Group Hug Commander Decks - Fun or Annoying?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Nov. 30, 2015, 1:37 a.m. by SaberTech
There have been a couple forum threads lately that have popped up regarding group hug decks, and some of the comments in those threads have surprised me a little. So I just want to throw a question out to the Commander crowd here on Tapped Out:
What have your experiences been while either piloting or being in a game where someone else has been running a group hug commander deck?
Some people have enjoyed the experience, and others have not. I'm interested in hearing different people's perspectives on the topic.
Havok.Bane says... #3
I don't like them because they make games go on for longer than they should and they don't always have a wincon so the only reason those people are there is to drag the game out then not win and that really irks me.
November 30, 2015 1:53 a.m.
FancyTuesday says... #4
I like playing with a Group Hug deck in the pod. That said, I will almost always kill them first.
It has nothing to do with liking or disliking the decks, it just makes the most sense. Killing them on your turn means you've either benefited the most from their effects, or at least did not benefit less than your other opponents depending on where you're sitting in relation to the hugbox. Mana Flares, Howling Mines, any static benefit that helps everyone hurts you more every turn it's allowed to cycle, and if you can cut it off on your turn you take the greatest advantage of it. You are always playing into their hand by ignoring or helping a Group Hug deck, Magic isn't a game of 2nd place and they aren't planning on rolling over once they've made you king, they're designed to turn it against you.
I never understood why Group Hug players question why I gun for them so hard. Yeah, you doubled my mana output, thanks. You also doubled the mana output of 3 guys trying to kill me. We aren't friends.
November 30, 2015 1:56 a.m.
DERPLINGSUPREME says... #5
@FancyTuesday what would you do if they were playing kingmaker with you?
November 30, 2015 2:01 a.m.
FancyTuesday says... #6
@DERPLINGSUPREME: Never abide viziers, chancellors, or any boy taller than an wheels of your carts; they'll ruin your kingdom good. An opponent is always an opponent.
November 30, 2015 2:14 a.m.
When I built my group hug deck, I was in a university game club and needed a deck that I could play against people new to the format, and sometimes even new to MtG in general. The idea was that the deck would help a group of less efficiently built decks still function reasonably well by helping them find lands and draw cards. That way, their first few games in the format wouldn't be too frustrating and I would have time to help them improve and refine their decks.
My play group outside the club was on the more competitive side, but most people were usually up for a long and crazy game as an excuse to socialize, so I designed my deck to play well in those games. I had one friend who would likely attack me early on, because his decks were geared for card advantage and he wouldn't appreciate me helping other people out. So I also built my deck with defensive cards and a few crazy ones like Mirrorweave that could warp the board state in unpredictable ways.
When I play the deck I'm not necessarily looking to win, since I primarily just want to see a crazy and dynamic game played out, but I'll take an opportunity to snag a kill if it presents itself.
November 30, 2015 2:46 a.m.
canterlotguardian says... #8
So basically it all boils down to (in my personal experience) the type of playgroup that you're playing with. I've played with both casual and competitive playgroups, and the reactions to my (former) style of play were both very much different. My casual playgroup didn't care in the slightest because we all loved chaotic super-games where anything was possible, except maybe winning. My other playgroup was a bit less forgiving; they preferred the acceleration at a later point in the game, after they've had a chance to lock the board down so that they could get the most advantage out of it. Drop a Howling Mine too early, and you were liable to be the first one eliminated.
That's why I shifted to my current style of combo-control; I determine my own fate. If I just want to play Magic and don't give two rats' behinds about winning, then I'll just play my cards and not quite think about combo'ing off unless someone wants the game ended so we could do something else. If I'm in a competitive spirit, then I'll play the deck the way it was built.
November 30, 2015 8:06 a.m.
I hate them because I carefully plan the CMC of my decks to run on minimal mana and then when a group hug player shows up it allows scrubs to throw down their entire deck of 7 drops way faster than they should be able to.
Like, I don't play Avenger of Zendikar in my jund deck because it's horrible vs mono 
control. But if I knew there was going to be a hugs player there 100% of the time then I would. But it's safest not to. But then when hugs shows up I am really hurting because everyone else played their big stupid cards.
November 30, 2015 9:13 a.m.
PlattBonnay says... #10
Cant stand them most of the time. All they do is drag games out longer than they should go. That said, I saw a pretty hilarious Zedruu the Greathearted list that did nothing but give away equipment and enchantments to help its opponents kill each other faster.
November 30, 2015 1:04 p.m.
I've never really had a problem with them. My decks tend to ramp pretty hard in the early game regardless and don't tend to care much about what my opponents are doing. The group hug effects will tend to benefit me early and help me draw into my mass LD cards. No amount of hugging will save a table once my decks get going. The only fear would be getting countered but my decks work around that normally anyway.
