So...how do you truly fight group hug?

[3drinks]

We know, as responsible players, the only true way to fight group hug is to decline the benefits and leave the hug deck playing some...questionable cards that only work when others cooperate. So you identify them as the threat, club them over the head, then have a normal game with the three remaining players. But that only works when everyone works, and we see it all the time; one player doesn't identify it as the threat which leads to another (usually the silent combo deck) taking the bait and quietly sculpting a penultimate board state. I.e. the bad group hug deck that just kingmakes the game while throwing resources around with wanton abandon "It's fun, it's chaos, everyone has lots of resources!" They don't win, but they're type of player that resolves Heartbeat of Spring and then passes the turn.

I had a The Beamtown Bullies player in a pod last night. Of course, I'm on Kaalia and she does not react well when games leave the typical structure I can cultivate with her (free resources mean I don't typically care about my 2/2 flyer that circumvents mana costs). On their first Faithless Looting they pitched Worldgorger Dragon and Leveler and it was then I knew exactly what they were up to. So they got their graveyard nuked as you typically do. Otherwise they're playing Hired Giant, Avatar of Growth, probably have Tempting Wurm/Hunted Wumpus though I didn't see those in the game. Anyway, I can sense they're getting frustrated as I continually pummel them because I personally don't want to see that kind of uncontrolled chaos take over the game. The other players were a new player running The Scarab God zombie kindred (largely a non-factor, didn't even read all their cards), and Abuelo, Ancestral Echo as a definitively-not-brago (because brago gets you {rightly} killed). Abuelo won with...Displacer Kitten nonsense as it quietly collected free resources from beamtown bullies throwing crap around "for chaos".

As I understand it, this is "bad grouphug", not the purple hippo kind of hug that Dirk champions on this forum. Is it even possible to direct these bad actor style players away from resource spam nonsense? These games aren't any more enjoyable than playing a "rousing" game of wincon-less stax; you're just trolling the table.

What I'm trying to get at is, does a method exist to punish group hug decks beyond bonking their nose with a newspaper while telling them "no"? And if not, how do you convince the table to be responsible and decline the deals and triple team on them before they turn the game into nonsense? But even when you do that, how do you not leave that player feeling frustrated because they were ganked out of the game? Was my assessment justified and would you have reacted the same way, why/why not?

[materpillar]

As a group hug enjoyer myself I have quite a lot of thoughts. To set out my resume so to speak. My Yurlok of Scorch Thrash group hug deck isn't just a "lol rando chaos fun deck", I'll address that issue later. It aims to flood everyone with resources and then snipe a win with Insurrection, Reverberate on my opponents x-spell or just generally have everyone take enough damage it can burn the table out with something like Searing Wind.

We know, as responsible players, the only true way to fight group hug is to decline the benefits and leave the hug deck playing some...questionable cards that only work when others cooperate. So you identify them as the threat, club them over the head, then have a normal game with the three remaining players. But that only works when everyone works, and we see it all the time; one player doesn't identify it as the threat which leads to another (usually the silent combo deck) taking the bait and quietly sculpting a penultimate board state.

All group hug does is create an abnormal balance of resources. That benefits some decks more than others, so it just sounds like the player who assembled the penultimate board state correctly assessed that ganging up with you to murder the group hug player wasn't the best line for them. If you benefit more from the resources the group hug player is giving out than the other players at the table why would you bother killing the group hug player first? They're just helping you win.

Playing group hug into streamlined, linear decks is borderline suicidal. I've played Heartbeat of Spring and the next player went Professor Onyx + Chain of Smog. On the other side of the coin, group hug makes control / stax players have a really rough time. Your control opponent can't out grind the table with their value engine if there's a Font of Mythos on the battlefield. Braids, Cabal Minion is pretty laughable with a Kibo, Uktabi Prince on board. If everyone is playing midrange battlecruiser it's gonna be pretty unclear who the group hug deck is actually benefiting the most. If it's benefiting everyone equally then why should the table wasting resources murdering them, especially if you suspect they have the worst lategame 1v1 potential?

I had a The Beamtown Bullies player in a pod last night. Of course, I'm on Kaalia and she does not react well when games leave the typical structure I can cultivate with her (free resources mean I don't typically care about my 2/2 flyer that circumvents mana costs).

This is part of the strength of group hug. You can create a game that has left the "typical structure" and some decks struggle pretty hard in that situation. I feel like Kaalia of the Vast should benefit a lot from never running out of action to play for free? Unless your list is more of a tempo deck that gets wrecked by later game bombs people get accelerated to.

