simply because it is effective versus many archetypes in a particular format doesn't make it active. Active and Reactive are merely ways to classify cards in somewhat of a vacuum (well, basic Magic rules + vacuum).

(Ignore Ichorid for a moment.)  FoW reacts to every other non-land card in the game.  That's why it shapes the format so heavily.  You're right that every decent deck plays some kind of threat; taking that for granted, FoW is dependent on a necessary entity.

Yep, Force of Will is a Counterspell variant and thus a thoroughly reactive card. The best reactive card in the game, probably.

[MTGFan]

Wouldn't it be fair to say "vs. every deck except maybe stax, Trinisphere will be active?"

Exactly.  The broader point that MTGFan was missing in the other forum was that every single card could be classified as active or reactive given any given gamestate.  He's ignoring context in specific games for some arbitrary definitions that don't matter.  The only use in defining things as active or reactive is to describe what a player is trying to do in a specific point in time in a specific gamestate.  You can't objectively define cards as active or reactive because every single card can be used both reactively and actively.

Per my definitions, cards such as Trinisphere are *never* ever active. Its effectiveness in any game always depends upon a set of cards being played by the opponent. It is by definition a reactive card, because it always plays reactive roles. Now, if, in a particular metagame such as Vintage today, it will be effective vs. many decks, you can say, of course, that "Trinisphere is a highly effective and playable, threatening reactive card in this format". In formats like Standard, Extended and Legacy, you can say that "Trinisphere is a reactive card hampered by the mana curve diversity in this format and thus is primarily only effective against a few combo decks that may or may not see play and thus is best left as a sideboard card."

[MTGFan]

This categorization is almost completely useless.  It is possible to split cards up into two piles unambiguously with your definitions, but it's also possible to split cards up based on the first letter of the card name.

Active cards, while not dependent on the existence of other cards in your opponent's deck, are generally still dependent on other cards NOT being in your opponent's deck.

Thus, from a game theoretic standpoint, the inclusion of an active card in your deck vs. a reactive card depends on exactly the same analysis - what you expect to face.

Including a win condition when it is weak to a certain "reactive" card that is commonly played is clearly a mistake, just like including a reactive card when nobody is playing the threats it reacts to.

Consider the following card:

Broken Win Condition
Instant
Broken Win Condition deals 20 damage to target player.

One might argue that this card is strong and worth splashing red for.  However, suppose the following card also exists:

Broken Blue Spell
Instant
Broken Blue Spell is Blue.
Counter target spell an opponent controls if it is red.  Draw four cards.

Broken Blue Spell is a reactive card.  It is as reactive as Force of Will.  Your opponent must play a spell for you to cast it.

Everyone in your metagame will run Broken Blue Spell, even Ichorid.  Broken Win Condition is much weaker as a result.  But I thought it was active, right?  It doesn't depend on the existence of other cards in the metagame...

What we have here is a reactive card shaping the metagame.  Broken Win Condition starts to feel very conditional.  It reads, "You win the game if an opponent doesn't have Broken Blue Spell in hand."  The existence of reactive cards that answer them, in fact, makes all active spells just as conditional and dependent as the reactive cards.  Well, what card is it dependent on your opponent playing or running?  The answer, of course, is "any card other than Broken Blue Spell".  This is no more convoluted than Force of Will being dependent on your opponent running "any spell".  There is only a superficial difference between the two categories of active and reactive.

I'd also like to point out that even active cards are dependent on mana.  This seems like a stupid point, but when you consider how mana acceleration warps the format, it starts to seem important to consider.  The strongest active cards differ depending on how fast mana is available.  Would TPS run Yawgmoth's Bargain if Dark Ritual was banned?

Ask yourself one thing:

If you merely draw Broken Win Condition, can it contribute to a match victory?

If you draw Broken Blue Spell, and your opponent DOES NOT play a red card, can it contribute to a match victory?

The burden of existing is placed upon the reactive card in every scenario.

