What makes a deck fair and interactive?
General forum
Posted on Feb. 11, 2016, 6:43 a.m. by EvenDryke
I've noticed a lot of people in the Magic community like to throw around terms like "unfair" and "non-interactive." I've also noticed a distinct lack of consistency in what decks seem to fit these descriptions.
Honestly it seems like most people will write off any deck they personally dislike as "unfair" or "non-interactive" regardless of whether or not there is truth to that assessment. I know I've been guilty of this myself, especially when I first learned about combo decks. This led me to my question - what do you think makes a deck fair and/or interactive?
Let's look at the dictionary definitions for "fair" and "interactive" to give us a good jumping off point:
Fair - Adjective, in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate. Adverb, without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage.
Interactive - Adjective, (of two people or things) influencing or having an effect on each other.
If we want to play semantics and take these terms literally, it quickly becomes apparent that neither term can realistically apply to any deck that adheres to format appropriate deck construction rules, and is played within the rules of the game. So from there we need to expand the terms, and that is where I believe the confusion and disagreement comes in.
So, to restate my question for the sake of clarity - what criteria do you personally use when evaluating whether or not a deck is fair and/or interactive?
My two cents, I like debating semantics :)
Aside semantics, with discussing terms such as these there is also a decent amount of philosophy: when you know what the term literally (and theoretically) means, how does this apply to every day situations? Yes MTG is by definition a game of interaction, but that is not what is meant in this context. If you've constructed your deck according to the rules of the format, and play according to the general rules of MTG, then by definition you play fair...but again, that is not what is meant.
But it largely depends what you like to play: if you play competitive , your deck, most likely, will be more cutthroat then if you play kitchentable or casual. According to the format, and playgroup, certain things are frowned upon, or even 'not done' (many playgroups frown upon infinite combos, some on land destruction, others cruel control, etc...)
So, yes, there is the aforementioned 75% philosophy, which is great btw. I play casual, mostly, and I find that 'not filling every void', aka 'not covering every weakness' is a great strategy for casual games, since it allows you co-players (aka opponents) a fair chance (you've got flaws after all) and in all fairness it also leaves room interactive play (they respond to you and each other, you respond to them)
At least, that's what I think.
February 11, 2016 7:06 a.m.
Fair/Unfair and Interactive/Uninteractive aren't about being competitive or being casual they're real and useful terms even in the most cut-throat of magic games. I define them loosely as so:
Fair: Abides by the rules of magic. Plays one land per turn that generates one mana. Has to produce 20 damage to win. No card does any more or any less than what is printed on it. Examples of what I consider fair decks (in the modern meta): Burn, Abzan.
Unfair: A deck that essentially breaks some of the fundamental rules of magic. This could be producing too much mana too quickly (Tron) or this could be a deck that only needs 10 damage to win (Infect). Or it could be an infinite combo (Twin - RIP).
Interactive - A deck that has a heavy interest in changing or affecting what the opponent is doing. This could be through counterspells such as Mana Leak, through bounce spells such as Vapor Snag or killspells such as Abrupt Decay. Interactive decks include Abzan, Jeskai Control, Merfolk.
Uninteractive - A deck that is not concerned with changing what the opponent is doing, only with their own strategy. They tend to be very insular and play games in similar ways each time. Uninteractive decks include Zoo, Burn, Affinity.
EDIT: I should mention that I don't use Fair/Unfair in any way except comparisons. I don't dislike Unfair decks because they're still utilising legitimate strategies. They're just using strategies that fundamentally step around one of the cornerstones of the game. But the word Unfair isn't a pejorative
February 11, 2016 7:19 a.m. Edited.
Obviously you get crossover though because a deck like Burn or Affinity, which I consider fundamentally uninteractive, does have access to 4 Lightning Bolt or 4 Galvanic Blast respectively. It's just that aside from those cards that's about it. So you know, it becomes a balance. An interactive deck might have between 12 and 20 cards that do something to the opponents creatures or spells. Uninteractive could have 0-4.
February 11, 2016 7:20 a.m.
clayperce - I hadn't heard of that before, it's very interesting thank you for sharing!
GobboE - In the case of what makes a deck fair or not, I've always felt like an unfair deck is a deck that locks you out of the game in some way. A strategy that not only prevents you from executing your own game plan - but one that says "no you don't get to do anything at all." An example of this would be Lantern Control in modern or Knowledge Pool + Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir. So I guess to me personally unfair basically just means highly unfun which is unfortunately the most subjective thing in the world.
