Shroud Vs Hexproof: Interactivity

Shroud Vs Hexproof: Downsides
Today I continue the debate between shroud and hexproof. For context, here're part one and part two.

What draws a player to play a game rather than read a book or even watch a movie with friends? Both of those media can be fun and challenging, but they're not interactive. The ability to make choices and see the results of those choices is primary in drawing players into single player games and the effect is multiplied in duels and group games because now you're not just interacting with the game environment, but with other players which can be deeply satisfying.

Most elements of a Magic game are interactive. You can cast a Serra Angel, and I can Mana Leak it. You can attack with your Goblin Piker, and I can block with my Goblin Arsonist. You can cast Slaughter Cry and I can cast Fog. Or Doom Blade. Some of the best cards (in terms of their value in helping you to win games) reduce interactivity by generating a threat that your opponent can't answer as easily. White Knight is immune to Doom Blade, Serra Angel can't be blocked by Goblin Arsonist and Manor Gargoyle is unimpressed with your 10/10 Timbermaw Larva.

They are more of a challenge to deal with and that's a double-edged sword just like all challenges. If you are able to overcome it, perhaps by Cruel Edicting that Knight, Plummeting that Angel or casting Revoke Existence on that Gargoyle, then you'll feel good about yourself and the game will experience an emotional change that keeps players interested. If you aren't able to deal with it, you'll free frustrated. Either you had the tool to deal with it but couldn't find it, or you did and didn't realize it or wasted it on something else or your deck was legitimately without an answer. Some of these are more your fault or less, but none of them are fun.

Hexproof and shroud both reduce interactivity, shutting out every single spell that could hurt the recipient. Hexproof is not less interactive than shroud; in fact the opposite is true. Shroud prevents all non-combat interaction but hexproof only shuts off your opponents' interaction. When you equip your Gladecover Scout, enchant your Sacred Wolf or pump your Aven Fleetwing, your opponent can still Disenchant or Negate to interact with your creature indirectly.

I don't believe it's happened yet, but there could be cards that affect another spell's target, getting around hexproof's shield:
"Return a card targeted by target spell or ability to its owner’s hand."
"The owner of a card targeted by target spell or ability sacrifices it."
"Untap a creature targeted by target spell or ability. It gains haste and you gain control of it until end of turn."

The danger of threats you can't answer with your removal spells is compounded non-interaction. Invisible Stalker is the poster boy here because he has the best possible form of evasion, unblockability. When you can't target something, there are only a couple ways to deal with it and they are creature combat and global destruction (or pre-emptive discard/milling). Take away the primary method and you're left with a challenge most players won't be able to overcome. The fact that Innistrad has only one common, one uncommon and one mythic rare that can do the trick once a Stalker is on the field is a problem. Since the stalking player can counter Tribute to Hunger and Lilliana of the Veil by simply having another creature—something they probably wanted to do anyhow and Rolling Temblor by playing the best common aura in the same color compounds this particular issue further.

If Angelic Overseer's abilities weren't contingent on the survival of one of Magic's most vulnerable tribes, it would be an unacceptable problem as well. Either flying or indestructible alone would make it too much and both would be a joke. Thankfully, humans are squishy.

The point here is that one interaction-preventing ability is pretty safe but the combination of multiple such is quite dangerous. To bring this back to the debate at hand, the funny thing is that neither keyword really has the edge on the other in this regard. While hexproof offers greater interactivity, it simultaneously makes possible more devastating threats which will end the game faster, reducing the likelihood you will ever get to solve your opponent's challenge.

The difference keywording makes
Apologies for not naming the wise person that pointed this out, but twitter is terrible for finding unlabeled tweets even just 24 hours old: Shroud and what is now hexproof co-existed in Magic 2011 without problem (at least not a problem we experienced players noticed), yet the act of keywording hexproof made them mutually exclusive abilities. That makes some sense, considering how the mindspace issue we discussed in part one is exaggerated by keywords but it also opens up another solution to the face-off.

Maybe these could co-exist if they used the same word. Protection can be used in a number of seemingly disparate ways because it is a compound or variable keyword. Protection from characteristic can identify any card or source that has that characteristic. It's usually a color, but sometimes it's a card type like in Spirit Mantle and Petrified Wood-Kin or something stranger like Mistmeadow Skulk or Progenitus. That versatility allows you to do a lot of things with one keyword. (Protection from spells or abilities, by the way, is the same as shroud, it just isn't as succinct or flavorful.)

Duncan (and a few others, IIRC) suggested this solution for shroud and hexproof. Click to check these functional reprints of three Magic 2011 cards at full size: Sacred Wolf, Gaea's Revenge and Autumn's Veil.


Okay, that last one has a slight functional difference but it's so much cleaner, I think the card is even improved by this change. The astute among you will also have noticed that "shrouded from x" doesn't enjoy the same consistency as protection from characteristic, because we haven't defined x as precisely. On Sacred Wolf, "opponents" is not a characteristic. If that were a requirement we could use the more cumbersome "shrouded from spells and abilities your opponents control" which is arguably worse than simply writing out "Sacred Wolf can't be the target of spells and abilities your opponents control," thought it's not an argument I would agree with.

Fortunately, that's not necessary. Keywords have variations that allow this kind of thing. Cycling is not the same as landcycling and we can use that same tech here. As far as the rules are concerned, we would have "Shroud," "Shrouded from characteristic," and "Shrouded from player." The beauty of that solution is even though these are technically different, they don't feel or seem different and they don't fight for mindspace. Shroud means "can't be targeted" and sometimes it's more specific.

Is that the best answer to the question "which should be used going forward: hexproof or shroud?" Normally this is where I'd hem and haw and say I provided the evidence either way and leave it to you to decide. This time, I'm taking a stand. I didn't know how well the integrated keyword solution would work until I tried it out and I must say I'm impressed. We get every variation of functionality that sticking to just one (or even both) of hexproof and shroud prohibits yet we stick to one mechanical concept for players to learn. I say "shrouded from x" is the way to go moving forward. Specifically, I would leave shroud as primarily blue and shrouded from x as primarily green.