Politics
TappedOut forum
Posted on Sept. 30, 2020, 3:35 p.m. by Goblin_Guide
So far I've just used the "group hug" hub in place of this, but my new political Dimir control deck definitely isn't group hug. I think if Politics were added as a hub it would mean that those decks that are intended to bring out players' skill rather than their budget would actually have a place to live.
I don't know. I think "politics" divided into subtypes could be meaningful. I play Thantis & it is neither hug or slug. Maybe you could call it a "gifting" (harmless offering) subtype? Marchesa - aikido can hold true for this as well. I have a Atla reactionary beats deck where all creatures basically slap someone in response to an action (that deck is more playstyle bacause it is also just Timmie as well).
October 1, 2020 9:52 a.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #5
Politics is inherent in multiplayer games. Even if you don't intend for it, its going to be there, because that's how multiplayer games evolve. It's one of the many cursed problems (unsolvable problems) of creating games: You cannot have a free for all multiplayer game that is also competitive and entirely dependent on skill. Politics will be inherently involved and people will take sides and gang up on the few that are seen to do better to increase their chances of winning.
It is for this reason that I don't see any point in making a politics hub. It'll probably create more problems than good as it could encourage people make memes, edgy and problematic deck posts for 1v1 formats under the politics hub.
What you want instead is a hub with a name that focuses on the aspects of multiplayer gameplay "multiplayer friendly", but that in and of itself isn't really useful as every format that is multiplayer is also this hub.
October 1, 2020 8:50 p.m.
Goblin_Guide says... #6
I think that makes sense to me in general, but with some decks, if all you see is the decklist, it's really hard to see how it wins at all, because the builder was focused on the politics in the game pushing them to a win. A generic aggro deck like Krenko or something probably doesn't have the same political goal as a deck like Tasigur (outside of combo Tas).
October 2, 2020 11:36 a.m.
VorelNailo says... #7
I agree with the issues behind this forum - there are definitely decks that don't fall into any of the hubs made so far, and that are defined by their political strategy.
Wishclaw Talisman in Standard is a 2-for-1 tutor, but in Commander it takes on a whole new layer. A political layer. There is no Commander game in the history of Magic that has not had someone say "if you do this, I'll do that" - it's part of the nature of Commander as a format.
Political decks, that win through alliances, deals, and favors, are a real thing, and it's an insult to the deck builder and the player to not have their strategy recognized. The main part of why commander is fun is that it is social, and decks that exploit that are a real thing!
October 2, 2020 11:45 a.m.
Goblin_Guide says... #8
I think the argument against the hub is the fact that politics are so intrinsic to EDH -- like putting a white/black deck into the "aristocrats" hub is basically implied (just kidding, but partly not). However, I do agree that it may be intrinsic to all multiplayer formats, but it is more valid to some decks than others -- like how most legacy decks (outside of those called "jank") are generally at least playable in a competitive environment, but some more so than others.
October 2, 2020 11:51 a.m.
Tags are used not for your own edification, but to ensure others can locate a deck that falls within certain parameters. To make tags most helpful, they should be based on components of the deck itself; not anything that might be adjacent to a deck.
"Politics" is a strategy, not an inherent component of the deck. Some decks might lend themselves better to political play, of course, but the application of politics exists independently to the deck itself. Player A and Player B can pick up the same stack of cards and one will use Politics while the other does not.
Overall, I do not think listing a recommended strategy is overly helpful as a tag--it's something you can talk about in a deck description, but not something others necessarily would be searching for specifically.
October 2, 2020 12:22 p.m.
Goblin_Guide says... #10
But what if someone does want to find a political deck? Without this hub, if I want to build a new deck and I want to influence the table in order to get myself into a 1v1 with an exhausted opponent, the best thing I can do is look up "group hug" which doesn't really work.
October 2, 2020 12:43 p.m.
VorelNailo says... #11
If we look at the existing hubs, a lot of them are actually referring to the strategy of the deck. Most decks overlap their strategy and their build; generally, the tighter those are, the more focused the deck is.
-
8-rack: This is a deck archetype, to be sure, but it's also found in the hubs of decks who don't run The Rack, where it refers to the punitive discard effects.
-
Aggro: It's a deck-building theme, but it's ALSO a playstyle.
-
Aristocrats: A deck archetype, but also a prevalent strategy, and some "aristocrat" decks have no "aristocrat" cards in them - it's referring to the playstyle.
Politics is more of a playstyle than a deck, but that DOES NOT mean that it is not a deck archetype. Most cards made for commander emphasize the political nature of a format that is, at its heart, a multiplayer game - interaction does not just mean removal, it means deals, alliances, and sometimes even double crosses.
Politics is a strategy that can exist ONLY in Commander - dragon tribal, aristocrats, spellslinger, these can all be found in Modern, Legacy, and even Standard, but Politics can only be found in Commander.
October 2, 2020 1:42 p.m.
Goblin_Guide says... #12
Ok how about we look at this hub from the opposite direction -- the cons of creating it?
The worst thing I can see happening is that people from formats other than multiplayer formats start using it and it becomes full of crap -- which, given the nature of 1v1, will probably be a low number of decks, although I bet it will happen. And, I don't think this would be entirely a downside, because if (by some weird miracle) there actually can be a political deck in a 1v1 format, it should be even better in multiplayer (theoretically).
This is just one con, if anyone else can think of any please mention them.
Massacar says... #2
While political skill, the ability to manipulate others to reach your preferred outcome, is definitely a type of skill I don't think it really works in the same way as you described in your post.
Politics can literally be the theme of a deck (example, Electoral Politics) It would still tend to fall under parent categories of group hug (manipulate the table by providing benefits to everyone or strategic partners) and group slug (everyone hates you now, sorry).
Just my own two cents, while I understand the appeal of a more general 'politics' label, I don't feel like it would add meaningful distinction to deck archetypes.
September 30, 2020 4:01 p.m.