On their first Faithless Looting they pitched Worldgorger Dragon and Leveler and it was then I knew exactly what they were up to. So they got their graveyard nuked as you typically do.

... that's degeneracy not group hug,

Otherwise they're playing Hired Giant,

Using The Beamtown Bullies to ramp all the weakest players is just pretty slick in my opinion.

Anyway, I can sense they're getting frustrated as I continually pummel them because I personally don't want to see that kind of uncontrolled chaos take over the game. The other players were a new player running The Scarab God zombie kindred (largely a non-factor, didn't even read all their cards), and Abuelo, Ancestral Echo as a definitively-not-brago (because brago gets you {rightly} killed). Abuelo won with...Displacer Kitten nonsense as it quietly collected free resources from beamtown bullies throwing crap around "for chaos".

Sounds like your threat analysis was off and you should have been killing Abuelo, Ancestral Echo?

As I understand it, this is "bad grouphug", not the purple hippo kind of hug that Dirk champions on this forum.

@DirkGently plays control with a heavy splash of bribery not group hug.

Is it even possible to direct these bad actor style players away from resource spam nonsense? These games aren't any more enjoyable than playing a "rousing" game of wincon-less stax; you're just trolling the table.

I don't have all the context from the game but it sounds like he wasn't playing winconditionless nonsense. Leveler is like the most effective wincondition The Beamtown Bullies can run? The only straight grouphug card you've mentioned is Avatar of Growth.

What I'm trying to get at is, does a method exist to punish group hug decks beyond bonking their nose with a newspaper while telling them "no"?

Killing them with the extra resources they give you usually works pretty well in my experience. Not sure why you'd need any other method. My Yulok deck personally uses Insurrection and Rakdos Charm to punish creature over extension. Word of Seizing to steal and ult planeswalkers. Used to have Vicious Shadows to blow out large handsizes. Reiterate to piggyback off spellslingers.

It depends on what the group hug deck is giving out. Mana Flare? Hit the table with a Torment of Hailfire. Howling Mine? Mana cheat the extra cards with Kaalia of the Vast. Avatar of Growth to give everyone more lands? Have more card advantage engines than your opponent's to take better advantage of the excess mana.

And if not, how do you convince the table to be responsible and decline the deals and triple team on them before they turn the game into nonsense?

I'm not sure what deals you're talking about? Most "group hug" cards as I know them are just triggers that happen. This seems like a general "get better at multiplayer politics" kinda thing though.

But even when you do that, how do you not leave that player feeling frustrated because they were ganked out of the game?

Howling Mine can be just as threatening as Kaalia of the Vast depending on the gamestate. Good luck explaining that to someone who isn't very good at the game and is easily emotionally frustrated.

Was my assessment justified and would you have reacted the same way, why/why not?

I have a friend who loathes my group hug deck because he always tries to softlock the game with his control decks. He can't do that when I'm giving everyone value. I expect you have a similarly overly hostile disposition to group hug as an archetype as an emotional holdover from your Counterspell your opponent's Cultivate uber spike days. I'm not sure why The Beamtown Bullies actively casting cards that lower their win% is more frustrating to you than The Scarab God player who was so actively a non-factor they shouldn't have bothered shuffling up.

[Sinis]

What I'm trying to get at is, does a method exist to punish group hug decks beyond bonking their nose with a newspaper while telling them "no"? And if not, how do you convince the table to be responsible and decline the deals and triple team on them before they turn the game into nonsense?

This is indeed 'bad grouphug' and it's awful to play against.

Whenever someone plays Howling Mine or similar symmetrical "here's your free resources" cards, I tell the rest of the table two things. First, that since their deck is full of crap like Howling Mine, their wincons are going to necessarily be less numerous and more final: They are going to combo out, and you'll have lost the game despite having all those resources. Second, that since they've built their deck this way, they're expecting you to be stupid enough to fall for it.

The latter of those two points gets people foaming at the mouth. Few things arouse ire more than "that person demonstrably thinks you're a moron."

[DirkGently]

I don't really understand what you're asking - giving someone a Leveler off beamtown bullies isn't "hug" in any way, shape, or form. It's just a kill combo.

But fighting hug decks isn't principally any different than any other kind of deck. You assess their threat level and act accordingly. The only complication is, for a card like Howling Mine, the assessment is a bit more complex because you have to evaluate the effect it has on every player including yourself, and how much it's overall helping vs hurting you. Of course, some players are too dumb to realize that a symmetrical benefit doesn't necessarily benefit them even if it's giving them additional resources, but that's pretty remedial.

