Is Contol a hate strategy, /Vice versa
General forum
Posted on Jan. 28, 2018, 11:39 p.m. by TaegukTheWise
I have been wondering for a bit about if "Hate" cards/ the archetype is considered control.
So the main goal of a control deck per the average definition is a style of deck that accept or denies opponents cards as it slowly (EDIT) gains card advantage to finish with a big, and most of the time, evasive threat.
A deck like Hatebears for example seeks to limit how much its opponents can actually play the game and interact with its own aggro strategy by hosing a huge part of the meta with its main board with the hate creatures passive abilities.
Hatebears is much more like a choke hold versus control being Jackie Chan countering a punch and waiting to counter the next in an attempt to strike the finishing blow. And sure control can run some hate and hate can run counterspells but that's not the point.
Maybe I've answered my own question, but I wanted to see what the general consensus was as to the divide between actual literal hate cards/deck archetype, to control.
CommanderNeyo says... #3
Hate decks like Hatebears are like a mid-rangey form of control, if that makes sense. It controls the opponent by denying them access to what they need to win, generally just stuck on a body. Although it wouldn't be considered "classic" control, as it can lack the amount of removal or counterspells traditionally used, it still attempts to control the board by halting your opponent's gameplan while advancing your own.
January 29, 2018 1:08 a.m.
I would say hatebears is more aggro than control. It has no real long game. The point of the deck is to flood the board with cheap creatures while disrupting the opponent just enough to push through 20 points of damage before they can get whatever they had planned online. Control is more about card advantage and reactive magic like removal and counter spells. Hatebears plays Aether Vial which is pretty much the opposite of card advantage. It definitely has a lot of interaction, and requires you to know your opponents deck as well as your own, but I wouldn't group it as a control strategy.
January 29, 2018 1:46 a.m.
DarkMagician says... #5
While the two strategies share a similar game plan in that they both want to keep opposing decks from functioning properly they couldn't be anymore different in how they go about doing it. Control decks are a reactive deck, they tends to sit back and wait for the opponent to do something and then counter the spell on the stack or hit the permanent with some form of removal once it enters the battlefield. The pinnacle of control are counterspells, opponent casts a spell and control responds. Hate on the other hand is a proactive strategy, it seeks to interrupt the opponents strategy BEFORE they attempt to implement it. Hate either wants to deal with cards before they ever make it past the hand with spells like Thoughtseize or make them significantly less powerful by getting cards into play that shut down the opponents strategy such as using Aven Mindcensor to mess with fetchlands and tutors.
January 29, 2018 2:12 a.m.
Its not reactive so its not a control deck.
D&T decks are basicaly weenie decks that play small creatures that disrupt the opponent.
But its hard to classify for me in general. If its not control which the most people seem to aggree on. In which archetype does it fit?
Midrange? Tempo? Or is it just Aggro?
Would love to hear your thoughts about that
January 29, 2018 5:44 a.m.
Depending on the disruptive deck they can be tempo or control. hatebears is a tempo deck, something Lantern in modern or Dragon Stompy in Legacy is a control deck that just happens to limit what they can play.
The difference is the win condition - in Hatebears or Death and Taxes, your disruptive pieces are your win con. In a disruptie control deck, the disruption pieces are super powerful, but cannot win the game on their own, so you have to play win condtions separate from them.
Also, your control definition is quite off - control decks sacrifice early game and aim to build advantage, usually in cards, over the opponent and aim to answer their threats and win the game via anything when the opponent is shut out of the game.
Ex. Legacy Miracles, Modern Jeskai, or Bolas Energy Control in standard.
January 29, 2018 7:21 a.m.
TaegukTheWise says... #8
What about cards like Acidic Slime? Its last ability destroys lands, so is it removal or is it a hate piece? I know its not an Ethersworn Canonist but I know cards like Pyroblast hate out blue spells and permanents, and to a lesser extent Reclamation Sage does effectively the same thing except without land destruction and deathtouch (and a sometimes relevant point of toughness).
You could also perform an infinite combo with Reveillark Ashnod's Altar, and Karmic Guide to bring back Acidic Slime over and over again, is that considered land hate or a form of removal? (or in the funnier case, player removal)
So where would Acidic Slime place, Removal or Hate?
January 29, 2018 2 p.m.
CommanderNeyo says... #9
I changed my mind, and agree especially with hannibal6. As for hate-cards in general, do you mean cards like Rest in Peace, Stony Silence, Blood Moon, Mindbreak Trap, etc.?
January 29, 2018 6:25 p.m.
TaegukTheWise says... #10
Well, there are cards like Tormod's Crypt, Relic of Progenitus, and Angel of Finality that target specific things, in this case graveyards for the cards mentioned. I would figure Blood Moon is a card more to punish greedy mana bases that use very little to no basics in a 2+ color deck/ Urza Tron rather than actual hate due to its splashable relevancy, but if it is defined as a hate card, its a hate card. Also yes, Stony Silence and Mindbreak Trap would count. I was just asking if Acidic Slime in general is considered a hate card, while keeping in mind the abuse with the infinite combo mentioned to blow up all lands you don't control while further keeping in mind that the combo is a bit difficult to set up.
January 29, 2018 6:49 p.m.
Accidic slime is not a hate card. I wouldnt consider anything that removes anything as hatecard.
Hate cards are cards that shut down entire strategies. There were already plenty of examples. Slime doesnt do that so its not a hate card.
January 29, 2018 6:59 p.m.
TaegukTheWise says... #12
OK, I only asked because a friend of mine called my EDH deck a hate deck because I happened to use that Infinite combo to destroy his lands before a board wipe to make him scoop. For a little more context it was a 1v1 game of EDH because he can't always make it to the card shop to test his decks.
January 29, 2018 7:16 p.m.
CommanderNeyo says... #13
Yeah, I wouldn't consider Acidic Slime a hate card just because it is general-use removal on a stick. Stony Silence or Rest in Peace, on the other hand, have specific strategies that they deal with. Now if your friend accused you of being degenerate for blowing up all his lands, I can agree with that. XD
January 29, 2018 11:06 p.m.
TaegukTheWise says... #14
I know it was degenerate to blow up his lands, but that's not the question (I'm also satisfied with being degenerate FYI). I am a big proponent of "if its in the game its O.K." when it comes to magic, especially if its a hard to pull off/assemble combo. He was going to board wipe and finish the game after reanimating a big threat with haste. I told him that if he did that I would blow up his lands and that I was willing to let him take the wrath back, he didn't want to, so I blew up his lands and he scooped.
The question isn't whether or not what I did was degenerate, the question was "Is control hate/vice versa" All my friend said was that My Roon commander deck was a Hate deck which is completely preposterous. I'll give you guys a link to my Roon, Mayor of Value Town EDH deck if you want proof that it's not a hate deck, and I'll let you guys judge what type of deck it is.
KingMathoro says... #2
I would absolutely consider it a form of control.
January 29, 2018 12:53 a.m.