MTG Salvation

Just to be clear - when I say group hug, I don't mean politics.

I don't mean "I'll give you three hippos off phelddagrif if you use your removal spell you kill his sphinx".

I mean "Here's a font of mythos. Everyone gets to draw more cards regardless of who you target or who you attack. Also I'm not playing nekusar or anything that'll make the draw negative for anyone, it's just free resources".

Just curious.

They in general make the player that has a turn just after them have a better chance of winning, because they are usually the first to have all the extra mana and/or extra cards. Allowing them to play out powerful combinations before other players get to untap, etc.

Also in general they make the more powerful decks have even more chance of winning. Causal decks full even further behind, as its hard to compete with the ability of powerful decks to have all the mana and cards necessary to combination off.

Basically hugs decks are like the anti Robin Hood.."They steal from the poor and give to the rich".

I play powerful decks, so I normally just win games when a hug deck is part of the table, but I like challenges not handouts.

I don't hate playing against Group Hug decks, but I don't really understand the philosophy. I mean, I love to play politics, but Group Hug just supercharges everyone, not just the people who need it. Thus, the most tuned decks just get faster draw/ramp/dudes so that they win faster, while the more casual decks accomplish what they wanted do but ultimately lag behind as the tuned decks get their pieces faster. Pretty much what darrenhabib said. In order to stop this, a deck could try and stop the hug deck, but they will lag behind as well, as they're spending their resources beating up the hug deck, while other players kill them in order to continue getting an advantage off of the hug deck or hold back and kill the them after they finish off the hug deck. Not killing the hug deck results in either the most powerful deck winning or the hug deck comboing off, as symmetrical hug effects often favor the controller. The only real way for the game to be fair is for all opponents to gang up on the hug deck, which means the hug player doesn't get to play Magic - they gave everyone some stuff and then got beaten up by three people. I guess some people play hug like some people play chaos, they just want to see what crazy things happen, but it really screws with the game for the others. I mean, I can get a good laugh off the occasional Knowledge Pool or Warp World, but in the end I want to play Magic and have my deck do what I designed it to do (if you haven't guessed, I'm a pretty casual Johnny). So I don't mind playing against Group Hug on occasion, but I don't love it either.

TL;DR: Symmetrical effects aren't symmetrical.

**** gets real if all players run some kind of group hug.

It spirals out of control quickly.

If just 1 person is trying and nobody plays along in politics, there is no chance to have fun.

I want a poll option for "I am impartial", because I don't really care what deck people play. I will make the caveat that the group hug deck should have a win condition, that there should be some planned avenue for the deck to end the game. Otherwise, the decks are not really playing.

Quote from CheckerKnights »

I want a poll option for "I am impartial", because I don't really care what deck people play. I will make the caveat that the group hug deck should have a win condition, that there should be some planned avenue for the deck to end the game. Otherwise, the decks are not really playing.

That might have been a good distinction. There's definitely a difference between hug decks.

Some have an intention to turn "hug" into winning (I would argue nekusar falls into that camp, or maybe you could make a mill commander, or blue braids with big fatties, or something along those lines). We'll call those type 1.

There's also decks that are hug, have wincons, but those wincons don't really have any synergy with the hug, like combo decks using hug as a way to persuade the foolish that they aren't a threat, or just with regular ol' wincons like avenger of zendikar or whatever. Those would be type 2.

And then there's the ones that are literally nothing but hug and have no reasonable wincons at all. Type 3.

At least for me - I don't LIKE playing against any of them. I think the type one is usually misguided and kingmakes on accident, but I can understand the attempt and at least it has some strategy.

The second one I think is kind of dumb and hurts itself by playing bad cards, and I think it's usually an attempt to play politics without really understanding how magic politics works.

The third one I think fundamentally ruins the game. If you're not playing to win, at least at some level - I'm not saying that you have to build a netdeck hermit druid and play like it's the last day of the pro tour, but at least have SOME reasoning behind your decisions - I don't think you're really playing a game at all. I think you're just wasting everyone's time.

Depends on the style of group hug. I have a "group hug" deck that got nicknamed Dr. Strangelove because of the way it "hugs" people...more like a bear hug style deck. Effective, though.

I wouldn't want to play against an I-don't-care-about-winning hug deck every game, but once in a while is fine. I remember a game in which the hug deck helped my Intet Dragons deck deal 300ish damage between attacks and Scourge of Valkas triggers. That was entertaining.

It's fun killing the group hug player first Other than that, eh.

Due to EDH's social nature, a 'friendly' type of playstyle was inevitable. I understand why some people hate it (although targeting the group hug player first is a horrible strategy, as you waste resources trying to kill a durdler, while your other opponents power up immensely) but I personally love it. I created it because I hated my playgroup's speed; they were way too slow, especially during the first several turns. So I embrace increasing everyone's resources exponentially in the early game, as it encourages the craziness EDH is known for.

