Effective Date: January 22, 2016
Magic Online Effective Date: January 27, 2016
Summer Bloom is banned.
Splinter Twin is banned.
TRON WINS EDITION
Modern's metagame will now be Tron vs. Affinity vs. Infect.
There's no real reason to play white or blue spells now, we're going to see 3 months of GBx midrange bullshit cluttered up by decks trying to be pure control, Merfolk trying to be a thing, and everyone clammering for Stoneforge Mystic and Ancestral Visions to be unbanned to push blue and white spells back into the metagame.
IM DOIN IT MAN
BUILDING ESPER GIFTS
NO ONE'S GUNNA STOP ME
We'll have to wait and see on that. I'm expecting a form of twin to stick around as Kikijiki Control/Tempo, just swapping those twin slots for the goblin and taking an extra turn to take their shot.
At FNM someone showed me some newer fakes, and they're flawless. As long as the most valuable cards are pre-Origins, the secondary market can get fucked.
Oh, I forgot to mention Burn. Burn will be the thing that people forget about, and then it'll spike a GP or SCG Open
or maybe even this PT, get hated out, and forgotten for 2-3 weeks before it rears it's red-headed face again.
>tfw you are a combo and blue player
Guess they want me to quit magic, they could have at least unbanned some blue cards, but now I doubt that there is even gonna be a single viable blue deck or real combo deck.
Scapeshift is pretty good, but stinks against Affinity and Burn.
Living End rocks against these decks and Tron. Mainboard Land Destruction and 3CMC Instant Wrath followed by a 2 turn clock is very nice.
Precisely. The slow death of a format.
>blue can't get good cards because of twin
>the only viable blue deck: twin banned, still no unbans
I guess I should just give up, Aggro vs BGx Midrange seems to be the format they want.
>All these people bitching about Modern
>Could have been playing based Legacy all along for a negligible price difference from what they paid to build their Modern deck
MAYBE IF WE ALL MOVE TO LEGACY WE CAN SAVE THE LAST FORMAT WORTH A DAMN!
Looks like I'm not selling out of legacy afterall. Gunna start making tthe effortt to go to more events
maybe just merge the two into one thread.
>everything but turn shit sideways and win decks are banned
No one plays Legacy because they play fucking memedern. The cost of entry into the format can't even be an excuse anymore since Modern staples are now back-breaking expensive due to the manipulation of the secondary market and Wizards refusing to offer sufficient reprints.
There aren't remotely enough legacy staples to support a large playerbase, if modern players started switching to legacy the prices of legacy staples would skyrocket to compensate.
Keep laughing, but just make sure you remember that their tears might soon be yours.
Does anyone even pay attention to what those faggots say since the tuck rule was changed?
Wizards likes to double down. I could see it happening maaaaaaaaaaaybe next unbanning but I doubt we'll get an emergency unban
I hate how Wizards now has us too worried to play good decks.
>tfw your deck gets banned
>tfw your backup deck is a chord deck
>tfw chord decks are going to become super popular now and get banned
Just wait a couple tourneys to see how dominant tron becomes. Tron eats shit most of the time to burn, merfolk, affinity, and infect. So it probably won't become too large a part of the format to warrant any bannings. Besides, there's nothing hugely degenerate in the deck. It's just doing easily disrupted ramp.
I am for real, abrupt decay isn't good against twin. It costs BBGG, and if you're leaving that up the twin player can just do something else and make you waste your turn because the majority of their deck operates at instant speed. It's gets even worse if the game drags on once the twin player has gotten to 7 mana.
I'm not convinced kozilek's return is going to replace pyroclasm. Tron's worst match up is merfolk and not getting that turn 2 pyroclasm can let them get out too many lords for you to burn out.
>Everyone wanted a modern format Pro Tour.
>Everyone wanted to see their meta decks win in the hands of their shitty idols.
>Wizards has to keep the format fresh because of PT.
>Resulting in yearly chaos in the format and expensive decks turning to rubble.
I seriously want to know what the fuck you're thinking right now.
You do realize you can tap the land Exarch/Pestermite is targeting for mana, right?
Salty Twin player here. I'll be laughing my ass off when I cash out of modern because the entire format is Tron, Eldrazi, and Infect trying to take them out. Anybody who agrees with the banning of splinter twin is a bad magic player.