I always find it ridiculous when people say "you have to kill anyone playing X archetype first". There are a lot of threatening decks out there, and no broad archetype is a trump card that must be dealt with before all others, certainly not group hug. Kill it if killing it is your most likely path to victory, just like any other deck.

[3drinks]

Playing group hug into streamlined, linear decks is borderline suicidal. I've played Heartbeat of Spring and the next player went Professor Onyx + Chain of Smog. On the other side of the coin, group hug makes control / stax players have a really rough time. Your control opponent can't out grind the table with their value engine if there's a Font of Mythos on the battlefield. Braids, Cabal Minion is pretty laughable with a Kibo, Uktabi Prince on board. If everyone is playing midrange battlecruiser it's gonna be pretty unclear who the group hug deck is actually benefiting the most. If it's benefiting everyone equally then why should the table wasting resources murdering them, especially if you suspect they have the worst lategame 1v1 potential?

It was just mana acceleration and humble deflector going around the table. Which honestly is the most egregious kind, cause once you hand people free lands you can't undo the damage. Especially Hired Giant since letting everyone else get their best non-basic (Field of the Dead comes to mind) is especially obscene in a world where "lands are sacred" for example. I was fourth in this game rotation too, so systematically the last one to get a turn with extra resources. That probably has a hand in the way things went.

This is part of the strength of group hug. You can create a game that has left the "typical structure" and some decks struggle pretty hard in that situation. I feel like Kaalia of the Vast should benefit a lot from never running out of action to play for free? Unless your list is more of a tempo deck that gets wrecked by later game bombs people get accelerated to.

Kaalia typically will play ~21-23 creatures, any more and you end up seeing a glut of high end bodies that rely on your commander to play. All the extra lands and I still saw draw spells and lands. Got an entwined Promise of Power countered, but watching the Abuelo, Ancestral Echo stick Displacer Kitten, Sun Titan, Fiend Hunter with no responses from the table should've signaled that maybe this was a textbook coercion game, or else players literally seeing "white and blue cards fine, person with Sower of Discord and Sonic Shrieker is too strong". When I did see my wrath (Mythos of Snapdax), it got countered too. Like all their stack interaction was just saved for anytime I tried to bring the game back to normal limits. I never once had a profitable attack into the stupid blink deck.

I have a friend who loathes my group hug deck because he always tries to softlock the game with his control decks. He can't do that when I'm giving everyone value. I expect you have a similarly overly hostile disposition to group hug as an archetype as an emotional holdover from your Counterspell your opponent's Cultivate uber spike days. I'm not sure why The Beamtown Bullies actively casting cards that lower their win% is more frustrating to you than The Scarab God player who was so actively a non-factor they shouldn't have bothered shuffling up.

I do. I hate decks that don't play along the general tempo of a game generally plays. Whether it's rapid resource vomit, or whatever game it is that dredge is playing. It's playing on a whole different axis from the table - you might as well be playing Grip of Chaos "because lol". Hug and Chaos are just two sides of the same stupid coin if I'm honest.

[DirkGently]

Something else I want to add - obviously there's a lot of specifics that I don't have, but from what you've said, I feel like this is maybe a good case study in how reflexive hatred of a particular strategy can be detrimental to your winrate. You didn't like what the hug player was doing, so you expended your resources focusing on him when the Abuelo player was pulling ahead. Seems like the Abuelo player was the correct target, rather than the beamtown player - at least at some point in the game.

We know, as responsible players, the only true way to fight group hug is to decline the benefits and leave the hug deck playing some...questionable cards that only work when others cooperate. So you identify them as the threat, club them over the head, then have a normal game with the three remaining players. But that only works when everyone works, and we see it all the time; one player doesn't identify it as the threat

I think this section is really telling.

First, you're priming the reader to agree with your opinion, or else they're "not a responsible player". I don't generally like group hug decks either, but I don't consider it a responsibility to hate hug players out of the game, and I'm not sure why it would be.

I wonder what you mean about "decline the benefits". Like when they cast Hired Giant, you choose not to get a land? That seems kind of crazy to me. Something like Tempt with Discovery, ok, sure I can see declining that in order to reduce the benefit of their card for them (especially if you can convince the table to follow suit). but choosing not to take free resources seems like you're only hurting yourself. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean. Either way, though, if you and the hug player are both behind someone else - say, an Abuelo player who has amassed a lot of resources - taking resources given to you by a hug player seems like an absolute no-brainer, even if it also benefits the hug player. You're countering the third player's advantage on two fronts - both by giving yourself more resources, but also by giving the leading player another threat to deal with in the hug player. So in that circumstance, hell yeah take the tempt unless you think it's going to give the hug player a more likely win than the other player has.

