This is a fun conversation. I'm glad I put the deck together, it's making this a lot more interesting to talk about.
materpillar wrote: ↑4 weeks ago
TLDR; I don't think defaulting to
Pir's Whim everyone for a land is wrong in this list
1) You can somewhat expect to piggyback off their resources so ramping everyone else isn't as worrying as in other lists
2) Get some brownie points
3) Smoke and mirrors the
Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle a bit
1) "isn't as worrying" doesn't really sell me. I'd allow that giving one or maybe even two opponents lands could be a correct play in certain circumstances, but boosting everyone seems highly unlikely to ever be correct imo. Honestly if you're trying to avoid attention, I'd be giving serious side-eyes at someone who made a play like that, expecting an ulterior motive, whereas someone casting it normally I wouldn't pay much notice.
2) I don't think this is a valid mode of political engagement. Yes, some (bad) players will value opponents that way, but anyone taking the game seriously should not. When crafting my decks, I prefer to assume my opponents are skilled.
3) Again, I don't think Valakut is nearly as threatening as you think it is. I would not be at all perturbed if my opponent played it. For that matter, giving everyone else a land gives them an easy opportunity to grab
Wasteland or similar, if you're so worried about protecting your valakut.
No.
I would say there's a continuum of group hugginess that ranges from completely symmetrical and uncontrolled (
Ian Malcolm, Chaotician) to completely asymmetrical (
Grizzly Bears), with stops along the way for cards that are partially symmetrical and uncontrolled (
Kynaios and Tiro of Meletis), symmetrical but controlled (
Temple Bell), targeted for opponents (
Phelddagrif), targeted for anyone (
Kenrith, the Returned King), and symmetrical but with an ulterior motive (
Spiteful Visions, and one could even argue
Flame Rift since it benefits everyone to have their opponents at lower life), etc. And even without those stops they can move around a lot depending on context. So it's all kinda fuzzy. I'm pretty against the pure hug cards categorically, but depending on context the other things may or may not make sense (and realistically very few cards are really pure hug in every context, usually there's SOME way to exploit them).
Kenrith, taken on his own without any context, is pretty damn far towards the grizzly bears side of the continuum. It will almost always be correct to target yourself, and even if you're targeting someone else on occasion, that's still controlled and targeted. Of course, someone could play him by going round-robin and targeting opponents with the draw, but I'm not really that interested in how people can creatively misplay their cards. I'm interested in what cards do when played correctly.
Would the deck be less of a "group hug deck" if the general was
Sliver Queen instead?
Sure, sliver queen is equivalent to grizzly bears on the continuum. It provides no direct benefit to opponents. Though kenrith is a better wincon, so although he's nominally a huggier card, I could see the argument that replacing him with SQ would make the deck as a whole huggier. In fact I think I just changed my own mind xD
Those cards would be asymmetrical. They're mildly huggy but the general purpose of those cards is to create a prisoner's dilemma that benefits the caster so that they overperform. Of course in the context of a deck that has no wincons and is playing it just to let his opponents search for lands and doesn't care about searching its own, I guess that would be huggy, but again I'm not that interested in how people misplay.
Would the deck be more, less or unchanged in its "group huggy" nature if those were swapped for say lands or removal?
Well despite your assertion that it's winconless, I do think it could plausibly win via mill (or maybe via commander damage with the green and red activated abilities). But if we're assuming that's not realistic (hard to tell from the decklist alone), then I guess it would be unchanged - at the point where you're making no effort to win, until that changes, your deckbuilding decisions are basically null and void. And none of those cards constitute a wincon unsupported, nor do removal or lands (generally).
Same answer. I don't have anything against it as a card, but again until there's a wincon deckbuilding decisions are irrelevant.
Some scenarios that popped up in the game. So in these assume that the above decklist was being piloted.
My opponent taps
Kwain, Itinerant Meddler into irrelevant boardstate on turn 3. I assume you would say that this is a group hug card, from a group hug deck, in a group hug context.