>wotc thinks the twin ban brings more diversity to blue decks
>mfw twin was one of the best matchups for those blue control decks and kept bad matchups for them down (tron etc.)
They really don't what they are doing
It's a chalice deck so it's gonna be inconsistent. Sometimes you get free wins, sometimes you do fuck nothing. At least you have FoW.
Aggro affinity is also a thing which is basically modern affinity + artifact lands but you get turbo fucked by combo so it's not very good.
So if Wizards is going to keep banning combo, why don't they UNBAN blue stuff?
With Twin and Bloom gone, it's safe to unban Ponder, Preordain, Ancestral Visions. Maybe Stoneforge too so that white weenie and swords of x and y will be good for once.
Yes I am aware, and that's acceptable, but it's not good. You spent your whole turn casting a removal spell against the deck with inevitability, it's necessary to have in your deck but it's not "insane" against twin like people make it out to be.
Sure, in game 1. If you try that in game two you just have to scoop when they play blood moon.
I have 3 decks built for Modern:
I remember when I bought my Ravagers at <$20.
I remember when I bought my Groves at <$50.
I remember when I bought my Karns for <$20.
I remember when I bought a foil Mox at ~$25.
>my actual face when reading the banlist update
The only time you'll spend your "whole turn" on waiting with Abrupt Decay is the turn where you can't leave mana up for Decay.
If you have 4 lands, you can drop a Goyf and still have AD mana. It literally stops the combo and there's nothing they can do about it.
anon they already have, sets have been complete shit post zendikar, and quality will keep going down as time goes on, most formats have eaten shit, extended is literally dead, modern is about to die a horrible death, vintage is irrelevant, legacy is fucked over by reserve list faggotry and collectors and standard has always been shit.
Doomsday is fun, plus you look like hot shit even though all your piles are IU, LED LED, Git probe, burning wish.
ANT runs less duals, it's also pretty cheap
It doesn't run FoW so it's $400 cheaper
can someone the exploitable like the one where an anon says "Stoneforge will be fine for Modern" and then it's a picture of a batterskull at the keyboard? I wanna make one with an anon saying Twin deserved the ban and then have Karn sitting at the computer
dude how can you overreact to the DEATH OF MODERN also the DEATH OF MAGIC THE GATHERING
I'm building my first paper deck. While I have my doubts that everything going to be peachy keen, I realize that the ship can be salvaged. Sure, WotC fucked up. And they're going to continue to fuck up. But the wonderful thing about all this is that we can vote with our wallets and with our attendance to events. Its up to them to decide whether or not they unfuck themselves, but they've shot themselves in the foot before and they'll do whatever they can to bandage it up. There are times in the history of magic where similar things have occurred, typically by printing things without testing them. Now we're just on the opposite side of that fence, banning things without testing them. I predict that they're going to turn it around in the next year or two.
Anyone else think it's funny WotC just had to have a big announcement on leaks, then releases a beta mtgo client with the ban implemented and this leak on the mothership? I mean how fucking incompetent can you get.
I'm done jizzing all over myself now.
In all seriousness Tron isn't as overpowered as all the doomsayers are yelling about. It still has plenty of bad matchups and decks that can race it.
People act as if it having this unbeatable lategame is the end of Modern. Problem is, IT HAS ALWAYS HAD AN UNBEATABLE LATEGAME.
Affinity especially isn't due to the presence of Kolaghan's Command. Hell, there's even a super solid new common from Oath that reads:
Destroy target artifact or enchantment with CMC 3 or less.
Honestly, the real reason Twin got the axe is because of the second sentence in the explanation:
>They can also reduce diversity by supplanting similar decks.
That right there is reason #1. Any other reason is functionally insignificant. People literally started jamming Twin into any deck with UR in it because the opportunity cost was so damn low.
To crush Tron, you need to start building Modern stax decks. Twin and Bloom being gone will make counterspells less important, so get to work on cucking Tron players with mass recurrent land destruct. Be sure to include Chalice of the Void, Ghostly Prison etc. to hold off the aggro players.
I can't tell if everyone here is a salty twin player, or just overreacting as fuck. Most likely both. Modern will be fine - Sure, Tron and Affinity will be strong now, but they're not unbeatable and hate for both is widely available. Other decks will rise to their surge in popularity.
I just built twin last week
And have been playing testing almost every matchup with my buddies who have a large variety of decks...
The deck is completely average but can eek out so wins but no more so than tron or affinity can.