Often I think the best way to fight a lot of hug decks is to kill the other players, leaving yourself in a 1v1 against someone running a lot of "questionable cards", as you say. That seems a lot easier to achieve than convincing the rest of the table that they have a responsibility to hate someone off the table because you don't like their archetype.

Finally, think about the game you actually had - you said the Scarab God player was a non-factor, and the Abuelo player used the resources to win. So...who exactly did you expect to convince to help you hate out the hug player? The guy who used the hug player's resources to win? Why would he do that? Maybe instead of going on a moral crusade against hug decks, you should try to figure out how to be the Abuelo player using the hug deck to win.

[materpillar]

It was just mana acceleration and humble deflector going around the table.

… that's not group hug. That's a couple of suboptimal cards and a Humble Defector no one passed you.

Got an entwined Promise of Power countered, but watching the Abuelo, Ancestral Echo stick Displacer Kitten, Sun Titan, Fiend Hunter with no responses from the table should've signaled that maybe this was a textbook coercion game, or else players literally seeing "white and blue cards fine, person with Sower of Discord and Sonic Shrieker is too strong". When I did see my wrath (Mythos of Snapdax), it got countered too. Like all their stack interaction was just saved for anytime I tried to bring the game back to normal limits. I never once had a profitable attack into the stupid blink deck.

This entire paragraph is literally complaining about threat assessment of the blue players at the table while the group hug deck was the only non-blue opponent.

Tell me if I'm off base here but it sounds like you played a pickup game against 2-3 strangers who turned out to be friends with each other. As such they threw all their removal at your face, probably gave the Hired Giant to you so that everyone else ramped, and passed everyone but you the Humble Defector. The reality of the situation is that you sat down for a nice competitive FFA and not a surprise 2v1 slamming. Because you're a competitive spike you're trying to figure out the best way you could have won this game that you were basically a 0% to win before you'd even shuffled your deck as a result of the preexisting social dynamics. The best you've come up with is "%$#% hate group hug" while the answer is actually "it was pretty immature of these guys to not put aside their base instincts of tribalism for the sake of a single game of EDH". Pretty sure if your opponents were all playing some flavor mono-R aggro that you consider magic as Garfield intended that you'd have eaten 3 Lightning Bolts to the face turn 1 and be in the exact same salty place just without your group hug scapegoat.

I do. I hate decks that don't play along the general tempo of a game generally plays. Whether it's rapid resource vomit, or whatever game it is that dredge is playing. It's playing on a whole different axis from the table - you might as well be playing Grip of Chaos "because lol". Hug and Chaos are just two sides of the same stupid coin if I'm honest.

Remember this feeling the next time you're tempted put a stax spell into your decks because it's how everyone else feels about those cards.

Also, playing group hug can be hella fun. My Yurlok deck constantly produces quality games by ensuring no player gets completely left out of the game by mana flood or mana screw. It's the deck I default to when playing against randos with unspecified power level decks because it basically guarantees everyone gets to participate. I'd highly recommend giving a group hug deck a whirl sometime.

[tstorm823]

Actual answer: play instant speed interaction, don't tap out on your turn, and don't waste the interaction trying to tempo people's resources. When there are too many spells for you to manage, only the ones that win the game or prevent you from stopping the ones that win the game really matter. Situationally, you could have something like the player to your right plays Howling Mine, you draw the extra card and then destroy it before anyone else benefits, but if you're not in a situation like that, aiming all your resources at the person for spreading around resources is effectively a murder/suicide, which puts you on pretty shaky ground to accuse anyone else of kingmaking.

[3drinks]

So, lem'me get this straight, because I'm pretty sure there is a learning opportunity in here. I've been "trained" so long to get the jump on these non-standard decks to keep the game in line before it spirals into...unmanageable situations. Reflexively, I see beamtown can add extra resources to anyone of their choosing (as well as evil donate, a la if they gave out a Phage the Untouchable from the grave, or an Eater of Days). Without knowing their deck, it's reasonable I must assume the worst so I don't get blown out, right. That reads as a sound strategy to me.