[nhk]

Ask yourself one thing:

If you merely draw Broken Win Condition, can it contribute to a match victory?

If you draw Broken Blue Spell, and your opponent DOES NOT play a red card, can it contribute to a match victory?

Broken Blue spell is worded like Pyroblast.  It can target non-red spells, but it won't counter them.

To clarify, my issue with the active vs. reactive classification is twofold:

1) It does not line up with intuition.  In fact, for any definition of "active" or "reactive", there will probably be a weird card that gets miscategorized.  Broken Blue Spell is an auto-include in any deck and feels like an "active" card, as it is a draw spell; however, it is designated passive by your classification.
2) The exclusion of a card from your opponent's deck is no different than the inclusion of a card in your opponent's deck.  Broken Win Condition could be viewed as a metagame inclusion against decks that don't run Broken Blue Spell, i.e. it is a reactive card that reacts to their not having Broken Blue Spell.  Time Vault is more conditional than Ancient Grudge (null rod on the table?  opponent has artifact destruction?  ancient grudge can almost always blow something up), yet it gets the "active" designation while Ancient Grudge gets the "passive" designation.  What I'm trying to say here is that the metagame and the synergies in your deck change relative card strength by so much that any attempts to categorize cards into "active" or "reactive" or anything else are probably counterproductive.

[MTGFan]

Broken Blue spell is worded like Pyroblast.  It can target non-red spells, but it won't counter them.

To clarify, my issue with the active vs. reactive classification is twofold:

1) It does not line up with intuition.  In fact, for any definition of "active" or "reactive", there will probably be a weird card that gets miscategorized.  Broken Blue Spell is an auto-include in any deck and feels like an "active" card, as it is a draw spell; however, it is designated passive by your classification.
2) The exclusion of a card from your opponent's deck is no different than the inclusion of a card in your opponent's deck.  Broken Win Condition could be viewed as a metagame inclusion against decks that don't run Broken Blue Spell, i.e. it is a reactive card that reacts to their not having Broken Blue Spell.  Time Vault is more conditional than Ancient Grudge (null rod on the table?  opponent has artifact destruction?  ancient grudge can almost always blow something up), yet it gets the "active" designation while Ancient Grudge gets the "passive" designation.  What I'm trying to say here is that the metagame and the synergies in your deck change relative card strength by so much that any attempts to categorize cards into "active" or "reactive" or anything else are probably counterproductive.

1.) BBS, as you outlined it, is a reactive card with an active component, similar to Mana Drain in that respect. It is a thoroughly broken card if it both counters something and draws cards. If people start playing it purely for the card draw (highly possible given the sheer brokenness of its card draw component), it will be a decidedly active card with a secondary, even incidental, reactive capability, and it will be frequently selected by players purely for its active strength (so much so that some players may even counter their own spells with BBS). Nothing really confusing about classifying this card.

2.) It is most definitely true that every card in a deck, even active cards, can be positively or negatively affected by the inclusion of other cards in the game. If I were to play Time Vault in a metagame comprised of decks sporting 4 Ancient Grudge, 4 Krosan Grip, 4 Qasali Pridemage, etc all maindeck, of course Time Vault would be a "weak" choice. It would be a weak active card in that metagame but its fundamentally active nature, as set forth by my definitions, would not change. But whether or not a certain active card can be metagamed out of existence is not what this theory is concerned with. Those are all considerations you must make, yourself, as a player when contemplating the practical applications of your cards. Theory is just a way to analyze things in the abstract. It is not a way to determine the "strength" of each individual card in a particular metagame and a particular matchup, but a way to analyze the properties of each card in a general sort of way. Strength evaluations can later be extrapolated from these assessments after other elements beyond the realm of theory have been factored into the mix.

