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.
Didgeridooda says... #2
I feel they exist to give people who otherwise would not do well a chance to accomplish something in the game.
Personally, I just do not like to have them in my games, so I hate them out quickly.
December 6, 2015 6:30 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #3
@SaberTech: Yeah, if someone is using a political strategy to put their own plan into motion and can make that work, more power to them. It's just another way to achieve victory.
I've actually considered a group slug/chaos deck that tries to screw up everyone else so badly that I end up coming out on top, but haven't figured it out yet.
It's just the people who seem intent on screwing everything up for its own sake that I get upset about.
December 7, 2015 12:20 a.m.
poorpinkus says... #4
I think that they are fun in small amounts, but anything more and it can be disruptive. When somebody makes a deck, they want to see if it works the way they designed it to, so decks that make everything crazy can sometimes be disruptive to that - sure they get to play more cards but still can't prove that their deck would be any good without the group hug player
People I play with usually love crazy games, but they also like for me to have another deck to play so that I am not messing with somebody's playstyle. I'd say group hug is good to make as a second or third deck, maybe once in a while you can take it out and make things interesting, but it isn't something that is fun every game
December 7, 2015 12:53 a.m.
I think that, in general, people get tired of repeatedly playing against the same decks. Having multiple decks that you can cycle through helps keep group games interesting. It can be a money issue for people though, so I wouldn't blame anyone for only having one Commander deck.
And I do get what you are saying about how group hug can make it difficult to evaluate how your deck is performing. If someone told me that they wanted to test a deck, I wouldn't pull out group hug for them to play against. That being said, I don't see group hug as being any more disruptive than Stax, Lock-down, or mass land destruction. Decks based around those strategies interfere with opponents' decks and plans just as much as group hug does. Group hug is just the odd-ball because it is looking to mess with the game by giving people stuff instead of destroying cards, which some people are less prepared to deal with.
December 7, 2015 1:55 a.m.
Considering that the term has popped up a few times in this thread, it might be interesting to have a thread for people to discuss what they think being a "griefer" means.
I always considered griefing to be a behaviour thing, like purposely making less optimal play decisions just because you want to pick on one person in the game and make them mad. But I've been going through some old MtG articles where Wizards defines griefer decks as decks that "strip away options and force a win through disruption." I'm not sure if I buy into that description, because that would mean that competitive strategies like Stax would automatically count as griefer decks.
The online gaming definition is more behaviour based:
"A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways. A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals"
I wonder how many tempers might flare up while discussing that topic?
December 7, 2015 2:26 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #7
It is a behavior thing, which is why I wouldn't go so far as to say simply playing a deck in a setting it is inappropriate for is necessarily griefing (though it could be). I don't think the intent to cause problems is usually there, the players doing this think they're being nice; but the potential to create an unpleasant and unenjoyable game can be very high.
I think intent is key in that equation, and I don't see it in someone running a group hug deck, even if the result ends up being much the same.
December 7, 2015 2:37 a.m.
Another Wizards article I found talks about griefing as (and I'm paraphrasing here) playing in a manner that might be fun for you but not fun at all for everyone else. They throw around examples of lock-down decks that grind games to a halt, or combo decks that make people think that they have a chance when in reality the combo deck can blow everyone out of the water at any time.
It seems like WotC views anything that might make people frustrated and potentially not want to play the game as potentially being griefing. Not exactly the most nuanced description.
December 7, 2015 2:51 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #9
No, and I don't think it really fits with how the game is built. They seem to offer support to strategies like that.
December 7, 2015 3:03 a.m.
poorpinkus says... #10
SaberTech While Stax and mass land destruction is of course more disruptive than group hug, the fact that they can be compared in terms of disruption is still definitely saying something, seeing as one is a plan to specifically ruin other people's tempo whereas the other is intended to be fun but can be out of hand
December 7, 2015 12:48 p.m.
With the comparison, I just wanted to point out that when people talk about how they resent how group hug interferes with how their competitive decks play, they don't mention these other disruptive strategies. Granted, this thread is about group hug decks so it that could be why the others don't come up. Still, the other strategies can prevent other players from being able to play at all, while group hug more commonly interferes with the expected sequence of how a game will play out. I just find it interesting that some people seem willing to deal with a situation where they are doing nothing except watching one player play solitaire, but get disgruntled in games where each player has double mana and is drawing two extra cards a turn by the end of turn 3.
December 7, 2015 2:07 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #12
I am more inclined to get disgruntled when the latter scenario lasts three hours. Maybe it's because I'm not actually all that competitive, but I think it's more likely that I am simply an adult with things to do, and I'd rather get in two or three games of Magic that most of the table enjoys than a single really unpleasant game.
December 7, 2015 2:23 p.m.
I guess my default assumption is that a Commander game is going to go long, and then I'm just happy if my group manages to get in more than one game in an evening. I began supporting the use of infinite combos after playing a seven person game that went on for five hours.
December 7, 2015 2:38 p.m.
It really all depends on where you play. The store that I go too has an EDH Tournament every week and we tend to have on average 8-12 player games every week. It's a tournament with a fee to join and prizes at the end. These games are usually not short. Fast aggro decks like Krenko, Mob Boss have been able to finish it relatively fast.