There's Humble Defector going around the table. Yes I got it too, it made two trips around before Abuelo did the fiend hunter with sun titan combo. And yes I got the Hired Giant trigger for Vault of the Archangel (the best non-basic I could get for multiplayer). Anyway the hunter+titan combo stopped the defector but also effectively stopped anyone pointing aggro at them (re-blink fiend hunter and exile whatever is attacking them). I'd need others to swing into that, but no one else is attacking (a separate issue entirely, I freakin' hate these kinds of passive non-action player games) which allows Abuelo to do whatever the heck it wants since I'm the only one pressuring anyone.

So you're suggesting the Azorious player was actually the threat, and i shouldn't have bothered taking out the player that played Heartbeat of Spring, even though i recognize how dangerous a mana doubler really is and without a disenchant|parl my only out (player removal) wasn't the right call because other players weren't going to let the resources go. Even though they weren't doing anything to launch an offensive, and the Azorious deck was setting up a board that effectively couldn't be interacted with (Displacer Kitten, commander that slow blinks on demand).

Maybe I should play a deck like this and learn ways of playing that aren't so combat-focused (but I love doing combat math...) and learn to do these kinds of tricks instead. I could do beamtown + Total War/War's Toll to force their hand with the goaded gift I hand out, and then run Aether Membrane style blocks to generate value and/or dissuade aggro coming my way. I still get to influence combat, but I also play responsible group hug and not resource vomit. That's good? Or is that just a different flavor of vintage me?

[DirkGently]

Reflexively, I see beamtown can add extra resources to anyone of their choosing (as well as evil donate, a la if they gave out a Phage the Untouchable from the grave, or an Eater of Days). Without knowing their deck, it's reasonable I must assume the worst so I don't get blown out, right. That reads as a sound strategy to me.

Not really. You should assess based on the most likely/average expectation based on current information available. Any deck COULD be a cEDH deck in disguise that's going to combo out on the next turn. But it's probably not, and acting on the assumption that it is will lead you to bad plays.

Granted, I think it's reasonable to be wary of a leveler-type combo against a beamdown opponent. Holding up grave hate is one option to counter that. Trying to put yourself in a position where they're unlikely to target you is another. Constantly killing the commander is a third. Saying "if they have it, they have it" and just hoping they don't draw the combo is a fourth.

the fiend hunter with sun titan combo.

This equals infinite sac fodder, but it doesn't sound like that's what was happening. Explain what he was doing exactly?

So you're suggesting the Azorious player was actually the threat, and i shouldn't have bothered taking out the player that played Heartbeat of Spring, even though i recognize how dangerous a mana doubler really is and without a disenchant|parl my only out (player removal) wasn't the right call because other players weren't going to let the resources go.

A mana doubler is certainly impactful, but depending on what's going on, it could be impactful in your favor, or maybe detrimental but not to a horrendous degree. If the doubler was enabling something game-winning from another player, but you couldn't kill that other player and could kill the mana doubler player, then I guess it's your only recourse? But if that's the situation I'd assume everyone should basically be collaborating to prevent a win from the person in the game-winning position, including the mana doubler player removing their own doubler if able. If it's not immediately game-winning, then I'd say ride the chaos and try to come out on top.

Maybe I should play a deck like this and learn ways of playing that aren't so combat-focused (but I love doing combat math...) and learn to do these kinds of tricks instead. I could do beamtown + Total War/War's Toll to force their hand with the goaded gift I hand out, and then run Aether Membrane style blocks to generate value and/or dissuade aggro coming my way. I still get to influence combat, but I also play responsible group hug and not resource vomit. That's good? Or is that just a different flavor of vintage me?

You can if you want to, but I think really the lesson I would take away from the situation is to be flexible and objective in your threat assessment, rather than knee-jerk gunning for the group hug player (or any other archetype). Embrace the chaos while looking for opportunities to come out on top.

[Dragonlover]

I played against my first group hug deck in a long while on Friday. I just took the resources I was being handed, dealt with the other players stuff and killed the hug player once he landed his Seedborn Muse and Helix Pinnacle.

I honestly think thats the best way to do it - say thanks for the extra toys and kill them last, assuming they don't play something that can actually win.

Dragonlover

[MAGUSZANIN]

I think part of this is bad play on the Bullies player's part. Bullies is very much a combo kill deck with some value pieces it can hand out to help things along. Playing it as group hug is tough on its own, let alone playing both Mana hand outs like Heartbeat of Spring and card hand outs like Humble Defector in the same deck.

