I have to expect that it's not the Group Hug deck-style that sucks, but more that it's actually very difficult to play in a way that is fun and intresting. A proper hug deck will pretty much just be trying as hard as possible to create interesting play-states- that's the whole point of "draw more cards!", "have more mana!", "Drop your biggest stuff for free!"
The problem is, that's a very difficult thing to do, as it's so incredibly easy to accidentally overshoot, accidentally give one particular person too much advantage against the rest of the table, and in doing so you're pretty much undone the whole point of why you were trying to play the deck in the first place.
Reading so many of the times when someone has had a poor experience against a hug deck, it sounds like it's been in those sorts of situations, or someone that just walked in with the deck with no clue of how to "conduct" a game... rather than being a conniseur and deftly conducting an orchestra, they are (using the previously given example) MTV, just playing whatever comes to them.
It seems to me that it would be nice for a lot of players to HAVE a hug deck that they only play every once in a great while... right after they see themself starting to get too serious and too competitive, as it's leveraging a completely different set of skills- success for a conventional deck just means winning, success with a hug deck means trying to do your best to make the game just a little more unique and interesting that the average game.
To do this successfully is incredibly hard, especially because you do have to try very hard to not play kingmaker, you need to play wisely to NOT let the game get completely out of your hands. It's also the sort of deck that is like salt, pepper or other spices... used sparingly and wisely it can make the dish. Used too liberally and too often and it ruins the dish.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Yes it can. An opinion based on faulty logic or misinformation can in fact be wrong. Like your opinion on opinions.
Group Hug is a trap and it probably always will be.
Mine is not an opinion, so it could be wrong. But it is not. An opinion can be any of those things you listed, but they cannot be wrong. Opinions are not evaluations of fact or accuracy, thats what makes them opinions.
Group hug cannot be just as good as other decks, they are wasting cards and resources to give other people cards and resources.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
People seem to be under the assumption that group-hug decks lack a wincon.
They are doing it wrong!
A good Hippo-deck is just as strong and consistent at winning as any other deck.
I think you're missing the issue. I doubt many people have problems with the political hippo. The issue is many people decide to build a deck (hippo as commander more often than not) that does nothing but play Howling Mine and Heartbeat of Spring effects with no desire to win. The worst among them go a step further by playing cards like Trade Secrets and Counterspell which completely screw with the game.
The are not making a mistake in how the deck is constructed; the deck is doing exactly what it was meant to. It's just that type of game isn't fun for many of the players here...
I think you're missing the issue. I doubt many people have problems with the political hippo. The issue is many people decide to build a deck (hippo as commander more often than not) that does nothing but play Howling Mine and Heartbeat of Spring effects with no desire to win. The worst among them go a step further by playing cards like Trade Secrets and Counterspell which completely screw with the game.
The are not making a mistake in how the deck is constructed; the deck is doing exactly what it was meant to. It's just that type of game isn't fun for many of the players here...
Are you really suggesting Counterspell is a group hug card? And even more, you think it screws with the game?
I think you're missing the issue. I doubt many people have problems with the political hippo. The issue is many people decide to build a deck (hippo as commander more often than not) that does nothing but play Howling Mine and Heartbeat of Spring effects with no desire to win. The worst among them go a step further by playing cards like Trade Secrets and Counterspell which completely screw with the game.
Yes, bad and annoying decks are bad and annoying.
But that's not because of the hugging, it's because people build bad decks.
We have a turbo-fog that wins often enough due to control.
One of the players has a hippo-deck with a high winning-percentage.
I'm not really a fan of group hug myself, after seeing it first hand. Guy had a mono green deck that did a lot of group hug things (drawing extra cards, doubling up mana etc.) Keep in mind this time around he had the only blue deck at the table last game, and busted out his green deck this game. With turn 6 spells happening turn 3 and nobody keeping them in check, all the ramp decks and combo decks could drop cards with impunity. Adun Oakenshield found his Tooth and Nail. Kiki-Jiki dug into his Thornbite Staff. It was absolute bedlam.
I wouldn't say it was bad or annoying, just kind of stale and not very fun. There was no pacing, skill or intrigue; more something along the lines of "CAST YOUR DECK HNNNNNNNNGGGHHH" Moral of the story is either 'group hug is lame' or 'play more blue.' Not sure which...
Are you really suggesting Counterspell is a group hug card? And even more, you think it screws with the game?
