Group Hug vs Group Hate
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Oct. 26, 2019, 6:10 a.m. by ShutUpMokuba
Hello everyone, Yesterday at my LGS we have been debating on the logic of group hug and group hate decks in the non competitive games.
Some people pointed out that using oppressive stax cards and such in a non competitive format basically "ruins" the experience for the others and, even though it's perfectly legal/fine to play such decks, it's kind a missed opportunity for having a more entertaining game by using a different strategy.
On the other hand, the "group hate deck people" said that it's way less logical to play a deck that allows everyone, even for a limited time, to benefit from someone else's strategy. The point was that leaving people the time to do their stuff and also giving some benefit from ours doesn't really improve the experience because without a "proper challenge" you can't really enjoy the game.
So what's your take on the topic? Do you find excessively annoying decks some sort of "problem" or do you agree that makes the game more challenging? And what about group hugs decks?
The some people who think EDH is not a competitive format are what's wrong with the format. I know that's an aggressive statement, but it's firmly what I believe.
The reason for this is because it can be casual, or competitive, or whatever you're looking for. But saying that there is only one way to play the format is an incredibly selfish thing to do.
What is important is to have like minded players within a game. If your group wants to play casually with lots of group hug and big, dumb cards, then great. But if your playgroup wants to play a bunch of cutthroat magic with lots of staxs, then great too.
As a personal thought though, I'm not generally a fan of group hug. I find that it enables a lot of decks which aren't able to stand on their own legs and I'm not a fan of enabling bad deck building.
October 26, 2019 8:53 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #4
Wow, that first sentence has a lot of hostility for no one having said anything close to that in this thread.
October 26, 2019 9:19 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #5
Can't edit, so double posting. I re-read the OP to make sure that they hadn't said anything that would lead to your hostility. I see now where you read that. Though I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think he was using "format" in the normal English usage instead of in the MTG specific usage. Specifically the third definition on dictionary.com: "the organization, plan, style, or type of something". Which is to say "in a non-competitive setting". Maybe I am being too generous.
October 26, 2019 9:28 a.m.
Gidgetimer: I appreciate that it was quite aggressive. But I have come across this kind of attitude far too often and I think that it's really detrimental for a player's development and the format (commander) in general. With regards to what ShutUpMokuba said (and I'm not attributing this attitude to them at all):
"using oppressive stax cards and such in a non competitive format basically "ruins" the experience for the others"
This is what the point was addressing. My point was that there are a lot of people who think that commander isn't a competitive format, that it's only casual and that it should be played as such. I hear a lot of people complaining across the forums (not just this one) that combos are bad, stax is bad, counterspells are bad, removal is bad, and that people shouldn't play these things (yes, I'm over generalising but I have seen a lot of complaints ove the years).
My gripe with this is that commander is this amazing format which lets you play a game of magic with as many people as you want (I once heard of somebody playing a 36 player game) with whatever cards you enjoy play with in whatver style you enjoy playing. So I take offence (probably more zealously that I should) when people try to enforce a particular way that you should play for the format as a whole. Obviously you need to take the people who you directly impact into consideration when deck building, but that's the dynamics of a particular playgroup and again, should not speak for the whole format.
Now, if if I have misunderstood what the people in OP's post were talking about (i.e. they were not referring to the format in general but that particular playgroup) then my apologies for somewhat derailing the thread.
October 26, 2019 9:58 a.m.
Nerdytimesorwhatever says... #7
Play with people that encourage you to use cards the game has to offer, not people that want to play a very very specific version of what YOU want to play so that they can have their arbitrary definition for fun.
My playgroup plays stax in almost every deck. Extra slots and nothing to do with it? Slot in some efficient stax that fits your game plan.
Stax just changes the numbers game around how you approach what is and isn't efficient, and ultimately it is a part of the game. I hate creatures, but I don't become hostile or negative to my playgroup when people slam a giant creature in my face for a giggle.
I like counterspells. So many people do not. I still run 15+ counterspells in my Rashmi list. Cuz its what I like to do.