That breaks one of the cardinal rules of Group Hug: you never give out both free Cards and free Mana. Because doing so eliminates one of the primary ways to not have the Group Hug play pattern screw you over. If you give out cards only, some number of those cards are virtually "dead" because they likely don't have the mana to be able to cast them in a timely fashion. If you are giving out mana, then the last thing you want is for them to be drawing a bunch of extra cards to cast with that mana. By doing both at the same time, you multiply the impact you are having on the game, to such an egregious extent that it simply can't be mitigated even if you are an otherwise skilled player.

I firmly disagree that group hug, or any other archetype for that matter, needs to be hated out of the game aggressively on contact. It isn't true for group hug, it isn't true for combo decks, and it isn't true for decks between the two like this seems to be. Even given the atrociously bad deck building decisions this player seems to have made, I still don't know that I would have hated them out directly when someone with as much on board resources as the Blink player was present. Much better to try to force the Blink player to activate the blink ability with multiple pieces of interaction to throw at them, forcing them to burn Mana and Cards not advancing their board.

In that case, the group hug deck is actively helping you by providing you with more mana and cards to pressure and slow down the Blink deck.

[aliciaofthevast]

Ohhh, drinks this is so real of you 🥹. I think, that you like to play these aggressive decks and maybe it would benefit you to not be the aggro player of the pod. You could find the lines relevant to the current game without falling back to your "bread and butter" type of decks! It doesn't even have to be The Beamtown Bullies - didn't you tell me you wanted to explore Hashaton, Scarab's Fist spellshaper kindred? That'd be different and challenge you to set something up that gets you outside of that comfort food vibe ☺️.

[materpillar]

Maybe I should play a deck like this and learn ways of playing that aren't so combat-focused (but I love doing combat math...) and learn to do these kinds of tricks instead. I could do beamtown + Total War/War's Toll to force their hand with the goaded gift I hand out, and then run Aether Membrane style blocks to generate value and/or dissuade aggro coming my way. I still get to influence combat, but I also play responsible group hug and not resource vomit. That's good? Or is that just a different flavor of vintage me?

Life's too short to play a deck you don't really want to play. If you think you'd have a fun time whipping out a non-Kaalia deck more power to you.

Serious question. What are you trying to achieve in this thread? You seem pissed and everything I say seems to only provoke a passive-aggressive crankiness. Maybe I'm just reading too much into your responses.

Are you looking for advice or sympathy? If you're looking for advice could you clearly state what question you'd like me to try and answer because I can't pin it down for the life of me. The thread title seems to imply "how to improve my Kaalia's deck matchup against Group Hug" but I'm guessing that's not actually what this thread is about.

Here's my extremely watered down opinion of things.

So, lem'me get this straight, because I'm pretty sure there is a learning opportunity in here. I've been "trained" so long to get the jump on these non-standard decks to keep the game in line before it spirals into...unmanageable situations. Reflexively, I see beamtown can add extra resources to anyone of their choosing (as well as evil donate, a la if they gave out a Phage the Untouchable from the grave, or an Eater of Days). Without knowing their deck, it's reasonable I must assume the worst so I don't get blown out, right. That reads as a sound strategy to me.

I wasn't there. I don't have a turn by turn break down of the game. Maybe your threat assessment was correct. Maybe it wasn't. I've done my best guesswork based on the information that you provided. I don't think I can do more.

It sounds like you had a bad 1v1 matchup (or maybe just a bad draw) against the blink deck and that matchup (particular draw) was only exacerbated by the group hug deck. It sounds like you were pretty much going to lose this game independent of what in game choices you made. It happens.

I'd need others to swing into that, but no one else is attacking (a separate issue entirely, I freakin' hate these kinds of passive non-action player games.

Is this "a separate issue entirely"? I think this right here is the entire root cause of the thread. You're trying to attack people to death with big dragons as Richard Garfield intended. Getting into the red zone! The blink deck isn't, they're actively locking you out of the red zone. The Beamtown Bullies aren't, in fact they're helping the blink deck lock you out of the red zone. The Scarab God isn't, they're not doing literally anything. Now you're pissed that everyone wasn't playing the game you wanted.

]So you're suggesting the Azorious player was actually the threat, and i shouldn't have bothered taking out the player that played Heartbeat of Spring, even though i recognize how dangerous a mana doubler really is and without a disenchant|parl my only out (player removal) wasn't the right call because other players weren't going to let the resources go. Even though they weren't doing anything to launch an offensive, and the Azorious deck was setting up a board that effectively couldn't be interacted with (Displacer Kitten, commander that slow blinks on demand).

