"The less interactive a deck is, the more able to stay at the top of any meta, it is." is a more precise way of putting this law.
Watch the real data, say at HSReplay.com, and you'll see that even after the first couple of weeks, the meta shifts quite a bit, and decks that are quite interactive tend to vanish from the top tiers long before decks that mostly don't give a damn what the other person plays. The reason why is obvious enough - the are far more ways to counter an interactive deck, so it's likely that the meta will quickly make an adjustment of one kind or another to a very interactive tier one deck, and it will promptly sink into the second tier or below.
Whereas a more rigid deck that just relies on putting one or other powerful combination together (say) may have a counter card such as a Spellbreaker, but if not, or if more than one such card is needed to stop it; that less interactive deck is highly stable in the meta.
Note this doesn't mean that non-interactive decks are more powerful on average, just that *if* they are powerful, then it's far more likely that they'll stay powerful, and on top of the meta.
This is especially noticeable with non-aggro decks; but applies strongly to aggro decks as well.
Aggro decks are attempting to be non-interactive, so by its nature this applies to aggro.
However, old tempo rogue was a midrange that won with overwhelming stats. The stats were so great they couldn't be efficiently countered, even if though you can constantly try to interact with their board. Your answers simply wouldn't be effective enough. This isn't explained directly by your law.
While I agree with the overall sentiment, by this rule then Exodia Mage and Exodia Paladin should be ruling the meta with an iron fist by now.
But strangely they are not?
I believe the law is still right here. Those are control decks that are attempting to react to your board. Therefore they're highly interactive. They don't win until they've successfully interacted with your board for many turns.
While I agree with the overall sentiment, by this rule then Exodia Mage and Exodia Paladin should be ruling the meta with an iron fist by now.
But strangely they are not?
That's what I think too. People complain about how "uninteractive" freeze mage is, specifically. Yet it's never really ruled the meta.
I think the reasoning is that some aggro decks are... "uninteractive" to pilot? Slap down minions and go face and pray your board doesn't get cleared, if it does, Call to Arms, then repeat? I guess you could argue that for aggro decks.
Top tier meta decks are always optimized to be synergistic within itself. You try to make things as uninteractive as possible by making your deck as powerful as possible. Or something like that haha. Interactive decks, by nature, will pretty much just be meme fun decks (casino mage, for example).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Twitch name: Anatak15 NA Legend Season 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 74
While I agree with the overall sentiment, by this rule then Exodia Mage and Exodia Paladin should be ruling the meta with an iron fist by now.
But strangely they are not?
I believe the law is still right here. Those are control decks that are attempting to react to your board. Therefore they're highly interactive. They don't win until they've successfully interacted with your board for many turns.
If that's the "rule" as it were, then what about Quest Rogue? It should also be high on the power charts and it basically ignores the opponent the whole game.
What do you mean by uninteractive. Some say face decks aren’t interactive because they just go face all day and rarely react to the board. Some people call freeze mage uninteractive because it rarely drops anything on the board for the opponent to do anything about.
OTK Paladin isn't really a top deck though. Or was your point that aggro decks are almost always strong?
That is what I am taking from this post, what is more uninteractive than OP 1 and 2 dropa into call to arms - go face? Do I care if you play anything?...no...second call to arms and/or divine favour could be topdecked anytime. Don't think he's criticising freeze mage or OTK decks.
Lack of interactivity is posited as a necessary condition of stable domination, not a sufficient condition. Any number of highly interactive feeble decks can be constructed, needless to say. Their place in the meta is also stable, just not very impressive.
While I agree with the overall sentiment, by this rule then Exodia Mage and Exodia Paladin should be ruling the meta with an iron fist by now.
But strangely they are not?
I believe the law is still right here. Those are control decks that are attempting to react to your board. Therefore they're highly interactive. They don't win until they've successfully interacted with your board for many turns.
If that's the "rule" as it were, then what about Quest Rogue? It should also be high on the power charts and it basically ignores the opponent the whole game.