It's just the style I like, whether it be Kaalia of the Vast or Zur the Enchanter that I'm working on now. Both run mass LD. If I'm playing my Slivers tribal, it's all over but the crying. I don't run LD in Slivers but if they get ramped even further by hug effects, it's bad news for the table especially with Sliver Overlord at the helm being able to tutor up anything I need at the time. Kruphix, God of Horizons also enjoys it while being able to ramp heavily into a Helix Pinnacle win or drop some Eldrazi especially early.
November 30, 2015 2:22 p.m.
I think that your comments makes a good point, but it also sparks another thought:
There are a number of different attitudes that can lead a person to run a group hug deck, and in the scenario that you describe it might be that the group hug player is looking to even the field for the people whose decks aren't as efficiently built. It's a plan that can backfire, depending on how the stronger decks are built, but sometimes it works out in the way that you described.
There could be another attitude that could lead a group hug player to do the same thing though; the group hug player could be a griefer/troll. A group hug deck can sometimes be just as annoying as a chaos deck. The acceleration that group hug offers can completely throw the expected stages of a game out of whack, and sometimes it is done specifically to put the more advanced players off their game. I played one game where by the end of the fourth turn there was an Ulamog and ten 10/10 hydra tokens on the board, and people were just shaking their heads and saying, "How the heck did this happen?"
November 30, 2015 2:45 p.m.
Personally I don't play heavily into group hug or chaos or control. None of my decks are straight of either. However, I'll put in pieces that give elements of each into each of my decks. And frankly, it's been pretty good on the group hug side.
Most people I play don't mind extra mana or card draw, and it caused me to not be a target in some games. However, since those elements are included it also makes it hard for me to deal with certain decks.
November 30, 2015 4 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #14
FancyTuesday has got the idea, IMO. I'm not looking at it from a Spike perspective, I'm looking at it from my usual Johnny perspective; if the control players are getting all their answers, the aggro players are getting all their good creatures, and the combo players are getting all their pieces, it's hard for me to do my thing. kengiczar sort of touched on this. I want people to win or lose on their own merits and those of their decks.
It also tends to turn the game into a massive clusterfuck that often ends in a very unsatisfying manner.
The most common experience I had with these decks in my first playgroup is that they'd be treated kindly for a time, then as soon as everyone had what they wanted they'd throw the group hug player under the bus with little to no warning. Some groups I've played in are less hostile, but most are mildly annoyed at best; and some group hug players don't seem to pick up on the fact the table would rather they play something else.
December 1, 2015 3:01 a.m.
I don't quite get the whole "winning on your own merits" argument when it comes to group games. Everyone's actions have an impact on the board and how the game eventually turns out. If you win a game because the most threatening opponent's best creature was killed by someone else, and that let you swing through and kill them, is that winning on your own merits? As far as I see it, that's just taking advantage of an advantageous change in the board state, and how is that any different than taking advantage of the boosts that a group hug deck provides?
December 1, 2015 3:53 a.m.
@ SaberTech - When I play commander I am in control, always. I play prison Zedruu and Shattergang Stax. I win against 3 other players all trying to kill me first or I lose. That's how it is. I never win because an opponent inadvertently "helped" me because I am target #1 80% of the time.
Again, group hug enables bad decks to be good.
Player A is playing hugs.
Player B is playing Rafiq Tron.
Player C is playing Karador.
Player D is playing Xena-God, and the card choices sucked.
With group hugs player D has a better shot at winning because players B-C did not play on having all that extra mana. That's very frustrating to player B and C when they've put a lot more time into their decks. They also know that without this hugs player D's entire deck would play horribly. At the same time player D is going to either kill player A or allow player A to concede. So then players B and C are looking at this schmuck who ruined a perfectly good game of magic and then bowed out at the end.
December 1, 2015 4:20 a.m.
A few things I should add:
Group hugs being good or bad depends entirely on what deck you are playing when group hugs is at the table.
There are things you can do to make group hugs less devasting to you even with a finly tuned low CMC deck:
Stax Combo: Add Carnage Altar to get to your combo faster.
: Just include an infinite turns combo.
America: Add a really potent activated ability card or your own infinite combo.
karador: Include some draw spells with 
in teh cost so that youc an draw to a Protean Hulk combo.
Etc, etc.
I dislike group hugs personally, but that's just my opinion. If I were to add a Salvaging Station combo to Zedruu I would "maybe" be glad it was present.
December 1, 2015 4:33 a.m.
Your argument gives the impression that you have set a value to who deserves to win based on an individual's investment into their decks, and that you don't think player D is as deserving to win as players B or C. I may be wrong on that assumption, so please correct me if I am.
No matter how well tuned a deck is, it's going to loose some games. There are too many factors in a group game to guarantee a particular deck is always going to win. So what if a group hug deck is played on occasion and it results in Players B and C taking a loss to player D once in a while? If a group hug deck gets regularly played in a meta and Players B and C lose because of it, it means those decks haven't structured themselves to the meta. I can see how it would get annoying for Players B and C if the group hug deck was played often and they regularly lost, but I can also see how Player D may not enjoy losing to players B and C all the time either.