Regardless play what you most enjoy playing, and as long as you aren't sitting down with wildly different powerlevel decks, everyone should be able to have fun.
If they (your whole playgroup) say something is entirely not okay to play with, though, and everyone agrees- house ban it.
October 26, 2019 10:03 a.m.
ShutUpMokuba says... #8
enpci've been misunderstood. What i meant by "non competitive format" was basically "in non cEDH"/"casual EDH"... I, like the other guys at the LGS, was not trying to imply that EDH can't be competitive. Also i play a lot of group hate/stax decks so i was among the ones that didn't care that being a casual game i should let you do whatever you like/avoid playing "annoying" cards.
October 26, 2019 10:29 a.m.
I completely believe any form of mtg naturally is competitive, 2 or more players start a game and the intention of the game is one of them wins. Going into the game without that intention usually leads to the game taking way longer or way shorter than it normally would be.
I've learned formats competitiveness is more based on how big the prize pool can exist for the format. Modern decks are stupid expensive, but there are people building modern decks with the expectancy to win many thousands of dollars so they build the deck expecting to see the best. Commander and pauper on the other hand, you might occasionally find an event that rewards a bit, but wotc definitely doesn't plan on making a world champion off of a thras/tymn commander deck victory.
If wotc made a commander GP regularly I am sure the perception of commander being a casual format would fade.
October 26, 2019 10:39 a.m.
I have found that an incredibly fun way of playing the game is not GENERIC group hate as much as FOCUSED hug to create hate!?! So many folks are so "All or nothing" with their decks: complete resource denial or it is not competitive. But think of it with decks designed like those that run Oath of Druids , Wishmonger , Scheming Symmetry & Heartwood Storyteller . Sure, this is a loosy-goosy gamble that GIFTS OTHER PLAYERS!?!... but the most staxy-controlly-competitive players in my playgroup have learned that a focused "hug" deck AKA rewarding a SPECIFIC playstyle can suddenly be very dangerous to some more competitive builds by giving everyone else the means to crap in that player's bed. This has been most true with Marisi, Breaker of the Coil , or Thantis, the Warweaver , where you are helping others to flood the field with a specific type of permanent -- It has become apparent that dismissing "hug" strategies in a political multiplayer format as just "pissing in the wind" without any preferential direction for the "hug" deck is a MTG traditionalist line of thought. The more these decks start to pop up the more this point of view will change.
October 26, 2019 11:54 a.m.
The type of strategy above can make convenient temporary allies of all the players with generic goodstuff that you are helping them play... It evens the playing field for the entire table with those freeplay super-commanders & often can force-direct that freeB play that you just made for another player, this is not describing a passive slow-win deck... (maybe a way-to-fast win for another player), but the line between "Hug" & "Hate" is becoming more & more blurred & also is not necessarily completely casual considering the quality of decks that you can actually beat with the strategy.
October 26, 2019 12:04 p.m.
As I'm sure others will say it depends on the play group. Group hug is a pretty legit and probably very competitive strategy for most people. Sure you can build a deck that is just letting everyone else do their thing, but if you're benefiting more than everyone else and getting farther ahead that's how you win games.
Group slug or Stax on the other hand, can be just as competitive, that is going to draw the ire of the rest of the table. In a way its whole purpose is to take away the things that people like to do and can sometimes lockdown an entire table.
Personally, I'm fine with people locking out the table as long as they're going to win shortly afterwards. I'm even fine with being limited by something personally, if your goal is to lockout the table and just hang out until everyone quits because they're bored that gets annoying after a while and I probably won't want to play it anymore. But there is a place for stacks and group slug in most play groups.
In a way they're both right. Everyone loves a group hug player until they win and stacks/ group slug can pee keep people on their toes enough to maintain a competitive environment that doesn't get overrun by combos and such. I do generally believe that if you're not prepared with some artifact or enchantment hate than you deserve to be locked out by Stax.
October 26, 2019 12:57 p.m.