Consider this:

If a deck with the Time Vault combo ran into 4 Grudge / 4 Pridemage / 4 Grip, of course the Time Vault combo would, often enough, be highly ineffective due to the appearance of those reactive cards in many of the games those two decks would play. But Vault, because it is active, is still not dependent upon the exclusion or inclusion of those reactive cards to be able to contribute to a victory. Consider the situation in which the Time Vault player has enough reactive answers to THOSE reactive answers: say he Duresses a Grip, and Forces a Pridemage, and then his Vault resolves. The Vault goes on to win the game. How did this happen if the Vault is dependent upon the exclusion or inclusion of those reactive threats in the opponent's deck? Because it isn't. Because it can still function if, like in that example, other factors conspire to eliminate that artifact hate from the game. Or hell, let's imagine that the the opposing player just does not draw any of those hate cards.

Now consider if that deck with 4 Ancient Grudge, 4 Qasali Pridemage, and 4 Krosan Grip ran into a deck that ran zero artifacts, what would happen to those cards in that matchup? 8 of them would be entirely useless and 4 would just be mediocre beaters. They are literally dependent upon the presence of an opposing card (in this situation, an artifact) to have ANY use at all in the chain of causality that leads to a victory.

Again, recognize that these terms are merely used to describe cards in the abstract - obviously certain reactive cards may be more widely effective in certain metagames than many other active cards, but that doesn't change the validity or applicability of these definitions. They are still useful in discussing card properties.

[nhk]

How are they useful?

I simply don't see a situation where considering whether a card is active or reactive leads to new insight.

[MTGFan]

How are they useful?

I simply don't see a situation where considering whether a card is active or reactive leads to new insight.

Honestly, this all started in reaction to Stephen Menendian telling me that distinctions such as "reactive" and "active" can't even be made. Clearly false as you can establish definitions for abstract qualities such as these - and prove that they exist.

But since thinking about this some more, I've found that there are some practical implications for this stuff. For instance, it helps you understand why "hate" decks are only as effective as the active cards they seek to hate out are prevalent. And it gives you a new way to think about archetypical reactive cards such as Trinisphere and Duress in terms of their dependance upon the opponent's strategies.

Also, why do we define any terms at all? Why did Mike Flores write about "beatdown" and "control"? Why did we ever agree on terms such as "control" and "aggro" and "aggro-control"? Because we need to establish a shared vocablary of words we use to discuss this game. This theory expands that shared vocabulary a bit.

[hitman]

Per my definitions, cards such as Trinisphere are *never* ever active. Its effectiveness in any game always depends upon a set of cards being played by the opponent. It is by definition a reactive card, because it always plays reactive roles. Now, if, in a particular metagame such as Vintage today, it will be effective vs. many decks, you can say, of course, that "Trinisphere is a highly effective and playable, threatening reactive card in this format". In formats like Standard, Extended and Legacy, you can say that "Trinisphere is a reactive card hampered by the mana curve diversity in this format and thus is primarily only effective against a few combo decks that may or may not see play and thus is best left as a sideboard card."

What are you talking about!?!  According to your own definitions, "A “reactive” role can be defined as a role played by an entity that is dependent upon the existence of an entity, or entities, under the opponent’s present, past, or future control.

An “active” role can be defined as a role played by an entity that is not dependent upon the existence of an entity, or entities, under the opponent’s present, past, or future control.

Trinisphere does not depend on any other entity.  You can very much use it actively in order to ensure your spells can't be interacted with within a time frame.  Your definitions only say that spells with targets require targets whether in the past, present or future.  Trinisphere never requires any other entity to be cast or in play.  When you preemptively cast Trinisphere, you are actively trying to win the game. 

Your defintions are tautologies.  They don't actually say anything.  Simplified, your definitions are, "A reactive card is a spell that targets and requires targets.  An active card is a spell that doesn't target and as such does not require targets."

[honestabe]

Here's where I think your logic falls apart.