Tron eats memerhino decks.
And Tokens, and SS, and D&T, and Hatebears, and Jund, and Midrange and Control as a whole, and Scapeshift and 8Rack and Zoo and CoCo and Merfolk and Elves, Goblins, Lantern and Storm.
If you're playing a turn 4+ deck that depends on colored permanents you won't beat Tron.
The new meta is Tron vs Burn/Affinity.
>Other decks will rise to their surge in popularity
See you in three months, anon. Mark my words, either there will have to be major unbans or Tron will have to be axed.
You can't kill control and combo and have a healthy metagame. Fast mana and linear aggro will be all that remains, and the best in each category will comprise T1. Everything else will be T2 or worse.
Wizards banned all those blue draw spells as "combo enablers." Well they've forced the biggest combo decks to run Kiki-Jiki and Asuza instead of Twin and Bloom, nerfing them heavily.
What's next? Either they keep banning decks just for being good, or they unban stuff that is safe to unban now.
>haven't bothered to keep up with Modern
>forgot the banlist was happening
>Amulet Bloom and Splinter Twin have been dismantled
So all those people are gonna play Infect now, right? If they still want their potential Turn 2 or 3 instant wins.
Those people are going to not play anymore, at least the majority. After the pod bannings, most pod players I knew sold their deck and either moved on to legacy, edh, or cube/drafting. I expect most twin players to do the same.
Hey guys, I was considering making a UR scry deck with that guy from theros who got +2/+0 and first strike each time you scry and things to make them unblockable. I figured now would be a good time since Tarns are going to come down in price soon.
Rhino's been a plague since that faggot showed up. I'm STILL mad that Pod, especially when their little paragraph explanation boiled down to nothing but "yeah we know this deck doesn't actually win tournaments but we don't like it and want more shitty decks to have a chance, so it dies"
Them pretending they give a shit about what they can and can't print in the future for non-rotating formats is a blatant lie because they printed Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time without a second though.
Sold everything in my Pod deck hours before that list got out. Only thing I wound up losing on was Voice of Resurgence, since its risen a few bucks.
I don't blame them. Can't wait for WotC to phase out Modern in a few years to replace it with Modern 2.0 "only the cards with the new design template allowed"
So how long do you lot reckon it will take SFM to drop down to $15-20? TCG tells me the annual spike in January usually takes ~6 months to work off, but with the promo available will it come down faster?
>buying into a meme format
Have fun when your opals get banned next year
Because they want goyf to be good, they want modern to be a creature centric midrange format like standard, just with a larger card pool.
Normally I'd tell you it's a bad idea as if you're playing UR you would just be much better off playing twin, but now that twin is out of the way your deck will definitely be viable now :^)
Really? Wanted to trade away mine during prerelease weekend, but I guess ill be building GW Bears instead now the biggest boogieman got thrown out the format.
>store announced the bans
>everyone rushed up to the register to buy Kikis
Fucking bought a set on ebay right there cause I was already planning on kiki-chord, I aint letting a buyout fuck me out of that
>Went 5-1 tonight
>only lose to twin
Tron? That shit doesn't have shit on Aven Mindcensor and Clique. Affinity? Infect? More electrolyze fodder. Already playing 3 copies of Resto might just stick a kiki in there for jokes
ITT: butt hurt twinfags and people that don't know that modern has a lot of fucking combo decks. For one, storm just mangles tron, has a good win rate vs affinity, and access to options out of the board, and it's burn matchup is pretty good as long as you can dodge an eidolon. Scapeshift can literally hear any aggro deck if you build for it, and it's win rate vs tron is stupidly high.
Sisters plays paths, sometimes flickerwisps, which is about all you need, it doesn't beat tron anyway but fair decks, burn etc can't race it after they gain 20 life from a Martyr and start hitting with a Serra Ascendant or Ajani Pridemate.
>sisters is bad
It's got a few real bad matchups, but most are around 50/50. Couple free wins too.
Play auriok champion and twin has a lot of trouble. Twin's shitty beats and burn generally won't work on soul sisters either.
I had a dream of times gone byyyyy
When money was made and used and wasted
I had a dream twin would never dieeee
I dreamed that Wizards would be forgiving
But the bans they come at night
Their love of Tron as soft as thunder
As they tear my deck apart
As they turn you twins to dollar rareeees!
>Problem is, IT HAS ALWAYS HAD AN UNBEATABLE LATEGAME.
