Cal on Call 2: Proxies, Unexplored Archetypes, And the "Spirit" of a Format

Hello all, and welcome back to Cal on Call, the article series where I answer YOUR questions about all things cEDH (and maybe something about life, too; I'm not old enough for that yet, though). After hearing your feedback on the last one, we're going LONGER with this one. No more two questions, we've got FOUR, and I think they're solid ones at that. Without any further ado, let's tackle proxies, deck archetypes, spirits of formats, and how to handle Dockside. Exciting, right?

For cEDH events, how many proxies are you allowed to have in your deck?

Is there a standard for how many proxies you are allowed to bring, or is it usually stated somewhere?

• Ane Arneberg (via email)

I truly, truly wish that this question had one simple and easy answer beyond, well, "It depends," because that's what the answer technically is. We're going to have to talk about it for a little bit! Depending on the event and, usually more specifically, the tournament organizer, you will be allowed to use anywhere between zero proxies in your deck and 100 proxies in your deck, all the way down to whatever you have in your command zone.

Many online and in-person events run by people entrenched within the cEDH community opt for the full-proxy friendly approach, as this stance allows for the highest number of people to be able to play in the tournament. It's no secret that cEDH decks reach the realm of four figures in cost with little issue. An all-cheapest-versions Najeela deck runs around $6,000. That's a TON of money! Giving people access to the expensive cards without spending tons of cash is the source of this proxy-friendly policy. As many people have said, "I want to play against people, not their wallets," something that is most relevant in eternal formats but especially cEDH.

However, this is not to say that tournaments that are not as proxy-friendly are evil or anything, as some people have tried to suggest on Twitter and the like. There are, unfortunately for us, a few good reasons to not host 100% proxy-friendly environments, the lead of which is needing to play nice with Wizards of the Coast. This is the reason that makes the most sense to me, personally. Having a good relationship with WotC is imperative for many stores, especially larger ones. This is a major reason that I believe that Star City Games doesn't allow any proxies at their recently developed Competitive EDH Opens.

Additionally, many LGSes are convinced they need to enforce some amount of real cards being in decks because they think this helps them sells cards. When it comes to something like Standard or Pioneer or Modern, where the decks cost a mere $1,000 or less (this is sarcasm, for what it's worth), this may be true; however, I don't think this is a great angle unfortunately. Most of these stores allow for something like five or ten (at absolute most) proxies. This may cover some dual lands and the most expensive of the Reserved List cards in your list.

Either people have the money for cards and buy them already (competitive EDH players with cash to spend usually have VERY blingy, VERY real decks), or they simply do not and will not be able to play unless they have incredibly well-off friends who have the extra cards to loan. So, to limit players in this way largely has the effect of limiting the player base that will give a store an entry fee rather than meaningfully increasing the pool of players at said store, making it, in my opinion, a flawed line of thought. However, such are things. I hope it will improve in the future.

These are the three things we see most often: 100% proxy friendly, 10 or five card proxy friendly, or 0% proxy friendly. The more 100%, the better. And to answer the last part of your question, you can most often find specific info about the tournament wherever the rest of the info about the tournament can be found. If there are no specifics, it's best to reach out to the tournament organizer directly.

What kinda deck archetype is underexplored?

• Ken Baumann (@kenlikescarbs)

This is a difficult question to answer, mainly because I think that "archetypes" are hard to define in cEDH in the first place. Many of the best decks are what would be described as "combo" elsewhere, meaning that they're mainly all-in on accomplishing either Thassa's Oracle or Underworld Breach plans and doing their best to protect them. So, we seem to have filtered our decks into a few largely unrelated and hard to define archetypes, those being Control, Stax, Midrange, and Turbo. Incidentally, most of the decks that are most successful on a tournament level are those labeled Midrange thanks to their ability to draw a lot of cards and consistently accomplish their gameplan as a direct result. The Turbo decks also see plenty of success thanks to the London Mulligan allowing for aggressive card searching before the game begins, combined with powerful tutors (and again, plenty of card draw). Honestly, there's a world in which Midrange value piles, like Blue Farm (Tymna/Kraum), are underexplored still, but that's a hard argument to make.

This leaves the two other archetypes:  Control and Stax. As much as I hate to say it, Stax has both been widely (perhaps over) explored, with its strengths and weaknesses known and identified by many. Passively saying "you can't do that!" to the whole table does not make a consistent winning strategy, at least when it isn't paired with a strong gameplan. Historically for Stax decks this has meant combat damage, something that only Winota has accomplished successfully.

This brings me to my answer: I unironically do think that the Control archetype is underexplored in cEDH. This isn't to say that I think it would be incredible or anything and I may also be experienced, coming from a background in playing control cEDH decks in the past. It's mainly just that outside of Nymris in recent memory, people haven't given it the old college try. I get why: the prospect of one-for-one answering opponents in a multiplayer format is a losing proposition. However, I do think some of the success seen by both Atraxa, Grand Unifier and Tivit, Seller of Secrets points toward the potential of controlling archetypes that follow up their several controlling spells with a huge game-altering permanent. Tivit creates a ton of Treasure and card draw (in addition to being part of an A+B combo win), and Atraxa creates a splash of card selection, so much so that the game typically ends very quickly after you cast her.