Player 1: Yawgmoth's Will (Active)
Player 2: Counter (Reactive)
Player 1: Counter.  Now, is this counter active or reactive.  It didn't stop your opponent, as much as it did help you.  Which was what Steve was getting at.  Stopping your opponent and helping yourself are the same thing. 

also, say I have vault/key in hand, and a tinker.  I play tinker to bait a counter.  Is this active or reactive.  Tinker is most definitly a business spell, but here, I'm using it for the sole purpose of taking away your counter.

Here's my 3rd and final example.

Duress.

Is duress active, because all I am doing is taking cards from your hand, or is it reactive, because you need to have cards for me to duress away?
And what about a turn 1 duress, where your goal is to weaken your opponent, vs a duress to find a counter.

[CowWithHat]

Here's where I think your logic falls apart.

Player 1: Yawgmoth's Will (Active)
Player 2: Counter (Reactive)
Player 1: Counter.  Now, is this counter active or reactive.  It didn't stop your opponent, as much as it did help you.  Which was what Steve was getting at.  Stopping your opponent and helping yourself are the same thing. 

In this example both counters are reactive because they interact with opposing entities.  You say that the for the case of Player 1's Force of Will there is confusion because it "it didn't stop the opponent, as much as it did help you" but that isn't relevant to any of the theory in this thread.  Everything you do helps you or it is a misplay, this includes playing cards in reactive roles.  Player 1's Force of Will is causing an opponents spell to not do anything, therefore it is reactive.  This is a point of confusion I think, reactive cards do things that are helpful, that does not mean they aren't reactive.  If a card interacts with an opponent's entities it is playing a reactive role.

also, say I have vault/key in hand, and a tinker.  I play tinker to bait a counter.  Is this active or reactive.  Tinker is most definitly a business spell, but here, I'm using it for the sole purpose of taking away your counter.

This I believe is an example that perfectly illustrates the relevance of this theory.  Cards can play active roles and reactive roles.  Some cards can only play reactive roles, like trinisphere.  Because of the existence of counterspells, however, pretty much every card can play a reactive role.  You have painted a beautiful picture of a situation where you have a game winning set of active cards.  To ensure that your most powerful play happens you play the tinker in an attempt to play a reactive role, the role of interacting with an opposing counterspell.  Deciding when to try to make your cards active and when to try to make them reactive is one strength of this theory and a valuable asset to any player.

Duress.

Is duress active, because all I am doing is taking cards from your hand, or is it reactive, because you need to have cards for me to duress away?
And what about a turn 1 duress, where your goal is to weaken your opponent, vs a duress to find a counter.

It is a very rare case that duress is active.  Suppose you are playing duress against an opponent who has no cards in hand because you want one more storm or an extra card in your graveyard for cabal ritual.  In those cases duress plays an active role, it does not interact with opposing entities.  If you are playing duress in an effort to take a card from your opponent then you are using it to play a reactive role.

To illustrate why you this is the case we can explore your two part question.
When you play a turn 1 duress you are using it to take a card from your opponent.  You are using it to play a reactive role (interact with a card in the bad guys hand), or it is doing very little.  It makes them pitch a card, which is a reactive role, or they have no cards that it can make them discard and it does nothing (I mean it goes to your graveyard which can be good for some decks and it increases storm but meh).

When you play a duress to insure that another spell is going to resolve you are also using it to play a reactive role.  We can see this by exploring every possible case.

In all of these cases the goal is the same
Goal = unconditionally resolve another spell

Case 1, your opponent has a counterspell.
Every currently played counterspell, as per Smmemen's findings in his yearly reports and his "complete" list of vintage playable spells, can be duressed.  If you play duress and you want to make sure your spell resolves you can take your opponent's counterspell.  In this case, you have used a card to interact with an opponent's entity.  Because of that you have used it to play a reactive role.  If your opponent had only one counter your goal is accomplished.  Should your opponent have two playable counters your goal is not accomplished.