Nerdytimesorwhatever says... #13
In a competitive edh environment, group hug is not a viable option. People run too high a density of interaction cards for that to be a good gameplan. Stuff like Howling Mine is what I think of as group hug though, so I may be misjudging the archetype.
October 26, 2019 2:28 p.m.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. At this point in the game, TRUE cEDH to-the-letter, by definition of Tier 1-1.5 decks - I agree the hugs won't cut it, but that is true for a whole load of other archetypes as well. Yes Howling Mine & those classic hug-types aren't competitive, but with the new stuff we have access to now in the realm of parallel effects and gifting (which would also be considered group-hug), I have seen a reasonable win-rate against some more "competitive" metas. I have seen Earnest Fellowship - cause fits to players in the right decks, I have seen Oath of Druids completely wreck house on chainveil Teferi & others of that ilk... Really, if these decks do anything they may force competitive decks to be less competitive. Because "when everyone is super.... no one is" - yet at the same time they do take advantage of this (to come out ahead of the competition) So I think that may be a bit of misjudging, there is a lot of innovation out there that shouldn't be poo-pooe'd by convention.
October 27, 2019 12:16 a.m.
ShutUpMokuba says... #15
Gleeock Behaving like a sith it'd the best part of playing Commander though.
Jokes aside my personal opinion is that leaving you the time to do your stuff or getting benefit from other players' strategy is kind of pointless. To be more precisely, expecting Others to do that is pointless. In every single boardgame like Risk! you don't help your opponents and that is part of the experience of the game. The game works like this: everyone tries to get to his own win condition and while doing so preventig the Others to do so. And group hug itself is not that kind of style you may think it is on paper. For example: everyone gets 10 tokens and then i make you pay 2 life for each creature you have. Cool you got 10 tokens and lost half of your life. Sure you still got something but i may be very well be killing you next turn so enjoy your gift, it will be the last think you get in this game.
October 27, 2019 6:49 a.m.
:) But what I'm trying to elaborate (poorly) is that "Hug" & "Hate" are becoming less mutually exclusive now, more like you throw them both together into complex (political decks), like Marchesa. Not all hug decks have to be the hippo of love anymore with 30 passive card-draw for everyone spells. And the brand of hug that I've played does not simply sit aside & benefit from other's strategy... It is more aptly described as forcing my strategy onto others. You are not expecting others to work for you, you are gently forcing the issue. Also, in Risk! there is plenty of helping politics, is it not helping your opponent in a way, if you are allowing them to pull pieces off their border with a truce to attack the player securing Russia? This happens a ton in Risk! I will say that newer huggy decks are really only effective with a dash of hate thrown in, you do need a dash of Sith/win-plan thrown in. Marisi's wincon is letting everyone slap random bomb creatures onto the table, letting others worry about creature control if they want to, & sweeping artifact/enchantment wincons constantly - this example really can't be described as just benefitting from other's strategy.. but it is still an aggressive form of hug. I would argue that the best part of playing Commander is getting together with your buddies from all walks of life & playing a couple hours of Wizard Poker.
October 27, 2019 7:44 a.m.
ShutUpMokuba says... #17
Gleeock since i've reported the discussion brought up at my lgs without adding anything untill now about my position i'll say something even more controversial than you did (which i partially agree with). No one intentionally wants to play a group hug strategy. The fact is that most of the card used in such decks are just a worse version of other cards only "more balanced" so less expensive. In my personal opinion the Whole concept of group hug is stupid. Not because of the fact that i believe using balanced/budget version of best cards is lame (i don't own any super expensive or super competitive deck myself). But because you try to use a strategy that would require cards you basically don't own and so you make a less effective one putting on the label of "gruop hug" so other players may say "great we are all going to have fun!". If you can profit from a card without having Others receive something too, you would certainly. Why? Because you play the game to win. Sure the most important thing is to have fun in the end, don't get me wrong, but while you are IN the game you would do what it takes to win in the end. So, the Whole concept of group hug is, in my opinion, either a gimmick or a nice way to call decks that don't work well on a budget.