I dunno, I'm the type of person who invests a lot of time and money into their decks because it is what I enjoy doing as a hobby, so I would probably be in Player B or C's shoes. I know that fine-tuning a deck increases its chances of winning, but I don't have the mentality that the effort should necessarily be rewarded with with more wins.
December 1, 2015 5:11 a.m.
I absolutely think that whoever plays better and builds a better deck deserves to win more. If I didn't think that having a more finely tuned deck should matter then I would play a game like Chess or Go where both players have the same tools.
December 1, 2015 5:48 a.m.
MtG has too much of a rock-paper-scissors aspect to it for me to be able to hold that point of view. I could have a really fine-tuned deck, and I could be playing against someone with a less tuned deck and lose because they have a bunch of cards that interfere with how my deck wants to operate. It could also be the case that while my deck works well in my current play group, I could go to a different group and not do as well because of the different demographic of archetypes and strategies that are used there. Not to mention the social politics that come with group play.
I'd like to think that having a better deck and playing better means I deserve to win more, but that's just not the way it's always going to work out. At least, my game experiences have deviated from that standard enough that I don't think that it's worth me putting much stock in it.
December 1, 2015 6:19 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #21
I don't think the better deck necessarily deserves to win, but I do think the players deserve to be able to play their own decks and feel like they won because of their choices rather than that someone was handed a win.
Playing a group hug deck outside of a group that has ok'ed it feels disrespectful to me. It is effectively a form of griefing. People have chosen to spend their time on a game, and you're screwing up the game and wasting their time.
December 1, 2015 12:05 p.m.
FancyTuesday says... #22
Making excuses for why you somehow deserve to win a game more than someone that actually won the game is just about the most petty and pointless thing you can do with your time.
Magic is a complex game and Group Hug is part of EDH, to treat it otherwise is to place a restriction on how you think the game should be played that has nothing to do with reality. It's no better than someone whining about how they lost to Prophet of Kruphix but don't acknowledge it or throw a big sulk because they feel it should be banned. As individuals we don't set the terms, we don't get to choose how others play the game and if our deck design does not account for something then the fault is ours, not theirs.
Do you cut Swords to Plowshares because someone in your meta is running creatureless control? Do you run Karmic Guide even though everyone at the table is packing graveyard hate? Do you cut your own graveyard hate just because you might not run into reanimator shenanigans at all that day? Does anybody swap out their ABUR Duals for basics because they lose to Blood Moon? You account for what you can, you play with the odds and you give yourself the best chance of winning, but it's only that: a chance. You might win more often than not, but you're still going to lose sometimes and when you do you didn't "deserve" to win. Nobody ever deserves a win, you earn it or you don't.
Maybe it's some absurdly rare event that knocks you out early because someone rolled a die and deiced they were attacking you with a turn 2 hasted Blightsteel Colossus, maybe someone's Veteran Explorer gave someone else the resources they needed to end the game on their turn. How a game gets to a given state is the result of multiple people drawing off 99 card singleton piles and throwing down what they got, to go into that environment assuming you will always be in control and always be able to carve out a win is setting yourself up for rustled jimmies.
December 1, 2015 3:08 p.m. Edited.
Maybe it is just the meta I play in but group hug isn't that big of a deal. It helps other people get what they want faster BUT it also helps YOU get where you want faster. In a normal game I will be attacking usually turn 3. Factoring this the group hug only accelerates how fast I am getting stuff out. You can eliminate an opponent or the group hug player excessively early.
The point is that your opponents aren't getting any benefit that you are not. This leaves opportunity for the best deck to still win. Group hug should not be messing up your game plan. If anything it should speed it up.
Again maybe it is the meta I play in but I have never had group hug mess up my game plan. I don't understand how it would mess up any game, all that I've noticed is that it speeds up the game and in the end it usually benefits the group hug player.
December 1, 2015 4:12 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #24
I'll say it again; playing a group hug deck in a playgroup that has not agreed to it is akin to griefing.
@FancyTuesday: I'm going to agree with you that people should not make excuses about "deserving to win". Anyone who feels that way probably should stay away from Magic, let alone EDH.
But people do deserve to be able to play the decks they built in the game they built them for.
If the group is ok with group hug, fine. If not, bringing a group hug deck in is a breach of the social contract. Magic is a zero-sum game, and someone playing to dick around when other people are playing to win (no matter how casual and laid-back they may be about doing so) seems selfish to me. It's preventing other people from playing the game they wanted to play.
It would be like if you sat down to play chess with someone and they tried to use checkers as pieces, because they think it's funny.
@iAzire: In my experience, group hug decks tend to make games either pitifully short because someone combos off, or agonizingly long. The latter is more common, which makes more sense when you think about why your math there is wrong:
When each of your opponents draws a card, you are at a net loss for card advantage. In a four player game, three cards are being drawn to your one. The same goes for ramping everyone. Each of those cards could be a threat or an answer to what you're trying to do. The end result is very often a board stall. Nobody can get combo pieces in place, nobody can push through damage, the board gets blown up again and again, nothing happens. Someone has to have a combo with an excessive amount of backup to actually win through this.