You don't fully grasp the nature of the modern metagame.
Tron had this incredible late game inevitability, this allowed it to run roughshod over slower decks looking to go long (jund, uwr, midrange in general). Twin, along with the unfair decks (grishoalbrand, burn, storm, infect) kept trons bullshit late game in check, limiting it's metashare to a reasonable level. Twin had an unfavorable matchup against the grindy midrange decks that packed 1-for-1 answers to threats, allowing them to punch a hole in twins unfair strategy while still out grinding snapcasters and cryptic. Both jund and twin were slightly unfavored vs some of the fast agrro decks and unfair decks, while being slightly favored against some others. This system allowed for many decks to exist in the modern metagame and prevented massive metashare from one deck, because it had a predator/prey relationship with another big archetype.
Banning twin from the meta completely destabilizes the format, now the unfair/aggro decks that are favored vs jund and tron will be able to completely dominate the meta, which will lead to tron inbreeding heavily to be able to beat them.
Is this really surprising news given that Tron and Bx eldrazi are about to get filled with delicious chase rare support in Oath? It only makes sense for WOTC to ban the decks that keep those uninteractive battlecruiser fedora-piles at bay.
I think that song would be better if they announce an unban, if they ever do anon I swear on my worthless playsets of exarch, pestermite and twins that is the first thing ill do.
T-THEY'LL UNBAN IT IN APRIL YOU'LL SEE
Um, why do you even care what WOTC says about which cards you can play?
You're the owner of the cards. Play whatever you want.
You're not a pro player, you don't need to play at an "officially sanctioned" gamestore. That's all a giant pyramid scheme to get your money into WOTC's accounts.
Organize your own tournaments, make your own formats and banlists, play in your living room.
Hell, play with proxies. Literally why not?
If you want to play High Tide, rip a piece of paper into a square and write "High Tide" on it. You don't need the actual cards. You don't need anyone's permission.
Stop searching for a master.
>If you want to play High Tide, rip a piece of paper into a square and write "High Tide" on it. You don't need the actual cards. You don't need anyone's permission
why would you proxy a $0.50 common with radical fucking art?
wtf is this meme about "interactive decks" ? and how is combo supposed to be more interactive? oh whoa dude this guy is amassing cards in his hand, playing nothing on the field, literally nothing I can interact with, with zero feedback about whether or not I'm winning.
people complain about how uninteractive creatures on curve is, but every deck is mindless and autopiloted once you've memorized your win conditions.
there is no such thing as an interactive magic the gathering deck unless it relies on true RNG about which you have to make decisions that you haven't memorized by rote.
>there is no such thing as an interactive magic the gathering deck unless it relies on true RNG about which you have to make decisions that you haven't memorized by rote.
So turbofog is the only interactive magic deck?
Not everyone has a large group of friends to host their own tournaments, and playing in large events is fun. I proxy everything when I play EDH at home with my boyfriend, but finding a game of EDH with strangers is pretty hard as a lot of them seem to think that since they spent hundreds of dollars on a casual format then everyone else should have to as well or they won't play with them.
>having to (you) myself
prepare to get rekt faggots
removal, hand disruption, and countermagic are interactive. there is no memorized decision tree on how to apply them, you have to properly read your opponents. it's based on what their outs and what their wincons are. counterspells and hand disruption, in particular, are incredibly punishing because there is a very short frame of "game time" for you to make a decision and they lose utility with each spell that hits the board. interactivity is only a "meme" because wotc tries its hardest to hamstring it, by killing decks that can interact, or banning cards that allow interactive decks to succeed in their game plans.
>it's based on what their outs and what their wincons are.
exactly. under any given circumstances, there is the statistically correct response that maximizes your win %.
"reading" your opponents (or not being able to read your opponents) just determines which part of your decision-tree you're on.
you always have finite options, most of which are indefensible and "bad," many of which are playable but not ideal, and few of which are statistically superior options. "learning how to pilot a deck" is a process of rote memorization concerning which plays are tenable in which situations. it may not feel like it, but you're mapping decision trees.
'Interactive' means a lot of things, it means literally interactive as in it has cards which directly impact the opponent's cards and it means more generally a deck that effects the way you play against it.
An uninteractive deck in this sense either makes the opponent ignore their deck, ignores the opponent's deck itself or both.