When I go to play EDH I expect a long game. Everybody plays with infinite combos. Most combo pieces are countered or destroyed, when they actually go off they tend to win.
We have fun games all week but people don't change their decks. That is when we will play lots of games. A group hug deck isn't usually viewed badly during either style of game.
With group hug at the table, the games with less players it doesn't seem to effect much. The better deck usually wins. In the larger game it is expected to last a ridiculously long time anyway. Of course it is still a game with random chance and people with better draws that don't get mana screwed will have a better chance of winning.
December 7, 2015 6:32 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #15
I try to avoid games with over four players. At my LGS when it hits five we'll usually find one more person and split off into two pods of three, or we'll go around and look for a group for the fifth player. Between this and all the shenanigans that go on in the games, I don't expect them to go on for hours and hours. I'd say most last 30-90 minutes, but two hours is not unheard of. More than that and I probably end up scooping to find a new game.
December 8, 2015 3:14 p.m.
Deckologist says... #16
the simple truth here is that saying you lost to group hug embarrasses competitive players because most group hug decks rely on being crafty and pulling a win out of thin air. i ran a Kami of the Crescent Moon group hug that everyone loved until they realized that they were either having to discard 15+ cards a turn or taking 15-20 damage a turn or drawing themselves out. their cheers of excitement slowly turned into shrieks of terror as they realized i like to hug, and hug hard. after my first game people were so embarrassed they lost to a group hug deck that they insisted on calling it a combo deck (0 combos) and refused to call it otherwise. a legit fine tuned deck will be the winner at atable regardless of control, chaos, hug, or combo being at the table. players just dont like to admit that their decks are not as fine tuned as they thought.
December 11, 2015 7:38 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #17
@Deckologist: I've never lost to it and on top of that I am not at all competitive, yet I still think it tends to be incredibly obnoxious. So that doesn't really fit your theory.
December 11, 2015 9:49 a.m.
poorpinkus says... #19
Deckologist I think that the problem with group hug decks that run win conditions is that people tend to feel bad about attacking the group hug player (at least at first), making it annoying to play against as you will either get attacked for attacking the group hug player or not do anything and then lose to them anyways. With a fair amount of group hug decks they wouldn't stand as much of a chance if everyone focused them at the start. That's why I feel like the only way to play a group hug deck without being obnoxious is to just let people know what possibilities the deck has, allowing for them to be less afraid of you and feel a bit less cheated if they lose. It worked pretty well with my Phelddagrif deck as people still don't attack me all that often because I can give them things, but they will make sure to try to save answers for my bombs, and so even when I deal with their responses they still enjoyed the game.
As for the amount of time it makes the game take, I agree that it can lengthen games. That's why a good group hug deck will usually run ways of preventing stalls (for example, Leyline of Lifeforce to deal with control decks hating on creature decks, mass board control to deal with creature stalls/large creature decks, Vows to allow for creatures to have evasion but still not attack you and the obvious of saving green mana to give people hippos to attack with with the 'griff)
December 11, 2015 3:33 p.m.
Deckologist says... #20
It must be a meta thing. I've built 3 group hugs and they were all designed to accelerate the game not prolong it.
December 11, 2015 3:54 p.m.
poorpinkus says... #21
Deckologist it really depends on who you are playing against. If an opponent is playing some form of heavy control, they will just counter anything that could kill them. Usually creature-heavy decks don't make the game last too long as they usually pack some form of evasion. What deck styles do you usually play against?
December 11, 2015 4:28 p.m.
Deckologist says... #22
I play with everything you can think of. With 75 players total we see a nice level of diversity. But it may be that diversity that changes how I see games. I don't cringe at any kind of deck because I'm so used to playing against all different types
December 11, 2015 4:36 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #23
I can relate on some level, Deckologist. I play with a large number of different players, many with multiple decks. However this also means that political strategies are often too big a risk for people to take; there's no way to know going in how people will respond to them (or if they will respond at all) so a lot of people I play with won't build a group hug deck to actually win.
December 11, 2015 6:50 p.m.
I agree with poorpinkus that a good group hug deck should run removal to help break up stalled board states. I personally consider Austere Command an auto-include because it can unplug a board while being somewhat selective about what it removes.
In my opinion, a group hug deck should try to tune itself to the meta as best it can to help cut down on stalled games. If the meta has a bunch of creature decks and one guy is running 6+ wrath spells, the group hug deck may want to run Second Sunrise and some recursion spells like Eternal Witness and Snapcaster Mage to get it back, just so that wrath spells aren't always shutting down people's boards. My deck runs a bit of counter magic, but I stick with ones that also give someone something in return, like Swan Song and Vex. There are lots of other choices you could make that may seem counter-intuitive to include in a group hug deck, but they often prove necessary to keep a game moving.
SaberTech says... #1
@guessling - I agree with you that running a group hug deck is a good experience for learning the political angle in group games.
@ Didgeridooda - A few people now have commented about how when they run a highly calibrated deck they wouldn't want a group hug deck mucking up the game, but isn't that what makes group hug a possible strategy? If the tuned competitive decks are more likely to win in a given setting, and expect their decks or the game itself to play out in a certain way, it makes sense to try to upset that setting and make the tuned decks fight in a situation that they have not prepared for.
Turn two Tempting Wurm anyone?
December 6, 2015 3:14 p.m.