There are three common scenarios I see when group hug is present:
- The game goes on very long and at the end nobody wants to play with the group hug player anymore; they all go home, or find someone else to play with. Few if any players are happy with the outcome.
- The group hug player gets focused hard and is the first one to die (sometimes within minutes). The game is basically 1 vs. X against the group hug player, then proceeds normally once that player has been eliminated.
- The group hug player is tolerated for a time, then people suddenly turn on them and kill them super hard before trying to kill everyone else super hard.
None of these are favorable for a group hug player, and this is what I've seen across multiple groups of varying skill levels, deck power levels and player types.
December 1, 2015 11:05 p.m.
You know, the argument you put forward can be summarized down to three statements:
The first one is that groups should be able to have a say in in creating and fostering the sort of play environment that the majority of the people in a group enjoy.
The second is that if someone in the game wants to play a serious game, then everyone should play the game just as seriously. "Someone playing to dick around when other people are playing to win (no matter how casual and laid-back they may be about doing so) seems selfish to me. It's preventing other people from playing the game they wanted to play."
The third statement is that group hug decks are inefficient, run a poor game plan, and thus shouldn't be played in a group because they are counter productive to the generating serious games.
December 1, 2015 11:55 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #26
@SaberTech: Not quite, but you're close. I'd agree with your assessment of the first statement.
The second statement though is saying that when everyone else wants to play a game "seriously" (i.e. their expectation is that they attempt to win), playing a group hug deck is inconsiderate. This is basically an elaboration of the first statement.
The third statement is actually not an assessment of decks at all. It is an assessment of players, and how playing a group hug deck can create a negative experience for them. If we're talking about the deck, I'll just examine the political aspect and say that if your goal is to discourage attacks then group hug can backfire spectacularly with some people.
December 2, 2015 12:05 a.m. Edited.
So what if the person playing the group hug deck does think they are playing seriously? If a group hug player thinks that they will win by playing a group hug strategy, and sees themselves as manoeuvring to be the last person standing, are you still against it?
You've made it quite clear that you don't think that it is a particularly effective strategy, and I would say that it is definitely a risky one, but it is still a strategy. I don't see it as having that disrespectful aspect that you see in it.
That being said, groups are free to shape the games that they prefer to play. I can't harp on a group that bans group hug strategies any more than I would groups that ban land destruction, lock-down, or combo strategies.
December 2, 2015 12:35 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #28
To be clear, I'm not against group hug. I'm against trying to do group hug without ok'ing it with the other players.
In the case of someone trying to run group hug to win, I think it's still kind of a dick move but at least they're on the same page as the other players as regards why they're playing in the first place. However, it's arguably not even a group hug deck at that point. I'm not going to be the one to argue it, though.
The reason it remains somewhat disrespectful at that point (in my opinion) is simply that group hug decks have a strong tendency to drag out games and eventually suck every ounce of fun out of them... and then drag them out even more. That is a waste of people's time. That is when we get into "trolling everyone" territory.
I'd be more cool with it if the deck was "politics so you leave me alone, then combo off and kill everyone". I don't see that very often from group hug. I more often see group hug decks that have no way of actually ending the game themselves.
It's not necessarily an ineffective strategy; it's a metagame strategy. In some groups it'll work, in others it will be ignored or backfire. If you're in a group where it works and people are cool with it, more power to you.
December 2, 2015 1:01 a.m.
FancyTuesday says... #29
Group hug does not change the game I am playing, it alters the game in ways allowed by the rules of the game. If someone drops Font of Mythos I'm not suddenly playing Uno, I'm playing Magic the Gathering and drawing two extra cards a turn.
Fundamentally this interaction is no different from having your mana base Armageddoned or having your plans foiled by Rest in Peace; it changes the state and the players acts accordingly. I recognize the threat group hug poses to my gameplan and gun for them immediately, but my plan is no more legitimate than theirs. They politic and barter their buffs to get others to help them, I use the help they've given me to beat them over the head and neuter their hugbox.
We are not entitled to play a game free from disruption or changing variables. I don't like how Group Hug affects my odds so I go for the throat, but I'm not going to accuse them of griefing just because their deck interferes in some way with my deck's design. My Mikaeus, the Unhallowed deck isn't designed to have my commander countered 3 times and sat on with Leyline of the Void but it happens. My Sharuum the Hegemon deck isn't designed to sit at a table with 2 Aura Shards but that's life. I didn't build Sigarda, Host of Herons voltron to deal with 3 players that've drawn 18 extra cards and can produce double their typical mana, but nobody at that table did and we slug it out all the same.
If the group truly has a problem with Group Hug it will sort itself out because the hugger will be obliterated. If the group is mixed because some players do in fact like having a Group Hug player around then you need to figure out where the group really stands. It's not a breach of social contract if the group isn't actually against it, and if they are you gotta make sure everyone's on the same page and wipe out such decks ASAP.
December 2, 2015 2:39 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #30
@FancyTuesday: I think you may be conflating my ideas on this with kengiczars.
