Forging Ahead in cEDH
Brainstorm by Willian Murai
It's the aftermath of the Topdeck.gg Invitational. For every cEDH grinder, a year of hard work has culminated this past weekend. With one of the most competitive cEDH tournaments of all time in the books, it's time to reflect on the most jarring events of this weekend and prepare for the future.
When addressing great change and imminent frustration, players must keep in mind that cEDH isn't an officially recognized format. To quote Jim Lapage, member of the Commander Rules Committee, "There's zero desire in the RC to manage the format in a way that balances or curates the cEDH or tournament metas."
Our lack of a format-specific banlist and WOTC-issued rules or policies means that we'll continue to abide by the preferences of our tournament organizers and Head Judges. The most recognized cEDH tournament organizer, Topdeck.gg, has released a "Competitive REL MTR/IPG Addendum for Commander Events" owned by L2 Maxwell Molinari. This document has supervised hundreds of cEDH events worldwide and continues to structure the format in an unprecedented manner.
Unfortunately, satisfying the needs of an ever-growing unrecognized format is, as we all can agree, a tall order. Put blatantly, our format is impossible to regulate in a way that will not result in a pendulum of extreme pros and cons. The reason for this is simple: EDH was not made to be competitive. Within this article, I'll address concerns that arose during last weekend's Invitational, concerns that have been gaining ground for, at minimum, the past year, and reflect on what tournament grinders like myself must keep in mind during future competition.
The Addendum
If you've taken the time to read the addendum released by Topdeck, one sentiment will likely jump out at you: it's short. Tournament cEDH is still young and, inarguably, can always be improved upon. Discourse regarding our current system is never-ending, but, at the end of the day, Topdeck has and will continue to sell out their events faster than you can say, "Japan does it better."
Knowledge is Power
Despite its brevity, I've found myself surprised this weekend regarding these rules. The first of many shocks were provided by MTRA 2.4, stating, "When time is called, the active player finishes their turn, and there are no additional turns. The game ends when the active player passes their turn. If a non-active player is acting in the end step of the active turn, when time is called, the subsequent turn becomes the final one." In round 7 of the Topdeck Open, this became painfully relevant to me. I had just killed a player with a damage ping from Niv-Mizzet, Parun and the game passed to that player's end step. Time in round was called.
My only remaining opponent cast Ad Nauseum. In response, I cast Commandeer. My third card revealed was the Curiosity I needed to win... had I not thought that this end step was the end of the game. I continued to dig for an instant-speed win and ended up dying to my stolen Ad Naus. I left the round happy about my cool attempt after mulliganing to three cards... only to later be informed of MTRA 2.4. A non-active player had acted on the end step in which time was called. The subsequent turn had been the final one. I could have stopped my Ad Nauseum after seeing my win-condition and won in my main phase.
I bring up this occasion not because this specific addendum is likely to be relevant in your games, but because of how much it hurt when it occurred in mine. For the first time in two years, I had lost because of my lack of knowledge of the game. Instead of leaving my final match elated from an incredible comeback, I was stewing over what could have been.
Read the addendum. As it continues to grow and change, read it again. You don't have to approach it with memorization in mind. Your only goal is to familiarize yourself with the little information we have about this new format so that, if a situation arises where you may be able to use it to your advantage, your mind will offer you a brief moment of hesitation before you allow gameplay to progress. It's during that hesitation that I hope you call a judge. The worst thing they can do is tell you that the rules do, in fact, work against you. If that's the case, you have earned yourself a chance to breathe and the knowledge that you checked your bases. You can do what I couldn't and leave the table with no regrets.
It Can Happen to You
I have the unfortunate pleasure of witnessing several losses due to a lack of rules knowledge. While I won't bore you with my stories, I hope their immense number will convince you to give the addendum a glance. cEDH is growing; not just in size, but in expectation. At larger events like those hosted by Topdeck, players can expect to be held accountable at Competitive Rules Enforcement Level. Significant cash prizes are accompanied by the expectation that players are familiar with the rules. However, the Invitational was, from the very first round, held to Professional REL. This increase in standard was reserved only for those who have earned the right to play for $15,000 in cash prizes.
By the end of the tournament, this standard resulted in an unprecedented three disqualifications. Being a cEDH tournament grinder doesn't require you to know the specifics of these DQs, but, at the very least, you should know that two of these DQ's surprised me. I pride myself in playing cEDH since the printing of Thassa's Oracle changed the game. Being caught so off-guard in this way is nothing short of agonizing.
Do not put yourself above these players. Do not dissuade yourself by thinking that this could never be you, because all three of these players thought the same. Do not lose out on the game you've put so much effort into because you're too lazy to leave room for clarity in your games. Every game action has the possibility of breaking the game to an irreversible extent. Either choose your actions and your words wisely or go back to your kitchen table.
The Future is Bright
Not long ago, word of Japan cEDH's ELO system for tracking points in tournaments drew many jealous eyes from the U.S. Topdeck founders quickly shut down the idea of trying such a system based on first-hand, negative accounts from its players and overwhelming knowledge of the format that the average naysayer lacks. Fortunately, said founders are constantly looking to pioneer positive change, especially when overwhelming statistics shed light on plausible issues.
Just Win
Following Invitational weekend, Topdeck founder Mikey Holohan confirmed the likelihood of experimenting with 0-point draws. As such a drastic change has the certainty to promote a new wave of pros and cons for the community, it would be irresponsible to assume that this change is permanent. Topdeck has spent the better part of three years gaining the cEDH community's trust through integrity and dedication.