A deck like storm can be considered uninteractive because it generally (hatebears excepted) doesn't give a shit about any of the opponents creatures apart from their clock and thus it has less strategic complexity for matchups which are based around creatures compared to something like the mirror.
Conversely, a deck like jund can be considered uninteractive because acts practically as a non-entity and its elements (discard and removal) are extremely limited in the ways you can play around them and thus it has less strategic complexity because you don't so much as play around jund as you bash your head on its walls and hope its walls break before your head does.
Just because all deck's (and all matchups) decisions trees are hypothetically probabilistic solvable does not mean that all matchups are equally interesting or enjoyable. That would effectively be stating that because a riddle has an answer that it must be equally difficult from every other riddle, it does not follow.
for playing tabletop, you only need as much information as it takes both you and your fellow players to parse the information. for many magic players, that's merely the name of the "card" and some visual representation to keep track of numbers (of permanents or counters or whatever). that's all you really "need" to operate the game.
if you also like the fantasy atmosphere, you can bring that with your own imagination. or you can bring that with high quality proxies, or legit cards. but it's extraneous to the mechanics of play.
also, I highly doubt the point of that post was to get you to proxy just high tide and only high tide.
>also, I highly doubt the point of that post was to get you to proxy just high tide and only high tide.
my point was that they should have named a more expensive card than one a beggar can afford
It's easier to identify art than to read sharpie on a card, and feels/looks cheap. I buy anything worth less than $10 because I'm lazy and I make fancy proxies/shitty counterfeits for everything else.
I'm glad this guy is going to be the box topper from the new deck as I realize I have the majority of cards need for Jeskai control but a my own spin I'm going to
jam Kiki-Jiki instead of Ojutai
>interesting or enjoyable
not quantifiable, therefore non-useful as criteria for determining whether quality "interactivity" is present in any communicable sense.
can we move from opinion to measurement? I don't mean that facetiously or with any level of sarcasm/irony/insult, and I am asking myself as sincerely as I am asking you.
What is piloting-difficulty, really? What is strategic complexity?
I'd say in this context, it just means that the decision-tree is vast and therefore takes longer to assimilate and recite.
While any given player is "learning" that deck, that player may experience interactivity a lot as they constantly encounter new decisions. If that's what's important to you, then sure, I take your point.
However, the deck itself is not more or less interactive--it always has solvable decisions, no matter how many decisions it has. Once you assimilate any deck's tree, you are no longer interacting--you're reciting.
I find aggro and burn decks to be the most enjoyable to play because they take efficient routes toward the simplest (debatable point on simplicity--this is my subjective opinion) win condition in many given formats, and have favorable matchups against many types of other decks. Though many see this type of play as "cancer," I'd argue it is the purest form of play.
I, unfortunately, don't have the imaginative capacity to create entire communities and play games of magic entirely in my head.
I do have the capacity to remember what a card does. And I think most people do as well.
>Twin is banned
FOLD INTO AETHER SHITBREWSCUNTS
What's stopping a new group of people from coming together and calling themselves the Commander Rules Committee and making their own version of the Commander rules? Commander isn't a format controlled by WotC, so they really have no say it what's "official".
>therefore non-useful as criteria for determining whether quality "interactivity" is present in any communicable sense.
I don't follow. You a positivist or something?
>can we move from opinion to measurement?
>it just means that the decision-tree is vast and therefore takes longer to assimilate and recite.
Not entirely, a puzzle's difficulty is not determined by the length of the solution, the winning strategy in FoF psychatog mirrors was to never counter the draw spells, this isn't a vast decision tree, but it was unintuitive enough to still largely increase difficulty.
>that player may experience interactivity a lot as they constantly encounter new decisions
Well, they don't experience interactivity, they experience fun due to strategic complexity which is a by-product of interactivity, but I take your point.
>However, the deck itself is not more or less interactive--it always has solvable decisions, no matter how many decisions it has
But I just argued why that doesn't make any sense. Where did you make this leap of logic? What is your definition of interactive if you disagree with mine?
>Once you assimilate any deck's tree, you are no longer interacting--you're reciting.
I don't know where you pulling this claim from. Interaction has relationship with interest and learning, but they're not the same thing.
>I'd argue it is the purest form of play.
But I don't care about purity, I care about interesting gameplay, as do most people who play the game.
Pump creatures + 3 to the dome. Atarka's Command is amazing if you're swinging with a bunch of creatures. Which, look at that, is exactly what goblins do. Stopping lifegain is also a plus.