Allow me to repeat; any detail of deck design is more or less irrelevant to the point I'm making, beyond the fact that the deck has been designed to play a game according to agreed upon expectations; both the rules of the game itself and an unwritten social contract.
Playing a multiplayer game in a way that differs from the stated goals of the game is very similar to griefing if it is done without agreement from other players. I don't think your example is really on the same page as what I'm talking about. Disruption or changing variables within the context of the game? Cool. Fine. Those things are not at all bad. Disruption of the game itself? Not so much.
A somewhat extreme example just to illustrate this concept: suppose that every time someone played a card with the letter "R" in its name I screamed at the top of my lungs. That has zero bearing on their deck. It does affect how people play the game. It's disruptive to the game. If people at the table think that's the most hilarious thing ever, it's all good. If they haven't, I'd be an asshole for doing it.
There is no rule in Magic that says I can't do this. There are social expectations that say I can't.
That's what playing group hug in a group that hasn't ok'ed it seems like to me. These things often do sort themselves out but as I've seen it, it can be considerably less amicable than you're suggesting.
December 2, 2015 12:15 p.m.
FancyTuesday says... #31
I was specifically addressing the line:
"But people do deserve to be able to play the decks they built in the game they built them for."
This is where I got the point about deck design and changing game states. To me this reads like players are entitled to play their decks in somewhat controlled environments that they can be designed for. That is not the case, you don't build your opponents decks, you plan for common problems and design accordingly but beyond that it's out of your hands. The social/political element is about management and enforcement, it's not a literal contract that people must abide at all times.
Any deck and any player may grief a game without a specific archetype with the methods you mention. Anyone playing any deck may scream at random or flick boogers at opponents, what kind of deck they're playing is irrelevant to their behavior. They may make decisions out of ignorance or malice that make no sense to you, picking off your pieces when you're not the threat at that moment or blowing everything they've got to take out a player seemingly at random. Disruptive players, like decks that violate your groups terms, should be handled by the group.
Group Hug does not need a group's approval any more than Mass Land-D, Combo or Stax. A group may decide it dislikes one or all of those things and refuse to play with those decks or melt them ASAP and deny the person playing them any amount of fun, but they are all viable strategies that people elect to play for whatever reason.
December 2, 2015 3:09 p.m. Edited.
ComradeJim270 says... #32
@FancyTuesday: Then there's a miscommunication here, because that wasn't what I was trying to convey.
I disagree that the deck isn't a factor in the behavior. If a deck is intended to support a potentially disruptive (and it apparently bears repeating, I'm talking about disruption to the playgroup, not individual games) behavior, there's a strong potential for problems.
Nothing else you've said there actually contradicts anything I'm saying. Of course the social contract is not a literal binding contract. Of course it's up to the group. Of course it's a viable strategy. I never said these things aren't true. All I'm saying is that if you do something disruptive to your fellow players' enjoyment and expect everyone to put up with it, you're being a jerk.
And in truth, any deck needs a group's approval. That doesn't mean you need to get out a copy of Robert's Rules of Order and get out the minutes from last session as a vote is held on whether to play the deck. It simply means that if a group sees a particular deck and goes "fuck this shit", there is no game and potentially no group.
December 2, 2015 3:28 p.m.
FancyTuesday says... #33
Disrupting games is disrupting a playgroup. Games are the means by which you interact with them, I don't see how you can separate the two and make it about how they're playing the game. You affect the playgroup by griefing the game with a deck that's designed to disrupt and frustrate the other players, that's not outside the playing of those games.
Nothing else I've said is meant to contradict, only explain the underlying problem as the group and a specific player, not an archetype.
I see no difference, fundamentally, between Group Hug and any other form of disruption. In the example you gave the deck has nothing to do with the player's behavior, you make that point yourself. You then reiterate that the deck is a factor in the behavior. Color me confused, perhaps you could come up with a more specific example?
It may be the case that you have a few particularly toxic people playing Group Hug in your group, but again I see this as a problem with an individual and not an archetype.
December 2, 2015 4:25 p.m.
I really don't see how group hug is disruptive to the group itself and doesn't just have an effect on the board. I could understand your view point if the group hug deck has no win conditions but I have only heard about those online and have never met anyone that actually plays group hug like that.
I feel that group hug is just like any other viable strategy. Obviously bad stuff happens that you don't prepare for. When I built Kaalia of the Vast I never intended to have to pay 12 mana to get her from the Command zone but it happens. (Yes that was a miserable long game.) I've played graveyard decks against Rest in Peace and that sucks terribly too.
You point seems to be that stuff like Rest in Peace shouldn't be played. Obviously that goes against my game plan and makes for an environment that wasn't fun for me but this stuff happens. Group hug isn't any different than that.
Things that break the social contract are stuff like playing Cyclonic Rift and leaving the game. I have personally seen this in a paid EDH Tournament. I spoke to the store owner about potentially banning that player from a couple games in the future but Cyclonic Rift is still a viable good card.