Case 2, your opponent has no counterspell but does have other cards duress can take.
In this case your opponent has no cards that can counter your other spell so your goal will be accomplished.  The duress, however, will still get to take a card from your opponent's hand.  Duress tells you to choose a card that is not a creature or a land so if they have a card it can take you must choose one for them to discard.  When you do this you have used duress to interact with your opponent's entity and therefore used it to play a reactive role.

Case 3, your opponent has no cards in his hand that duress can take.
Again, every currently played counterspell can be duressed.  Therefore in this case, your goal will be accomplished.  In this and only this case duress does not play a reactive role.  Duress interacts with no opposing entities and usually does nothing.  You usually don't care about that because your goal is accomplished and this weakness of duress (occasionally doing nothing) doesn't matter to you.

[CowWithHat]

I am sorry to post twice in a row but the subject of this post is drastically different from the subject of the previous post.

I have a problem with the stipulations of the theory that the original poster stated.

His definitions are as follows

A “reactive” role can be defined as a role played by an entity that is dependent upon the existence of an entity, or entities, under the opponent’s present, past, or future control.

An “active” role can be defined as a role played by an entity that is not dependent upon the existence of an entity, or entities, under the opponent’s present, past, or future control.

he then stipulated

There is nothing that precludes a card from playing both reactive and active roles in a given game, as long as those roles are being played at different points in the course of the game.

I believe that this stipulation is not true.  There is nothing that actually precludes that a card cannot play an active and a reactive role at the same time.  I think meddling mage is a good example of this.  When meddling mage is in play attacking a player with no blockers he is playing an active role.  If he has named a card in the opponent's hand he is playing a reactive role for his entire stint on the battlefield.  When Meddling mage is on the battlefield he plays both an active role, beating up the other guy without interacting with his cards, and a reactive role, interacting with the cards in the opponent's hand, at the same time.

I don't think this removes any value from the theory but I think it is important to note.  It seems to me that cards can play both roles simultaneously.

[Demonic Attorney]

Moved to Improvement because I expect nothing valuable to come from this discussion.

[silvernail]

Really this kind of terminology is only solidly useful in deck design as well as basic strategy discussion. Sun TSu's The Art of War is not considered a useless book after all, and examining strategy under various lenses in any kind of conflict should result in some insightful information.

Much of the reason seasoned players would argue that adding terminology is pointless is because somethings come second nature to them already. It is somewhat similar to linguistics and speaking - most people don't need to know specific terms for movements involved in forming words and in many cases such terms could be an after thought with no need to explain in depth. Surely, however, an indigenous tribe in an isolated area using audible clicking as language would radically change the necessity to have some defined terminology to help categorize and understand how they speak.

You are missing a key term : proactive. Doing something that is in anticipation of future interactions is what it means to be proactive.
You may mislabel these cards as active or reactive but the correct term is proactive. Trinisphere and Meddling Mage hinder potential future plays by the opponent and hence they are proactive. They interact with your opponents cards but they are not really reactive cards as the previous terminology given here would try to suggest. Reactions happen after the fact, proactive actions happen prior to the fact.

Not all cards fit into one category, especially considering the large number of potential game states that they could be applied to. Also cards can infact play more than one roll, though spotting them is hard for the untrained eye. A misdirected lightning bolt can play an active roll as well as a proactive roll depending on the new target and what effect that has on a game state. Nailing a Goblin Lackey infact manages to be a reactive, active and proactive play all at once because you are reacting to your opponent, actively defending against the current threat and also proactively handling the future potential threat your opponent would play once the lackey connects.

It is certainly only possible to PLAY the misdirection reactively , but the actual effect the card has is not simply reactive in nature.
This kind of example is akin to the clicking tribe from above; you could simplify some concepts and merely call the misdirection play reactive but you miss out on the in depth concepts that are actually at work.

Another example would be Disenchant when used on an Oath of Druids. This is a reactive play but has a proactive effect because it is preventing something as opposed to just reacting to something.

[Cavius The Great]

Active? Don't you mean Proactive? MTGFan, you're discussing something everyone already knows. What's the point?