February 11, 2016 7:23 a.m.
In a competitive setting, a fair deck is something that uses the cards in the way they were "supposed" to be used (which, I'm aware, is often quite subjective but whatever).
Modern BGx is a prime example of a fair deck - it's just a pile of good cards that do their thing. Fair decks don't generally rely on synergies to win.
Affinity is not a fair deck in that the cards don't really do anything by themselves. The deck aims to abuse cards such as Cranial Plating, Master of Aetherium and Etched Champion (and their synergies with vomiting a handful of cheap artifacts onto the battlefield :P) to generate fast kills.
I get that you're not necessarily referring to how the term is used in describing competitive decks, but that's the way I most often see it used - not to describe how much you like or dislike the deck or whether it's too good or not.
I guess the interactive/noninteractive dicotomy is pretty obvious for the most part. If the deck aims to win by ignoring everything your opponent's doing (unless it's something that could distrupt the noninteractive deck's game plan) and plays little to no answer cards (or, I suppose, reset buttons such as Planer Cleansing that don't really care what your opponent is doing), then it's probably a noninteractive deck.
February 11, 2016 7:25 a.m.
ChiefBell - I think I would agree with almost everything you said. I'm a little iffy on "producing too much mana too quickly" being a quality of an unfair deck because to me it raises a lot of questions. For example, exactly how much mana on exactly what turn qualifies as too much too quickly? To what extent does the method used to gain the mana advantage determine whether or not it's fair?
February 11, 2016 7:38 a.m.
Zap_Rowzdower69 says... #10
I think a person's opinion on fair or unfair and their willingness to complain about it rests on the individual. I get irritated at an fnm when my opponent counters everything I do and kills me later on when I have nothing to play. I keep my cool and stay polite but that's not everybody. Back when the Jeskai Infinite Combo in standard first became legal I was using it in tournament and I would get 3-2 or 4-1 with it. There was one guy who hated the deck and we would get matched up each week, he was pretty nice and polite at first but once he saw game one that I was playing the combo deck he would get irritated and conversation would become very short. once he'd lose he would sign the match slip, grab his stuff, and walk away.
In a friendly environment control is more annoying because theres no prize and it's not a tournament, so your friends are looking to stretch their deck's legs a bit, cast their favorite cards, and maybe win a couple of games. When they don't get to do anything and just have to watch you play it is not fun. HOWEVER, as long as the decks fall within the rules of the format, I personally consider the deck to be fair. Interactive to me means that your opponents get to play, too many Thoughtseize or Duress can spoil a mood as well.
If a person whines pretty often anyways, they will make a stink about your control or combo deck, if they are generally mild-mannered they will take it like a champ and utilize a good sideboard
I think it is poor practice to bring a knife to a gunfight and then complain about losing, which is another thing I've seen in the past as well. If your deck is on a serious budget and you lose an FNM you probably should have expected that to happen. I lost my first 4 FNMs dead last but I used each experience to learn. Standard mill was a big mistake around M14-M15 :)
February 11, 2016 8:03 a.m.
EvenDryke - it's a matter of tempo regarding mana acceleration. Rampant Growth is fair because you waste a whole T2 landing it. That's a large drawback. Tron lands are unfair because not only do they ramp but they also tap for colorless too so you waste no tempo playing them. You can plan to accelerate by playing a tron land and in the same turn play something like a Chalice of the Void or an Ensnaring Bridge.
I think ramp is fair because you're paying for it. But other ways around it become unfair, specifically if they come with few drawbacks if any.
February 11, 2016 8:43 a.m.
Lightpulsar9 says... #12
Another deck that produced too much mana too quickly was Amulet Bloom. That deck could produce a turn 1, 2, or 3 win pretty easily with the mana it could produce. That deck was considered both "unfair" and "uninteractive".
February 11, 2016 10:37 a.m.
mickalopagus says... #13
I never really thought about this. Our group is all over the board with people bringing land destruct, discard, control, and aggro decks to the mix.
We have to roll randomly to select our deck (for most of us its a 1:25 dice roll) - and then it rotates out until youve used all your decks, which I think is the factor that keeps the atmosphere 'fair'. Everyone has decks that are just too powerful, and you are more than welcome to use them, but you get to use them pretty much once a gaming session.