It's also good for protecting newer players from Tryhards, as it allows them to learn the phases of the turn, and play their big stuff, and not get blown out, and possibly leaving the game forever.

My experience with group hug is that it on average makes the games of Commander go faster. Which is not always a pro, but certainly opens up time in the day for more than one or two games. (On average, of course. If everything clicks just wrong, games get stretched out entirely too long.)

Generally speaking, the Group Hug decks I build are built for one purpose: I want people to be able to pull off crazy things. My playgroup is full of Johnnies and Tammies who don't really care so much about winning as summoning enormous beat-sticks, or casting massive spells, or playing out ridiculous, would never work anywhere else, combos. Group Hug lets the most people do that per game. From my experience, at any rate.

Quote from hippohugger »

It's also good for protecting newer players from Tryhards, as it allows them to learn the phases of the turn, and play their big stuff, and not get blown out, and possibly leaving the game forever.

Wouldn't a control (non-stax, more targeted removal/counterspells/wipes) be a better way to reign in "tryhards" as you say? I don't see how a hug deck is going to stop one of the degenerate combo decks from winning - if anything, they might win faster.

Also I'd argue anyone who isn't even familiar with the phases of the turns should probably start with a different format, given the number/complexity of cards available, and the complexity of boardstates when there are twice as many players.

Group hug is fun in moderation and in a group where people play and in a setting without spikes. In an all filthy casuals group they can lead to some hilarious moments just as long as those moments aren't happening all the time to the point where it gets old.

I can't say I'd be in a position to get upset at group hug anyways when I have a chaos deck I pull out on rare occasions.

Resource management is a major part of what makes Magic enjoyable. Decks designed to remove that aspect make the game less enjoyable. I can live with decks that play hug cards asymmetrically (i.e. they're designed to get more out of said cards than their opponents) - I'm not madly keen on playing against them, but then I wouldn't want to be playing against, say, stax every game either, and at least they are actually trying to win - but the "hug for the sake of hug" decks are just tedious.

playing a font of mythos et al to give everyone resources ad nauseum ISNT group hug, i think its just trolling.

group hug is a small amount of indiscriminate resource sharing, but mostly directed resource sharing. the indiscriminate resource sharing just means that the highly tuned decks, the ones that can actually use all those resources thrown their way, shoots right ahead and wins.

also, players who whinge about them being attacked 'cuz they are playing group hug are really annoying. its like they can't understand that if they are giving the biggest threat to the table tonnes of resources, they are part of that threat. i dont care that they are also giving me more cards; my deck can fill my hand up well enough.

I guess a deck or two of mine border into group hug category - in the sense that they very much benefit others as well as me... but I always go creating them with that in mind and the deck ends up only being faux-group-huggy in that they always benefit me more. Sure, everyone can benefit from double mana from lands, but when your land taps for two and mine for six mana and I'm the one with all the hydras and fireballs... you get the idea.

Yeah, 'not-even-trying-to-win' kind would be tedious to play with or against(haven't had the fortune to play against one). But at least it would be brief - games that have people drawing more and manaing more tend not to last very long as someone always has just the right cards in next few draws.

No apathy option? I really don't care what other people play. Their archetype of choice isn't going to stop me from enjoying myself, so I'd mostly prefer that players play whichever decks that they enjoy the most.

As a Pseudo Group Hug player I tend to like it...

Now I say "pseudo group hug" because my Nin deck starts as a group hug/Control/pillow fort deck... until suddenly my Kami of the False Moon+Font of Mythos+Howling Mine back with lots of counters and wipes turns into Forced Fruition, Possibility Storm, and Arcane Laboratory...

Or I drop a Stasis+ Froxen aether+ Stasis on people... THAT is hilarious... the group hug suddenly turns into stax... (I like to drop my stasis lock after I have the mana to capsize every turn, so I can capsize my own stasis.)

I like them when i play combo / play right after them so i can use the tempo first. I hate them when i play control and play last in relationship to them

Group hug was one of the earlier decks I made when I was first getting into the format. My playgroup and I had a fair bit of fun with it then, but that was quite a while ago and now I don't think I would enjoy playing it. I would also probably not enjoy a game with my current playgroup if someone came into that group playing a group hug deck.

Quote from schweinefett »

group hug is a small amount of indiscriminate resource sharing, but mostly directed resource sharing. the indiscriminate resource sharing just means that the highly tuned decks, the ones that can actually use all those resources thrown their way, shoots right ahead and wins.