This isn't particularly fair 3drinks. We weren't there. Maybe your target priority was right, maybe it wasn't. It sounds like you didn't kill The Beamtown Bullies so I imagine you wouldn't have been able to kill the blink player had you ignored the The Beamtown Bullies player entirely. Sounds like you just weren't going to win this game. I wasn't there though, so who knows. *shrug*

[BeneTleilax]

The problem with grouphug as a strategy is that it fails into kingmaking, rather than failing into dying early/being unimpactful. I agree that this makes for annoying games because if they don't adequately cover their deck's weakness to highly linear archetypes or certain kinds of aggro, the whole table has to fight a juiced-up linear build. This was the same as when mill didn't used to run enough gravehate and would just hand games to reanimator if it happened to show up. I don't like games where your archetype decides how it's going to go before you draw, and I especially don't like games where my own archetype is irrelevant to that calculation.

My answer, and I expect to catch some flak for this, is to play the meta. If I see group hug in the pregame and the group doesn't block it, I switch to streamlined, sluggy aggro, which I think you'd also like, 3Drinks. Fynn, or the Zurgo list I hope to post later today fill this role well, as does Kediss and [voltron]. These decks will absolutely feed off group hug that doesn't control for them, and live for the 1v1. So unlike most games, I don't even have to play politics. I can just sort of dumbly wade through removal, off the back of too many cards and a low curve, to a win. The other players generally do not like this. Then, after winning, I turn to the hug player and explain to them, while the other players are miffed at the nongame, how their deckbuilding choices made this happen. In my experience, either they learn to run a control or staxy side-strategy, or I've just converted two more players to head off rickety group hug at the pregame and the bad game at least ends quick.

This same deck strategy can also leech off badly built stax in the same way, ime.

[onering]

Always kill anyone who plays Heartbeat of Spring. Either they don't know what they're doing, or they do, and either way they need to die. It's an exceptionally dangerous card that completely blows up games, either enabling the player to combo out or enabling another player to do so.

[materpillar]

If I see group hug in the pregame and the group doesn't block it, I switch to streamlined, sluggy aggro, which I think you'd also like,

Switching decks post commander reveal in an attempt to pubstomp the table is pretty not cool in my book.

[Moxnix]

Depends on the kind of hug deck but generally speaking if I'm on combo i love it i just win faster if not esp on control you remove the hug stuff ASAP so no one else can use them. The true secret to beating hug decks is sitting yourself next to them so you the one who play directly after them no cap if i know someone's on hug I'm trying to get that next seat bad.

"Is it even possible to direct these bad actor style players away from resource spam nonsense?" - Eh I don't know about this like i hate how play to win obsessed everyone is now like dude wanted some chaos and group hug and doesn't really care who wins IMO that's the best kind of vibes anyone can have for a game.

What I'm trying to get at is, does a method exist to punish group hug decks beyond bonking their nose with a newspaper while telling them "no"? - Generally the best strategy is use their resources then deny them from everyone else.

I don't know about the convincing that's got way more to do with that persons personality and desires than anything in game how i get people to do things in game greatly varies on their personality and what i know about them. Like tylers a try hard most times so i make the line i want him to play sound good but eric's a total troll so if i want him to play a line i try and make it seem funny and like it screws someone over in a funny way.

But even when you do that, how do you not leave that player feeling frustrated because they were ganked out of the game? - You cannot control the emotional state of other at the table with in game actions and honestly they shouldn't get upset about what's happening in a card game anyway.


Was my assessment justified and would you have reacted the same way, why/why not? - Yes it is as i believe you can play anyway you want for any reason its a casual format you wanted to kill them so you did the reasons are not important. Depends on my mood if its more CEDH comp im trying to set so i play after them suck the resources up and combo off with them. If I'm on control in the same mood i hate them out. If im feeling more trolly or don't care who wins im leaning into the chaos and helping them.

[onering]

The problem with grouphug as a strategy is that it fails into kingmaking, rather than failing into dying early/being unimpactful. I agree that this makes for annoying games because if they don't adequately cover their deck's weakness to highly linear archetypes or certain kinds of aggro, the whole table has to fight a juiced-up linear build. This was the same as when mill didn't used to run enough gravehate and would just hand games to reanimator if it happened to show up. I don't like games where your archetype decides how it's going to go before you draw, and I especially don't like games where my own archetype is irrelevant to that calculation.