>my cards have letters and symbols on them that essentially boil down to numbers, but because it took me an extra second to figure out what the number is i have a superiority complex
it's not feasible to memorize every situation you could find yourself in with a deck that can interact. furthermore, a spell doesn't become uninteractive just because there is an optimal way to apply it.
>tfw the most interactive deck in modern now is fucking Jund
So Aaron Forscythe said on his Twitter that they will look at unbanning Ancestral Visions once they see the Twin-less meta breakdown after the PT and a couple months afterwards.
So maybe if we can wait 3 months we'll see Visions and SFM unbanned?
>the year is 2099
>WotC has finally banned all cards besides the cards in the popular 75 list of tron
>modern masters set renamed to Tron Masters
>thousands of people gather in the Colosseum to witness who can complete tron first
1 Blood Crypt
4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Ghost Quarter
1 Godless Shrine
2 Overgrown Tomb
1 Stomping Ground
2 Tectonic Edge
4 Verdant Catacombs
2 Wooded Foothills
1 Golgari Brownscale
1 Squee, Goblin Nabob
1 Vengeful Pharaoh
2 Abrupt Decay
4 Faithless Looting
1 Flame Jab
4 Life from the Loam
4 Lingering Souls
1 Murderous Cut
1 Raven's Crime
2 Molten Vortex
3 Zombie Infestation
4 Ancient Grudge
3 Bojuka Bog
2 Golgari Brownscale
2 Raven's Crime
2 Ray of Revelation
1 Vengeful Pharaoh
I will agree that merely talking about the size of a decision-tree was a mischaracterization on my part. I take your point about FoF.
But it's rather beside the claim. Every legal deck in a specific format has a finite decision tree. That tree may larger, smaller, more or less intuitive than other decks in the format, but it exists nonetheless.
When people discuss the "interactivity" of a deck, they refer to the requirement that the pilot makes meaningful decisions. As you brought up previously, combo decks seemingly have many possible plays at any given stage. This is contrasted with aggro or burn decks, which seemingly have fewer decisions--ie just play the most damage that you can this turn.
However, this is array of possibility in the combo deck is merely a function of the pilot's unfamiliarity with the relevant decision-tree. There is almost always one statistically superior play. Just like there is in the burn deck. In any given context, there is one series of things you should be doing.
"Interactivity" just means that the player doesn't know what the current "correct" play is. It's not readily apparent, they have to "make a decision". They aren't completely sure what's going to happen. But once a player knows the correct play, they play the correct play lest they have some sort of forgetful or careless lapse. Therefore a studied player playing a combo deck familiar to them is playing by rote just as much as an aggro or burn player. It took the combo player longer to get to that rote playing, but so what? That's inefficiency for novelty's sake
The decision-making is a novelty. The play is solvable. Some decks just take longer to solve than others.
>I care about interesting gameplay
But you see, this is where we come to an impasse. Purity is interesting to me. Novel trees (whether novel in their size or any other factor) are less interesting to me. There are many players who feel the same. They play burn decks.
I run a build without mb bridges, 3 in side against abzan coco and other decks that just keep shitting out more value creatures than you can deal with. Anything that tries to win with 1 creature and gas just folds to Smallpox (Infect, Twin used to, against burn it's great as well since it's not so much lose 1 life but discard and sac a land to gain 6-8).
4 Raven's Crime
4 Wrench Mind
4 The Rack
4 Shrieking Affliction
2 Victim of Night
2 Funeral Charm
1 Slaughter Pact
3 Liliana of the Veil (play 4 if you can, budget issues for me)
Not playing Bridges also blanks their artifact hate g2/3 if you side out racks for tech.
Duress and blackmail do a decent enough impression, especially now that Tron and non-creature decks will spike up. Necrogen Mists is a poor man's Lili but doesn't have the -2 or the dope ult (which you actually get to activate enough times for it to matter in the long run). Mutas and Urborgs are pretty much must for closing some grindy games but you can side in Pack Rats for beatings since your opponent will most likely side out all dedicated creature removal.
>When people discuss the "interactivity" of a deck, they refer to the requirement that the pilot makes meaningful decisions.
I don't think that this is the case, I have explained what I think are the definitions of interactivity before so I won't do so again. Storm in modern is considered an uninteractive deck, but it is accepted that there are meaningful decisions for the burn pilot. Your definition is better suited to the term 'skill testing' or something similar.