In Henomar's Law, the lack of interactivity is put forward as something like a *necessary* condition of stable domination of the meta, certainly not a sufficient condition. Any number of highly interactive feeble decks or pretty good but not great decks can be constructed, needless to say. Their place in the meta is also stable, just not very impressive.
sorry, but this "law" is completely meaningless if you don't define your terms. what is "interactivity"? i reject its existence in card games, frankly. card games are always fatalistic. played optimally, literally every game ever played of any card game has a predetermined outcome. in other words, assuming nearly optimal gameplay, there's nothing inherently more "interactive" about getting rushed before turn 4, or having your rush get shut down by an aoe on turn 4, or having your rush frozen every turn until you get OTK'd. what you seem to describe as the "interactivity" of a strategy is the extent to which counterplay exists for it, right? if that's the case, i would argue that your idea is completely tautological: this definition of interactivity is based entirely on the efficacy of the strategy in the metagame, which is basically as useful as saying "the more powerful a deck is, the more powerful a deck is."
oh and as a side note, i don't think hsreplay is a reliable way to evaluate decks' power level in the meta. in every metagame, even the ones dominated by decks like quest rogue or razakus priest (which i would imagine you partly based your idea on, right?) hsreplay always shows that the most linear, straightforward decks have the highest winrate. i don't think anyone could reasonably argue that quest rogue and razakus priest in their respective metas were anything but dominant right? both in the tournament scene and the ladder scene?? but combo decks uniformly yield lower winrates on hsreplay than decks like pirate warrior or murloc paladin simply because they have higher barriers of entry. statistics are useful, but require careful and skeptical interpretation.
also sorry if this sounds mean!! i didnt intend anything like that
Lack of interactivity is posited as a necessary condition of stable domination, not a sufficient condition. Any number of highly interactive feeble decks can be constructed, needless to say. Their place in the meta is also stable, just not very impressive.
FWIW, I agree with the idea of the OP but a lot of people are reacting to the title which does say interactivity and "power" are inversely related.
Yes, you clarify it in your post but this is the HS forum...
While I agree with the overall sentiment, by this rule then Exodia Mage and Exodia Paladin should be ruling the meta with an iron fist by now.
But strangely they are not?
I believe the law is still right here. Those are control decks that are attempting to react to your board. Therefore they're highly interactive. They don't win until they've successfully interacted with your board for many turns.
If that's the "rule" as it were, then what about Quest Rogue? It should also be high on the power charts and it basically ignores the opponent the whole game.
You're right. As buttfriend pointed out, interactive needs a very clear definition or this is pointless. (Btw henomar, you can't define interactive as a meta state to fit your law, it's an in-game term.)
To me, to interact means to react to your opponent's board. Going face is not interactive. OTK turns themselves are not interactive, but the decks that have OTKs are control decks that constantly interact with you. But there are two sides to interacting. A Freeze Mage player is constantly interacting with you, but you can't interact with them. So I believe the only useful definition of interactive isyou can interact with them. If this is the case, aggo is interactive.
I have a feeling once you really break this down, the only useful observation here is "the less interactive a deck's win condition, the harder it is to counter (without killing them first)." Which is pointless to say because we all know that already.
People confuse one thing,Saying exodia mage is interactive IF you play aggro.
Lets say i dont want to and refuse to play aggro,just want to play a big deck,or a fatigue archetype,WHY do i have to be doomed to lose against this kind of deck?
If a deck is making people play archetypes they dont want to play,then i call the specific deck uninteractive at its finest.
I dont really agree with this statement. Strong decks are decks that can do atleast one thing that is considered overpowered. In cubelock this means Voidlord on turn 6, and the 15dmg doomguard-cube combo.
secret mage its free secrets and explosive runes, generating massive tempo, followed by aluneth for infinite burn.
aggro paladin its tarim, call to arms, whole board buffs in warleader or lightfused stegadon, depending on murloc or dude variant.
spiteful priest its a T6 16/16.
These are the tier 1 decks. Their strengths do not come from them being un-interactive, it comes from being able to do brokeback shit early in the game.
Yup, the title says "interactivity and "power" are inversely related" and they are. It's not a one-to-one mapping, or absolutely uniform, it's a useful rule of thumb, not a law of physics, of course. Like Murphy's Law, it's expressed in a way that can be misinterpreted as "always" but it doesn't say that. So why do many people jump to a concussion (headline disease)? I think that happens 'cause we like to create our own fake news.
"The less interactive a deck is, the more able to stay at the top of any meta, it is." is a more precise way of putting this law.
Watch the real data, say at HSReplay.com, and you'll see that even after the first couple of weeks, the meta shifts quite a bit, and decks that are quite interactive tend to vanish from the top tiers long before decks that mostly don't give a damn what the other person plays. The reason why is obvious enough - the are far more ways to counter an interactive deck, so it's likely that the meta will quickly make an adjustment of one kind or another to a very interactive tier one deck, and it will promptly sink into the second tier or below.
Whereas a more rigid deck that just relies on putting one or other powerful combination together (say) may have a counter card such as a Spellbreaker, but if not, or if more than one such card is needed to stop it; that less interactive deck is highly stable in the meta.