I think this is how players like to think they are playing group hug - helping the underdog against the better players at the table. I have a few problems with this - firstly, I don't think there are enough cards that exist right now that only give targeted support, so hug decks tend to fill up with indiscriminate resource giving. Secondly, "helping the underdog" somewhat assumes that there are disparate power levels at the table, and while that happens too often in EDH, I think games like that are more or less doomed from the start. I think it is better to address that problem outside the game than by playing group hug.

Quote from Igzex »

Group hug is fun in moderation and in a group where people play and in a setting without spikes. In an all filthy casuals group they can lead to some hilarious moments just as long as those moments aren't happening all the time to the point where it gets old.

I agree with this. I could see myself having fun with a group hug deck at the table, if the table was all people I knew and enjoyed playing with, and we were all playing decks on a lower power-level.

Quote from hippohugger »

Due to EDH's social nature, a 'friendly' type of playstyle was inevitable. I understand why some people hate it (although targeting the group hug player first is a horrible strategy, as you waste resources trying to kill a durdler, while your other opponents power up immensely) but I personally love it. I created it because I hated my playgroup's speed; they were way too slow, especially during the first several turns. So I embrace increasing everyone's resources exponentially in the early game, as it encourages the craziness EDH is known for.

I had somewhat of an opposite experience when I played group hug. Having access to more resources opened up more decisions and players took much longer to take their turns and the games ended up taking longer. Though this was the case in the low-power playgroup I played in when I first got into the format. Games with high-power decks would likely be over very quickly with a hug player at the table.

Quote from ThyLordQ »

My experience with group hug is that it on average makes the games of Commander go faster. Which is not always a pro, but certainly opens up time in the day for more than one or two games. (On average, of course. If everything clicks just wrong, games get stretched out entirely too long.)

Generally speaking, the Group Hug decks I build are built for one purpose: I want people to be able to pull off crazy things. My playgroup is full of Johnnies and Tammies who don't really care so much about winning as summoning enormous beat-sticks, or casting massive spells, or playing out ridiculous, would never work anywhere else, combos. Group Hug lets the most people do that per game. From my experience, at any rate.

As above, I found that group hug made games (or at least turns) take longer as players had access to more resources and therefore had more decisions to make. With the exception of games where people just won immediately, which I think defeats the purpose of a game with group hug involved.

Here's my personal opinion on group hug. I think it can be fun if your playgroup is suited to it, with an option to play low-powered decks and when people know it's going to be at the table. I think bringing group hug into an unknown situation is tantamount to ruining the game for others, because it doesn't do good things among tables with disparate power levels and creates a new kind of game that not everyone agreed to playing. In my own experiences with group hug, the games that created stories that my playgroup talked about over and over were caused by chaos cards, and not by group hug cards. Group hug cards tended to give a player an easy win, or just make turns take too long. Those cards/archetypes can often be present in the same deck, so the distinction isn't always obvious.

Quote from PhroX »

Resource management is a major part of what makes Magic enjoyable. Decks designed to remove that aspect make the game less enjoyable.

A group hug deck does not remove resource management. It just shifts it a bit. If you don't care for adjusting to that change on the fly, how can you say resource management makes the game enjoyable? What entertainment is there managing resources if they behave identically every game? It's like playing the first map of Rollercoaster Tycoon over and over.

OT: If there is one real mark against group hug strategies, is that they aren't inherently attractive to serious players. People trying to win seem to look down on anything that has even a whiff of "I'm just doing this for fun." But jokes on them, cause group hug effects are very good at winning. Howling Mine is a fantastic card, as has been proven time and time again. Font of Mythos doubly so. Almost every variation of the card concept has seen legitimate competitive play at some point. Same for Mana Flares. Same for Dream Halls and Show and Tell and Oath of Druids and the whole metric ton of chaotically powerful symmetrical effects. And it's not as if they're busted by robbing people of the synergy like tapping Howling Mine, they're almost always busted by building a deck that can take better advantage of the changed circumstances.

If you see a player piloting a group hug deck and repeatedly giving the win to whoever is on their left, that's not the archetypes fault, that's the fault of that player. Them giving someone else the win is exactly the same as bad threat assessment or throwing the game to spitefully hurt someone, it's just a little less subtle. And you all manage to complain about those things without throwing an entire class of cards under the bus. A misused counterspell is just as capable of handing a game to someone as a misplayed Heartbeat of Spring. If someone lacks the play skill to use global effects to their own benefit, there's probably nothing they could play that wouldn't let them "ruin" the game.

And to those of you who can't imagine playing a group hug seriously and winning consistently, I'd bet money you've never tried.

I love group hug decks that have a purpose behind the handouts. Decks that change the game environment into one they are specifically designed for, though generally I prefer Group Slug for that.