I will repeat that group hug is no different. It is a viable strategy.
December 2, 2015 5:02 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #35
At this point I'm not sure we're even talking about the same thing when we say "group hug".
@FancyTuesday: I see group hug as inherently prone to creating toxic behavior. Most games I see it in and most groups I've seen it played in are miserable with its presence and often blame the player who brought it for ruining the fun. That player is then often confused and/or offended that people did not react as expected.
The last time I played and a group hug deck was present, we had an hour-and-a-half of board stall. Any time someone tried to advance the game, the board got wiped or some enchantment or artifact prevented it, or it got countered because "ahh, scary! Someone might get hurt!". Then the store closed, and everyone walked away looking like they'd have preferred doing literally anything else for the past two hours. Everyone was tired, and a bit sullen.
That is my typical experience with group hug, and it seems fairly consistent when someone tries to use it in a group that is not down for it. You get games that nobody enjoys and that take as much time as two or three games that they would enjoy.
Turning what is supposed to be fun into a long, drawn-out clusterfuck that nobody walks away from happy does strike me as rude if done intentionally, and group hug excels at doing that. The deck is a factor in the behavior, but it's really more the behavior itself that irks me.
As for the difference, when you disrupt things in Magic it's normally with the intent of putting a plan into action that ends the game. A stax deck is trying to deny resources so it can freely get to its win condition, for example. A group hug deck tends to draw things out without having any reliable or effective way to end the game. That is a huge waste of everyone's time, which I'm assuming they value.
@iAzire: I've seen those decks in the flesh. They have no way to win, or winning takes them two hours longer than it would take any other deck.
Play Rest in Peace all you want. I've run Ward of Bones and mass LD, before. You can play a Gaddock Teeg hatebears deck that shuts down everything else people want to do. That's fine by me, because you presumably have a way to end the game once you've locked people down. I have a friend who has an Azami deck that takes dozens of extra turns and has enough counterspells and draw to stop you from ever resolving anything he doesn't want you to. But then the deck actually wins. It doesn't just turn the game into a circle-jerk.
That is the difference.
December 2, 2015 5:15 p.m. Edited.
The primary way I've seen group hug win is by milling the opposition. I've also seen group hug pass their Commander around the table and have everyone else attack the other players and kill them with the group hugs Commander damage. There are numerous ways group hug can win.
I think your issue is with toxic players and not the strategy itself. As I've already said, I've seen group hug and never have I seen one without win cons.
We could say that it is rare that group hug wins but I find that no deck is perfect. Most decks I've seen in multi player have low win rates. This is caused by the fact that the game is usually won by whomever gets their combo pieces out first.
December 2, 2015 5:33 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #37
You may be right. I usually just don't see these decks win at all. Someone eventually goes off instead, but it's kind of miserable by then.
I rarely see group hug players being disruptive on purpose. More often, they are oblivious to how upset they are making everyone and as a result they keep doing the problem behaviors. When someone points it out, they still don't seem to get it.
"Don't you all want to do X?"
Not for three hours, no. Not in a way that makes it feel like I'm being used for someone else's amusement at my expense.
Even the best EDH deck will lose more than it wins, that's the nature of the format and part of its charm. But I am talking about decks that just make a huge mess instead.
December 2, 2015 6:26 p.m.
canterlotguardian says... #38
I feel like I need to make reference back to my original post on the subject. The things you're talking about, ComradeJim270, are not universal by any means. Group hug is not a "problem behavior" by any means for everyone. (I believe you acknowledged that, as well.) The way you're coming off, though, is that "this is the way I feel, so this is the way everyone should feel"- which, obviously, should never be the case.
Allow me to give a personal example. We had a free EDH tournament every Saturday at my LGS before it went the way of the dodo bird. Most of us were regulars that had a few decks at our disposal, so the meta was varied and never really got stale. On one particular day, a newcomer came in on the invite of one of our regulars. He was 13 or so, and he'd just started playing Magic a few months earlier. He'd began with Casual (really, Modern) and then moved on to EDH. The deck he'd brought that day was a Zedruu the Greathearted group hug deck that was surprisingly well-built, focusing on donating things to everyone to accelerate them before unleashing a barrage of Insurrection effects that completely decimated everyone at the table. (And yes, he won that game.)
Now. Think about what you were saying about "votebanning" that particular kind of deck. He had no other decks. In fact, most of the cards belonged to the regular that invited him. (I think the regular just ended up giving the deck to the guy entirely, but that's not the point.) If our group had votebanned group hug, where would that guy be? Not able to participate, and having a very sour taste left in his mouth for both our store and for Magic in general.
Group hug decks are often used by newcomers to EDH, in my experience. It gives them the sense of being important to the group ("hey, I'm helping X player do Y thing, and Y player do Z thing!") which in turn causes them to want to play more Commander (which, let's be honest, is never a bad thing), and it lets them play out their own deck the way it was designed to be built (again, never a bad thing).
December 2, 2015 6:53 p.m.