It's in these times of significant change that that trust is put to the test. No other tournament organizer has shown as much love for the health of the format. Let's allow them the space to try new things without reactionary ridicule.
The potential change in draw benefit has caused a variety of uproars within the community. A typical frustration for players struggling to string together wins in the initial rounds is that, once a player goes 3-0, they often can safely intentionally draw into top cut. This means that our current system drastically rewards players who perform well on Day 1 to the point where they're locked for top cut without needing to play at all. While it can be vexing to watch, this occurrence has yet to promote change due to the skill required to win every one of the first three rounds in a tournament. Beating the odds in such a way has been understandably rewarded for the past year.
The Forced Draw
What prompted the need for change was the concept of the forced draw. This game outcome gained its biggest audience when retired Pro Player Sam Black posted a description of a tournament game on social media. This game, occurring during Topdeck's Cowtown Throwdown in June, ended in a forced draw once Sam made it clear to the table that they only had the resources to stop one of two players pressuring a win. Knowledge of this option has since spread throughout the community and has resulted in a tangible change to the game. Out of the seven games I played over the weekend, six games contained at least one player who suggested or was distinctly playing for a draw.
To some, a forced draw is a wonderfully unique option that prevents kingmaking and awards all players for coming to a universal conclusion. To others, this format-exclusive result demonizes cEDH as "fake Magic" and functions as a 1-point crutch to missing top cut. So, the question becomes: how do we determine what's healthy for the format? I will remind players of one of the strongest tools we've had since War of the Spark: the power to break priority. In a four-player game with more draw engines than we know what to do with, choosing a window is a skill that consistently propels cEDH's best players to the top of the leaderboard. Forced draws are most comfortable in the scenario exemplified by Sam's game: multiple players are able to win this turn cycle, and stopping the first will only kingmake the next.
In a world where breaking priority is limited to decks that can play Emergence Zone, forced draws are a suitable solution to kingmaking. However, since the printing of Borne Upon a Wind and Valley Floodcaller, players have the unparalleled ability to choose when to push for a win. Instead of being forced to present a win first, soaking up the table's interaction, and losing to the next player, we finally have an accessible second option that isn't limited by entire turns, like Final Fortune. If you're mad about the "win second" aspect of cEDH, improve your skills and pick a better window.
Goodbye Byes
Withdrawing points from draws has an additional benefit that, prior to this past weekend, we had yet to see within Topdeck events: the removal of byes. If draws are worthless, awarding any player with a free win becomes an even greater advantage. We saw this in action during Invitational weekend as DQs and drops resulted in uneven pairings. Instead of using byes to maintain 4-player pods, 3-player pods were assigned for the first time in over a year of Topdeck events.
While the disadvantages of 3-player pods are clear, this is a solution that best minimizes the drawbacks of modern-day cEDH. This decision was certainly made with tournament meta in mind as decks that directly rely on three opponents to win (Grixis Pirates/Tivit, Seller of Secrets) have steadily decreased in entries in the past season.
Finally, I would like to imagine that every player has at least one awesome win per tournament. Whether a big stack battle ends in your favor, you carefully navigate a field of stax to sneak out a win, or you pull off an incredible Breach line at one life, I hope that everyone frequently has an exhilarating victory that makes all the tribulations of our format worth it. Now, keeping in mind the victories that you've worked hard to earn, isn't it depressing to think of a near-random player getting the same reward for free? Especially if draws aren't an option and winning is the only way forward? Keep your incredible victories in mind when you're stuck with a three-person pod in the future.
Collusion
Change is on the horizon. One concept has arisen from this past weekend that seemingly has no recourse, and, in fact, may be rewarded if draws are eliminated. We discussed the addendum at length earlier in this article, and collusion is one clause that remains unwritten. As clarified by Sam after the Invitational, "The judges and policy writer confirmed that there is absolutely no rule against this. It's considered too hard to write/enforce." The last sentence may immediately raise suspicion with you as it did with me. Surely, if a player actively casts a spell in favor of another player with seemingly no benefit for themselves, a judge should be able to have a situational discussion and cast a ruling?
While it may seem simple in theory, I promise that it will never happen in a stable manner. A game of cEDH consists of four players capable of individual thought. If one of those players intends to collude, they can summon some lofty (and false) explanation for why their action benefited them at the time. Perhaps Topdeck will write a clause in the future to include and punish blatant collusion in the way that intentional slowplay was dealt with. Players have been DQed for admitting to making game actions only to run down the clock, and there may be something there for collusion, yet players still slowplay without expressing such intention aloud. They will do the same with collusion.
So we must move forward. I could attempt to extol the virtues of anti-colluding, where two players work together when their opponents have established the intent to collude, but delving into such a metaphorical mess isn't interesting nor helpful. The way forward is within your own mentality. Collusion is a threat on the horizon that can be dealt with like any other problem. We persevered through the mistake that is Nadu, the oppression and thrill that is Rog/Si, and all the annoyances listed above. Whether collusion is a passing trend or a permanent issue for the format, we will survive it when it arises. Stay calm.
I understand that isn't entirely helpful either, so I will leave you with a final thought.
Imagine your opponent with an empty library casts Mnemonic Betrayal, and another opponent responds by casting Entomb for Thassa's Oracle to attempt to give them the win.
Imagine, through foresight or preparation or sheer dumb luck, you find a way to win regardless.
How exciting is that?