Note this doesn't mean that non-interactive decks are more powerful on average, just that *if* they are powerful, then it's far more likely that they'll stay powerful, and on top of the meta.
This is especially noticeable with non-aggro decks; but applies strongly to aggro decks as well.
While I agree with the overall sentiment, by this rule then Exodia Mage and Exodia Paladin should be ruling the meta with an iron fist by now.
But strangely they are not?
Aggro decks are attempting to be non-interactive, so by its nature this applies to aggro.
However, old tempo rogue was a midrange that won with overwhelming stats. The stats were so great they couldn't be efficiently countered, even if though you can constantly try to interact with their board. Your answers simply wouldn't be effective enough. This isn't explained directly by your law.
Twitch name: Anatak15
NA Legend Season 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 74
OTK Paladin isn't really a top deck though. Or was your point that aggro decks are almost always strong?
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
It should also be high on the power charts and it basically ignores the opponent the whole game.
What do you mean by uninteractive. Some say face decks aren’t interactive because they just go face all day and rarely react to the board. Some people call freeze mage uninteractive because it rarely drops anything on the board for the opponent to do anything about.
is quest mage top tier????????????
Lack of interactivity is posited as a necessary condition of stable domination, not a sufficient condition. Any number of highly interactive feeble decks can be constructed, needless to say. Their place in the meta is also stable, just not very impressive.
Current aggro decks are not uninteractive. The minions come down without charge, you have a full turn to interact with them before they can go face.
Is call to arms OP? Yes but not uninteractive.
This thread is a salt fest for the type of players that consider any decks that make proactive plays 'uninteractive aggro'.
sorry, but this "law" is completely meaningless if you don't define your terms. what is "interactivity"? i reject its existence in card games, frankly. card games are always fatalistic. played optimally, literally every game ever played of any card game has a predetermined outcome. in other words, assuming nearly optimal gameplay, there's nothing inherently more "interactive" about getting rushed before turn 4, or having your rush get shut down by an aoe on turn 4, or having your rush frozen every turn until you get OTK'd. what you seem to describe as the "interactivity" of a strategy is the extent to which counterplay exists for it, right? if that's the case, i would argue that your idea is completely tautological: this definition of interactivity is based entirely on the efficacy of the strategy in the metagame, which is basically as useful as saying "the more powerful a deck is, the more powerful a deck is."
oh and as a side note, i don't think hsreplay is a reliable way to evaluate decks' power level in the meta. in every metagame, even the ones dominated by decks like quest rogue or razakus priest (which i would imagine you partly based your idea on, right?) hsreplay always shows that the most linear, straightforward decks have the highest winrate. i don't think anyone could reasonably argue that quest rogue and razakus priest in their respective metas were anything but dominant right? both in the tournament scene and the ladder scene?? but combo decks uniformly yield lower winrates on hsreplay than decks like pirate warrior or murloc paladin simply because they have higher barriers of entry. statistics are useful, but require careful and skeptical interpretation.
also sorry if this sounds mean!! i didnt intend anything like that
Jade Druid (especially the pre-nerf version) is plenty interactive, and it dominated the meta for a very long time.
More like Henomar's LOL, I'd say.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
People confuse one thing,Saying exodia mage is interactive IF you play aggro.
Lets say i dont want to and refuse to play aggro,just want to play a big deck,or a fatigue archetype,WHY do i have to be doomed to lose against this kind of deck?
If a deck is making people play archetypes they dont want to play,then i call the specific deck uninteractive at its finest.
Just Another Legend Player#Kappa
I dont really agree with this statement. Strong decks are decks that can do atleast one thing that is considered overpowered. In cubelock this means Voidlord on turn 6, and the 15dmg doomguard-cube combo.
secret mage its free secrets and explosive runes, generating massive tempo, followed by aluneth for infinite burn.
aggro paladin its tarim, call to arms, whole board buffs in warleader or lightfused stegadon, depending on murloc or dude variant.
spiteful priest its a T6 16/16.
These are the tier 1 decks. Their strengths do not come from them being un-interactive, it comes from being able to do brokeback shit early in the game.
Yup, the title says "interactivity and "power" are inversely related" and they are. It's not a one-to-one mapping, or absolutely uniform, it's a useful rule of thumb, not a law of physics, of course. Like Murphy's Law, it's expressed in a way that can be misinterpreted as "always" but it doesn't say that. So why do many people jump to a concussion (headline disease)? I think that happens 'cause we like to create our own fake news.