In that scenario where you described that group-hug deck player's "That's scary, I counter it" mentality, I can see how that can be frustrating. Personally, the way that person played goes against my view of group hug play philosophy.
When I play group hug, my goal is to help people do stuff. I think that's the whole point of playing cards that benefit other players. If someone is stalling out a game because they think everyone should be playing nice, then I can definitely see where you are coming from. As far as I'm concerned, that's not group hug. My group hug deck runs some counters and removal to protect itself, and maybe stop someone else's infinite combo from going off, but I am definitely not there to police other people. Group Hug decks aren't supposed to stall out games, although board states can get clogged up a bit when everyone gets strong cards out and being aggressive gets a bit more risky.
My group hug deck actually relies on other people casting powerful cards. I run a lot of clone effects so that I can copy all the best stuff that hits the board. I have played games where the other players ganged up on me to take me down because I messed up on managing aggro and wound up being the most threatening person on the board.
December 2, 2015 7:10 p.m.
Yes it has been my experience that group hug decks tend to play cards like Propaganda, Ghostly Prison, etc to keep people from attacking them, and if they do attack they will pay A LOT to do it.
Then they run massive card draw, cards like Dictate of Kruphix and use this card draw to mill out their opponents. While it technically benefits the entire table it will tend to help the group hug player the most. This is one of the reasons I play Elixir of Immortality in all of my Commander decks.
Group hug then gives stuff away, let's the table cast their own big scary creatures only to cast Rite of Replication later. They then steal Akroma's Memorial with Phyrexian Metamorph and by this point they are able to start killing others.
They tend to counter anything that threatens their overall game plan. This is why group hug players tend to get killed so early. They benefit the table and in the end benefit themselves the most from this.
A good player will accept the acceleration generated by the group hug player but still be able to kill people.
This is what I see when I see group hug. As I have stated numerous times in this thread already, I don't see the problem with group hug. It is just another viable strategy. In no way should it be banned from any tables.
December 2, 2015 10:49 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #41
It sounds like you guys have been playing with very different group hug decks and thus have a different perception of what "group hug" is.
I don't think I've ever seen a group hug deck win a game. I don't think I've even seen a group hug deck give any indication it ever could win a game. Usually it's just "I'm letting you ramp and draw cards!" without any plan beyond that.
The ramp and card draw usually results in someone always having an answer when someone tries to make the game actually progress, even if the group hug player does not. Or on the not infrequent occasions when there's a large disparity in deck power level, it results in a very fast win for whoever has the best deck; nobody else stands a chance so the whole game feels utterly pointless.
Nobody wants to play anymore after games like this.
That said, even the kind of decks you guys are describing sound pretty damn obnoxious but are at least less egregiously so. I would still avoid going anywhere near them based on personal preference, but they're not the kind of deck I've been talking about.
December 2, 2015 11:41 p.m.
I can slightly understand your point as a group hug deck that hasn't actually gotten the pieces they need to win does exactly that, let's you ramp and draw cards. If they don't get their pieces they won't win but that is true of any deck.
None of this gives any reason why group hug shouldn't be allowed. If there is a huge power difference then that player is going to win regardless of whether a group hug player is at the table. Nothing stated impacts the game that should force you to lose just because they are at the table.
Control decks will have answers most of the time. I believe that while group hug benefits your opponents it also benefits you. This is where the politics of EDH come into play. EDH is a fun format that really encourages the multiplayer aspect. Group hug is excessively interactive with the entire group, it really highlights the multiplayer interactive part of EDH.
Group hug is not the same as griefing as most any deck/player can grief. I believe you are judging the players themselves and not the deck/play style of group hug.
December 3, 2015 12:44 a.m.
There are a number of different group hug decks; with Phelddagrif, Zedruu the Greathearted, and Karona, False God being the more common group hug commanders that I can think of off hand.
Yes, there are group hug decks like the ones you have experienced, which are the sort that I've seen LGS promote because they play nice with newer players. I like to refer to them as "flower child" group hug decks, and to be fair they are often used as the poster child of the archetype. Then there is the other end of the spectrum where you have group hug decks that play in a really political manner and aim to give their opponents resources to kill each other with. Those ones are kind of like arms dealers and they play a political game to try and come out on top. Wizards has been printing more cards for that sort of play style; with stuff like the vow cards (Vow of Duty), Crescendo of War, Edric, Spymaster of Trest, Tempt with Discovery, and Rite of the Raging Storm. They are cards that can benefit other players, but at the same time either can't be used against the group hug player or make it less appealing for an opponent to attack them instead of another player.
I see my deck sitting somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, and I can just change how I chose to play the deck depending on the people I'm playing with.
And group hug decks can win. I've won a number of times while piloting mine.
December 3, 2015 1 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #44
So yeah, we're not talking about the same thing here. I'm not talking about decks that are using politics to their advantage. I'm cool with those.
@SaberTech: I've only experienced the former, as far as I can tell. Other decks have run some group-huggy cards, though.