A good example would be my old Riku deck that used Mana Doublers, and was set up to be the most effective deck at a table where everyone has big mana. I've also used global draw in mono red decks to shrink the card advantage difference between my deck and that of the CA colours.

I also enjoy magic a hell of a lot more as soon as people are drawing two cards per turn. I've played other card games with 2+ draw per turn as standard and I think its a hell of a better system.

Group hug outside these criteria is trash though. That whole "just gonna give people random benefits for the lolz" isn't really my thing. Though at the end of the day it is just a card game, I'm not going to hate on someone who does this.

Quote from tstorm823 »

Quote from PhroX »

Resource management is a major part of what makes Magic enjoyable. Decks designed to remove that aspect make the game less enjoyable.

A group hug deck does not remove resource management. It just shifts it a bit. If you don't care for adjusting to that change on the fly, how can you say resource management makes the game enjoyable? What entertainment is there managing resources if they behave identically every game? It's like playing the first map of Rollercoaster Tycoon over and over.

It kind of depends. Having access to 100 mana does remove resource management. Having access to 7 mana on the turn you'd normally have 4 does change the game. You are correct that a lot of decks are designed to curve out in some sense. When my deck is designed to accelerate into a specific card (often the Commander) on a specific turn, it does become sort of mindless. Having access to extra mana means the optimal play has likely changed, and recognizing that is skill-testing. I don't think building towards consistency removes resource management from the game, but you make a good point.

OT: If there is one real mark against group hug strategies, is that they aren't inherently attractive to serious players. People trying to win seem to look down on anything that has even a whiff of "I'm just doing this for fun."

People want different things out of their games of Magic. Some people find competition fun, some people want to be able to play what they want. I don't think that difference of opinion necessarily constitutes "looking down on." I think making personal assumptions about "serious players" detracts from your arguments, which are perfectly valid.

But jokes on them, cause group hug effects are very good at winning. Howling Mine is a fantastic card, as has been proven time and time again. Font of Mythos doubly so. Almost every variation of the card concept has seen legitimate competitive play at some point. Same for Mana Flares. Same for Dream Halls and Show and Tell and Oath of Druids and the whole metric ton of chaotically powerful symmetrical effects. And it's not as if they're busted by robbing people of the synergy like tapping Howling Mine, they're almost always busted by building a deck that can take better advantage of the changed circumstances.

I don't think Turbo Fog, Storm, or Sneak and Show are decks that people would call "Group Hug," even if they play cards that could also be part of the group hug archetype.

If you see a player piloting a group hug deck and repeatedly giving the win to whoever is on their left, that's not the archetypes fault, that's the fault of that player. Them giving someone else the win is exactly the same as bad threat assessment or throwing the game to spitefully hurt someone, it's just a little less subtle. And you all manage to complain about those things without throwing an entire class of cards under the bus. A misused counterspell is just as capable of handing a game to someone as a misplayed Heartbeat of Spring. If someone lacks the play skill to use global effects to their own benefit, there's probably nothing they could play that wouldn't let them "ruin" the game.

Sure, absolutely. Bad play is bad play.

And to those of you who can't imagine playing a group hug seriously and winning consistently, I'd bet money you've never tried.

You would win that bet. That's not enough to convince me that I'm wrong, however.

I think that people are more discussing the archetype of Group Hug as a very particular deck, which differs from how you see the deck. I'm not trying to throw away an entire class of cards - I've played plenty of storm decks with Mana Flare and Dream Halls. Those cards are good cards, played correctly, as you say. I just wouldn't call those decks group hug because they played those cards.

I can imagine a deck that uses symmetrical draw effects to fuel a storm win, while countering the opponents' win conditions or denying them the draw by tapping Howling Mine. I can imagine a deck that plays Heartbeat of Spring and breaks the symmetry by limiting the opponents' plays with Rule of Law. I just don't know if I'd call those strategies Group Hug.

Quote from Darcykun »

I don't think Turbo Fog, Storm, or Sneak and Show are decks that people would call "Group Hug," even if they play cards that could also be part of the group hug archetype.

...I just don't know if I'd call those strategies Group Hug.

I agree. Those aren't decks people would call group hug. Zedruu is my favorite deck, it's lead by zedruu, it's played or considered most of the hug and chaos cards ever printed, but I feel uncomfortable calling it group hug. Partially because it's frequently a pejorative term, and partially because it feels like a dishonest moniker when I'm playing those cards so that I can win. But what else do you call it? There are many names, both broad and descriptive, for the various kinds of resource denial strategies, but what do you call the family of resource magnification strategies? What do you call the anti-stax deck other than group hug?

I don't really agree with the sentiment of taking from the poor and giving to the rich :/ if you're the group hug player you can choose who to give stuff to (depending on deck composition) and just help the weak or new players and promote a fun game regardless. Give the players that need it a boost