Kwain, Itinerant Meddler is a good example of a nearly pure group hug card, since the "may" prevents it from working even as forced mill. So far towards that side of the continuum. (though tbf with
Mind Over Matter there's still room for it to be asymmetrical) (also it's voluntary, he could just be a 1/3 for 2 with no abilities).
Group hug deck, assuming mill isn't viable, sure.
Group hug context...I guess you mean, that the board state doesn't absolve them by making their play beneficial to them in some way? sure.
Same scenario, but its late game and I have zero cards in library. Is this a group hug card, from a group hug deck, in a group hug context?
It's a may, so it won't kill you. But I guess it's at least somewhat asymmetrical since you will presumably decline and the other players will get draw and life (if they want it).
If we're opening the can of worms that mill is a viable option, then Kwain gets some more room to maneuver since, even if people are declining, then he's just generating free CA for the controller. That doesn't change the overall evaluation of the card, but it does mean the context can change what his effect is.
If forced to make a binary decision, I would say it's a group hug card in a group hug deck, but not in a group hug context. Whether it's a group hug deck is conditioned on how realistic the mill plan is for the deck to achieve. If it's a strong enough mill plan, then that one could flip.
Same question, but its mid game and I have roughly 30 cards in library. My opponent says "I'm going to try to deck you." Is this a group hug card, from a group hug deck, in a group hug context?
What your opponent said doesn't matter since it doesn't change the game state. If mill is a real threat, then it's a threat regardless of what they said. If it's not, then it's not.
Basically the same answer as before.
My opponent casts
Prosperity for 11. I assume you would say that this is a group hug card, from a group hug deck, in a group hug context.
Prosperity being forced makes it more exploitable. It's pretty far towards the hug side of the spectrum, but (probably) not as far as kwain.
Deck, same as before. Depends on the mill plan's viability, as before.
Context - there isn't any context given.
My opponent casts
Prosperity for 11, while I have
Narset, Parter of Veils on the field so I draw 11 and everyone else draws 1. Is this a group hug card, from a group hug deck, in a group hug context?
From the information provided I'd say it's a misplay more than anything.
The card and deck evaluations don't change based on the scenarios.
As far as context it depends on the rest of the game state. Is there a mutual opponent who needs to be answered, that you might conceivably answer? Then it could be a smart "targeted" play and not hug. If the board state is balanced then I would say it's hug. I'd say hug is, broadly, benefitting opponents without good reason (when we're talking about a "hug context").
My opponent casts
Prosperity for 11 specifically to help me draw into a
Wrath of God for a massive pile of
Scute Swarms (no narset). Is this a group hug card, from a group hug deck, in a group hug context?
Yes (mostly)
Yes (depending on mill viability)
No.
Same answer.
Now let's assume my opponent has the exact same list except one card is swapped for
Thassa's Oracle.
My opponent casts
Prosperity for 11. I assume you would say that this is a group hug card, from a group hug deck, in a group hug context.
I don't think thoracle is any more realistic than mill - if anything less, since it can't work with
Forced Fruition. So it doesn't really change much.
If my opponent casts
Prosperity for the remaining cards in his library so he can cast
Thassa's Oracle immediately afterwards and win. Is this a group hug card, from a group hug deck, in a group hug context?
Yes (mostly).
Depends on the viability of wincons but probably.
No.
If it's not, where is that line drawn at?
For which?
Cards evaluations are outside of any context. In a vacuum prosperity is very huggy, but of course there are contexts where it can be used to personal gain. So you can put it somewhere on the continuum but there's usually ways to move it around once it's placed into context. There isn't really a "line", but if I must draw one, I'd say it's the point where the card generally benefits the opponents nearly as much as, or more than, the caster.
Deck evaluations are a lot more nuanced. As a general rule, I would say the more a deck is sabotaging its winrate to benefit other players, the more huggy it is. The huggiest deck would have no realistic way to win at all. The least huggy deck wouldn't have any way to benefit opponents. There are decks that could benefit opponents a lot, but in service of their wincon -
Nekusar, the Mindrazer for example. How huggy those are, depends on their viability. I tend to think that Nekusar is pretty bad, but if he was redesigned to deal 5 damage per draw instead of 1, he'd still be giving the same benefit, but he'd be a lot less huggy as a deck because he'd be a lot more viable as a strategy. I don't think you can really draw a line because it also depends on the meta - Nekusar is still an efficient wincon in some metas I'm sure, and trash that only feeds his opponents a win in (most) others.