>However, this is array of possibility in the combo deck is merely a function of the pilot's unfamiliarity with the relevant decision-tree.
"Merely" is incorrect, stating that it only a function of the player rather than of the player and the deck itself is an untenable position which you keep on trying to come back to. Decks are not the same, the way a person sees an object is dependent on the person, but it is sophistry to suggest it is not dependent on the object itself as well.
>"Interactivity" just means that the player doesn't know what the current "correct" play is.
>I don't know where you pulling this claim from. Interaction has relationship with interest and learning, but they're not the same thing.
Literally just copy pasted what I wrote earlier. I don't understand how your definition of 'interactive' is representative of any of its common uses.
>That's inefficiency for novelty's sake
...That's the entire point of a strategic game.
>Purity is interesting to me.
Justify its value. Decision-making is easily justified as both a training exercise and as a provider of freedom. Where is the value in purity?
>I have explained what I think are the definitions of interactivity before so I won't do so again
do me a favor and spell it out plainspeak one more time.
>but it is sophistry to suggest it is not dependent on the object itself as well.
I am not suggesting that. You are misreading me. Of course the deck is a factor. I plainly grapple with the relationship between deck and pilot.
>I don't understand how your definition of 'interactive' is representative of any of its common uses.
Because when people talk about a deck's level of interactivity they refer to whether or not it appears that the pilot (or opponent) has to make decisions.
This is the basis for almost all criticism against uninteractive decks that I have encountered. IE 'that deck is not interactive because the pilot does not have to make decisions. the pilot just plays creatures on curve and attacks.' or 'that deck is not interactive because the opponent cannot react to it and therefore cannot make decisions'.
>entire point of a strategic game
is to win.
>justify its value
decision-making exists in the learning stages of all decks in all formats. but once serious players know their decks and decision-trees, play occurs by rote.
therefore the 'art' of the game is in deck-assembly and repeated play. does your deck achieve victory quickly, simply, and a majority of the time when played against many other decks over an extended period?
I'd argue that beyond learning to play a deck, deck creation is actually where the important decision-making occurs. The play itself is just RNG and decision-tree routing.
>mfw I play standard
>mfw everyone tells me to play modern so you don't have to spend 500$ on a deck that rotates out
>mfw wizards bans whatever is good in modern
>mfw they pay $1000+ For a deck that'll get banned in a few months
Your format is now worse than standard, have you realized yet?
>do me a favor and spell it out plainspeak one more time
An interactive deck is one that plays around the opponent and that the opponent can play around.
>I plainly grapple with the relationship between deck and pilot.
>"However, the deck itself is not more or less interactive--it always has solvable decisions, no matter how many decisions it has."
I do not see these statements are not contradictory.
>'that deck is not interactive because the pilot does not have to make decisions. the pilot just plays creatures on curve and attacks.' or 'that deck is not interactive because the opponent cannot react to it and therefore cannot make decisions'
>"Interactivity" just means that the player doesn't know what the current "correct" play is.
How do you not know the difference between an implication of a thing and that thing's definition? Just because people say 'A therefore B' doesn't mean they think A is B.
>is to win.
Bullshit, that doesn't make any sense. The goal of people playing a game=/=the point of the game itself.
>but once serious players know their decks and decision-trees
But this never happens for some matchups/decks, because they're more interesting than other ones.
>therefore the 'art' of the game is in deck-assembly and repeated play
First off, now you are implicitly valuing decision making, you are just valuing the decision making of decks above play in game. Both are hypothetically solvable.
Second, you are acting as if the deck building game and the 'in-game' game have a 0-sum relationship. There is a trade-off between them when encouraging social pressures but there isn't when making format limitations.
Third, that still doesn't justify 'purity' as a value it justifies effectiveness of a deck.
One of the aims of people who make the rules in a meta is to encourage the resting points of the meta to have interesting games. There is no reason why this goal contradicts the integrity of the 'meta-game'
>Goyf is 150-180.
Umm, goyf was a $120-150 card last time I checked. Not even Star of David Games sells them for that high anymore unless you're buying the ones from Future Sight. If it gets reprinted again in 2017 you can expect it to finally fall below $100.
Pod was quite a bit different. It was a deck that could only get better as more creatures were added to the pool. And because of this was going to need exceedingly many creature bans or a pod ban.