I just realized after reading these responses how interactive my decks are - see control deck, and fling deck, for example. I dont feel bad playing them against my group who own potentially equally frustrating decks - if youre the kind to let cards get to you. I just roll with the losses, understanding ill win again later.
In closing, the only group playstyle I consider unfair is going infinite. Getting hit for a million damage is just lame and unnecessary.
February 11, 2016 12:48 p.m.
Sleeper952 says... #14
My answer is probably little to no control and no hand hate, but apart from that you can do what you like.
I play Commander with a guy who has an AMAZING blue Azami, Lady of Scrolls deck. His thing is to draw with Azami until he gets Enter the Infinite and Laboratory Maniac and he just wins. Until then, he just counters and controls the game with blue spells to keep himself alive, and it works, but it prevents me from playing my spells.
The same guy plays a black Chainer, Dementia Master deck, which doesn't care as much about controlling my field and focuses solely on whipping creatures out from the grave.
I've lost many times to both decks, but if given a choice, I'll play against the black deck every time, because since its so light on control, I'm still able to play my spells and get my combos off, and once I'm having fun with my board state, I don't care as much about losing.
February 11, 2016 1:14 p.m.
mickalopagus says... #15
I am wondering what category this deck would fall under politics and fire
It isn't especially interactive, but at the same time it is. Would this be considered a control deck?
February 11, 2016 2:01 p.m.
To me everything in Standard is fair.
If you want to win big you put together a Tier 1 deck.
If you don't have the money, you play Casual flight instead of Serious.
The kitchen table is a whole other matter.
It's a place for you to muck around with mates and just have a good time.
I am the best player in our group with the biggest budget and the most time to spend on the game.
I have built a deck which just wrecks.
I play that deck about once every six months, when ever someone else is getting a bit too cocky.
Most of the time I play a deck I've just thrown together for the night.
This is not the case for the second best player.
He has been playing the same deck now for eighteen months.
We all know what it does, to the point where it has become dull.
The player with the least skill just built his first deck. We played tonight.
Knowing that, I threw a silly Ingest/Process thing together.
Our other friend played his same stupid deck that basically just stops our big plays and drains life.
It was not a very fun game. I guess you could say that was partially because we didn't get to do much stuff. It wasn't very interactive, if you will.
We will probably play without the guy who won next time, so he will miss out.
We want a chance to see what our decks will do in the new "meta" we've created.
That's what can happen if you only have one strategy.
February 11, 2016 2:40 p.m.
Zap_Rowzdower69 says... #17
Argeaux Our casual night with friends had a member who's deck was graveyard whipping and he was waaay better than the rest of us and would practice his modern deck on us, doing things like use Unburial Rites to pull Sylvan Primordial, destroy a land from each of us (usually 3-4 people), sacrifice it, and unburial rites again to destroy more lands. After a while he stopped using it just because even though he would win almost every time, it wasn't fun to see our faces when we got utterly destroyed
February 11, 2016 3:11 p.m.
I never really understood this kind of thing though because like Relic of Progenitus is a card. Is it just accepted in casual metas that no one interacts with each other or does anything that is controlling in any way? This would explain a lot about casual magic.
February 11, 2016 3:15 p.m.
Zap_Rowzdower69 says... #19
ChiefBell At that time we didn't have the know-how to alter our decks effectively, he did a lot more research and testing than we did and eventually we grew to be better players and we did end up playing things like Ground Seal and Tormod's Crypt when we saw him choose to play that deck
February 11, 2016 4:47 p.m.
Note I didn't say "Casual". I said Kitchen Table.
The majority of our group plays competitively at the LGS, but like to relax a bit more when we play at home.
We don't care if big plays are made, and often find them hilarious.
Variety is the key, though.
If one deck is being played over and over because it does well, that just becomes boring to most of us.
February 12, 2016 1:20 p.m.
Troy242621 says... #21
People also don't like fun police decks (8-Rack, Lantern control, etc.) and I suspect the reason is the same principle behind why control is disliked in general.
People love their decks, and they're proud of their creation. They want to use their decks and show off what they can do with them. Your deck cannot optimally function as it was designed to do when:
100% of your resources are being aggressively attacked.
Your deck's draws are constrained to be precisely whatever it is that you don't need.
Your attempts to advance your strategy are consistently delayed or outright prevented.
All of the above can be seen as punishing attempts to play "fair" Magic.
clayperce says... #2
EvenDryke,
I really like Jason Alt's 75% deck philosophy
February 11, 2016 6:50 a.m.