No; I was quite clear. I'm suggesting a deck that has no intention of winning, a deck that hyper-ramps players resources, and a deck that uses cards like Counterspell/Trade Secrets to further distort the game in a biased way (you aren't targetting everyone's spell, or causing all players to draw half their deck) is a deck I will have no fun playing against. If I want the game to be more chaotic I'll play planechase; it will alter the game drastically but not do so with human bias the way a pseudo-player can.
In my mind that sort of deck defies the gentleman's agreement; it is not playing the same game as everyone else. I don't care if everyone is playing the most optimized of a deck or in the most competitive manner. I certainly don't want people to play in ways that are not fun for them. However I do believe everyone should at least make some sort of effort to win the game.
We have a turbo-fog that wins often enough due to control.
One of the players has a hippo-deck with a high winning-percentage.
A friend of mine has a turbo-fog control deck. I quite admire it.
In the other play circle i frequent there are 2 hippo decks.
One I would consider a political deck (and yes it uses group hug cards); it uses politics to leverage itself into an advantageous position, and rewards/empowers players that share a similar goal. And then once it has positioned itself well it attempts to steal the game. I admire this deck.
The other I would consider just a group hug deck; It just over ramps the game and creates a randomly toxic environment with counterspells and cards like trade secrets. The deck more often than not choose which other player wins. I abhor this deck.
The difference between a good group hug deck and a bad group hug deck is this...
Its not that late in the game and the Green/Red player is already on 24 lands. Due to the Group Hugger (who is after him) he could constantly draw more and more cards and not have to worry about overextending. The Mono-White player, however, is only at 7 lands. He is directly after the Group Hugger. Realizing that the Green/Red player can very well go for a game-finishing move next turn, he throws down Armageddon in order to try and keep the field in check. The Group Hugger then proceeds to tap out to cast Counterspell, because "Armageddon is unfun". The Green/Red player proceeds to use Genesis Wave for X=Afreakinglot and reveals, among other things, stuff like Kozilek, Butcher of Truth, Ulamog, the infinite gyre, Fervor, Terastodon, Eternal Witness, Gaea's Cradle, and a bunch of other goodies. With this new stuff, he proceeds to go for an Entwined Tooth and Nail while the Group Hugger just looks on cause "no open mana". The Black/White/Red player can't do much either, and the Green/Red guy goes on to win.
A PROPER Group Hug would've kept the Green/Red guy in check, preventing him from growing too big, while machinating to get their own win con out. That's what a proper group hugger does - control the table while pretending to give everyone gifts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Human nature is why group hug is allowed to screw the game. Nobody sees Howling Mine/Prosperity as a threat, because yeah, everybody wants to get their own.
Which is fine, but the better player will draw their cards, play their lands, then blow it up. It's the mentality, if someone treated Font of Mythos like if someone played Mirrari's Wake, it wouldn't be allowed to spiral out of control as much. Unfortunately, nobody wants to bite the hand that feeds them.
I'm not particularly fond of group hug, but I wouldn't say I hate it. I view a GU "group hug" similar to a BR Kaervek deck that you'll see players use... just a lot of "pain" enchantments 'cause they get a thrill just sorta screwing everyone over, but many times no clear win condition...
This is why Deed, Disk, Akroma's Vengeance or just running more removal is very important. I run cheap removal like swords and boomerang in every deck, if someone drops a tempting worm prematurely you can undo it before it ruins everyones day. But personally if I was the one dropping a fatty, I'd be swinging annihilator at the Group Hug player just to see if he's having the fun he was hoping
A friend of mine has a child of alara group hug deck which has wincons and a general for resetting the board if the thinks it's getting to much. It always makes for spectacular games
I wanted to build a Child of Alara deck, but the problem was I'd have to go heavy reanimator theme, and at that point, the deck didn't feel unique anymore.
Child has to hit the graveyard to trigger, so without reanimator (or at the very least, return to hand from graveyard), you can't use her ability to wipe the board more than once.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
No; I was quite clear. I'm suggesting a deck that has no intention of winning, a deck that hyper-ramps players resources, and a deck that uses cards like Counterspell/Trade Secrets to further distort the game in a biased way (you aren't targetting everyone's spell, or causing all players to draw half their deck) is a deck I will have no fun playing against.
So you don't like Putrefy either because it only destroys one creature/artifact and not all creatures or artifacts? How is countering 1 spell different from playing spot-removal and "chaotic" to you?
The difference between a good group hug deck and a bad group hug deck is this...