[Smmenen]

How are they useful?

I simply don't see a situation where considering whether a card is active or reactive leads to new insight.

Honestly, this all started in reaction to Stephen Menendian telling me that distinctions such as "reactive" and "active" can't even be made. Clearly false as you can establish definitions for abstract qualities such as these - and prove that they exist.

That's a misrepresentation of what I said:

4) Terms like: "power," "offensive," "defensive," or even "proactive" and "reactive" are not helpful.   In fact, these terms, upon close inspection, have no clear meaning.  They are misleading and reflect a way of knowing that does not reflect the reality of Vintage or Magic, but reflect the way we've come to understand Magic.  

What I said was that these terms are not helpful and are misleading because there are better terms to use.   

You've proven my point here.   Unlike your previous definition, and the epistemological framework, particularly the model of causality, you were using, these definitions are mutually exclusive and therefore coherent.    However, like your previous definition, they are simply unhelpful, as I originally, and repeatedly charged:

On the contrary, I believe that defining the roles of cards as "active" or "reactive" does alot to promote clarity during the process of card evaluation and card discussion.

I disagree.  I think it obfuscates.  It's an unhelpful lens.

Show me one example where this distinction helps more than another, more useful frame.  Put another way, try to show me an example, and I will show you how another, more useful frame is actually better.  

If we could agree on "active" and "reactive" as methods of categorizing certain cards, we wouldn't be having this argument right now, and you probably wouldn't have felt the need to nitpick the original poster's statement about Fish running "bad" cards, because he could have easily said that "reactive" was the best way to describe the deck.

I already answered this point:

Show me one example where this distinction helps more than another, more useful frame.  Put another way, try to show me an example, and I will show you how another, more useful frame is actually better.

In this context, I think the far more helpful, and accurate frame, is not 'active' v. 'reactive' but disruptive vs. non-disruptive.   This focuses your attention on the thing that really matters: how effectively you disrupt your opponent.

In fact, hitman hit the nail on the head: your definitions are tautologies.   You've chosen terms that have other connotations and defined them in a particular way.   But if you look closely, they look very similar to something I said was the proper frame the whole time: 'disruptive' versus 'non-disruptive'.   In fact, you have just defined disruptive v. non-disruptive, yet you've given them less clarifying and more misleading labels.  

Also, why do we define any terms at all? Why did Mike Flores write about "beatdown" and "control"? Why did we ever agree on terms such as "control" and "aggro" and "aggro-control"? Because we need to establish a shared vocablary of words we use to discuss this game. This theory expands that shared vocabulary a bit.

I agree that shared vocabulary can be very helpful.   Where I disagree is that your terminology is useful.  Instead, it's unhelpful and misleading.  

Instead, disruptive v. non-disruptive is the proper and more useful frame, as I have been saying all along.    The goal with Fish is not to include "bad" cards (CowWithHat's term) or "reactive" cards (your term), but to include "disruptive" cards (my term).

 

[MTGFan]

Per my definitions, cards such as Trinisphere are *never* ever active. Its effectiveness in any game always depends upon a set of cards being played by the opponent. It is by definition a reactive card, because it always plays reactive roles. Now, if, in a particular metagame such as Vintage today, it will be effective vs. many decks, you can say, of course, that "Trinisphere is a highly effective and playable, threatening reactive card in this format". In formats like Standard, Extended and Legacy, you can say that "Trinisphere is a reactive card hampered by the mana curve diversity in this format and thus is primarily only effective against a few combo decks that may or may not see play and thus is best left as a sideboard card."

What are you talking about!?!  According to your own definitions, "A “reactive” role can be defined as a role played by an entity that is dependent upon the existence of an entity, or entities, under the opponent’s present, past, or future control.

An “active” role can be defined as a role played by an entity that is not dependent upon the existence of an entity, or entities, under the opponent’s present, past, or future control.