My answer, and I expect to catch some flak for this, is to play the meta. If I see group hug in the pregame and the group doesn't block it, I switch to streamlined, sluggy aggro, which I think you'd also like, 3Drinks. Fynn, or the Zurgo list I hope to post later today fill this role well, as does Kediss and [voltron]. These decks will absolutely feed off group hug that doesn't control for them, and live for the 1v1. So unlike most games, I don't even have to play politics. I can just sort of dumbly wade through removal, off the back of too many cards and a low curve, to a win. The other players generally do not like this. Then, after winning, I turn to the hug player and explain to them, while the other players are miffed at the nongame, how their deckbuilding choices made this happen. In my experience, either they learn to run a control or staxy side-strategy, or I've just converted two more players to head off rickety group hug at the pregame and the bad game at least ends quick.

This same deck strategy can also leech off badly built stax in the same way, ime.

I've said it before, but there's ways to mitigate the possibility of Hug failing into Kingmaker. The biggest is to not hand out mana because that is the resource that is most likely to kingmaker. The second rule is to play plenty of control along with the Hug. That allows you to answer wincons while letting other stuff through. In terms of resources, cards are fine, because it tends to have diminishing returns, so long as you are running enough control, while creatures (tokens or otherwise) is even better because you can use that to your advantage with opponents attacking each other, while life is the best because it gives very little advantage (but it's only viable if you aren't trying to win through damage). Third, you need a strategy to win. This seems like it would be first, but having a strategy to win is irrelevant if you are handing out mana and not running enough control, as it will never come to fruition. You have to be running cards that benefit just you, ways to break symmetry, and ways to close out the game, and be working towards that the entire game. The trick is to balance this with doing favors and handing out resources in a way that gets your opponents to do what you want, or alternatively to leverage your Hug effects so effectively that you don't care about the politics angle and view the hug aspect as a cost for the effects you are leveraging. Lastly, it's generally better to run hug effects over which you have some control, or at least mix in full hug effects with these sorts of effects. This lets you hand out resources to weaker players/decks and make deals. Maybe not to the degree of Dirk's Hippo, which is a politics/control deck, but something like a hybrid of that and traditional hug.

[Moxnix]

"Third, you need a strategy to win" - this is where i think most people miss hug decks in that itsnot their number one goal. Group hug decks like this are great fun but they are meant for tables of people enjoy the experience and RPGing not trying hard to win. This is not even a hug discussion really its another "play to win like cedh guy or its not fun for me since i like playing to win" kind of take. Group hug decks by design and nature are their to make the game non standard faster and not generally concerned with win %s. Now some people play decks like bumble or dirks but i don't even see those as hug decks just control decks. To me what makes a hug deck a hug deck is the hugs not fake hugs or best hugs for me but i just want to give everyone mana because it makes noobs smile.

From a competitive perceptive of course people don't like them but that's not what they are for they are for the table that's more about chilling than try harding.

[TheGildedGoose]

Bracket 1 is thatta way ->

If you're not playing to win, we're not playing the same game, even if I'm playing a casual deck.

[Moxnix]

Agree to disagree Cedh thatta way - >
If your that serious about a kids cards game where not even on the same planet terrible take

[TheGildedGoose]

Agree to disagree Cedh thatta way - >
If your that serious about a kids cards game where not even on the same planet terrible take

Between here and MTGS you have over 5,000 posts about that children's card game.

[Moxnix]

Agree to disagree Cedh thatta way - >
If your that serious about a kids cards game where not even on the same planet terrible take

Between here and MTGS you have over 5,000 posts about that children's card game.

Uh huh and what's your point exactly if you sat down to play with me i could have 80 thousands posts and i would still treat it like the unimportant game it is. Nothing in your life chnages based on a kids card game getting upset and acting like people should know you expect them to play like CEDH guys is unreasonable and childish. You think having many posts and enjoying the game means i need to reject the way others like to play and say only how i like is ok? Do you think my experience posting and playing makes it so i can tell people who just want to give people mana and make people smile the " you didn't play how i like your a bad actor"? Grow up buddy its a casual format people enjoy it many different ways and acting like not having a CEDH mentality isn't even playing is a childish way of looking at it to me. Seriously if your that serious about magic go play CEDH that's the entire reason it exists to play like that . This is casual format born from non win con hug decks your mentality is to me toxic and not good for anyone.

[folding_music]

i don't really like the idea that there's five brackets and you have to burn yrself out trying as hard as you can in the top four of them! sometimes people are just going to play Veteran Explorer and Abiding Grace and your role is working out how to enjoy riding the wave!