Context-wise, I would say that a huggy play is one that benefits the rest of the table more than yourself (taking into account the fact that you're using the card and the mana). In that respect it's definitionally a misplay. If your play isn't benefitting you, then why are you doing it? Give a skilled player a "group hug deck" and they still could avoid making any huggy plays (though it would still be difficult to win, presumably).
I ask these because during the coarse of our game someone else played
Intruder Alarm
...and they didn't win immediately?
Talk about misplays...
I don't want to run
Mana Flare because that basically immediately ends the game.
Pain Distributor is like 5-20% of a
Mana Flare, which is more what I'm in the market for. Extra points for dissuading aristocrats and combo decks from doing loops.
| think the deck would be better if you went to the market and bought something else xD
Magic is a game full of variance. Sometimes you keep a 3 lands hand and the top 10 cards of your deck aren't lands.
No, that's impossible. If it does happen, it's because the guy who cut your deck/arena shuffler cheated, and you should flip the table/write an angry rant on reddit.
Most well-built decks should be able to limp along okay on 3 mana for a while, with some amount of draw/ramp/filtering to help. And since this is multiplayer, if you're behind, you'll draw less notice. Beyond a certain point, of course, you are eventually just screwed by RNG, no getting around that.
But if the goal of your deck is to benefit from having a robust fight between your rivals, I don't think you need all three opponents to draw decently. One person getting RNGed out of the game is probably tolerable. Anyway that could be a justification for giving them land off pir's whim or targeting them with
Secret Rendezvous or other reasonably good cards, but not good justification for running fully symmetrical effects imo.
Pieces are asymmetrical, pieces are political, pieces have ulterior motives - there's a variety of things going on depending on the specific card. And I also think there are cards that are pretty close to fully symmetrical and don't boost your winrate enough to bother playing (or at least could easily be replaced with much better cards).
I cast
Prosperity for 10. It's group hug. If I cast
Stroke of Genius for 10, 4 times each targeting different players. Still group hug right?
Taken together, sure, but since they're separate spells it's really more like (strong draw spell) (probably a misplay) (almost certainly a misplay) (definitely a real bad misplay).
I would also consider casting
Stroke of Genius for 7, then 8, then 9, then 10 each targeting different players as group hug.
In a vacuum, if I'm the player drawing 7 I would consider this as a play to my detriment just like if you targeted me with
Mind Rot. Of course, I expect my opponents to make plays to my detriment, that's kinda how the game works.
But however you're achieving this, it seems like a lot more work than it's worth in terms of the benefit you get from it. So it's pretty huggy insofar as I don't see a good reason to do it (feel free to construct some absurd hypothetical I suppose xD).
I feel like that's what
Yurlok of Scorch Thrash is doing on a smaller, less highly theoretical scale backed. I don't get the feeling that you'd consider the last example group hug.
It really comes down to how good of a justification there is for giving opponents resources. Personally my assessment (from admittedly limited experience) is that the justification for giving opponents resources via fully symmetrical effects like
Howling Mine in your deck is...kinda flimsy. Not nonexistent, by any means - there are some ulterior motives involved - but not super robust either. As a result I think a lot of those cards are not very good. But you could argue that they help the deck meet an expected power level, and that better cards would make it too strong, if that's where your meta is at. The asymmetrical effects I think are generally fine in terms of deck construction. Pirs whim is a good card. I think the correct way to play it within your deck is 90% of the time make everyone else sac, 5% of the time help someone with a bad start, and 5% of the time help everyone against an archenemy. If you want to play it, in my estimation, incorrectly, that's your prerogative of course. There are far more variables involved in your games than can be described here, so I have no way to say for certain that you're wrong.
I think there are some group hug cards in your deck.
I think the deck overall isn't group hug - but it has some leanings in that direction because of those inefficient cards.
Whether the plays you make are group hug...I guess that's up to you.