Its not that late in the game and the Green/Red player is already on 24 lands. Due to the Group Hugger (who is after him) he could constantly draw more and more cards and not have to worry about overextending. The Mono-White player, however, is only at 7 lands. He is directly after the Group Hugger. Realizing that the Green/Red player can very well go for a game-finishing move next turn, he throws down Armageddon in order to try and keep the field in check. The Group Hugger then proceeds to tap out to cast Counterspell, because "Armageddon is unfun". The Green/Red player proceeds to use Genesis Wave for X=Afreakinglot and reveals, among other things, stuff like Kozilek, Butcher of Truth, Ulamog, the infinite gyre, Fervor, Terastodon, Eternal Witness, Gaea's Cradle, and a bunch of other goodies. With this new stuff, he proceeds to go for an Entwined Tooth and Nail while the Group Hugger just looks on cause "no open mana". The Black/White/Red player can't do much either, and the Green/Red guy goes on to win.
How is this an example of a bad group-hug deck? With the same cards and the same mana available he could have made the "correct" play: not counter Armageddon. So why is his deck bad?
It all seems to boil down on one simple thing: playing the right card at the "right" time.
So you don't like Putrefy either because it only destroys one creature/artifact and not all creatures or artifacts? How is countering 1 spell different from playing spot-removal and "chaotic" to you?
I have been clear. The issue isn't a deck running answers; the issue is a deck that is not trying to win running single target answers like counter spells, or spells that drastically bias the game, like trade secrets. Would you feel it was fair to have 2 players playing on a team in a game? That is essentially what a GH deck that lets one play draw his whole deck does. At that point its lost the group part.
I have been clear. The issue isn't a deck running answers; the issue is a deck that is not trying to win running single target answers like counter spells, or spells that drastically bias the game, like trade secrets.
You've been clear, but I think your ire is misdirected. Your problem is with the player who doesn't care about winning, not the deck he plays.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
You've been clear, but I think your ire is misdirected. Your problem is with the player who doesn't care about winning, not the deck he plays.
No I have an issue with any deck that can not reasonably win. The player himself is an excellent player, and he has many decks. This is the only deck of his I do not like, and it doesn't matter who plays it. The deck is designed in a way that it would be almost impossible to win with; the player himself does try and win when piloting any other deck. I would however rather have him sit out that game than play that deck (or better still use any other deck).
How is this an example of a bad group-hug deck? With the same cards and the same mana available he could have made the "correct" play: not counter Armageddon. So why is his deck bad?
It all seems to boil down on one simple thing: playing the right card at the "right" time.
My bad, should've specified player there, not deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I have been clear. The issue isn't a deck running answers; the issue is a deck that is not trying to win running single target answers like counter spells, or spells that drastically bias the game, like trade secrets. Would you feel it was fair to have 2 players playing on a team in a game? That is essentially what a GH deck that lets one play draw his whole deck does. At that point its lost the group part.
Still, I think counterspell is not a group hug card and doesn't bias the game at all. And in that light, if the player who casts Trade Secrets follows up with Dream Halls. And there you have a possibilty to win. It's still not about the strategy, it's about the people you face using these decks. I think if you read this thread you will find enough accounts of people playing Group-Hug decks with win-cons.
The fact that you face a group hug deck without a win-condition doesn't mean all people playing the archetype aim for kingmaking.. You are clearly being short-sighted.
The difference between a good group hug deck and a bad group hug deck is this...
Its not that late in the game and the Green/Red player is already on 24 lands. Due to the Group Hugger (who is after him) he could constantly draw more and more cards and not have to worry about overextending. The Mono-White player, however, is only at 7 lands. He is directly after the Group Hugger. Realizing that the Green/Red player can very well go for a game-finishing move next turn, he throws down Armageddon in order to try and keep the field in check. The Group Hugger then proceeds to tap out to cast Counterspell, because "Armageddon is unfun". The Green/Red player proceeds to use Genesis Wave for X=Afreakinglot and reveals, among other things, stuff like Kozilek, Butcher of Truth, Ulamog, the infinite gyre, Fervor, Terastodon, Eternal Witness, Gaea's Cradle, and a bunch of other goodies. With this new stuff, he proceeds to go for an Entwined Tooth and Nail while the Group Hugger just looks on cause "no open mana". The Black/White/Red player can't do much either, and the Green/Red guy goes on to win.
A PROPER Group Hug would've kept the Green/Red guy in check, preventing him from growing too big, while machinating to get their own win con out. That's what a proper group hugger does - control the table while pretending to give everyone gifts.
You're just playing against a team and not adapting.