Trinisphere does not depend on any other entity.  You can very much use it actively in order to ensure your spells can't be interacted with within a time frame.  Your definitions only say that spells with targets require targets whether in the past, present or future.  Trinisphere never requires any other entity to be cast or in play.  When you preemptively cast Trinisphere, you are actively trying to win the game. 

Your defintions are tautologies.  They don't actually say anything.  Simplified, your definitions are, "A reactive card is a spell that targets and requires targets.  An active card is a spell that doesn't target and as such does not require targets."

Trinisphere depends on the existence of spells on a low mana curve under your opponent's control. It is still reacting to this type of strategy, but proactively. It is still reactive - a variation of reactive labeled "proactive". I spelled that out in the initial post.

It is not "active" because it stil depends on that future existence of a particular type of card, and without that type of card it is utterly useless.

[MTGFan]

Here's where I think your logic falls apart.

Player 1: Yawgmoth's Will (Active)
Player 2: Counter (Reactive)
Player 1: Counter.  Now, is this counter active or reactive.  It didn't stop your opponent, as much as it did help you.  Which was what Steve was getting at.  Stopping your opponent and helping yourself are the same thing. 

A coutner that stops another counter is still reactive. Its existence in the chain of casuality that leads to match victory is dependent upon another element under the opponent's employ. Should be pretty easy to understand, really.

also, say I have vault/key in hand, and a tinker.  I play tinker to bait a counter.  Is this active or reactive.  Tinker is most definitly a business spell, but here, I'm using it for the sole purpose of taking away your counter.

It's still active - your strategy may be reactive in nature, but the spell itself is fundamentally active. If it doesn't draw a counter, it plays the active role of letting you grab your robot. If it does draw a counter, it merely remains an active spell that didn't resolve.

Here's my 3rd and final example.

Duress.

Is duress active, because all I am doing is taking cards from your hand, or is it reactive, because you need to have cards for me to duress away?
And what about a turn 1 duress, where your goal is to weaken your opponent, vs a duress to find a counter.

Duress is like Trinisphere - a reactive card (it depends on something in your opponent's hand to have any purpose in the game), but proactive in nature, in that it plays a reactive role in anticipation of an entity under your opponent's control. Again, should be pretty easy for anyone to understand.

[MTGFan]

In fact, hitman hit the nail on the head: your definitions are tautologies.   You've chosen terms that have other connotations and defined them in a particular way.   But if you look closely, they look very similar to something I said was the proper frame the whole time: 'disruptive' versus 'non-disruptive'.   In fact, you have just defined disruptive v. non-disruptive, yet you've given them less clarifying and more misleading labels.  

I agree that shared vocabulary can be very helpful.   Where I disagree is that your terminology is useful.  Instead, it's unhelpful and misleading.  

Instead, disruptive v. non-disruptive is the proper and more useful frame, as I have been saying all along.    The goal with Fish is not to include "bad" cards (CowWithHat's term) or "reactive" cards (your term), but to include "disruptive" cards (my term).

The problem is that you never acknowledged the existence of these distinctions before. In previous posts and articles you'd always say something akin to "well, you can't make these kinds of distinctions, so it's silly to try".

Now that you have to concede that I was correct, and you can't argue with my definitions , you backpedal and now tell me that you had these concepts defined all along. Pathetic.

Also, on Starcitygames forums you claim that I'm "Cavius" and I did nothing but "troll" themanadrain by posting in these threads and debating with you - so it that what happens when someone bests you in an argument - you call them trolls? And I'm not Cavius, either.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

reactive
1. a. Acting or operative in return or in response.
4 d. In general use: that responds or reacts to a situation, event, etc. . . . that reacts to existing circumstances, rather than anticipating or initiating new ones.

[Smmenen]

In fact, hitman hit the nail on the head: your definitions are tautologies.   You've chosen terms that have other connotations and defined them in a particular way.   But if you look closely, they look very similar to something I said was the proper frame the whole time: 'disruptive' versus 'non-disruptive'.   In fact, you have just defined disruptive v. non-disruptive, yet you've given them less clarifying and more misleading labels.  