I know i will receive some hate now. And that's why i basically Always play hate/stax decks. Just kidding.. maybe.
October 27, 2019 8:37 a.m.
We were never really talking about if these styles are cEDH or not. If that's the question, the short answer is no. Stax can competitive and that's generally where it sees play, but I would argue that the politics of a group hug deck in a multiple setting, even if its cEDH, can be competitive.
The goal isnt "hey here's Howling Mine everyone enjoy!" Its more like here's Howling Mine but also Narset, Parter of Veils an infinite mana combo, no max hand size for me, and even though I gave you stuff I got 3x more!" It all depends on the environment.
October 27, 2019 1:09 p.m.
I don't think anyone will give you true hate for that, I think that is actually a popular opinion. A good portion of stax is to apply parallel effects (subtracting) from everyones abilities & then breaking that parity. However, I feel like denying the potential power of breaking parity (with addition) is somewhat closedminded. I agree Howling Mine (& similar cards) are somewhat Busch league in comparison to Sylvan Library - But I feel like there some notable parallel additive effects that are not. I know that our table's Baral, Chief of Compliance was not having fun when I was playing Oath of Druids & he made the mistake of not countering the thing right away, but that fun spell benefits everyone right? except the guy playing spellslinger control, who has no way of controlling that amount of freeplay creatures every opponent's turn, there aren't any self-interested, self-benefit cards that do this the same way. The last time parallel additive effects made into punishment was explored by the majority of the community with open minds was Nekusar, the Mindrazer & there have been significant changes made to the game since that. Another somewhat huggish gifting deck I've played that goes toe-to-toe with some known winner decks is Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa with Ludevic, Necro-Alchemist this is another blast to play that can surprise people with more game ending power than you would expect out of a more traditional "hug"
October 27, 2019 1:14 p.m.
ShutUpMokuba says... #20
There are often cards that do that straight away or without a particular combo or set up. And, in the meantime, others would receive no bonus.
October 27, 2019 1:18 p.m.
In addition to that, some of the most consistent decks I've played against have been techniqually group hug. That doesnt mean budget, at all. A card that can benefit others in multiple isnt less then. With that mentality you might as well play modern or legacy.
If your only playing 1v1, then yea group hug is a bad idea. Eliminates the point.
October 27, 2019 1:22 p.m. Edited.
Yep, exactly. Breaking parity whether it is is additive, subtractive, any combination therein. Also, forcing politics play. All valid concepts to be taken into account if you are talking about a multiplayer format.
October 27, 2019 5:07 p.m.
You can build a deck that functions just fine on its' own, but also it's just gravy if you are benefitting off bonuses to others. I'm learning to love forcing broken parity with black-hug now: Scheming Symmetry has been a beast the last 4 games I drew it, I'm excited to see what I will do with Wishclaw Talisman as well :)... & like any playstyle you start to get good at it, I have a buddy that plays in his own self-reliant vacuum, and it works great for him, but when he plays my political stuff it is completely different than when I helm one of them
Gidgetimer says... #2
"Group hate" isn't as well defined to me as it seems to be to you. Resource denial such as stax and MLD are only fun to play against if you are prepared for them. Most casual tables I have sat down at are not prepared. Once a meta shift happens and people are prepared I have noticed these players often complain about being "hated out". I'm not sure they are looking out for everyone's enjoyment by providing a challenge so much as trying to pubstomp.
On the other hand, taxation and "death by a thousand cuts" group hate provides a challenge that you can confront in-game instead of during deck building. Kataki, War's Wage , Pendrell Mists , and Spelltithe Enforcer require you to prioritize mana usage or permanent importance, but don't stop the game dead if not immediately answered.
Group hug I put on a level with the second category. Though I prioritize getting rid of hug pieces much higher than other people do. I often destroy hug pieces before the end of my next turn because they are horrible disadvantage. Every round a Howling Mine is out is 2 cards of disadvantage in a 4 player game.
October 26, 2019 8:18 a.m.