If any two players are obviously working together, then everyone else at the table should just form their own team.
Also, how is everyone apparently drawing 50 cards a turn, and one Counterspell is the only thing stopping that Armageddon from happening? Why is everyone tapped out ever?
Like, I'm just confused at the game state here. Why does the mono white guy have only 7 lands out and no mana rocks? How many players are at the table, and why does noone run removal or counter? Apparently everyone in your playgroup just runs big fatties except for one counterspell and one geddon. It's funny how people are saying Counterspell is a douchey card, yet it would have saved you from that Tooth and Nail.
Stax imho is way more annoying than group hug, but they're both fine archetypes. I'll just repeat what I said before; if two people are getting a little too comfortable with each other, then the rest of the table should just team up, and if you don't have answers in your deck, you should work on that. If you do have answers and didn't draw them, then why are you so pissed? Just play another game.
For the record, I don't have a group hug or stax deck. I just like challenges (I'm also against the banning of Emrakul, Prime Time, etc, and didn't play either in my decks).
I think it's absolutely hilarious that, in a casual format based on having fun, you hate on a deck that's all about having fun.
1) you just made everyone's deck irrelevant Casting a turn 3 tempting wurm basically just turned the game into a game of poker. Who ever decided to keep a huge finisher auto wins. This eliminates any type of strategy or thought. Just windmill slam down the best **** in your hand and hope nobody has better. Actually, it's not like poker. It's UNO. My card is better! I win! Thanks.
2) ramp already has enough help... But thanks for giving them more land and more card draw sweet! All my lands tap for tripple mana and I draw 17 cards a turn!? Glad I'm playing green. Suck it mono white guy!
3)politics? Ha there's no point in a game with a group hug deck. When you're being handed free stuff for free all day, why make deals, alliances, or threats? It's all useless when you have 70 mana and 80 cards in your hand.
4) thanks for he hippo, but it's not going to block the 300 40/40 tokens you helped the other guy make this is my biggest issue with group hug. The deck lets the game slide out of countrol in one players favor, then have no way to equalize it.
This is especially funny coming from you, the "If you can't beat Sol Ring, quit magic" guy.
Anyway, most of your points sound like whining to me ? Did you lose to a GH player recently ? Lots of QQ in the OP.
I think it's absolutely hilarious that, in a casual format based on having fun, you hate on a deck that's all about having fun
I don't believe Group Hug is about fun. It pretends to be while truly being about chaotic trolling of the table. The entire archetype is built on a lie.
Still, I think counterspell is not a group hug card and doesn't bias the game at all. And in that light, if the player who casts Trade Secrets follows up with Dream Halls. And there you have a possibilty to win. It's still not about the strategy, it's about the people you face using these decks. I think if you read this thread you will find enough accounts of people playing Group-Hug decks with win-cons.
The fact that you face a group hug deck without a win-condition doesn't mean all people playing the archetype aim for kingmaking.. You are clearly being short-sighted.
Not at all; if you read my earlier posts I've mentioned group hug decks that run win conditions. They're a political deck and I admire that sort of play-style. My issue is with anyone not looking to play the same game as everyone else; either at least make a passing attempt at winning or sit out.
The problem is, that's a very difficult thing to do, as it's so incredibly easy to accidentally overshoot, accidentally give one particular person too much advantage against the rest of the table, and in doing so you're pretty much undone the whole point of why you were trying to play the deck in the first place.
Reading so many of the times when someone has had a poor experience against a hug deck, it sounds like it's been in those sorts of situations, or someone that just walked in with the deck with no clue of how to "conduct" a game... rather than being a conniseur and deftly conducting an orchestra, they are (using the previously given example) MTV, just playing whatever comes to them.
It seems to me that it would be nice for a lot of players to HAVE a hug deck that they only play every once in a great while... right after they see themself starting to get too serious and too competitive, as it's leveraging a completely different set of skills- success for a conventional deck just means winning, success with a hug deck means trying to do your best to make the game just a little more unique and interesting that the average game.
To do this successfully is incredibly hard, especially because you do have to try very hard to not play kingmaker, you need to play wisely to NOT let the game get completely out of your hands. It's also the sort of deck that is like salt, pepper or other spices... used sparingly and wisely it can make the dish. Used too liberally and too often and it ruins the dish.
They can be poorly informed or in the MASSIVE minority, but an opinion cannot be wrong.
Group hug just makes any power gap thay much worse and enables stupid combo decks that much more.