Am I right? I'm not sure! I would love to see more Control decks being tried, though, even if they are just not at tournament cEDH tables. 🙂

How do you define the "spirit" of a format? Your tagline for cEDH has been logical, not emotional gameplay, but the idea of a "spirit of the format" feels like an emotional construct based on how you/royal you perceive cEDH (or what you think it should be).

• Evan (@DeadPixl)

Thanks, Evan!

I think the spirit of a format is best defined as the overall goal of said format, informed by the ideal experience that players would have out of it. It may be fair to say that the Spirit of the Format for Legacy is an ideal where people get to play with powerful of cards in a competitively balanced environment. This ideal is partially within the control of Wizards of the Coast, obviously, since they handle the banlist. However, the community even has a role and influence here, as was laid out in the December 4th Banned and Restricted announcement: "Players want to play with Brainstorm, Force of Will, and Wasteland, and thus they remain even though they would have been removed from other formats long ago due to their ubiquity."

Where we see the phrase most commonly used in in the realm of EDH. Especially as the average Commander game has gotten harder to align goals on (thanks to a range of factors, including a wider player base with different motives, a widening belief on what is socially "acceptable" in effects you can play [a good thing, IMO], and the average new card being more powerful in the past), people have turned to poorly defined phrases and increasingly complex ideas to describe what they're looking for or to help others do the same. The Spirit of the Format™ feels like a symptom of this larger problem to me. If I were to want the spirit of Commander to be something, though, I would look to a quote by now Rules Committee member Jim Lapage that I ran into again while poking around the internet recently:

You don't actually have to be technically skilled at your hobbies, and you don't have to engage with them with the intent to improve over time. That doesn't make you bad, dumb, or unwelcome.

But what about cEDH? This is a question I would like to tackle more in-depth in the future, because I think some of my past attempts to express myself in related articles have fallen flat. As referenced by you, I have, in the past, labeled cEDH as something that is consistent with logical, not emotional, gameplay where everybody is 100% focused on maximizing their chance of winning. This isn't a label I agree with fully anymore, but let's get into the "spirit" of a format really is, specifics for cEDH aside. Why no specifics? Because I couldn't define that spirit for competitive EDH at this time, unfortunately. Check back later 🙂 Sorry if that didn't actually answer the question the way you wanted.

What are some of the best ways to combat Dockside, both in micro play decisions and in macro deck decisions?

• Anthony Listener (@listenerelf)

Hey, Anthony! Thanks for asking. Dockside Extortionist's huge Treasure numbers (heck, even one that makes three or four Treasures is pretty great) are often the determining factor in games. What can we do to combat that? First off, I'll address the macro deck decisions. The best way to do that would be to choose some kind of green + white + anything else Hate-Bears-focused deck that also is not so interested in playing creatures itself. You can play Collector Ouphe, Blind Obedience, Stony Silence, Null Rod, and even the new Dauntless Dismantler. In addition to the direct Treasure hate possible with those cards, you can blow up artifacts and enchantments, playing cards like Force of Vigor to aggressively lower Dockside counts. Dauntless Dismantler is shockingly good at this. If you want to go really hard, Kataki, War's Wage is a Modern sideboard staple of yesteryear that would put the heat on opponents' artifacts with no issue.

Of course, playing artifacts and powerful enchantments is a good way to win the game, so what can we do in our deck beyond explicit hate? You can always trim your own artifact and enchantment counts around the edges; for example, do you really need to play both Wild Growth and Utopia Sprawl? Do you actually think you need to play five two-cost mana rocks in Arcane Signet, Fellwar Stone, and three Talismans? If your artifact count isn't actually meaningful, feel free to cut Mox Opal, too. Cut Sylvan Library. What I'm getting at here is that if you take a close look at your list, you may find trimmable permanents to keep your personal Dockside count low.

As to micro play decisions, these ones are actually much harder! I would basically offer one piece of advice: pay attention to your opponents, where they are in the game, and apply restraint or abandon appropriately. If the game is going slowly and Dockside count is low on the table, consider holding back the Mana Vault or Mox Opal you drew for turn until you actually need to use it. If somebody has been setting up for a few turns but are otherwise constrained on mana, make sure you aren't just giving them four Treasures yourself unless you absolutely have to to develop your own board appropriately. I will say though, also don't be afraid to act with abandon. Plenty of players have lost games not wanting to cast artifacts or enchantments when their opponents both already have four in play. At some point, the difference between higher numbers of Treasures are entirely negligible. Don't be afraid to go hard.

That's it for the second edition of Cal on Call! I hope you all were satisfied with your answers because that all you get until the next one! If you have QUESTIONS you want me to ADDRESS, either hit me up on Twitter or email me at cal@caljones.com!

So long, until the next one!