I agree that shared vocabulary can be very helpful.   Where I disagree is that your terminology is useful.  Instead, it's unhelpful and misleading.  

Instead, disruptive v. non-disruptive is the proper and more useful frame, as I have been saying all along.    The goal with Fish is not to include "bad" cards (CowWithHat's term) or "reactive" cards (your term), but to include "disruptive" cards (my term).

The problem is that you never acknowledged the existence of these distinctions before. In previous posts and articles you'd always say something akin to "well, you can't make these kinds of distinctions, so it's silly to try".

Now that you have to concede that I was correct, and you can't argue with my definitions , you backpedal and now tell me that you had these concepts defined all along. Pathetic.

LOL, hardly.  

I didn't say that you couldn't come up with a distinction.  I just said that such a distinction isn't useful.  Repeatedly I said:

Show me one example where this distinction helps more than another, more useful frame.  Put another way, try to show me an example, and I will show you how another, more useful frame is actually better.

My very first post referring to these terms proves it:

4) Terms like: "power," "offensive," "defensive," or even "proactive" and "reactive" are not helpful.   In fact, these terms, upon close inspection, have no clear meaning.  They are misleading and reflect a way of knowing that does not reflect the reality of Vintage or Magic, but reflect the way we've come to understand Magic. 

After multiple failed attempts to provide an actually defensible distinction, including a completely wrong model of causality, you finally provided a definition of a distinction that is real, except that it's completely meaningless, because it's the Exact Same Thing as "disruptive."  Therefore, your whole attempt to provide useful terminology is a failure.    You've defined disruptive.   No one will ever use your terminology to describe disruption (except maybe CowWithHat) .   Looks like I was right all along.  Your terms are not helpful and they are misleading.   
 
Also, I summarized your attempt in my article last week.  

[honestabe]

Here's where I think your logic falls apart.

Player 1: Yawgmoth's Will (Active)
Player 2: Counter (Reactive)
Player 1: Counter.  Now, is this counter active or reactive.  It didn't stop your opponent, as much as it did help you.  Which was what Steve was getting at.  Stopping your opponent and helping yourself are the same thing. 

A coutner that stops another counter is still reactive. Its existence in the chain of casuality that leads to match victory is dependent upon another element under the opponent's employ. Should be pretty easy to understand, really.

also, say I have vault/key in hand, and a tinker.  I play tinker to bait a counter.  Is this active or reactive.  Tinker is most definitly a business spell, but here, I'm using it for the sole purpose of taking away your counter.

It's still active - your strategy may be reactive in nature, but the spell itself is fundamentally active. If it doesn't draw a counter, it plays the active role of letting you grab your robot. If it does draw a counter, it merely remains an active spell that didn't resolve.

Here's my 3rd and final example.

Duress.

Is duress active, because all I am doing is taking cards from your hand, or is it reactive, because you need to have cards for me to duress away?
And what about a turn 1 duress, where your goal is to weaken your opponent, vs a duress to find a counter.

Duress is like Trinisphere - a reactive card (it depends on something in your opponent's hand to have any purpose in the game), but proactive in nature, in that it plays a reactive role in anticipation of an entity under your opponent's control. Again, should be pretty easy for anyone to understand.

By this logic, the manner in which you play a card determines whether or not it is active or reactive.  In which case, defining whether or not a card is active or reactive is ultimatly useless.  I'm done wasting my time here

[MTGFan]

reactive
1. a. Acting or operative in return or in response.
4 d. In general use: that responds or reacts to a situation, event, etc. . . . that reacts to existing circumstances, rather than anticipating or initiating new ones.

You do realize that words can have more specific meanings, and different meanings in general, in different contexts, right?

And I did specify that Trinisphere and Duress are variations of reactive cards that can be claimed to be "proactive".