Yes it can. An opinion based on faulty logic or misinformation can in fact be wrong. Like your opinion on opinions.
Group Hug is a trap and it probably always will be.
They are doing it wrong!
A good Hippo-deck is just as strong and consistent at winning as any other deck.
Mine is not an opinion, so it could be wrong. But it is not. An opinion can be any of those things you listed, but they cannot be wrong. Opinions are not evaluations of fact or accuracy, thats what makes them opinions.
Group hug cannot be just as good as other decks, they are wasting cards and resources to give other people cards and resources.
The are not making a mistake in how the deck is constructed; the deck is doing exactly what it was meant to. It's just that type of game isn't fun for many of the players here...
Are you really suggesting Counterspell is a group hug card? And even more, you think it screws with the game?
Ofcourse! Nothing hugs more than stopping one player from combo'ing.
Yes, bad and annoying decks are bad and annoying.
But that's not because of the hugging, it's because people build bad decks.
We have a turbo-fog that wins often enough due to control.
One of the players has a hippo-deck with a high winning-percentage.
I wouldn't say it was bad or annoying, just kind of stale and not very fun. There was no pacing, skill or intrigue; more something along the lines of "CAST YOUR DECK HNNNNNNNNGGGHHH" Moral of the story is either 'group hug is lame' or 'play more blue.' Not sure which...
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
No; I was quite clear. I'm suggesting a deck that has no intention of winning, a deck that hyper-ramps players resources, and a deck that uses cards like Counterspell/Trade Secrets to further distort the game in a biased way (you aren't targetting everyone's spell, or causing all players to draw half their deck) is a deck I will have no fun playing against. If I want the game to be more chaotic I'll play planechase; it will alter the game drastically but not do so with human bias the way a pseudo-player can.
In my mind that sort of deck defies the gentleman's agreement; it is not playing the same game as everyone else. I don't care if everyone is playing the most optimized of a deck or in the most competitive manner. I certainly don't want people to play in ways that are not fun for them. However I do believe everyone should at least make some sort of effort to win the game.
I think this comic is related as it is as if the GH player is indeed playing a completely different game:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/8/10/
A friend of mine has a turbo-fog control deck. I quite admire it.
In the other play circle i frequent there are 2 hippo decks.
One I would consider a political deck (and yes it uses group hug cards); it uses politics to leverage itself into an advantageous position, and rewards/empowers players that share a similar goal. And then once it has positioned itself well it attempts to steal the game. I admire this deck.
The other I would consider just a group hug deck; It just over ramps the game and creates a randomly toxic environment with counterspells and cards like trade secrets. The deck more often than not choose which other player wins. I abhor this deck.
Its not that late in the game and the Green/Red player is already on 24 lands. Due to the Group Hugger (who is after him) he could constantly draw more and more cards and not have to worry about overextending. The Mono-White player, however, is only at 7 lands. He is directly after the Group Hugger. Realizing that the Green/Red player can very well go for a game-finishing move next turn, he throws down Armageddon in order to try and keep the field in check. The Group Hugger then proceeds to tap out to cast Counterspell, because "Armageddon is unfun". The Green/Red player proceeds to use Genesis Wave for X=Afreakinglot and reveals, among other things, stuff like Kozilek, Butcher of Truth, Ulamog, the infinite gyre, Fervor, Terastodon, Eternal Witness, Gaea's Cradle, and a bunch of other goodies. With this new stuff, he proceeds to go for an Entwined Tooth and Nail while the Group Hugger just looks on cause "no open mana". The Black/White/Red player can't do much either, and the Green/Red guy goes on to win.
A PROPER Group Hug would've kept the Green/Red guy in check, preventing him from growing too big, while machinating to get their own win con out. That's what a proper group hugger does - control the table while pretending to give everyone gifts.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Excuse me. Norin is a win condition.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Which is fine, but the better player will draw their cards, play their lands, then blow it up. It's the mentality, if someone treated Font of Mythos like if someone played Mirrari's Wake, it wouldn't be allowed to spiral out of control as much. Unfortunately, nobody wants to bite the hand that feeds them.
I'm not particularly fond of group hug, but I wouldn't say I hate it. I view a GU "group hug" similar to a BR Kaervek deck that you'll see players use... just a lot of "pain" enchantments 'cause they get a thrill just sorta screwing everyone over, but many times no clear win condition...