I know one guy who runs Tempt with Discovery hoping someone he hasn't played with before won't know he's going to grab Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, Cabal Coffers and Thespian's Stage and then use the mana to Exsanguinate for lethal. I admire his cunning. He's got a plan to win, and it does work sometimes. I'm down for that sort of thing.
But every deck I've seen built to use more than one or two of those group hug cards has been of what you call the "flower child" variety where they have no reliable win condition. Those are the ones I take issue with.
@iAzire: First, you're assuming that there are in fact pieces that make them win. In the cases where I've seen these decks in their entirety, there often aren't.
I've actually had the following happen:
"How does your deck win?"
"It's not supposed to."
I believe the players I have encountered had the best intentions and thought their group hug decks would be fun. For many groups, the decks are the opposite of fun. I don't mean they're not fun for me, I mean that I have seen ad hoc playgroups (which most of mine are) straight up destroyed by decks like this.
And yet, I observe that many players who bring these decks into untested waters do not learn from this experience. They seem to assume that even though they are the common denominator, everyone else was just being a jerk. At what point does that stop being a simple misjudgment and start turning into misbehavior?
December 3, 2015 1:43 a.m.
Schuesseled says... #45
Group Hug, the ultimate in political dimwittery. These decks are fun.
Those that are ahead are grateful but still want to kill the group hugger to stop others catching up.
Those behind want to keep him alive so they can catch up but are always planning their eventual demise.
Your basically painting a target on your head at sometimes and gaining favour at other times, completely at random and the moment you play something risque you get beat to death. Good times.
December 3, 2015 9:29 a.m.
The group hug I am familiar with protects themselves while giving benefits to the entire table. Even though they benefit the entire table they ensure that they come out in the lead.
What it sounds like you are facing are people that are just trying to cause chaos at the table. I can understand the hate for that.
It seems to me that we just face two entirely different types of group hug. The group hug I face tends to still be very competitive. What I see is group hug benefiting the table so that they get the most benefit from it. With turtling cards like Propaganda into cloning effects to steal whatever they helped an opponent get out.
I sit back and enjoy the card draw and ramp, then I do fun stuff like blow up all the lands. I play aggressively though.
The group hug that I see plays tons of card draw, which can lead to the group hug player milling out the table, letting people play stuff so they can clone it, playing cards that give benefit for players to attack someone else and control what they don't want to happen. I'm talking like Phelddagrif Commander running cards like Prophet of Kruphix, Edric, Spymaster of Trest, and safety cards like Ghostly Prison and Fog while countering things that could harm them.
This is why I see it as a legitimate viable strategy. It seems the other group hug decks in hearing about in this thread are just chaos. Why build a deck with no win cons? I don't even understand it.
December 3, 2015 10:56 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #47
Why build a deck with no win cons?
Of course, they're not helping at all. They're making the game into a mess that nobody enjoys, or they're making the best deck at the table even stronger so only that player gets to win and even then doesn't feel like he/she deserved to win.
December 4, 2015 2:30 p.m.
There are situations where those sorts of decks are helpful, but it is usually in situations where there are a bunch of new/young players getting used to the format.
December 4, 2015 4:10 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #49
I can understand why people would want to run these decks. Losing sucks. If you can not win, why not play a deck that "wins" by nothing more then just having your deck effect your opponents.
Some people might win too much, and their playgroup gets tired of it. Some might not ever win, so they want to change the way they play so that even in losing they can enjoy themselves.
My group was annoyed with me a while back, so I opted for building a chaos deck. I have to say, having the alternate goal in the game is pretty fun for the person running the deck.
That said, if I am playing any deck that is not my chaos deck, and I see a hug/chaos deck, I take them out first. If you took time to make your deck to play like you want it too, and have confidence in it, you do not want another deck mixing things up.
Now to read all the stuff before me.
December 6, 2015 1:47 p.m.
It completely depends on who is running it.
That guy who can convince everyone (and by everyone, I mean the same playgroup of people - over and over again) to leave them alone while they freely assemble the precise and exact same explosive and undisruptable combo together every single game - that guy will be able to bewilder and bamboozle a table with hugs.
That guy who you would think was running zur or something for all the hate he's drawing - when in fact he merely has a mediocre and unsubtle board state built up - even if he tries to very overtly play the politics with group hug - will just draw that same hate with a new excuse for it this time.
Politics are funny and they depend more on players than cards. This is most notable in extreme cases. However, for people in the middle of these two extremes who wish to devote special focused attention on politics, group hug might be a great learning tool (just make sure to be ready for everyone turning on you if you aren't that kind of manipulative mastermind and you know it).
In particular, I think a hugs player stands a chance of playing the Patsy to a/the mastermind before stabbing them in the back ... essentially lending themselves to being their right hand man as the most potent board changing force at the table ... so long as you let them think you are just "minding their expert opinion" and make no mention of how you are being used like a tool ...
DERPLINGSUPREME says... #2
many people hate them but I dont know why.
i love them, personally, and run them or at least hve GH qualities i nthem.
November 30, 2015 1:42 a.m.