This is why Deed, Disk, Akroma's Vengeance or just running more removal is very important. I run cheap removal like swords and boomerang in every deck, if someone drops a tempting worm prematurely you can undo it before it ruins everyones day. But personally if I was the one dropping a fatty, I'd be swinging annihilator at the Group Hug player just to see if he's having the fun he was hoping
GWRUB[EDH] Reaper KingGWRUB
GW[Legacy] BEARS (#1 Threat in America)GW
UR[Legacy] Arcane MeleeUR
I wanted to build a Child of Alara deck, but the problem was I'd have to go heavy reanimator theme, and at that point, the deck didn't feel unique anymore.
Child has to hit the graveyard to trigger, so without reanimator (or at the very least, return to hand from graveyard), you can't use her ability to wipe the board more than once.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
So you don't like Putrefy either because it only destroys one creature/artifact and not all creatures or artifacts? How is countering 1 spell different from playing spot-removal and "chaotic" to you?
How is this an example of a bad group-hug deck? With the same cards and the same mana available he could have made the "correct" play: not counter Armageddon. So why is his deck bad?
It all seems to boil down on one simple thing: playing the right card at the "right" time.
BRGWTana and TymnaBRGW
RTeneb, the EternalR
UBRNekusar, Mind RazerUBR
Rakdos, Lord of Riots
BGWGhave, Guru of SporesBGW
Aurelia, the Warleader
BDrana, Kalastria BloodchiefB
WBROros, the AvengerWBR
I have been clear. The issue isn't a deck running answers; the issue is a deck that is not trying to win running single target answers like counter spells, or spells that drastically bias the game, like trade secrets. Would you feel it was fair to have 2 players playing on a team in a game? That is essentially what a GH deck that lets one play draw his whole deck does. At that point its lost the group part.
You've been clear, but I think your ire is misdirected. Your problem is with the player who doesn't care about winning, not the deck he plays.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
No I have an issue with any deck that can not reasonably win. The player himself is an excellent player, and he has many decks. This is the only deck of his I do not like, and it doesn't matter who plays it. The deck is designed in a way that it would be almost impossible to win with; the player himself does try and win when piloting any other deck. I would however rather have him sit out that game than play that deck (or better still use any other deck).
My bad, should've specified player there, not deck.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Still, I think counterspell is not a group hug card and doesn't bias the game at all. And in that light, if the player who casts Trade Secrets follows up with Dream Halls. And there you have a possibilty to win. It's still not about the strategy, it's about the people you face using these decks. I think if you read this thread you will find enough accounts of people playing Group-Hug decks with win-cons.
The fact that you face a group hug deck without a win-condition doesn't mean all people playing the archetype aim for kingmaking.. You are clearly being short-sighted.
BRGWTana and TymnaBRGW
RTeneb, the EternalR
UBRNekusar, Mind RazerUBR
Rakdos, Lord of Riots
BGWGhave, Guru of SporesBGW
Aurelia, the Warleader
BDrana, Kalastria BloodchiefB
WBROros, the AvengerWBR
You're just playing against a team and not adapting.
If any two players are obviously working together, then everyone else at the table should just form their own team.
Also, how is everyone apparently drawing 50 cards a turn, and one Counterspell is the only thing stopping that Armageddon from happening? Why is everyone tapped out ever?
Like, I'm just confused at the game state here. Why does the mono white guy have only 7 lands out and no mana rocks? How many players are at the table, and why does noone run removal or counter? Apparently everyone in your playgroup just runs big fatties except for one counterspell and one geddon. It's funny how people are saying Counterspell is a douchey card, yet it would have saved you from that Tooth and Nail.
Stax imho is way more annoying than group hug, but they're both fine archetypes. I'll just repeat what I said before; if two people are getting a little too comfortable with each other, then the rest of the table should just team up, and if you don't have answers in your deck, you should work on that. If you do have answers and didn't draw them, then why are you so pissed? Just play another game.
For the record, I don't have a group hug or stax deck. I just like challenges (I'm also against the banning of Emrakul, Prime Time, etc, and didn't play either in my decks).
This is especially funny coming from you, the "If you can't beat Sol Ring, quit magic" guy.
Anyway, most of your points sound like whining to me ? Did you lose to a GH player recently ? Lots of QQ in the OP.
I don't believe Group Hug is about fun. It pretends to be while truly being about chaotic trolling of the table. The entire archetype is built on a lie.
Not at all; if you read my earlier posts I've mentioned group hug decks that run win conditions. They're a political deck and I admire that sort of play-style. My issue is with anyone not looking to play the same game as everyone else; either at least make a passing attempt at winning or sit out.